NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL, RAIGAD V. ITO WD 2, THANE

ITA 4942/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3270 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BIMLENDU BHUJHAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 2(14); 13

Judgement Text

C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI , . , BEFORE S H RI MAHAVIR SINGH, VP AND S H RI M. BALAGANESH, AM ./ ITA NO. 4942 /MUM/ 2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 ) NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL 01, YOGESHWAR KRUPA, DONNGARI PUL POST - MAHAD, DIST - RAIGAD - 402301 / VS. THE INCOME T AX OFFICER, WARD - 2, ROOM NO,29, B - WING, 6 TH FLOOR, ASHA IT PARK, THANE - 400601 ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) . / PAN NO. AKPPP6795C / APPELLANT BY : SHRI BIMLENDU BHUJHAN, AR / RESPON DENT BY : MS. SHREEKALA PARDESHI, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10.06.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .06.2021 / O R D E R . , / PER M. BALAGANESH , AM : THIS APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)] - 2 , THANE [IN SHORT CIT(A)], DATED 30.05.2016 . THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE ITO, WARD - 2, PANVEL (IN SHORT ITO / AO) FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12 VIDE ORDER DATED 10.03.2 015 UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - PAGE | 2 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL), WARD - 2, THANE HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SHRI NAROTTARN MANJIBHAI PATEL ( 'THE APPELLANT') AT RS. 2,09,98,370/ - FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT DUE TO REVENUE LAWS PERTAINING TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA, THE RMP INFOTEC H PVT . LTD . ('THE COMPANY') AUTHORIZED T HE APPELLANT TO PURCHASE LAND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY . 3. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT - ALL THE FUNDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WERE PAID BY THE COMPANY AND APPELLANT DID NOT PAY ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS A CQUISITION OF SUCH AGRICULTURE LANDS. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT TRANSFERRED THE LAND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT T HAT NO CONSIDERATI ON IN CASH OR KIND IS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT LANDS WERE NOT TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT AND NO CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT, HENCE THE SAID WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO PAGE | 3 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 TRANSFER IN THE C AS E OF APPELLANT AND SEE 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 7. ON 12 TH AUGUST 2005, VIDE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY M/S RMP INFOTEC PRIVATE LIMITED (THE COMPANY) AUTHORIZED THE BELOW MENT IONED FOLLOWING PERSONS TO ACQUIRE AGRICULTURE LANDS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. MANJI B PATE L LAXMIBEN M. PATEL VANITA M. PATEL NARROTAM M. PATEL (PROP. OF M/S RAJ SYSTEM) DUE TO REVENUE LAWS PERTAINING TO ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURE, LAND IN INDIA, COMPAN Y AUTHORIZED ABOVE PERSONS TO PURCHASE LAND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. ENTIRE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SUCH ACQUISITION TOWARDS SUCH ACQUISITION WAS PAID BY THE COMPANY. ALL THE, AGRICULTURE LAND PURCHASED BY THE, ABOVE MENTIONED PERSONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPA NY. THE SAID LANDS WERE CONVERTED IN TO NON AGRICULTURAL (N.A.) AND ALL THE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO SUCH CONVERSION WERE BORN ENTIRELY BY THE COMPANY . ALL THE ABOVE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURE LANDS WERE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT DUE TO RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY LAW ON ACQUISITION' PAGE | 4 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN INDIA . THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TRANSFER OF LAND BY APPELLANT AS ENTIRE / L ANDS WERE ACQUIRED BY THE 'COMPANY OUT OF HIS OWN FUNDS . FURTHER AS OBSERVED IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. NAVBHARAI PO TTERIES (P0 LID, IT IS HELD BY ITAAT BOMBAY THAT ANY PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE PROMOTERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY GETS IMPRESSED WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE COMPANY IF IS ASSETS SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE PROMOTER ACT IN THE PURCHASE . 'CONSIDERING THE AB OVE F ACTS OF THE CA S E AND THE DECISION OF BOMBAY ITA T BENCH IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. NAVBHARAT POTTERIES (P) LTD, WE HEREBY STATE THAT THE SAID SALE DEED EXECUTED TOWARDS NON AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS TRANSFER IN THE HANDS OF' AB OVE MENTIONED APPELLANT.' 8. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE UPDATED 7/12 EXTRACT OF EACH L AND SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THE AGRICULTURAL AND NON - AGRICULTURAL NATU RE OF EACH LAND. 9. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING EXPLANATIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT W.R. T. AGRICULTURAL LAND. PAGE | 5 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 3 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL DERIVING RENTAL INCOME AND INTEREST INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D SOLD ONE PROPERTY ALONG WITH TWO OTHERS FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF 85 ,00,000/ - FOR WHICH, CORRESPONDING VALUE AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT W AS 1,48,55,000/ - . THE PROPORTIONATE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR THE ASSESSEE IS WORKED OUT AT 53,27,732/ - AND THE PROPORTIONATE VALUE AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS WORKED OUT AT 93,29,798/ - . WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVING DEDUCTION FOR INDEX ED COST OF ACQUISITION ARRIVED AT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL FIGURE OF 77,98,873/ - AND MADE ADDITION THEREON IN THE ASSESSMENT. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE SOLD ANOTHER PROPE RTY WITH TWO OTHERS FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF 1,57,87,500/ - , FOR WHICH THE STAMP DUTY VALUE AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WAS ARRIVED AT 4,21,49,000/ - . THE PROPORTIONATE CONSIDERATION ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WAS ARRIVED AT 51 , 68,286/ - AND THE PR OPORTIONATE VALUE AS PER SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT VALUE ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT AT 1,37,98,138/ - . THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER GIVING DEDUCTION FOR THE COST THEREON ARRIVED AT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT 1,2 9,31,618/ - AND BRO UGHT TO TAX THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT. 4 . WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS UNDER : - ON THE 12 TH AUGUST, 2005, VIDE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (COPY OF THE SAME IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR READY REFERENCE) M/S RMP INFOTECH LIMITED (THE COMPANY) AUTHORIZED THE PAGE | 6 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 BELOW MENTIONED FOLLOWING PERSONS TO ACQUIRE AGRICULTURAL LANDS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY: MANJI B. PATEL LAXMIBEN M.PATEL VAMITA M. PATEL NAROTTAM M. PATEL VASANT J. KOTAK (PROP OF M/S RAJ SYSTEM) DUE TO REVEN UE LAWS PERTAINING TO ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN INDIA, COMPANY AUTHORIZED ABOVE PERSONS TO PURCHASE LAND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. ENTIRE CONSIDERATION TOWARDS SUCH ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PAID BY THE COMPANY. THE COMPANY TRANSFERRED FUNDS TO M /S. RAJ SYSTEM (PROP. SHRI VASANT J KOTAK) FOR ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURE LAND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY AS MENTIONED IN THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. ALL THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED BY ABOVE 'MENTIONED PERSONS ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY. THE SAID LAN DS WERE CONVERTED INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL ('NA') AND ALL THE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO SUCH CONVERSION WERE BORNE ENTIRELY BY THE COMPANY. FURTHER, ON THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE COMPANY ALL THE N.A. LANDS WHICH ARE MENTIONED ABOVE WERE TRANSFERRED VIDE SALE DEED BETWEEN OUR CLIENT (ON BEHALF OF THE PAGE | 7 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 COMPANY) AND SAKARLAL BALABHAI AND COMPANY LIMITED (' THE TRANSFEREE COMPANY) YOUR HONOUR IN RELATION TO ABOVE WE WOULD LIKE TO STATE THAT ALL THE' ABOVE ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURE LANDS WERE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF OUR CLIENT DUE TO RESTRICTION IMPOSED BY LAW ON ACQUISITION OF AGRICULTURE LAND IN INDIA. THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TRANSFER OF LAND BY OUR CLIENT AS ENTIRE LAND WERE ACQUIRED BY THE COMPANY OUT OF HIS OWN FUNDS. FURTHER, AS OBSERVED IN THE CASE OF INCOM E TAX OFFICER VS. NAVBHARAT POTTERIES (P) LTD., IT IS HELD BY ITAT BOMBAY THAT 'PROMOTER ACQUIRED LAND ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY BEFORE ITS INCORPORATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY SUCH PURCHASE WAS RATIFIED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AFTER INCORPORATION, OF THE COMPA NY. THE SAID LAND WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY AS BELONGING TO IT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING AND ASSESSED TO WEALTH TAX IN COMPANY'S HANDS, COMPANY WAS ENTITLED TO ADOPT COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE KIND FOR PURPOSES OF CAPITAL GAINS '. FURTHER IT IS ALSO SAID THAT 'ANY PROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE PROMOTER FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE COMPANY GETS IMPRESSED WITH THE OWNERSHIP OF THE COMPANY IF IT ASSETS SUBSEQUENTLY TO THE PROMOTER'S ACT IN THE PURCHASE.' CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY ITAT BENCH IN THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER N. NAVBHARAT POTTERIES (P). LTD, WE WHEREBY STATE PAGE | 8 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 THAT THE SAID SALE DEED EXECUTED TOWARDS NON AGRICULTURAL LAND WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS TRANSFER IN THE HANDS OF OUR ABOVE MENTIONED CL IENT.' 5 . THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AFTER DISCUSSION ABOUT THE MODUS OPERANDI OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED HIS ABOVE STAND AND ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND WERE DONE B Y HIM IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT ON ABOVE COMPANY I.E. M/S RMP INFOTECH LIMITED AS WAS CLAIMED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BY RAISING THE ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND S , THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN TWO STAND S : - (I) LAND BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND, HENCE, THE SALE PROCEEDS/ GAIN IS NOT TAXABLE AT ALL (II) IN RESPECT OF NON - AGRICULTUR AL LAND, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ON A HIGHER SIDE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE AND ADJUDICATE THE AFORESAID TWO ASPECTS RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH RE GARD TO AFORESAID ASPECTS RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND S BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN PAGES 7 TO 10 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S). THE SAME ARE NOT REITERATED HEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY . THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR REFERENCE TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) FOR DETERMINING THE VALUE OF LAND AS AGAINST THE VALUE DETERMINED IN TERM OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT PAGE | 9 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 T HE LEARNED CIT(A) SOUGHT A REMAND REPORT FROM THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS DULY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER . T HE ENTIRE EXTRACT OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS REPRODUCED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PAGES 13 AND 14 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSE E ALSO FILED REJOINDER TO THE SAID REMAND REPORT ON 06. 05.2016 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED IN PAGES 15 TO 16 OF THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 6 . THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, REMAND REPORT OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE SAID REMAND REPORT, HELD AS UNDER: - 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT, SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD AR AND MATERIAL PLACE D ON RECORD. FORM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD VARIOUS PIECES OF LAND, AS ABOVE, BUT DID NOT OFFER ANY INCOME THERE FROM, WITH THE PLEA THAT THE SAME WERE PURCHASED ON BEHALF OF M/S RMP INFOTECH PVT. LTD. AND HE WAS NOT REAL OWNER OF THE SAME. IT WAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN COMPANY AND THE APPELLANT, THE APPELLANT HAD ACQUIRED VARIOUS PIECES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, CONVERTED THE SAME IN TO NON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THE SAME TO M/S SAKARLAL BALABHAI & CO. LTD AND M/S RAIGAD REALTORS & DEVELOPERS LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AND RESORTED TO COMPUTE THE PAGE | 10 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 CAPITAL GAINS, AS ABOVE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE APPE LLANT. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT WITHDRAW THE ABOVE STAND, BUT STATED THAT 1) LAND BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND, HENCE THE SALE PROCEEDS/ GAIN IS NOT TAXABLE AND 2) IN RESPECT OF NA LAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE VAL UE OF SALE CONSIDERATION, FOR DETERMINING CAPITAL GAIN, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC 50C OF THE ACT, AT HIGHER SIDE. 6.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD AR WAS REQUIRED TO ESTABLISH THE FACT THAT THE LAND UNDER QUESTION WAS AN AGRICULTURAL L AND, BY FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF LAND CULTIVATED, CROPS GROWN, EXPENDITURES INCURRED FOR CULTIVATION, IRRIGATION, SEEDING, FERTILIZERS, HARVESTING, THRESHING, MARKETING, ETC, ALONG WITH PAST HISTORY AND PRESENT STATUS. HE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO FURNISH DETA ILS OF PURCHASE AND SALES OF EACH LAND I.E. DATE OF PURCHASE I SALES, AMOUNTS OF PURCHASE AND SALE, NATURE OF LAND, PURPOSE FOR WHICH THE LAND PURCHASED AND - ACCORDINGLY REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE TAXABLE INCOME AGAINS T LAND DEALING. 6.2 IN COMPLIANCE, VI DE ORDER SHEET NOTING DATED 28.3.2016, THE I D. AR ADMITTED THE FACT THAT LAND UNDER QUESTION WAS NEVER CULTIVATED EITHER IN THE PAST OR AFTER PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE ESTABLISH ED PAGE | 11 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 AS THE APPELLANT HAS NEVER CARRIED OUT ANY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND HAVE ALSO NEVER DECLARED ANY INCOME THERE - FROM. THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, CLAIMED THAT THE LANDS UNDER QUESTION ARE SITUATED, MUCH BEYOND 8 KMS OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS, I.E. 30 KMS F ROM MAHAD NAGAR PARISHAD AND 35 KMS FROM ROHA NAGAR PARISHAD, AND ARE AGRICULTURAL LAND, HENCE, CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED AS AN ASSET, AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE LD AR, HOWEVER, CLARIFIED THAT THE LANDS, UNDER QUESTION, WERE NEVER PURCHAS ED FOR CULTIVATION, BUT WERE PURCHASED WITH THE INTENTION TO CONVERT THE SAME INTO NA LAND AND THEREAFTER TO SELL THEM IN SMALL PLOTS. 6.3 THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT TENABLE IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, AS ADMITTED ABOVE, VIDE ORDER SHEET NOTING DTD. 28.03.2016 . FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN PURCHASING LANDS AND SELLING THEREOF, ON PROFITS, AFTER CONVERTING INTO NA OR INTO SMALLER PIECES, WITH THE SOLE INTENTION OF HARVESTING MAXIMUM PROFIT, THERE FROM. IT IS FUR THER NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BORROWED MONEY FROM OUTSIDE TO TRADE IN THE LAND BUSINESS. KEEPING IN MIND THE VARIOUS FACTORS SUCH AS FREQUENCY, VOLUME, ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NATURE OF FUND USED, HOLDING PERIODS, INTENTION OF PURCHASE AND SA LES, ETC, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE APPELLANT HAD CARRIED OUT TRADING IN THE LAND, FOR PAGE | 12 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 HARVESTING MAXIMUM PROFIT AND NOT FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE LAND, AS CLAIMED . 7 . WE FIND THAT AT THE TIME HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT DISPUTE WITH RE GARD TO THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE IS PENDING BEFORE CIVIL COURT AND ACCORDINGLY, PRAYED FOR KEEP ING THIS APPEAL IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF THE DISPUTE BY THE CIVIL COURT ON THE ASPECT OF CONSIDERATION AS THE SAME WOULD HAVE A BEARING ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUES. WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES BEFORE US, WE DEEM IT FIT AND APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND BASED ON THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE DISPUTE BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO REPORT THE STATUS OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIVIL COURT TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FROM TIME TO TIME. ACCORDINGLY, THE G ROUND S RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 . 0 6.2021. SD/ - SD/ - ( /MAHAVIR SINGH) ( . / M. BALAGANESH ) ( / VICE PRESIDENT) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) , / MUMBAI, DATED: 15 . 06.2021 , . / SUDIP SARKAR, SR.PS PAGE | 13 ITA NO. 4942/MUM/2016 NAROTTAM MANJI PATEL; AY 11 - 12 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY . / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, MUMBAI