Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The alternative argument of the assessee is that what the assessee is transferred was only the superstructure measuring 66.92 m² and accordingly, even if the subsequent cancellation deed were to be treated as a fresh sale/transfer deed by the daughter in favour of the assessee, even then the assessee is liable to pay short term capital gains only in respect of the sale of superstructure measuring 66.92 m² and the balance land should not be subject to tax as short-term capital gains. However, we observe that as per conveyance deed dated 10-10-1986, what has been conveyed by the Gujarat Housing Board to the assessee is flat number 304 with total area of 66.92 m². This is evident from page 3 of the aforesaid conveyance deed, where the details of the property and total area have been clearly mentioned (refer page 25 of the paper book filed by the assessee). It is observed that in the conveyance deed between the assessee and her daughter dated 16-03-2006, that exactly the same property in terms of dimensions has been transferred by the assessee to her daughter. Further, as per para 4, 5 and 6 of the above conveyance deed (refer pages 163-164 of the paper book filed by the Ashalata Kulshrestha vs. ITO assessee), all the rights the said property have been transferred by the assessee to her daughter (Para 4: property in this way in the midst of the above boundaries of tenement No. M/41/304 as per its original rights and limits along with all the rooms, kitchen, latrine, bathroom situated therein and along with electric fittings and electric service in working condition and whatever other rights of ours therein and along with our rights, authorities and liabilities as mentioned in the conveyance deed M number 13355 executed in our name on 05-08-1986 and along with all rights of common use of common plot left in the said Saraswatinagar housing colony.....). A perusal of the document indicates that they are an identical reproduction of schedule A of the conveyance deed dated to 05-08-1986 and reading of the provisions does not seem to indicate that only a specific part relating only to the superstructure was sought to be transferred by the assessee to her daughter by the deed dated 16-03-2006, while the remaining land was to be retained by the assessee. Here, it would be pertinent to also analyse the submissions filed by the assessee before Ld. CIT(A) (page 152 of the paper book) wherein the assessee has mentioned that "upon knowledge of this fact, your appellant has approached the Gujarat Housing Board to clarify the ownership of such open land area of 235.94 m² in favour of my daughter". Accordingly, the above submission of the assessee clearly indicates that by way of sale deed dated 16-03-2006, all rights in the property was sought to be transferred including that of the open land area and the sale deed was verbatim reproduction of the original conveyance deed dated 05-08-1986 in favour of the assessee. Another notable aspect is that it was only when the Gujarat Housing Board clarified that the correction in respect of open land area can be made in the name of the assessee only and Ashalata Kulshrestha vs. ITO not in the name of the daughter, that the said property was transferred back to the assessee for carrying out the necessary rectification in the property records. In view of the above, in our considered view, we find no infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A) when he has held that the entire transaction, looking into the instant set of facts, would qualify as short-term capital gains in the hands of assessee.