TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2014 (7) TMI 373
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ction u/s. 263 of the Act in directing the Assessing Officer to treat the capital gains arising from sale of his property at Bangalore as 'short term' instead of 'long term' in nature. He submits that his father had acquired the aforesaid property in the year 1991 which was sold on 01.08.2008 and the holding period is much more than three years. The assessee argues that once that is so, capital gains have to be treated as 'long term' only. To buttress the contentions, case law CIT v/s. Shri. A. Suresh Rao (2014) 41 taxman.com 475 (karntaka) has been quoted. Accordingly, the assessee prays for acceptance of this appeal. 3. In reply, the Revenue strong supports the CIT's order passed in section 263 proceedings directing the Assessing Officer....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....that Sec 263 notice by stating that the assessment order was not erroneous and prejudicial to interest of the Revenue. Based on the case law of M/s. Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd v/s. CIT 243 ITR 83, the assessee explained that the Assessing Officer conducted due enquiry, applied his mind and had taken one of the possible view. The assessee had also placed reliance on case law A. Suresh Rao (supra) and prayed for dropping Sec.263 proceedings. 7. We find from the order under challenge that the assessee's explanations could not convince the CIT. He observed that the Assessing Officer had not at all examined this issue of capital gains visà- vis holding period of the asset and wrongly treated 'short term' capital gains as 'long term'. In ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ments placed on record, we treat the facts recorded in CIT's order as correct. The capital asset in question is situated at 7th , 'A' Main Road, Hennur Road, Banaswadi Road Extension, 1st Block, Bangalore. The assessee Shri.Hemanth Kumar Bothra is son of Shri.C.P. Bothra herafter 'CP'. On 1.3.1985, the Bangalore Development Authority hereafter 'BDA' had allotted this property to Sh. Murali Manohar hereafter 'MM'; followed by a lease cum agreement dated 17.02.1986. In the year 1991, there happened an agreement between 'MM' and 'CP' qua this asset. Because of this, 'MM' requested BDA to transfer the property in 'CP's name. Accordingly, the 'BDA' executed a conditional sale deed in 'CP' favour on 11.02.1992. There is no record before us to pro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s a possible one taken by the Assessing Officer. Moreover, the assessee has failed to place on record copies of the above stated transactions and agreements to prove that Sh. 'CP' had acquired ownership and possession in the year 1991 or in any case before 11.08.2006 u/s.247(v) of the Act. In these circumstances, we do not find any fault with observations of the CIT that holding period of the capital asset is only from 11.08.2006 to 01.08.2008 ie less than 36 months which gives rise to 'short term' capital gains. Now we come to the case law of A. Suresh Rao(supra). Therein the 'BDA' had allotted original site to the concerned allottee; put him in possession, executed a registered sale deed. Thereafter, it had cancelled the sale deed and al....