The ACIT, Circle-6, Ahmedabad V. Shri Naranbhai B.Patel, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 59/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9214 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-07-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Search and seizure
• Section: 133A; 131; 54; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING 8-7-2010: DRAFTED O N: 8-7-2010 IT(SS)A NO.59 /AHD/2008 (BLOCK PERIOD 1-4-86 TO 11-2-97) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, C.U.SHAH BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD. VS. SHRI NARANBHAI B. PATEL, 71,VIKRAMPARK SOCIETY, NR.BAJRANG BAPU ASHRAM, SAIJPUR BOGHA, AHMEDABAD. PAN/GIR NO. :ADQPP 3847 B (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.S.GAHLOT, CIT(LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.N.DIVATIA O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE A ND ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-XI , AHMEDABAD DATED 16-4-2008. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE READS AS UNDER :- - 2 - THE LD. CIT (A)-XI, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16 ,60,972/- TOWARDS THE PROFIT GAINED ON TRANSFER OF LAND WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR DISPOSAL OF THESE APPEALS AND AS HAVE BEEN REVEALED FROM THE RECORDS ARE THAT THE APPELLANT SHRI NARANBHAI BALDEVBHAI HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT (KNOWN AS BANAKHAT) FOR PURCHASE OF 92,000 SQ. YDS. LAND AT V ILLAGE MUTHIYA,TAL.DASCROI,DISTRIST AHMEDABAD FROM ORIGINA L OWNERS; NAMELY, SHRI DULABHAI GANESHBHAI, SHRI VALLABHBHAI PREMJIBHAI AND SHRI BABUBHAI BHIKKHUBHAI @ RS.103/- PER SQ. YD T OTAL PRICE TO BE PAID RS.98,02,000/-; SOMEWHERE IN 1994. 4. ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED ON AT BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. SHYAM BUILDERS ON 21-01-1997 WHEN A BANAKHAT MARKED AS ANNEXURE-A-2/14 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED. 5. AS PER THIS BANAKHAT, 4 PERSONS; NAMELY, (1) SHR I NARANBHAI BALDEVBHAI (ASSESSEE), (2) BHAGWANBHAI BABALDAS PAT EL, (3) ASHWINBHAI BABABHAI PATEL AND (4) SHRI RAMANBHAI BE CHARBHAI PATEL HAD EXECUTED THE BANAKHAT IN THE CAPACITY OF SELLER S IN FAVOUR OF THREE PERSONS; NAMELY,SHRI BHIKHUBHAI,SHRI ARVINDBHAI AND SHRI AJITBHAI FOR SALE OF SAME LAND FOR WHICH SHRI NARANBHAI BALD EVBHAI PATEL (ASSESSEE) HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT (IN BANAKH AT) FOR PURCHASE WITH THREE ORIGINAL OWNERS (AS ALREADY STATED). - 3 - 6. AS PER THIS BANAKHAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS TO BE SOLD @ RS.301/- PER SQ. YD. AND THE PAYMENT SCHEDULE WAS A S UNDER :- (I) CASH OF RS.5 LACS AND ANOTHER CASH OF RS.62 LAC S WAS ACKNOWLEDGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS PER PAGE NO.1 5 OF THE BANAKHAT WHEREIN THE SAID SHRI NARANBHAI BALDEVBHAI HAD CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF CASH TILL 3 0-09- 1996, (RS.5,00,000/- RECEIVED ON 15-03-1996,RS.62 L ACS RECEIVED ON 30-09-1996). (II) THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS TO BE RECEIVED IN SIX E QUAL INSTALMENTS TO BE PAID ON 30-09-1996, 15-02-1997, 1 5- 06-1997, 15-10-1997, 15-02-1998 AND 15-05-1998. 7. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH , STATEMENT SHRI BHAGWANBH AI BABALDAS PATEL WAS RECORDED WHO ACCEPTED THE AFORESAID FACTS . SHRI BHAGWAN BABALDAS PATEL AGAIN CONFIRMED THE AFORESAID FACTS IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON 11-02-19 97 ON THE BASIS OF BANAKHAT EXECUTED IN MARCH-1996 WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. 8. STATEMENTS OF SHRI BHAGWAN BABALDAS PATEL, NARAN BHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL AND SHRI ASHWINBHAI B. PATEL WERE ALSO RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT ON 11-02-1997, 07-03- 1997 AND 11-02- 1997 RESPECTIVELY WHEN THEY CONFIRMED THE FACT OF H AVING PURCHASED THE LAND FROM THREE ORIGINAL OWNERS @ RS.103/- PER SQ. YD. AND ALSO THEIR SHARES IN THE SAID LAND WHICH WAS STATED TO B E 25% EACH. 9. IT IS ALSO REVEALED FROM THE RECORDS THAT WHEN S HRI NARANBHAI B. PATEL, HAD EXECUTED THE BANAKHAT WITH THE ORIGIN AL OWNERS HE HAD - 4 - JUST PAID ONLY A SUM OF RS.33,50,000/- AND BALANCE OF RS.64,52,000/- WAS PAID AFTER ENTERING INTO BANAKHAT WITH OTHER TH REE CO-PURCHASERS, NAMELY, S/SHRI BHIKHUBHAI, ARVINDBHAI AND AJITBHAI, IN MARCH-1996. IT IS ALSO REVEALED FROM THE RECORDS THAT PAYMENT O F RS.33,50,000/- WAS MADE BY SHRI NARANBHAI BALDEVBHAI PATEL ONLY AF TER RECEIVING THE MONEY FROM THREE OTHER CO-PURCHASERS; NAMELY, S/SHRI BAHGWANBHAI BABALDAS PATEL, ASHWINBHAI BABABHAI PAT EL AND RAMABHAI BECHARDAS PATEL. 10. IT WAS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT FOR BLOCK PERIOD IN THE CASE OF SHRI NARANBHAI B. PATEL AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHAGWANBHAI B. PATEL, CONCLUDED THAT : (I) THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION WERE CONSIDERED AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. (II) SHARE OF EACH ONE OF FOUR PERSONS; IS A) SHRI BNHAGWANBHAI BABALDAS PATEL, B) SHRI ASHWIUNBHAI BABABHAI PATEL, C) SHRI NARANBHAI BABALDAS PATEL, AND D) SHRI RAMABHAI BECHARDAS PATEL - WAS 25% EACH. 11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF AB OVE FACTS COMPUTED THE TOTAL PROFIT HAVING BEEN MADE BY THESE 4 PERSONS FROM THE TRANSACTIONS CONSIDERED AS ADVENTURE IN THE NAT URE OF TRADE AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AT RS.66,43,890/- FOR AN AR EA OF 33555 SQ.YDS. OF LAND BY ADOPTING A PROFIT OF RS.198/- (R S.301/- SALE RATE AS PER BANAKHAT EXECUTED IN 1994 RS.103 PURCHASE RAT E AS PER BANAKHAT EXECUTED IN 1996). IN THIS WAY, THE ASSES SING OFFICER COMPUTED THE PROFIT OF BOTH THESE ASSESSEES AT RS.1 6,60,942/- EACH. - 5 - 12. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED AUT HORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HELD AS UNDER :- 3.1.2.IT MAY BE SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH SHRI BHAGWANBHAI BABALDAS PATEL,SHRI ASHWINBHAI BABALBHA I PATEL AND SHRI RAMABHAI BECHARBHAI PATEL SUPPOSED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF A PROPERTY TO SHRI BHIKHUBHAI, SHRI ARVINDBHAI AND SHRI AJITBHAI. IT APPEARS THAT A PART OF SALE PROCEEDS WHICH IS AGREED UPON WAS ONLY RECEIVED BEF ORE THE SEARCH. ACTUALLY THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS TO BE GIV EN IN INSTALMENTS. THE SEARCH WAS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF TR IMURTHI ASSOCIATES. THEREBY THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO COVERED UNDER SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SEC TION 158BD OF INCOME TAX ACT. 3.1.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THA T THE PROFITS ARISING OUT OF THE TRANSACTION UNTIL THE SEARCH HAS TO BE TREATED AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX AND HON'BLE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD HAD CONF IRMED THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE HON 'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF THE CO-OWNERS OF THE APPELLANT HAVING SIMILAR ISSUE HAS REMITTED THE MAT TER TO TRIBUNAL TO EXAMINE WHETHER THERE IS A TRANSFER OF SAID PROPERTY FOR DECIDING WHETHER THERE IS A CAPITAL GAIN OR TR ADING INCOME. THE ITAT, HOWEVER SENT BACK THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BY GIVING DIRECTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF WHAT H ON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS DIRECTED. 3.1.4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MORE OR LESS HAS FOLLO WED THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BY MAKING THE SAME ADDITI ONS. 3.1.5. IT IS BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS ON THE SAID PROPERTY AFTER THE TRANSF ER OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, IT IS PLEADED THAT TREATING THE PART RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF PROPOSED SALE OF PROPERTY AS TRADE RECEIPTS IS UNWARRANTED. 3.1.6. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO MY NOTICE THAT IN CASE OF CO-OWNER BY NAME SHRI BHAGWANBHAI B. PATEL, JCIT,CIRCLE-9,AH MEDABAD IS STATED TO HAVE HELD IN HIS DIRECTIONS TO ASSESSI NG OFFICER UNDER SECTION 144A THAT NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO OK PLACE DURING BLOCK PERIOD. - 6 - 3.1.7 IT IS REITERATED THAT TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AC TUALLY TOOK PLACE ONLY FOR ACCOUNTING YEAR 2001-02 AND CAPITAL GAINS WERE OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSM ENT YEAR. 3.1.8. THE DETAILS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO CAPITAL GAINS OFFERED, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ARE EXAMIN ED. FROM THE FINDINGS OF JCIT.,CIRCLE-9,AHMEDABAD VIDE CORRE SPONDENCE DATED 3.12.2007 IT APPEARS THAT TRANSFER OF PROPERT Y HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE DURING BLOCK PERIOD, THEREFORE BRINGING THIS TRANSACTION FOR TAXATION PURPOSE IN THE BLOCK PERIO D IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE ON THI S COUNT IS DELETED. 13. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE LEARNE D AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO AD DED RS. 16,60,972/-TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GRO UND THAT TRANSFER OF LAND MEASURING 33555 SQ.YDS. SITUATED AT VILLAGE MUTHIYA, TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD WHICH WAS OWNED CO-JOINTLY BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER THREE CO-OWNERS WAS TRANS FERRED IN SEPTEMNBER,1996 AND THEREFORE PROFIT ON SALE THEREO F IS ASSESSABLE DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. 15. ON APPEAL LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS) DELETED THE ABOVE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT TRANSFER OF LAND IN QUESTION HAD TAKEN PLACE SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2001-02 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY PAID TAX ON THE PROFITS ACCRUED ON SALE. - 7 - 16. BEFORE US THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER 17. WE FIND THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER THREE PERSONS WHICH INCLUDED SHRI BHAGWANDAS BABALDAS PATEL. ALSO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE OT HER CO-OWNERS INCLUDING BHAGWANDAS BABALDAS PATEL ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE SAID LAND IN SEPTEMBER,1996. ON THE ABO VE FACTS, IN THE CASE OF SAID SHRI BHAGWANDAS BABALDAS PATEL, IT WAS HELD BY THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-9 VIDE ITS ORDER NO. JT.CIT/R.9/144A/2007-08 DATED 3-12-2007 PASSED UND ER SECTION 144A AS UNDER :- THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE TRANSFER HA S TAKEN PLACE WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIODS OR NOT? FROM THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING FACT S EMERGES :- I) AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS ENTE RED ON 15.03.1996 FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,70,41 ,772/- AT THE RATE OF RS. 301 SQ. YD. AS PER THE POINT NO. 4 OF THE AGREEMENT, POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS TO BE HANDED OVER ON PAYMENT OF 50% OF THE ABOVE SUM, THAT IS RS.1,35,70,886/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.1,01,00,000/- ONLY SUBSEQUENT TO THE AGREEMENT D ATED 15.03.1996. HENCE AS PER EXPRESS TERMS OF AGREEMENT , THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE H ANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER, SINCE THE PURCHASER HAS NOT PAID 50% OF THE CONSIDERATION. II) A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE PURCH ASER AND DUE TO THE SAME THEY COULD NOT MAKE PAYMENT OF THE REMAINING AMOUNT. THERE WERE LEGAL ISSUES IN RELATI ON TO TRANSFER OF THIS LAND AS EVIDENT FROM THE FORM NO.6 THAT ORDER OF STAY WAS PASSED BY THE DY. COLLECTOR ETC., TO MAINTAIN STATUS QUO OF THE LAND AND NOT MAKE ANY - 8 - CHANGES IN THE LAND, URBAN LAND CEILING ACT WAS ALS O THERE, AND AS PER ENTRY NO. 1794 DATED 19-1-2001 IN FORM NO.6 THE URBAN LAND CEILING ACT WAS REPEALED AND TH E LAND BECAME FREE FROM GOVERNMENT PROHIBITION. III) A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 01-01-2001 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHASER, TO SALE THE LAND AT THE RATE OF RS.301/- SQ. YARD AS PER BANACHITTI DATED 6- 1-1996, AGAINST RECEIPT OF RS.1,01,00,000/-. A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS ALSO FILED. IN THIS AGREEMENT IT WAS DECIDED TO SALE 33,555 SQ. YARD FOR THE PRICE ALREA DY RECEIVED AS PER THE ORIGINAL BANAKHAT DATED 15-03-1 996 AND THE PURCHASER IN LIEU OF THE SAME HAS RELEASED HIS RIGHT OVER THE REMAINING LAND. IV) AS PER THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY SHRI ARVINDBHAI GOKARBHAI PATEL, ONE OF THE CO-PURCHASERS, POSSESS ION OF THE LAND MEASURING 33,555 SQ. YARD WAS HANDED OV ER TO THEM ON 01-01-2001. V) A COPY OF FORM NO.6 WAS SUBMITTED, WHEREIN IT IS SE EN THAT THE ABOVE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED ON 04-01-2001 A ND THE ENTRY TO THIS EFFECT HAS BEEN MADE ON 19-01-200 1, VIDE ENTRY NUMBER 1795. THUS, IT APPEARS FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE LAND IN QU ESTION HAS NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERT Y ACT, 1882 (TP ACT). UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE T.P. ACT THE TERM SALE HAS BEEN DEFINED AND IT IS LAID DOWN THAT IN CASE OF TA NGIBLE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE VALUE OF ONE HUNDRED RUPE ES AND UPWARDS THE SALE CAN BE MADE ONLY BY A REGISTERED I NSTRUMENT. THEREFORE, THE DOCUMENT EFFECTING SUCH A SALE HAS T O BE REGISTERED. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST T HAT THE REGISTRATION OF THE LAND HAS BEEN MADE DURING THE B LOCK PERIOD. IT IS ALSO SEEN FROM FORM NO.6 THAT THE LAND IN QUE STION AMOUNTING TO 33,555 SQ. YARD HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE PURCHASERS ON 04-01-2001, THUS AS PER SECTIO N 54 OF THE T.P. ACT, TRANSFER OF THIS 33,555 SQ YARD OF LAND H AS NOT BEEN TAKEN PLACE DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. - 9 - NOW COMING TO THE QUESTION OF TRANSFER AS PER PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A OF THE TP ACT. IT IS ESSENTIAL FOR A TRANSACTI ON TO FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF TRANSFER AS PER SECTION 53A OF THE TP ACT, TWO CONDITIONS ARE TO BE SATISFIED. ONE BEING CONSIDERATION/PART CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN PAID AND THE OTHER IS HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION. IN THIS CASE THOUGH THE FIRST CONDITION IS SATISFIED, IT APPEARS THAT THE SECOND CONDITION IS NOT SATISFIED AS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST TH AT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE SELLERS WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD. IT IS SEEN FROM THE AFFIDA VIT FILED BY ONE OF THE PURCHASERS THAT THE POSSESSION OF LAND M EASURING 33,555 SQ YARD WAS HANDED OVER ONLY ON 01-01-2001. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE OR SUGGEST THAT THE P OSSESSION OF THE LAND HAS BEEN HANDED OVER DURING THE BLOCK PERI OD. THUS, AS PER SECTION 53A OF THE TP ACT ALSO THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN PLACE DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. YOU ARE DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS. 18. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER, THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN THE CASE OF SAID SHRI BHAGWANBHAI BABALDAS PATEL HA S ACCEPTED THAT TRANSFER OF LAND IN QUESTION IN PURSUANCE TO THE AB OVE AGREEMENT DID NOT TAKE PLACE DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. WE FIND THAT NO MATERIAL COULD BE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER AT ANY TIME DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH MATERIAL BEING BROUGHT ON RECORD WE DO NOT FIN D ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS). 19. FURTHER, THE REVENUE ALSO COULD NOT BRING ANY M ATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE CASE OF OTHER CO-OWNERS NAMELY SHRI BHAGWANBHAI BABALDAS PA TEL WAS - 10 - REVERSED BY ANY AUTHORITY. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PO SITION OF LAW THAT REVENUE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE DIFFERENT STAND I N RESPECT OF SAME TRANSACTION IN THE CASE OF DIFFERENT PERSONS WITHOU T ANY COGENT REASON. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IT IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2010. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL SHRAWAT ) ( N.S. SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; ON THIS 16TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : S1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)- 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD - 11 - DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 8-7-2010 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 8-7-2010 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 8-7-2010 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 9-7-2010 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S 16-7-2010 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 16-7-2010 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 16-7-2010 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER