2011 (8) TMI 768

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....w taken by the ld. Judicial Member in both these cases. Therefore, in view of the majority decision, the appeals of the assessees are allowed. 2. In the result, appeals of the assessees are treated as allowed. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 11.10.2011).  (B.C. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) Accountant Member Judicial Member Date: 11th October, 2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT (AS A THIRD MEMBER) ITA No.323/Agr/2006 & Assessment Year : 2001-02 Smt.Amita Agarwal, & Others Versus Asstt.Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Agra. Represented by: Shri Anurag Sinha, Advocate. Written submissions. Respondent by : Shri Homi ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....res, which stands treated by the Revenue as income from other sources, as in its view the assessee was unable to prove the share transaction(s) yielding the 'capital gain' under reference. 3.1 For the detailed reasons listed in the case of Shri Baijnath Agarwal (ITA No.133/Agr/2007), I have, vide my dissenting order dated 10.02.2009, taken a different view from that by my ld. Brother, dismissing the assessee's appeal on this ground, in that case. 3.2 On the basis of the hearing, and the examination of the record, I find the facts and circumstances in the present case, as also the respective cases of the opposing parties, as very similar to that obtaining in the case of Shri Baijnath Agarwal (supra). As such, for the detailed reasons a....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nd circumstances in the present case, as also the respective cases of the opposing parties, are very similar to those obtaining in the case of Shri Baijnath Agarwal (supra). That is how the difference of opinion between the Members constituting the Division Bench in both these cases has come up before me and the Hon'ble President has nominated me as a Third Member under Section 255(4) of the IT Act, 1961 to resolve this difference. 5. In the case of Shri Rajesh Kumar Garg, written submissions were filed wherein it is contended by the assessee that the Hon'ble Accountant Member has dissented from the views of the learned Judicial Member on the basis of discussions in Shri Baijnath Agarwal and the case of Shri Baijnath Agarwal has since be....