TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 949X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT &Ors. [2010 (9) TMI 850 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] the facts were at least apparently similar and hence, in our considered opinion, there is apparent mistake in the Tribunal order while deciding this issue in respect of holding period of the asset in question on sale of which the resulting capital gain was declared by the assessee as long term capital gain but was assessed by the AO as short term capital gain and in the process, claim of deduction u/s 54 was also disallowed. Hence, we recall this Tribunal order for limited purpose of deciding this issue afresh in respect of holding period of asset in question i.e. the flat at Hiranandani Meadows which was sold by the assessee through registered sale ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n terms thereof but the specific number of the flat was allocated to the assessee and possession delivered on 15.05.1986 and the right of the assessee prior to 15.05.1986 was a right in the property and in such a situation, it cannot be held that prior to the said date, the assessee was not holding the flat. He submitted that at least this judgment of Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana is having similar facts and therefore, there is an apparent mistake in the Tribunal order because the Tribunal has held that all the judgements cited by ld. AR of assessee are distinguishable on facts without giving any detail or reason based on which, this was stated that the facts are distinguishable and therefore, this Tribunal order should be recalled ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt dated 29.09.2009 and which was purchased by the assessee through registered purchase deed dated 06.03.2009 although as per the assessee, the said flat was allotted on 22.02.2006 and full payment was also made and therefore, the allotment date has to be taken as date of acquisition. In our considered opinion, the apparent mistake is this that it was held by the tribunal that facts are distinguishable without indicating any basis for that and it is seen that the facts are at least similar although not identical in this judgment of Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana rendered in the case of Vinod Kumar Jain Vs. CIT Ors. (Supra). We want to make it clear that this Tribunal order is being recalled for this limited purpose of deciding the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
