ACIT, Ludhiana V. M/s Punjab Apparel Park Ltd., Ludhiana

ITA 508/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 50821514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-01-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Assessment record; Set aside
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 508/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ITO, WARD V(3), V M/S PUNJAB APPAREL PARK LTD., LUDHIANA. PUNJAB TRADE CENTRE BUILDING, OPP. MANJU CINEMA, MILLER GANJ, LUDHIANA. PAN : AADCP-2607A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 09.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2010 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'TH E ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,35,56,708/- MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF PLOTS AS REVENUE RECEIPT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ABOVE ADDITION AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS THAT THE JUDGMENT OF JURISDICTION HIGH COURT I.E HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S.I. 2 BRICK & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. STILL STANDS IN FAVOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT V DHIR & CO.COLONZERS PVT.LTD. (281 ITR 561), THE CASE LAW WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE CASE OF S.I.BRICK & BUILDERS AND WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY WAS DECIDED BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE CASE OF CIT V S.I.BRICKS & BUILDERS PVT.LTD. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE RELEVANT RECORDS, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS STATED TO BE INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTRAR O F COMPANIES, JALANDHAR. IT IS A JOINT VENTURE BETWEE N M/S PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES & EXPORTS CORPORATION LTD. AND M/S APPAREL EXPORT ASSOCIATION OF LUDHIANA UNDER TH E APPAREL PARK SCHEME OF THE MINISTRY OF TEXTILES, GO VT. OF INDIA, WITH THE OBJECT TO DEVELOP LAND AND CREATE B ASIC FACILITIES. THE COMPANY STARTED ACQUIRING LAND IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 AND ALSO STARTED BOOKING OF PLOTS IN THE SAME YEAR. IT RECEIVED ADVANCES AGAINST BOOKIN G OF PLOTS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,35,56,706/-, AS IS EVIDENT FROM T HE ASSESSMENT RECORDS. THE AO TREATED THE SAID ADVANCE S AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO P RODUCE AGREEMENTS TO SALE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT 3 PROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS PLEADED BEFORE HIM THAT NO AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED. THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND HE TREATED THE ADVANCE O F RS.5,35,56,706/-, AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. 'DR' CONTENDED THAT CIT(A), REFERRED TO AS(9 ), WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION, BUT NO OPPORTUN ITY WAS GRANTED TO THE AO. LD. 'DR' FURTHER REFERRED TO INS TRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN MAY,2006 TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION. HE SUPPORTED T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. 5. LD. 'AR', ON THE OTHER HAND, CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF CIT V M/S S.I.BRICKS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD., ITR NO. 34 OF 1991 DATED 01.11.2006 OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS FOU NDED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT, PATIALA V M/S DHIR & CO. COLONIZERS PVT.LTD., LUDHIANA WHICH WAS OVER-RULED IN THE CASE OF M/S DHIR & CO. PVT. LTD. V CIT, CIVIL APPEA L NO. 7121 OF 2009 DATED 26.02.2009 BY THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT. THEREFORE, HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ADVANCES AS INCOME. THE L D. 'AR' ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE COST/EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE ENTIRE RECEIPT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT FAIR AND JUSTIFIED. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE RIV AL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT RECORDS IN THE MATTER. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. 'AR' THAT THE DE CISION OF 4 THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF M/S S .I.BRICKS & BUILDERS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA), WAS DECIDED FOLLOWING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF M/S DHIR & CO. COLONIZER PV T.LTD. (SUPRA), WHICH WAS REVERSED BY THE HON'BLE APEX COU RT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7121 OF 2009 ARISING OUT OF SLP(C) NO. 5483/2007, ORDER DATED 26.02.2009, IS FOUND TO BE C ORRECT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID DECISION OF THE HON'B LE SUPREME COURT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : ON FACTS OF THIS CASE, WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE MATTER IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THIS COURT IN COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. REALEST BUILDERS AND SERVICES LTD., REPORTED IN 307 ITR 202 . HENCE, THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 7. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, WHILE ADJUDICATING TH E ISSUE IN THE CASE OF M/S DHIR & CO. COLONIZER PVT.L TD. (SUPRA), FOLLOWED ITS OWN DECISION IN THE CASE OF C IT V REALEST BUILDERS & SERVICES LTD. (2008) 307 ITR 202 (S.C). THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID DECISION IS REPRODUCE D HEREUNDER: IN CASES WHERE THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO TAX AN ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF LIABILITY ARISING IN A PARTICULAR YEAR, IT SHOULD ALWAYS ASCERTAIN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PAST AND WHETHER THE CHANGE IN THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING WAS WARRANTED ON THE GROUND THAT PROFIT IS BEING UNDER-ESTIMATED UNDER THE IMPUGNED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. IF THE AO COMES TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THERE IS UNDER-ESTIMATION OF PROFITS, HE MUST GIVE FACT AND FIGURES IN THAT REGARD TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE IMPUGNED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTS IN UNDER-ESTIMATION OF PROFITS AND IS 5 THEREFORE, REJECTED. OTHERWISE THE PRESUMPTION WOULD BE THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE IS REVENUE NEUTRA L. THE SUPREME COURT ACCORDINGLY DID NOT SEE REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT GONE INTO THIS VITAL ASPECT REGARDING THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING UNDER SECTION 145 OF THEIA,1961. DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. REALEST BUILDERS AND SERVICES LTD. (2008) 307 ITR 200 AFFIRMED ON THE MERITS. 8. THE AO FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF M/S S.I. BRICKS & BUILDERS (S UPRA) AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.5,35,56,706/-, REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS AN ADVANCE. FURTHER, THE AO IG NORED THE COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MERELY BROUGHT TO TAX THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS RECEIVED AS AN ADVANCE, WHICH IS NO T JUSTIFIED. THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED AND APPLIED T HE REVISED ACCOUNTING STANDARD ISSUED BY INSTITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS IN MAY,2006 AND, HENCE, THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. 'DR', IN THIS CONTEXT DOES NOT ARISE FRO M THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. IN THE PRESENT C ASE, THE PROVISIONS OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 ARE APPLICABLE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN THE POSSESSION TO THE VA RIOUS PERSONS, TO WHOM PLOTS WERE ALLOTTED, NOR ANY REGIS TRATION WAS EXECUTED, IN TERMS OF REGISTRATION ACT, 1908. THEREFORE, AS FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A), THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF ASSET IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF TRANSFE R OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 OR REGISTRATION AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER REGISTRATION ACT. THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF REGISTRATION FORMS, FILED BY VARIOUS PARTI ES. AT THAT 6 STAGE, NO AGREEMENTS FOR SALE OF PLOTS WERE EXECUTE D BY SUCH PARTIES AND NO POSSESSION WAS GIVEN, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO S UBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IN ACCORDANCE WITH RECOGNIZE D ACCOUNTING POLICY FOLLOWED CONSISTENTLY, THE ASSESS EE SUFFERED LOSS OF RS.1,55,567,919/-. AS MENTIONED E ARLIER, THE AO MERELY TAXED THE ENTIRE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, COMPLETELY IGNORING THE COST OF LAND INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE DETAILED ORDER PAS SED BY THE CIT(A) AND DEEM IT FIT TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVAN T PART OF THE SAID ORDER HEREUNDER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION OF T HE CASE : 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSED THE RELEVA NT RECORD. WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION, THE AO HAS, IN ADDITION TO OTHER ASPECTS, MENTIONED THAT T HE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE AGREEMENTS TO SALE BEFO RE HIM. AS PER THE AO, THE PLEA THAT NO AGREEMENTS FO R SALE OF PLOTS WERE EXECUTED, WAS NOT BONAFIDE AND T HAT FOR SUCH LAPSE ON THE PART OF AN ASSESSEE, ADVERSE INFERENCE IS TO BE DRAWN. HOWEVER, AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSELS, AT THE TIME OF BOOKING OF PLOTS TO VARIOUS BUSINESS HOUSES, THE Y WERE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ONLY THE REGISTRATION FORM ALONGWITH TERMS AND CONDITIONS SHEET. TERMS OF PAYMENT ETC. AND OTHER CONDITIONS ARE DETAILED IN S UCH TERMS AND CONDITION SHEET. ONCE A PARTY TO WHOM SU CH PLOT IS BOOKED BY THE APPELLANT HAS FILLED UP SUCH REGISTRATION FORM AND SIGNED TERMS AND CONDITIONS S HEET AS ABOVE, THERE APPEARS TO BE NO NEED FOR WRITING 7 FURTHER SEPARATE AGREEMENTS IN THIS REGARD. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, APPEARS TO BE CORRECT IN EXPL AINING BEFORE THE AO THAT NO AGREEMENTS FOR SALE OF PLOTS WERE EXECUTED BY THEM. THE AO CANNOT BE SAID TO BE JUSTI FIED IN DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THIS PLEA OF THE APPELLANT WAS NOT BONAFIDE. 3.1 FOR MAKING THE SAID ADDITION, THE AO MAINLY REL IED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF S.I.BRICKS AND BUILDERS PVT.LTD. (SUPRA). AS PER HIM, AS PER THE RATIO OF THIS DECISION, THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLA NT AGAINST SALE OF PLOTS WERE ITS TRADING RECEIPTS ONL Y AND WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE TAXED ACCORDINGLY. HOWEV ER, AS EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL, THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF S.I. BRICKS & BUILDERS PVT. LTD. ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FRO M THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF APPELLANTS CASE. MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT WHICH WAS CONSIDERED RELEVANT FOR DECIDING THE SAID CASE OF S.I. BRICKS (SUPRA) BY TH E HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS THAT IN THAT CASE THOUGH REGISTRATION OF SALE HAD NOT BEEN CARRIED OU T, THE POSSESSION OF PLOTS WAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED AND TRANSFEREES EVEN HAD MADE CONSTRUCTIONS ON THE SAID PLOTS. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THIS IMPORTANT ASPECT WAS MISSING. AS EXPLAINED BY THE L D COUNSELS, IN APPELLANTS CASE, NEITHER THE POSSESSI ON OF PLOTS WAS TRANSFERRED NOR ALLOTTEES MADE ANY CONSTRUCTIONS OVER THE SAID PLOTS. AT SERIAL NO.2 IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SIGNED BY THE APPLICANT, IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PLOT AND RIGHT OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PASSED ON AFTER EXEC UTION OF LEASE AGREEMENT. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH TH E LD. COUNSELS THAT IN THE FACE OF ABOVE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT MISSING IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, THE RA TIO OF DECISION OF S.I. BRICKS & BUILDERS PVT.LTD. CANNOT BE APPLIED. IN PARA 6(F) OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS 8 REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE LD. COUNSELS HAVE BROUGHT OUT THE CHART DISTINGUISHING THE FACTS OF S.I. BRICKS AND B UILDERS FROM THOSE IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. I AGREE W ITH THE LD COUNSELS THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE COMPARISON OF FACTS THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF S.I. BRICKS AND BUILDERS CANNOT BE STRAIGHT AWAY APPLIED IN APPELLANTS CASE . 3.2 IN ADDITION TO THE ABOVE ARGUMENT, THE LD. COUN SELS HAVE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT FOR DECIDING THE CASE O F S.I. BRICKS & BUILDERS, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS RELIED UPON THEIR OWN JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT V DHIR & CO. COLONIZERS PVT.LTD. 281 ITR 561 (P&H). HOWEVER, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF D HIR & CO. COLONIZERS (SUPRA), IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7121 OF 2009 DATED 26.10.2009 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE MATTER WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE JUDGEMENT OF THAT COURT IN CIT V REA LEST BUILDERS AND SERVICES LTD. REPORTED IN 307 ITR 202 (S.C). I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. COUNSELS THAT ONCE THE DECISION OF M/S DHIR & CO. (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BE EN RELIED UPON BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF S.I. BRICKS AND BUILDERS (SUPRA) (WHICH CASE HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE AO FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION) HAS BEEN OVER TURNED BY THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT, THE ACTION OF THE AO TAKEN ON THE BA SIS OF SAID DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HI GH COURT WOULD NOT STAND. 3.3 IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD COUNSELS, IT HAS FURTHER BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY H AS RECOGNIZED REVENUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ACCOUNTIN G STANDARD AS(9). THIS IS SHOWN TO BE DULY DISCLOSED IN ANNEXURE P NOTES TO ACCOUNTS VIDE SERIAL NO. 1( VI). FOLLOWING THIS METHOD, THE APPELLANT HAS DULY SHOWN SALE OF RS.83,66,936/- AND RS.14,14,52,864/- IN THE YEARS ENDING 31.3.2008 AND 31.3.2009 RESPECTIVELY AFTER THE LEASE AGREEMENTS HAD BEEN SIGNED. AS HEL D BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF REALEST 9 BUILDERS & SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA), SUCH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE COULD ONLY BE CHANGED BY THE AO IF THE METHOD FOLLOWED BY THAT ASSESSEE IS SHOWN TO BE RESULTING IN UNDER ESTIMATI ON OF PROFIT/NET INCOME. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IT HAS, HOWEVER, NOT BEEN SHOWN IF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT HAD RESULTED INTO ANY UND ER ESTIMATION OF PROFITS/NET INCOME. I, THEREFORE, AGR EE WITH THELD COUNSELS THAT THE APPELLANT HAVING FOLLOWED ACCOUNTING STANDARD AS(9) FOR REVENUE RECOGNITION, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT, THE A O COULD NOT CHANGE SUCH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND BRIN G TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCES AS DONE BY HIM. 3.4 IN PARA 6(N) OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AN ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION HAS FURTHER BEEN GIVEN BY TH E LD. COUNSELS. AS PER THE SAME, IF AT ALL ADVANCES RECEI VED DURING THE YEAR WERE TO BE CONSIDERED AS REVENUE RECEIPT, PROPORTIONATE COST OF THE LAND ETC. SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED TO WORK OUT THE CORRECT INCOME. AS PE R THESE CALCULATIONS THE EXERCISE WOULD RESULT INTO R ATHER A LOSS. HERE ALSO, THERE IS QUITE A FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSELS. IF ADVANCES OR INSTALLMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASER OF PLOT, B Y A DEVELOPER/COLONIZER ARE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE RESPE CTIVE YEARS OF RECEIPT WOULD LEAD TO ABSURD RESULTS. ENT IRE SUCH RECEIPTS CAN IN NO WAY FORM THE TAXABLE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE. THE CORRECT INCOME COULD ONLY BE WORK ED OUT IF CORRESPONDING COST AND EXPENSES ARE DEDUCTED THERE FROM. THEREFORE, BRINGING TO TAX THE ENTIRE A MOUNT OF ALLEGED ADVANCES AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS EVEN OTHERWISE NOT IN O RDER. 3.5 KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE LEGAL POSITION DISCUSSED ABOV E, ADDITION OF RS.5,35,56,706/- MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE ADDITION OF RS.5,35,56,706/- IS, 10 THEREFORE ACCORDINGLY DELETED AND THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO SELL AND NO POSSESSION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS GIVEN. THERE WAS ALSO NO CONVEYANCE OF SUCH PROPERTY WITHIN THE PERIOD UNDER REFERENCE. THEREFORE, NO TAX LIABILITY CAN B E FASTENED, IN SUCH A FACT-SITUATION. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSI ONS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE DECISIONS QUOTED AND RELIED UP ON BY LD. 'AR', WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE I S NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND HEN CE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE ARE DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH JAN.,2012. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 12 TH JAN.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH