DCIT, Cir.-3, Malegaon V. West End Constrction Co., Malegaon

ITA 336/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 33624514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANN KAPTHUAMA
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 142(1); 133A; 148; 144; 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 336/PN/2010 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2006-07) DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 3, MALEGAON. .. APPELLANT VS. M/S. WEST END CONSTRUCTIONS COMPANY (AOP), GANGAGIRI COMPLEX, CAMP ROAD, MALEGAON, DIST. NASHIK. .. RESPONDENT PANNO. AAAW 0783S APPELLANT BY : MS. ANN KAPTHUAMA RESPONDENT BY : SRI SUNIL GANOO DATE OF HEARING : 04-07-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 -07-2012 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 11-12- 2009 OF THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2006-07. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN AOP AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. A SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 12-08-2005 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 DESP ITE DECLARING SUBSTANTIAL INCOME AT THE TIME OF SURVEY CONDUCTED DURING THE PERIOD R ELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07. THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 ON 26-03-20 08 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DAY ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FIL E ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WITHIN 30 DAYS OF THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE SAID NOTICE. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTIC E U/S. 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED WHICH WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO COMPLETED THE 2 ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND DETE RMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 39,27,752 ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : A. WORK IN PROGRESS 15,95,804 B. UNDISCLOSED INCOME 2,91,848 C. PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS 18, 40,000 D. RENTAL INCOME 2,00,000 3. IN APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE MADE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS AND FILED VARIOUS DETAILS. BASED ON THE ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) JUSTIFIED THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/ S. 144 BY THE AO. HE, HOWEVER, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,95,904 MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2,91 ,948/- AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS TO RS. 4,5 0,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 18,40,000/- MADE BY THE AO. SIMILARLY THE RENTAL INCOME WAS BR OUGHT DOWN TO RS. 71,400/- AS AGAINST RS. 2 LAKHS DETERMINED BY THE AO. 3.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTE D TO ADOPT THE PROFIT FROM 70% TO 80% IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SHOPS FOR THE EARLIER YEARS R ELEVANT TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING ATLEAST 80% ON THE PROFIT FROM THE SALE OF SHOPS W HICH WAS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 29,30,000/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME OF RS. 2,91,948/- MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF DECLA RED THE SAME AS TOTAL INCOME AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ACTION AS PER LETTER DATED 10-08-200 5. 4. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF RS. 15,95,804/- ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS A ND RELIEF GIVEN ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL INCOME BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND HAS BASICAL LY CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF 3 UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2,91,948/- AND RESTRICTIN G THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS TO RS. 4,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 18,40,000/- DETERMINE D BY THE AO. 5. THE LEARNED DR WHILE CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SUBSTANTIAL INCOME D URING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BUT DID NOT FILE THE RETURN NOR COMPLIED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 148 OR 143(2)/142(1). THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AFTER COMPL ETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO GAVE SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE PR OFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING A.Y. 2003-04 AND 2002-03 @ 70% OF THE SALE T OWARDS ITS CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY THE AO ADOPTED 80% PROFIT ON SALE DURING T HE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY BASIS RESTRICTED THE INCOME ON S ALE OF SHOPS TO RS. 4,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 18,40,000/- ESTIMATED BY THE AO. SO FAR AS THE DELETION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2,91,948/-, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF VAR IOUS GROUPS. IN THE SUBMISSION DATED 10-08-2005 THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED R S. 2,91,948/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, TH E ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHE R HAND SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO SOME MISUNDERSTANDING AND QUARREL BETWEEN THE PARTN ERS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED THE RETURN ON 30-12- 2008, WHICH IS AFTER THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U /S.144 ON 29-12-2008. 6.1. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT PLA CED AT PAGE NOS. 104 TO 106 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH T O ITEM NO. 4 OF THE REMAND REPORT AND SUBMITTED THAT AS AGAINST TENTATIVE INCO ME OF RS. 18,96,848/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2006-07 THE ASS ESSEE HAS DECLARED RS. 11,13,700/- FOR THE ABOVE YEARS. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 THE 4 ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED TENTATIVE INCOME OF RS. 10,23 ,160/- IN THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE SAID LETTER THE TAX AND S URCHARGE ON THAT INCOME WAS RS. 2,91,948/-. HOWEVER, AFTER RECONCILIATION OF THE A CCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 4,33,820/-. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRES S OF RS. 15,95,804/- AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2,91,948/- AND HAS RESTRI CTED THE PROFIT ON SALE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO RS. 4,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 18,40,000/- MADE BY AO AND RESTRICTED THE RENTAL INCOME TO RS. 71,400/- AS AGA INST RS. 2 LAKHS DETERMINED BY THE AO AND SINCE THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE RELIEF GI VEN ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS AND RENTAL INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEING A REASONED ONE SHOULD BE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISE D BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND OUT OF THE FOUR ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE AO THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED TWO ADDITIONS, NAMELY WORK IN PROGRESS RS. 15,95,804/- AND UNDISCLOSED INCOME RS. 2,91,948/-. SIMILARLY HE RESTRICTED THE PROFIT ON SALE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO RS. 4,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 18,40,000 /- ESTIMATED BY THE AO AND DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. 71 ,400/- AS AGAINST RS. 2 LAKHS DETERMINED BY AO. WE FIND THE REVENUE IS NOT IN AP PEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF RS. 15,95,804 ON ACCOUNT OF WORK IN PROGRESS AND RELIEF GIVEN ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT CONSIDERED. 7.1 AS REGARDS THE DELETION OF RS. 2,91,948/- WE FI ND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION AT PARA 6 OF THE ORDER HAS HE LD AS UNDER : THE NEXT ISSUE IS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT OF RS. 2, 91,948/- AS UNDISCLOSED. THE AO ASSESSED THE SAID AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT OFFERED THE SAME AMOUNT AS TENTATIVE INCOME AT THE TIME OF SURVEY BY THEIR LETTER 5 DATED 10-08-2005. THE APPELLANT SERIOUSLY CONTESTE D THE ABOVE ADDITION STATING THAT THE INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THEIR LETTER DATED 10-08-2005 ON TENTATIVE BASIS AND AS MAY BE SEEN FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE NET PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT WAS WORKED OUT TO RS. 3,62, 420/- HENCE, THIS AMOUNT ONLY TO BE CONSIDERED AS ASSESSEES INCOME FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD. THE APPELL ANT OFFERED INCOME OF RS. 10,23,160/- FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 ON TENTATIVE BASIS BY THEIR LETTER DATED 10- 08-2005 AND NOT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,91,948/-. THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 2,91,948/- WAS ACTUALLY ESTIMATED TAX LIABILITY ON THE INCOME OFFERED FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE AO WITHOUT VERIFYING THE RECORDS PROPERLY AND ADOPTED THE ESTIMATED TAX LIABILITY AS THE INCOME OFFERED B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE ACTION OF THE AO IS INCORREC T. FURTHER, THE ADDITION EVEN OTHERWISE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN VIEW OF THE F ACT THAT THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY WAS ALREADY ASSESS ED BY HIM IN THE ORDER SEPARATELY. THE AO ALSO TAXED WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS UNDISCLOSED. THE AO CANNOT TAX THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS/EXPENDITURE, THE CO NSTRUCTION RECEIPTS AND AMOUNT DISCLOSED ON CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. THUS, T HE AOS METHOD OF TAXING THE SAME INCOME ON DIFFERENT PRETEXTS IS UNJUSTIFIA BLE AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE ANY SEPARATE ADDITION FOR THE PURPOSE OF UNDISCLOSED IN COME BASED ON THE OFFER OF THE APPELLANT BY HIS LETTER DATED 10-08-2005 AS THE SAME IS TAKEN CARE IN PARA-7 BELOW. 8. PERUSAL OF THE LETTER DATED 10-08-2005 ADDRESSED TO THE AO BY THE ASSESSEE, (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 23 TO 28) SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE INFACT HAS DECLARED THE TENTATIVE INCOME F OR A.Y. 2006-07 AT RS. 10,23,160/- AND ESTIMATED INCOME TAX AND SURCHARGE THEREON AT RS. 2,91,948/-. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING GIVEN B Y THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE AO WITHOUT VERIFYING THE RECORDS PROPERLY ADOPTED THE ESTIMATED TAX LIABILITY AS THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. SINCE THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND PROPERLY AND WRONGLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,91,948/- ON THE BASIS OF THE LETTER DATED 10- 08-2005 ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS UPHELD. GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6 9. SO FAR AS THE GROUND RELATING TO RESTRICTING THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SHOPS TO RS. 4,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 18,40,000/- DETERMINE D BY THE AO WE FIND THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS HELD AS UNDER : THE NEXT ISSUE IS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT OF RS. 18 ,40,000/- AS PROFIT ON SALE. THE AO ESTIMATED THE PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 80% ON T HE SALE CONSIDERATION OF PLOTS. THE APPELLANT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED TO THIS AS SESSMENT AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE OBJECTIONS IS AS UNDER : DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION APPELLANT SOLD SHOPS AND UNIT AS FOLLOWS : DATE OF SALE NAME OF THE PURCHASER DESCRIPTION AREA AMOUNT 19-07-2005 DR. RAJESH LAXMAN SONAWANE 10 ROOMS 147 SQ.MTRS RS. 8,10,000/- 13-07-2005 SAU. PUSHPABAI DIGUMBAR NIKAM SHOP NO.3 21 SQ.MTRS RS, 4,20,000/- 15-07-2005 DR. RAJESH LAXMAN SONAWANE UNIT NO. 7 83.10 SQ.MTRS RS. 8,50,000/- 15-07-2005 DR. RAJESH LAXMAN SONAWANE- UNIT NO. 8 UNIT NO. 8 83.10 SQ.MTRS RS, 8,50,000/- XEROX COPY OF THE SALE DEEDS ARE ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSALS. OUT OF WHICH THE APPELLANT RETURNED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 6 ,29,000/- TO DR. RAJESH LAXMAN SONAWANE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION REMAINED. THE PROFIT & LOSS A/C YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SHOWS NET PROFIT RS. 3,62, 420/-. THE AO MERELY RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE APPE LLANT ONLY AND MADE THE ADDITION. INFACT, THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING TH E COURSE OF SURVEY IS ON ENTIRELY TENTATIVE BASIS. IT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VA LUE AND HENCE ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT, ITSELF, BE MADE ON THE BASIS FOR THE ADDITION. 7.1 IT MAY BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE APPELLAN T SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF SALE OF LAND TO DIFFERENT PERSO NS ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE AO FAILED TO CONSIDER TH E EVIDENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND JU STIFIED THE ADDITION ALREADY MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND PROPER JUSTIFICA TION. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE SALE TRANSACT IONS OF THE PLOTS OF LAND ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE AO FAILED TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD EVEN THOUGH HE WAS SPECIFIC ALLY AUTHORISED TO DO SO BY THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 13-11-2009. THOUGH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS BELATED AND CANNOT BE TAKEN ON RECORD, THE AO SHOUL D HAVE EXAMINED THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE F.Y. 2005-06, WHICH WE RE FILED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE TOTAL SALES ON ACCOUNT OF PLOT OF LAND AT RS. 29,30,000/- AND APPELLANT CONSIDERED ONLY THE AMOUN T AT RS. 23,01,00/- FOR 7 THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT. THE DIFFE RENCE WAS EXPLAINED TO BE SALES RETURN OF RS. 7,29,000/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT SALES RETURN, THE TOTAL SALES SHOULD BE TAKEN AT RS. 29,3 0,000/-. IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE AND TOTALITY OF THE CIRC UMSTANCES AND CONSIDERING THE COST OF THE LAND AND THE SALES, THE NET PROFIT CAN BE TAKEN AT RS. 4,50,000/-. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS AT RS. 4,50,000/- INSTEAD OF RS. 18,40,000/- ESTIMATED IN THE ORDER. 10. WE FIND IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHE R FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 NOR FILED THE DET AILS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S.143(2)/142(1). THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE LEARNED CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND H ELD THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE AND TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES CONSI DERING THE COST OF THE LAND AND THE SALES NET PROFIT CAN BE TAKEN AT RS. 4,50,000/- . HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT SPELLED OUT WHAT ARE THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE FOR THE YE AR UNDER APPEAL WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS DECLARING 70% PROFIT ON SALES FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY IN THE PAST. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT THE INCOME AT RS. 4,50,000/- IN OUR OPINION IS NOT JUST AND PROPER ES PECIALLY IN ABSENCE OF COOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME AND PARTICIPATING IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS TO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THE POWERS OF THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS ARE LIMITED UNLIKE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FURTHER FIND THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 10-08- 2005 ADDRESSED TO THE AO (A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 23 TO 28 ) HAS COMPUTED SUCH PROFIT AT RS. 10,23,160/- AS ITS TENTATIVE PROFIT FOR THE A.Y . 2006-07. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE ADOPTION OF RS. 9 LAKHS AS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR FROM SALE OF SHOPS, IN OUR OPINION, WILL MEET THE 8 ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF JULY 2012 SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: THE 10 TH JULY 2012 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A)- II NASHIK 4. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE