2011 (6) TMI 891

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....against the order of the CIT(A)-II, Bangalore u/s. 144 dated 15.3.2010. 2. In the appeal for the A.Y. 2006-07, though the Revenue has raised 7 grounds of appeal, the crux of the issues are that the CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to assess the income on the element of long term capital gains for the A.Y. 2005-06 instead of A.Y. 2006-07 and with respect to the sale of 12 flats, the CIT(A) ought not to have taken fresh evidence filed by the assessee without giving an opportunity to the Assessing Officer as per the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules. 3. The brief facts are that the assessee is an individual and owned property along with other co-owners. The said property was subject matter of a joint development agreement with M/s....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... to be treated as short term capital gains. The claim of exemption u/s. 54F was denied as there was no capital gains on development being assessed for A.Y. 2005-07. However, the addition of Rs. 24,13,000 as unexplained cash credit was deleted by the ld. CIT(A). 5. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal for the A.Y. 2006-07 in ITA No.953/B/2009 on the grounds that capital gains should be assessed in A.Y. 2006-07 only and with regard to assessment of capital gains on sale of 12 apartments, the Assessing Officer was not afforded the opportunity. 6. In the meanwhile, based on the directions of the ld. CIT(A), the Assessing Officer passed an order of assessment u/s. 144 dated 23.12.09 for the A.Y....