SHRI ANIL MURARILAL AGARWAL,MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 18(1)(1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

ITA 4715/MUM/2024

AI Insights

The case revolves around the taxation of capital gains from the sale of two flats, 1404 and 1405 located in Rashmi Heights, Malad, Mumbai, by Anil Murarilal Agarwal. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) had added Rs. 1,42,86,671 as short-term capital gains for the assessment year 2016-17, claiming that the gains were not declared in the relevant return. The assessee contended that the flats were sold in A.Y. 2010-11, and the gains were declared and accepted in that year. The Tribunal examined whether the gains should be considered short-term or long-term and whether the SRA scheme's conditions were violated. The Tribunal concluded that the gains were long-term, having been declared in the earlier assessment year, and thus, the addition as short-term capital gains was incorrect.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471411 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Other Referred Cases: K. Ramakrishna vs. ITA No. 2291/Mum/2015
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAM KRISHN KEDIA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAKESH JOSHI
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 54; 48; 54F; 101

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “A” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Murarilal Agarwal 703, Purna Worli CHSL Pochkhanwala Road, Worli Mumbai-400030. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-18(1)(1) Mumbai. Earnest House, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. PAN NO. AAAPA 9215 B Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Rakesh Joshi Revenue by : Mr. Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13/02/2025 Date of pronouncement : 24/03/2025 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated 28/08/2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [in short Ld. CIT] [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2016-17, raising following grounds: 1. “On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,42,86,671/ alleged Short Term Capital Gain earned on account of sale of flat no 1404 and 1405 situated in Rashmi Heights, without considering the facts and circumstances of the cas 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that during the year under consideration appellant has only registered the purchase/sales agreement and actual transaction happened in the A.Y. 2010-11 and corresponding income already offered for taxation In A.Y.2010-11, therefore making an addition for the same income, tantamount double taxation which is not allowable under th 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that the appellant and his wife jointly held the property in the equal 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not considering the purchase value of flat as mentioned in the agreement as cost considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in considering the Sa Rs.93,89,191/ being the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty instead of actual sale consideration of Rs.43,11,000/ considering the facts and circumstances of the case. 6. On the facts and circumstances of the case a Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the transfer of rights is void on the alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of SRA scheme without appreciating th purchased flat in SRA scheme. 7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal. 2. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business in the name of International’. The assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 15/10/2016 declaring total income ITA No. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,42,86,671/ alleged Short Term Capital Gain earned on account of sale of flat no 1404 and 1405 situated in Rashmi Heights, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that during the year under consideration appellant has only registered the purchase/sales agreement and actual transaction happened in the 11 and corresponding income already offered for taxation 11, therefore making an addition for the same income, tantamount double taxation which is not allowable under th On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that the appellant and his wife jointly held the property in the equal proportion of share. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not considering the purchase value of flat as mentioned in the agreement as cost of acquisition of flat, without considering the facts and circumstances of the case. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in considering the Sale consideration of flat at Rs.93,89,191/ being the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty instead of actual sale consideration of Rs.43,11,000/ considering the facts and circumstances of the case. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the transfer of rights is void on the alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of SRA scheme without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not purchased flat in SRA scheme. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said ground of appeal.” Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was the business of distribution of eco-friendly foo propriety concern namely ‘M/s he assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 15/10/2016 declaring total income Anil Murarilal Agarwal 2 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in making an addition of Rs. 1,42,86,671/- as alleged Short Term Capital Gain earned on account of sale of flat no 1404 and 1405 situated in Rashmi Heights, without considering the On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that during the year under consideration appellant has only registered the purchase/sales agreement and actual transaction happened in the 11 and corresponding income already offered for taxation 11, therefore making an addition for the same income, tantamount double taxation which is not allowable under the Act. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not appreciating the fact that the appellant and proportion of share. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in not considering the purchase value of flat as of acquisition of flat, without On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned le consideration of flat at Rs.93,89,191/ being the value adopted for the purpose of stamp duty instead of actual sale consideration of Rs.43,11,000/- without s well as in law, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the actions of the Learned Assessing Officer in treating the transfer of rights is void on the alleged plea that the assesse has violated terms and condition of e fact that the appellant has not The appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or delete the said Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee was friendly food packing propriety concern namely ‘M/s Beriwal he assessee filed return of income for the year under consideration on 15/10/2016 declaring total income at Rs. 6,51,090/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notice Tax Act, 1961 [In short ‘The Act’] were issue During the assessment proceeding that during the year under consideration the purchase and sale of two properties Floor Rashmi Heights, Malad, Mumbai and flat No. 1405, 14 Rashmi Heights, Malad, Mumbai that short term capital gain 1404 and 1405 was not declared by t income. 3. In response to show cause notice, i assessee said that those the assessee and his wife Smt. Lata those flats were booked on 07.10.2005 financial year 2009-10 corresponding to were sold/transfered Shri. Aadesh Agarwal capital gain arising from assessee and his wife in their respective of return for A.Y. 2010-11. It was submitted duly accepted by the department and, therefore, the tr which has been already cannot be subjected to tax again in A.Y. ITA No. . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment and statutory notices under 1961 [In short ‘The Act’] were issued and During the assessment proceeding, the Assessing O during the year under consideration the assessee registered the purchase and sale of two properties, namely flat No. 1404, 14 Floor Rashmi Heights, Malad, Mumbai and flat No. 1405, 14 Rashmi Heights, Malad, Mumbai. The Ld. Assessing O short term capital gain arising out of the sale of the flats 1404 and 1405 was not declared by the assessee in return of In response to show cause notice, it was submitted those two flats were purchased in the assessee and his wife Smt. Lata Agarwal. He submitted that those flats were booked on 07.10.2005, but subsequently in 10 corresponding to assessment tohis sons namely Shri. Abhishek Agarwal and Aadesh Agarwal respectively. The corresponding long term capital gain arising from sale of those two flats was offered by the his wife in their respective of returns 11. It was submitted that those returns have been duly accepted by the department and, therefore, the tr which has been already offered and accepted by the department cannot be subjected to tax again in A.Y. under consideration Anil Murarilal Agarwal 3 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 . The return of income filed by the assessee was selected under the Income and complied with. the Assessing Officer(AO) noted the assessee registered namely flat No. 1404, 14th Floor Rashmi Heights, Malad, Mumbai and flat No. 1405, 14th Floor Assessing Officer noted arising out of the sale of the flats No. he assessee in return of t was submitted by the purchased in joint name of . He submitted that but subsequently in assessment year 2010-11 . Abhishek Agarwal and The corresponding long term as offered by the s of income filed returns have been duly accepted by the department and, therefore, the transaction offered and accepted by the department, onsideration. Those contentions of the assessee were not accepted by Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer observed that those flats the