Shri.Anil Gowda , Bangalore V. Income TAx Officer Ward-5(3)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1316/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7180 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D KIRAN JT BENGALURU
• Keywords: Capital asset; Wrong claim
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1316/ BANG / 2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 - 15 SHRI ANIL GOWDA, NO.325/1, 5 TH CROSS, R.M.V. EXTENSION, SADASHIVNAGAR, BENGALURU 560 080. PAN: AUUPG 2107N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(3)(2), BENGALURU. APP ELLANT RESPONDENT APP ELLANT BY : SHRI RAVISH RAO, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. KIRAN, JT. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU . DATE OF HEARING : 07 . 01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 . 01 . 201 9 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER DATED 02.02.2018 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-10, BENGALURU FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED RESPONDENT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ER RED IN LAW BY REJECTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED B Y THE APPELLANT AS STATED ABOVE, ON THE GROUND THAT THE L AND RELATING THERE TOO WAS PURCHASED IN THE F.Y 2014-15, WHEREAS THE FACT IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT OF SALE AND ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 18 TAKEN THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND THE CULTIVATIO N IS MADE IN THE F.Y 2013-14 ITSELF. 2. THE LEARNED RESPONDENT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERR ED IN LAW BY REJECTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, ON THE GR OUND THAT THE APPELLANT CULTIVATED ONLY 'JOWAR AND RAGI' WHILE TH E APPELLANT CULTIVATED 'BANANA AND GINGER' WHICH ARE COMMERCIAL CROPS. 3. THE LEARNED RESPONDENT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ER RED IN LAW BY REJECTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.29,32,653/-, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SALE CONSIDE RATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS. 27,00,000/-, SINCE THE LAND YIELD AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 29,00,000/- CANNOT BE I MAGINED TO BE SOLD FOR RS. 27,00,000/- BY THE SELLER. BUT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE SELLER IS AN ORDINARY AGRICULTURIST GROWING HISTORICAL CROPS WITHOUT EMPL OYING MUCH CAPITAL INTO THE CULTIVATION. WHEREAS THE APPELLANT EMPLOYED SIZABLE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL INTO THE CULTIVATION AND GROWN COMMERCIAL CROPS LIKE BANANA AND GINGER WHICH ARE O F HIGH VALUE CROPS. THE YIELD DERIVED FROM THE DEVELOPED LAND WI TH THE HIGH- TECH AGRICULTURE APPLYING PROFESSIONAL WAY OF CULTI VATION CANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE CONSIDERATION PAID TO A LAND W HICH WAS NOT PROPERLY LOOKED AFTER. THUS THE COMPARISON IS THE M ISMATCH. 4. THE LEARNED RESPONDENT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERR ED IN THE LAW BY REJECTING AGRICULTURAL INCOME BASED ON THE D EPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY REPORTS, AS THE SAID REPORT WAS NOT FORTH B EFORE THE APPELLANT FOR REBUTTAL. 5. THE REJECTION OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, ADVANCING VARIOUS OTHER REASONS ENUMERATED IN THE ORDER IS NOT CORRECT FOR THE DETAILED EXPLAN ATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, AS RECORDED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER , ITSELF. 6. THE LEARNED RESPONDENT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERR ED IN LAW BY LEVYING PENALTY U/S 234A OF THE ACT AND 234B OF THE ACT, TOTALLY RS. 4,35,888/-. ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 18 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y 2014-15 ON 09-10-2015 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,18,280/- UNDER THE HEAD SALARY AND RS. 29,32,653/- AS AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 14 3(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 30-12-2016 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 31,50,933/- MAK ING DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,32,653/-. 