Section 2(42A) – Holding period of an office premises commences from the date of letter of allotment since that is the point of time from which it can be said that assessee started holding the asset on a de facto basis.
FACTS
In the return of income for AY 2011-12, the assessee included in the total income long term capital gain arising on transfer of her office unit. The chronology of relevant events, with respect to the office unit sold during the previous year, were as under –
1 Date of allotment of office unit to the assessee 11.04.2005
2 Date of signing of the agreement to sell 28.12.2007
3 Date of registration with the Registrar 24.04.2008
4 Date of sale 11.03.2011
The Assessing Officer (AO) computed the holding period with reference to date of registration of the agreement and held that the office unit was held for a period of less than 36 months before the date of transfer and was therefore, a short term capital asset. He rejected the contention of the assessee that the holding period should be computed from the date of letter of allotment of office.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to CIT(A) who confirmed the action of the AO.
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal where relying on various decision it was contended that the period of holding should be computed from the date of allotment of the property as per section 2(42A). It was alternatively contended that in case holding period is to be computed from the transfer of the property, in that case, ‘date of execution’ of the sale agreement should be taken as date of transfer of the property because the document registered on a subsequent date operates from the ‘date of execution’ and not from the ‘date of registration’ in view of clear provisions of section 47 of the Registration Act, 1908. If holding period was computed from the date of execution of the agreement, then, the impugned property shall be ‘long term capital asset’ in the hands of the assessee.
HELD
The Tribunal observed that Karnataka High Court has in the case of CIT vs. A. Suresh Rao [2014] 223 Taxman 228 (Kar.) dealt with similar issue wherein the significance of the expression ‘held’ used by the legislature has been analysed and explained at length. From the said judgment it is clear that for the purpose of holding an asset, it is not necessary that the assessee should be the owner of the asset based upon a registration of conveyance conferring title on him.
It also noted that the ratio of the decisions of Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Madhu Kaul vs. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 54 (Punj. & Har.) and Vinod Kumar Jain vs. CIT [2014] 344 ITR 501 (Punj. & Har.) and of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. K. Ramakrishnan [2014] 363 ITR 59 (Delhi) and of Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. S. R. Jeyashankar [2015] 373 ITR 120 (Mad.).
The Tribunal, following various decisions of the High Courts, held that the holding period should be computed from the date of issue of allotment letter. Upon doing so, the property sold by the assessee would be long term capital asset and the gain on sale of the same would be taxable as long term capital gains.
This appeal filed by the assessee was allowed by the Tribunal.