assessee in violation of the slum rehabilitation scheme Government of Maharashtra that the assessee did not Abhishek Agarwal and Shri noted that part payment of Rs. 3 respectively was paid purchase price of Rs. 12,33,000/ amount had been paid by Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Agarwal to the builder. The Assessing O the assessee could claim made by him. The long term capital gain declared by the assessee in assessment year 2010 was found not to be pro Officer, the assessee should have offered long term capital gain sale of properties assessee availed benefit of Act and no long term capital gain was offered for the tax purpose The relevant observations of the Assessing Officer are under: “ii). Details of Sale of immovable properties in the financial year 2015-16:- S No Description of properties ITA No. assessee were not accepted by Assessing Officer. fficer observed that those flats had the assessee in violation of the slum rehabilitation scheme Government of Maharashtra. Further the Assessing O that the assessee did not receive full payment against sale to Shri bhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal. The Assessing O noted that part payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- and Rs. 2,31,500/ was paid by the assessee to builder purchase price of Rs. 12,33,000/- of each flat and had been paid by Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri to the builder. The Assessing Officer was of the view that claim capital gain on the part of the investment made by him. The long term capital gain declared by the assessee in assessment year 2010-11 though noted by the assessing officer to be properly calculated. According to Assessing see should have offered long term capital gain sale of properties at Rs.4,90,691/- for A.Y.2010 benefit of exemption/deduction u/s 54 and no long term capital gain was offered for the tax purpose observations of the Assessing Officer are ii). Details of Sale of immovable properties in the financial year Name of the Purchaser Date of Agreement Sale Amount (Rs) Anil Murarilal Agarwal 4 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 assessee were not accepted by Assessing Officer. been booked by the assessee in violation of the slum rehabilitation scheme (SRA) of er the Assessing Officer observed against sale to Shri . The Assessing Officer and Rs. 2,31,500/- assessee to builder against the of each flat and the balance had been paid by Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh was of the view that on the part of the investment made by him. The long term capital gain declared by the assessee in though noted by the assessing officer, perly calculated. According to Assessing see should have offered long term capital gain on for A.Y.2010-11, but the u/s 54/54F of the and no long term capital gain was offered for the tax purposes. observations of the Assessing Officer are reproduced as ii). Details of Sale of immovable properties in the financial year Sale Amount (Rs) Market Value (Rs) 1. Flat No.1404, 14th Floor, Rashmi Heights, Malad Mumbai 2. Flat No. 1405, 14th Floor, Rashmi Heights, Malad, Mumbai During the assessment proceedings, the has sold two properties (Flat No. 1404 & 1405) in F.Y. 2009 2010-11 and consequently, long term capital gains on from transfer/sale of these flats were offered in A.Y. 2010 submitted letter dtd. 12 Developers Ltd. for transfer of flats to Shri Aadesh Agarwaland in turn M/s. Rashmi Infra has written letter dtd. 13.12.2009 to Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal for accepting the transfer. The assessee also submitted the copy of return of Income for A.Y. 2010 income of Shri Anil Agarwal and Smt. Lata Agarwal. As per computation filed by the assessee, he sale of the property in A.Y. 2010 Flat No. Sale Date Cost Date 1404 11/12/2009 07/10/2005 1405 11/12/2009 ITA No. Aadesh Agarwal 16.01.2016 43,11,000 Abhishek Agarwal 28.09.2015 43,11,000 During the assessment proceedings, the assessee claimed that he has sold two properties (Flat No. 1404 & 1405) in F.Y. 2009 11 and consequently, long term capital gains on from transfer/sale of these flats were offered in A.Y. 2010-11. In support of his claim he has letter dtd. 12.12.2009 written to M/s. Rashmi Infra Developers Ltd. for transfer of flats to Shri. Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwaland in turn M/s. Rashmi Infra-structure Developers Ltd. has written letter dtd. 13.12.2009 to Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal for accepting the transfer. The assessee also submitted of Income for A.Y. 2010-11 alongwith computation of income of Shri Anil Agarwal and Smt. Lata Agarwal. As per computation filed by the assessee, he has offered LTCG on sale of the property in A.Y. 2010-11 as under. Sale Value Cost Value Indexed Cost LTCG 11/12/2009 07/10/2005 21,55,500 6,16,500 7,83,960 13,71,540 11/12/2009 21,55,500 7,83,960 13,71,540 Anil Murarilal Agarwal 5 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 43,11,000 93,89,191 43,11,000 93,89,189 assessee claimed that he has sold two properties (Flat No. 1404 & 1405) in F.Y. 2009-10 i.e. A.Y. 11 and consequently, long term capital gains on from transfer/sale 11. In support of his claim he has 2009 written to M/s. Rashmi Infra-structure Abhishek Agarwal and Shri structure Developers Ltd. has written letter dtd. 13.12.2009 to Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal for accepting the transfer. The assessee also submitted 11 alongwith computation of has offered LTCG on LTCG Investment in new property (Rs) 13,71,540 15,95,750 13,71,540 15,95,750 07/10/2005 As per tabulation above, the invested the sum u/s 54 of the 17.Act, 1961 of the LT Act, 1961, received from Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from sale of the above mentioned two flats in new properties and hence. LTCG as Nil offered in his return of income. However, the assessee has not filed any details agreement for the claim of his investment u/s 54 of the IT. Act. However, the assessee has given wrong, calculation taking wrong indexation cost of acquisition of the properties and hence, evaded tax on of properties. The assessee has taken full value of consideration as cost of acquisition for calculation of capital gain, even after he has not paid full amount of consideration to the seller till the date of so called claim of sell of these properties to Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri. Aadesh Agarwal. The assessee has also divided cost of acquisition of the properties equal with co not invested any sum for purchase of flat no. 1404 Smt. Lata Agarw has invested Rs. 1,50,000/ 1405. The assessee can claim indexation on the part of the investment made by him. If, it is assumed that the assessee's all claims/data/documents are correct than the night calculation Flat No. Sale Date Cost Date Sale Value Value 1404 12/12/2009 28/03/2006 21,55,500 3,00,000 1405 12/12/2009 27/06/2006 21,55,500 2,03,100 ITA No. 07/10/2005 6,16,500 As per tabulation above, the assessee has claimed that he has re invested the sum u/s 54 of the 17.Act, 1961 of the LT Act, 1961, received from Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from sale of the above mentioned two flats in new properties and hence. LTCG as Nil offered in come. However, the assessee has not filed any details agreement for the claim of his investment u/s 54 of the IT. Act. However, the assessee has given wrong, calculation taking wrong indexation cost of acquisition of the properties and hence, evaded tax on of properties. The assessee has taken full value of consideration as cost of acquisition for calculation of capital gain, even after he has not paid full amount of consideration to the seller till the date of so called claim of properties to Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri. Aadesh Agarwal. The assessee has also divided cost of acquisition of the properties equal with co-owner, Smt. Lata Agarwal, even after, she has not invested any sum for purchase of flat no. 1404 Smt. Lata Agarw has invested Rs. 1,50,000/- on 16.03.2006 for purchase of flat no. 1405. The assessee can claim indexation on the part of the investment If, it is assumed that the assessee's all claims/data/documents are correct than the night calculation of LTCG are as under: Sale Value Cost Value Indexed Cost LTCG offered by the assessee Investment in new property 21,55,500 3,00,000 3,81,489 17,74,011 15,95,750 21,55,500 2,03,100 2,47,320 19,08,180 15,95,750 Anil Murarilal Agarwal 6 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 assessee has claimed that he has re- invested the sum u/s 54 of the 17.Act, 1961 of the LT Act, 1961, received from Long Term Capital Gain (LTCG) from sale of the above mentioned two flats in new properties and hence. LTCG as Nil offered in come. However, the assessee has not filed any details agreement for the claim of his investment u/s 54 of the IT. Act. However, the assessee has given wrong, calculation taking wrong indexation cost LTCG on sale of properties. The assessee has taken full value of consideration as cost of acquisition for calculation of capital gain, even after he has not paid full amount of consideration to the seller till the date of so called claim of properties to Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri. Aadesh Agarwal. The assessee has also divided cost of acquisition of the owner, Smt. Lata Agarwal, even after, she has not invested any sum for purchase of flat no. 1404 Smt. Lata Agarwal on 16.03.2006 for purchase of flat no. 1405. The assessee can claim indexation on the part of the investment If, it is assumed that the assessee's all claims/data/documents are Investment in new property (Rs) LTCG to be offer 15,95,750 1,78,261 15,95,750 3,12,430 4,90,691 Hence, it can be seen from above table that the assessee should have offered LTCG on sale of the properties of Rs. 4,90,691/. for A.Y. 2010-11 but he has not offered any LTCG for taxation. It is also important to mention here that, the assessee has neither registered/made any agreement with the Seller (builder) nor with the buyers(Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal)till the end of financial year 2010 on sale of immovable properties. The assessee has not given any details about how he has taken selling price of Rs. 43,11,000/ selling price of the flats first came to re in F.Y. 2015-16. 4. The Ld. Assessing O contentions of the assessee and assess consideration and purchase consideration registered sale deeds term capital gain in the assessment the Act on 29/12/2018 noted that, firstly violation of the SRA Scheme furnish any agreement to the effect of transfer of the property by the assessee in assessment year 2010 assessee failed of the possession of the consideration. 5. Before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 152. The Ld. counsel for the assessee referred under the year under consideration in respect ITA No. Hence, it can be seen from above table that the assessee should have offered LTCG on sale of the properties of Rs. 4,90,691/. for A.Y. has not offered any LTCG for taxation. It is also important to mention here that, the assessee has neither registered/made any agreement with the Seller (builder) nor with the buyers(Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal)till the end of year 2010-11 as claimed by the assessee as arriving capital gain on sale of immovable properties. The assessee has not given any details about how he has taken selling price of Rs. 43,11,000/- selling price of the flats first came to record while registered the documents The Ld. Assessing Officer accordingly rejected the of the assessee and assessed the d consideration and purchase consideration registered sale deeds amounting to Rs. 1,42,86,671/ term capital gain in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) of 29/12/2018. On further appeal, the firstly the assessee had purchased violation of the SRA Scheme, Secondly, the assessee agreement to the effect of transfer of the property assessee in assessment year 2010-11 to furnish any document/evidence possession of the immovable property under Before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 152. The Ld. counsel for the red to the purchase and sale year under consideration in respect Anil Murarilal Agarwal 7 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 Hence, it can be seen from above table that the assessee should have offered LTCG on sale of the properties of Rs. 4,90,691/. for A.Y. It is also important to mention here that, the assessee has neither registered/made any agreement with the Seller (builder) nor with the buyers(Shri Abhishek Agarwal and Shri Aadesh Agarwal)till the end of 11 as claimed by the assessee as arriving capital gain on sale of immovable properties. The assessee has not given any details - for each flats. The cord while registered the documents fficer accordingly rejected the the difference of sale consideration and purchase consideration recorded in ,42,86,671/- as short passed u/s 143(3) of the Ld. CIT(A) also purchased flats in the assessee failed to agreement to the effect of transfer of the property 11, Thirdly, the evidence in support immovable property under Before us the Ld. counsel for the assessee has filed a paper book containing pages 1 to 152. The Ld. counsel for the purchase and sale deed registered of flat No. 1404 and 1405, which are available on paper book pg. No. 89 to and 102 to 136 of the paper book also referred to the allotment letter 1405, which are available on paper book page of the paper book the income tax return assessee for A.Y. 2010 27 to page No. Lata Agarwal, a copy of no. 55 to page no. 80 of the paper book. the assessee filed copy of the memorandum entered into by the assessee with his sons Agarwal and Shri. flats in financial year 2009 documents, the Ld. counsel for the assessee s the capital gain arising on already been offered by the assessee in return of incom A.Y. 2010-11. He submitted that only registration document have been prepared in the consideration, in view of the conditions imposed by the builder and in effect the flat Shri. Abhishek sons of the assessee. on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of K. Ramakrishna ITA No. which are available on paper book pg. No. 89 to and 102 to 136 of the paper book respectively. also referred to the allotment letter of the flat No 1404 and which are available on paper book pages er book respectively. The Ld. counsel also referred to the income tax return and computation of income of assessee for A.Y. 2010-11, available on paper book 54 and return of income filed by his wife S a copy of which is available on paper book page no. 55 to page no. 80 of the paper book. The the assessee filed copy of the memorandum by the assessee with his sons Agarwal and Shri. Aadesh Agarwal for sale of the respective in financial year 2009-10. In view of the above the Ld. counsel for the assessee s the capital gain arising on the sale of those been offered by the assessee in return of incom 11. He submitted that only registration document have been prepared in the assessment year under n view of the conditions imposed by the