ITO, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad V. M/s Khaha Husnuddin, Hyderabad

CO 34/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2698 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-12-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Keywords: Cost of acquisition
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 519/HYD/2013 AND CO NO.34/H/13 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN, HYDERABAD. PAN AAUPH 7470B (RESPONDENT/CROSS-OBJECTOR) REVENUE BY : SMT. U. MINI CHANDRAN ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. YADAV DATE OF HEARING : 21-12-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-01-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA, DATED 10/01/2013 FOR AY 1997 -98. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CO AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 06/03/199 8 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 56,380/- COMPRISING INCOME UNDER THE HEADS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN ASSESSEES CASE, THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 1998-99 WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WITH REGARD TO THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ALO NG WITH HIS WIFE SMT.MUMTAZ BEGUM, SON SRI KHAZA KHUTUBUDDIN AND ONE SRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE, FROM M/S.NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COM PANY LTD (NCCL), THE ASSESSEE'S RECEIPTS FROM NCCL WERE DETE RMINED AT 2 ITA NO. 519/H/13 AND CO 34/H/13 SRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN RS.51,05,000/- AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN THAT YEAR. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A)- VI, HYDERABAD DIRECTED THE AO TO ASSESS THE SAID IN COME IN RESPECTIVE YEARS IN WHICH THESE AMOUNTS WERE ACTUAL LY RECEIVED. HE FURTHER DIRECTED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS FOR A Y. 1996-97 AND 1997-98 TO BRING TO TAX THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS RECE IVED IN THOSE YEARS. 2.1 AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY.1997-98 WAS REOPENED. AS AGAINST THE REVISED INCOME ADMITTED AT RS.56,380/-, THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.147 WAS COMPLETED ON 28/03/2005 BY DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.83,11,380/- BRINGING TO TAX THE RECEIPT OF RS.85,05,000/- FROM NCCL AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES. THIS ADDITION CONSISTS OF RS.35,70,000/- ADDED ON SUBSTA NTIVE BASIS AND RS.49,35,000/- ADDED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. AN EXPEND ITURE OF RS.2,50,000/- TOWARDS LITIGATION ETC. WAS ALLOWED W HILE ASSESSING THE ABOVE INCOME. 2.2 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION M ADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. ON THE ISSUE OF NATURE OF THIS RECEIPT, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO AND DENIED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THA T THIS RECEIPT IS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD A' BENCH, HYDER ABAD VIDE ORDER IN ITA NO. 301/HYD/2006 DATED 26/9/2008, HELD THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS.85,05,000/- HAS TO BE ASSESSED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY INSTEAD OF SEPARATELY AS SESSING THIS AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF ALL THE FOUR PARTIES NAMELY HIMSELF, HIS WIFE, SON AND ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE. THE ISSUE OF NATURE OF THIS RECEIPT WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE-EXAMINE THE SA ME. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL FURTHER DIRECTED THE AO TO CONSIDER THE PL EA OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CLAIM OF ALLEGED PAYMENT OF RS.30,00, 000/- TO SRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE AND THE LITIGATION EXPENSES ON FILIN G THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND SOURCES FOR THE SAME. 3 ITA NO. 519/H/13 AND CO 34/H/13 SRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN 2.3 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 1997-98 WAS DONE AFRESH TREATING THE RECEIPTS OF RS. 82,55,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AFTER ALLOWING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,50,000/- TOWARDS LITIGATION EXPENSES. THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE RECEIPT OF R S. 85.05 LAKHS FROM M/S NCCL IS ON ACCOUNT OF RELINQUISHING HIS RIGHT O VER THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AS A MERE CONSENTING PARTY AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS ARISING OUT OF THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TO ALLOW THE PAY MENT MADE TO MR. ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE WAS DENIED FOR NOT SUBSTANTIATIN G THE SAME WITH MATERIAL EVIDENCE. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(A). CIT(A) WAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO T O VERIFY THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE BETWEEN HIM AND SRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE IN 1986 WAS HANDED OVER TO M/S NCCL AT THE TIME OF THE SALE. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW TH AT THE REMAND REPORT WAS NOT OF MUCH HELP IN ADJUDICATING THE ISS UE. 4. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IT IS SEEN FROM THE REC ORDS THAT RIGHT FROM THE YEAR 1986, TILL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YE AR, THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWN AS MAIN PERSON IN THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION S. AS PER XEROX COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE DATED 09.04.1986, A COPY OF WHICH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED HAS BEEN PERUSED AN D PLACED ON RECORD, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS .15,00,000 AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.15,00,000 AFTER THE SALE IS COMPLETED. THIS IMPUGNED LAND WAS SOLD THROUGH 7 SALE DEEDS, W HEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AS ONE OF THE SELLERS OR VENDORS , EITHER THE MAIN VENDOR OR THE SECOND OR THIRD VENDOR AND ACCORDINGL Y, THE SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY HIM OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 1,66,80,000 WAS RS.85,05,000, ON WHICH THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY. FUR THER, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE ALLEGED PRICE OF THE LAND OF RS.15,00,000 AS 4 ITA NO. 519/H/13 AND CO 34/H/13 SRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN ADVANCE AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.15,00,000 WA S PAID AFTER COMPLETION OF SALE, THE SALE PROCEEDS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 81,75,000 WAS GIVEN TO OTHERS, ON WHICH ALSO NO COMMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ITAT. THUS, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE SALE RECEIPTS REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY 51 % (RS. 85,05,000/- OUT O F TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.1,66,80,000), THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS TO BE RESTRICTED TO 51% OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.30,00,000/- A S PER THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE FOR SALE DATED 09.04.1986, MENTI ONED HEREIN ABOVE. THUS, THE DEEMED PURCHASE PRICE PAID AND PAY ABLE AMOUNTS TO RS.15,30,000 AND ACCORDINGLY, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AN ADVANCE OF RS.15,00,000 ON 09.04.1986, AND THE REMA INING AMOUNT WAS PAID AFTER REALIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS, INDEXA TION IS APPLICABLE ON RS.15,00,000 ONLY AND THE DEEMED AMOUNT PAID AFT ER SALE PROCEEDS RECEIVED BEING RS.30,000 (IN THE PLACE OF RS. 15,00,000 ORIGINALLY AGREED TO, BUT BECAUSE THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE SHARED BY OTHERS, ACCORDINGLY THE DEEMED PURCHASE PRICE TO TH E ASSESSEE IS WORKED AT RS.15,30,000) ON WHICH NO INDEXATION IS P OSSIBLE. NOW THE MAIN QUESTION WHETHER THE RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE CONSTITUTE CAPITAL GAINS OR BUSINESS I NCOME. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT AS RIGHTLY ARGUED BY THE AR AND AS IT TRANSPIRES FROM THE RECORDS, THE ASSESSEE PAID ADVANCE AND TOOK POS SESSION OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AND SPENT AMOUNTS TO SAFEGUARD IT FRO M ENCROACHERS/ OTHER RUFFIANS, AND FINALLY IN ASSOCIATION WITH OTH ERS NEGOTIATED FOR BEST PRICE AND SOLD THE PROPERTY TO M/S. NAGARJUNA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD (NCCL) AND THE SALE RECEIPTS WERE RECEI VED FROM THE NCCL. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL ALONG HAD INTEREST IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY RIGHT FROM THE YEAR 1986 TILL THE RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS AND AS SUCH THE RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE AO WASS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS PER THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE CIT(A). 4.1 AS REGARDS THE GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINING TO L EVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTIONS 234A, 2348, AND 234C, THE CIT(A) HEL D THAT LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTIONS IS MANDATORY AND NOT APPEALABLE, 5 ITA NO. 519/H/13 AND CO 34/H/13 SRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF, IF ANY, AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1) THE CIT (APPEALS) ORDER IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE 2) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE RECEIPTS FROM M /S. NCC LTD. AS CAPITAL GAINS AND ALSO IN ALLOWING THE COST INDE XATION TOWARDS THE VALUE OF ACQUISITION COST. 3) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE STAND T AKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICERS AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AS WE LL AS AT REASSESSMENT STAGE. 4) THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE OPINION AL READY DELIVERED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE VERY SAME CASE . 5) ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME O F HEARING. 6. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED CO WHEREIN HE HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING CROSS OBJECTIONS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE PURCHASE PRICE TO 51 % OF THE AMOUN T OF RS.30,00,000/-PAID. HE OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EN TIRE AMOUNT OF RS.30,00,000/- PAID. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THE ENTIRE AGREED COST HAD ACCRUED AS LIABILITY PAYABLE TO THE OWNER AND WAS PAID AS SUCH IN THE COURSE OF THE TRANSACTION. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MAY BE DIRECTED T O TAKE PURCHASE PRICE AT RS. 30,00,000/- WITH THE BENEFIT OF COST OF INDEX AS ENVISAGED UNDER LAW. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERR ED IN HOLDING THAT THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234 B & 234C OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IS NOT APPEALABLE. THE FIN DING IS PERVERSE IN LAW AND IS LIABLE TO BE EXPUNGED AND TH E CHARGING OF INTERESTS NEED TO BE EVALUATED UNDER LAW. 7. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT M/S NCCL PURCHASED THE PRO PERTY SITUATED AT BANJANA HILLS IN SEVEN SALE AGREEMENTS, WHICH ARE PART OF THE PAPER BOOK. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A OWNER OF THIS PIECE OF LAND, WHICH WAS SOLD TO M/S NCCL. SHE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE SOME OF THE AGREEMENTS ENTERED BETWEEN VENDO R AND VENDEE 6 ITA NO. 519/H/13 AND CO 34/H/13 SRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN IN WHICH IN FIRST TWO AGREEMENTS ASSESSEES NAME IS NOWHERE SEEN IN THE AGREEMENTS. IN OTHER AGREEMENTS, IT WAS MENTION ED AS CONSENTING PARTY. SHE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE FINDINGS OF TH E AO, ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY NOR AN AGENT. IT IS S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT OF SA LE BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO CLAIM THAT ASSESSEE HAS BOUGHT DISPUTED L AND FROM SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE ON 10 TH APRIL, 1986. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THIS AGREEMENT OF SALE IS NOT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT, CAN NOT BE TAKEN AT FACE VALUE. SHE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAS , NO DOUBT, RECEIVED CONSIDERABLE PORTION OF THE SALE CONSIDERA TION, IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS INCOME FROM COMMISSION NOR FROM INCOME FR OM CAPITAL GAINS, BUT, IT CAN ONLY BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. LD. DR RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASE OF RAMBHAU NAMDEO GAJRE VS NARAYAN BAPUJI DHOTRA (D EAD) (DATED 25 AUGUST, 2004), [2004] (8) SCC 614. 8. LD. AR RELYING ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A), SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FROM SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEI ZURE ON 10 TH APRIL, 1986, WHO HAS BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY ON 18 TH MAY, 1965, A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT IS PLACED AT PAGE 10 OF PAPER BOOK. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE HAS SOLD THIS PROPERTY TO T HE ASSESSEE ON 10/04/1986 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 30 LAKHS A S SALE CONSIDERATION AND ASSESSEE IS THE LEGAL OWNER OF TH E PROPERTY AND WHO HAS SAFEGUARDED THE PROPERTY ALL ALONE FROM MIS CREANTS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT HE IS THE MAIN PERSON INSTRUMENTAL T O BRING M/S NCCL AND ALL OTHER DISPUTING PARTIES ON TABLE TO COMPLET E THE SALE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ASPECTS WERE CONSIDERED BY T HE CIT(A), BUT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATIO N TO RS. 15.30 LAKHS IN STEAD OF RS. 30 LAKHS. HE SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 30 LAKHS TO SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION, HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO CLAIM THE WHOLE AMOUNT AS COST OF PURCHASE AND INDEXATION SHOULD BE ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY. 7 ITA NO. 519/H/13 AND CO 34/H/13 SRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN 9. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LATE SHRI V. MALLA REDDY BOUGHT THE DISPUTED LAND FROM ONE SHAHIN ASGHAR AHMED FOR A V ALID CONSIDERATION AND THE SAID PURCHASE WAS ACKNOWLEDGE AND CONFIRMED BY THE GOVT. OF AP. SRI LATE V. MALLA REDDY WAS REP RESENTED BY SHRI V. SATYANARAYANA REDDY AND SHRI V. SUDHEER REDDY, B OTH ARE THE SONS OF LATE SHRI V. MALLA REDDY AS ONE PARTY AND T HE SECOND DISPUTING PARTY ARE SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE, WHO BO UGHT THE DISPUTED LAND FROM SMT. SHAHIN ASGHAR AHMED ON 18/05/1965. S UBSEQUENTLY, SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE HAS MADE AN AGREEMENT OF SA LE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 30 LAKHS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE. THERE IS NO SUBSEQUENT SAL E DOCUMENT ON RECORD AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ASSESSE E HAS STATED THAT HE HAS SAFEGUARDED THE PROPERTY FROM UNLAWFUL ENCROACHMENT AND HE IS IN THE ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY SINCE 1986 AND THAT HE IS AWARE OF LEGAL DISPUTES ON THE PROPERTY AND HE HAS SPENT LOT OF MONEY ON REPRESENTING LEGAL DISPUTES ON THE PROP ERTY. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE MA IN PERSON IN SAFEGUARDING THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS BRINGING THE D ISPUTED PARTIES ON THE TABLE SUCCESSFULLY TO COMPLETE THE SALE WITH M/ S NCCL. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASE D THE PROPERTY BY PROPER DEED, BUT, UNDISPUTEDLY HAS PAID CONSIDERATI ON OF RS. 15 LAKHS TO SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE AND WAS HAVING ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE DISPUTED PROPERTY IN HIS POSSESSION ALL THESE YEARS , IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE PROPERTY BY WHICH HE IS ALSO A PART OF OWNER AND ALSO ASSESSEE HAD PLAYED THE ROLE OF A OWNER IN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE BETWEEN THE DISPUTED PARTIES AND M/S NCCL. EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEES NAME IN THE SALE AGREEMENTS IS N OT SHOWN AS AN OWNER, BUT, IT IS SHOWN AS ONE OF THE CONSENTING PA RTIES. MOREOVER, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A PORTION OF THE SALE CONSIDE RATION FROM THIS TRANSACTION I.E. RS. 85.05 LAKHS OUT OF RS. 166.8 L AKHS (ABOUT 51%) OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION. IT SHOWS THAT ASSESSEE IS ONE AMONG THE 8 ITA NO. 519/H/13 AND CO 34/H/13 SRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN PARTIES, WHO SOLD THE PROPERTY TO M/S NCCL. IN CAS E, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE MAIN PERSON IN THE DEAL, THERE IS NO WAY TH E ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE RECEIVED MORE THAN 50% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE SELLING PARTIES IN THE DEAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO TREAT THIS TRANSACT ION AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD ARE DISMISSED. 10. AS REGARDS THE 1 ST CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE C.O., THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM RS. 30 LAKHS AS COST OF PURCHASE IN STEAD OF RS. 15.3 LAKHS AS ALLOWED BY T HE CIT(A). AS PER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS SESSEE HAS CONFIRMED THE PAYMENT OF RS. 15 LAKHS TO SHRI ALI A SGHAR CEIZURE, WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE IN THE SAME AGREEMENT, BUT, THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPOSED TO PAY RS. 15 LAKHS AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. THERE IS NO PROO F OR EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE IS, IN FACT, COMPLETED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SALE IS CO MPLETE BY PAYING RS. 15 LAKHS TO SHRI ALI ASGHAR CEIZURE, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO GRANT ANY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND INSTALLMENT OF RS. 15 LAKHS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESS EE CAN CLAIM RS. 15 LAKHS AS COST OF PURCHASE WITH INDEXATION BENEFI T, NOT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15.3 LAKHS AS ALLOWED BY CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY , THIS OBJECTION IS REJECTED. 11. AS REGARDS THE 2 ND OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C, SINCE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTIONS IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, NO ADJUDICATIO N IS REQUIRED. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE INTERE ST UNDER THE SAID SECTIONS ON THE OUTCOME OF THIS ORDER/WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. 9 ITA NO. 519/H/13 AND CO 34/H/13 SRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE A ND THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH JANUARY, 2017 SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RAHM AN) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 18 TH JANUARY, 2017 KV COPY TO:- 1) ITO, WARD 7(1), 2 ND FLOOR, B BLOCK, IT TOWERS, HYDERABAD. 2) SHRI KHAJA HASNUDDIN, 10-2347/B/51, ASIF NAGAR, HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 4 CIT IV, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE