Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Sai Baba Sales Pvt. Ltd., Pune

ITA 1854/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0229 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Additional evidence; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 2(22)(e); 48

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 DCIT, CIRCLE-10, PUNE . / APPELLANT V/S SAI BABA SALES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.54, TAPKIR NAGAR, KALEWADI, PIMPRI, PUNE 411 018 PAN : AAJCS4471P . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16-07-2014 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY DERIVING INCOME FROM RENTAL INCOME AND INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES, I.E., INTEREST INCOME AS IN THE PAST. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS STARTED BUSINES S OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS NOT COMPLETED DURING THIS FINA NCIAL YEAR. IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27-09-2008 DECLARING TOTAL / DATE OF HEARING : 28.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.12.2016 2 ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 INCOME OF RS.11,84,440/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE DEPRECIATION S CHEDULE AND NOTICED THAT THE LAND AT RAHATANE WAS SOLD FOR RS.58 LAKHS TO M/S. DIVYA PROPERTIES ON WHICH PROFIT OF RS.45,75,000/- WAS EARNED. ANOTHER LAND AT JAGTAP DAIRY AT WAKAD WAS SOLD FOR RS.40 LAKHS AND PROFIT OF RS.30 LAKHS WAS EARNED. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFOR E, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PROFIT EARNED HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO LEGAL DISPUTES, POSSESSION OF THE SA ME WAS NOT GIVEN AND THEREFORE PROFIT WAS NOT SHOWN IN RESPECT OF SA LE OF THE ABOVE LAND. 3. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABO VE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BLOCK OF ASSETS AND THEREFORE THE SAME WA S STOCK IN TRADE AND ACCORDINGLY PROFIT ON THE SAME WAS REQUIRED T O BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. WITHOUT PRE JUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE LAND WAS SOLD WITHIN 3 YEARS, THEREFORE, EVEN IF IT IS ASSESSE D UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME WILL BE AT NO RMAL RATE OF TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.45,75,000/- IN RESPECT OF THE LAND AT RAHATANE AND RS.3 0 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND AT WAKAD. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.75,75,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF THE LAND. 4. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND AT RAHATANE WAS HELD BY SHRI KRIPAL GHANSHAM GEHANI, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND THE SAME WAS NOT HELD BY 3 ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED TH AT THE ERROR HAS CREPT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON ACC OUNT OF ERROR OF THE ACCOUNTANT. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFICATION OF TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME FORWARD WITH THE FACT THAT THE SAID PROPERTY BELONG TO SHRI KRIPA L G. GEHANI ANY TIME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D THE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS SALE DEEDS AND COPY OF DEVELOPMENT A GREEMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION ON THIS GROUND AND THEREFORE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE TRUE AND HENCE SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF. 5. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFRONTED THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPO RT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS MISCONSTRUED THE PURPOSE OF FORWARDING THE COPY OF ITS SU BMISSION FOR HIS COMMENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES ARE NOT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SINCE THE COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WERE ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BUT THIS ARGUMENT WAS NEVER TAKEN BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM WHICH HE WAS SUPPO SED TO DO. 6. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COUNTER C OMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO SUCH REMAND REPORT THE LD.CIT(A) DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AT RAH ATANE FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND HELD THAT SUCH 4 ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 INCOME SHOULD BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI IN WHOSE NAME THE LAND WAS PURCHASED AND SOLD. H E ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148 R.W.S. 150 OF THE I.T. ACT AND TAX THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) AT PARA 12 OF THE ORDER READS AS UNDER : 12. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS NOT UNDERSTOOD THE REAL PURPOSE OF ASKING FOR HIS COMMENTS ON THE ISSUE, AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT. THE MAIN PURPOSE OF WRITING A LETTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO EXAMINE THE APPELLANTS PLEA THAT THE PROFIT I N RESPECT OF LAND AT RAHATANI ACTUALLY BELONGS TO SHRI KRIPAL GHANSHAM GEH ANI, WAS CORRECT OR NOT? WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND HE HAS MERELY HARPED ON THE FACT THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WER E EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. IT IS TRUE THAT THIS CLAIM WAS NOT MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT BY THE APPELLANT AND APPELL ANT MERELY TOOK THE STAND THAT SINCE THE POSSESSION WAS NOT GIVEN, THE SAME WAS NOT TAXABLE. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE INCOME OF THE SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KRIPAL GHANSHAM GEHANI, ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY IN WHOSE NAME THE LAND WAS PU RCHASED. THIS BEING SO, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THIS CLAIM WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. ANY WAY AFTER GOING T HROUGH THE RECORDS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED AND SOLD BY SHRI KRIPAL GHANSHAM GEHANI, THE DIRECTOR IN HIS INDIVIDUA L CAPACITY AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE BLOCK OF ASSETS WILL NOT CHANGE THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF INCOME , AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MILS, THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE SOLE CR ITERIA FOR DETERMINING THE INCOME. THIS BEING SO, IT IS HELD THA T PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND AT RAHATANI IS TAXABLE IN THE CASE OF SHRI KRIPA L GHANSHAM GEHANI IN WHOSE NAME THE LAND WAS PURCHASED AND SOLD. SINCE SH RI KRIPAL GEHANI HAS PURCHASED THE LAND FOR DEVELOPMENT, THE SAM E WAS BUSINESS ASSET AND IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOM E. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ISSUE N OTICE U/S.148 R.WS. 150 OF INCOME-TAX ACT AND TAX THE SAME IN THE H ANDS OF SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI. AS REGARDS SALE OF WAKAD LAND IS CONCERNED, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE LA ND IN QUESTION WAS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT COMPAN Y IN THE BLOCK OF ASSETS WHICH WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE PROFIT ON THE SAME WAS REQUIRED TO BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS BUSINESS INCOME. SINCE, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DONE SO, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOM E AND MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.30 LACS. ACCORDINGLY, ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDING RS.30 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT IN RESPECT O F WAKAD LAND IS UPHELD, WHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ASSESS PR OFIT ON SALE OF LAND AT RAHATANI AS BUSINESS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF S HRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 5 ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FOR SALE OF LAND AND ASSESS THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF DIRECTOR, WHICH IS NOT ONLY SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY, BUT FUND FOR INVESTMENT IS ALSO FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TAX THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH TH E LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR YET THE SAME WAS NOT ONLY SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BUT ALSO THE FUND HAS BEEN UTILIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E DECISION QUOTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. REPORTED IN 82 ITR 363 (SUPRA) IS MISPLACED SINCE T HE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID LAND IS OUT OF THE FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND NOT OF THE DIRECTOR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS DECISIONS HAS HELD T HAT THOUGH THE VEHICLE IS IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR YET THE FUND IS OUT OF THE FIRM AND HENCE DEPRECIATION IS ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. THEREFORE, THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF LAND AT RAHATANE REQ UIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND NOT IN TH E HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR. THE SAME IS ONLY CRITERIA TO DECIDE THE OW NERSHIP OF THE LAND AND MOREOVER THE LAND IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET. 8.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VARANASI AUTO SALES PVT. LTD. REPOR TED IN 190 TAXMANN 60 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT(A) TO ISSUE 6 ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 NOTICE U/S.148 R.W.S. 150 TO TAX THE PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HE ACCORD INGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE DIRECTOR SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI HAS FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 19-1-2012 BY DECLARING THE PROFIT ON SALE OF THE LAND AT RAHATANE. HE SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE THE DIRECTIO N GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT TO TA X THE PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT YET ISSUED ANY NOTICE U/S.148 TILL DATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SHRI KRIPAL G.GEHANI, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND T HE LAND WAS SOLD BY SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI, THEREFORE, THE PROFIT, IF A NY, HAS TO BE TAXED IN HIS HANDS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE CO MPANY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY DUE TO SOME CLERICAL ERROR. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW, THE REFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED T HE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD SOLD THE LAND AT RAHATANE FOR RS.58 LAKHS TO M/S. DIVYA PROPERTIES VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 02-02-2008 O N WHICH PROFIT OF RS.45,75,000/- WAS EARNED. ANOTHER LAND AT JAGTAP DAIRY AT WAKAD WAS ALSO SOLD FOR RS.40 LAKHS AND PROFIT OF RS.30 LAKHS 7 ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 WAS EARNED. HOWEVER, THE PROFIT ON SUCH LAND WAS NOT SHO WN IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ASKE D THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE T AXED. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO CERTAIN LITIGATION T HE POSSESSION WAS NOT GIVEN AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT WAS NO T SHOWN. WE FIND REJECTING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.75,75,000/- TO THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT LAND WAS SHO WN IN THE BLOCK OF ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THE SAME W AS STOCK IN TRADE AND THEREFORE PROFIT ON THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. IT WAS ALSO HIS STAND THAT SINCE THE LAND WAS SOLD WITHIN 3 YEARS, THEREFORE, IT H AS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE S AME WILL BE CHARGED UNDER THE NORMAL RATE OF TAX. HE ACCORDINGLY M ADE ADDITION OF RS.75,75,000/-. 11. WE FIND BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE TOOK A STAND IN RE SPECT OF THE LAND AT RAHATANE THAT THE SAME WAS PURCHASED IN T HE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHRI KRIPAL G. GEH ANI IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND THE SAME WAS ALSO SOLD BY HIM IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. DUE TO SOME MISTAKE BY THE ACCOUNTAN T, THE SAME WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND SOLD B Y HIM, THEREFORE, PROFIT, IF ANY, HAS TO BE TAXED IN HIS INDIVIDUAL HAN D. WE FIND IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. (SUPRA) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE PROFIT O N SALE OF THE LAND AT RAHATANE HAS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR 8 ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FILED THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED SHOWING PURCHASE OF THE LAND AT RAHATANE WHICH WAS IN THE NAME OF SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI. COPY OF THE SALE DEED SHOW ING SALE OF THE ABOVE LAND BY SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI TO M/S. DIVYA PROPERTIES WAS ALSO AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. N O DOUBT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE OBJECTION BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND HAS TO BE SHOWN IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HOW EVER, IT IS ALSO THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT TAX SHOULD BE COM PUTED IN THE CORRECT HANDS. WE FIND BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADV ANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT. ON THE BASIS OF SUC H DIRECTION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY LOSS OF REVENUE SINCE THE PR OFIT ULTIMATELY HAS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE DIRECTOR INSTEAD OF THE COMPANY. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ALSO EXPLO RE THE POSSIBILITY OF INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I .T. ACT IN SUCH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS PER LAW IN CASE THE COMPANY HAS ADVANCED ANY MONEY TO THE DIRECTOR FOR PU RCHASE OF LAND AT RAHATANE. WE FURTHER FIND DESPITE SUCH A DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.1 48 R.W.S. 150 OF THE I.T. ACT AND TO TAX THE PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF SHRI KRIPAL G. GEHANI THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN IMPLEMENTED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER, A STATEMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE AT THE BAR. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE INSTANT CA SE IN OUR OPINION IS FULLY JUSTIFIED WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE S AME. HOWEVER, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FULLY IMPLEMENT THE 9 ITA NO.1854/PUN/2014 ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND BRING THE GAIN ON SALE OF THE LA ND AT RAHATANE TO TAX BY FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. WE H OLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-12-2016. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 30 TH DECEMBER, 2016. ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // ' $ / TRUE C// // TRUE COPY // %& $ ) / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ), / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) - V , PUNE 4. CIT-V, PUNE 5. ' $$) , ) , A BENCH / DR, ITAT, A BENCH PUNE; 6. 1 / GUARD FILE.