"THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “A” BENCH Before Dr. BRR Kumar, Vice President And Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, Miral Bunglows, Dhwani Tenament, Isanpur, Ahmedabad PAN: ABYPP8084C (Appellant) Vs The Dy. CIT, Circle-3(2) Ahmedabad (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Biren Shah, A.R. Revenue by: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 18-07-2025 Date of pronouncement : 29-07-2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member: This Miscellaneous Application is filed by the assessee in respect of order dated 03-06-2025 passed by the Tribunal. 2. The ld. A.R. submitted that Ld. A.R. during the hearing of the appeal argued that there were total 12 Co-Owners including assessee who had purchased a plot in the Lalkar Co-op Housing Society in 1992-93, (Names of the Co-Owners are mentioned in the copy of banakhat at page 20 of the paper book.) The AR further submitted that all the co-owners along with the assessee have received consideration in FY 2015-16 for relinquishing their M.A. No. 55/Ahd/2025 (in ITA No. 681/Ahd/2024) Assessment Year 2016-17 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 55/Ahd/2025 Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, A.Y. 2016-17 2 rights in the said property and such income had been offered by all the co-owners under the head capital gains which has been duly accepted by the revenue authorities in all the cases of the co-owners. To substantiate the same the assessee has filed the ITR Acknowledgements and Computation of Income of 9 co- owners and order u/s 143(1) of 2 co-owners, which are at paper book page no. 63-123. Further, the AR of the Assessee also stated that the Lalkar Co-op Housing Society has itself disclosed the amount received from the sale of such land under the head of Capital Gains and reduced that amount by Rs 4,45,00,000 as it had been paid to the assessee and the other co-owners. The revenue has not disputed the cost claimed by the society. The ld. A.R. submitted that in fact revenue has accepted the income offered by the society under the head of capital gain. To substantiate the same, copy of the ITR Acknowledgement and Computation of Income of society are filed at page 60-62 of the paper book. The assessee has also submitted the Bank Statements of the Society showing payments made to the assessee and other co-owners at page 59 of the paper book. Thereafter, it was argued that when the income offered by all other co-owners are accepted under the head of capital gain, then revenue is not permitted to take different view in the case of assessee (one of the co-owner) and thereby treat the assessee (co-owner) differently by charging more tax liability as compared to other co-owners. The ld. A.R further submitted that inadvertently the Tribunal has not considered the argument of the assessee/Ld. A.R. therefore, there is a mistake apparent from record. 2. The ld. D.R. relied upon the finding of para 7 of the order dated 03-06-2025 passed by the Tribunal. Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 55/Ahd/2025 Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, A.Y. 2016-17 3 3. We have hard both the parties and perused all the material available on record. The contention of the ld. A.R. that page 25 of the paper book categorically mentioned the payment schedule and the assessee has given up the ownership as per the banakhat has been considered by the Tribunal in para 7: “The argument that the assessee though not having registered sale deed but have symbolic possession over the property and therefore this is a long term gain, gets defeated as the subsequent events categorically mentions that the society did not provide the required document for getting clear title report at the time and they were not in position to return money (submissions of assessee dated 10.12.2018 reproduced at page 3 of assessment order). So this cannot be said as long term capital gain but as income from other sources as treated by the Assessing Officer.” This is a clear finding in consonance with the banakhat itself. Therefore, at this juncture, the assessee is seeking review of the order dated 03-06-2025 which cannot be entertained at the miscellaneous application stage as there is no mistake apparent on record. Thus, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. 4. In the result, the miscellaneous application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29-07-2025 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. BRR Kumar) (Suchitra Kamble) Vice President Judicial Member Ahmedabad : Dated 29/07/2025 Printed from counselvise.com M.A. No. 55/Ahd/2025 Hiren Rameshbhai Patel, A.Y. 2016-17 4 आदेश क\u0006 \u0007\bत ल प अ\u000fे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपील\u0012य अ\u0013धकरण, अहमदाबाद Printed from counselvise.com "