ITO, W-4, Panchkula V. Smt. Seema Dhillon, Panchkula

ITA 1358/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5092 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJ BISHNOI
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHB, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1358/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 THE ITO VS. SMT. SEEMA DHILLON WARD-4, PANCHKULA H.NO. 90, SEC-2, PANCHKULA PAN NO. AGXPD1603P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RAJ BISHNOI REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 19/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/03/2018 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), PANCHKULA DT. 11/07/2017. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOL LOWING GROUNDS: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE PARTIES HAD AGREED FOR PRO-RATA TRANSFER OF LAND WHEN BY VIRTUE OF EXECUTING TH E JOINT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (JDA) READ WITH POSSESSION LETTER AND DULY REGISTER ED IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, THERE WAS A GRANT AND ASSIGNMENT OF ALL R IGHTS IN THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (THDC) AND SO 'TRANSFER' FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 READ WITH SECTION 2(47)(II), 2(47)((VI) EXPLANATION BELOW SECTION 2(4 7) AND SECTION 269UA HAD TAKEN PLACE? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE HON'BLE CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THAT NO POSSESSION HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRANSFEROR TO THE TRANSFEREE OF THE ENTIRE LAND IN PART PERFOR MANCE OF THE JDA READ WITH POSSESSION LETTER AND IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY SO AS TO FAIL WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY A CT 1882 COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE FACTS THAT AS PER THE JDA THERE WA S A GRANT AND ASSIGNMENT OF ALL RIGHTS IN THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF THDC ALONG WITH HANDING OVER OF PHYSICAL AND VACANT POSSESSION? 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THAT NO POSSESSION HAD BEE N GIVEN BY THE TRANSFEROR TO THE TRANSFEREE OF THE ENTIRE LAND IN PART PERFORMANCE O F THE JDA SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY A CT 1882 WHEN BY VIRTUE OF THE DULY REGISTERED IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORN EY, THE DEVELOPER WAS IN 2 COMPLETE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY AND WAS IN POSSESS ION THEREOF INCLUDING ALL RIGHTS OF A DEFACTO OWNER? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 WERE NOT FULFILLED ON THE MERE GR OUND THAT THE JDA WAS NOT REGISTERED WHEN SECTION 2(47) (V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ONLY REFERS TO THE CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A O F THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AND THE REQUIREMENT OF REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT UN DER SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT CANNOT BE READ INTO SECTIO N 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 READ WITH SECTION 2(47)(II), 2(47)(VI), AN D EXPLANATION BELOW 2(47) AND SECTION 269UA? 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 WERE NOT FULFILLED WHEN THE IRREV OCABLE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS DULY REGISTERED AND THERE WAS NO REQUI REMENT OF THE JDA BEING REGISTERED? 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ESSENTIAL INGRE DIENTS OF SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 WERE NOT FULFILLED BY NOT APPRECIATING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA SE OF SURAJ LAMPS AND INDUSTRIES PVT.LTD VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR. 18 3 (2011) DLT 1 (SC) AND ALSO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN ORDER DATED 01.07.2014 IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAI ETC. VS. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHANDIGARH & ANR. IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5899-5900 OF 2014 AND IN THE CASE OF MADATHIL BROTHERS VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (301ITR 345) ? 7. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE POSSESSION DELIVERED, IF AT ALL, WAS AS A LICENCEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT IN THE CAPACITY OF THE TRANSFEREE WHEN ALL POSSIBLE RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO SELL ETC. HAD BEEN GIVEN TO THE BUILDER BY VIRTUE OF REGISTERED SPECIAL IRRECOVERAB LE POWER OF ATTORNEY? 8. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX ONLY ON PORTION OF PLOT IN RESPECT OF WHICH SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXEC UTED AND NOT IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF LAND FOR WHICH NO CONSIDER ATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND IN RESPECT OF JDA WHICH STOOD CANCELLED AND INCAPAB LE OF PERFORMANCE WHEN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD ACCEPTED THE 'TRANSFER 1 IN RESPECT OF A PORTION OF THE PIECE OF PLOT ON THE BASIS OF THE JDA DATED 25.02.2 007 BUT HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE SAME JDA IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE LAND PARTICULARLY WHEN THE JDA AND CONSEQUENTIAL CONSIDERATION OF TRANSFER WAS FOR THE ENTIRE PIECE OF LAND? 9. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN NOT ACCEPTING THAT THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF THE ENTIRE PIECE OF LAND IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1 READ WITH SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 PARTICULARLY WHEN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS TREATED THAT TRANSFER HAS TAKEN PLACE IN RESPECT OF A PORTI ON OF THE SAME LAND 7 10. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DOES NOT SURVIVE WHEN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD ITSELF UPHELD THE 'TRANSFER' IN RESPECT OF A PORTION OF THE SAID PIEC E OF LAND AND HAS THUS UPHELD THE IMPOSITION OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON ACCOUNT OF THE I NCOME ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE SAID PORTION OF LAND? 11. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE QUESTION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, DOES NOT SURVIVE WHEN THERE WAS INDEE D A VALID TRANSFER OF ENTIRE PIECE OF LAND(CAPITAL ASSET) AND SO THE ISSUE OF IN VOKING SECTION 54F(SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED THEREIN) FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTIO N OF LTCG STILL REMAINS ALIVE? 3 12. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN BIFURCATING THE AGREEMENT INTO DIFFERENT PORTIONS AND ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO PAY CAPITAL G AINS TAX ONLY WHEN CASH OR MONEY IS RECEIVED WHEREAS SECTION 45 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS A DEEMING PROVISION WHERE CAPITAL GAIN IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH TRANSFER TAKES PLACE AND THERE IS NO PROVISION UNDER THE LAW TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO PAY CAPITAL GAINS TAX BEYOND THE YEAR IN WHICH THE TRAN SFER TAKES PLACE? 13. WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN NOT ADJUDICA TING ON THE CRUCIAL ISSUE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(47) (II) AND 2(47)(VI) O F THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2 (47)(II) AND 2(47)(VI) ALSO MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS UNDER THE INC OME TAX ACT 1961 ? 14. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN NOT CONSIDERING THE CONTEMPORANEOUS DOC UMENTS PERTAINING TO A TRANSACTION WHICH HAVE TO BE READ AS A VJHOLE AS HE LD BY APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN S. CHATHANATHA KARYALAR VS. THE CENTRAL BANK OF IND IA LTD. IN AIR 1965 SC 1856 AND IN THE INSTANT CASE THESE ARE 'AGREEMENT TO SEL L', 'POSSESSION LETTER', 'IRREVOCABLE SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY' AND 'RESOLU TION BY THE MEMBERS ALLOWING THE SOCIETY TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE DEVEL OPERS' ? 15. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN NOT CONSIDERING THE 'INCLUSIVE' DEFINIT ION OF 'TRANSFER' IN SECTION 2(47) AND DEFINITION OF 'AGREEMENT TO TRANSFER' U/S 269 UA OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND RELIED UPON DIFFERENT ACTS I.E. 'TRANSFER OF PROPER TY ACT 1882' & REGISTRATION ACT 1908' TO DECIDE THE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT TRANSFE R' MANDATORILY REQUIRES REGISTRATION AND PERPETUATED THE 'MISCHIEF SOUGHT T O BE REMEDIED BY THE INCORPORATION OF CLAUSES (V) AND (VI) IN SECTION 2( 47) AGAINST THE HEY DON'S RULE? 16. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) (VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE IN ABSENCE OF REGISTERED CONVEY ANCE DEED RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN ALAPATIVERKATRAMAN (57 ITR 108) DISREGARDING THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF SUPREME COURT IN PODAR CEMEN T LTD. HOLDING THAT THE PRINCIPAL OF COMMON LAW, TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT A ND REGISTRATION ACT WERE NOT CONCLUSIVE FOR INTERPRETATION OF PROVISIONS OF INCO ME TAX ACT? 17. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(4 7)(II) ARE NOT APPLICABLE WHEN ALL THE MEMBER OF SOCIETY SURRENDERED THEIR INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS IN THE PLOTS TOGETHER WITH ORIGINAL PURCHASE DEEDS IN FAVOUR OF SOCIETY TO BE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LIMITED (THDC) LEA DING TO EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHTS IN THE PLOTS? 18. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO ACCRUAL OF INCOM E IN RESPECT OF REMAINING PORTION OF LAND BEING UNREGISTERED WHEN SECTION 45 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 REQUIRES TAXABILITY IN THE YEAR OF TRANSFER? 19. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN REDEFINING THE DEFINITION OF FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS CONTAINED IN SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BY RESTRICTING THE CAPITAL GAIN ONLY TO THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED IN CASH PURSU ANT TO EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEEDS DATED 02.03.2007 AND 25.04.2007 WHERE AS FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ALSO INCLUDED THE MONETARY VALUE OF EACH FLAT PROPORTION ATE TO THE AREA OF EACH PLOT REGISTERED? 4 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A HOUSING SOCIE TY, NAMED AS THE DEFENCE SERVICES CO-OPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD., MOHALI (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'SOCIETY') CONSISTING OF 207 MEMBERS WAS FORMED, WH ICH WAS THE OWNER OF 27.3 ACRES OF LAND IN VILLAGE KANSAL, DISTRICT MOHALI. THIS SOCIE TY ENTERED INTO A TRIPARTITE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'AGREEMENT') ON 27.04.2007 WITH LIFE HASH BUILDERS PVT. LTD., CHANDIGARH (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ' HASH') AND M/S TATA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY LTD., MUMBAI (HEREINAFTER REFER RED TO AS THDC), BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE SOCIETY WOULD TRANSFER ITS LAND FOR DEVEL OPMENT IN LIEU OF MO NE TARY CONSIDERATION AND ALSO CONSIDERATION IN KIND TO THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY. 4. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE SAID SOCIETY OWNING 300 SQ . YARDS PLOT OF LAND. THIS ARRANGEMENT MADE BY WAY OF JOINT DEVELOP MENT AGREEMENT CONSTITUTED TRANSFER OF CAPITA! ASSET. THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION A FURNISHED FLAT OF 1350 SQ. FEET AS CONSIDERATION IN KIND. THE TOTAL COST OF THE FURNIS HED FLATS COMES TO APPROXIMATELY RS, 1,08,75,000/- @ 4500 PER SQ. FEET. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 19,20,000/-. AFTER ALLOWING THE COST OF ACQUISITION, THE LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAINS WERE COMPUTED AT RS. 89,55,000 /-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE REASONS, PROCEEDING U/S 147 W AS INITIATED AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 26.10.2009. AND ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 89,55,000/-. 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EVI DENCES REGARDING THE DECLARATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 16,50, 326/- IN THE RETURN FILED ON 17/08/2015. WHICH WAS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF SALE CONSIDERA TION ACTUALLY RECEIVED. 5.1 BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN AT TENTION TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SH. C. S ATWAL AND OTHERS DECIDED IN THE CASE OF OTHER MEMBERS OF ANOTHER SOCIETY NAMELY PUN JABI CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING BUILDING SOCIETY ON SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL FACTS. TH E HON'BLE COURT HAS SUMMARIZED THE CONCLUSION AT PARA 46 OF THE SAID ORDER AS UNDER:- '46. WE SUMMARIZE OUR CONCLUSIONS AS UNDER.- 1. PERUSAL OF THE JDA DATED 25.02.2007 READ WITH SALE DEEDS DATED 02.03.2007 AND 25.04.2C07 IN RESPECT OF 3.08 ACRES AND 4.62 ACRES RESPECTIVELY WOULD REVEAL THAT THE PARTIES HAS AGREED FOR PRO-RA TA TRANSFER OF LAND. 2. NO POSSESSION HAD BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRANSFEROR TO T HE TRANSFEREE OF THE ENTIRE LAND IN PART PERFORMANCE OF JDA DATED 25.02. 2007 SO AS TO FALL WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF SECTION 53A OF 1882 ACT. 3. THE POSSESSION DELIVERED, IF AT ALL, WAS AS A LICEN SEE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT IN THE CAPACITY OF A TRANSF EREE. 5 4. FURTHER SECTION 53A OF 1882 ACT, BY INCORPORATION, STOOD EMBODIED IN SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT AND ALL THE ESSENTIAL I NGREDIENTS OF SECTION 53A IF 1882 ACT WERE REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED. IN THE ABSENCE O F REGISTRATION OF JDA DATED 25.02.2007 HAVING BEEN EXECUTED AFTER 24.09.2001, T HE AGREEMENT DOES NOT FALL U/S 53A OF 1882 ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY SECTION 2(47)( V) OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE APPELLANT THAT WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DEVELOPER, CA PITA GAIN TAX HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID ON THAT AND SALE DEEDS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXE CUTED. IN VIEW OF CANCELLATION OR JUA DATED 25.02.2007, NO FURTHER AM OUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AND NO ACTION THEREON HAS BEEN TAKEN IT WAS URGED THAT AS AND WHEN ANY AMOUNT IS RECEIVED., CAPITAL GAINS TAX SHALL BE DISCHARGED TH EREON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID STAND, WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSE APPELLANTS SHALL REMAIN BOUND BY THEIR SAID STAND. 6. THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILITY TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX HAVIN G BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE, THE QUESTION OF EXEMPTION U/S 54F O F THE ACT WOULD NOT SURVIVE ANY LONGER AND HAS BEEN RENDERED ACADEMIC. 7. THE TRIBUNAL AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT RIG HT IN HOLDING THE ASSESSE-APPELLANT TO BE LIABLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX IN RESPECT OF REMAINING LAND MEASURING 13.5 ACRES FOR WHICH NO CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN RECEIVED AND WHICH STOOD CANCELLED AND INCAPABLE OF PERFORMANCE AT PRE SENT DUE TO VARIOUS ORDERS PASSED BY THE SUPREME COURT AND THE HIGH COURT IN P ILS. THEREFORE, THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 8 CONSEQUENTLY, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW A S REPRODUCED IN THE BEGINNING OF THE JUDGMENT ARE ANSWERED IN THE MANNE R INDICATED HEREIN BEFORE AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSE ARE DISPOSED OF ACCO RDINGLY.' BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT, THE LD.CIT(A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURSUANCE OF T HE SAID AGREEMENT. 6. BEFORE US DURING THE HEARING THE LD. DR RELIED O N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IS INCONSONANCE WITH THE ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.S . ATWAL & OTHRS. 7. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS BASED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH CO URT ORDER IN THE CASE OF C.S. ATWAL(SUPRA), WE HEREBY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (B.R.R.KUM AR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27/03/2018 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR