Mrs. Lalitha Rathnam, Parwanoo V. ITO, Parwanoo

ITA 1308/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63889 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: HARRY RICKY
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, VP AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, AM ITA NO. 1308/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 MRS. LALITHA RATHNAM V I.T.O. PARWANOO (HP) MIG 59/60 SECTOR 1 PARWANOO AGBPR 2927 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI HARRY RICKY DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI DATE OF HEARING: 23.08.201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.08.2012 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD, A.M IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GRO UNDS OUT OF WHICH GROUND NO. 5 WAS NOT PRESSED AND THE SAME IS DISMIS SED AS NOT PRESSED. OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1 THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS DEFEC TIVE BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN U PHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,30,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED TH IS AMOUNT AS PART OF A FAMILY SETTLEMENT WHICH IS NOT TAXABLE. THIS ADDIT ION IS UNCALLED FOR AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN U PHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF NOT ALLOWING T HE BENEFIT OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AND CONSTRUCTION AS THE APPELL ANT HAD DULY SUBMITTED THE VALUATION REPORT OF A GOVERNMENT APPROVED REGIS TERED VALUER IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY STRONG BASIS AND SHE IS NOT A TECHNICAL PERSON. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHIMLA IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN U PHOLDING THE ORDE5R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF PERIOD OF H OLDING AND TREATING THE TRANSACTION AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE SAID TRANSACTION IS A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS PER SECTIONS 2(42A), 47, 48, 49, 55 AND THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE PERIO D OF HOLDING WAS MUCH MORE THAN THREE YEARS. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS OF GENERAL NATURE AND DOES NOT R EQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 2 3. GROUNDS NO. 2, 3 & 4 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEES GRAND FATHER HAD ACQUIRED PROPERTY IN FINANCIAL YEA R 1977-78. THIS PROPERTY CAME TO ASSESSEES FATHER BY WAY OF PARTITION BETWE EN HIS FATHER AND BROTHER VIDE PARTITION DEED DATED 8 TH DEC 1983 WHICH WAS DULY REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 2385 OF 1983-84 AT PAGE 58 TO 68 INVOLVING 2890 OF BOOK NO. 1 IN THE OFFICE OF SENIOR SUB REGISTRAR, CENTRAL RECORDS, SHIVAJINA GAR, BANGALORE. ASSESSEES FATHER GIFTED THIS PROPERTY TO HIS SON AND DAUGHTER IN THE RATIO OF 60% AND 40% ON 2.12.2006. SINCE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO SHARE T HE PROPERTY TO 60:40, THEREFORE, FAMILY ARRANGEMENT WAS ENTERED ON 14.2.2 007 BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE RELEASED HER SHARE IN FAVOUR OF HER BROTHER BY REC EIVING LUMP SUM PAYMENT OF RS. 30 LAKHS. THE RECEIPT OF THIS SUM WAS DECLARED EXEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE SAME WAS ON ACCOUNT OF FAMILY SETTLEME NT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS AS FAMILY SETTLEMENT BECAUSE FR OM THE AFFIDAVIT OF KUMAR JAHGIRDAR, BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IT TRANSPIRED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 30 LAKHS AS GIFT AS CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIDERATION FOR RELEASE OF 40% OF SHA RE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHEREIN NO. 36 (OLD NO. 8/4), OSBORNE ROAD, BANGALO RE 560 042 BEING A THREE STORYED HOUSE AND THE LAND APPURTENANT THERET O MEASURING 2500 SQFT (FOR SHORT SAID PROPERTY). THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSE RVED THAT SURRENDER OF RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IN LIEU OF MONETARY CONSIDERATION AMOU NT RECEIVED FROM SUCH TRANSACTION EVEN IF THE TRANSACTION COULD BE TERMED AS GIFT AND THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS TRANSFER OF THE RIGHT FOR THE PROPERT Y WHICH WILL BE SUBJECT TO CAPITAL GAIN TAX. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FU RNISH THE COST OF ACQUISITION . THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 2 2.12.2009 SHOWING THE VALUATION OF REPORT AS ON 1.4.1981 AND FURTHER AMOU NTS WERE CLAIMED TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE ORIGINALLY IT WAS A SINGLE STO RY HOUSE AND FURTHER CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE IN THE YEAR 1987. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE VALUATION REPORT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFO RMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING THE YE AR OF CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS NOT ACCEPTED. ULTIMATELY T HE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS 3 TREATED AT RS. 150,000/- IN 1983. HE FURTHER OBSER VED THAT SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED ON 2.12.2006 AND WAS S OLD ON 19.2.200 7, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS TO BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND C OST OF ACQUISITION WAS TREATED AT ONLY RS. 1,50,000/- AND CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED AS UNDER:- COST OF ACQUISITION IN 1983 OF HER FATHER RS. 150, 000/- INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION IN 2006 RS. 150,000/51 9*519=150,000/- 40% SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE RS. 70,000/- SALE CONSIDERATION RS. 30,00,000/- CAPITAL GAINS RS. 30,00,000 RS. 70,000 = RS. 29,30,000 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 49(1) OF THE ACT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TOBE CONSIDERED AS ON 1.4.1991 AS AGAINST COST OF ACQUIS ITION AND THEREAFTER INDEXATION IS REQUIRED TO BE APPLIED. FURTHER SINC E THE PROPERTY ACQUIRED BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A SINGLE STOREY BUI LDING AND THEREFORE, IMPROVEMENT COST INCURRED IN THE FORM OF FURTHER CO NSTRUCTION AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AGREED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITI ON HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE COST OF ACQUISITION. HOWE VER, HE MAINTAINED THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WHICH COULD BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (1) THE ASSESSEE GOT 40% OF THE SAID PROPERTY FROM HER FATHER THROUGH GIFT DEED DATED 2.12.2006. HE REFERRED TO THE GIFT DEED AND POINTED OUT WHAT WAS GIVEN BY HER FATHER IS IN A PARTICULAR SHARE OF THE PROPERTY I.E. 40% SHARE IN THE OVERALL PROPERTY. THUS THIS PROPERTY COULD NOT HAV E BEEN DIVIDED TO RECEIVE SHARE BECAUSE HER YOUNGER BROTHER HAD RECEIVED 60% OF THE SHARE OF THE SAID PROPERTY, THROUGH SAME GIFT DEED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD RELEASED HER SHARE IN FAVOUR OF HER BROTHER THROUGH DEED DATED 14.2.2007 WHICH SHOULD BE 4 CONSTRUED AS FAMILY SETTLEMENT AND CANNOT BE CALLED A TRANSFER AND THEREFORE, MONEY RECEIVED IN THE FAMILY SETTLEMENT HAS TO BE T REATED AS EXEMPT. (2) IN THE ALTERNATIVE HE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THIS PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED BY THE GRANDFATHER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1977 AND THEREFORE, THE COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PER COS T IN THE HANDS OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 49 WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY PROVIDED THAT WHEREVER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN RECEIV ED THROUGH GIFT, THE COST HAS TO BE TAKEN AS COST OF ACQUISITION TO THE PREV IOUS OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THE EXPLANATION MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE PREVIOUS OW NER WOULD MEAN LAST OWNER OF THE PROPERTY. IN THIS REGARD HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF DCIT V. MANJULA J SHAH, 126 TTJ (MUM) (SB) 145. SINCE THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED IN 1977 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO ADOPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AND THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VALUED ON 1.4.1981 AT RS. 3,57,694/-. (3) THE ASSESSEES FATHER RECEIVED THIS PROPERTY BY WAY OF PARTITION DEED IN 1983 WHEN IT WAS ONLY A SINGLE STOREY HOUSE AND THE REAFTER MADE FURTHER CONSTRUCTION IN THE YEAR 1987 AND CONSTRUCTED TWO M ORE STOREYS WITH COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN FORM OF TWO STOREYS TO BE CONSIDERE D AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND INDEXATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON SUCH COST OF IM PROVEMENT BEFORE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. (4) HE ALSO CONTENDED THAT CAPITAL GAIN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS BEEN WRONGLY TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN S. IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO SECTION 2(42A) EXPLANATION (1) CLAUSE (B) WHICH CLEARLY PROVIDES THAT PERIOD OF HOLDING BY PREVIOUS OWNER HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE PRESENT OWNER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLEARLY GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEES BROTHER HAD GIVEN AN AFFIDAVIT THROUGH WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT HE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS. 30.00 LAKHS AS FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT FOR TH E SAID PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR CASE OF TRANSFER OF RIGHT TO PROPERTY AND NOT CASE OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT. 5 IN CASE OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAV E GOT ALTERNATIVE PROPERTY OR SOME OTHER RIGHT AND NOT SIMPLE CASH. IN RESPECT O F OTHER ISSUES HE STRONGLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD . CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AN D DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 2 I.E. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT FROM HER BROTHER. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE GOT 40% SHARE OF THE PROPERTY BY WAY OF GI FT FROM HER FATHER AND REMAINING 60% OF THE SHARE OF THE SAID PROPERTY HAS GONE TO HER BROTHER THOUGH THE PROPERTY WAS NOT DIVISIBLE AND THE ASSES SEE PREFERRED TO RELEASE TRANSFER HER RIGHT TO HER BROTHER IN VIEW OF THE CO NSIDERATION OF RS. 30.00 LAKHS. FIRST OF ALL EVEN THE CASE OF RELEASE / RELINQUISHE D OF RIGHT WOULD BE COVERED BY THE DEFINITION TRANSFER GIVEN IN SECTION 2(47)(1 WH ICH READS AS UNDER:- 2(47) - ['TRANSFER', IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASS ET, INCLUDES, ( I ) THE SALE, EXCHANGE OR RELINQUISHMENT OF THE ASSET ; OR ( II ) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN ; OR EVEN OTHERWISE IN CASE OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT WHEN VA RIOUS PROPERTIES ARE INVOLVED A MEMBER MAY GET LESSER SHARE OR SUCH SHAR E FOR CONSIDERATION OF RELEASE OF SHARE BUT IN CASE BEFORE US ONLY THE PRO PERTY INVOLVED WAS SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN RELEASE AND AGAINS T THE RECEIPT OF CASH AND THEREFORE, INSTRUMENT OF RELEASE CANNOT BE CALLED A FAMILY SETTLEMENT. 9 AS FAR AS OTHER ISSUES ARE CONCERNED WE FIND FOR CE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE. SECTION 49 IS CLE AR THAT COST OF ACQUISITION IN CASE OF PROPERTY RECEIVED UNDER GIFT HAS TO BE RECK ONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE COST OF PREVIOUS OWNER AND THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS B EEN DEFINED IN THE EXPLANATION TO SECTION 49 AS THE LAST OWNER. IN AN Y CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED THIS POSITION AND DIRECTED THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981 AND THE REV ENUE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THIS FINDING. SINCE THE PROPERTY HA S BEEN ACQUIRED BEFORE 1981 THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO ADOPT THE F AIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AVAILABLE REGARDING THE VALUATION AS ON 1.4.1981, THEREFORE, VALUATION CAN BE ADOPTED ON T HE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS REGARD SPECIAL BENCH IN CASE OF DCIT V. MANJULA J SHAH (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY DECIDED THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF INDEX COST OF PROPERTY. THE HEAD NOTE READS AS UNDER:- CAPITAL GAINS COST OF ACQUISITION - INDEXED COS T OF PROPERTY RECEIVED THROUGH GIFT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING 6 FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH HAD BECO ME PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER GIFT, THE FIRST YEAR IN WHICH THE CA PITAL ASSET WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DETERMINED TO WORK OUT THE I NDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ENVISAGED IN EXPLN (III) TO S. 48 A FTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE SAID CAPITAL ASSET WAS HEL D BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE INDEXED COS T OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH CAPITAL ASSET HAS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENC E TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER FIRST HELD THE ASSET LEG ISLATIVE INTENTION BEHIND ENACTING THE PROVISIONS IS VERY CLEAR TO TRE AT THE DATE AS WELL AS COST OF ACQUISITION OF CAPITAL ASSET OF THE PREVIO US OWNER TO BE THE DATE AND COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN IN TERMS OF S. 48 IF EXPLN (III) TO S. 48 IS INTERPRETED IN THE WAY SOUGHT BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE BY TA KING THE DATE ON WHICH THE CAPITAL ASSET RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UN DER A GIFT BECOMING HIS PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE IND EXED COST OF ACQUISITION , IT WILL CERTAINLY NOT BE IN CONSONAN CE WITH THE SCHEME OF THE ACT AND WILL ALSO DEFEAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF INTROD UCING THE CONCEPT OF INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION . THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLO W THE ASSESSEE TO ADOPT FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 AS COST OF ACQUISITION AND IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO GIVEN INDEXATION BENEFIT. 10 WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS THAT IF AS SESSEES FATHER HAS MADE FURTHER CONSTRUCTION THEN EVEN THE AMOUNT OF SUCH C ONSTRUCTION HAS TO BE TREATED AS COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND INDEXATION BENEF IT HAS TO BE ALLOWED ON SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT FROM HE YEAR OF IMPROVEMEN T. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO CONSIDER EVEN THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE FORM THE CONSTRUCTIO N OF TWO STOREYS IN THE YEAR 1987 BEFORE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. 11. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE TREATED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN VIEW OF DEFIN ITION OF SECTION 2(42)(A)(1)(B) WHICH READS AS UNDER:- [( 42A ) ['SHORT-TERM CAPITAL ASSET' MEANS A CAPITAL ASSET HELD BY AN ASSESSEE FOR NOT MORE THAN 5 [THIRTY-SIX] MONTHS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF ITS TRANSFER :] (1)----------------------- 9 [ EXPLANATION 1 ].( I ) IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS HELD BY THE ASSESSEE ( A ) IN THE CASE OF A SHARE HELD IN A COMPANY IN LIQU IDATION, THERE SHALL BE EXCLUDED THE PERIOD SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE COMPANY GOES INTO LIQUIDATION ; ( B ) IN THE CASE OF A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN 10 [SUB-SECTION (1)] OF SECTION 49 , THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER REFERRED TO IN THE SAID SECTION ; 7 [( C ) IN THE CASE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING A SHARE OR SHARES IN AN INDIAN COMPANY, WHICH BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONSIDERATION OF A TRANSFER REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE ( VII ) . ( B ) IN THE CASE OF A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH BECOMES THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN [SUB-SEC TION (1)] OF SECTION 49 , THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER REFERRED TO IN THE SAID SECTION ; THUS THIS EXPLANATION CLEARLY SHOW THAT PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS TO BE ADDED TO THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ONCE THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF THE PREVI OUS OWNER IS ADDED, PERIOD OF HOLDING BECOMES MORE THAN THREE YEARS THUS THIS ASS ET HAS TO BE TREATED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE CAPITAL GAIN AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND ASSESS THE SAME ACCORDINGLY . 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29.08.2012 SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (T.R. SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 .08.2012 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/ THE DR 8