JUDGMENT :

(T.S. Sivagnanam, J.)

1. This appeal by the revenue filed under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is directed against the common order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Kolkata (Tribunal) dated 23.10.2019 in ITA No. 1582 and 1583/Kol/2016 and ITA No. 1909 and 1910/Kol/2016 for the AY 2008-09 and 2009-10. The revenue has raised the following substantial questions of law for consideration:

(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was erred in holding that there was change of opinion involved in the reopening the case of the assessee overlooking Explanation 1 of Section 147 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1961 which postulates that production before the Assessing of accounts books or other evidence will not necessarily amount to disclosure within the meaning of the proviso?

(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was erred in holding that the conditions of Section 47(xiii) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 1961 had been complied with by the assessee although the assessee had converted the stock-in-trade into capital asset during the Financial Year 2007-08 revaluing it at market value ?

(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was wrongly held that the case pertaining to the Assessment Year 2009-10 the reason recorded by the Assessing Officer was for subjective satisfaction and not for objective satisfaction and that the reason recorded was not independent?

(iv) Whether on the facts and circumstances and in law, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was failed to appreciate that plaint questioning about the taxability of the transaction involved in this case during the assessment proceedings does not necessarily mean that the Assessing Officer had examined the turn of events and the whole mount so appreciated should be treated as capital gains out of the transactions which should be treated as transfer?

2. We have heard Mr. Om Narayan Rai, learned Senior Standing Counsel along with Mr. Prithu Dudheria, learned Standing Counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.P. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Pratyush Jhunjhunwala and Mr. Mrigank Agarwal, learned Advocates for the respondent assessee.

3. The assessee is a partnership firm consisting of four partners namely, (i) M/s. Orchid Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., (ii) M/s. Blue Heaven Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd., (iii) M/s. Command Constructions Pvt. Ltd. And (iv) M/s. Wellgrowth Griha Nirman Pvt. Ltd. On 30th March, 2005, the second and the third partner companies, namely, Blue Heaven and Command Constructions jointly purchased a landed property pursuant to a partition deed dated 19th January, 2006. The three companies, namely, Orchid, Blue Heaven and Command Constructions along with the fourth company namely, Well Grown formed the assessee firm with the deemed date of formation as 1st April, 2009. The Partnership Deed mentioned the profit sharing ration of the assessee firm as 10%, 10%, 10% and 17% respectively,. The nature of business to be carried on by the partnership firm was the business of real estate, developing the lands purchased by the first three partners and land was taken as stock-in-trade by the assessee firm in its books of accounts. As per the partnership deed, it was agreed that the first and third partners jointly transfer entirely their right, title and interest in the entire land that they had jointly purchased and cost of such land would be treated as capital contribution by such partners. The entire fund required for carrying on the business of real estate was to be made available by the fourth partner. In the balance-sheets of the respondent assessee for the years ending 31.03.2006 and 31.03.2007 the cost of land was shown as stock-in-trade. Till 30th March, 2008 land and building which were held by the assessee firm was shown as “inventory” and were part of profit a