9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (11) TMI 1654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . DHOLARIA, JJ. Ms. Paurami B. Sheth for the Appellant JUDGMENT M.R. Shah, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "ITAT") dated 31/01/2013 in ITA No. 1964/Ahd/2012 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 the revenue has preferred the present appeal with the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the appellate tribunal is right in law and on facts in confirming the order of the CIT(A) deleting the addition of ₹ 32,56,559 made by the AO on account of business income and directing the AO to treat the same as long term capital gain as claimed by he assessee, without discussing the merits & findings of the A.O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ould not be treated as business income and has contented that similar treatment was given by the Assessing Officer in her case for the assessment year 2005-06 and the CIT(A) has decided the issue in favour of the assessee. It was also submitted that for the assessment year 2004-05 the proceedings under section 263 of the Income Tax Act were dropped. However, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanation given by the assessee. With respect to the reliance placed on the decision of the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2005-06, the Assessing Officer observed that as the Department has not accepted the same, the appeal before the ITAT has been filed and, therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by the CIT(A) for the Assessment Ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ee, without discussing the merits & findings of the A.O. in the assessment order?" 3. Heard Ms. Paurami Sheth, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the ITAT, CIT(A) as well as the order passed by the Assessing Officer. At the outset, it is required to be noted that in the present case the dispute is with respect to the Assessment Year 2009-10 with respect to the share transactions and treating the same as business income. Identical question came to be considered with respect to the Assessment Year 2005-06 and similar treatment was given by the Assessing Officer treating the income from the shares as business income, which came to be deleted by the CIT(A), which furt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
