ACIT, Allahabad V. M/s Ganga Corporation,(P)Ltd., Allahabad

ITA 313/ALLD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63362 (ITAT-ALLAHABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GARG
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Advance ruling
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. M/S GANGA CORPORATION PVT. LTD., CIRCLE-11, ALLAHABAD. 6, PRAYAG STREET, ALLAHABAD (PAN: AAACG 8378 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI JAGDISH, CIT D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. GARG, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08.11.2012 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 13.08.2010 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ALLAHABAD FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SECTION 50C AND CAPITAL GAINS, ON THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: A. THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN IN T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAD NOT SHOWN ANY CAPITAL G AIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE F.Y. 2003-04. ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 2 B. THE AMOUNT WAS NOT SHOWN AS LOAN AND ADVANCES BU T AS UNSECURED LOAN IN F.Y. 2003-04 C. THE MEMORANDUM WAS ON A PLAIN PAPER. IT STATED THAT MR. NARANG WOULD DEPOSIT WITH THE COMPANY ADVANCE PAYMENT FROM TIME TO TIME. THIS INDICATES THAT THE PAYMEN TS HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE BUT THE BANK STATEMENT SOWS THAT RS.30, 00,000/- WERE RECEIVED BEFORE THAT DATE ALONG WITH THIS FACT THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOAN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, IMPLYING THAT IT IS MERELY A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. D. SECTION 2(47) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 SPEAKS OF THE PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT. IN THE INSTANT C ASE NO PART PERFORMANCE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE AS THE OWNER REMAINS IN COMPLETE POSSESSION OF THE LAND AS IS EV IDENT FROM THE SALE DEEDS WHICH HAS A SENTENCE STATING THE SE LLER HAS CLEAR AND SUBSISTING TITLE OVER THE SAID PROPERTY. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT POSSESSION WAS NOT HANDED OVER TILL T HE DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY HAVING ITS CORPORATE OFFICE AT DEHRADUN WHICH WAS S ITUATED AT A LAND AREA ADMEASURING 9.56 BIGHAS. DURING THE F.Y. 2003-04, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ENTERED INTO AN ARRANGEMENT WITH ONE SHRI C.N. NARA NG, A KNOWN DEVELOPER BASED AT DEHRADUN ITSELF, FOR DEVELOPMENT OF THE AID PROP ERTY AS A WHOLE IN TWO PHASES. AS PER THE UNDERSTANDING, THE FIRST PHASE FALLING O N THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE LANDED PROPERTY, WAS TO BE DEVELOPED FIRST AND AFTER WARD THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE DEVELOPED IN THE SECOND PHASE. IN PURSUA NCE OF THE SAID ARRANGEMENTS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD RECEIVED SUMS AGGREGATING RS.30 LACS FROM THE ASSOCIATES OF SHRI C B NARANG ON DIFFERENT DATES AN D THE SAME WERE CREDITED IN ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 3 RESPECTIVE ACCOUNT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE. WITH THE APPROVAL OF BOARD OF DIRECTOR, A FORMAL MOU DATED 07.07.2003 WA S ENTERED INTO WITH SHRI C.B. NARANG WHICH CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF THE PROJE CT AND PHASES OF DEVELOPMENT. FOR COMPLETION OF FIRST PHASE OF THE PROJECT REFERR ED TO IN THE SAID MOU, POSSESSION OF EASTERN PART OF THE PROPERTY WAS ALSO HANDED OVE R TO THE ASSOCIATES OF SHRI NARANG. IN LIEU OF THIS ACTION, THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY WAS FURTHER PAID SUMS AGGREGATING RS.30 LACS ON DIFFERENT DATES IN THAT F INANCIAL YEAR. THE SUMS AGGREGATING RS.60 LACS WERE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE A S LOANS AND ADVANCES IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2004. THEREAFTER SOME DI SPUTE HAD ARISEN BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI C.B. NARANG AND FOR RESOLUTION OF THE SAME AN MOU DATED 23.06.2005 WAS ENTERED INTO, AS PER WHICH THE INTER EST OF THE OTHER PARTY IN THE WHOLE PROPERTY WAS RESTRICTED, BY MUTUAL CONSENT, T O AN AREA OF 5.21 BIGHAS (OUT OF TOTAL AREA OF 9.56 BIGHAS) FOR WHICH A CONSIDERATIO N WAS DETERMINED AT RS.61,50,000/-. FOR THIS AREA SALE DEEDS WERE EXEC UTED AND REGISTERED WITH REGISTRATION AUTHORITY DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 05-06 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07, THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OLLECTION OF STAMP DUTY, THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY DETERMINED THE VALUE AT RS. 1,23,28,690/- AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.61,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WHIL E FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN O F RS.14,78,995/- CONSIDERING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.61,50,0000/- . HOWEVE R, SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF ANY CAPITAL A SSET DURING THE YEAR UNDER ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 4 ASSESSMENT AND REQUESTED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOW N IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME BE EXCLUDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INVOKED SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.76,57,688/-. 4. THE CIT(A), AFTER A DETAILED DISCUSSION IN RESPE CT OF EVERY ASPECT, FOUND THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF FIRST MOU I.E. ON 07.07.2003. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO SECTION 2(47)(V) THERE IS A TRANSFER IN THE F.Y. 2003-04 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2004-05 AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT CREDITED IN BALANCE SHEET BEING THE ADVANCE RECEIVED UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT TO ASSESS THE CO RRECT INCOME UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE BOOK ENTRIES AND MANNER IN WHICH THE S AME APPEARING IN THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT DECISIVE OR CONCLUSIVE. THE C IT(A) RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD S. CIT, 82 ITR 363(SC). THE CIT(A) HELD THAT RS.60 LACS SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES WERE THE PART OF SALE CONSI DERATION ACCORDING TO THE MOU DATED 07.07.2003. THE CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE MOU A T PAGE NOS.21 & 22 OF HIS ORDER. IN THE RELEVANT PARAGRAPH OF THE MOU IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT THE POSSESSION OF EACH PLOT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CONTR ACTOR APPOINTED BY SHRI NARANG ON HIS BEHALF. THE RELEVANT ABSTRACT OF MOU REPROD UCED AT PAGE NO.21 FROM CIT(A)S ORDER READS AS UNDER :- ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 5 THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE EXECUTED IN TWO PHASES FIR ST PHASE IN THE PLOT ON EAST SIDE. ONLY AFTER ITS COMPLETION, THE SECOND PHASE IN THE REMAINING HALF OF WEST SIDE, WILL BE TAKEN UP. SRI NARANG WILL HAVE ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY TO APPOINT CONTRACTORS, OR ANY OTHER AGENCY ON SUCH TERMS AS HE DEEMS PROPER FOR EXECUTION OF T HIS WORK. POSSESSION OF THE EAST PLOT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE C ONTRACTOR APPOINTED BY MR. NARANG, ON IS BEHALF. 5. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASS ET WAS NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. A.Y. 2006-07. THE RELEVANT FIND ING OF CIT(A) FROM PARAGRAPH NOS.19 & 20 OF HIS ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW:- 19. IN TERMS OF MOU DATED 23.06.2005, ALL THAT HAP PENED WAS THAT THE PART OF THE PROPERTY MEASURING 5.21 BIGHAS WHIC H WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF OTHER PARTY, WAS GOT SEPARATED BY A B OUNDARY WALL AND THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE PROPERTY FALLING ON TH E WESTERN SIDE OF LANDED PROPERTY, CONTINUED TO REMAIN IN POSSESSION OF THE APPELLANT AS EVER BEFORE. RATHER IN TERMS OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE PERSONS IN POSSESSION OF EASTERN PART OF THE PROPERTY MEASURIN G 5.21 BIGHAS WERE FORMALLY ACKNOWLEDGED AS ABSOLUTE OWNERS THERE OF AND THE TITLE OF THE APPELLANT IN RELATION TO THE REST OF THE PRO PERTY WAS RECOGNIZED TO HAVE CONTINUED TO REMAIN VESTED WITH THE APPELLA NT ITSELF. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT IN TERMS OF THE MOU DATED 23.06.2005 TRANSFER OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET HAD NOT TAKEN PLA CE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 20. THUS, ON CONSIDERATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE IN THEIR ENTIRETY, I HAVE REACHED TO A CONCLUSION THAT , EVEN THOUGH THE SALE DEEDS IN RELATION TO THE PROPERTY ADMEASURING 5.21 BIHAS HAD BEEN EXECUTED IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE TRANSAC TION FELL WITHIN THE EXTENDED AND ENLARGED MEANING OF THE TERM TRANSFER AS GIVEN IN SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT AND SUCH TRANSFER HAD AL READY TAKEN PLACE, MUCH EARLIER TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. MERELY BECAU SE A PALTRY SUM OF RS.1,50,000 (OUT OF THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATIO N AMOUNTING TO RS.61,50,000) HAD BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UND ER APPEAL, IT WILL NOT GO TO AFFECT THE SAID CONCLUSION. THEREFORE, I ACCEPT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IN THE E AR UNDER APPEAL, AND ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 6 NO CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED OR HAD ARISEN IN THE YEAR U NDER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 6. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO ENSURE THAT NO AMOU NT UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN REMAINS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME. 7. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE MADE A PRELI MINARY OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT WITHDRAW CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME. HE RELIED UPON A JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CIT, 284 ITR 323. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS HE HAS NO POWER FOR GIVING SUCH DIRECTION. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT CRE DITED IN F.Y. 2003-04 WAS LOANS AND ADVANCES AND NOT AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATI ON. 8. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS A TRANSFER OF THE ASSET IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TAXED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. IT IS ALSO SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE DVOS REPORT WHILE CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 9. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADMITTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE MOU DATED ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 7 07.07.2003 IS THERE AND POSSESSION WAS ALSO GIVEN O N 07.08.2003 WHICH IS PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2004-05 AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTRIE S IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGEMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MFG. CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 82 ITR 363(SC ). LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHATURBHUJ DWARIKADAS KAPADIA VS. CIT, 260 ITR 491 (BOMBAY) AND SUBMITTED THAT ACCORDING TO SECTION 2(47)(V) & (VI) THE ASSET IS TREATED AS TRANSFER WHEN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY TO DEVELOPER WH EN THE POSSESSION IS GIVEN AND TAKEN IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ACCO RDING TO THE MOU THE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN IN THE F.Y. RELEVANT TO A.Y.20 04-05. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON OTHER JUDGMENTS CITED IN THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- I) ORDER PASSED BY I.T.A.T. DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAVI KANT VS. I.T.O., 110 TTJ 297 II) ORDER PASSED BY I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF A.K.G. CONSULTANTS (P) LTD. VS. I.T.O., 17 SOT 592. III) ORDER PASSED BY I.T.A.T., JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF MEGHRAJ BAID VS. I.T.O., 23 SOT 25 IV) JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF S UNIL SIDHARH BHAI VS. CIT, 156 ITR 509 (S.C.) ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 8 V) ADVANCE RULING GIVEN BY AUTHORITY FOR ADVAMCE RU LINGS (INCOME TAX) IN THE CASE OF JASBIR SINGH SARKARIA R EPORTED IN 294 ITR 196. 10. LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON T HE ORDER OF CIT(A). 11. IN THE REJOINDER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IF THERE IS A TRANSFER IN THE F.Y. RELEVANT TO A.Y.200 4-05 THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN IN THAT YEAR. BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW CAPITAL GAIN IN A.Y. 2004-05. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REFER RED A JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA, 202 TAXMAN 607 (S.C.) AND SUBMITTED THAT A TRANSFER CAN NOT BE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF TH E PARTIES AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE FIRST OBJECTION RAISED BY THE DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME HE CANNOT WITHDRAW THE SAME. HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LIMITED VS. CIT, 284 ITR 323 . THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT SUSTAINA BLE AS THIS ISSUE DOES NOT ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). EVEN OTHERWISE, ON MERIT AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF THEORY OF TAX ON REAL INCOME, THE APPE LLATE AUTHORITY HAS POWER TO ADMIT THE FRESH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS EXCEPT ION HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE SAID ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 9 JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT ITSELF. WE, THEREFORE, REJECT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 13. BEFORE COMING TO THE ISSUE, WE ALSO REJECT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE REJOINDE R THAT ACCORDING TO THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT SURAJ LAMP AND INDUSTRIES PV T. LTD. VS. STATE OF HARYANA, 202 TAXMAN 607, THERE IS NO TRANSFER. IT IS TO STA TE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MEANING OF TRANSFER UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT ONE HAS TO REA D THE RELEVANT PROVISION WHICH IS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT. IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER TRANSFER OF ASSET IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT OR N OT. THUS, THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO DOES NOT H ELP TO THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS THUS REJECTED. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS MOU DATED 07.0 7.2003. THOUGH THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE POSS ESSION WAS TAKEN BY THE CONTRACTOR AND NOT BY THE DEVELOPER, THIS CONTENTIO N OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS THE CONTRACTOR HAS TAKEN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF THE DEVELOPER WHICH AMOUNTS T O POSSESSION TAKEN BY THE DEVELOPER. THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE IS ALSO REJECTED ON CONSIDERATION OF DEFINITION OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY UNDER SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY TRANSAC TION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKE N OR RETAINED IN PART ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 10 PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. AS STATED ABOVE THAT IN THE CASE UND ER CONSIDERATION, THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IS TAKEN IN COMPLIANCE TO THE MOU DATED 07.07.2003. ACCORDING TO SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, THERE IS A TRANSFER OF AS SETS IN THE F.Y. 2003-04 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2004-05. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CO RRECTLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO TRANSFER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, A.Y. 2006 -07. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT CONCLUSIVE UNDER THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE. 14. AS REGARDS THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RESPECT OF DIRECTION OF CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, WE DO NOT FIND SUBSTANCE IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE AS THE CIT(A) DID NOT SEND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 251(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE CIT (A) HAS SIMPLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE EFFECT OF HIS ORDER IN A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE WHICH DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESS ING OFFICER. THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IS, THEREFO RE, REJECTED. ITA NO.313/ALLD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 11 15. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND IN ABS ENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD NOR THE SAME HAS BEEN POINTED O UT BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R., ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD TRUE COPY