2024 (7) TMI 1694

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... with the following directions:- "We are in agreement with the submissions of the Ld. DR. so far as the ownership of sale of shares are concerned, the lengthy discussion took place during the hearing of the case. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant pleaded that all the shares of M/s Leader Engg. Works do not belong to the appellant alone. The Ld. counsel pleaded that he has no objection for taxing capital gain out of sale of the shares. But for that the Assessing Officer has to calculate the capital gain of the ownership of shares held by Sh. Vijay Sehgal, which are 330 of Vijay Sehgal, HUF and rest of the legal heirs of late father of Sh. Vijay Sehgal. This issue is, therefore, referred back to the file of the Assessing officer who ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nt in terms of the Section 158BB(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act. 3. The revenue took the order passed by the CIT(A) before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as 'ITAT' in short) again and this time the ITAT passed an order holding that the CIT(A) decided the appeal of the assessee on merits without considering the directions of ITAT, Amritsar Bench earlier order dated 31.12.1998 and remanded the matter to the CIT(A) setting aside its order. 4. In compliance of the order dated 15.06.2005, the CIT(A) reversed its earlier finding and held that the addition of Rs. 5,60,566/- represents the capital gain held by the assessee and was brought to tax as undisclosed income for the block period in terms of the directions of ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....essee in the return filed on 22.10.1996. It would thus to be apparent that the same could not have been added to the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period from 01.04.1985 to 13.12.1995. The CIT(A) has rightly held in terms of Section 158BB(1)(d) read with Section 158 BA(3) to keep the said amount of capital gain to be taxed in the subsequent year and would not fall within the block period as above. The order passed by the ITAT subsequently remanding the matter back to the CIT(A), on the said issue based on the order of the Tribunal passed earlier on 31.12.1998, in our view, was erroneous as the order passed by the ITAT was with regard to remanding the matter back to the Assessing Officer. Once the Assessing Officer passes ....