TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (8) TMI 338
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s bad, both in the eye of law and on facts. 2(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the action of the AO in treating the amount of Rs. 6,30,239/- on sale of property as short term capital gain as against the assessee claiming the same to be long term capital gain. (ii) That the said action has been confirmed by the learned CIT(A) despite the assessee bringing on record explanation and evidences to the effect that the buyer's agreement being entered into as on 27.12.1999 the assessee has held the capital asset for more than 3 years and gain on sale of same will be a long term capital gain. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d Floor, Phase IV, DLF City, Gurgaon. This property was allotted by HUDA to the assessee by way of buyer's agreement on 27.12.2099, but transferred in the name of assessee by execution of sale deed on 29.01.2004. The assessee sold this property to one Sh. Mohit Sharma through registered sale deed on 09.06.2005 and accordingly computed the long-term capital gain taking the holding period of the asset for more than 36 months. In the assessment proceedings, the AO discarded the computation of long-term capital gain observing as under : "In respect of property No.G-023, referred to above, in respect of which the assessee has shown capital gain of Rs. 6,30,239, the said property had been sold by the assessee vide sale deed executed on 9....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....greement and 90% of the payments were made till the year 2001 before the sale deed registered in the name of assessee, i.e., 29.01.2004. It was submitted that keeping in view the date of allotment of property and payment of substantial amounts against this property, the appellant had rightly computed the long term capital gain on the sale of said property which was sold on 09.06.2005. He submitted that identical issue has been decided by Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramakrishnan, 48 taxmann.com 55 (Delhi) in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue after relying on the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court in Mrs. Madhu Kaul vs. CIT, 363 ITR 54 (P&H). He also relied on the following other decisions : ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... impugned order. Besides addressing the oral arguments, he has also placed before us a brief written synopsis. It has been contended that the Assessing Officer had wrongly treated the capital gain as short-term capital gain and while doing so, had erroneously taken the date of execution of the conveyance deed in favour of the assessee as the relevant date, rather than the date of allotment of the plot to the assessee by the HUDA ; the undisputedly, the assessee had booked the plot in question with the HUDA on June 18,1986, and had deposited the earnest money; that the plot was allotted to the assessee on August 3,1999 ; that on receipt of the allotment letter, the assessee had deposited further amounts on various dates, as given in the char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the assessee, the assessee was having absolute rights thereon ; that in Jitendera Mohan v. ITO [20071 11 SOT 594 (Delhi), it has been held that it is the date of allotment which is relevant for the purpose of computing a holding period and not the date of registration of conveyance registration of conveyance deed ; that section 47 of the Registration Act lays down that registration of a document operates retrospectively ; that in Gurbax Singh v. Kartar Singh [2002] 254 ITR 112 (SC), it has been held that registration of a document would relate back to the date of its execution ; that in Hamda Ammal v. Avadiappa Pathar [1991] 1 SCO 715 and M. Syamala Rao v. CIT [1998] 234 ITR 140 (AP), it has been held likewise; that, therefore, the learned....