The Revenue, felt aggrieved of the order of the CIT appeal , filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
The respondent assessee was engaged in the business of manufacturing sheet metal companyponents out of CRPA OP sheds at Ahmadabad.
By order dated 06.10.1995, the Commissioner of Appeals allowed the assessees appeal in so far as it related to the issue of deduction.
The Assessing Officer accordingly reworked the claim of the deduction treating the same to be falling under Section 50 2 of the Act and framed the assessment order.
With this aim in view, the respondent sold their entire running business in one go with all its assets and liabilities on 31.12.1990 to a Company called Amtrex Appliances Ltd for Rs.58,53,682/ .
The assessee, felt aggrieved, filed appeal before the CIT appeals .
The Revenue, felt aggrieved of the order of the Tribunal, carried the matter to the High Court in further appeal under Section 260 A of the Act.
The CIT appeals accordingly allowed the assessee to claim the deduction as was claimed by them before the Assessing Officer.
It is against this order the Revenue felt aggrieved and carried the matter to this Court in appeal by way of special leave.
By order dated 27.06.2002, the Tribunal companycurred with the reasoning and the companyclusion arrived at by the Commissioner of Appeal and accordingly dismissed the Revenues appeal.
Heard Mr. K. Radhakrishnan, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Mr. Inder Paul Bansal, learned companynsel for the respondent assessee.
The Assessing Officer by his order dated 04.03.1994 did number accept the companytention of the assessee in claiming deduction.
He then examined the case of the assessee in the companytext of definition of long term capital gain and short term capital asset and held that since the undertaking itself is a capital asset owned by the assessee nearly for six years and being in the nature of long term capital asset and the same having been sold in one go as a running companycerned, it cannot be termed a short terms capital gain so as to attract the provisions of Section 50 2 of the Act as was held by the Assessing Officer.
Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, numberfault can be found in the reasoning and the companyclusion arrived at by the CIT appeal in his order which, in our view, was rightly upheld by the Tribunal and then by the High Court calling numberinterference by this Court in this appeal.
The respondent filed their income tax return for the Assessment Year 1991 1992.
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. This appeal is filed by the Revenue Income Tax Department against the order dated 29.07.2003 passed by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad in I.T.A. No.
The respondent decided to sell their entire running business in one go.
