DCIT 5(3)(1), MUMBAI vs. DEEPAK SHASHI BHUSHAN ROY, MUMBAI

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH “D”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHAHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3204/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) DCIT 5(3)(1), Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat ROOM No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, No.11, Rambha CHS Ltd, M.K.Road, Nepean Sea Road, Vs. Mumbai 400020 Mumbai-400006 PAN:AAAPR 7703 F

(Appellant) (Respondent) ITA No.3316/Mum/2016 (Assessment Year- 2011-12) Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy, Flat DCIT 5(3)(1), No.11, Rambha CHS Ltd, ROOM No.573, Aayakar Bhavan, Nepean Sea Road, M.K.Road, Vs. Mumbai-400006 Mumbai 400020 PAN:AAAPR 7703 F

(Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Dr. Shivram Senior Advocate : with Sh. Aditya Ajgaonkar Advocate. Revenue by : Shri RAM Tiwari (Sr.DR) Date of hearing : 26.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2018 Order Under Section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. These cross appeals are directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner

of Income-tax (Appeals)-12 [Ld. CIT(A)], Mumbai dated 24.02.2016 in

the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act on

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy 27.03.2014 for Assessment Year 2011-12. The Revenue has raised the

following grounds of appeal:

(1) (a) On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding property at Arlington in USA cannot be treated as self occupied property as the said property is occupied by the daughter of the assessee. (1) (b) On the facts and in this circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner(Appeals) failed to appreciate that the assessee had exercise his option under section 23(4)(a) and treated his property at Arlington USA as self occupied and the said option could not be changed in the course of assessment proceeding. (2) (a). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee had acquired the right in the property at Gurgaon on 19.03.2007 and period of holding on the right in the property has started from 19.03. 2007 to 10.09.2010 which is more than 36 months and, hence, the right in the property is a long-term right and so the capital gain arisen is also long- term capital gain. (2)(b). On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, learned Commissioner (Appeals)erred in only relying on the letter dated the 19.03.2007 and ignoring the buyers agreement dated 07.11.2007 whereby the assessee was vested with the right in the property at Gurgaon and hence the period from 07.11.2007 to 31.05.2010, when the property was sold by the assessee was less than 36 month, and hence, the assessing officer had rightly taxed the gain on sale of the property at short-term capital gain. (3) The appellant prays that the order of Commissioner (Appeals) be set aside and the order of assessing officer be restored. 2. The assessee in its cross appeal has raised following grounds of appeal:

(i) The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not giving the direction to assessing officer to the house property Mumbai as self occupied house property, even though the appellant had during the course of assessment proceeding opted under section 23(4) to treat the said house property in Mumbai as self occupied.

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy (ii) Having treated the appellant’s house in Arlington USA as deemed and let out the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in rejecting the claim of assessee to treat the house property in Mumbai (in which he actually resides) as self occupied. (iii) The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the gross annual value of house property at Mumbai on ad hoc basis of Rs. 74,31,073/- instead of taking house property at Mumbai as self occupied property and taking it’s annual value in its nil. (iv) The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in confirming the charging of interest under section 234B and 234C of income tax Act. 3. The brief facts of the case are that assessee is Executive Vice Chairman

and Chief Executive Officer of Allied Blenders & Distillery Private

Limited, Director of De Vin Private Limited and Director of Henkell &

Company India Pvt Ltd, deriving his income from ‘Salary’, income from

‘House property’, income from ‘Capital Gain’ and from ‘Other Sources’.

The assessee filed his return of income for relevant assessment year on

23 July 2011 declaring taxable income of Rs. 3,30,85,591/-. Return on

income was selected for scrutiny and the assessment order was passed on 27th March 2014 under section 143(3). The assessing officer while

passing assessment order made addition of Rs. 51,98,928/-on account of

annual letting value (ALV) of property at Flat No.11, Rambha Co-

operative Group Housing Society, at Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai against

the income declared from house property of Rs. 2,797/-. The assessing

officer also denied long-term capital loss of Rs. 1,28,94,076/- by treating

the same as short-term capital gain at Rs. 80,00,000/-, on his

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy observation that holding period of the asset/ capital right is less than 36

months. On appeal before Commissioner (Appeals) the assessee was

allowed long-term capital loss on transfer of asset, however, the action

of assessing officer in determining the gross annual value of self

occupied property at Mumbai was confirmed. Therefore, aggrieved by

the order of Commissioner (Appeals) both the parties have filed their

cross appeal raising the grounds of appeal as referred above.

gone through the orders of authorities below. The grounds of appeal

raised by assessee and the ground of appeal raised by revenue in its

Ground No. (1)(a) & 1(b) are interconnected; therefore, all these

grounds are taken together for discussion. The ld Authorised

Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that during the year the

assessee has two house properties, one at 888 N, Quincy Street, Unit

No.1311, Arlington VA 22203, ph 2, Liberty Centre Condo in USA,

which is a jointly owned property along with his wife, and other

property at Flat No.11, Rambha Co-operative Group Housing Society, at

Nepean Sea Road, Mumbai. Both the properties were not to let out

during the year. The assessee being resident of India in the current year

resided in Mumbai property and travel to USA from time to time. The

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy assessee’s daughter is occupying the USA house. In the return of income

the assessee treated the house in USA as self occupied and offered the

income from house property as a deemed flat-out in respect of Mumbai

property, as he felt that offering the income from house property of

Mumbai house would be more beneficial to him. Based on the

Municipal rateable value the assessee offered a sum of Rs. 2,797/-as

income from house property. The assessee has furnished the

computation of income of house property to the assessing officer, copy

of which is filed before Tribunal vide page No. 4 of paper book. The

assessee has also placed on record the bills related to Municipal taxes at

page No. 7 to 10 paper book and the Municipal Corporation Bombay’s

bills for the society are also placed on record. The evidences related with

the property in USA are also placed on record. The house property in

USA was purchased during the assessment year 2010-11 and was shown

its self occupied in that period. As there was no scrutiny assessment for

assessment year 2010-11. In subsequent year the assessee has revised the

return of income and has shown the Mumbai property as self acquired

property and has offered the property and USA as let out. The assessee

before the assessing officer objected for adoption of fair rental value of

similar property in the area as annual letting value (ALV) without any

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy evidence on basis and without prejudice submitted that annual letting

value of flat in USA may be taken as deemed to be let out. The assessee

also furnished to the assessing officer his calculation regarding the USA

property. The assessing officer on the basis of sale consideration of

Mumbai property determined the annual letting value of this property at

Rs. 6,19,253/-per month on a totally unscientific, arbitrary and on

excessive basis. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) during the First

appellate stage held that USA property is occupied by his daughter,

therefore it cannot be considered as self occupied and needed to be

taxed.

treatment of USA properties. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that the

assessee should have an option of choosing as deemed to be let out the

house property which is more beneficial to him for the purpose of

offering income from house property and that assessee should be

allowed to changes ‘self occupied property’ to deemed let out property,

especially where the assessing officer change the method of computation

of annual letting value. The option exercise in the course of assessment

proceeding may be directed to be accepted by the assessing officer. In

support of his submission the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy decision of Tribunal in Venkatavarthan N Iyanger Versus ACIT in ITA

No. 5616/M/2015 dated 23 May 2018, Asha Bhosle Vs ITO in ITA No.

2552 /M/2010 dated 21 September 2011. In alternative submission the

ld. AR submits that municipal rateable value may be accepted as one

bonafide rentable value of the property in absence of any other

information brought on record by the assessing officer. In support of his

submission the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the decision of

Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs Tip Top Typography 368 ITR

330(Bombay). The ld AR for assessee again submits that the decision of

jurisdictional High Court is a binding precedent, however the assessing

officer relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal in Emtici

Engineering Ltd Vs ACIT (58 TTJ 27) (Ahd Tri) therefore, the

assessing officer is erred in estimating 8% of the total investment is

rental income, especially in the city like Mumbai where the capital

outlay in purchases of property yield very lower rental income

compared to the total investment in the property. The ld AR further

submits that reliance on the decision of Gujarat High Court in

Jashvidhyaben C Mehta versus CIT (172 ITR 680)(Gujarat) by ld

CIT(A) is misplaced. In that case the actual occupant in the property was

cousin of the assessee and her family, however, in the case in hand the

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy assessee had retained the house for his own occupation but permitted his

own daughter to reside therein.

assessing officer. The assessee himself offered the Mumbai Flat for

deemed income.

through the orders of the authorities below. During the assessment the

assessee has declared the income from house property of Mumbai flat at

Rs.2797/- as deemed let out. The assessee was asked to justify the

income offered by the assessee and the fair rental value of the similar

property in the same area. The assessee furnished various details,

including the cost of acquisition, rateable value of flat and the other

property. The contention of the assessee was not accepted by assessing

officer. The assessing officer on the basis of purchased cost estimated

the annual letting value (ALV) of Mumbai flat and allowing 30%

deduction determined the taxable income at Rs. 51,98,928/-. The

contention of the assessee before the assessing officer to treat the USA

property for adopting deemed let out was rejected. The ld.

Commissioner (Appeals) also held that the USA property is occupied by

the daughter of the assessee and cannot be considered as self occupied

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy property. The ld Commissioner (Appeals) instead of considering the

substitution of property for the purpose of computing income from

house property and holding the USA property is nor self occupied

confirmed the action of assessing officer. In our view the ld

Commissioner (Appeals) once arrived at a conclusion that the USA

property is not self occupied should have considered it for deemed

value of consideration for the purpose of computing income from house

property.

Vs ACIT (supra) considering the grounds of appeal realted to the

substitution of property for the purpose of self occupied and deemed let

out held as under:

“8. The last issue relates to substitution of Self occupied property for the purpose of sec. 23 of the Act. The assessee was owning three house properties, viz., house located at Juhu, Santacruz (E) and Vasai. The assessee declared notional rental income from Santacruz property. In the return of income, the assessee declared Vasai property as self occupied property. However, before the AO, the assessee sought to substitute Juhu Property as self occupied property. The AO took the view that the change of self occupied property is not permissible at that stage and accordingly rejected the same. The Ld CIT(A) also confirmed the same. 9. The contention of Ld A.R is that the Income tax Act does not prohibit substitution of self occupied property, since the option is given to the assessee to determine the same. There is also no bar that the option once

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy exercised cannot be changed. The Ld D.R, on the contrary, supported the order passed by Ld CIT(A). 10. Since the provisions of the Act nowhere states that the option of selecting self occupied property, once exercised, cannot be changed, we are of the view that there is merit in the contentions of the assessee. Accordingly we set aside the order passed by Ld CIT(A) on this issue and direct the AO to adopt Juhu Property as self occupied property of the assessee.” 9. Similarly, the coordinate bench of Tribunal in Asha Bhosle Vs ITO,

while considering for not allowing the other property for considering for

deemed let out held as under:

“6. We have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides, perused the orders of A.O. and ld. CIT(A) and the paper book filed on behalf of the assessee. We find the provisions of Section 23(4) reads as under:-

“Section 23(4) Where the property referred to in sub-section (2) consists of more than one house:- (a) the provisions of that sub-section shall apply only in respect of one of such houses, which the assessee may, at his option, specify in this behalf; b) the annual value of the house or houses, other than the house in respect of which the assessee has exercised an option under clause (a) shall be determined under sub-section (1) as if such house or houses had been let” In the instant case, the assessee is the owner of seven flats situated at Mumbai and Pune apart from a house under construction at Lonavala. The assessee, no doubt, has specified earlier that the flat at Maryland is self occupied house property. However, during the course of assessment proceedings, she changed her stand and requested the A.O. to consider the flats at Vikas Anand at Khar as self occupied property since it was beneficial to her. Under these circumstances, we are of the

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy considered opinion that the A.O. should have considered the flats at Vikas Anand Co. Op. Hsg. Soc., Khar as self occupied house property instead of Maryland property claimed in the return of income especially when he has changed the method of computation of income from self occupied house property by adopting 8% of cost of construction as ALV as against Municipal ratable value adopted by the assessee. It has been held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Balmukund Acharya vs. DCIT reported in [2009] 310 ITR 310 that the A.O. should not take advantage of the assessee’s ignorance of law. Since the claim of the ALV by the assessee on the basis of Municipal Ratable value has been rejected by the A.O. and the same was substituted by him at 8% of the cost of construction, the A.O., in our opinion should have considered the flat at Vikas Anand as self occupied property since it was more beneficial to the assessee. In this view of the matter, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to consider the Vikas Anand property as self occupied property as against flat at Maryland property. Ground No. 1 by the assessee is accordingly allowed.” 10. Considering the factual and the legal discussions as narrated above the

this ground of appeal is restored to the file of assessing officer to treat

the USA property as deemed let out and determine the ALV of the said

property. Needless to order that the assessing officer shall provide

opportunity of hearing to the assessee before passing the order in

accordance with law.

are allowed for statistical purpose. Consequently, the Ground No. 1(a)

&1(b) in revenue’s appeal are dismissed. 11

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy 12. Ground No.4 in the assessee’s appeal is consequential, therefore need

no specific adjudication. 13. In the result the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 14. Ground No. 2(a) and 2(b) in revenue’s appeal relates to allowing long

term capital loss on sale of property holding that the asset was hold for

more than 36 months. 15. The ld. DR for the revenue submits that the assessee held the asset for

less than 36 month. The assessee acquired the property only on

07.11.2007, when the developer executed agreement in favour of the

assessee. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) erred in relying upon the

letter/confirmation dated 19 March 2007 and ignored the buyers agreement dated 7th November 2007. The assessee acquired right with

regard to the property only from the date of execution of buyers agreement on 7th November 2007 till 31st May 2010, when the property

was sold by the assessee to third person. The holding period of the

property/asset was less than 36 months; therefore the assessing officer

rightly taxed the gain on sale of property and short-term capital gain.

The ld. DR prayed for reversing the order of Commissioner (Appeals)

and to restore the order of assessing officer.

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy 16. On the other hand the ld.AR of the assessee submits that assessee during the year assigned his right in a Garden Villa Apartment at a project called Palm Springs in Gurgoan to ‘Adnis Buildcon Private Limited’ for reconsideration of Rs. 5.70 Crore. The agreement made between the assessee and Adnis Buildcon Private Limited is dated 28th of May 2010. The builder has given the confirmation dated 10 September 2010, copy of which was given to the assessing officer and is also filed on record at page No100 of the paper book. The assessee has also filed the ledger and bank statement evidencing the receipt of the sale consideration. The assessee acquired the rights in the said property on 19th March 2007 from Mrs Kajal Aijaz. Agreement between the seller and assessee was executed on 12th February 2007, copy of which is placed on record at page No. 67 to 70 paper book. The assessee also filed the copy of confirmation of the builder about the transfer right confirmation dated 19th March 2007. The receipt of payment to the seller in transfer deed to the buyer is also placed on record. 17. The assessee suffered at long-term capital loss of Rs. 1,28,94,076/- after indexation on the said assignment. The computation of long-term capital loss is also filed at page No.112 of paper book. The ld. AR further submits that all agreements were unregistered; however, the final sale

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy deed was to be registered as per the agreement. The assessing officer erroneously observed that on 12th February 2007, the seller had merely given her booking to the assessee and had neither transferred the property nor the title of the property to the assessee. The assessing officer held that apartment buyer’s agreement dated 7th November 2007 was the document by virtue of which the assessee’s name came on record on the all documents. The assessing officer held that the agreement of whatever nature receipt would be of no consequences and no right could be acquired by buyer in an apartment without entering into buyer’s agreement. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) correctly appreciated the fact of the case after considering the confirmation of the builder dated 19th March 2007 that the said property had been transferred in the name of assessee and therefore the period of holding started from 19th March 2007 and hence there was a long-term gain (loss). The ld. AR further submits that as per agreement dated 12th February 2007 the transfer charges was paid to the builder on 3rd March 2007, copy of which is filed at page No. 46 of the paper book, consideration was paid on 5th March 2007 and the letter confirming the caption property was transferred in the name of assessee is 19th March 2007. Therefore, the date of creation of the right is 19th March 2007 in accordance with the

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy provision of section 2(14) of the Act. The property itself was specific,

the right of the seller had seized upon the payment of the entire

consideration, the transfer charges and confirmation of the builder.

Therefore, the date of transfer is to be the date on which the builder has

received the transfer fee for transferring property to the assessee. Section

2(47) states that the transfer of capital asset is ‘the sale, exchange or

relinquishment of the capital asset of the extinguishment of any right there in’. It is therefore clear that on 19th March 2007 there had been a

‘transfer’ of capital asset as per the provision of Income tax Act. The

definition of short-term capital asset as per section 2(42A), the

legislature has used the expression ‘held’. It may be further noted that in

various other allied or similar section, the legislature has preferred to use

the expression ‘acquired’ or ‘purchased’ e.g. in section 54/54F. Thus,

the legislature was conscious of the fact while making use of this

expression. The expression like ‘owned’ has not been used for the

purpose of determining the nature of asset as short-term capital asset or

long-term capital asset. The intention of legislature is clear that for the

purpose of determining the nature of capital gain, the legislature was

concerned with the period during which asset was held by the assessee

for all practical purposes on de facto basis. The legislature was

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy apparently not concerned with the absolute legal right ownership of the

asset for determining of the holding period.

decision of Tribunal in Anita D. Kanjani Versus ACIT [2017] 163 ITD

451 (Mumbai Tri), CIT Vs A Suresh Rao [2014] 223 Taxman 228

(Karn) and in Vinod Kumar Jain Vs CIT (344 ITR 501) (P&H). The

learned AR of the assessee prayed for confirming the order of

Commissioner (Appeals). 19. We have considered the rival submission of the parties and have gone

through the orders of authorities below and the material placed before

us. During the assessment the assessing officer noted that the assessee

has sold immovable property for a total consideration of Rs. 5.70 Crore.

