Smt.N.Dhana Laxmi,L/R of Late N.Prabhu Rao, Hyderabad V. Asst.CIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91789 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMA KISHNA BANDI
• Keywords: Gift; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 133(6); 69; 148; 54

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 SMT. N. DHANA LAXMI, L/R OF LATE N. PRABHA RAO, HYDERABAD [PAN: AHCPN7075K] (APPELLANT) ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(1), HYDERABAD (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : SHRI MOHD. AFZAL, AR FOR REVENUE : SHRI RAMA KISHNA, BANDI, DR DATE OF HEARING : 03-06-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 -07-2015 O R D E R PER INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD, DATED 29-06- 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10, RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD IS AGAINST LAW AND PROBABILITIES OF CASE. PAGE 2 OF 10 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATIO N OF RS. 10 CRORE ONLY RS. 7 CRORE ARE CONSIDERED AS SALE CONSIDERATION AN D RS. 3 CRORE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 CRORE WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND OF TOTAL SALE CONSIDE RATION OF RS.10 CRORE OFFERED FOR CAPITAL GAINS. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERIN G THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORI TY AND ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE ADIT (INV.), AND FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE THEORY OF PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 10 CRORES AND SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54 AT RS.8,11,5 0,100/- AS CLAIMED ON THE STRENGTH OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO AMEND OR MO DIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING OF THE APPEAL, IF IT IS CONSIDERED NECESSARY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE APPELL ANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS FILED ON 28.10.2009 DECLARING THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.79,50,703/- COMPRISING OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.74,96, 508/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.4,54,195/- AND CLAI MED REFUND OF RS.28,04,218/-.THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS ACCEPTED U/ S. 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER GATHERING INFORMATION RELA TING TO SALE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLOT NO.471, DR.NO.8-2-293/82/ A/471, ROAD NO.36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD ADMEASURING 1378 SQ . YARDS IN PAGE 3 OF 10 EXERCISE OF POWERS U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE REAS SESSMENT NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 28.04.2011 WAS ISSUED. FROM THE DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NO T RECEIVED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,00,00,000/- OVER AND ABOVE T HE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED AND, THEREFORE, HE WA S OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.3,00,00,000/- WAS NOT ELIGI BLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. THIS MADE HIM TO BELIEVE THAT I NCOME GOT ESCAPED FROM THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S.148 O F THE ACT. IT IS NOTICED FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE APPELLANT AT NO S TAGE OF PROCEEDINGS CONTESTED THE LEGALITY OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY, AFTER ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 6(1), HYDE RABAD, HAD COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VID E ORDER DATED 13.12.2011 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,04,99,640/-. W HILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY HOLDING THAT THIS AM OUNT DOES NOT REPRESENT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY SO LD AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT WAS ALSO DENIED. THE BRIEF FACTS HIGHLIGHTING THE TRANSACTION ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 4. THE APPELLANT OWNED A HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLOT NO.471, DR.NO.8-2-293/82/A/471, ROAD NO.36, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD ADMEASURING 1378 SQ. YARDS ALLOTTED BY THE JUBILEE HILLS CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY THROUGH REGISTERED DEED NO.3 209 OF 1985, DATED 16.03.1985. OUT OF THIS LAND, TO THE EXTENT O F 400 SQ. YARDS WAS SOLD TO ONE MR. NARENDER KUMAR VIDE SALE DEED DATED 06.05.1997. A PORTION OF THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY STATE GOVERNMEN T FOR ROAD- PAGE 4 OF 10 WIDENING PURPOSES THEREBY LEAVING BALANCE OF 845 SQ . YARDS. IT WAS STATED THAT 50% OF THE LAND WAS GIFTED ORALLY TO HE R DAUGHTER, SMT. N. DHANALAXMI. THIS LAND WAS SOLD ALONG WITH HER DAUGH TER TO M/S. BALEE PLASTICS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI VIDE SALE DEED NO. 2216 OF 2008, DATED 10.06.2008. THE CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE S ALE DEED WAS ONLY RS.7,00,00,000/- AND WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE APPEL LANT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS RS.10,00,00,000/-. ACCOR DINGLY, THE APPELLANT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING HER SHARE OF CONSIDERATION OF RS.5,00,00,000/- AND CLAIMED THE E XEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. ON SIMILAR LINES, THE APPELLANTS DAUGH TER SMT. N.DHANALAXMI ALSO FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME. WHILE THE MATTER STOOD THUS, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED SUPRA. IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ORAL GIFT IS NOT VALID IN LA W AND, THEREFORE, HE PROPOSED TO ASSESS THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION ON LY IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT ALONE. IN RESPONSE TO THIS