TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (10) TMI 244
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as the Act) by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax and seting aside the order of AO passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 25.10.2010 with a limited direction of assessing the capital gain of Rs. 21 lakhs as Short Term Capital Gains (STCG) in stead of Long Term Capital Gains(LTCG) as assessed by the AO in the assessment framed under section 143(3) of the Act. 3. Facts of the case are that the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 was framed vide order dated 25.10.2010 passed under section 143(3) by assessing the income at NIL. On verification of assessment records and computation of income, it is seen that during the year under consideration, a flat was sold for Rs. 37,00,000/- which had ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Name and address of the assessee : Shri Sajid Qamruz Zaman, 2, Hasan Mansion, Dhobi St. Mumbai - 400003. Status : Individual PAN : AAAPZ1753H A.Y. : 2008-09 Date of order : 25.03.2013. ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE 1.T. ACT, 1961 In this case, the assessment records for A.Y. 2008-09 were called for. It was noticed that the assessment u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act was passed on 25.10.2010 determining the total income at Rs. Nil. 2. On verification of assessment records and computation of income, it is seen that during the year under consideration, a flat was sold for Rs. 37,00,000/- which has resulted in a capital gain of Rs. 21,00,000/-. The said capital gain claimed by the as....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-13, Mumbai. 4. The ld. AR during the course of hearing before us submitted that the assessee sold flat at 1st floor, of Al Khadia Apartment at 366, Sane Guruji Marg, Agripada on 20.4.2007 which was bought vide agreement dated 20.4.2004 by entered into with Mr. Rafique Habib Motorwala. It was also submitted that full payment of Rs. 16 lakhs was made vide two cheques one cheque No.218607, dated 20.4.2004 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and second ch. No.218608 for Rs. 15,00,000/- dated 26.4.2004, both cheques were drawn at HSBC Bank, M G Road, Mumbai. The possession of the flat was also taken on 20.04.2004 but the sale agreement was executed on the plain paper and later on the same agreement was executed on the second time on 13.5.2004 on the Non-Judi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....arat High Court in the case of CIT Vs Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 658 in which it has been held that the date of booking shall be taken as the date of purchase and all subsequent events such as possession and execution of sale deed are immaterial and would relate back to the date of first event i.e date of booking. The ld AR finally submitted that the revisionary powers as exercised by the Commissioner u/s 263 for setting aside the order of AO was bad in law and therefore deserved to be quashed. On the other hand, the ld.DR strongly objected the argument of the ld.AR submitting before us that the date of purchase was 13.5.2004 and not 20.4.2004 as submitted by the ld.AR of the assessee. The ld. DR submitted that the AO completely o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... by exercising the revisionary powers u/s 263 issued show notice dated 13.3.2013 to the assessee on the ground that the sale of flat had resulted into to STCG as it was held for a period of less than 36 months by taking the date of purchase of the fat as 13.5.2004 which is second agreement which was executed on Non-Judicial Stamp Paper and observed that deduction 54 of the Act was wrongly allowed to the assessee and held that this has resulted into under assessment of Rs. 21 lakhs thereby passing an assessment order being erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue and set aside the order of AO for limited purposes to pass appropriate order after examining all the facts of the case. In this case, we find that the by considering the....