On appeal the Court held that  there was no effective adjudication as to what would be the effective date of transfer while deciding the correctness of the reassessment for the year 1996-97 while making protective assessment for the year 2001-02. The CIT(A) after elaborately considering the terms of agreement, was right in concluding that the transfer came to be actually completed during the financial year 1999-2000 and consequently, that the entire capital gains relating to 40 per cent. of the undivided share of land were subjected to tax for the AY. 2000-01. The Tribunal re-examined the factual position and pointed out that the assessees had never admitted the capital gains on sale of 40 per cent. of undivided portion of the land, against which, consideration was held to be 60 per cent. of the constructed area. After noting that the assessees had shown the capital gains on the basis of individual sale deeds executed in favour of the nominees of the developer, it held that the assessment order could not be stated to have merged with the appellate order because the issue was never raised by the assessees to be decided by the appellate authority. Moreover, the assessees had been taking inconsistent stands and this had been clearly noted and highlighted by the Tribunal. There was a submission that capital gains should have been assessed for the AY. 1996-97 because transfer took place on October 4, 1995 itself, i. e. the date of the execution of the development agreement. Subsequently, the assessees took the stand that the transfer took place when the assessees actually executed sale deeds in various years in favour of the nominees of the developer. The assessees had taken yet another contrary stand in an application under S. 154 of the Act for the AY. 2001-02 stating that such assessment should be rectified in line with the decision taken for the AY.s 2000-01. The reassessment was valid. However it could not be disputed by the Revenue that for all the years, the assessees had offered capital gains for taxation, from the AY.s 1999-2000 up to 2003-04 and in fact, these particulars were noted in the orders passed by the CIT(A). The assessees offered the capital gains for taxation up to 2003-04. Therefore, the Tribunal, while granting the relief, should have granted relief to the assessees for the AY. 1999-2000 up to 2003-04. Accordingly, the AO was to give effect to the orders passed by the Tribunal by modifying the orders for the AY. 1999-2000 up to 2003-04.( AY. 1999-2000 to 2003-04)