Ramesh Ramvilas Navandar, Pune V. ITO, Pune

ITA 1552/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80017 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Share purchase agreement

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1552/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) RAMESH RAMVILAS NAVANDAR (HUF), 1105, RAVIWAR PETH, PUNE 411002 PAN NO. AAAHN5624F .. APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-5(3), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KISHOR PHADKE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. WALIMBE DATE OF HEARING : 08-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-07-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 29-04-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005- 06. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFI RMING TAXING OF CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.6,27,750/- AS SHORT TERM AS AGAINST LONG TERM CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CO NSIDERING THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SHARES IN PHYSICAL FORM BY THE A PPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE PERIOD OF SHARES HELD BY T HE ASSESSEE. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND O R DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS AN HUF AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 12-10-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT 2 RS.7,53,310/-. IN THE SAID RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF SHARES OF FAST TRACK ENTERTAINMENT PVT . LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.6,27,650/- AGAINST THE TOTAL SALE VALUE OF RS.6, 40,600/-. THE AO, IN THE MEANTIME, RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE INVESTI GATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN IRREGULARITIES IN SALE OF SHARES OF SOME COMPANIES INCLUDING FAST TRACK ENTERTAINMENT PVT. L TD., THE SHARES OF WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY ISSUED A NOTICE U/S.148. 2.2 BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E KARTA OF THE HUF SHRI RAMESH RAMVILAS NAVANDAR APPEARED AND FILE D THE COPIES OF SHARE CERTIFICATE, COPY OF CONTRACT NOTE FROM BROKE RS, COPY OF DEMAT ACCOUNT ETC. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT 11000 SHARES OF FAST TRACK ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. WERE PURCHASED ON 16-04-200 3 FOR RS.12,950/- WHICH WERE SOLD ON 29-06-2004 AND 05-07-2004 RESPEC TIVELY FOR RS.6,40,600/-. THUS, THERE WAS LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN OF RS.6,27,650/- ON WHICH TAX @10% HAS BEEN PAID. THE AO RECORDED T HE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAMESH NAVANDAR AND ASKED HIM TO PRODUCE THE P ROOF OF GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE OF SHARES ON 16-04-2003 BY FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF ENVELOPE CONTAINING STAMP OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THROUGH WHICH THE SAID SHARES WERE RECEIVED BY HIM, RECORD OF THE COMPANIES IN WHICH ASSESSEES NAME APPEARED AS PURCHASED ON 16-0 4-2003 OR TO PRODUCE THE BROKER FROM WHOM HE HAS PURCHASED THE S AID SHARES. 2.3 THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO THE AO COULD NOT PROD UCE ANY OF THE DETAILS CALLED FOR NOR WAS HE WAS ABLE TO PRODUCE T HE CONCERNED BROKER. THE AO, THEREFORE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARES WERE INFACT 3 PURCHASED ON THE DATE OF ON WHICH THE SAID SHARES W ERE PUT IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT, I.E. 24-06-2004 AND THEREFORE THE GAINS ON SALE OF THEM WAS ASSESSED BY HIM AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE AO ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRAN SACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHARES WERE GENUINE AND THE ASSESSE E HAD CORRECTLY DISCLOSED THE INCOME UNDER LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 11000 SHARES OF FAST TRA CK ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. AGAINST THE CREDIT BALANCE TO HIS ACCOUNT WITH HIS BROKER M/S. VIJAY BHAGWANDAS & CO. VIDE BILL NO.GMAG//100123 DA TED 16-04- 2003. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTE R RECEIVED THE DELIVERY OF SHARES IN PHYSICAL FORM AND THESE SHARES ALONG W ITH SHARE CERTIFICATE WERE FORWARDED TO THE COMPANY FAST TRACK ENTERTAINM ENT PVT. LTD. FOR TRANSFERRING THE SHARES IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE . THIS FACT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE COMPANY VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 23-04-2003 AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. THE COMPANY THEREAFTER ISSUED JUMBO CERTIFICATE IN LIEU OF THE ASSESSEES HOLDING OF SHARES VIDE LETTER DATED 16-02-2004 WHICH WAS ALSO FURNISHED BE FORE THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES WERE DULY REFLECTED IN TH E BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31-03-2004, I.E. A.Y. 2004-05. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING THE SHARES SINC E 16-04-2003. HOWEVER, THE AO, WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON DOUBTED T HE HOLDING OF SHARES FROM THE DATE OF CONTRACT NOTE. IT WAS FURT HER ARGUED THAT ON RECEIPT OF PHYSICAL SHARES THE ASSESSEE GOT THE PHY SICAL SHARES DEMATERIALIZED TO HIS DEMAT ACCOUNT WITH UNITED WES TERN BANK BEARING 4 NO.10405863 AND THE DELIVERY IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SHARES WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THIS DEMAT ACCOUNT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ANOTHER BROKER MULTI I NVESTMENTS VIDE BILL NO.BC/064/04-05/00 DATED 28-06-2004 AND BC/069/04-0 5/002 DATED 05-07-2004 AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SALE OF SHARES WAS RECEIVED BY CROSSED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND DEPOSI TED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 3.1 AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE PU RCHASE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN WAS NOT GENUINE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE COPIE S OF CONTRACT NOTE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE FURNISH ED. THE BROKERS NOTE WAS FOLLOWED BY PHYSICAL DELIVERY OF SHARES AN D CONFIRMED BY THE COMPANY VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 23-04-2003. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE REQUEST OF THE AO TO SUBMIT THE COPY OF THE REGISTE R OF THE COMPANY SHOWING THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SHAREHOLDER WAS MISPLACED SINCE THE SAID EVIDENCE WAS IN THE NATURE OF INTERNAL REC ORD OF THE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO SUBMIT SUCH RECORD WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO HIM. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PUT BEFORE THE AO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHA SE AND SALE OF SHARES AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO NECESSITY ON THE PART OF THE AO TO DISBELIEVE THE SAME. THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.704 DATE D 28-04-1995, WHICH STATES THAT THE DATE OF CONTRACT NOTE TO BE T AKEN AS THE DATE OF ACQUISITION FOLLOWED BY ACTUAL DELIVERY, WAS ALSO B ROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING GENUINE SHOULD BE A CCEPTED. 5 4. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH TH E ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF T HE AO. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET R EFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF SMT.SMITA P. PATIL & OTHERS VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 159 TTJ (PUNE) 182 AND SUBMITTED THAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE TR IBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE OF SHARES OF FAST TRACK ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. REFERRING TO THE DEC ISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUSHILA SURESH CHAVAN VS. ITO VIDE ITA NO.1436/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 25-01-2014 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES OF DATABASE FINANCE LTD. HE SUBM ITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SMITA P. PATIL (SUPRA) THE BROKER CONCERNED WAS SHRI VIJAY BHAGWANDAS & CO. AND THE SCRIPS INVOLVED INCLUDED S CRIPS OF FAST TRACK ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. SIMILARLY, IN THAT C ASE THE DATE OF PURCHASE WAS 24-04-2003 AND THE DATE OF SALE WAS 02 -06-2004. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO, TH E SAME SHARES WERE PURCHASED THROUGH THE BROKER SHRI VIJAY BHAGWANDAS & CO. ON 15-04- 2004 AND WERE SOLD ON 28-06-2004. HE SUBMITTED THA T THE BILLS/CONTRACT NOTES FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES WERE AVAILABLE. THE I NVESTMENTS WERE SHOWN IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE STATEMENT OF THE BROKER WAS RECORDED AND THE BROKER HAS NOT A DMITTED ABOUT THE BOGUS TRANSACTIONS WITH THE PARTY. HE SUBMITTED TH AT IN THE CASE OF SMT. SMITA P. PATIL (SUPRA) THE BROKER HAD ADMITTED ABOU T THE BOGUS TRANSACTION WITH THE PARTY, STILL THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF 6 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE THE BROKER HAS NOT ADMITTED ANY BOGUS TRANSACTION WITH THE PARTY. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SHOU LD BE ALLOWED. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE DISPUTE IS ONLY REGARDING THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SHARES. ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE, THE PERIOD OF HOLDING HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE O F CONTRACT NOTE/BILL FOR PURCHASE WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THE DATE OF PURCHASE IS THE DATE IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT. THUS, THE LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY THE AO WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT.SMITA P. PATIL & OTHERS (SUPRA), UNDER IDENTICA L FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ARISING FROM PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF FAST TRACK ENTERTAINMENT PVT. LTD. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL AT PA RA 29 OF THE ORDER WHILE ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 29. AFTER EXAMINING FACTS AS WELL AS EVIDENCE ON RECO RD IN THE BACK DROP OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN ABOVE DECISIONS W E ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH A CLEAR CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEES THAT THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS, ON WHICH THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS HAVE BEEN DECLARED ARE SHAM A ND CAMOUFLAGE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE EVIDENCE WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE THREE BROKERS WHO HAVE ALLEGEDLY DENIED THE ISSUANCE OF THE CONTRACT NOTES IS ALSO GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEES ON TH E WELL SETTLED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES THAT NO EVIDENCE SHOULD BE USED AG AINST THE ASSESSEE 7 UNLESS THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EX AMINE THE DEPONENTS. MOREOVER, AS ADMITTEDLY ALL THE SALES ARE RO UTED THROUGH THE DEMAT ACCOUNT, CHARGE OF MANIPULATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TOTALLY BASELESS. ONCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE POINTING OUT SOME MINOR DISCREPANCIES AND WITHOUT AFF ORDING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE SAID BROKERS HAS NO WE IGHTAGE AS EVIDENCE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS. THE CHARGE OF SHARP RISE IN THE SHARE PRICES WITHOUT PROPER FINANCIAL FOOTING OF THE INVEST EE COMPANIES IS GENERAL CHARGE AND IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. WE ALSO HOLD THAT MERELY THERE IS A DELAY IN CONVERTING THE PHYSICAL SHARES INTO ELECTRONIC FORM I.E. THE DEMAT ACCOUNT, THAT CANNOT BE THE CRITERIA TO HOLD THAT THE SHARES TRANSACTIONS ARE ARRANGED AND CAMOUFLAG ED AS IN ALL THE CASES THE ASSESSEES HAVE RECORDED THEIR SHARE TRANSACTIONS IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. THERE W AS HEAVY BURDEN ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DESTROY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BUT EXCEPT GOING ON THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHY, NOTHING HAS BEEN MAD E OUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SALE OF SHARES IS NOT CORRECT. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THA T BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE SA LE PROCEEDS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEES ARE OUT OF SHAM AND BOGUS ARRANGED SHARE TRA NSACTIONS. WE ALSO HOLD THAT ALL CONTRACT NOTES ARE GENUINE. WE, TH EREFORE, ALLOW THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE LONG TERM AS WELL AS SHORT TERM CAPI TAL GAINS BY HOLDING THAT ALL THE PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE SHARES AR E THE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS. 7.1 WE FIND THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUSHILA SURESH CHAVAN (SUPRA) WHILE ALLOWING THE CL AIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A ) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSI DERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHA RES OF DATABASE FINANCE LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT THE WHOLE A RRANGEMENT OR SCHEME IS A MONEY LAUNDERING DEVICE TO CONVERT THE UN ACCOUNTED MONEY AND TO BRING THE SAME INTO THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOU NT IN THE GARB OF EXEMPTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES. WH ILE DOING SO, HE HAS CONSIDERED THE MODUS OPERANDI ADOPTED BY THE BROKERS AND UNSCRUPULOUS ASSESSEES. WE FIND THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF SURENDRA PEETY AND OTHERS (SUPRA) (WHERE BOTH OF US A RE PARTIES) HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCO UNT OF SALE OF SHARES OF VARIOUS COMPANIES INCLUDING THAT OF DATABASE FINANC E LTD. AFTER THOROUGHLY EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERING VARIOUS DECISIONS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES OF DATABASE FINANCE LTD. HAS BEEN UPHELD AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED. THE VARIOUS OTHER DECISI ONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SURENDRA PEETY AND OTHERS (SUPRA) AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE 8 RELEVANT DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE FALSE OR UNTRUE AND FURTHER CONSIDERING THE FAC T THAT THE BROKER HAS NOT TAKEN THE NAME OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY W E FIND NO REASON TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS CLA IMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES OF DATABASE FINANCE LTD. WE ACCORDINGLY SET- ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON ACCOUNT OF SALE O F SHARES OF DATABASE FINANCE LTD. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORD INGLY ALLOWED. 7.2 SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS PROD UCED THE CONTRACT NOTE, SHARE CERTIFICATES, DEMAT ACCOUNT, BANK STATE MENTS, ETC., AND THE BROKER HAS NEVER ADMITTED ABOUT THE BOGUS TRANSACTI ON WITH THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE INVESTMENTS WERE SHOWN IN THE FINANCI AL STATEMENTS OF THE PRECEDING YEAR AND SINCE THE PURCHASE HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO BE BOGUS, THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRECEDE NTS, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE CLAIM OF L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10-07-2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PAND A) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 10 TH JULY, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. THE CIT-III, PUNE 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE