IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH "I", MUMBAI

     BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND
             SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                     ITA No.8178/Mum/2010
                     Assessment Year : 2003-04

M/s. Jyotika Premnarayen                 Income Tax Officer-19(2)-3,
7th floor, Indraprastha,                 Mumbai
Premnarayen Chowk,
Linking Road, Santacruz(W),
                                   Vs.
Mumbai-400 054.

PAN NO: AAFPP 8812 N
        (Appellant)                              (Respondent)


                 Appellant by      :     Shri Sunil Chopra
                Respondent by      :     Shri K.G. Kutty

         Date of hearing       :          24.09.2012
         Date of Pronouncement :          24.09.2012







                              ORDER


PER RAJENDRA SINGH, AM:

      This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated

31.8.2010 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2003-04. The assessee in

this appeal has raised disputes regarding re-opening of assessment

and computation of capital gain.


2.    At the time of hearing of the appeal, the ld. AR for the assessee

submitted that the assessee had raised disputes regarding re-opening

of the assessment and regarding nature of income received from
                                  2                          ITA No.8178/M/10
                                                              A.Y.03-04


redevelopment of the property. The assessee had shown the income

as capital gain whereas the AO had assessed it as business income. It

was pointed out that the appeal filed by the revenue on this issue has

been decided by the Tribunal vide order dated 4.7.2012 in ITA

No.7640/M/2010 for assessment year 2003-04 in which the Tribunal

has accepted the claim of the assessee that the income is required to

be assessed as capital gain and not business income and accordingly

dismissed the appeal of the revenue. In view of this position, it was

pointed out that the appeal of the assessee had become infructuous.

Accordingly it was requested that the assessee may be allowed to

withdraw the appeal to which the ld. DR had no objection. We,

therefore dismiss the appeal of the assessee as withdrawn.







3.   In the result, appeal of the assessee stands as withdrawn.

Order pronounced in the open court on 24.9.2012.



      Sd/-                                  Sd/-
(VIJAY PAL RAO )                      (RAJENDRA SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                       ACCOUNTANT MEMBER



Mumbai, Dated: 24.9. 2012.
Jv.
                                3                      ITA No.8178/M/10
                                                        A.Y.03-04




Copy to: The Appellant
         The Respondent
         The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai
         The CIT(A) Concerned, Mumbai
         The DR " " Bench

True Copy
                                         By Order

                      Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.