ILA M. PREKH, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 2634/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0382 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset
• Section: 50C; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH I, MU MBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R.BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2634/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) MRS. ILA M. PAREKH E-6, NEW LIGHT CO-OP HSG SOCIETY, SWAMI VIVEKANAND ROAD, KHAR (W), MUMBAI-400052. PAN: AAGPP0733R VS. ITO-19(1)(3), PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400012 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL (AR) REVENUE BY : SHRI SAURABH KUMAR RAI (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 03.01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2018 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT (FOR SHORT THE ACT) IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-18 [LD. CIT(A)], MUMBAI DATED 28.02. 2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAIS ED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INDEPENDENT OF, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO, ONE ANOTHER: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) - 18, M UMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A CTION OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER 19(1)(3), MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ASSESSING OFFICER) IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS AT RS 31,10,500 ON SALE OF SHOP AS AGAINST RS 16,70,000 AS COMPUTED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 2 THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 31,10,500 ON SALE OF SHOP AS AGAINST RS. 16,70,000 AS COMPUTED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE LETTER DATED 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 THAT HAS BEEN FILED WITH HIM IN REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT DATED 24.01.2014. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTEND THAT THE CIT(A)/ASSES SING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE REFERRED THE VALUATION OF THE SHOP TO A VALUAT ION OFFICER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(2) OF THE ACT. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHARGING INTEREST RS 97,926, RS 10,270 AND RS 598 C HARGED UNDER SECTIONS 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER O UGHT NOT TO HAVE CHARGED IMPUGNED INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 2348, 23C AND 234D INASMUCH AS - (A) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUN ITY TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE CHARGING THE SAID INTEREST AS REQUIRED BY TH E PRINCIPLES OF NATURE JUSTICE, (B) THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE W ITH LAW. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10 ON 12.06.2009 DECLARIN G TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 2,01,741/-. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) ON SALE OF SHARE IN A SHOP AND COMPUTED THE LTCG AT RS. NIL, AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCT ION UNDER SECTION 54EC FOR RS. 16,70,000/-, WHICH WAS INVESTED IN REC CAPITAL GAIN BONDS. THE ASSESSEE WAS CO-SHARER WITH MRS SUVINA P PAREKH IN SHOP NO.1 GROUND FLOOR, MOHD GAFOOR CHAWL, G. D. AMBEDKA R MARG BOMBAY-400033. THE ASSESSEE SHOWN THE SALE PROCEED OF RS. 18,00,000/- BEING 50% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) ADOPTED THE VALUE OF SHOP AS PER THE VALUATION OF STAMP DUT Y AUTHORITIES AND ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 3 VALUED THE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 64,81,000/- AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED BY ASSESSEE AT RS. 36,00,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO TR EATED THE SALE PROCEED RS.32,40,500/- BEING 50% AND AFTER DEDUCTING INVEST ED AMOUNT IN REC CAPITAL GAIN BOND OF RS. 16,70,000/-, THE REMAININ G AMOUNT OF RS.14,40,500/- WAS TREATED AS TAXABLE LTCG. ON APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ACTION OF AO WAS UPHELD. THUS, FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR ) OF THE ASSESSEE AND LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE