TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (12) TMI 1768
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eferred to as "the Act"], for the Assessment Year 2014-15, arising out of the assessment order dated 02.12.2016, passed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 33(3), Mumbai[hereinafter referred to as "Assessing Officer or AO"], under section 143(3) of the Act. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual. She filed her return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 31.07.2014, declaring total income of Rs. 1,98,31,480/-. In the return of income, the assessee declared long-term capital gains of Rs. 1,93,94,645/- arising from sale of a residential flat and claimed exemption under section 54 of the Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... CIT(A), the assessee reiterated that she had received possession of the redeveloped flat in the year 2010 and, therefore, the holding period exceeded 36 months, rendering the gains as long-term capital gains. The assessee sought to file additional evidence, a possession letter dated 22.11.2010 allegedly issued by M/s Kumar Builders, and an allotment/intimation letter dated 24.11.2006 issued by the society. The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence and called for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. In the remand report, the Assessing Officer objected to the admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A and stated that sufficient opportunity had been provided to the assessee during assessment proceedings. During the remand procee....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 33(3), Mumbai (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in treating a long-term capital asset, being a residential flat at Mumbai, as short-term capital asset and accordingly, computing and assessing short-term capital gains at Rs. 2,11,44,607, as against long-term capital gains of Rs. 1,93,94,645 declared by the appellant in her return of income. The appellant contends that on the facts and in the circumstances of the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....7.12.2010, executed pursuant to the redevelopment of the society, placed at pages 39 to 127; iii. Sale Agreement dated 31.12.2013, along with relevant enclosures, evidencing transfer of the redeveloped flat, placed at pages 128 to 222; iv. Possession letter dated 22.11.2010 issued by M/s Kumar Builders, placed at page 223, which, according to the assessee, evidences delivery of possession of the redeveloped flat; and v. Allotment letter dated 24.11.2006, placed at page 224, issued by the society pursuant to the redevelopment arrangement. 9. The learned AR further placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-3, Mumbai v. Vembu Vaidyanathan reported in [....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....with regard to the determination of the holding period of the residential flat sold by the assessee on 31.12.2013 and, consequentially, whether the capital gains arising there from are chargeable as long-term capital gains or short-term capital gains. 13. We reiterate the material facts, which are largely undisputed, as under: (i) The assessee was the owner of a residential flat in New Sarvottam Co-operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai, originally acquired in the year 1988. (ii) Pursuant to redevelopment of the society, a Development Agreement dated 02.02.2006 was entered into between the society and M/s Kumar Builders, whereby the members, including the assessee, became entitled to a new flat in the redeveloped buildi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....schemes is no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in PCIT v. Vembu Vaidyanathan [2019] 413 ITR 248 (Bom.), after considering CBDT Circular Nos. 471 and 672, has categorically held that: "In terms of such clarifications, the date of allotment would be the date on which the purchaser of a residential unit can be stated to have acquired the property." (Para-5) It was also noted in para 4 that "the allottee gets title to the property on the issue of allotment letter and the payment of installments was only follow-up action and taking the delivery of possession is only a formality." 15. The Hon'ble High Court further held that where the allotment scheme is akin to the DDA scheme, the date of allotment is to be treate....