Sri.Michael M.J., Ernakulam V. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 111/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8614 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K P GOPAKUMAR; SHANTAM BOSE
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 54F; 142(1); 139

Judgement Text

ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI B P JAIN, AM & GEORGE GEORGE.K, JM ITA NO.174/COCH/2012 (ASST YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI S. SOMAN, 37/3744, SRIVALSOM APARTMENTS, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. [PAN:ADKPS 8213J] THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI. ( ASSESSEE APPELLANT) VS (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) ITA NO.175/COCH/2012 (ASST YEAR : 2007-08) SMT. K. SHYLAJA SOMAN, 37/3744, SRIVALSOM APARTMENTS, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. [PAN:ADKPS 8205N] THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI. ( ASSESSEE APPELLANT) VS (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) ITA NO.170/COCH/2012 (ASST YEAR : 2007-08) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI. SHRI S. SOMAN, 37/3744, SRIVALSOM APARTMENTS, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. [PAN:ADKPS 8213J] ( REVENUE APPELLANT) VS (ASSESSEE -RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI TM. SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI SHANTAM BOSE, CIT(DR) AND SHRI K.P. GOPAKUMAR, SR. DR ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 2 ITA NO.110/COCH/2012) (ASST YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI LAWRENCE M.J., MADATHIPARAMBIL, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. PIN 682 304. [PAN:AGJPJ 7059D] THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI. ( ASSESSEE APPELLANT) VS (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.06/COCH/2014 (ARSG. OUT OF ITA NO.110/COCH/2012) (ASST YEAR : 2007-08) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI. SHRI LAWRENCE M.J., MADATHIPARAMBIL, MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. PIN 682 304. [PAN:AGJPJ 7059D]] ( REVENUE APPELLANT) VS (ASSESSEE -RESPONDENT) ITA NO.111/COCH/2012) (ASST YEAR : 2007-08) SHRI MICHAEL M.J., KADAMATTUPARAMBIL (MADATHIPARAMBIL), MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 304. [PAN:AOGPM 4591J] THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI. ( ASSESSEE APPELLANT) VS (REVENUE -RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.08/COCH/2013 (ARSG. OUT OF ITA NO.111/COCH/2012) (ASST YEAR : 2007-08) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI. SHRI MICHAEL M.J., KADAMATTUPARAMBIL (MADATHIPARAMBIL), MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM. PIN-682 304. [PAN:AOGPM 4591J] ( REVENUE APPELLANT) VS (ASSESSEE -RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 3 ASSESSEE BY SHRI ANIL D. NAIR, ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI SHANTAM BOSE, CIT(DR) & SHRI K.P. GOPAKUAMR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 04/05/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24/05/2016 ORDER PER BENCH: THESE TWO APPEALS, I.E., I.T.A. NO. 174/COC H/2012 BY THE ASSESSEE AND I.T.A. NO. 170/COCH/2012 BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHR I S. SOMAN AND I.T.A. NO.175/COCH/2012 BY THE ASSESSEE SMT. K. SHYLAJA SO MAN ARISE FROM TWO DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) EACH DATED 30-03 -2012. ALSO THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI LAWRENCE M.J. IN I.T.A. NO. 110/COCH/ 2012 ARISE FROM A SEPARATE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, KOCHI VIDE ORDER DATED 28/12 /2011 AND IN THE CASE OF SHRI MICHAEL M.J. IN I.T.A. NO. 111/COCH/2012 ARISE FROM A SEPARATE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, KOCHI VIDE ORDER DATED 28/12/2011. THE R EVENUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AS WELL. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDENTI CAL , ALL THE APPEALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE THREE APPEALS, I.E., IN THE CASE OF SHRI S. SOMAN AND SMT. SHYLAJA SOMAN ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW AND W E ARE TAKING UP THESE APPEALS FIRST. SINCE THE ISSUES IN THESE THREE APP EALS ARE IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 4 OF SHRI LAWRENCE M.J AND SHRI MICHAEL M.J., THEREFO RE OUR ORDER HEREINBELOW IN THE CASE OF SHRI S. SOMAN AND SMT. SHYLAJA SOMAN WI LL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF SHRI LAWRENCE M.J AND SHRI MICHAEL M .J. EXCEPT THE DIFFERENCE IN QUANTUM, WHICH SHALL BE SUBSTITUTED AS THE CASE MAY BE :- I.T.A. NO. 174/COCH/2012 1. ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE TRANSFER IS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECT ON EXECUTION OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 09-01-2007 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT RELATING TO THE TRANSF ER OF 20.510 CENTS LAND COMPRISED IN SY. NO. 341 OF MARADU VILLAGE OWN ED BY THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY THE CAPITAL GAIN IS ASSESSABLE IN THE A Y 2007-08. IT IS A FACT THAT THE PAYMENT TOWARDS CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF T HE SAID ASSET WAS STARTED FROM 25-11-2006 AND ENDED BY 14-07-2007. ALL THE P AYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT ONLY. IF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS COMPLETE IN EVERY RESPECT ON EXECUTION OF THE REGISTERED SAL E DEED, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERAT ION AFTER THE REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED. HERE THE SALE CONSID ERATION WAS FINALLY PAID BY 14-07-2007. THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WAS THAT T HE EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WOULD BE MADE ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE ENTIR E SALE CONSIDERATION. AS SUCH THE EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION WAS COMPLETED ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE FINAL PAYMENT ON 14-07-2007 AND THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAIN IS ASSESSABLE ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -2009 AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE USUAL WORDING GENERAL LY USED IN A SALE DEED WAS USED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH DO NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES REGARDING EFFECTIVE TRANSF ER OF THE PROPERTY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION BETWEEN THE APPE LLANT AND THE MEDIATOR MR. ANILKUMAR SHARMA FOR THE SALE OF 20.510 CENTS O F LAND WAS RS.17 LAKH PER CENT ONLY. THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT WAS SIMULTANEOUSL Y COLLECTING BY THE MEDIATOR AS AND WHEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TRA NSFERRING INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT BY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ACC OUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS ONLY RS.3,48,50,000/- AND NOT RS.4,31,39,630/- AS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 5 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1982. IN THE ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF RELEVANT RECORDS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXP ENSES INCURRED IN THE PROPERTY BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS, AP PELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSME NT STAGE ITSELF. NOBODY COULD PRESUME THAT NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF SUCH A PROPERTY FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS BY THE OWNER OF THE LAND. APPELLANT CLAIMED ONLY THE LEGITIMATE EXPENS ES USUALLY INCURRED FOR MAKING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IMMOVABLE PROPERT IES ARE USUALLY SOLD BY ENGAGEMENT OF BROKERS. APPELLANTS CLAIM OF RS.13, 32,000/- AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.3,48,50,000/- WHICH IS HARDLY 3 .82% AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION. APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TOWARDS COST OF MAKING SALE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. SOM E OF THE BROKERS WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND NONE OF THE M HAD DENIED OF SUCH RECEIPTS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPENSES CL AIM WERE ONLY GENUINE AND ALLOWABLE. 5. AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED EITH ER AT THE TIME OR BEFORE HEARING. I.T.A. NO. 175/COCH/2012 : AY 2007-08 1. ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS ) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE TRANSFER IS COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECT ON EXECUTION OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 09-01-2007 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT RELATING TO THE TRANSF ER OF 43.750 CENTS LAND COMPRISED IN SY. NO. 341 OF MARADU VILLAGE OWN ED BY THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY THE CAPITAL GAIN IS ASSESSABLE IN THE A Y 2007-08. IT IS A FACT THAT THE PAYMENT TOWARDS CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF T HE SAID ASSET WAS STARTED FROM 25-11-2006 AND ENDED BY 14-07-2007. ALL THE P AYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT ONLY. IF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS COMPLETE IN EVERY RESPECT ON EXECUTION OF THE REGISTERED SAL E DEED, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE ANY SUBSEQUENT PAYMENT TOWARDS SALE CONSIDERAT ION AFTER THE REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED. HERE THE SALE CONSID ERATION WAS FINALLY PAID BY 14-07-2007. THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WAS THAT T HE EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WOULD BE MADE ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE ENTIR E SALE CONSIDERATION. AS SUCH THE EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION WAS COMPLETED ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE FINAL PAYMENT ON 14-07-2007 AND THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAIN IS ASSESSABLE ONLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -2009 AND NOT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE USUAL WORDING GENERAL LY USED IN A SALE DEED ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 6 WAS USED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH DO NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES REGARDING EFFECTIVE TRANSF ER OF THE PROPERTY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION BETWEEN THE APPE LLANT AND THE MEDIATOR MR. ANILKUMAR SHARMA FOR THE SALE OF 43.750 CENTS O F LAND WAS RS.17 LAKH PER CENT ONLY. THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT WAS SIMULTANEOUSL Y COLLECTING BY THE MEDIATOR AS AND WHEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TRA NSFERRING INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT BY WITHDRAWAL FROM THE ACC OUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS ONLY RS.7,01,50,000/- AND NOT RS.8,67,28,400/- AS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS). 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1982. IN THE ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF RELEVANT RECORDS FOR DEVELOPMENT EXP ENSES INCURRED IN THE PROPERTY BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS, AP PELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE ASSESSME NT STAGE ITSELF. NOBODY COULD PRESUME THAT NO EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF SUCH A PROPERTY FOR THE PAST 25 YEARS BY THE OWNER OF THE LAND. APPELLANT CLAIMED ONLY THE LEGITIMATE EXPENS ES USUALLY INCURRED FOR MAKING THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IMMOVABLE PROPERT IES ARE USUALLY SOLD BY ENGAGEMENT OF BROKERS. APPELLANTS CLAIM OF RS.24, 07,000/- AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.7,01,50,000/- WHICH IS HARDLY 3 .43% AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION. APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TOWARDS COST OF MAKING SALE BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. SOM E OF THE BROKERS WERE ALSO EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND NONE OF THE M HAD DENIED OF SUCH RECEIPTS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE EXPENSES CL AIM WERE ONLY GENUINE AND ALLOWABLE. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S. 54F ON THE GROUN D THAT APPELLANT OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. APPELLANT HAD CON STRUCTED A BUILDING IN 1986 BY AVAILING OF COMMERCIAL LOAN FROM INDIAN OVE RSEAS BANK. THE BUILDING WAS LET OUT TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR COMMERCIAL AS WE LL AS RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES. APPELLANT WAS STAYING IN ONE APARTMENT OF THE SAID BUILDING. AL THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING ARE LET OUT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE COMPLETION OF THE BUILDING. AS SUCH IT IS NOT CORRECT TO ASSU ME THAT THE APPELLANT OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. APPELLANT HAD RETU RNED ALL THE RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAID BUILDING FROM 1986 ONWARDS. AS SUCH THE APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR THE PROPORTIONATE INVESTMENT MADE FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING EVEN THOUGH THE LOCAL AUTHORIT IES HAD REJECTED THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION ON THE BASIS OF CRS REG ULATIONS IMPLEMENTED BY ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 7 THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES IN MARADU PANCHAYATH WHERE TH E CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WAS STARTED. 6. AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED EITH ER AT THE TIME OR BEFORE HEARING. I.T.A. NO. 170/COCH/2012 : AY 2007-08 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS)-I, KOCHI IS OPPOSED TO LAW, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. WHILE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 54F THE CIT(APPEA LS) FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEPOSITED THE NET CONSIDERATIO N IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT AS P RESCRIBED U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT. THE NET CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIAT ED TO THE PURCHASE/CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED BEFORE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 1 39(1) AND THE PROOF OF SUCH INVESTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF DE DUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.93,66,919/- WHEN THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT SATISFIED THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 54F. 3. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SE T ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN I.T.A. NO. 174/COCH/2012 BY T HE ASSESSEE, SHRI S. SOMAN AND IN I.T.A. NO. 175/COCH/2012 BY SMT. K. SHYLAJA SOMAN RELATE TO THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE SALE PRICE OF 20.510 CENTS OF LA ND SOLD BY SHRI S.SOMAN AND 42.255 CENTS OF LAND COMPRISED IN R.S. NO. 180 AND IN BLOCK NO. 213 IN KUNDANOOR DESOM AND MARADU VILLAGE, SOLD TO M/S. CO LOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI, AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 9.01.2007, REGISTERED AS DOCUMENT NO. 135/07 OF SRO, TRIPUNITHURA. THE TOTAL EXTENT OF 62.765 CENTS OF LAND BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEES WERE SOLD FOR A TOT AL CONSIDERATION OF ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 8 RS.10,50,00,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS.7,01,50,000/- IS THE VALUE OF 42.255 CENTS AND RS.3,42,50,000/- IS THE VALUE FOR 20.510 CENTS OWNE D BY SHRI S. SOMAN. 5. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF SHRI S. SOMAN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENHANCED THE SALE VALUE OF 20.510 CENTS FROM RS.3,48,50,000/- TO RS.4,19,71,630/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT OF SMT. SHYLAJA SOMAN, THE SALE FOR 42.2 55 CENTS WAS ENHANCED FROM RS.7,01,50,000/- TO RS.8,67,28,400/-. 6. THE COMMON GROUND RAISED IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS AGAINST THE ILLEGALITY IN ENHANCEMENT OF SALE VALUE FROM THE VALUE AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE RELEVANT FACTS RELATING TO THE ABOVE GROUND ARE THA T SHRI S. SOMAN AND HIS WIFE SHYLAJA SOMAN, JOINTLY EXECUTED A SALE DEED DATED 0 7.01.2007 FOR SALE OF 42.255 CENTS AND 20.510 CENTS IN FAVOUR OF M/S. COLOSSAL P ROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PV T. LTD., NEW DELHI FOR 42.255 CENTS OF LAND IS RS.7,01,50,000/-. FOR THE BALANCE OF 20.510 CENTS OF LAND, THE CONSIDERATION PAID IS RS.3,48,50,000/-. THE CONSID ERATION OF RS.7,01,50,000/- WAS ENHANCED IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHYLAJA SOMAN FOR REAS ONS STATED IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PARA 2.1 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE APPEAL OF SMT. SHYLAJA SOMAN AND THE SAME IS AS UNDER:- (I) THE REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTE R DATED 26-11-2010. VIDE THIS LETTER, IT WAS STATED THAT TOTAL SALE CONSIDER ATION RECEIVED BY THE ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 9 ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND WAS RS.10.50 CRORES OUT OF WHICH ASSESSEES SHARE IS STATED TO BE RS.7,01,50,000/-. HOWEVER, ON CROSS-VERIFICATION WITH SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, THE PURCHASER (ON BEHALF OF M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS (P) LTD.) IT CAME TO THE NOTICE THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.13,03,68,000/- ALL PAID BY CHEQUE OUT OF WHICH A SSESSEES SHARE WAS RS.8,72,28,400/-. COPIES OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND IN THE BOOKS OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA WERE OBTAJNED. VIDE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 08-12-2010 THE ASSESSEE WA S APPRISED OF THE POSITION AND REQUIRED TO STATE REASON FOR NOT TAKIN G THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.8,72,28,400/-. (II) THE REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER LET TER DATED 11-12-2010. IN THE REPLY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALTHOUGH ADMITTED THAT T HE ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF RS.8,72,28,400/- WAS RECEIVED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT I T IS CLAIMED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,70,78,400/- WAS PAID BACK TO SHRI AN IL KUMAR SHARMA BY BEARER CHEQUES. COPY OF ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT HA S BEEN FILED. PERUSAL OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT SHOW ANY CORRESPONDIN G PAYMENTS TO SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA. (III) ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE IT IS SEEN THAT THE CLAIM OF REPAYMENT OF RS.1,70,78,400/- IS ONLY AN AFTER THOU GHT. IN FACT, IN SOME OF THE OTHER CASES OF LAND TRANSFER TO SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, WHICH ARE ADJACENT TO ASSESSEES LAND IN QUESTION THAT WAS TR ANSFERRED, THERE WAS SUCH ADDITIONAL PAYMENT, WHICH ON CONFRONTATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ADMITTED BY THE CONCERNED PERSONS, NAMELY SHRI TONY J PULICKAL AND HIS BROTHER XAVIER J PULICKAL. IN THE IR CASES THESE ADDITIONAL PAYMENT WERE GIVEN BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA BY CHE QUES IN THE NAME OF THEIR WIVES. OBVIOUSLY, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAVE RECEIVED THIS PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENT V ALUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS HELD TO BE I NCLUSIVE OF THIS ADDITIONAL PAYMENT. 7. FOR THE SAME REASON, THE SALE VALUE OF THE PROP ERTY OF SHRI S. SOMAN WAS ENHANCED FROM RS.3,48,50,000/- TO RS.4,19,71,630/-. BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE SUSTAINED IN THE FIRST APPEAL BY THE CIT(A). IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ENHANCEMENT IN SALE VALUE IS VEHEMENTLY OBJECTE D FOR SEVERAL REASONS. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINI NG THE ENHANCEMENT OF SALE VALUE. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE CONSIDERATION PAID FO R SALE OF THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 10 M/S .COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI REFLECT ED IN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND. THIS IS THE CONSIDERATION ACCEPTED AS AMOUNT PAID FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI WHO IS THE PURCHASER, HAS DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED THAT THE C ONSIDERATION PAID TO THE ASSESSEES AS STATED THEREIN. THE VALUE DECLARED IS FAR IN EXCESS OF THE REGISTRATION VALUE FIXED FOR STAMP DUTY VALUATION BY THE STATE G OVERNMENT AUTHORITY. NO UNDER-STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION ALLEGED OR PROVED. 8. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE BANK TRANSACTIONS OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARM A, WHO IS A REAL ESTATE AGENT AND BROKER TO DISCREDIT THE CONSIDERATION, PAID TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. L TD., NEW DELHI. 9. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTE D BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. THER E IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD FROM M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW D ELHI. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD FROM M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD. , NEW DELHI REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF EXTRA CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, IN EXC ESS OF THE DECLARED SALE VALUE IN THE SALE DEED. THE CONSIDERATION AS PER T HE SALE DEED SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS CORRECT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE FROM THE PURCHASER M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI FOR HAVING PAID CONSIDERATION OF MORE THAN WHAT IS DECL ARED IN THE SALE DEED. THE ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 11 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOL LOWING JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION: I) CIT VS. P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM 294 ITR 49 (SC). II) SHRI K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. (1981) 13 1 ITR 597 (SC). 10. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE BURDEN OF ESTABLISHIN G UNDER-STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER OF IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY WAS ON THE REVENUE, AS HELD IN THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF SHR I K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO & ANR. IN THE ASSESSEES CASE, THERE IS NO SHRED OF EVIDEN CE WHATSOEVER POINTING OUT UNDER-STATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION OR RECEIPT OF EXTR A AMOUNT FOR THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEES PLOT AND AS SUCH, THE ENHANCEMENT OF SAL E CONSIDERATION IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. BHUVANE NDRAN & OTHERS (2008) 303 ITR 355 WHICH ALSO HELD THAT THE REVENUE HAVING BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED WAS UNDER-STATED AND NO MATERIAL HAVING BEEN FOUND DURING SEARCH TO SHOW TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE STATED CONSIDERATION, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SA LE DEED ON THE BASIS OF A RETRACTED STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. A COPY OF THE ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 12 JUDGMENT IS PRODUCED IN THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED ON 06.05.2015. FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM AND SHRI K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO (SUPRA) ARE ALSO SUBMITTED IN THE ABOVE PAPER B OOK. 12. REFERRING TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR WITH REFERENCE TO THE LEDGER FOLIO OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY SHRI ANI L KUMAR SHARMA FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2006 TO 31.3.2007, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE FOR THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, SINCE THE SAM E IS NOT AUTHENTICATED OR PROVED BY THE AUTHOR THEREOF. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ONLY DOCUMENT AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT O F THE SALE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE PURCHASER TO THE ASSESSEE IS THE SALE DEED. THIS SALE DEED IS ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE. THE CONSIDERATION PAID IS UNCONTROVERTED AND ALSO ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PURCHASER AS WELL AS THE SELLER. THERE IS NO EV IDENCE TO THE CONTRARY RECORDED FROM THE PURCHASER. THE TRANSACTION WAS CO NCLUDED MORE THAN 9 YEARS AGO AND THE PARTIES HAVE ACCEPTED AND ACTED UPON TH E SAID DOCUMENT. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ADDI TIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENTS OF SHRI S.SOMAN AND SMT. SHYLAJA SOMAN TOWARDS ENHANCEMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS NOT WARRANTED AND THE SAME SH OULD BE DELETED. THE LD. ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 13 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE SAME CONTENTION IN THE APPEAL OF SHRI S. SOMAN. 14. THE LD. CIT(DR) SUPPORTED THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE SALE VALUE BASED ON THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF SHRI S. SOMAN AN D SMT. SHYLAJA SOMAN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA. ACCORD ING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) ARE JUSTIFI ED IN ADOPTING THE PAYMENTS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI ANIL KUMA R SHARMA AND AS SUCH PLEADED THAT THE ADDITIONS OF SALE VALUE SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR T HE RESPECTIVE LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. L TD., NEW DELHI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE FROM THE PURCHASER M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI FOR DISCREDI TING THE DECLARED SALE VALUE. THERE IS NO REFERENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO AN Y CROSS VERIFICATION MADE WITH THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY AS REGARDS THE PURCHA SE PRICE PAID FOR THE LAND. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN COLLECTED FROM THE PURCHASER F OR DISCREDITING THE DECLARED SALE VALUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING TO SHOW THAT THE DECLARED SALE VALUE HAS NOT BEEN A CCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT OF M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONLY ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 14 INFERENCE POSSIBLE IS THAT THE VALUE DECLARED IN TH E SALE DEED HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE CASE OF THE PURCHASER M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD. 16. THE TWO JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAVE CLEARLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS TO ESTABLISH UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION OR RECEIPT OF EXTRA AMOUNT FOR SALE OF PROPERTY BEFORE REJECTING THE VALUE DECLARED IN THE SALE DEE D. IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. K. BHUVANENDRA N & OTHERS (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED WAS UNDERSTATE D, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO MATERIAL HAVING BEEN FOUND OR BROUGHT ON RECORD FOR PAYMENT OF ANY EXTRA SALE VALUE FOR THE PROPERTY. THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IT IS TO BE HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE ASSES SING OFFICER CANNOT ESTIMATE A HIGHER SALE VALUE THAN WHAT IS DECLARED IN THE SA LE DEED IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE PURCHASER, VIZ. M/S. COLO SSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD. 17. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO CLARIFY WHETHER A SUM OF RS.2,92,06,162/- WAS RECEI VED OVER AND ABOVE THE TRANSFER AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED VIDE PAR A 1, PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS STATED THAT DURING THE POS T SEARCH ENQUIRIES, SHRI SOMAN, THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND HAD TAKEN A PLEA THAT THIS A MOUNT WAS RETURNED TO SHRI ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 15 ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, WHICH IS DENIED BY SHRI ANIL KUM AR SHARMA. INSPITE OF THE DENIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO TREAT THE ABOVE SUM IN PROPORTION TO THE EXTENT OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUS BAND AND OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, WERE CALLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE DENIED RECEIPT OF AN Y CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED. THIS WA S NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT - ON CROSS VERIFICATION WITH SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA, THE PURCHASER (ON BEHALF OF M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD.), IT CAME TO THE N OTICE THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS 13,03,68,000/- AND PAID BY CHEQUE , OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEES SHARE WAS ADOPTED AT RS.8,72,28,400/-. BASED ON THAT AMOUNT, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,70,78,400/- WAS PROPOSED TO BE ADD ED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ABOVE SUM OF RS.2,92,06 ,162/- WAS PAID BACK TO SHRI ANIL KUMAR SHARMA BY BEARER CHEQUES BY HER HUS BAND SHRI SOMAN. 18. WE HAVE ACCEPTED IN PARA ABOVE, THE SALE CONS IDERATION DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO-RELATED THE BA NK TRANSACTIONS TO EXTRA SALE CONSIDERATION; BUT THIS WAS HELD TO BE NOT SUSTAINA BLE IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXAMINATION OF THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY, NAMEL Y, M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI. IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT APART FROM THE SALE TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES AND M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECT PVT . LTD., NEW DELHI THERE IS NO OTHER TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. HENCE, IT IS TO BE HELD THAT BANK TRANSACTIONS CANN OT BE CONNECTED WITH THE LAND SALE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VE RIFY WITH M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI WHETHER ANY EXTRA CONSIDERATIO N OVER AND ABOVE RS.10,50,00,000/- DECLARED IN THE SALE DEED IS THE ACTUAL VALUE PAID TO THE ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 16 ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. HENCE THIS ISS UE, I.E., W.R.T. THE EXTRA CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,92,06,162/- IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AS STATED ABOVE WHO WILL D ECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO BY AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 19. THE SECOND ISSUE IS THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM F OR EXEMPTION BASED ON SEC. 54F. 20. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F FOR A SUM OF RS.2,45,82,500/-. THIS INCLUDES THE COST OF 61.25 0 CENTS OF LAND COMPRISED IN SY. NO. 135/7 OF MARADU VILLAGE. THIS WAS PURCHASED AS PER DOCUMENT NO. 2621/07 OF MARADU SRO ON 16.07.2007 AT A COST OF RS. 2,16,5 0,000/-. THE ABOVE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, HER HUSB AND AND HER SON SHRI S. VINOD FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE INVESTED A SUM OF RS .29,32,500/- AS STATED IN THE CLAIM, BUT COULD NOT COMPLETE THE HOUSE DUE TO IMPL EMENTATION OF CRZ REGULATION BY MARADU PANCHAYATH AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SPENT IN A S UM OF RS.29,32,500/- ALONG WITH THE COST OF THE LAND. THE CLAIM WAS MADE U/S. 54F . THIS CLAIM U/S. 54F WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT WAS CONF IRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 17 21. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM U/S. 54F ON TH E GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F AS PER THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE IN SEC. 54F. THE CIT(A) RELIED ON THE PROVISO TO SEC. 54F , WHICH STATED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE OWNS MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSETS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSETS, THE ASSESS EE SHALL NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. 22. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL THE GROUND ON WH ICH THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON 21.10.2014 DENYING THE FACTS STATED B Y THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 4 OF THE AFFIDAVIT. IT IS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED 8 ITEMS OF PROPERTIES WITH SEPARATE BUILDING IN COCHIN MUNICIP AL CORPORATION. OUT OF THE 8 ITEMS ONE ITEM IS FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE, ANOTHER 2 ITEMS ARE FOR DORMITORY PURPOSES AND THE REMAINING FIVE ITEMS ARE LET OUT O N RENT FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED CERTIFICATE D ATED 13.10.2014 ISSUED BY THE COCHIN MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, CERTIFYING THAT T HE SAID 8 ITEMS OF PROPERTIES VIZ. BUILDING NOS. 65/3912 TO 65/3919 ARE LET OUT F OR COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL AND DORMITORY PURPOSES. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SHE IS NOT OWNING MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSETS. IN OTHER WORDS, UNLESS THE ASSESSEE OWNED TWO RESIDENTIAL HOUSES ALREADY, OTHE R THAN THE NEW ASSETS, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSETS, EXEMPT ION CANNOT BE DENIED. ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 18 23. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) . 24. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE MADE THE CLA IM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 54F WHICH WAS REJECTED. THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE ON A NEW GROU ND, NAMELY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION AS PER THE EXCLUSION CLAUSE IN SECTION 54F THEREBY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE OWNED MORE THAN ONE RESID ENTIAL HOUSE OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGIN AL ASSET. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTROVERTED THIS BY FILING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AL ONG WITH AFFIDAVIT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS MAY BE ACCEPTED IN THE APPEAL. FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT AN D THE ACCOMPANYING PETITION, THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ARE ADMITTED ON FILE AND T HE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AS TO THE FA CTS STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT. IF THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON T HE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, EXEMPTION CANNOT BE DENIED. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IF ON THE DAY OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OWNING MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, EXEMPTION FOR THE ASSESSEES PRO PORTIONATE 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE LAND AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING D ECLARED AT RS.29,32,500/- SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S. 54F. THIS ISSU E IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A. NO. 170/COCH/2012 : A.Y. 2007-08 ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 19 25. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS FILED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I KOCHI. DATED 30-03-2012. THE CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F FOR A SUM OF RS .1,10,37,000/- FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF 20.500 CENTS OF L AND SOLD IN FAVOUR OF M/S. COLOSSAL PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI FOR A CONSID ERATION OF RS.3,48,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE SALE OF THE AFORESAID LAND AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54F AMOUNTING TO RS.1,10,37,000/-. THIS WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. MOREOVER, THE REQUIREMENT OF SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 54F REGARDING DEPOSITIN G THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE CAPITAL GAINS DEPOSIT SCHEME BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH WAS ON 31 ST JULY, 2007, WAS ALSO NOT COMPLIED WITH. 26. IN THE FIRST APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A-I, KOCHI , VIDE PARA 4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A VALUATION REPORT FROM ENGINEER M.G. ABRAHAM DATED 8.4.2010 WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IS RS.93,74,250/- CONS ISTING OF BUILDING AT 394 M2, CAR PORCH, 43 M2 WALL, GATE, LAND DEVELOPMENT, BY FILLI NG AND LEVELING AND FURNITURE AND INTERIOR WORKS. A NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE FROM KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH PARUR TALUK DATED 29.5.2007 WAS ALSO FUR NISHED AND SUBMITTED ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 20 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETED BY DECEMBER 2007, WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM TH E SALE OF THE LAND AND THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY FOR HIM TO DEPOSIT THE SA LE VALUE IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SING OFFICER REFUSED THE CLAIM STATING THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IS NOT COMPLETED IN THE STIPULATED TIME. THIS WAS NOT CORRECT. HOWEVER, T HE CIT(A) FOUND THAT 24.3 CENTS OF LAND WAS CLAIMED TOWARDS HOUSE BUILDING. THIS W AS RESTRICTED TO 5 CENTS OF LAND, WHICH ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A) A STANDARD UNIT FOR A HOUSE IS 5 CENTS. THE COST OF THE BUILDING AS PER THE VALUATION CERTI FICATE IS RS.93,74,250/- ONLY TOWARDS THE COST OF THE BUILDING AND OTHER DEVELOPM ENT COST AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF RS.1,10,37,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR THE HOUSE. 27. THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL AGAINST THE ABOVE OR DER. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, VIDE GROUND NO. 2, IT IS CONTENDED THAT WH ILE GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S. 54F, THE CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE NET CONSIDERATION IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME WI THIN THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT AS PRESCRIBED U/S. 54F OF THE IT ACT. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THE NET CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED TO THE PUR CHASE OR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOUSE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED BEFORE THE DU E DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) AND PROOF OF SUCH INVESTMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SATISFY THE CONDITION SPECIFIED IN SECTION 54F. ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 21 28. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THIS WAS EXP LAINED AS UNDER: I DO NOT OWN ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OF MY OWN AT TH E TIME WHEN THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT MARADU VILLAGE WAS COMPLETED. WITH A VIEW TO CONSTRUCT A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF MY OWN I HAVE PURCHASED 24. 3 CENTS OF LAND ON 17.05.2007 COMPRISED IN SY. NO.404/8-2 OF KOTTUVALL Y VILLAGE, PARUR TALUK AT A COST OF RS.2,03,000/- VIDE DOC. NOS. 3861/2007 & 38 62/2007 OF PARUR SRO. THE CONSTRUCTION COST INCLUDING DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AN D APPROACH ROAD COMES TO RS.1,08,34,000/- OF WHICH I HAVE CLAIMED A PROPORTIONATE EXEMPTION OF RS.1,07,61,312/-. I HAVE ALREADY SUBM ITTED VALUATION REPORT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BY AN APPROVED VALUER. FURTHER I AM SUBMITTING NOC ISSUED BY THE KOTTUVALLY GRAMAPAN CHAYATH AS NO.C 6.2/ 2007 DATED 29.05.2007, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUIL DING WAS COMPLETED WITHIN 6 MONTHS OF THE COMPLETION OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY AT MARADU VILLAGE I AM ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F EVEN WITHOUT DEPOSI TING THE AMOUNT IN THE STIPULATED CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME. IT IS THER EFORE REQUESTED THAT THE PROPOSAL TO DISALLOW THE EXEMPTION CLAIM U/S. 54F A S PER THE ABOVE REFERRED NOTICE MAY BE DROPPED. 29. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE P URCHASED 24.34 CENTS OF LAND ON 17.5.2007 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AT A COST OF RS.2,03,000/- AS PER DOCUMENT NO. 3861/2007 AND 3862/2007 OF PARUR SRO. IMMEDIATELY, HE HAS STARTED CONSTRUCTION INCL UDING DEVELOPMENT OF LAND, APPROACH ROAD, ETC. KOTTUVALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH GR ANTED HIM PERMISSION FOR CONSTRUCTION VIDE NO OBJECTION CERTIFICATE DATED 29 .5.2007. THE CONSTRUCTION WAS CONTINUOUSLY CARRIED OUT AND COMPLETED WITHIN 6 MONTHS TIME. ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 22 30. ACCORDING TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 54F, T HE AMOUNT OF NET CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT UTILIZED BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE OR CO NSTRUCTION OF A NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139 ALONE NEED BE DEPOSITED IN AN ACCOUNT OR UNDER ANY SCHEME. 31. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE CONSTRUCTION IS COMM ENCED IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SALE OF LAND, WELL IN ADVANCE BEFORE THE DUE DATE F OR FILING THE RETURN AND WAS COMPLETED SOON THEREAFTER. THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBL E FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54F. 32. THE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO IN THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSION FILED THE DEPARTMENT VIZ. THE CASE OF CIT VS. V.R. DESAI AND THAT THE DECISIO N OF THE ITAT COCHIN BENCH IN THE CASE OF SRI A.M. HABEEB ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 33. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE IS UPHELD AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 34. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AR E PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 35. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION S IN THE CASE OF SHRI LAWRENCE M.J. AND SHRI MICHAEL M.J. AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 23 36. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN RESPECTIVE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE AS UNDER:- I.T.A. NO. 110/COCH/ 2012 : ASSESSEE: AY 2007-08 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS) IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNAUTHORIZED. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WENT WRONG IN CONFIRMIN G THE SALE CONSIDERATION DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHICH IS AGAI NST FACTS AND EVIDENCES. 3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WENT WRONG IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IN SPITE OF PRODUCING DOCUMEN TS EVIDENCING THE SAME. PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS INEVITABLE IN SUCH A HUGE TRANSACTION ESPECIALLY WHEN THE BUYER AND SELLER ARE PERSONS UN KNOWN TO EACH OTHER. 4. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WENT WRONG IN ARRIVING A T THE CORRECT INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSAL OF ARRIVING AT INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION AS SUGGESTED BY THE OFFICER WAS VERY LOW. THOUGH SOME MODIFICATIONS HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IT IS TOO LESS, INA DEQUATE, CONTRARY TO FACTS AND NOT THE CORRECT WAY OF TAKING VALUATION OF PROP ERTY. 5. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WENT WRONG IN DISALLOWI NG THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THE DOCUMEN TS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE TRIBUNA L BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. C.O. NO. 06/COCH/2014 : REVENUE: AY : 2007-08 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE METHOD ADOPTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE R ESULT IS GIVEN IN THE TABLE, WHICH WAS EXTRACTED IN THE REMAND REPORT SUB MITTED TO THE ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 24 CIT(APPEALS), WHICH WAS THE MOST SCIENTIFIC MODE OF DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) OF THE LAND AS ON 01/04/1981. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VA LUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDE NCE, WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE EVIDENCE OF DOCUMENT ADOPTED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS REMAND REPORT AGAINST THE SO-CALLED VALUATI ON. 3. THE RESPONDENT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE CROSS-OBJECTIONS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPE AL. I.T.A. NO. 111/COCH/2012 : ASSESSEE: AY: 2007-08 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APP EALS) IS ABSOLUTELY ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNAUTHORIZED. 2. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WENT WRONG IN ARRIVING A T THE CORRECT INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PROPOSAL OF ARRIVING AT INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION AS SUGGESTED BY THE OFFICER WAS VERY LOW. SOME MODIFI CATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT IT IS TOO LESS, INAD EQUATE, CONTRARY TO FACTS AND NOT THE CORRECT WAY OF TAKING VALUATION OF PROPERTY . 3. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WENT WRONG IN RESTRICTI NG THE ELIGIBLE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL THE DOCUMEN TS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE COMPLETE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE TRIBUNA L BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 : REVENUE: AY : 2007-08 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSI DERATION THE METHOD ADOPTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE R ESULT IS GIVEN IN THE TABLE, WHICH WAS EXTRACTED IN THE REMAND REPORT SUB MITTED TO THE ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 25 CIT(APPEALS), WHICH WAS THE MOST SCIENTIFIC MODE OF DETERMINING THE FMV OF LAND AS ON 01/04/1981. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VA LUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDE NCE, WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE EVIDENCE OF THE DOCUMENT ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS REMAND REPORT AGAINST THE SO-CALLED VALUATION. 3. THE RESPONDENT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTE R ANY OF THE ABOVE CROSS-OBJECTIONS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPE AL. 37. SINCE THE ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES AS IN THE CASE OF SHRI S. SOMAN AND S MT. K. SHYLAJA SOMAN, WHICH HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY US HEREINABOVE, ACCORDINGLY, O UR ORDER HEREINABOVE SHALL BE IDENTICALLY APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT APPE ALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS AND THEREFORE, ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF TH E REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 38. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES IN I.T.A. NOS. 174,175, 110&111/COCH/2012 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES AND THE APPEAL ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 26 OF THE REVENUE IN I.T.A. NO.170/COCH/2012 IS DISMIS SED AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE REVENUE BEARING NOS. 06/COCH/2014 AND 08/COC H/2013 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24-05-2016. SD/ SD/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER GJ PLACE : COCHIN DATED: 24TH MAY , 2016 COPY TO: 1. SHRI S. SOMAN, 37/3744, SRIVALSOM APARTMENTS, P ONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 2. SMT. K. SHYLAJA SOMAN, 37/3744, SRIVALSOM APART MENTS, PONOTH ROAD, KALOOR, KOCHI-682 017. 3. SHRI LAWRENCE M.J., MADATHIPARAMBIL, MARADU P.O. , ERNAKULAM, PIN 682 304. 4.SHRI MICHAEL M.J., KADAMATTUPARAMBIL (MADATHIPARA MBIL), MARADU P.O., ERNAKULAM, PIN-682 304. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, KOCHI. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-I, KOCHI . 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, KOCHI. 8. THE DR/ITAT, COCHIN BENCH. 9. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, COCHIN ITA NOS. 170,174&175, 110&111/COCH/2012 & C.O. NOS. 06/COCH/2014 & C.O. NO. 08/COCH/2013 27 1.DATE OF DICTATION : 12/05/2015 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED 1 8/ 05/2016 BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER OTHER MEMBER: 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . PS/PS: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER : 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. PS/PS : 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO BENCH CLERK: 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK: 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO ASSISTANT REGISTR AR 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER: