The appellant/assessees are Hindu Undivided Families, which owned properties at Chennai. Both the assessees entered into a Development Agreement with a builder, in terms of which, the assessees were entitled to 60% of the total built up area to be constructed by the developer at its cost and in consideration, the developer was entitled to 40% of undivided share in the land and entitled to retain proportionate 40% of the built up area. The land owners received a non-refundable security deposit of Rs.10,00,000/- each, during the previous year relevant to the assessment year 1996-97. According to the assessees, from the assessment year 1999-2000, the developer commenced selling the built up area and directed the land owners to execute sale deeds in respect of undivided share of the land to the nominees/purchasers of flats from the builder. The land owners offered capital gains in each of their hands in respect of the land transferred by them during each of the assessment years starting from 1999-2000,2000-01,2001-02,2002-03 and 2003-04.  The assessees  admitted  that the developer handed over possession of 60% of built up area to the land owners during the assessment year 2000-01. The assessment for the year 1996-97 was completed and the same was re- opened and the re-assessment proceedings were completed vide order dated 23.03.2004 including the entire capital gains in that year on the ground that the possession of the land was handed over by the owners to the developer in that year. For the assessment year 2001-02, the Assessing Officer had completed the assessment protectively on the capital gains offered by the assessees in respect of the undivided share of land sold during that year. On appeal the CIT (A) quashed the reassessment on technical ground of non -complinace of section 151 of the Act . The CIT (A) directed the Assessing Officer to treat the protective assessment order dated 23.03.2004 for the assessment year 2001-02 as a substantive one and assess capital gains accordingly. On appeal the Tribunal dismissed the appeal of the assessee by common order .  High court affirmed the order of the Tribunal and held that for all the years, the assessee has offered capital gains for taxation, which is from the assessment year 1999-2000 upto 2003-04 and in fact, these particulars are noted in the orders passed by the CIT(A) dated 30.11.2005. From paragraph 7.1 of the orders passed by the CIT(A), we find that the assessees offered the capital gains for taxation upto 2003-04. Therefore, the Tribunal, while granting the relief, should have granted relief to the assessee for the assessment years 1999-2000 upto 2003-04. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer is directed to give effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal by modifying the orders for the assessment years 1999-2000 upto 2003-04. (AY.  2000-01)