Smt. Anila Kumar Rupani, Indore v. The CIT- I, Indore

ITA 33/IND/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 3322714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ERSIN1997O
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 33/IND/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant Smt. Anila Kumar Rupani, Indore
Respondent The CIT- I, Indore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 24-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 01-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 01-11-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2011
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.33/IND/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 SMT. ANILA KUMAR RUPANI INDORE PAN ABTPR-3269F ... APPELLANT VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I INDORE ... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KESHAV SAXENA DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.11.2011 O R D E R 2 PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION BY THE LEARNE D CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL THE CRUX OF ARGUM ENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT IS N OT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 ESPECI ALLY WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AF TER DUE SCRUTINY OF FACTS ON EXAMINATION OF RELEVANT DETAI LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER FACTS WHICH WERE NECESSARY TO A RRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE I NVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 8 9 11 14 TO 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. A PASSIONATE PLEA WAS RAISED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT MAKE ANY MENTION OF SUCH INQUIRIES/DETAILS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE PENALISED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT COMPLETE INQUI RIES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEN THE ISSUE OF SHORT TERM 3 CAPITAL GAIN WAS ACCEPTED. A PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT EVEN WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON T HE FOLLOWING CASES :- I. CIT V. MAX INDIA LIMITED; 295 ITR 282 (SC) II. CIT V. DLF POWER LIMITED; 329 ITR 289 (DEL) III. CIT V. DESIGN & AUTOMATION ENGINEERS; 323 ITR 632 (BOM) IV. CIT VS. RATLAM COAL ASH COMPANY; 171 ITR 141 (M P) VII. CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS; 194 TAXMAN 57 (DEL) VIII. CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR SHARMA; 194 TAXMAN 504 (DE L) 3. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED CIT DR SHRI KES HAV SAXENA STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY SUB MITTING THAT FIRSTLY THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHICH DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHAT T YPE OF INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT W AS EMPHATICALLY ARGUED THAT EVEN THERE IS NO WHISPER O F FREQUENCY OF TRADING AND BORROWAL OF FUNDS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MEANING THEREBY THAT EVEN BARE FACTS ARE NOT MENTIO NED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IT IS TO BE SEEN WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ANY VALID OPINIO N. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT WHEN TRUE FACTS ARE NOT MENTIO NED IN THE 4 ASSESSMENT ORDER SO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEO US AS THERE IS NOT EVEN A SINGLE LINE MENTIONING ALLOWABI LITY OF SHARES. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ARGUED TO BE FRAMED IN SLI P SHOT MANNER. 4. IN REPLY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT R ELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT DR IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AS IN THAT CASE NO INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND EVEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT FRAMED IN A HURRIED MANNER WHEREAS DURING ASSESSMENT INQUIRY WAS CONDU CTED FOR FIVE MONTHS WHICH WAS NOT A SLIP SHOT INQUIRY. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT BORROWED AMOUNT WAS FROM SON IN LAW OF THE ASS ESSEE WHERE NO INTEREST WAS PAID. THIS ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS STRONGLY CHALLENGED BY THE LEARNED CIT DR THAT THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EVEN NEVER EXAMINED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT DR RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LIMITED V. CIT (243 ITR 83) (SC) DUGGAL & COMPANY VS. CIT; 220 ITR 456 (DEL) AND CIT V. DEEPAK KUMAR GARG; 299 ITR 435 (MP). 5 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND THE FAMILY IS COMPRIS ING OF SIX MEMBERS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2008 U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED CIT INVOKED THE REVISIONAL JURISDI CTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT ON THE PLEA AS TO WHY THE SHORT TERM CAP ITAL GAIN MAY NOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGAINST SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED INVOCATION OF REVISI ONAL JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS WERE EXAM INED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NECESSARY INFORMATION LIKE CO NTRACT NOTE OF SECURITIES ALONG WITH A CHART SPECIFYING DATE AN D COST OF PURCHASE COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BILLS ETC WERE DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WERE EXAMINED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHILE FRA MING THE ASSESSMENT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT DUE OPPORTUNITY WA S GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LEARNED CIT. IF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER IS EXAMINED THE WHOLE THRUST OF THE LEARNED CIT IS TH AT THE 6 LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPER APPRAISAL OF FACTS WHETHER IT IS CAS E OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OR INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER WAS OPINED TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT ALSO THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE PLEA THA T ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEWS WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE IT WOULD NOT RENDER THE VIEW TO BE ERRON EOUS AND EVEN A BRIEF ORDER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS A ND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 6. NOW WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSELS. SO FAR AS THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MAX INDIA LIMITED (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED IT WAS ON THE ISSUE THAT THE LEARNED CIT PURPORTED TO EXERCISE HIS REVISIONAL POWERS IN 1997 ON THE BA SIS OF AMENDMENT MADE ON A PARTICULAR DATE WITH RETROSPECT IVE EFFECT. IT WAS HELD THAT THE LEARNED CIT SHOULD HAVE APPLIE D THE LAW APPLICABLE IN 1997 THEREFORE IT WAS HELD THAT THE LEARNED CIT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO INVOKE THE REVISIONAL JURISDICT ION CONSEQUENTLY THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT THEREFORE M AY NOT HELP 7 THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF DLF POWER LIMITED (SUP RA) THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOOK ONE OF THE TWO POSSIBLE VIEW S THEREFORE IT WAS HELD THAT THE ORDER WAS NOT ERRONEOUS. HOWE VER IN THE PRESENT APPEAL THERE IS NO WHISPER OF THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE THIS JUDICIAL P RONOUNCEMENT ALSO DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF DE SIGN & AUTOMATION ENGINEERS (BOMBAY) PRIVATE LIMITED THE G ROUND FOR REVISION WAS THAT THE LEARNED CIT WAS NOT AGREEING WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS HELD TH AT THE INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION WAS NOT VALID THEREFORE IT IS ON DIFFERENT FACTS. LIKEWISE IN THE CASE OF ANIL K UMAR SHARMA (SUPRA) FROM HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER IT WAS DISCERNIBLE FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SINCE THE ISSUE WAS NOT EVEN MENTIONED IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENT ALSO DOES NOT HELP THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF RATLAM COAL ASH COMPANY (SUPRA) THE REVISIONAL POWERS WERE INVOKED BY THE LEARNED CIT ON THE GROUND THAT PROPER INQUIRIES WER E NOT MADE 8 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE WAS A FINDING BY T HE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REQUISITE INFORMATION A ND THE ITO CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT THEREFORE THE REVISIONAL ORDER WAS HELD TO BE NOT VALID. IN T HE PRESENT APPEAL AS WE HAVE MENTIONED IN THE PRECEDING PARAS THAT EVEN THERE IS NO WHISPER OF THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER WAS PASSED IN SLIP SHOT MANNER THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT REMANDED THE ISSUE FOR DE NOVO CONSIDER ATION TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WE FIND JUSTIFICATION IN INVOCATION OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION BY THE LEARNE D CIT THEREFORE THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT ALSO DOES NO T HELP THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LEARNED CIT DR ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE D ECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN MALABAR INDUSTRIAL C OMPANY LIMITED (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT BEFORE INV OKING THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION THE LEARNED CIT HAS TO BE SATISFIED OF TWIN CONDITIONS NAMELY (I) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SOUGH T TO BE REVISED IS ERRONEOUS AND (II) IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. IN THE PRESENT SINCE NO DISCUSSION WAS MA DE BY THE 9 ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING THE IMPUGNED ISSUE ITSE LF THEREFORE THIS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT IS VERY MUCH APPLICABLE THEREFORE IT GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IDENTI CAL RATIO WAS LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF DUGGAL & COMPANY (SUPRA). THE DECISION OF THE HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DEEPAK KUM AR GARG (SUPRA) FURTHER FORTIFIES THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. 8. NOW WE SHALL EXAMINE THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY TH E LD. CIT WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE FACTS WHICH EMERGES ARE 1. MAJOR PURCHASE OF SHARES OF SHREE PRECOATED WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LACS WAS BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT WAS BORROWED ON 17.10.2005 TO 27.10.2005 AND THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON 25.10.2005 TO 27.10.2005. FURTHER AFTER SELLING THESE SHARES ON 08.02.2006 WITH THE CREDIT APPEARING IN BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ON 14.02.2006 ON THE VERY NEXT DATE THE BORROWED AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LACS WAS RETURNED. THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SHAR ES WERE PURCHASED OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS AND INVESTOR W ILL NOT INVEST IN SHARES OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS TO EARN DIVIDEND OR TO MAKE LONG TERM INVESTMENT. THE INTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO GET PROFIT OUT OF THE APPREC IATION. 2. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE NO DIVIDEND WAS EARN ED WHILE THE PROFIT EARNED WAS OF RS. 61.53 LACS OUT O F BORROWED FUNDS. 10 3. THE ENTIRE PROFIT IS EARNED FROM THE SHARES PURC HASED AND SOLD WITHIN THE SHORT PERIOD OF LESS THAN 5 MON THS WHICH INDICATES THAT SHARES WERE PURCHASED NEITHER TO EARN DIVIDEND NOR TO MAKE LONG TERM INVESTMENT BUT TO GET PROFITS IN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME. 4. THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS EARNED BY THE AS SESSEE OUT OF SALE OF SHARES WHICH WERE PURCHASED DURING T HE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. THESE FACTUAL DETAILS BROUGHT THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS AS LAID DOWN IN CBDT CIRCULAR NO.4/2007 DATED 15.06.2007. IT WAS THE FIRST YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO SHARE TRANSACTION ACTIVITIES. THE LD. AR ONLY HARPED ON THE FACT THAT THE A.O. HAS ACCEPT ED THE CLAIM AND EVEN THOUGH THE ORDER IS BRIEF AND CRYPTI C YET IT DOES NOT MAKE IT ERRONEOUS. THE LD. AR RELIED ON CE RTAIN DECISIONS QUOTED SUPRA BUT THE FACTS THEREIN ARE VE RY DIFFERENT AS BOTH THE CASES PERTAINED TO GRANTING O F DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT TO SECTION 80HHC BUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF TRANSACTION IN SHARES VIS-A-V IS ALL THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOUT WAS NOT TAXABLE AS STCG RATHE R A VIEW OF CONTENTS OF CIRCULAR NO. 4 (SUPRA) IT WAS T AXABLE AS ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE. HEREIN VIZ-A-VIZ FAC TS OF CASE OF ASSESSEE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. DEEPA BEN AMIT BHAI SHAH REPORTED AT (2006 ITJ 45 I.T.A.T. AHGMEDA BAD BENCH) IS RELEVANT WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT LO OKING INTO THE VOLUME FREQUENCY CONTINUITY AND REGULARI TY OF TRANSACTION OF PURCHASES AND SALES IN SHARES IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS MUST HAVE BEEN ENT ERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A PROFIT MOTIVE. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THERE WERE FREQUENT TRANSACTION OF PURCHAS E AND SALE OF SHARES AND THUS THE INCOME WAS TAXABLE NOT AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THUS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. BECOMES ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE AND SECTION 263 OF I.T. ACT IS ACCORDINGLY INVOKED. IN ALL FAIRNESS THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. 9. IF THE AFORESAID CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED CIT IS ANALYSED THERE IS A MENTION THAT THERE WERE FREQUEN T 11 TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE THUS THE INCOME WA S TAXABLE AS A SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN THEREFORE THE MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CO NSIDERATION. HOWEVER IF THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACTS WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR ARGUMENT SAKE IS PRESUMED TO BE CORRE CT STILL WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER EVEN THERE IS NO WHISPER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DUE INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY HIM. EVEN THERE IS NO MENTION REGARDING SHORT TERM OR LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN MEANING THEREBY EVEN IF IT IS PRESUM ED THAT NECESSARY INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY HIM IT MUST FIND PLACE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAIN EVEN H AS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED OR MENTIONED IN ANY MANNER. IT SEEMS THA T THE ORDER WAS PASSED IN SLIP SHOT MANNER. UNLESS AND UNTIL T HE DISCUSSION IS MADE REGARDING INQUIRY MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER OR THE IMPUGNED ISSUE IS ADJUDICATED HOW A NYBODY CAN ASSUME THAT THE MIND WAS APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT EVEN THERE I S NO WHISPER OF THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS AND MERELY DI SCUSSION HAS 12 BEEN MADE REGARDING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES COMPOSITION OF FAMILY WITHDRAWAL OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND ADDITI ON MADE FOR LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ONLY MEANING THEREBY E VEN IF ANY INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING CAPITAL GAINS IT SHOULD FIND PLACE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ABOUT THE FREQUENCY OF INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS SALE AND PURCHASE DELIVERY ETC. IN THE ABSENCE OF ALL THES E DETAILS IT IS DIFFICULT TO DECIDE WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADE R OR AN INVESTOR IN SHARES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE LEARNED CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 10. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT INVOKES REVISIONAL JURI SDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT HE SHOULD GET HIMSELF SATISFIED ABOUT THE AFOREMENTIONED TWIN CONDITIONS. IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER SAME SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECORDED BY HIM. ADMITTEDLY WHAT CONSTITUTES PREJUDICE TO REVENUE HAD BEEN THE SUB JECT MATTER OF A JUDICIAL DEBATE. ONE VIEW WAS THAT PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN LOSS OF REVENUE. 13 THE EXPRESSION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED IN A PETTY FO GGING MANNER BUT MUST BE GIVEN A DIGNIFIED CONSTRUCTION. THE INTEREST OF REVENUE CANNOT BE EQUATED TO RUPEES AND PAISE ME RELY RATHER THERE MUST BE GRIEVOUS ERROR IN THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE ITO WHICH MIGHT SET A BAD TREND OR PATTERN FOR SIMI LAR ASSESSMENT WHICH ON A BROAD RECKONING THE COMMISS IONER MIGHT THINK TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE ADMINI STRATION. ADMITTEDLY WHERE ANOTHER VIEW IS POSSIBLE REVISIO N IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. HOWEVER THE CIT MUST POINT OUT THE EXACT ERROR AND AFFORD OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE QUA SUCH ERR OR. THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN RAMDEV EXPORTS V. CIT; 120 TAXMAN 315 EVEN WENT TO THE EXTENT THAT REVISIONAL JURISDICTION CAN BE EXERCISED EVEN IF THE RETURN FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT EVEN THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDI NG THE ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAINS THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED IN A SLIP SHOT/HURRIED MA NNER THEREFORE WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WI TH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE SAME IS UPHELD. 14 FINALLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.11.2 011. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24.11.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CIT(A) DR GU ARD FILE DN/-