The ACIT, Baroda Circle-2, Baroda V. Shri Jaivijay Singh K Chauhan, Baroda

ITA 2108/AHD/2002

• Counselvise Citation: 210820514 RSA 2002
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 16-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2002
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2108 / AHD/2002 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98) ACIT, BARODA CIRCLE, BARODA VS. SHRI JAIVIJAY SINGH K CHAUHAN, 38/C, SHOBHANAGAR, VASANA ROAD, BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : ABGPC6597B (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI B L YADAV, DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SANJAY R SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING: 16.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.03.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)- II BARODA DATED 26.03.2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.26, 80,492/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS.1,45,520/- TOWARDS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SA LE OF LAND. THE A.O. I.T.A.NO. 2108/AHD/2002 2 HAS NOTED THE COMPUTATION OF THIS INCOME SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS SALE PRICE OF RS.1,91,744/ - LESS PURCHASE COST RS.46,224/- AND NET SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1 ,45,520/-. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT A COPY OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 30 .04.1996 HAS BEEN FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE ALSO NOT ED THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS DRAWN UP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. DEEP DEVE LOPERS FOR DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF 510 SQ. MTRS. LAND BELONGIN G TO THE ASSESSEE AT FATEHGANJ, BARODA. THIS AGREEMENT FURTHER STATES T HAT 510 SQ. MTRS. LAND IN QUESTION IS THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXT ENT OF 22.96% OUT OF THE TOTAL PLOT OF LAND OF 2220.63 SQ. MTRS. THE AGREE MENT ALSO STATES THAT COST OF RS.34,44,800/- IS TO BE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE OF WHICH RS.8.50 LACS HAS BEEN PAID ON 18.04.1996. THEREAFTER, THE A.O. HAS NOTED THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE I S SHOWING IN THE LIABILITY SIDE AN AMOUNT OF RS.33 LACS RECEIVED BY M/S. DEEP DEVELOPERS. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED INCOME FROM SALE OF LAND AT RS.1,91,744/- ONLY. THE A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF SALE CONSIDE RATION OF RS.1,91,821/-, COPY OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE DEEDS OF LAND SOLD AN D TO STATE IN WHICH YEAR POSSESSION OF THE LAND HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO M/S. DEEP DEVELOPERS AND ALSO TO STATE IN WHICH YEAR THE CAPI TAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND TO M/S. DEEP DEVELOPERS WAS OFFERED TO TAX. THE AS SESSEE FILED REPLY DATED 17.01.2000. THE A.O. ALSO NOTED THAT AS PER THIS REPLY, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED HIS SHARE OF THE CONCERNED PLOT OF LAND A LONG WITH THREE OTHER CO-OWNERS AS PER DOCUMENT DATED 14.03.1995 FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF RS.5.29 LACS. AFTER INCLUDING OTHER EXPENSES SUCH A S STAMP DUTY ETC. AND THE TOTAL COST IN THE BOOKS HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.7, 64,308/- AS ON 01.04.1996. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE CO-OWNERS EN TERED INTO THE SO I.T.A.NO. 2108/AHD/2002 3 CALLED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH M/S DEEP DEVELOPE RS ON 30.04.1996. HE FURTHER NOTED THAT IN THE MEANTIME, M/S. DEEP DE VELOPERS HAVE BEGUN CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI STORY COMPLEX NAMELY MANGAL KIRTI ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. THE A.O. FURTHER NOTED THAT CONSTRUC TION ACTIVITY MUST HAVE STARTED LONG BEFORE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BECAU SE IT IS SEEN THAT REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENT OF SALE OF FLATS/SHOPS HAVE COMMENCED FROM 03.07.1996 ONWARDS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT FOUR DOCUME NTS OF SALE DATED 4.12.1996 SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE CONSTRUCT ION OF BASEMENT AND THE GROUND FLOOR ARE COMPLETED BY THAT DATE. THE A .O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PLOT OF LAND FOR RS.34, 44,800/- HAS ACCRUED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97 AND HE COMPUTED THE SAME AT RS.26,80,492/- AND TAXED THE SAME IN THE PRESENT YEAR AS SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF RS.1,45,520/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HE DELETE D THE SAME. NOW, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT IN THE PRES ENT CASE, SECTION 2(47)(V) IS APPLICABLE ALONG WITH SECTION 53A OF TH E TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT POSSESSION WAS GIVEN O N 30.04.1996 AND ALMOST FULL PAYMENT WAS ALSO RECEIVED IN THE PRESEN T YEAR ITSELF AND HENCE, THESE SECTIONS ARE APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE, THE INCOME WAS RIGHTLY TAXED BY THE A.O. IN THE PRESENT YEAR. HE SUPPORTE D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 2 3.02.2009 WERE SUBMITTED EARLIER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED. I.T.A.NO. 2108/AHD/2002 4 HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK II FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT ON THIS PAGE, THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF YEAR-WISE CAPITAL GAIN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH INCLUDES RS.1,45,520/- IN THE PRESENT YEAR, RS.3,20,058/- IN THE NEXT YEAR, RS.7,14,906/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND RS.1 5,00,007.25 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 TOTALING RS.26,80,491.25. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS MANNER, THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.34,44,800/- WAS CONSIDERED AND THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN DURING THESE FOUR YEARS AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGES 1-1 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK-II, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THAT YEAR U /S 143(3) AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 1999-2000, AND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SE CTION 147 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE PA PER BOOK. HE ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ALONG WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION THEREOF AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE S 5,8 & 10 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE TRIBUNAL DECI SION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS NATWARLAL C BHANDARI AND OTHERS IN I.T.A.NO. 2901 & 1902/AHD/2009 AND C.O. NO. 281 & 282/AHD/2009 DATED 18.07.2011 AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 6 OF THIS TRIBUNAL ORDE R. 6. IN THE REJOINDER, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R . THAT RES JUDICATA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECODE AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS IS THE UNDISPUTED FACT THAT AS PER THE DE VELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 30.04.1996, THE PRICE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS DETERMINED AT I.T.A.NO. 2108/AHD/2002 5 RS.34,44,800/- AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.8.50 LACS WAS PA ID BY THE DEVELOPER TO THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE NO.011833 DATED 18.04.199 6. THIS IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS RS.33LACS OUT OF AGREED PRICE OF RS.34,44,800/-. THIS FACT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUEST ION WAS HANDED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEVELOPER ON 30.04.1996 WHEN TH E SO CALLED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSES SEE ALONG WITH THE CO-OWNERS WITH M/S. DEEP DEVELOPERS. I.E. THE DEVE LOPERS. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, NOW, WE REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND SECTION 53 A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTIES ACT:- SECTION 2(47)(V) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961: ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSS ESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AT, 1882 (4 OF 1882); SECTION 53A OF TPA: WHERE ANY PERSON CONTRACTS TO TRANSFER FOR CONSIDER ATION ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BY WRITING SIGNED BY HIM OR ON H IS BEHALF FROM WHICH THE TERMS NECESSARY TO CONSTITUTE THE TR ANSFER CAN BE ASCERTAINED WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY, AND THE TRAN SFEREE HAS, IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT, TAKEN POSSESSION OF TH E PROPERTY OR ANY PART THEREOF, OR THE TRANSFEREE, BEING ALREADY IN POSSESSION, CONTINUES IN POSSESSION IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTACT AND HAS DONE SOME ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONTRACT, AND T HE TRANSFEREE HAS PERFORMED OR IS WILLING TO PERFORM HIS PART OF THE CONTRACT, THEN NOTWITHSTANDING THAT WERE THERE IS AN INSTRUMENT OF TRANSFER, THAT THE TRANSFER HAS NOT BEEN COMPLETED IN THE MANNER P RESCRIBED THEREFORE BY THE LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, T HE TRANSFEROR OR ANY PERSON CLAIMING UNDER HIM SHALL BE DEBARRED FRO M ENFORCING AGAINST THE TRANSFEREE AND PERSONS CLAIMING UNDER H IM ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY OF WHICH THE TRANSFEREE HAS TAKEN OR I.T.A.NO. 2108/AHD/2002 6 CONTINUED IN POSSESSION, OTHER THAN A RIGHT EXPRESS LY PROVIDED BY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT; PROVIDED THAT NOTHING IN THIS SECTION SHALL AFFECT THE RIGHTS OF A TRANSFEREE FOR CONSIDERATION WHO HAS NO NOTICE OF T HE CONTRACT OR OF THE PAR PERFORMANCE THEREOF. 8. THIS SUB CLAUSE IN SECTION 2(47) WAS INSERTED W. E.F. 01.04. 88 BY THE FINANCE ACT OF 1987 W.E.F. 1.4.88 HENCE, THE SA ME IS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR WHEREAS, IT IS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER THAT THIS CLAUSE HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE ACT W.E.F . 1.4.1998 AND HENCE, THIS OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT. 9. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CLAUSE, IT IS SEEN THAT WHEN POSSESSION HAS BEEN ALLOWED OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT, THEN IT AMOUNTS TO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL AS SET. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE POSSESSION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO TH E DEVELOPER IN THE PRESENT YEAR, CONTRACT HAS BEEN ENTERED INTO WITH T HE DEVELOPER AS PER WHICH PRICE HAD BEEN FIXED AND ALMOST ENTIRE PAYMEN T WAS ALSO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS WELL AS SECTION 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT ARE FULFILLED AND THEREFOR E, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR ITSELF AND, SO, THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX I S PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR ITSELF FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF THE SOME PART OF PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS IS NOT PROPE R. MOREOVER, WHEN THE PRICE HAS BEEN FIXED, THEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CO NTINUE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE FRUITS OF THIS PROPERTY IN THE FORM OF ESCALATI ON OF PRICE FOR ANY PERIOD AFTER THE DATE OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT AND G IVING POSSESSION AND I.T.A.NO. 2108/AHD/2002 7 RECEIVING SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT AND FOR THIS REASON A LSO, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS NOT TRANSFERRED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF CAPITAL GAIN TAX. 10. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE B Y THE LD. A.R. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 23.02.2009. IT IS T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF TOTAL AGREED CONSIDERATION OF RS.34,44,800/- AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ONLY RS.33 LACS WERE RECEIVE D UP TO 31.03.1997 AND THE SAME WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE R ECEIVED FROM THE DEVELOPER AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,44,800/- W AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01.12.1997 FROM THE DEVELOPER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DEVELOPER M/S. DEEP DEVELOPER WAS GIVEN PERMISSION TO ENTER INTO THE LAND OWNED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AS L ICENSE GRANTED U/S 52 OF THE EASEMENT ACT AND THE POSSESSION WAS NOT GIVE N TO THE DEVELOPER AS A PURCHASER OF THE LAND AS THE LAND WAS NEVER SOLD TO THEM. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS CONTENTION BECAUSE WE HAVE S EEN THAT AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE PRICE OF THE LAND WAS FI XED AND ALMOST ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED AND POSSESSION WAS GIVEN IN TH E PRESENT YEAR AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LAND WAS GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER FOR DEVELOPMENT ONLY AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND . REGARDING THIS SUBMISSION THAT CAPITAL GAIN AS DECLARED IN THE SUB SEQUENT YEAR, WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT CORRECT INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED IN CORRECT HANDS IN CORRECT YEAR AND THIS FACT CANNOT BE RELEVANT FOR D ECIDING THIS ISSUE OF THE PRESENT YEAR THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, INCOME WA S WRONGLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS ALSO ASSESSED BY THE A.O. UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT CAPITAL GAIN TAXED IS NOT PAYABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. CANNOT BE FAULTED. IN THE PRESENT CASE , WE HAVE SEEN THAT THE I.T.A.NO. 2108/AHD/2002 8 CAPITAL GAIN IN TAXABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR IN RESP ECT OF THE ENTIRE PROPERLY AND THEREFORE, THESE CONTENTIONS ALSO HAVE NO MERIT . 11. REGARDING PARA 5, 8 & 10 OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGR EEMENT, ON WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN BY THE LD. A.R., WE WOULD L IKE TO OBSERVE THAT ONCE IT IS FOUND FROM PARA 1 OF THE SAID AGREEMENT THAT THE PRICE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS BEEN FIXED AND PART PAYMENT WA S RECEIVED, AND POSSESSION WAS GIVEN TO THE DEVELOPER, THE ISSUE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND OTHER CLAUSES AS PER WHICH, THE ASSESSEE H AS TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED CANNOT DETERMINE THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF TH E CAPITAL GAIN. 12. REGARDING THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS NATWARLAL C BHANDARI (SUPRA), WE WOULD LIKE TO OBSE RVE THAT THE SAME IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE, IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES SISTER AND MOTHER, C APITAL GAIN ON SALE OF 8700 SQ. MTRS. LAND WERE ACCEPTED. UNDER THESE FAC TS, IT WAS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) IN THAT CASE THAT IN RESPECT OF BOTH BROTHER S, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN TREATING SALE OF ENTIRE 9200 SQ. M TRS OF LAND AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND HE DIRECTED THE A.O. TO AC CEPT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.18.48 LACS AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS .36.75 LACS. THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS IS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS HANDS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE HA NDS OF CO-OWNER AND THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DECISION IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE. 13. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT COMES OUT THAT TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT AS PER WHICH, ENTIRE CA PITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF I.T.A.NO. 2108/AHD/2002 9 ENTIRE PROPERTY IS TAXABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR ITSE LF AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE A.O. WE, THEREFORE, R EVERSE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE A.O. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALL OWED. 15. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP ORDER PRONOUNCED ON SD./-(KB)JM SD./-(AKG)AM COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 2/3/12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19/03/12.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 28/3 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.28/3 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 28/3 /2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .