: 1 : IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION INCOME INCOME INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.861 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.861 OF 2007 TAX APPEAL NO.861 OF 2007 The Commissioner of Income-tax, . Range 24, Mumbai ...Appellant V/s. Geetadevi Pasari ...Respondent Mr.A.D. Kango, Advocate, for the Appellant. Mr.K. Gopal, Advocate, for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & : DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN & A.V. A.V. A.V. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. NIRGUDE, JJ. DATE DATE DATE : 10TH JULY, 2008. : 10TH JULY, 2008. : 10TH JULY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : . Heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant and the learned Counsel for the Respondent. 2. By the above Appeal, the Appellant-Revenue is seeking to raise the following three substantial questions of law :- (a). Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in concluding that the capital gain is not chargeable to tax in the assessment year 1994-95 even though the Agreement was entered on 29.3.1994? : 2 : (b). Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in concluding that the said property was not transfer by the Assessee to the Purchaser within the meaning of Section 2(47)(v) of the Income Tax Act in the assessment year 1994-95 inspite of there being glaring evidence to rebut the claim of the Assessee that the possession was given on 10.4.1998? (c). Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Hon’ble Tribunal was justified in concluding that the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia Vs. CIT, reported in 260 ITR 491 are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case? 3. Mr.Gopal, the learned Counsel for the Respondent, pointed out that in a case of Chaturbhuj Dwarkadas Kapadia V/s. Commissioner of Income Tax [260 ITR 491] wherein almost identical issues were involved : 3 : and the same was also relied upon by the Tribunal in its order. 4. In the aforesaid Judgment, this Court had clearly taken a view that in the relevant Assessment year for the purpose of computation of capital gains will be the Assessment year in which the assessee was actually physically put in possession and in the instant case, there is no dispute that though the agreement was entered into on 29th March, 1994, the assessee was put in possession only in the year 10th April, 1998. 5. In view thereof, the assessee will be liable for being assessed for capital gains only in the assessment year 1999-00. Under these circumstances we do not find any substantial question of law involved in the above Appeal. The Appeal is devoid of merits and the same stands dismissed. 6. The learned Counsel for the Respondent also pointed out that the Appellant-Revenue has already assessed the assessee and collected the capital gains tax for the assessment year 1999-2000 which has been also paid. : 4 : [A.V. [A.V. [A.V. NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.] NIRGUDE, J.] [DR. S. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.]