PROPOSAL, THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH HER DAUGHTER, SMT. N.DHANALAXMI FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AVERRING INTER ALIA THAT THEY SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR RS.10,00,00,000/- O UT OF WHICH RS.3,00,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AND IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGATION AND BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, AGREED FOR ASSES SMENT OF ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT ALONE. IT WAS FURTHER AVERRED THAT THEY ACQUIRED ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROP ERTY OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE APPELLANT A ND HER DAUGHTER FOR A SUM OF RS.8,11,50,100/- AND SOUGHT EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,11,50,100/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, WHILE ASSESSING THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF TH E APPELLANT ALONE, PAGE 5 OF 10 MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY HOLDING THAT THIS IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE T O SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY SOLD ALSO DENIED THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ON THIS AMOUNT. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, AN APPEAL WAS FILED BEF ORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IV, HYDERABAD. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,00,00,000/- ON THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS:- (I) THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED BEFORE ADIT (INVEST IGATION) UNIT-II, HYDERABAD ON 27.07.2008 I.E., IMMEDIATELY AFTER TRANSACTION OF THE SALE THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,00,00,0 00/- OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS STATED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. (II) ADVANCE TAX WAS PAID EVEN ON THIS AMOUNT ON 2 9.07.2008 AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEA LS) THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,00,000/- SHOULD BE TREATED AS PART OF SA LE CONSIDERATION RELATABLE TO THE SALE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION. HOWE VER, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAD DISAGREED WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIO N AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE A DDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 29.06.201 2. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT HAD COME UP WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US WITH A DELAY OF 110-DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT FILED PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF THE DEL AY STATING THAT THE DELAY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DEATH OF THE APPELLANT, LEA VING BEHIND HER LONE DAUGHTER AND HER DAUGHTER ALONE IN THE CAPACIT Y OF LEGAL PAGE 6 OF 10 REPRESENTATIVE (LR) HAD TO TAKE STEPS FOR FILING AP PEAL AND HER DAUGHTER, FOLLOWING THE DEATH OF HER MOTHER, WENT I NTO COCOON FOR A LONG PERIOD AND IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ORDE R OF CIT (APPEALS) WAS RECEIVED ON 19.07.2012 AND THE APPELLANT DIED O N 27.08.2012. THE APPEAL COULD BE FILED ONLY AFTER HER DAUGHTER, WHO IS ALSO ONLY LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE RECOVERED FROM THE SHOCK. 7. AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE PETITION FOR CONDONAT ION OF DELAY, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS THE DELAY WAS CAUSED BECAUSE OF FACTORS, WHICH ARE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEA L. NOW, WE PROCEED WITH THE ADJUDICATION OF THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL. THE APPELLANT HAD RAISED AS MANY AS SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL OUT OF WHICH GROUND NO.1 AND 6 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. GROUNDS NOS.2, 3 AND 4 ARE PERTAINING TO ADDITION O F RS.3,00,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND GROU ND NO.5 IS PERTAINING TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 8. NOW, WE SHALL DEAL WITH THE GROUND RELATING TO A DDITION OF RS.3,00,00,000/-. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR APPELLANT ARGUED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE PROBABILITIES OF HUMAN CONDUCT , IT IS NOT IMAGINABLE THAT THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE EARNED RS. 3,00,00,000/- FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS AILING FROM THE NERVOUS DISORDERS AND BEDRIDDEN. THE APPELLANT ALSO FILED A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE APPELLANT WHEN SHE WAS IN THE HOS PITAL UNDERGOING TREATMENT FOR THE AILMENT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE APPELLANT WAS UNEDUCATED AND UNSKILLED AND THERE WA S NO PROBABILITY OF EARNING A SUM OF RS.3,00,00,000/- FROM UNDISCLOS ED SOURCES AND, PAGE 7 OF 10 THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF TH IS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. P.K.NOORJAHAN 237 ITR 570 . HE FURTHER MADE SUBMISSION THAT THE CONDUCT OF APPELLANT BY PAYING ADVANCE TAX ON THE SAID SUM AND AS WELL AS ADMISSION MADE BEFORE THE A DIT (INVESTIGATION) THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION W AS RS.10,00,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS.3,00,00,000/- WAS PAID IN CASH GOES TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVE D ONLY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SA LE OF PROPERTY. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INTEZAR ALI IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.162 OF 2013, DATED 26.07.2013 AND KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF K.S.KANNAN KUNHI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN INCOME-TAX 72 ITR 757 IN SUPPORT OF PROPOSITION THAT WHEN THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBA BILITY IS MORE IN FAVOUR OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDIT ION SHOULD BE MADE REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED SENIOR DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT WHEN THE APPELL ANT HAD FAILED TO FURNISH NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE BUYER OF THE PROPER TY, THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE BELIEVED. 10. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE CRUX OF THE MATTER IS WHETHER THE AMOUN T OF RS.3,00,00,000/- IS RELATABLE TO THE SALE OF THE PR OPERTY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT OR NOT. THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE ADJUDI CATED IN THE BACKDROP OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS CASE, TH E APPELLANT HAD PAGE 8 OF 10 MAINTAINED BEFORE THE ADIT (INVESTIGATION), HYDERAB AD IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SALE OF PROPERTY THAT SHE RECEIVED RS.10, 00,00,000/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION OUT OF WHICH RS.3,00,00,000/- WERE PA ID IN CASH. HER FURTHER CONDUCT BY PAYING ADVANCE TAX AS WELL AS FI LING RETURNS OF INCOME VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSING TOTAL CONSIDERATION O F RS.10,00,00,000/- GOES TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,00,000/- W AS RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE OF PROPERTY ONLY. FURTHER, THE STATEMENT BEFORE ADIT (INVESTIGATION) WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF AND HE HAS NOT CHOSEN TO EXAMINE TH E BUYER OF PROPERTY IN THIS REGARD. THE FACT THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD FAILED EVEN TO REVEAL THE NAME OF THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT TRIGGER THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCE. THE S ALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AND REGISTERED AND IS A PUBLIC DOCUMENT AN D UNDISPUTEDLY IS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MER E PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED REVEALS THE FULL DETAILS OF THE BUYER. TH EREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH THE NAME OF THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO CARRY OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THE MATTER. PERHAPS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS ADIT (INVESTIGATION) HAD CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE FURTHER ENQUIRIES ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE DISCLOSURE OF HIGHER CONSI DERATION THAN WAS STATED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED OR IN THE SALE DEED. THE STATEMENT MADE BEFORE ADIT (INVESTIGATION) REMAINS UNCONTROVERTED. SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WAS FOUND SUBSEQUENTLY THAT THIS STATEMENT GOES AGAINST THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE, IT IS NOT OPEN TO REVENUE TO REJECT THE EVIDENCE. IT IS SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT IN ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, IT IS NOT OPEN PAGE 9 OF 10 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO IGNORE THAT PART OF EVI DENCE, WHICH GOES AGAINST HIM IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING ADDITION. 11. IT IS ALSO PREVALENT PRACTICE THAT IN THE LAND TRANSACTIONS, SOMETIMES, THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID OVER AND ABOV E THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE SALE DEEDS. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECOR D TO SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME OR THE APPELLANT IS CAPABLE OF EARNING THAT MUCH OF MONEY. HAVING REGAR D TO HER STATE OF HEALTH, AGE AND QUALIFICATION ETC., IT IS HIGHLY IM PROBABLE THAT APPELLANT COULD HAVE EARNED SO MUCH OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSE D SOURCES. WE, THUS, FIND THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY IS MORE IN FAVOUR OF EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FAILED TO CONTRADICT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLA NT WITH SOME POSITIVE EVIDENCE AND, THEREFORE, IT CAN SAFELY BE SAID THAT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE DO UBTED. MOREOVER, THIS KIND OF ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY USING HIS DISCRETIONARY POWER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC . 69 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT OBLIGED UNDER LAW TO M AKE ADDITION IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS FOUND TO BE NOT SATISFACTORY. THIS RATIO WAS LAID DOWN BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.K.NOORJAHAN - 237 ITR 570 WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLD ING THAT THE SUM OF RS.3,00,00,000/- IS NOT ATTRIBUTABLE TO SALE OF PRO PERTY AND MAKING ADDITION OF THE SAME. THUS, WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,00,000/-. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PAGE 10 OF 10 12. NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HELD IN THE PARA SUPRA THAT THE MONEY OF R S.3,00,00,000/- WAS RECEIVE AS A PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY SOLD, THE SAME IS, THEREFORE, ELIGIBLE FOR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF U/S.54 OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NEW HOUSE. ACCORDINGLY WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ALSO. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN FULL. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JULY, 2015. S D / - S D / - ( SAKTIJIT DEY ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 15 TH JULY, 2015. SPS COPY TO: 1. SMT. DHANA LAXMI, L/R OF LATE N. PRABHA RAO, HYDERABAD C/O MOHD. AFZAL, FLAT NO. 402, SHERSONS RESIDENCY , CRIMINAL COURT ROAD, RED HILLS, HYD = 500 004. 2. ACIT, CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD. 3. CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4. CIT III, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD 6. GUARD FILE