RE VENUE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE SOLD HER 50% RIGHTS IN A TENANTED SHOP TO ABHYUDAYA CO- OPERATIVE BANK LTD. THE SAID SHOP WAS INITIALLY UND ER THE TENANCY OF RAMKUMAR MEWALAL GUPTA. THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED HER T ENANCY RIGHT ALONG WITH MRS. SUVEENA P. PARIKH IN SHOP NO. 1, GR OUND FLOOR, FROM RAM KUMAR GUPTA ON 5 TH DECEMBER 1977. THE ASSESSEE (MISS ILA M. PAREKH) AND SUVINA PAREKH PURCHASED THE BUSINESS, G OOD WILL AS WELL AS TENANCY RIGHT FROM RAMKUMAR GUPTA VIDE AGREEMENT DA TED 5 TH DECEMBER 1977. ON 1 ST FEBRUARY 1978 THE ASSESSEE AND HER JOINT OWNER (JO INT- TENANT) SUVINA PAREKH DECIDED TO CLOSE DOWN THEIR B USINESS AND TO SUBLET THE PREMISES TO ABHYUDAYA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD (B ANK). THE ASSESSEE AND HER JOINT TENANT AFTER TAKING CONSENT FROM THE LANDLORD ENTERED INTO SUB-TENANCY AGREEMENT DATED 01.02.1978 . THE OWNER OF THE ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 4 PROPERTY MR. HASSAM MOHAMMED GAFOOR WANTED TO DEVEL OP THE PROPERTY. HENCE, THE OWNER ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH ASSESS EE AND SUVEENA PRAVINCHANDRA PARIKH TO VACATE THE PREMISES. ACCORD INGLY, THE ASSESSEE AND HER JOINT-TENANT (OWNER) ASKED THE SUB-TENANT T O VACATE AND HAND OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID PREMISES SO THAT IT COUL D BE HANDED OVER THE OWNER FOR REDEVELOPMENT. BY AGREEMENT DATED 04.06.2 002 BETWEEN TENANT, SUB-TENANT (BANK), MR. HASSAN MOHAMMED GAFO OR BEING OWNER BY MENTIONING TERMS AND CONDITION FOR VACATING AGRE ED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A PERMANENT ACCOMMODATION IN THE NEW BUILD ING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON SAID PROPERTY CONSISTING AREA OF 327 SQ. FT. ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND EQUAL AREA IN THE BASEMENT BASED ON FREE OF COST ON OWNERSHIP BASIS. THE ASSESSEE WITH THE JOINT TENANT VIDE OFFE R LETTER DATED 06.05.2002 OFFERED TO THE BANK THAT ON ALLOTMENT OF NEW SPACE, THEY SHALL HAND OVER AREAS OF 327 SQ. FT. ON THE FRONT SIDE ON THE GRO UND FLOOR TOGETHER WITH AREA OF BASEMENT TO THE SUB-TENANT (BANK). HENCE, THE TERMS AND CONDITION OF AGREEMENT WAS FURTHER MODIFIED VIDE AG REEMENT DATED 05.06.2002 BY MODIFYING CONDITIONS, THE TENANTS CON FIRMED THAT THE SUB- TENANT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO TAKE POSSESSION HALF OF THE AREA OUT OF THE AREA OFFERED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HER JOINT TENANT IN NE WLY CONSTRUCTED PREMISES FROM THE OWNER. AFTER ALLOTMENT OF THE SPACE/ SHOP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AGREEMENT. THE ASSESSEE WITH HER JOINT TENANT DECID ED TO SELL THEIR AREA TO BANK VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 17.10.2008. IT WAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT DR. ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 5 PRAVINCHANDRA PARIKH, ONE OF THE LEGAL HEIR OF MRS. SUVEENA PRAVINCHANDRA PARIKH WAS ALSO A TENANT IN HIS INDIV IDUAL CAPACITY IN SHOP NO.2 ON GROUND FLOOR. ON RE-DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROP ERTY, DR. PRAVINCHANDRA PARIKH WAS ALSO OFFERED ALLOTMENT ON OWNERSHIP BASIS BY THE OWNER. THE SHOP NO.2 INDEPENDENTLY MENTIONED I N CLAUSE 5 OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE WITH BANK, THOUGH NOT SUBJECT MA TTER OF SALE BY ASSESSEE AND HER JOINT OWNER TO THE BANK. THE ASSES SEE AND HER JOINT OWNER SOLD ONLY HALF OF SHARE IN SHOP NO.1 I.E 160 SQ FT ON GROUND FLOOR AND 160SQ FT ON BASEMENT FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS 36,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ONLY RS. 18.00 LACKS ON TRANSFER OF HER SHARE IN THE ALLOTTED SPACE/ SHOP. HOWEVER, THE BANK HAS BY MIST AKE PAID STAMP DUTY OF RS. 64,81,000/- INCLUDING THE AREA OF SHOP RECEI VED FROM THE OWNER FOR WHICH BANK WAS ALREADY OWNER AND IN POSSESSION BY V IRTUE OF TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT. ALL THE AGREEMENTS EXECUTED RIGHT FROM O RIGINAL OWNER IN FAVOUR OF RAMKUMAR GUPTA BY MOHD GAFFOR. RAMKUMAR G UPTA IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE AND SUVEENA PAREKH. BY ASSESSEE AND SUV INA PAREKH IN FAVOUR OF ABHYUDAYA COOPERATIVE BANK. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HE R LETTER DATED 30.11.2011 TO BANK HAS SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN THAT T HE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER JOINT OWNER HAS SOLD AN AREA OF 160 SQ FT ON GR OUND FLOOR AND 160 SQ FT ON BASEMENT EACH AND NOT 320 SQ FT EACH IN THE A GREEMENT. THE SIMILAR FACT WAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASS ESSEES LETTER DATED 02.12.2011. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR FOR THE REV ENUE SUPPORTED THE ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 6 ORDER OF THE AUTHORITY BELOW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE DOCUMENTS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE SPEAKS SOMETHING DIFFERENT STORY THAN THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSE E. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PA RTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE HAV E ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS DOCUMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE F ORM OF THE VARIOUS AGREEMENTS BY AND IN BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL OWNER UP TILL IN FAVOUR OF BANK. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPUTED THE LTCG AT RS. NIL AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF RS. 16,70,000/- INVESTED IN R EC CAPITAL GAIN BOND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION ADOPTED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY VALUED THE PROPERTY UNDER SALE AT RS.64,81,000/- AS AGAINST THE AGREEMENT VALUE OF RS .36,00,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AND COMPUTED THE LTCG AFTER EXTENDING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 EC IN REC CAPITAL GAIN BOND OF RS. 16,70,000/- TAXED THE REMAINING CO NSIDERATION. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS AMBIGUITY WITH REGARD TO THE AREA IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 17.10.20 08. THE AREA UNDER SALE WAS ONLY 160SQ FT ON GROUND FLOOR AND 160SQ FT ON B ASEMENT. HOWEVER, THE BANK WHILE PAYING THE STAMP DUTY PAID THE STAMP DUTY ON 320 SQ FT AREA ON GROUND FLOOR AND 160SQFT IN BASEMENT BELOW THE SHOP NO.1. THE ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 7 ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE COPIES OF THE VARIOUS A GREEMENTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. ON THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE DOCUMENTS THE LD CIT(A) CALLED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FURNISHED HIS REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER CONTENDED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SHOP ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS RS.64,81,000/- AGAINST THE AGREEMENT VALUE OF RS.36 ,00,000/-. THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY STAMP VALUE AUTHORITY FOR THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY , THE VALUE SO ADOPTED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDE RATION AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. ON THE BASIS OF REMAND REPORT OF ASS ESSING OFFICER THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT D ISCUSSED THE CONTENTS OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE FORM OF VARIOUS AGREEMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSE SSEE ALONG WITH HER CO- OWNER HAS RECEIVED ONLY 160SQ FT AREA ON GROUND FL OOR AND SIMILAR SIZE OF AREA (160 SQ FT) IN THE BASEMENT. IT IS SETTLED UNDER THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT THAT NO ONE CAN TRANSFER BETTER TITLE THAN HE HAS. IN OUR VIEW THE AREA OF CAPITAL ASSET UNDER TRANSFER TO THE BAN K IS ONE OF THE RELEVANT FACT FOR DETERMINING THE LTCG. THE PERUSAL OF THE A GREEMENT DATED 19.11.1999 (PB-10-15) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE OWNER AGREED TO ALLOT 320SQ FT AREA ON GROUND FLOOR AND 320 SQ FT IN BASE MENT IN LIEU OF SURRENDER OF THEIR TENANCY. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WIT H HER CO-OWNER VIDE ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 8 THEIR LETTER DATED 06.05.2002 (PB- 16-17) OFFERED PORTION ON REAR SIDE AND PORTION IN BASEMENT FROM THEIR PART TO THE SU B-TENANT. IN CONSONANCE WITH THE OFFER MADE BY ASSESSEE ALONG WI TH HER CO-OWNER EXECUTED AGREEMENT DATED 04.06.2002( PB 21-23) WITH BANK FOR HANDING OVER THE SIMILAR AREA TO THE BANK IN THE NEWLY DEVE LOPED BUILDING. THE OWNER ALSO SIGNED THIS AGREEMENT AS CONFIRMING PART Y. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER CO-OWNER (CO-TENANT) EXECUT ED AGREEMENT DATED 05.06.2002 (PB 18-19) WITH BANK TO HAND OVER 327SQ FT AREA IN NEW BUILDING TO THE BANK. THE OWNER HAS AGAIN SIGNED TH IS AGREEMENT AS CONFIRMING PARTY. TO MAKE ALL THE TRANSACTION UNAMB IGUOUS PRIOR TO EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT DATED 05.06.2002, OTHER TRIP ARTITE AGREEMENT DATED 04.06.2002 (PB 21-22) WAS EXECUTED BY OWNER, ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER CO-OWNER AND THE BANK AGREEING FOR ALLOTM ENT OF SIMILAR SIZE OF AREA TO TENANTS AS WELL AS TO THE SUB-TENANT ON OW NERSHIP BASIS. THE CAREFUL READING OF ALL THE AGREEMENTS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE BANK AS WELL AS ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HER CO-TENANT AFTER COMPLETI ON OF THE NEW BUILDING GOT 327 SQ FT ON GROUND FLOOR AND SIMILAR SIZE OF PORTION IN THE BASEMENT. OUT OF WHICH HALF OF THE PORTION WAS RECE IVED BY THE BANK ( ON GF AND ON BASEMENT) ON OWNERSHIP BASIS AS PER THE TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT DATED 04.06.2002. HOWEVER, THE BANK HAS PAID THE STAMP DUTY ON THE ENTIRE PORTION OF THE AREA OF SHOP ON THE GR OUND FLOOR (320SQ FT) AND ON 160 SQ FT IN BASEMENT, AT THE TIME OF REGIS TRATION OF AGREEMENT ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 9 DATED 17.10.2008. WHILE THE ASSESSEE AND HER CO-TEN ANT WAS ALLOTTED ONLY 160 SQ FT OF SHOP ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND SIMILAR S IZE OF AREA IN BASEMENT. THUS, THE AREA UNDER AGREEMENT TO SALE W AS 160 SQ FT ON GF AND 160 IN BASEMENT AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS AGREE D ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER LETTER DATED 30.11.2011 ASKED THE BANK TO GIVE CONFIRMATION THAT AS PER TRIPARTITE AGREEMENT DAT ED 04.06.2002 THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED 160 SQ FT ON GF AND SAME SIZE IN BASEMENT, SIMILARLY THE BANK WAS ALSO ALLOTTED SIMILAR SIZE O F PREMISES ON GF AS WELL AS IN BASEMENT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER MENTIONED THAT SHE ALONG WITH HER CO-OWNER HAS SOLD ONLY PREMISES OF 160 SQ FT ON GF AND SAME SIZE IN BASEMENT. HOWEVER, THE AGREEMENT DATED 17.10.2008 R EFERRED THE ENTIRE AREA OF SHOP I.E 320 SQ FT ON GF AND 320 SQ FT IN B ASEMENT. THE BANK HAS NEITHER DENIED NOR CONCEDED OR RESPONDED TO THE LET TER OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE REFERRED DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WITH HER CO-TENANT (OWNER) WAS ENTITLED TO TRANSFER ONLY 160 SQ FT ON GF AND SAME SIZE IN BASEMENT. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NO OCCASI ON TO TRANSFER MORE THAN 160 SQ FT ON GF AND SAME SIZE IN BASEMENT. THE LOWER AUTHORITY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT EXPLAINED BY ASSESSEE IN A CORRECT PERSPECTIVE. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED HER CONT ENTION THAT THE AREA OF THE SPACE/ SHOP IS NOT CORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE A GREEMENT TO SALE DATED 17.10.2008. HENCE, THE ADOPTING THE FULL VALUE OF C ONSIDERATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION BY STAM P DUTY AUTHORITY WAS ITA NO. 2 634/M/2014- MRS. ILA M. PAREKH 10 NOT REQUIRE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT T HE AREA IN THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT CORRECT. THUS, WE DIRECT THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE WORKING OF LTCG PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE . WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. AS WE HAVE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE WORKING OF LTCG OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THUS THE DISCUSSIONS ON OT HER GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018. SD/- SD/- (B.R.BASKARAN) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED 19/02/2018 S.K.PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, (ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY/