ITO, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad V. M/s. Vishwesha Co-op. Housing Society Limited, Ahmedabad

ITA 2211/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6984 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 01-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Share purchase agreement; Diversion of income; Capital Gains
• Section: 144; 143(3); 250; 143(2); 13; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER THE ITO, WARD-3(3)(5), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 8, RAJSUYA BUNGLOWS, NR. SUKOMAL FLATS, RAMDEVNAGAR, SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD-380015 PAN: AABAV6865A (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI VINOD TANWANI, CIT-D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, SR . A.R. & SHRI PARIMAL SI NGH PARMAR, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 16-08-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-08-2021 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2015-16, ARISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-3, AHMEDABAD DATED 28-08-2018, IN PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. ITA NO. 2211/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 I.T.A NO. 2211/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE NO. ITO VS. M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 2 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,55,30,800 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT TURN OF INCOME DECLARI NG INCOME OF RS. NIL WAS FILED ON 2 ND SEP, 2015. THE CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSES SMENT. NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 20 TH SEP, 2016. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAIL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED HIS LIAB ILITY TO PAY TAX ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF SALE ON IMMOVABLE PROPERTY I.E. OPEN LAND. ON QUERY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WAS MERELY ACTING AS A FACILITATOR AND THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE O F PROPERTY WAS BELONGED TO THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS WHO WERE THE REAL OWNERS SIN CE THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THOSE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS. IT WAS FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAIN WAS FULLY DISCLOSED IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER AND IN THE CASE OF THE 4 MEMBERS, THE CASES WERE SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WERE FINALIZED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT. IN THESE FOUR CASES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE ACCEPTED TH E LONG TERM CAPITAL SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTE D THAT THESE FACTS INDICATE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE GAIN FROM THE SALE OF LAND WAS RIGHTLY SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE INDIVI DUAL MEMBERS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED THE COPIES O F ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2015-16. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE COPIES O F ALL THE SHARE CERTIFICATES HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VERIFIC ATION AND THE AUTHENTICITY I.T.A NO. 2211/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE NO. ITO VS. M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 3 OF SHARE CERTIFICATE WAS ALSO DOUBTFUL. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT PURCHASE DEED WAS IN THE NAME OF T HE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND LIABILITY OF TAX PAYMENT IS LIE IN THE SOCIETY AND NOT ON THE MEMBER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 11,55,30,800/- AS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE SOCIETY AND ADDED IN ITS INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 3.2 DECISION I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE APPELL ANT'S SUBMISSION. SHRI RAJNI SHAH, C.A. MADE COMPREHENSIVE SUBMISSION AND EXPLAI NED THE CASE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAD MADE A REFERENCE TO THE JURISDICTIONAL JT. CIT TO GIVE NECESSARY DIRECTIONS TO THE AO U/S. 144 A OF THE ACT. THE JCIT HAD THEREAFTER GIVEN INSTRUCTIONS TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION OF CERTAIN DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ALL THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS THAT WERE CALLED UPON BY THE JCIT, RANGE-3(3), AHMEDABAD WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND WERE VERIFIED BY THE AO. SECONDLY, THE ONLY QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHO IS THE REAL OWNER OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AND IN WHOSE HANDS THE INCOME FROM THE SAL E OF THE SAME SHOULD BE TAXABLE. THE PAYMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WERE MADE BY THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY AND THEREFORE IT WAS THE MEMBERS WHO WERE THE REAL OWNE RS OF THE SOCIETY SINCE THE SOCIETY WAS MERELY ACTING AS A FACILITATOR. THIRDLY, AT THE TIME OF THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY TH E CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ABOVE MEMBERS AND THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF THE PRO PERTY WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ABOVE MEMBERS IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME AND HAD PAID TAX THEREON. A LL THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WERE ASSESSED TO TAX AND 4 OUT OF THE ABOVE 10 MEMBERS WERE ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THEM IN THEIR IND IVIDUAL RETURN OF INCOME HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AOS. APPELLANT HAS ALSO RAISED THE ISSUE OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME. IT IS NOT OUT OF PLACE TO RNENTION THAT ALL SUCH FOUR ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S. 143(3) HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE JURISDICTION OF JCIT, RANGE-3(3), AHMEDABAD. THE SC RUTINY ORDERS ACCEPTING THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAINS HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN FOLLOWING CASES: BABUBHAI P. PATEL VAISHALI B. PATEL MADHUBEN PATEL BABUBHAI PATEL - HUF THE FACTS HAVE BEEN PERUSED ONCE AGAIN AS PER RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. - 187 ITR 688 (SC). THE FACTUAL POSITION EMERGES AS IS INDICA TED IN THE CHART BELOW:- NAME OF THE ASSES SEE SHA RE CER T. NO. AMT OF SHARE CONT SHARE COST INDEXED COST SALE VALUE CAPITAL GAIN EXEMPTI ON NET GAIN TOTAL INCOME TAX PAID I.T.A NO. 2211/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE NO. ITO VS. M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 4 BABU BHAI PATEL 12 250 16.26 1200000 2622653 19512000 16889337 1588933 7 0 784920 79294 BABU BHAI PATEL HUF 15 250 16.) 1240000 2726797 20163000 17436203 1743620 3 0 712210 69465 KETAN PATEL 13 250 10.84 800000 1753665 13008000 11254335 5000000 6254336 750730 1614002 KETAN PATEL HUF 16 250 6.78 500000 1090166 813 0000 7039834 7039814 0 407320 16204 DARC HANA PATEL 1 250 13.01 960000 2107531 15610000 13502469 5000000 8502463 1015274 0 2377672 MADH UBEN PATEL 11 250 16.26 1200000 2622663 19512000 16889337 1688933 7 0 816080 85712 VAISH AL PATEL 2 250 17.62 1300000 2781166 21138000 18356834 1835S83 4 0 584500 43157 D TIARA PATEL 10 250 0.81 60000 132700 976000 843300 0 843300 843300 132220 SMITA GAND HI 14 250 0.95 70000 154816 1068000 913184 0 913184 913180 126315 DHIRE N PATEL 3 250 0,68 50000 110583 813000 702417 0 702417 773940 108343 2500 7380000 4642384 IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO DIVERSION OF INCOME BY THE APPELLANT SINCE IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WHO ARE TH E REAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND IT IS THEIR OBLIGATION TO OFFER LTCG CORRECTLY IN THEIR INDIVID UAL INCOME TAX RETURNS. IN THIS REGARDS, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE AMRITSA R BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MOHINDER KAUR JOSH (ITA NO. 697/ASR/2013) WHEREIN IT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AND FIND THAT THE SOCIETY WAS FORMED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF LAND AND TO DEVELOP THE SAME AND THEY ALLOTTED THE PLOTS TO THE MEMBERS THE SOCIETY PURCHASED 21.2 ACRES OF LAND AND ULTIMATELY PLOTS IN THE SIZES OF 500SQYD AND 1000SQYD WERE ALLOTTED TO VARIOUS MEMBE RS. WHEN THE PROPOSAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY CAME IT WAS RESOLVED IN THE GENERAL BODY M EETING OF THE SOCIETY THAT THE MEMBERS WOULD I.T.A NO. 2211/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE NO. ITO VS. M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 5 SURRENDER THEIR RIGHTS IN FAVOUR OF THE SOCIETY SO THAT THE SOCIETY CAN ENTER INTO THE JDA. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SOCIETY HAS ENTERED INTO JDA ON BEHA LF OF THE MEMBERS. IT IS THE MEMBERS WHO ARE OWNING THE PLOTS AND THE SOCIETY WAS ONLY A FACILIT ATOR. IT BECOMES CLEAR FROM THE JDA THAT PAYMENT FOR CONSIDERATION WAS TO BE MADE TO AN INDI VIDUAL PLOT HOLDER AND IN FACT CONSIDERATION WAS MENTIONED IN TERMS OF PER MEMBER. EACH MEMBER H OLDING 500SQYD PLOT WAS TO RECEIVE A SUM OF RS. 82,50,000/- AND ONE FULLY FURNISHED FLAT MEA SURING 2250 SQFT AND THE MEMBERS HOLDING 1000SQYD PLOT WERE TO RECEIVE MONETARY CONSIDERATIO N OFRS. 1.65 CRORES PLUS TWO FLATS MEASURING 2250 SOFT. IN TACT THE PAYMENT OF CHEQUES IS MADE BY HASH BY ISSUING CHEQUES IN TH E NAME OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBER AND NOT THE SOCIETY. THIS FACT STANDS ADMITTED BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D A RETURN DECLARING CAPITAL GAAIN AGAINST PART MONEY R ECEIVED AGAINST HIS PLOT. THUS IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER WHO ARE LIAB LE TO TAX IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER TO PLOTS AND THE SOCIETY BEING ONLY A FACILITATOR OF POST OFFICE SOME MORE DETAILS HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN THIS RESPECT WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF PUNJABI CO OP HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. IN ITA NO, 310/CHDF20L2 AND 556/CHD/2012 WHICH HAVE BEEN ADJUD ICATED LITTLE LATER IN THIS ORDER ITSELF. ACCORDINGLY WE FIND NO FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS AND THIS GROUND IS REJECTED.' THE APPELLANT ALSO INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE CIRC ULAR OF THE CBDT NO, 9 DATED 25.3. 1 969 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN INSTRUCTED AS UNDER: '1 . INSTRUCTIONS WERE ISSUED IN 1955 TO THE EFFECT THAT IN THE CASE OF TENANT CO-PARTNERSHIP CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES, THE INCOME FROM EACH B UILDING SHOULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS TO WHOM IT HAD BEEN ALLOTTED, NO TWITHSTANDING THE FACTS THAT THE TECHNICAL LEGAL OWNERSHIP IN THE PROPERTY IN SUCH CASES VESTE D IN THE SOCIETY. HOWEVER, IT HAS NOW BEEN REPRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAT IN THE CASE OF TENANT CO-PARTNERSHIP CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETIES, THE SOCIETIES ARE USUALLY ONLY LESSEES OF THE FLATS AND THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE FLATS REALLY VESTS IN THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS THEMSELVES. 2. THE NORMAL PROCEDURE IN SUCH CASES IS THAT AN AG REEMENT IS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE BUILDER AND EACH PURCHASER OF THE FLAT IN THE BUILDING PROP OSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE PURCHASER PAYS THE ENTIRE COST OF THE FLAT IN INSTALMENTS SPREAD OVER THE PERIOD OF THE CONSTRUCTION. AS SOON AS THE BUILDING IS COMPLETED, THE BUILDER GIVES THE POSSES SION OF FLATS TO THE VARIOUS PURCHASERS, WHO THEN JOIN TOGETHER TO FORM A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE BU ILDER WHO HAD ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THE LAND OR TAKEN IT ON /EASE, TRANSFERS THE LAND AND THE BUILD ING THEREON TO THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. THE SOCIETY THEN ALLOTS THE TENANCY IN THE FLATS TO THE MEMBERS M SUCH A WAY THAT EACH MEMBER GETS THE TENANCY RIGHTS OVER THE FLAT WHICH HE HAS PURCHASED . 3. THE BOARD ARE ADVISED THAT UNDER THE ABOVE ARRAN GEMENT, THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP IN THE FLATS CAN BE SAID TO VEST IN THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS THEMSELVE S AND NOT IN THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. HENCE, FOR ALL PURPOSES (INCLUDING ATTACHMENT AND RECOVE RY OF TAX, ETC.) THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS THE LEGAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID CASE LAWS AND THE CBDT CI RCULAR, IT IS NOTED THAT IT IS THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WHO ARE THE REAL OWNERS AND NOT THE SOCIETY AND THEREFORE THE INCOME OUGHT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. AS ALREADY POINTED OUT ABOVE THAT 4 OUT OF THE 10 M EMBERS OF THE SOCIETY WERE ALSO SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, PARTICULARLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION AND ALL THE 4 CASES, THE. RESPECTIVE AO ACCEPTED THE RETURNED I NCOME OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS AS THE ASSESSED INCOME, A COPY EACH OF SUCH ORDERS ISSUED IN 2017 BY THE AO IN THE SAME RANGE JURISDICTION, HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, ONCE THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAIN WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS, THE SAME CANNO T BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETY. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISING SPECIFIC CONTENTION ABOUT THE D EPARTMENTAL PROCEDURE HAS NOT BEEN INDIVIDUALLY ADJUDICATED AS THE OVERALL DECISION WO ULD TAKE CARE OF SUCH PROCEDURAL MATTERS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN T HE CASE LAWS (SUPRA), THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY AO IS HEREBY DELETED. THE GROUND NO.1 TO 4 OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFOR E US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A NO. 2211/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE NO. ITO VS. M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 6 ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL HAS FILED PAPER BOOK COMPRISING DETAIL AND COPIES OF DOCUMENT FURNISHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. C OUNSEL HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WITHOUT REITERATING THE FACTS AS ELABORATED ABOVE IN THIS O RDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT OF LAND TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE PLEADED THAT SUCH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WILL BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY WHO WERE THE REAL OWNERS OF TH E LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 11,55,30, 800/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO HEL D THAT ONCE THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAIN WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDU AL MEMBER THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE SOCIETY. ON P ERUSAL, IT IS OBSERVED THAT MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY HAVE CONTRIBUTED FUNDS FOR T HE PURCHASE OF THE LAND. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE SOCIETY ONLY AFTER TH E INTRODUCTION OF THE NEW MEMBERS ALONG WITH THE OLD CONTINUING MEMBERS WHO W ERE THE REAL OWNERS OF THE LAND. ON SALE OF THE LAND, THE SOCIETY HAS MADE DISTRIBUTION TO THE MEMBERS IN THE PROPORTION OF THE CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THE MEMBERS AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND. THE GENUINENES S OF THE MEMBER WAS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FILING OF THEIR INCOME TAX RET URN AND ASSESSMENT MADE IN SOME OF THE CASES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WHICH ESTABLISH NON-GENUINENESS OF THE MEM BERS OF THE SOCIETY. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCI ETY WERE ASSESSED TO TAX, IN I.T.A NO. 2211/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE NO. ITO VS. M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 7 THE CASE OF THE FOUR MEMBERS ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN BY THEM IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN ALL THESE FOU R CASES ASSESSMENT WERE MADE IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE SAME RANGE WHEREIN THE CASE OF THE SOCIETY WAS ASSESSED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR TAXING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE O F LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY IS AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION SINCE THE SAME HAS BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBER. AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE ABOVE CITED FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONSIDER THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE SAME STANDS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19-08-2021 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 19/08/2021 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. I.T.A NO. 2211/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2015-16 PAGE NO. ITO VS. M/S. VISHWESHA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. 8 BY ORDER/ , / ,