TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1151
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f exemption u/s 54 of the Act. (d) Without prejudice to the above and in alternative, the Ld CIT (A) ought to have directed the assessing officer to adopt the market value of the residential premises as on the date of acquisition considered by him as the cost of acquisition for the purpose of computation of capital gain. 2. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in sustaining the order of the AO denying the benefit of one self-occupied property and considering all as deemed let out properties as well as not allowing deduction for municipal taxes paid by the appellant and also enhancing the annual value in respect of Surat Property 3. The Ld CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the interest, which is not in accordance with the law, charged by the AO." 2. At the outset, Ld Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the above grounds and mentioned that there are three issues for adjudication viz (i) allowability of deduction u/s 54 of the Act qua issue of computation of holding period with reference to date of allotment of flat; (ii) allowing the benefit of one selfoccupied property; (iii) charging of mandatory interest related issues. 3. Referring....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e by the decision of the Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal. Bringing our attention to a decision of the Tribunal in the case of Richa Bagrodia vs. DCIT in ITA No.3601/M/2012 (AY 2008-2009), dated 22.4.2014 and read out the relevant paras 6 to 8 and submitted that the date of allotment should be relevant for reckoning the holding period of the asset sold. He also submitted that the said decision of the Tribunal was based on the judgment of the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj.). Further, he also brought our attention to another decision of the Tribunal in the case of Surendra Mohan Khanna vs. ITO in ITA No.6505/M/2012 (AY 2007-2008), dated 19.8.2016. He relied on the contents of para 2.1 of the said Tribunal‟s order (supra) for the identical proposition that the date of booking should be relevant. Further, he also relied on various decisions in support of the same. 6. On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 7. On hearing both the parties, we find there is no dispute on the facts. However, the dispute exists with reference to the holding period qua the dat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t proceedings, AO considered the date of registration i.e., 22.9.2006 the date of registration and determined the short term capital gains. Therefore, now the issue to be decided by the Tribunal relates to if the date of allotment should be considered for the purpose of computing the said long term capital gains. In this regard, Ld Counsel filed various decisions to suggest that the date of allotment must be considered for the purpose of computing the long term capital gains instead of date of registration. Ld Counsel filed the order of the Tribunal in the case of ACIT vs. Smt. Vandana Rana Roy vide ITA No.6173/M/2011 (AY 2007-2008) dated 7.11.2012, wherein one of us (AM) is a party, and stated that the "date of allotment" should be reckoned as relevant date for computing the holding period for the purpose of computing the capital gains. In this regard, Ld Counsel brought our attention to para 7 and 8 of the said order of the Tribunal to support his case. The said judgment was decided considering the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. Anilaben Upendra Shah (2003) 262 ITR 657 (Guj) apart from other decisions of the Tribunal in the case of Jitendra Mohan vs. IT....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....raveen Gupta vs. ACIT reads as under: "Assessee can be said to have held the flat when he made the payment to the builder and received the allotment letter, and therefore, benefit of indexation of cost of acquisition of the flat has to be granted to the assessee from the date (1995) when he started making payment to the builder and not from the date of execution of conveyance deed in 2001." 8. All the above decisions are uniform in concluding that the "date of allotment" is reckoned as the date for computing the holding period for the purpose of capital gains. The date of allotment in this case being 19.11.2001 and the date of sale is 23.8.2006, therefore, the holding period is much more than 36 months. In this case, the gains earned by the assessee on the sale of flat have to be computed as capital gains. Without prejudice, even if the date of possession, being 14.8.2003, is considered; the assessee is still entitled to the benefits of the Long Term Capital Gains. Therefore, in our opinion, order of the CIT (A) does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the Revenue are dismissed." 4. Considering the above settled nature of this issue, we are of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....o 1986 for purchase of computation of capital gain. Assessing Officer is directed accordingly." 9. Thus, from the above, it is evident that the date of booking being the date where rights on the flat arose to the assessee and the same constitutes a starting date for calculating the holding period of the asset for the purpose of section 54 of the Act. Accordingly, in this case, the date 30.3.2005 should be the relevant date. AO is directed to compute the holding period accordingly. In effect, grounds no.1 (a); 1(b) and 1(c) of the appeal are allowed. Considering the relief granted to the assessee in this regard, the adjudication of the ground no. 1(d) becomes academic. Accordingly, the said ground no.1 (d) is dismissed. Ground no.1 is partly allowed. 10. Ground no.2 relates to the allowing of the benefit of self occupied property. Relevant facts connected to the ground are that the assessee owns three residential houses in Thane, Surat and Navi Mumbai. There is no dispute about the property at Navi Mumbai as per the Ld Counsel for the assessee. Bringing our attention to the property at Surat, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that the issue of computation of ALV has to be re-....