JUDGMENT judgment of court was delivered by R. Sudhakar J.-This tax case (appeal) filed by Revenue as against order of Income-tax Appellate Tribunal comes up for admission and Revenue has raised following substantial questions of law: "1. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, Income- tax Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that date of allotment letter issued by builder of flat is to be considered as date of acquisition of property under section 2(42A) of Income-tax Act? 2. Whether, on facts and in circumstances of case, for purpose of computing holding period of property date of allotment letter issued by builder of flat is to be considered or date of delivery of possession of flat is to be considered?" assessment in this case relates to assessment year 2009-10. assessee had purchased undivided share of land of 2,150 sq. ft. out of large extent of 4 grounds and 400 sq. ft. situated in S. Nos. 2766 and 67, RS No. 1570/4 at No. 1, Binny Road, Chennai. Prior to purchase of this undivided share in land, assessee had entered into agreement with M/s. Vishranthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. (in short "VHPL"), Chennai, for constructing built-up area of 3,465 sq. ft. including common area in abovesaid undivided share of land. agreement was for purchase of land as well as for construction of home by project promoted by VHPL. agreement was determined for consideration at Rs. 81,68,811 to be paid by assessee to builder VHPL towards construction of residential unit. Thereafter, assessee sold entire unit by sale deed dated April 10, 2008, well after 36 months from date of agreement dated February 22, 2005, and claimed difference between cost of acquisition and sale consideration as long-term capital gains. Assessing Officer, however, took view that undivided share of land was registered on August 4, 2005, and since property was purchased in month of August, 2005, and sold in April, 2008, capital gains arising from sale will be assessed as short-term capital gains only and, accordingly, Assessing Officer denied benefit of section 2(29A) of Income-tax Act and made addition. As against said order, assessee filed appeal before Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), who placing reliance on Circular No. 471, dated October 15, 1986, allowed appeal filed by assessee. Aggrieved by said order, Revenue has filed appeal before Income- tax Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal, after going through detailed order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and taking note of two decisions of Punjab and Haryana High Court, namely, Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT [2014] 363 ITR 54 (P&H) and Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT [2012] 344 ITR 501 (P&H) and also on basis of Circular No. 471, dated October 15, 1986, came to hold that date of allotment of flat has to be adopted as date of acquisition of immovable property when it comes to acquiring flat from promoter of flat by way of executing construction agreement and not date of sale deed for purchase of relevant undivided share in land. Accordingly, Tribunal confirmed order of Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dismissed appeal filed by Revenue. Aggrieved by said order of Tribunal, Revenue has filed present tax case (appeal). Heard Mr. M. Swaminathan, learned standing counsel appearing for Revenue and perused materials placed before this court. short issue that arises for consideration is whether asset which was sold by assessee would be subject to short-term capital gains in terms of section 2(42A) or long-term capital gains in terms of section 2(29A) of Income-tax Act. There is no dispute with regard to purchase of capital asset. In order to appreciate claim of assessee, Tribunal has considered following facts in paragraph 7 of order, which reads as follows: "7. We have heard rival submissions and carefully perused materials on record... On perusing case, following facts emerge vividly: (1) assessee has paid to builder M/s. Vishranthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. sum of Rs. 2,30,000, vide Cheque No. 580053, dated February 22, 2005, drawn on Vysya Bank Ltd., Chennai. (2) On same day, i.e., February 22, 2005, assessee entered into agreement with M/s. Vishranthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. wherein M/s. Vishranthi Homes Pvt. Ltd. had undertaken to construct flat of 3465.34 sq. ft. other relevant facts in agreement are listed herein below: (a) builder, M/s. Vishranthi Homes Pvt. Ltd., has allotted flat in first and second floor (Duplex) on rear side of building to be known as'Ganeshram' along with two reserved car parking. See [1986] 162 ITR (St.) 41. (b) builder had entered into agreement with owner of land for acquiring 40 per cent. of undivided share in land on which building'Ganeshram' was to be constructed well before February 22, 2005. (c) builder has nominated the'allottee' being assessee to purchase 2,150 sq. ft., of undivided share in land described in schedule A. (d) sale consideration for land was to be paid directly to landlord on purchase of 2,150 sq. ft. of undivided share in land while as construction cost of Rs. 81,68,811 has to be paid to builder. (e) Various rights and duties of allottee and builder were also mentioned in agreement." On basis of above admitted facts, Tribunal placed reliance on decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Mrs. Madhu Kaul v. CIT reported in [2014] 363 ITR 54 (P&H), where identical issue arose as to whether date of capital gains should be reckoned from date of allotment under scheme framed by DDA or it should be reckoned from date of actual sale, which is subsequent to date of allotment. Punjab and Haryana High Court relied upon circular, which was issued in relation to allotment of flats to allottees under self-financing scheme of DDA, came to hold that right has been conferred on allottee to hold flat which was later identified and possession delivered on later date. High Court also held that mere fact that possession was delivered later does not detract from fact that allottee was conferred right to hold property on issuance of allotment letter and payment of balance instalments, identification of particular flat and delivery of possession are consequential acts that relate back to and arise from rights conferred by allotment letter. In effect, High Court held that allottee gets title to property on issuance of allotment letter and payment in instalments is only consequential act upon which delivery of possession to property flows. Similar view has been taken in decision Vinod Kumar Jain v. CIT reported in [2012] 344 ITR 501 (P&H) by Punjab and Haryana High Court. Delhi High Court has also observed in decision, which has been extracted in order of Tribunal in paragraph 7.1 of order, holding that date of allotment of flat to assessee by promoter should be adopted as date of acquisition of immovable property. In present case, right to property flows from date of agreement with builder, viz., February 22, 2005. Over period of time payments have been made and transaction was concluded in accordance with terms of agreement by registering undivided share in land and handing over flat. Therefore, assessee had right consequent on agreement dated February 22, 2005, in respect of property sold by assessee on April 10, 2008. Therefore, it exceeds period of 36 months and assessee has rightly claimed benefit of long-term capital gains. Circular No. 471, dated October 15, 1986, is also on same lines. It speaks about right of allottee over property that has been allotted. other issues like payment of balance instalments, delivery of possession, which takes place after allotment only, relates back to original allotment, in present case, agreement. Therefore, principle on which long-term capital gains should be determined has been clearly indicated in circular. For better clarity, Circular No. 471, dated October 15, 1986 reads as follows (see [1986] 162 ITR (St.) 41): Circular No. 471, dated October 15, 1986. Capital gains tax-Whether investment in flat under SelfFinancing Scheme of Delhi Development Authority would be construction for purpose of sections 54 and 54F of Income-tax Act, 1961 Section 54 and section 54F of Income-tax Act, 1961, provide that capital gains arising on transfer of long-term capital asset shall not be charged to tax to extent specified therein, where amount of capital gain is invested in residential house. In case of purchase of house, benefit is available if investment is made within period of one year before or after date on which transfer took place and in case of construction of house, benefit is available if investment is made within three years from date of transfer. 2. Board had occasion to examine as to whether acquisition of flat by allottee under self-financing scheme of Delhi Development Authority amounts to purchase or its construction by Delhi Development Authority on behalf of allottee. Under self-financing scheme of Delhi Development Authority allotment letter is issued on payment of first instalment of cost of construction. allotment is final unless it is cancelled or allottee withdraws from Scheme. allotment is cancelled only under exceptional circumstances. allottee gets title to property on issuance of allotment letter and payment of instalments is only follow-up action and taking delivery of possession is only formality. If there is failure on part of Delhi Development Authority to deliver possession of flat after completing construction, remedy for allottee is to file suit for recovery of possession. 3. Board have been advised that under above circumstances, inference that can be drawn is that Delhi Development Authority takes up construction work on behalf of allottee and that transaction involved is not sale. Under Scheme, tentative cost of construction is already determined and Delhi Development Authority facilitates payment of cost of construction in instalments subject to conditions that allottee has to bear increase, if any, in cost of construction. Therefore, for purpose of capital gains tax, cost of new asset is tentative cost of construction and fact that amount was allowed to be paid in instalments does not affect legal position stated above. In view of these facts, it has been decided that cases of allotment of flats under self-financing scheme of Delhi Development Authority shall be treated as cases of construction for purpose of capital gains." In light of abovesaid decisions and Circular, we do not find any reason why same principle should not be applied to all transactions based on agreements in respect of capital asset. It has been correctly pointed out by Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) as well as Tribunal following decision of Punjab and Haryana High Court that breach of agreement would only give right to beneficiary for enforcing right over property. We find no reason to differ with said reasoning. Therefore, we find no question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, this tax case (appeal) stands dismissed. No costs. *** Commissioner of Income-tax v. S. R. Jeyashankar