TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 944X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... here is no dispute about the date of allotment letter dated 25.09.1997. We find that AO has recorded that at the time of allotment, the assessee paid ₹ 6,52,000/-. The assessee vehemently contended that substantial part of the sale consideration was paid from the date of possession. This fact is not disputed by lower authorities. The date of transfer of asset/flat is also not in dispute. We find that in case MadhuKaul v/s. CIT [ 2014 (2) TMI 1117 - PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT] and CIT v/s. S.R. Jayshankar [ 2014 (12) TMI 264 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] held that the date of allotment letter is to be considered to determine the holding period to ascertain the entitlement of section 54 of the Act. We find that the decision of MadhuKaul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 148 of the Act dated 28.04.2014 was served upon the assessee. The case of assessee was re-opened on the basis of information received that assessee has sold a property on 22.07.2008 for a consideration of ₹ 72,00,000/- against the market value at ₹ 1.34 crore, determined by stamp valuation authority. On the basis of such information, The Assessing Officer (AO) recorded the reasons for re-opening by taking view that the case of assessee requires deep investigation. The assessee requestedfor reasons recorded, the reasons recorded were supplied to the assessee on 18.12.2014. In response to the notice under section 148, the assessee filed his return of income on 27.11.2014 declaring income of ₹ 1.35 lakhs and declared Lo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 80,99,000/- Less : indexed cost of advance payment of ₹ 6,54,000/- On 25/02/1997 = ₹ 654,000 X 582/305 ₹ 12,47,960/- ₹ 68,51,040/- Less: total cost as per allotment letter ₹ 42,12,000/- minus Advance payment ₹ 654,000/ =₹ 35,58,000/- Indexed cost ₹ 35,58,000/-X 582/406 ₹ 51,00,380/- ₹ 17,50,660/- Less : expenses claimed by the assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cupation of flat, the assessee has made substantial amount of consideration. The assessee sold a flat on 22.07.2008. On sale consideration of ₹ 72,00,000/-. The assessee worked out the LTCL by taking the date of acquisition in 1997. However, the AO determined the LTCG on the basis of value determined by DVO and further on the basis of index cost for AY 2000-01 instead of 1997- 98. The ld. AR submits that working of LTCG, index cost to be taken for AY 1997-98 as per the allotment letter. The assessee booked the flat in Joint names and the name of his wife name is mentioned at first holder. Whereas all payments were made by assessee from his bank account. All the payments were verified by the AO during the course of assessment. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ved in the present appeal is whether the holding period is treated from the date of allotment or from the date of occupation of the property. There is no dispute about the date of allotment letter dated 25.09.1997. Further, we find that AO in para-6 of the assessment order has recorded that at the time of allotment, the assessee paid ₹ 6,52,000/-. The assessee vehemently contended that substantial part of the sale consideration was paid from the date of possession. This fact is not disputed by lower authorities. Further, the date of transfer of asset/flat is also not in dispute. We find that the Hon ble Punjab Haryana High Court in MadhuKaul v/s. CIT [363 ITR 54 (P H)], [Hon ble Madras High Court in CIT v/s. S.R. Ja ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