builder the flats had already transferred Shri. Abhishek Agarwal and Shri. Aadesh Agarwal sons of the assessee. The Ld. counsel for the assessee re on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case Ramakrishnan reported in (2014) 48 taxman.com 55 Anil Murarilal Agarwal 8 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 which are available on paper book pg. No. 89 to 101 The Ld. counsel of the flat No 1404 and No.1 to 3 and 4 . The Ld. counsel also referred to of income of the available on paper book page No. rn of income filed by his wife Smt. which is available on paper book page The Ld. counsel for the assessee filed copy of the memorandum of agreement Shri. Abhishek for sale of the respective . In view of the above the Ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that those two flats has been offered by the assessee in return of income for 11. He submitted that only registration documents assessment year under n view of the conditions imposed by the builder in the name of Aadesh Agarwal, who are The Ld. counsel for the assessee relied on the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case reported in (2014) 48 taxman.com 55 (Delhi)/[2014] 225 Taxman 123 allotment has been held to be date of purchase of the property and not the date of registration of conveyance deed counsel also relied the Tribunal in the case of 2291/Mum/2015 for A.Y. 2011 period of the property has been held to be computed from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the instant case financial year 2004 was liable for long term capital gain declared by the assessee capital gain was consideration. 6. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 7. We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record whether the holding perio computed from the date of the conveyance deed or from the date of the allotment letter has already file which are available on paper book page the relevant document Infrastructure Developers ltd. ITA No. (Delhi)/[2014] 225 Taxman 123 (Delhi), wherein the date of allotment has been held to be date of purchase of the property and not the date of registration of conveyance deed counsel also relied on the decision of the coordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Anita D Kanjani 2291/Mum/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12, wherein also the holding period of the property has been held to be computed from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The Ld. counsel submitted that in the instant case those flats were allotted in the financial year 2004-05 and, therefore, sale in the A.Y. 2010 was liable for long term capital gain, which has already been declared by the assessee and hence no addition was required to be assessed in the year under On the contrary, Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the relevant material on record. The issue in dispute in the case is whether the holding period of the property should be computed from the date of the conveyance deed or from the date of the allotment letter. Firstly, in the case has already filed the copy of the allotment letter of the flats which are available on paper book pages 1 to 4. On perusal of the relevant documents, we find that builder M/s Rashmi Infrastructure Developers ltd. had allotted the two flat n Anil Murarilal Agarwal 9 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 wherein the date of allotment has been held to be date of purchase of the property and not the date of registration of conveyance deed. The Ld. on the decision of the coordinate bench of ani in ITA No. wherein also the holding period of the property has been held to be computed from the date of issue of the allotment letter. The Ld. counsel submitted flats were allotted in the sale in the A.Y. 2010-11 which has already been hence no addition for short term in the year under On the contrary, Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower We have heard rival submission of the parties and perused the he issue in dispute in the case is d of the property should be computed from the date of the conveyance deed or from the n the case the assessee the copy of the allotment letter of the flats to 4. On perusal of we find that builder M/s Rashmi had allotted the two flat nos. 1404 and 1405 to Agarwal under the sale part of the SRA scheme Anita D Kanjani held that the date of the allotment letter for holding period be treated as date of the purchase of the property r the date on which entered into the year under sale of the property is concerned though the property has been registered for the purchase consideration but the assessee had already entered into agreement for sale of flat No. 1404 and 1405 in financial year 2009-10 corresponding to A.Y. 2010 term capital gain arising on sale and against the said long term capital gain of the Act. The said long term capital gain declared by his wife is appearing in the copy of the return of income file assessee and his wife for the A.Y. 2010 Assessing officer computation of the deduction u/s 54 11, but said assessment year is not available before us and therefore, we can’t go into correctness of the same. B assessing officer cannot ignore the said long declared in A.Y. 2010 the sale of the property in the year under consideration as ITA No. 1404 and 1405 to the assessee along with his under the sale part of the SRA scheme Anita D Kanjani(supra), the coordinate bench of the Tribunal the date of the allotment letter should be considered period of the property. Therefore, the said date to be treated as date of the purchase of the property r the date on which the purchase deed of conveyance was entered into the year under consideration. Secondly sale of the property is concerned though the property has been registered for the purchase and sale in the year under consideration but the assessee had already entered into agreement for sale of flat No. 1404 and 1405 in financial year 10 corresponding to A.Y. 2010-11 and declared the long term capital gain arising on sale and against the said long term capital gain the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54 said long term capital gain declared by his wife is appearing in the copy of the return of income file assessee and his wife for the A.Y. 2010-11. ssessing officer has pointed out certain mistakes in the computation of the deduction u/s 54F of the Act but said assessment year is not available before us and we can’t go into correctness of the same. B assessing officer cannot ignore the said long term capital gain declared in A.Y. 2010-11 and assessee the gain arising from the sale of the property in the year under consideration as Anil Murarilal Agarwal 10 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 wife, Smt. Lata under the sale part of the SRA scheme. In the case of bench of the Tribunal should be considered property. Therefore, the said date to be treated as date of the purchase of the property rather than the purchase deed of conveyance was Secondly, as far as sale of the property is concerned though the property has been in the year under consideration but the assessee had already entered into agreement for sale of flat No. 1404 and 1405 in financial year 11 and declared the long term capital gain arising on sale and against the said long the assessee claimed deduction u/s 54/54F said long term capital gain declared by his wife is appearing in the copy of the return of income filed by the 11. Though, the mistakes in the of the Act for AY 2010- but said assessment year is not available before us and, we can’t go into correctness of the same. But the term capital gain gain arising from the sale of the property in the year under consideration as short term capital gain, without any valid reason for rejection of capital gain shown in AY 2010 for the assessee has rightly pointed out purchased thos scheme and not under the finding recorded by the Assessing O incorrect. 8. In view of aforesaid discussion registration of the flat No. 1404 and 1405 for purchase and sale entered into the year under consideration are liable for any capital gain tax as the assessee had already declared the said transaction of the sale duly accepted by the department the assessee are accordingly allowed. 9. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24 Sd/- (RAHUL CHAUDHARY JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 24/03/2025 Disha Raut Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT ITA No. short term capital gain, without any valid reason for rejection of capital gain shown in AY 2010-11. Thirdly, for the assessee has rightly pointed out the assessee se flats under sale component of the SRA and not under the slum occupation category. The finding recorded by the Assessing Officer to that extent is In view of aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the registration of the flat No. 1404 and 1405 for purchase and entered into the year under consideration are liable for any capital gain tax as the assessee had already declared the nsaction of the sale in A.Y. 2010-11, which has been duly accepted by the department. The grounds of the appeal of the assessee are accordingly allowed. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. nced in the open Court on 24/03 - Sd/ RAHUL CHAUDHARY) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : Anil Murarilal Agarwal 11 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 short term capital gain, without any valid reason for rejection the Ld. counsel the assessee has component of the SRA pation category. The fficer to that extent is the opinion that the registration of the flat No. 1404 and 1405 for purchase and entered into the year under consideration are liable for any capital gain tax as the assessee had already declared the which has been . The grounds of the appeal of In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed. /03/2025. Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA No. BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai Anil Murarilal Agarwal 12 ITA No. 4715/MUM/2024 BY ORDER, (Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai "