G. S. Pannu, Accountant Member - The captioned appeal by the assessee is directed against an order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-V, Pune dated 21.07.2011 which, in turn, has arisen from an order dated 31.12.2008 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act,1961 (in short "the Act") pertaining to the assessment year 2006-07.

2. In this appeal, assessee has raised the following Grounds of Appeal :—

"1. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of the law and scheme & norms it be held that, the assessment order communicated and served to the appellant after 31st Dec, 2008 is barred by limitation and is not effective & operative in the eyes of law. The order served on the appellant after prescribed time limit be set aside.

2. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of the law it be held that, the AO has erred in taxing the amount of Rs.4,89,89,000/- as long term capital gains on transfer of leasehold rights in respect of MIDC land by applying provisions of section 50C as against long term capital gain of Rs.1,90,11,120/- declared and admitted by the appellant under this head. The action of the AO be held as erroneous, unjustified and contrary to the provisions of law and facts prevailing in the case. It further be held that the decision of the 1st appellate authority confirming the decision of the AO on this issue is contrary to the provisions of law and facts prevailing in the case. The appellant be granted just and proper relief as per provisions of law & facts prevailing in the case.

3. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of the law it be held that, the AO has erred in not allowing the claim of Rs.11,56,667/- being loss on sale/ transfer of "dies belonging to others" on which no depreciation was claimed by the appellant. The action of the AO be held as erroneous and unjustified & decision of the 1st appellate authority be held as contrary to the provisions of law and facts prevailing in the case. It be held that the appellant is eligible for the claim of loss of Rs.11,56,667/-. Just and proper relief be granted to the appellant in this respect.

4. On facts and circumstances prevailing in the case and as per provisions of the law it be held that, the AO has erred in computing short term capital gains on sale of other assets at Rs.82,93,137/- as against Rs.73,66,673/- computed and disclosed in the return of income. The capital gain quantified by the AO be held as erroneous and not in accordance with the facts prevailing in the case and as per provisions of law. It further be held that the order of the 1st appellate authority confirming the decision of the AO in this respect is contrary to the provisions of law and facts prevailing in the case. The appellant be granted just and proper relief in this respect.

5. The appellant be granted stay of impugned demand till the decision of the appeal, in the alternative the appeal be taken for adjudication for early hearing."

3. In so far as Ground of Appeal No.1 is concerned, the same has not been pressed at the time of hearing and accordingly it is dismissed as "Not Pressed".

4. In relation to the Ground of Appeal No.2, the grievance of the assessee is against the manner in which income under the head 'capital gains' has been computed by the income-tax authorities. Briefly put, the relevant facts are that the assessee transferred factory land, building and shed in Pimpri Industrial Area in favour of Rishap Industries Pvt. Ltd. for a consideration of Rs.3,12,04,000/- for land and building and Rs.47,96,000/- for other fixed assets. Out of the consideration of Rs.3,12,04,000/- for land and building, the Assessing Officer accepted assessee's contentions that the value of consideration for building be adopted at Rs.77,00,000/-. Thus, assessee had adopted the value of consideration for the transfer of land at Rs.2,35,04,000/- in its computation of income. The Assessin