On the sale of said property the assessee declared long-term capital loss

of Rs. 1,28,94,076/-. The assessee was asked to furnish the detail along

with the documents of purchased and sold. The assessee furnished the

complete details along with the documentary evidences. The assessee along with its reply dated 12th October 2012 furnished copy of the

document related to purchase and sale of the said property. The assessee

contended that assessee Mrs Kajal Aijaz booked the property at Garden

villa From the Builder M/s Emmar MGF Land Private Limited,

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy thereafter Mrs Kajal Aijaz sold her booking to the assessee. The assessee furnished agreement of sale dated 12th February 2017. The assessee also furnished the payment receipt of Rs. 2.07 Crore, which is a scanned by assessing officer at page 14 of the assessment order. The assessee also furnished copy of buyer’s agreement dated 7th November 2007. The assessing officer to took the view that Mrs Kajal Aijaz transferred her booking right to the assessee. The contention of the assessee that acquired / purchased property on 12 February 2007 was not accepted by assessing officer. The assessing officer concluded that the title of the property was changed only by way of buyer’s agreement on 7th November 2011. Any other agreement whatsoever nature and receipt of money would be of no consequences and no right could be acquired by the assessee in the apartment, without entering in the apartment buyer’s agreement. The assessee has sold his right on 31st May 2010; therefore, the assessee transferred the apartment before the period of 36 months from the date of purchase which was considered by assessing officer as 7th November 2007. On the basis of his conclusion the assessing officer denied the long-term capital gain (loss) and treated the same as short- term capital gain and worked out the gain at Rs. 80.00 lakhs. The ld. Commissioner (Appeals) after considering the submission of the

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy assessee and the assessment record observed that the assessee purchased

right from Mrs Kajal Aijaz. The assessing officer disputed it assessee

has purchased the right from Mrs Kajal Aijaz but had still not received

that for right in the property. The proper right in the property was

received by assessee only when builder head given its approval by

signing the bias agreement dated 7 November 2007. The learned

Commissioner (Appeals) further noted that the assessee, during the

appellate proceeding, filed confirmation letter dated 19 March 2007,

wherein the builder had confirmed the transaction that the captioned

property has been transferred in the name of the assessee on 19.03.2007.

From this letter it’s also clear that effectively the assessee received the right in the property on 19th March 2007. Therefore, the period of

holding of the said property started from 19 March 2007 to September

2010 which is more than 36 months. Hence, the right in the property

held by the assessee’s long-term so the capital gain arrives is also long-

term capital gain and directed the assessing officer to work out the gain

as long-term capital gain. The assessing officer was also directed to

verify the claim of expenses of Rs. 9,56,250/- and the additional cost

incurred by assessee for Rs. 1 3,21,704/-. We have noted that the

assessing officer while scanning the receipt of payment made to Mrs

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy Kajal Aijaz, has not appreciated that the assessee has paid Rs. 15.00

lacks through Cheque on 09.02.2007, Rs.49,36,482/-, Rs.9,56,250/- and

Rs. 1,33,79,438/- by way of pay order on 03.03.2007. Therefore, the

assessee has paid total of Rs.2,07,72,170/- to Mrs Kajal Aijaz. Apart

from the payment made to Mrs Kajal Aijaz the assessee paid substantial

payment to Builder, which is not disputed by assessing officer.

in order to determine the nature of asset income of section 2(42A),

holding period is to be computed from date of issue of allotment letter

and not from the date when agreement to sell was registered. The

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in case of CIT Vs A. Suresh Rao (supra)

held that it is not necessary; the assessee should be the owner of the

asset, with a registered deed of conveyance confirming the title on him.

In the light of expanded definition is contained in section 2(47) even

when a sale, exchange, or relinquishment or extinguishment of any right,

under a transaction the assessee is put in possession of an immovable

property or retained the same in part performance of contract under

section 53A of Transfer of Property Act, it amounts to transfer. No

registered deed of sale is required to constitute a transfer. Further,

Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT Vs K Ramakrishanan 48 taxmann.com

ITA No. 3204 & 3316/M/2016 Deepak Shashi Bhusan Roy 55 (Delhi) held that in order to determine taxability of capital gain

arising from the sale of property, it is the date of allotment of property

which is relevant for the purpose of computing holding period and not

the date of registration of conveyance deed.

illegality and infirmity in the order passed the ld Commissioner

(Appeals), which we affirms. No contrary facts or law in brought to our

notice to take contrary view. In the result these grounds of appeal raised

by revenue are dismissed.

Sd/- Sd/- ( SHAMIM YAHAHA) ( PAWAN SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Date: 30.07.2018 SK Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. Assessee 2. Respondent 3. The concerned CIT(A) 4.The concerned CIT 5. DR “A” Bench, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard File BY ORDER, Dy./Asst. Registrar ITAT, Mumbai