G.D. Agrawal, AM. - (1.)THIS appeal by the assesses is directed against the order of CIT(A)-IX, Bombay, dt. 21st Aug., 1991.
(2.)The Hon'ble President, Tribunal, vide U.O. No. 12/Jd/AT/2000, dt.14th Sept., 2000, referred the appeal for the consideration of the Special Bench.
In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

"1. The leamed CIT(A) erred in confirming the gain on transfer of premises as short-term capital gain.

2. He failed to appreciate the facts that the factory premises which was transferred during the year which is not used as business assets from asst. yr. 1986-87 onwards.

3. He failed to appreciate the facts that neither the depreciation has been claimed nor the depreciation has been allowed from asst. yr. 1986-87 onwards.

(3.)HE failed to appreciate the facts that the asset under review never entered the stock of assets as defined under Section 2(11) of the IT Act 1961."
4. Shri V.H. Patil, the learned counsel for the assessee, neatly identified the following two issues emanating out of the aforesaid four grounds, to which the learned Departmental Representative also agreed :

(i) Whether the single asset can itself form a block of assets within the meaning of "block of assets" as per Section 2(11) of the IT Act, 1961 ?

(ii) Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the provisions of Section 50 are applicable in respect of premises sold by the assessee during the previous year relevant to asst. yr. 1988-89 when the assessee has ceased to carry on the business from asst yr. 1985-86 ?