3. THE FACTS LEADING TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTION OF THE CLAIM OF EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYED WITH M/S. GREENS FARMTECH PVT . LTD. FROM WHICH HE RECEIVED SALARY OF RS. 2,18,280/-. HE CLAIMED BE FORE THE AO THAT HE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM MR. NIVED PRASANNA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 27 LAKHS VIDE SALE DEED DATED 24-04-2014. THE A O NOTICED THAT THE SCHEDULE TO THE SALE DEED SHOWED THE AREA OF THE LA ND AT 26 ACRES AND 9 GUNTAS AND WAS A DRY LAND. FURTHER, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE FY 2014-15, WHEREAS THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME WAS SHOWN FOR THE PERIOD OF 2013-14. BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSES SEE STATED THAT HE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 11-01-2013 ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH THE OWNER OF THE LAND GAVE POSSESSION TO HIM. 4. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE ASSES SEES EXPLANATION AND HE REJECTED THE CLAIM OBSERVING THA T THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID RS. 15 LAKHS ON 17-01-2013 AND THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 12 LAKHS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY I .E., 24-04-2014. BUT THE SALE DEED DISCLOSED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.27 LAKHS WAS PAID ON THE REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY I.E. ON 24-04-2014. T HE SALE DEED BROUGHT OUT THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO THE PURCH ASER ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY I.E. 24-04-2014. HENCE , IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE AO THAT TAKING POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2013-14 WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 4 OF 18 5. BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RTCS IN SUP PORT OF HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY HIM AT MADHIHALLI HOBLI, KONA YAKANAHALLI. HOWEVER, AS PER THE RTC IT WAS SEEN THAT THE LANDS WERE TRAN SFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15. THE RTCS DECLARE D CROPS GROWN IN THE SAID LANDS AS RAGI AND JOWAR. 6. THE AO CONDUCTED CERTAIN ENQUIRIES IN ORDER TO V ERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CLAIM WITH REGARD TO CULTIVATION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. LOCAL ENQUIRIES WERE MADE AND SPOT INSPECTION WAS DONE BY THE INSPECTOR ON 27.07.2016 AND 28.12.2016. IT WAS REPORTED BY THE I NCOME-TAX INSPECTOR THAT NOT MUCH OF CULTIVATION WAS THERE IN THE SAID LANDS IN EARLIER YEARS AND ONLY JOWAR WAS GROWN DURING THE YEAR. THUS, THE AO FOUND THAT THE RTCS AND THE INSPECTOR'S REPORT COMPLIMENTED EACH OTHER. THE AO ALSO DOUBTED THE CLAIM THAT BY PURCHASING LANDS FOR RS. 27 LAKHS THE APPELLANT CAN HAVE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WORTH MORE THAN RS.29 LAKHS IN ONE YEAR. 7. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS THE AO CONCLU DED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE RECEIPT OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 29,32,653/- WAS FALSE. ACCORDINGLY, HE TREAT ED THIS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 8. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE WERE HUGE CASH DE POSITS IN THE BANK A/C OF THE ASSESSEE AS FOLLOWS:- ICICI BANK RS. 4,73,500 KARNATAKA BANK RS.13,12,000 CORPORATION BANK RS. 8,96,500 ----------------- TOTAL RS. 26,82,000 ----------------- ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 5 OF 18 9. BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE DEPO SITS WERE THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. DETAILS WERE REQU ISITIONED BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT SUCH DETAILS. HOWEVER, AS THE AO TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, N O FURTHER ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS. 10. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT IT CA NNOT BE BROUGHT OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.29,32,653/-. AS AGAINST THIS, THE AO HAS VERY CL EARLY BROUGHT OUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH PROVES BEYOND REASONABLE DO UBT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING A FALSE CLAIM OF EARNING AGRICULTURAL INC OME DURING THE YEAR. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON DU E TO THE FOLLOWING FACTS:- I. THE APPELLANT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AN UNREGIS TERED AGREEMENT SHOWING THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND W AS HANDED OVER TO HIM ON 17-01-2013. IN CASES OF TRANS FER OF PROPERTY SUCH A THING DOES NOT HAPPEN IN ORDINARY C OURSE THAT POSSESSION IS HANDED OVER BEFORE RECEIPT OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT SOMEONE WOUL D GIVE POSSESSION OF HIS LAND WITHOUT GETTING THE FULL VAL UE OF CONSIDERATION. MOREOVER, THE REGISTERED SALE DEED V ERY CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON 24-04-2014 AND T HE LANDS WERE HANDED OVER ON THAT VERY DATE. AS OBSERV ED BY THE AO, THE LAND DEED MENTIONS AS BELOW: 'WHEREAS THE SCHEDULE LANDS MENTIONED BELOW IS HA NDED OVER BY THE VENDOR TO THE PURCHASER ON THIS DAY TOGETHER WITH ALL EASEMENT AND CUSTOMARY RIGHTS PATH, ROAD, WATER SOU RCES AND ALL RIGHTS. ... THE VENDOR HEREBY SELLS TRANSFERS AND CON VEYS ALL HIS RIGHTS, TITLES AND INTEREST OVER THE SCHEDULE LANDS TO THE PURCHASER TO OWN HOLD AND ENJOY THE SAME BY THE PUR CHASER, HEREINAFTER WITH ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND FOREVER WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCE OR DISTURBANCE FROM THE VENDOR OR FROM AN Y PERSON ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 6 OF 18 CLAIMING THROUGH OR UNDER THEM. THE VENDOR SHALL SE IZE TO HAVE ANY RIGHT TITLE OR INTEREST OVER THE SCHEDULE HEREINAFTER. II. THE RTCS SHOWED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAN D WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR 2014-15. I T ALSO SHOWED THE CROPS GROWN WERE RAGI AND JOWAR WHEREAS, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT CLAIMED GROWING GINGE R AND PADDY. WHATEVER MAY BE THE CASE, GINGER AND PADDY C ANNOT BRING THE APPELLANT A WHOPPING AMOUNT OF MORE THAN 29 LAKHS OF RUPEES. III. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT ARE IN CASH. SO THE SAME CANNOT BE VERIFIED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT . 11. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE FINDIN GS OF THE AO, THE CIT(APPEALS) CONCLUDED THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 29,32,653/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AND NOT FROM AGRICULTURE AND HENCE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,32,653/- . 12. AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE ME. 13. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL LANDED PROPERTY MEASURING 26 ACRES 9 GUNTAS AT MADHIHALLI HOBLI, KONAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADIHALL I HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT ON 17.01.2013 FOR A CONSIDERATION O F RS.27 LAKHS. OUT OF THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS.15 LAKHS ON ENTERING INTO SALE AGREEMENT, BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.12 LAKHS WAS PAID AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. THE SALE DEED WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SELLER ON 24.04.2014. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSEE GOT POS SESSION OF THE LAND AND CULTIVATED THE SAME AND EARNED INCOME AND DEPOS ITED IT INTO BANK ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, AS PER CLAUSE (V II) OF SALE AGREEMENT, POSSESSION OF LAND AND PROPERTY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO A SSESSEE ON 17.01.2013. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE DREW OUR ATTENT ION TO THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.11.2016 WHEREIN THE VENDOR CONFIRMING THE HANDING OVER OF THE ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 7 OF 18 POSSESSION TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID AFFIDAVIT IS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGES 37 & 38 OF THE PB. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DREW INFERENCE THAT THE AGREEMENT OF SALE IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT ON TH E REASON THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE IN THE SALE DEED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, NO REFERENCE OF AGREEMENT OF SALE IN THE SALE DEED WAS JUST AN ERROR OR AN OMISSION BY THE PARTIES TO MENTION IT. THAT ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THAT THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 17.01.2013. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. AR, THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO ASSESSEE ON 17.01.2013 AND PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.15 LAKHS WAS PAID ON 17.01.2013 ON ENTERING INTO SALE AGREEMENT. THIS WAS ALSO CONFIR MED BY THE VENDOR VIDE AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 22.11.2016 AND IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT AGREEMENT T O SELL WAS ENTERED ON A STAMP PAPER WHICH WAS PURCHASED ON 15.01.2013. THI S PROVES THE FACT THAT AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS PHYSICALLY ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 17.01.2013. SINCE THERE WAS A TIME GAP OF 15 MONTH S BETWEEN AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ENTERING INTO SALE DEED, THE POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.15 LAK HS WAS PAID TO THE VENDOR. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE CLAUSE IN THE SALE DEED MENTIONS THAT RIGHTS AND OTHER THINGS WERE HANDED O VER TO PURCHASER, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE WAS NO POSSESSION GIVEN VI DE SALE AGREEMENT OF 17.01.2013. THE SAID CLAUSE WAS MENTIONED IN THE S ALE DEED IN A ROUTINE MANNER AS THERE WAS NO MENTION OF AGREEMENT TO SELL IN THE SALE DEED SO AS TO FACILITATE THE READING OF THE SALE DEED IN IS OLATION WITHOUT REFERRING TO AGREEMENT TO SELL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE AS SESSEE GREW BANANA IN 15 ACRES AND GINGER IN 11 ACRES WHICH IS EVIDENCED BY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. HE DREW OUR ATTENT ION TO THE COPY OF LETTER DATED 07.11.2016 WHERE HE IS SAID TO HAVE PR ODUCED COPY OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ESTATES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS LI KE EXPENSES BILLS, INDENT COPIES, ETC., COPY OF LETTER PLACED AT PAGE 51 OF PB. ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 8 OF 18 14. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PRODUCT NOTED IN THE RTC THAT RAGI & JOWAR IS THE HISTORIC RECORD THAT WAS BEING CULTIVA TED MUCH EARLIER. THE SAID CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED WITHOUT VERIFYING THE L ATEST POSITION MODIFYING THE RECORD. SINCE THE REVENUE RECORD WAS NOT UPDATED F ROM TIME TO TIME, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE. ACCOR DING TO THE LD. AR, AFTER TAKING POSSESSION OF LAND, HE CHANGED CULTIVA TION OF THE CROP WHICH WAS NOT UPDATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 15. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ACCORDING TO THE REVE NUE, ENQUIRIES WERE CARRIED OUT. LOCAL ENQUIRY AND SPOT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED THROUGH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 MASAN, ON 27 TH AND 28TH DECEMBER 2016, TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF CULTIVATION CARRIED DURI NG THE YEAR 2013-14. AS PER THE SAID ENQUIRY, IT APPEARS, IT IS REPORTED THAT T HERE WAS NO MUCH CULTIVATION IN THE SAID LANDS IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND PRESENTLY ONLY, JOWAR IS GROWN. NO OTHER DETAILS OF THE REPORT ARE FOUND IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 16. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TOTALLY UNAW ARE OF THE ENQUIRY OR INSPECTION CONDUCTED BY THE ITO AT THE BACK OF T HE APPELLANT. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHO ARE THE PERSONS WHO CARRIED THE LOCAL ENQ UIRY AND SPOT INSPECTION. THE DETAILS OF LOCAL ENQUIRY, SUCH AS T HE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS, WITH WHOM THE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE O R ANY STATEMENTS RECORDED IN THAT BEHALF ARE NOT SPECIFIED IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHO IDENTIFIED THE PROPERTY FOR SPOT INSPECTI ON. THE VILLAGE AREA IS VERY VAST. SPOT INSPECTION OF THE LAND, IDENTIFYING THE SAME WITH SURVEY NUMBERS COULD BE POSSIBLE, ONLY, WITH THE HELP OF S TATE REVENUE AUTHORITIES OR THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. IN THIS BACKGR OUND, HOW THE SPOT INSPECTION WAS CONDUCTED IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ANY ENQUIRY OR SPOT INSPECTION, IF CONDUCTED AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH REPORT IS INTENDED TO BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, (IT IS CUSTOMA RY), UNLESS THE SAME ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 9 OF 18 ARE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS VIEWS ON THE SAME. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW OF THE LOCAL ENQUIRY AND SPOT INSPECTION, ONLY, BY A LETTER FROM THE ITO DATED 29-12-2016 I.E., ONE DAY PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30-12-2016. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, TH E LD. AR CONTENDED THAT THE SO-CALLED LOCAL ENQUIRY AND SPOT INSPECTION IS BASELESS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO REGARDING THE CROP GROWN, BASED ON A BASELES S REPORT, IS NOT CORRECT. 17. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SUBSEQ UENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE AO MENTIONED THAT THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, MADHIHALLI HOBLI, KONAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, BELUR TQ., HASSAN DIST., V IDE LETTER DATED 14.12.2017 STATED THAT RTCS WERE UPTO DATE FOR THE YEAR 2013-14 WITH CROP DETAILS AS PLANTAIN TREES AND PADDY IN THE SAID AGR ICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AG RICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED VIDE SALE DEED DATED 24.04.2014 AND POSSE SSION WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. THIS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE RTC ISSUED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. ON VERIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT TO S ALE AND SALE DEED, THE REPLY FILED ON 23-11-2016 CITED ABOVE ON THE CONTEN TION THAT THE LANDS WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FY 2013-14 FOR CULTIVATION AND THAT HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.29 LAK HS DURING THE FY 2013- 14 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I) PAYMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION 18.1.1 IN THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 17-1-2013 BE TWEEN SRI NIVED M PRASANNA AND MR. ANIL C GOWDA FOR TRANSFER OF AGR ICULTURAL LANDS AT KONAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN DISTRICT, IT IS STA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ADVANCE OF RS. 15 LAKHS AND THE BALANCE OF RS. 12 LAKHS TO BE PAID ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 10 OF 18 BEFORE THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, ON PERU SAL OF THE SALE DEED DATED 24-4-2014 IT IS NOTICED THAT THE PURCHASER I. E., ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY BY PAYING SUM OF RS.27 LAKHS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION, RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE SALE DEED I S AS UNDER: WHEREAS THE PURCHASER HAS OFFERED TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTIES FOR CONSIDERATION RS.27 LAKHS WHICH IS THE PRESETS MANT EL AND REASONABLE FAIR VALUE AND THE VENDOR HAS ACCEPTED T HE AFAR AND AGREED TO SELL IT AT THE SAID CONSIDERATION. NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH THAT IN PURSUANCE OF THE S AME A SUM OF RS. 27 LAKHS PAID TO VENDOR BY THE PURCHASER IN CAS H BEFORE UNDERSIGNED WITNESS THE VENDOR HERE ACKNOWLEDGES RE CEIVING SAID AMOUNT. 18.1.2 THOUGH THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT THE AGREEME NT IS ENTERED INTO ON 17-1-2-13 AND ADVANCE OF RS.15 LAKHS PAID A ND THE BALANCE OF RS.12 LAKHS TO BE PAID BEFORE THE REGISTERING AUTHO RITY, THE REGISTERED DEED DATED 24-4-2014 DOES NOT MENTION THAT ADVANCE OF RS .15 LAKHS HAS BEEN PAID ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT, RATHER IT ONLY STATE S THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 27 LAKHS IS PAID BY THE PURCHASER IN CASH BE FORE UNDERSIGNED WITNESS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION I.E., 24-4-2014 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN POSSESS ION OF THE LANDS DURING THE 2013-14 TO EARN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 29.3 2 LAKHS. ON THE STRENGTH OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEING THE DATE OF ACTUA L POSSESSION OF THE LANDS BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EFFORT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE AGREEMENT DATED 17-1-2013, AFFIDAVIT BY THE SELLER DATED 22-1 1-2016 DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS ARE ALL AN ATTER-THOUGHT OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THAT HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE LANDS AND THAT HE CARRIED OUT CULTIVATION EARNING INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 29 LAKHS IN THE FY 2013-14. ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 11 OF 18 (II) TIME LINE FOR COMPLETION OF THE TRANSFER: 18.2.1 AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 17-1-2013 FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF THE SALE OF TH E PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE D ATE OF AGREEMENT WHEREAS THE SALE HAS BEEN REGISTERED ON 24-4-2014 A FTER A LAPSE OF 15 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. AS PER THE FOLL OWING CLAUSE OF THE SALE DEED THE LANDS HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION WHICH READS AS UNDER:- WHEREAS THE SCHEDULE LANDS MENTIONED BELOW IS HA NDED OVER BY THE VENDOR TO THE PURCHASER ON THIS DAY TOG ETHER WITH ALL EASEMENT AND CUSTOMARY RIGHTS PATH, ROAD, WATER SOU RCES AND ALL RIGHTS. ... THE VENDOR HEREBY SELLS TRANSFERS AND CONVEYS A LL HIS RIGHTS, TITLES AND INTEREST OVER THE SCHEDULE LANDS TO THE PURCHASER TO OWN HOLD AND ENJOY THE SAME BY THE PURCHASER, HEREINAFT ER WITH ABSOLUTE RIGHT AND FOREVER WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCE OR DISTURBANCE FORM. THE VENDOR OR FROM ANY PERSON CLAIMING THROUGH OR U NDER THEM. THE VENDOR SHALL SEIZE TO HAVE ANY RIGHT TITLE OR I NTEREST OVER THE SCHEDULE HEREINAFTER. 18.2.2 HENCE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE TO OK THE POSSESSION AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 17-1-2013 AND THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SELLER FOR HANDLING OVER POSSESSION OF LANDS TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FY 2013-14 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT BY THE A SSESSEE TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS. (III) FILING OF RTCS 18.3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSES SEE FURNISHED RTCS IN SUPPORT OF HOLDING OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY HIM AT MADHIHALLI HOBLI, KONAYAKANAHALLI. WHEN A QUERY WAS RAISED THAT AS PE R THE RTCS THE LANDS ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 12 OF 18 WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING 2014-15, TH E ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE DATA OF SALE DEED MENTIONED IN THE RM ARE NOT C ONCLUSIVE DOCUMENT TO PROVE SINCE THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS GIVE N TO THE ASSESSEE MUCH BEFORE THE SALE DEED AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED CULTIVATION DURING FY 2013-14. FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE CROPS GROWN WERE RAGI AND JOWAR AS PER THE RTCS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT VERIFIED THE LATEST POSITION AND MODIFIED THE CROP DETAILS WHICH WERE CULTIVATED BY HIM VIZ., BANANA AND GINGER. 18.3.2 IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE RTCS CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF LANDS TO THE TRANSFEREE AND THE CROPS MENTIONED IN THE RTCS TO BE NOT THE ACTUAL CROP GROWN IN THE SAID LANDS BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN WHY IS SUCH A DOCUMENT RELIED UPON B Y THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE LANDS ARE HELD BY HIM. (IV) QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED AND T HE QUANTUM OF SALE CONSIDERATION PAID. 18.4.1 AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 24-4-2014, THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PAYING CASH OF RS.27 LAKHS ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION. WHEN THE ASSESSES CLAIMS THAT DURING THE FY 2013- 14, HE HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.29 LAKH S, THERE IS AN AMBIGUITY ABOUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR LAND PURCHASED FOR SUM OF RS.27 LAKHS, SINCE THE LAND YIELDING AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS TO TH E TUNE OF RS.29 LAKHS CANNOT BE IMAGINED TO BE SOLD FOR RS.27 LAKHS BY TH E SELLER. 18.4.2 AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 24-4-2014, DRY A GRICULTURAL LANDS AT KONAYAKANAHALLI VILLAGE, HASSAN DISTRICT MEASURI NG 26 ACRES AND 09 GUNTAS ETC., WERE PURCHASED DURING THE FY 2014-15. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT HE HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE LANDS BY WAY OF AGREEMENT DURING 2013-14 AND CULTIVATED THE LANDS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 13 OF 18 FURNISHED SUBSTANTIATING PROOF FOR ANY IMPROVEMENT CARRIED OUT BY WAY OF DIGGING WELLS, BOREWELLS ETC, IN 26.09 ACRES OF DRY AGRICULTURAL LANDS, WHICH HE CLAIMS TO HAVE YIELDED REVENUE TO THE TUNE OF RS .29.32 LAKHS FOR THE AY 2014-15. HENCE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ETC. FURNISHE D DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE RELIED FOR THE INCOME DECLARE D UNDER AGRICULTURE. 18.5.1 THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURS E OF THIS PROCEEDINGS, ENQUIRIES WERE CARRIED OUT THROUGH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HASSAN, IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CULTIVATION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AT AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT KONAYA KANAHALLI VILLAGE, MADIHALLI HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DURING THE FY 2013-14. BASED ON THE LOCAL ENQUIRY AND SPOT INSPECTION BY THE INSPECTOR ON 27 TH AND 28 TH DECEMBER 2016, IT IS REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO MUC H CULTIVATION IN THE SAID LANDS DURING THE EARLIER YEARS AND PRESENTLY ONLY J OWAR IS GROWN WHICH STANDS JUSTIFIED AS PER THE RTC FILED FOR THE SAID LANDS. 18.5.2 ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSES THAT THE PRODUCT NAMELY RAGI AND JOWAR NOTED IN THE RTC ARE HISTORIC RECORD AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS GROWN BANANA IN 15 ACRES AND GINGER IN 11 ACRES AND THAT THE CROPS GROWN BY THE ASSESSE S HAVE NOT BEEN UPDATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS NOT ACCEPTABL E IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE PRESENT CROP GROWN IN THE LANDS ARE REPORT ED TO BE JOWAR AND THERE IS NO RECORD FOR CROP GROWN DURING FY 2013-14. 19. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT SALE AGREEMEN T IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND FABRICATED ONE. ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 14 OF 18 20. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON TH E PRIMARY REASON THAT POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS NOT AT ALL HAND ED OVER TO ASSESSEE ON ENTERING INTO AGREEMENT OF SALE ON 17.01.2013. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT POSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS HANDED TO ASSES SEE ON 24.04.2014. ACCORDING TO THE AO, SINCE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WA S HANDED OVER ONLY ON 24.04.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE F Y 2013-14 RELEVANT TO AY 2014-15. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FILED BOOKS OF A CCOUNT BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 07.11.2016, BUT THERE IS NO FINDI NG GIVEN BY THE AO REGARDING THE CORRECTNESS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ONLY ON THE RTC ISSUED BY VILLAGE ACCOUNT ANT. 21. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 27. 11.2016 WHEREIN IT IS CONFIRMED THAT HANDING OVER OF POSSESSION OF AGRICU LTURAL PROPERTY TO ASSESSEE AS PER CLAUSE (7) OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. THIS AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). BUT NEITH ER THE CIT(APPEALS) NOR THE AO VERIFIED THE CONTENTS THEREIN BY EXAMINING T HE CONCERNED PARTIES. 22. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSE SSMENT YEAR, THE AO HIMSELF AS ACCEPTED THAT IN THE FY 2013-14 RELEVANT TO AY 2014-15, THE MENTION OF GROWING PLANTAIN TREES AND PADDY IN RTC ISSUED BY VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.12.2017. THIS GOES CONTRARY TO THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE AO ON THE ENQUIRY REPORT CON DUCTED BY THE ITO, WARD-2, HASSAN CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. THIS ENQUIRY WAS MADE BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH WAS NOT PUT FOR COMMENTS FROM THE ASSESSEE. ANY EVIDENCE COLLECTED BEHIND THE BACK O F A PERSON AGAINST WHOM IT IS USED, AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS TO B E GIVEN, OTHERWISE IT IS UNTENABLE IN LAW. THE ENQUIRY WAS MADE ON 27 TH & 28 TH DECEMBER, 2016 ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 15 OF 18 WHICH IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.2014 I.E., LONG AFTER THE COMPLETION OF FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2014-15. NO CREDENCE CAN BE GIVEN TO THIS ENQUIRY REPORT/INVESTIGATION R EPORT. WITH REGARD TO THE RTC ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT, IT CONTAINS T HE DETAILS OF CROP CULTIVATED BY THE EARLIER VENDOR AND LATEST POSITIO N WAS NOT UPDATED. HENCE IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONCLUSIVE. 23. I FURTHER MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE AO SHOULD CONS IDER APPARENT AS REAL, UNLESS IT IS PROVED OTHERWISE. NOW THE ONUS SHIFTS ON THE DEPARTMENT WHO ALLEGES THAT POSSESSION WAS NOT GIVEN VIDE SALE AGR EEMENT. IF THE AO BELIEVES THAT SALE AGREEMENT IS NOT REAL AND IT IS FABRICATED, HE SHOULD PROVE THAT IT IS NOT REAL. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE H AS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT SALE AGREEMENT WAS BOGUS OR FABRICATED ONE. THE AO/CIT(APPEALS) ALWAYS HAS THE POWER AND FREEDOM TO GO BEHIND THE DOCUMENTS TO FIND OUT THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PAR TIES AND HE MUST HAVE DONE SO TO FIND OUT THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTI ES. THAT PRESUPPOSES THAT IN A GIVEN CASE, THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES TO A DOCUMENT/TRANSACTION/ARRANGEMENT COULD BE DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IT APPEARS FROM IT EX FACIE . THE AO MUST NORMALLY PROCEED ON THE BASIS OF PRO FESSED INTENTION. BUT IF THAT IS UNDER DOUBT OR DISPUTE O R CHALLENGED, THEN HAS A POWER TO FIND OUT THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES BY IGNORING THE APPARENT HAS TO BE, AND HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONCEDED. IT IS DIF FICULT TO IMAGINE WHETHER THIS IS POSSIBLE, EXCEPT IN CASES OF MAKE BELIEVE A RRANGEMENT OR A SUBTERFUGE OR A DUBIOUS OR A COLOURABLE DEVICE ADOP TED. IN SUCH A CASE, THE AO WILL BE MERELY REMOVING THE FAADE TO EXPOSE THE REAL INTENTION OF THE PARTIES CLEVERLY CLOAKED AND IF THAT INTENTION IS DISCOVERED TO BE THE EVASION OF TAXES, IT CANNOT BE GIVEN THE EFFECT TO, MERELY BECAUSE ALL THE STEPS TAKEN AS COMPONENT PARTS OF THE ARRANGEMENT A RE LEGALLY CORRECT OR VALID. THE RIGHT OF THE PARTIES TO ENTER INTO THE TRANSACTION ACCORDING TO THEIR FREE WILL OR CHOICE HAS ALWAYS BEEN PROTECTED, THE ONLY RIDER BEING THAT BOTH ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 16 OF 18 THE PROFESSED INTENTION AND THE REAL INTENTION SHOU LD BE THE SAME. THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE WITHOUT EXCEPTION BEEN DENIED THE RIGHT TO VARY THE TERMS OF THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTIES MEREL Y BECAUSE THE AGREED TERMS ARE NOT TO THEIR LIKING IN THE SENSE THAT THE Y DO NOT ADD TO THE STATISTICS OF COLLECTION OF TAXES. THUS, ALL COMM ERCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS HAVE TO BE GIVEN EFFECT T O EVEN THOUGH THEY RESULT IN A DEDUCTION OF THE TAX LIABILITY, PROVIDE D THAT THEY ARE GENUINE, BONA FIDE AND NOT COLOURABLE TRANSACTIONS. 24. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCES THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHEREIN THERE IS A CLAUSE OF HANDING OVER POSSESSIO N OF LANDED PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE SELLER T HAT HE HAS HANDED OVER THE LANDED PROPERTY ON ENTERING INTO SALE AGREEMENT . THERE IS EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO IN THE FORM OF ESTATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LIKE EXPENSE BILLS, INDENT COPIES. HOWEVER , THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OPTED NOT TO COMMENT ON THESE DOCUMENTS AND WENT ON TO HOLD THAT POSSESSION OF PROPERTY WAS NOT AT ALL HANDED OVER T O ASSESSEE VIDE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 17.01.2013. IN MY OPINION, THE EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS NOT SUFFIC IENT TO ESTABLISH THEIR STAND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TAKEN POSSESSION OF LAND AND CULTIVATED THE SAME AND SALE AGREEMENT IS ONLY PAPER TRANSACTI ON OR BOGUS. IN MY OPINION, THE ENTIRE EVIDENCE HAS TO BE APPRECIATED IN A WHOLESOME MANNER AND EVEN WHERE THERE IS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE S AME CAN BE OVERLOOKED IF THERE ARE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES T O SHOW THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS OPPOSED TO NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN T HINKING AND CONDUCT OR HUMAN PROBABILITIES. EVEN APPLYING THIS PRINCIP LE TO THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS SOME DIFFICULTY IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEE S PLEA AS OPPOSED TO THE NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT. THE SURROUNDING CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WERE ALSO NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE REJ ECTION OF ASSESSEES PLEA AS OUTRAGEOUS OR FABRICATED ONE. IN MY OPINION, TA KING POSSESSION OF LAND ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 17 OF 18 VIDE SALE AGREEMENT AND ALSO CARRYING OUT OF AGRICU LTURAL ACTIVITIES IN THE SAID LAND HAS TO BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, IN MY OPINI ON, THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE IMPUGNED LAND I S VERY MUCH ON THE HIGHER SIDE WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED TO THAT EXTENT . THE AO CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.29,32,653 DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE AS NON- AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN MY OPINION, THIS VIEW OF TH E AO IS VERY UNREASONABLE AND VINDICTIVE IN NATURE. AS ALREADY STATED, THE D ECLARATION OF RS.29,32,653 AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OUT OF THE AREA OF LAND MEAS URING 26 ACRES 9 GUNTAS IS ON THE VERY HIGHER SIDE WHICH CANNOT BE REASONAB LE. HENCE I MAKE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF 50% OF RS.29,32,653 I.E., RS .14,66,327 AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS.14,66,326. THUS, ASSESSEE GETS RELIEF OF RS. 1,46,66,327. IT IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED. 25. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 10 TH JANUARY, 2019. / D ESAI S MURTHY / ITA NO. 1316/BANG/2018 PAGE 18 OF 18 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.