9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (10) TMI 773X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Per N.K. Saini, Accountant Member This appeal by the assessee is against the order dated 26.8.2010 of the CIT(Appeals)-I, Bangalore. 2. The assessee has raised as many as 7 grounds and the main grievance vide ground No.2 relates to the grounds which were not decided by the ld. CIT(Appeals) questioning the Assessing Officer s decision to treat the capital gain as short term capital gains. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... side and the matter was restored to the AO. 4. On the direction of the ITAT, the Assessing Officer decided the matter afresh, but took the same view by observing that several opportunities were given to the assessee to furnish documentary evidence to the effect that Notification dated 27.4.2006 issued by the CBDT had retrospective effect, but was not furnished. The assessee carried the matter t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en amended to have retrospective effect so as to be applicable to facts of AY 1998-99, the A.Y. involved in this case. 5. Now the assessee is in appeal. We have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on record. In the instant case, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO for the reason that the assessee had no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mentary evidence Viz board s notification the order will be modified accordingly, if it is found necessary. From the above observation, it appears that the copy of the said Notification was not available to the AO, that is why the same view was taken by him as was taken in the original assessment order dated 16.8.2004. 6. In view of the above discussion, the matter is restored back to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
