ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 25(2), MUMBAI V. KEYUR HEMANT SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 6710/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0012 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR SINGH LD
• Assessee Lawyers: V CHANDRASHEKHAR; HARSHAD SHAH LD AR S
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL H BENCH, MUMBAI !' & !' !( BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JM AND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM ! ./ I.T.A. NO.6710/MUM/2017 ( ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) A CIT - 25(2) ROOM NO.508, C-10, 5 TH FLOOR PRATYAKSHKAR BHAVAN BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX BANDRA (E), MUMBAI-400 051 / VS. SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH 2 ND FLOOR, 15 JAIHIND SOCIETY 12 TH ROAD, JVPD SCHEME JUHU-VILE PARLE (W) MUMBAI-400 049. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AXJPS-8653-D ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MANOJ KUMAR SINGH-LD. DR / RESPONDENT BY : V. CHANDRASHEKHAR AND HARSHAD SHAH-LD.ARS. / DATE OF HEARING : 07/03/2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/04/2019 / O R D E R PER MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER):- 1. AFORESAID APPEAL BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2013-14 CONTEST THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-37, MUMBAI, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT (A)], APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- 2 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 37/IT-886/ACIT-25(2)/15-16 DATED 27/09/2017 ON FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT- TERM CAPITAL GAIN STATING THAT THE RIGHT IN A PROPERTY IS CREATED ONCE ITS TITLE IS AL LOTTED TO THE PURCHASER AND MORE SO, IF FULL CONSIDERATION IS PAID. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD REC EIVED AN ALLOTMENT VIDE LETTER DATED 26.02.2008 AND PAID FULL CONSIDERATION BY 24. 07.2008. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE GOT THE TITLE TO THE PROPERTY ON THE ISSUA NCE OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER BY THE BUILDER / SELLER.' 2. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54F OF RS.L,09,40,072/-, STATING THAT THE HOUSE WAS PURCHASED WITHIN TWO YEARS OF SALE, AS RE QUIRED U/S 54F' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO BECAUSE IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE 2ND PARA OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER T HAT THE DOCUMENTS REGARDING ALLOTMENT WOULD BE EXECUTED AFTER THE SAME WAS STAM PED BY THE BUYERS. AS THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE (FOR PU RCHASING THE UNDER CONSTRUCTION FLAT) ON 25.03.2010 AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF RI GHTS FROM 25.03.2010 TO 04.04.2012 IS LESS THAN 36 MONTHS, THEREBY MAKING T HE GAIN ON TRANSFER OF RIGHTS AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN'. 4. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.-CLT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DID NOT CONTAIN THE FLAT NUMBER NOR ANY UNCONDITIONAL RIGHTS TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY . IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ALLOTMENT LETTER WAS ONLY AN OFFER AND THE RIGHT OR INTEREST IN PROPERTY WAS TO ACCRUE ONLY ON SIGNING AND STAMPING OF THE AGREEMENT. ONLY THE AGR EEMENT DATED 25.03.2010 CONVEYED THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY WHICH WA S UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT.' 5. 'ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PURCHA SED THE NEW PROPERTY CLAIMED U/S. 54F, BUT JUST MADE AN ADVANCE PAYMENT TO THE B UILDER. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ENTERED INTO ANY AGREEMENT WITH THE BUYER.' 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GULSHAN MALIK VS. CIT IN ITA NO.55/2014, CM APPL 2383/2014 & 2384 /2014 (2014) 43 TAXMANN. COM 200 (DELHI)' WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT A RIGHT O R AN INTEREST IN AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CAN ACCRUE TO A BUYER ONLY BY WAY OF AN AG REEMENT.' 7. 'THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED .' 2.1 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL WAS ASSESSED IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) FOR IMPUGNED AY ON 3 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 12/02/2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES INCOME WAS DETERM INED AT RS.401.78 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADJUSTMENTS AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.185.33 LACS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31/07/2013. AS EVIDEN T FROM GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PRESENT APPEAL IS TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF CERTAIN CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED AY AND THE ASSESSEES ELIGIBILITY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F. 2.2 DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT TRANSPIRED TH AT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A DUPLEX APARTMENT FLAT NO.1201 WITH 4 CAR PARKING IN THE BUILDING NAT URA OF TAPOVAN COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD., SANTA CRUZ (W), M UMBAI [FLAT] ON 04/04/2012 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1200 LACS , THE ASSESSEES SHARE BEING 50% IN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE AFTER ADJUSTING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WORKED OUT LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS [LTCG] FOR RS.288.73 LACS AND AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54F FOR RS.109.40 LACS AGAINST THE SAME, OFFERED BALANCE LTCG OF RS.179.33 LACS TO TAX. 2.3 IT TRANSPIRED THAT THE SAID FLAT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE REGISTERED AGREEMENT FOR SALE ON 25/03/2010 AND COUNTED FROM THIS DATE, THE ASSESSEES HOLDING PERIOD WAS LESS THAN 36 MONT HS WHICH LED TO LD. AO TO TREAT THE RESULTANT GAINS AS SHORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS [STCG]. THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE SAME BY SUBMITTING THAT THE S AID FLAT WAS PURCHASED VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 26/02/2008 AND SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT OF RS.185.50 LACS WAS ALREADY MADE BY 24/07/2008 AND T HEREFORE THE HOLDING PERIOD, AS COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT LETTE R, WAS MORE THAN 36 MONTHS AND THEREFORE THE RESULTANT GAINS WERE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 4 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 2.4 HOWEVER, UPON PERUSAL OF ALLOTMENT LETTER AS EX TRACTED ON PARA 4.4 OF THE QUANTUM ASSESSMENT ORDER, LD. AO NOTED THAT THE SAME DID NOT CONTAIN THE SPECIFIC FLAT NUMBER AND IT MENTIONED THE FACT THAT DOCUMENTS REGARDING ALLOTMENT WILL BE EXECUTED AFTER THE SAME IS STAMPE D BY THE BUYER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE UNCONDITIONAL RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HO NBLE DELHI HIGH COURT RENDERED IN GULSHAN MALIK VS. CIT [43 TAXMAN.COM 200] WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT IT WAS ONLY THE AGREEMENT DATED 25/03/2010 WHICH CONVEYED THE RIGHT TO ACQUIRE THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE FLAT WAS AT UNDER CONSTRUCTION STAGE ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, THE RESULTANT GAINS, IN THE O PINION OF LD. AO, WERE SHORT-TERM IN NATURE. 2.5 PROCEEDING FURTHER, AS A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE TO ABOVE CONCLUSION, DEDUCTION U/S 54F AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AL SO DENIED. ANOTHER FACT NOTED BY LD. AO TO DENY THE SAME WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE MERELY ADVANCED CERTAIN SUM OF MONEY TOWARDS PURCHASE OF T HE NEW PROPERTY AND DID NOT ACTUALLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY. FINALLY, T HE GAINS WERE TREATED AS STCG AND THE INDEXATION BENEFIT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSES SEE. ALSO, DEDUCTION U/S 54F WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE AGITATED THE SAME WITH SUCCESS BEFORE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/09/2017 WHEREIN IT WAS, INTER-ALIA, HELD THAT RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY WAS CREATED ONCE T HE TITLE WAS ALLOTTED TO THE PURCHASER AND THE PAYMENT OF INSTAL MENT AS WELL AS DELIVERY OF POSSESSION WAS MERE FORMALITY. RELIANCE WAS PLAC ED ON CBDT CIRCULAR 5 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 NO. 471 & 672 TO DRAW THE SAID CONCLUSION. THE RATIO OF THE FOLLO WING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT WAS ALSO CONSIDERED WHILE FORMING SUC H AN OPINION: - THE CASE LAW OF GULSHAN MALIK VS. CIT [SUPRA] WAS HELD TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS SINCE IN THAT CASE THE CON FIRMATION LETTER SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT NO RIGHT TO PROVISIONAL / FINAL ALLOT MENT ACCRUES UNTIL THE BUYERS AGREEMENT IS SIGNED, WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE HERE. FINALLY, CONVINCED WITH FACTUAL MATRIX, LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, VIDE PARA NOS. 5.4 TO 5.10 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT T HE RESULTANT GAINS WERE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN NATURE, AGAINST WHICH BENEFIT OF PROGRESSIVE INDEXATION WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSE E. 3.2 REGARDING ASSESSEES CLAIM U/S 54F, IT WAS NOTE D THAT THE INVESTMENT IN NEW FLAT WAS MADE ON 14/04/2012 WHICH WAS WELL W ITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 54F AND THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE SAID DEDUCTION IN TERMS OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 471 DATED 15/10/1986. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS ALSO TO ARRIVE AT THE SAID CONCLUSION, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN PARA NOS. 6.5 TO 6.8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, LD. AO WAS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF RS.109.40 LACS U/S 54F AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO. CASE LAW JUDICIAL AUTHORITY CITATION 1. VINOD KUMAR JAIN VS. LD. CIT HONBLE PUNJAB & HA RYANA HIGH COURT 244 CTR 346 2. SANJEEV LALL VS CIT HONBLE SUPREME COURT 365 IT R 389 3. CIT VS. VIJAY FLEXIBLE CONTAINERS HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT 186 ITR 693 4. CIT VS RAM GOPAL HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ITA 70 /2015 09/02/2015 5. SNEHABIMAL VS PCIT MUMBAI TRIBUNAL ITA 5489/M/20 15 6. SEETA PRABHU VS ITO MUMBAI TRIBUNAL ITA 1020/M/2 015 6 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. DR, PLACING RELIANCE ON THE CITED DECISI ON OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN GULSHAN MALIK VS. CIT [43 TAXMAN.COM 200] SUPPORTED THE STAND OF LD. AO BY SUBMITTING THAT THIS DECISION HA S ALREADY ATTAINED FINALITY BY WAY OF DISMISSAL OF SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION BY HONBLE APEX COURT ON 26/10/2015 VIDE SLP NO. 30670/2014. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE [AR] SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE STOOD SQUARELY COVERED IN ASSESSEES FAVOR BY CATENA OF BINDING JU DICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND THE CITED CASE LAW OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT WAS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE RECENT DECIS ION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN PCIT VS. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN [ITA NO. 1459 OF 2016 DATED 22/01/2019], A COPY OF WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 5.1 WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS A ND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. UPON PERUSAL, THE UNDISPUTED FA CTS THAT EMERGES ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE RIGHTS IN A DUPL EX FLAT ON 12 TH & 13 TH FLOOR FRONT FACING THE ROAD ADMEASURING 1961.75 SQUARE FEETS & TERRACE MEASURING 881.5 SQUARE FEETS AS PER THE ATTACHED LAYOUT PLAN ALONG WITH 4 CAR PARKING IN BUILDING KNOWN AS TAPOVAN VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 26/02/2008 ISSUED BY DSD BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.371 LACS. THE SAID ALLOTMENT IS NOT A CONDITIONAL ALLOTMENT AND DO NOT ENVISAGES CANCELLATION OF THE ALLOTTED PROPERTY, IN ANY MANNER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED RIGHT IN A SPECIFIC PROPERTY WHICH IS CLEARLY EARMARKED IN THE LAYOUT PLAN. THE FULL PAYMENT OF THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY 24/07/2008 WHICH I S EVIDENT FROM 7 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 ASSESSEES LETTER CONTAINING PAYMENT DETAILS AS PLA CED ON PAGE NO. 4 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. SUBSEQUENTLY, AGREEMENT OF SALE HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE BUILDER IN ASSESSEES FAVOR ON 25/03/2010 WHICH WAS NOTHING BUT MERE IMPROVEMENT IN ASSESSEES EXISTING RIGHTS TO ACQUIR E A SPECIFIC PROPERTY AND PART & PARCEL OF THE SAME TRANSACTION. THIS BEING T HE CASE, THE CASE LAWS BEING RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE DO NOT APPLY TO TH E FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND THEREFORE, RIGHTLY, DISTINGUISHED BY THE L D. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5.2 WE FIND THAT THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN PCIT VS. VEMBU VAIDYANATHAN [ITA NO. 1459 OF 2016 DATED 22/0 1/2019], WHEREIN THE ISSUE HAS SUCCINCTLY BEEN CLINCHED BY HONBLE C OURT IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER: - 2. THIS QUESTION ARISES IN FOLLOWING BACKGROUND. THE R ESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF CAPITAL ASSET IN THE NA TURE OF A RESIDENTIAL UNIT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THIS CLA IM AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE GAIN ARISING OUT OF SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET WAS A SHORT TE RM CAPITAL GAIN. THE CONTROVERSY BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE REVOLVES AROUND THE QUESTI ON AS TO WHEN THE ASSESSEE CAN BE STATED TO HAVE ACQUIRED THE CAPITAL ASSET. THE ASSESSEE ARGUE D THAT THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IN QUESTION WAS ACQUIRED ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE ALLOTMENT LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE BUILDER WHICH WAS ON 31ST DECEMBER, 2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER CONTE NDED THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE ASSET IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE COMPLETE ONLY ON TH E DATE OF AGREEMENT WHICH WAS EXECUTED ON 17TH MAY, 2008. 3. CIT APPEALS AND THE TRIBUNAL HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS INCLUDING THE JU DGMENT OF THIS COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. TATA SERVICES LTD. [1980] 122 ITR 594/[1999] 1 TAXMAN 427. RELIANCE WA S ALSO PLACED ON CBDT CIRCULARS. 4. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE NO TICE THAT THE CBDT IN ITS CIRCULAR NO.471 DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 1986 HAD CLARIFIED THIS POSITIO N BY HOLDING THAT WHEN AN ASSESSEE PURCHASES A FLAT TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORI TY ('D.D.A.' FOR SHORT) FOR WHICH ALLOTMENT LETTER IS ISSUED, THE DATE OF SUCH ALLOTMENT WOULD BE RELEVANT DATE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX AS A DATE OF ACQUISITION. IT WAS NOTED THAT SUC H ALLOTMENT IS FINAL UNLESS IT IS CANCELLED OR THE ALLOTTEE WITHDRAW FROM THE SCHEME AND SUCH ALLOTMEN T WOULD BE CANCELLED ONLY UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES. IT WAS NOTED THAT THE AL LOTTEE GETS TITLE TO THE PROPERTY ON THE ISSUE OF 8 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 ALLOTMENT LETTER AND THE PAYMENT OF INSTALLMENTS WA S ONLY A FOLLOW-UP ACTION AND TAKING THE DELIVERY OF POSSESSION IS ONLY A FORMALITY. 5. THIS ASPECT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED BY THE CBDT IN IT S LATER CIRCULAR NO.672 DATED 16TH DECEMBER, 1993. IN SUCH CIRCULAR REPRESENTATIONS WE RE MADE TO THE BOARD THAT IN CASES OF ALLOTMENT OF FLATS OR HOUSES BY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIET IES OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS WHOSE SCHEMES OF ALLOTMENT AND CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE OF D.D.A., SIMILAR VIEW SHOULD BE TAKEN AS WAS DONE IN THE BOARD CIRCULAR DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 1986 . IN THE CIRCULAR DATED 16TH DECEMBER, 1993 THE BOARD CLARIFIED AS UNDER: '2. THE BOARD HAS CONSIDERED THE MATTER AND HAS DEC IDED THAT IF THE TERMS OF THE SCHEMES OF ALLOTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF FLATS/HOUSES BY THE C O-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES OR OTHER INSTITUTIONS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE MENTIONED IN PARA 2 OF BOARD'S CIRCULAR NO.471, DATED 15-10-1986, SUCH CASES MAY ALSO BE TREATED AS CASES OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTIONS 54 AND 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT.' IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUE WAS CLARI FIED BY THE CBDT IN ITS ABOVE MENTIONED TWO CIRCULARS DATED 15TH OCTOBER, 1986 AND 16TH DECEMBE R, 1993. IN TERMS OF SUCH CLARIFICATIONS, THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT WOULD BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE PU RCHASER OF A RESIDENTIAL UNIT CAN BE STATED TO HAVE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. THERE IS NOTHING ON REC ORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ALLOTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION SCHEME PROMISED BY THE BUILDER IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE TERMS OF ALLOTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION BY D.D.A.. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, CIT APPEALS OF THE TRIBUNAL CORRECTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUI RED THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ON 31ST DECEMBER, 2004 ON WHICH THE ALLOTMENT LETTER WAS ISSUED. RESPECTFULLY, FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE CONFIRM THE ST AND OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE EXTENT THAT THE RESULTANT GAINS WE RE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN NATURE. 5.3 THE ONLY SURVIVING ISSUE IS ASSESSEES ELIGIBIL ITY TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54F. THE UNDISPUTED FACT, IN THAT RESPECT, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENT WITHIN STIPULATED TIME AS ENVISAGED BY SECTION 54F AND THE ALLOTMENT IN A SPECIFIC PROPERTY HAS BEEN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 14/04/2012 WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM ALLOTMENT LETTER A S PLACED ON PAGE NOS. 186 TO 190 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. THEREFORE, SINCE ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F WAS FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE COULD BE N O OCCASION TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO INFIRMITY COULD BE FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 9 ITA NO.6710/MUM/2017 SHRI KEYUR HEMANT SHAH ASSESSMENT YEAR-2013-14 6. FINALLY, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 02 ND APRIL, 2019 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE + &* / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT CONCERNED 5. !'# , # , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. !%&' / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI