Shri Bharatbhai L. Patel, Anand V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Anand

ITA 1557/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72980 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEWS
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATELAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Competent authority; Onus to prove
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMADABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND .., SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !.. , ' # $ # $ # $ # $ ITA NO. 1557/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL C/O COLO PLAST, AT & POST VALLABH UDYOGNAGAR, TALUKA- ANAND. V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, ANAND. PAN NO. A ESPP7117BL (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) %& ' ( / BY APPELLANT SHRI M. G. PATEL, A.R. )%& ' ( /BY RESPONDENT SHRI K. C. MATHEWS, SR.D.R. *+, ' -' /DATE OF HEARING 28.01.2014 ./0 ' -' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.02.2014 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF ASSESSEE WHICH H AS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, BARODA, DATED 26.03.20 13 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.53,00,000/- PAID TOWARD VACA TION OF PREMISES BY TENANTS AS COST OF ACQUISITION IN COMPU TATION OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 2 ADDITIONAL GROUND 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.53,00,000/- U/S 50C OF THE IT AC T, 1961 THOUGH THE DOCUMENT OF SALE IS EXECUTED FOR AN AMOU NT OF RS.78,00,000/- WHICH IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 50C OF THE IT ACT, 1961. BOTH GROUNDS ARE REVOLVING AROUND AGAINST CONFIRMIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.53,00,000/-. 2. THE LD. A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SH ORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT NO.140, TPS NO. (CITY SURVEY N O. 923/2) ADMEASURING 1301.3750 SQ.MTRS. SITUATED AT ANAND AS UNDER: NET SALE RS. 78,00,000 RS.53,000 : RS.25,00,000/ - LESS : COST OF PURCHASE : RS.21,20,195/- NET SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN : RS. 3,79,505/- ============ ON VERIFICATION OF THE SALE DEED, IT WAS FOUND TO T HE A.O. THAT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THIS PLOT TO M/S. FROHBERG BUILDERS LTD. T HROUGH SHRI TASHIKANT Y. MANIAR, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY ON 27.05.2008 FOR C ONSIDERATION OF RS.78,00,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE BUYER HAD PAID ST AMP DUTY ON RS.78,00,000/-. WHILE COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAP ITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY, THE APPELLANT HAD DIRECTLY DEDUCTED A SUM OF RS.53,00,000/- FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION BEING TH E TENANCY CHARGES. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH WAS AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 08.1 1.2011 AND CLAIMED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY ON 07.07.2005 F OR RS.21,20,195/- ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 3 WHICH WAS LATER ON SOLD AT RS.78,00,000/-. THERE W ERE 26 TENANTS OCCUPIED THESE PREMISES. THUS, IT WAS AGREED BETWE EN ASSESSEE AND PURCHASER I.E. M/S. FROHBERG BUILDERS LTD. THAT HE WOULD PAY RS.53,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.78, 00,000/- TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN. LD. A.O. HELD THAT THIS PROPERTY IS NON-AGRICULTURAL AND THE BUYER CAN CONSTRUCT OR USE THE PROPERTY AFTER GETTI NG PERMISSION OF LOCAL COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THERE WAS NO EASEMENT RIGHT OF ANY PERSON, ALL THE TITLE OF SAID LAND ARE CLEAR AND MARKETABLE AND THE SAID LANDS WERE FREE FROM ALL TYPES OF ENCUMBRANCES WHATSOEVER AND NO SU IT OR OTHER PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING IN RELATION TO SAID PROPER TY. ONLY 26 TENANTS HAD GIVEN OBJECTION AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE BU T THE BUYER IS READY TO SETTLE THE MATTER AT ITS OWN AND THE BUYER HAD P URCHASED THIS PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OBJECTION. FURTHER, IT HAD ALSO BE EN VERIFIED THAT NEITHER THE SELLER NOR THE BUYER HAD PAID ANY COMPENSATION TO T HE 26 TENANTS SO FAR. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE EXPENSE S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE 26 TENANTS WAS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE BUYER WAS TO SETTLE THE MATTER AT ITS OWN. THE LD. A.O. ALSO HAD ANALYZED THE SECTION 48 AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOR HIS CLAIM, HE COMPUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT R S.56,79,805/- AFTER REDUCING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND EXPENDITURE IN CURRED AT RS. 21,20,195/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPE AL BY OBSERVING THAT ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 4 THE BUYER CAN CONSTRUCT OR CAN USE THE PROPERTY AFT ER GETTING UPON LAND PERMISSION OF LOCAL COMPETENT AUTHORITY, THE BUYER AND HIS LEGAL HEIR CAN DO CONSTRUCTION ACCORDING TO THE PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE GOVERNMENT AND THEY CAN USE THE OPEN LAND OR SELL FULL OR PAIK I PART OF THE PROPERTY AS THEY WISH. AS PER THE SALE DEED, ALL THE TITLES OF SAID LAND ARE CLEAR AND MARKETABLE AND THE SAID LAND IS FREE FROM ALL TYPES OF ENCUMBRANCES WHATSOEVER. IN VIEW OF THIS, IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS T O HOW THE BUYER I.E. M/S. FROHBERG BUILDERS LTD., BARODA, IS REQUIRED TO MANA GE OR TO COMPENSATE 26 TENANTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.53,00,000/- TO MAKE THE OLD CHAWL AS CONSTRUCTED ON THE AREA OF THE LAND SOLD AS UNENCUM BERED AND FREE PROPERTY SO THAT THE SAME CAN FETCH THE MARKET RATE . THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT DATED 07.11.2012 WAS FOUND CO NTRARY TO THE CLAUSE MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE SALE SEED. IN THE ABOVE SAL E DEED, IT IS MENTIONED THAT ONLY 26 TENANTS HAD GIVEN OBJECTION BUT THE BU YER WAS READY TO SETTLE THE MATER AT ITS OWN AND HE HAD PURCHASED THIS PROP ERTY SUBJECT TO THIS OBJECTION OF 26 TENANTS. THUS, IT CAN BE SAID THAT EVEN IF THERE WERE TENANTS ON THE SAID LAND AND THEY HAD RAISED OBJECT ION THEN ALSO THE BUYER WAS READY TO SETTLE THIS MATTER AT ITS OWN AND THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE BUYER SUBJECT TO THIS OBJECTION. ONCE THE BUYER HAD BECOME READY TO SETTLE THE MATTER AT ITS OWN AND TH E SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY HIM SUBJECT TO THE OBJECTION OF 26 TEN ANTS, THEN IT WAS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW AND WHY SUCH BUYER WAS LIABLE TO SE TTLE OR TO COMPENSATE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.53,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL SALE C ONSIDERATION OF ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 5 RS.78,00,000/- TO MAKE THE OLD CHAWL AS SITUATED IN THE SAID LAND FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCES. LD. A.R. HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD A NY EVIDENCE OF 26 TENANTS WHETHER RESIDING OR NOT IN CHAWLS SITUATED ON THAT LAND AND ON WHAT BASIS 26 PERSONS CAN BE TERM AS TENANTS ON THA T LAND NEITHER THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE 26 PERSONS WERE TENANTS ON THAT LAND IN FORM OF RENT R ECEIPTS, NOR IN FORM OF ANY EVIDENCE FOR EXISTENCE IN FORM OF COPY OF ELECT RICITY BILL OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. IT WAS ALSO NOT CLEAR THAT WHAT WERE THE OBJECTIONS OF 26 TENANTS ALONG WITH EXPECTATION OF THEM. THE A.R. OF THE AP PELLANT FURNISHED THE STATEMENTS SHOWING IN DOCUMENTS EXECUTED UPON THE S ETTLEMENT WITH THE TENANTS AND HE HAD ALSO FURNISHED THE PHOTO COPY OF THE SALE DEED IN SUPPORT OF THE SHOPS HAD SOLD BY THE BUYER M/S. FRO HBERG BUILDERS LTD., BARODA, TO THE ABOVE 12 TENANTS. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ORIGINAL SALE DEED BEFORE HIM. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR ON WHAT BASIS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF 12 SHOPS WERE TAKEN AT RS.56,02,39 0/- FOR COMPENSATING THE TENANTS. THERE WAS NO EXPLANATION ON REMAINING 14 TENANTS AS TO HOW THEY HAD BEEN COMPENSATED IN KINDS OR CASH. EVEN S IMILAR AREA OF OLD SHOP AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN VALUED DIF FERENTLY. THERE WAS NO BASIS OF MAKING VALUATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE 26 TENANTS BEFORE THE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFO RE HIM TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY TENANTS ON THAT LAND RECEIVED TH E COMPENSATION FROM THE BUYERS AS A RESULT OF SETTLEMENT WITH TENANTS. THUS, HE REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. HE ALSO ENCLOSED THE COPY OF SAL E DEED DATED ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 6 25.05.2008 WHICH WAS EXECUTED UPON THE SETTLEMENT W ITH TENANTS AND 12 PHOTO COPIES OF SALE DEED OF THE SHOPS FOR REFERENC E ALONG WITH THE ORDER. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE 26 TENANTS IN THIS PREMISE. THE AS SESSEE SOLD PREMISE TO M/S. FROHBERG BUILDERS LTD. ON 27.05.2008 FOR THE C ONSIDERATION OF RS.78 LACS, BUT TO ACCOMMODATE 26 TENANTS AND GIVING PEAC EFUL POSSESSION IN THOSE PREMISES, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE EXPENDITU RE OF RS.53 LACS, WHICH WAS PAID BY THE BUYER AFTER REDUCING FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.78 LACS. AS PER SECTION 48, IT WAS A CHARGE ON THE PREMISES AND IS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE U/S. 48. HE HAS DRAWN OUR AT TENTION ON PAPER BOOK WHEREIN HE ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISS ION MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND COPY OF DOCUMENTS EXECUTED OF SETTLEMENT WITH TENANTS, COPY OF SALE DEED BETWEEN TENANTS AND M/S. FROHBERG BUIL DERS LTD. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON FOLLOWING CASES: I) NAOZAR CHENOY VS. CIT (234 ITR 95) (A.P.) EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN GETTING TANANTS TO VACATE P ROPERTY DEDUCTABLE. II) CIT VS. SHAKUNTALA RAJESHWAR (160 ITR 840) (DEL HI) AMOUNT PAID TO TENANT TO VACATE TO ENABLE TRANSFERE E TO IMPROVE AND BUILD ALLOWABLE. III) CIT VS. A. VENKATARAMAN AND OTHERS (137 ITR 84 6) PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION TO TENANTS FOR VACATING PR OPERTIES DEDUCTABLE. IV) ITO VS. THANGAVEL GROUNDER (12 TTJ 273) (MAD.) AMOUNT PAID TO TENANTS FOR GETTING IT VACATED AS DE DUCTABLE U/S. 48. ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 7 THUS, ON THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS, HE REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4(I). AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR. D.R. VEHEMENTLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVED THAT 26 TENANTS WERE ACTUALLY OCCUPIED THE PROPERTY AND THEY ANY INTERES T IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE DIRECTLY SOLD THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY T O M/S. FROHBERG BUILDERS LTD. AND THERE IS NO PROVISION IN IT FOR A NY ENCUMBRANCE OF TENANTS. THEY HAVE ALSO NOT CONFIRMED THE SALE AGR EEMENT. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE REGARDING RENT, OCCUPATION OF THE IMMOVABL E PROPERTY, DETAIL OF PAYMENTS MADE TO THAT, NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE ALL EGED TENANTS THAT THEY WERE PART OF THESE TRANSACTIONS AND GOT ANY POSSESS ION FROM THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON FOLLOWING CASES: I) L. M. PATEL & B. M. PATEL (HUF) VS. CIT [2012] 2 7 TAXMANN.COM 234 (GUJ). THE ASSESSEE PAID AMOUNT TO RELINQUISH THE TENANCY RIGHT NOT DEDUCTABLE U/S.48. II) MARADIA WIRE RODS LTD. VS. ITO [2011] 9 TAXMANN .COM66 (AHD.) PENALTY PAID TO GIDC FOR NON-USE OF INDUSTRIAL PLO TS IS NOT DEDUCTABLE U/S.48. III) ASHOK SOI VS. CIT [2005] 144 TAXMAN 383 (DELHI ) AMOUNT PAID TO SETTLE CLAIMS OF ASSESSEES FATHER WHO HAS NO RIGHT, TITLE OR INTEREST IN PROPERTY CANNOT BE REGA RDED AS EXPENDITURE U/S.48 AND ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE T HE ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF CLAIM OF EXPENSES. IV) CIT VS. SHARAD SHARMA [2008] 169 TAXMAN 67 (ALL .) AMOUNT PAID IS MORTGAGED THAT AND CLAIMED DEDUCTIO N U/S.48 HAD NOT ALLOWABLE. ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 8 V) R.M. ARUNACHALAM VS. CIT [1997] 93 TAXMAN 423 (S C) CLAIM OF STAMP DUTY IN THE COST OF ACQUISITION/IMP ROVEMENT IS NOT ALLOWABLE. VI) V.S.M.R. JAGADISHCHANDRAN VS. CIT [1997] 93 TAX MAN 389 (SC) AMOUNT PAID TO DISCHARGE MORTGAGE DEBTS IS NOT ALL OWABLE. VII) CIT VS. ATTILI N. RAO [2001] 119 TAXMAN 1030 ( SC) AMOUNT PAID ON ACCOUNT OF KIST (INSTALLMENT) TO THE STATE GOVERNMENT AGAINST THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS NOT AL LOWABLE. VIII) ITO VS. NARENDRA S. KAPADIA [1996] 58 ITD 329 (MUM.) AMOUNT PAID TO BROTHER TO VACATE THE FLAT IS NOT A LLOWABLE AS DEDUCTION U/S. 48. IX) CIT VS. ROSHANBABU MOHAMMED HUSSEIN MERCHANT [2 005] 144 TAXMAN 720 (BOM.) EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE MORTGAGE DEBT CREATED BY PREVIOUS OWNER TO ACQUIRE ABSOLUTE RIGHT IN A PROPERTY IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION. X) CIT VS. S.R.V. PRESS & PUBLICATIONS (P) LTD. [19 99] 107 TAXMAN 458 (KER.) RE-PAYMENT OF LOAN COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE AN EXPE NDITURE IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER PROPERTY. XI) KRISHNADAS G. PARIKH VS. DCIT [2008] 114 ITD 36 2 (AHD.) PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EDUCATION, MAINTE NANCE AND MARRIAGE OF HIS UNMARRIED DAUGHTER COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED U/S. 48. XII) ARUN MALIK VS. CIT [2008] 171 TAXMAN 200 (DELH I) THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN COST OF ACQUISITION. XIII) ACIT VS. NIKO RESOURCES LTD. [2009] 123 TTJ 3 10 (AHD.) THE EVIDENCE FOR EXPENDITURE WERE KEEP DISORDERLY MANNER AND WHICH WAS FOUND EXTREMELY DIFFICULT TO HOLD THAT TH ESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF BUSINESS. XIV) CIT VS. M. N. DASTUR AND CO. [2009] 316 ITR 44 2 (KAR.) ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 9 DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF NOT PRODUCING EVIDENCE FOR EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ALLOWED ON THE BASIS OF PREVI OUS YEARS FINDING. XV) UNITED FILM EXHIBITORS VS. CIT [2008] 174 TAXMA N 527 (KER.) IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, ELECTRICITY CHARGE IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S. 37. XVI) ACIT VS. AMAR MINING CO. [2009] 121 ITD 273 (A HD.) (TM) BOGUS PURCHASES. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE SALE DEED PROVISO IS AS UNDER: THE PLOT ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION CAN BE DONE SITUATE D WITHIN ABOVE STATED FRO DIRECTIONS, SOLD WITH ITS ORIGINAL BOUND ARIES. ABOVE STATED LOT OF MY, THE PARTY BELONGS TO ANOTHER SIDE. IN THE S AID PLOT THERE IS A CONSTRUCTION OF COMMERCIAL COMPLEX IN THE PAIKI PAR T. THE COMPLEX HAVING THIRTEEN (13) SHOPS ON GROUND FLOOR AND THIR TEEN (13) SHOPS ON 1 ST FLOOR OF THE COMPLEX. ALL THE TENANTS OF ALL 26 R ENTED PREMISES ARE SUBJECT TO BE SHIFTED IN THE NEW CONSTRUCT PREMISE OR EVICTED BY GIVING REMUNERATION OR PRICE. FOR THIS VERY PURPOSE, OUT OF RS.78,00,000/-, RS.53,00,000/- HAS BEEN SETTLED FOR THE 26 TENANTS. SO, THE SELLER HAS GOT BY ICICI BANK LTD. CHEQUES DATED: 29/6/2008 AS UNDER. RS.25,00,000/- TOWARDS THE CONSIDERATION OF SELL WH ILE REMAINING RS.53,00,000/- TOTAL PAID TO THE SELLER AND THE AMO UNT IS SETTED FOR SHIFTING OF 26 TENANTS. IN THE CASE OF ANY EXCEED AMOUNT PAID TO THE SETTLEMENT OF 26 TENANTS, THAT WILL THE BARED BY BU YER. RS.12,50,000-00 PAID BY CHEQUE NO; 638716 RS. 12,50,000-00 PAID BY CHEQUE NO; 638717. THE LD. A.O. MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SALE DEE D AS THE CLAUSE OF SALE DEED REFLECTS THE SETTLEMENT FOR THE 26 TENANTS AT RS.53 LACS. HOWEVER, ITA NO. 1557/AHD/13 A.Y. 09-10 SHRI BHARATBHAI L. PATEL VS. ITO PAGE 10 THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF T ENANCY RIGHTS IN CASE OF 26 TENANTS. THE ASSESSEE, EVEN BEFORE US, HAD FILE D COPY OF AGREEMENT MADE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WITH THE TENANTS WITH THE B UYER. EVEN THEN, HE HAD CLAIMED RS.53 LACS AMOUNT AGAINST THE CAPITAL R ECEIPTS OF RS.78 LACS. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS REQUIRED TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE A.O. AND HE IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY ALL THE FACTS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE A.O. TO GIVE ALL THE EVIDENCES OF TENANCY TO PROVE HIS CLAIM GENUINE. THUS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER TO THE A.O. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.02.2014 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA 1 1 1 1 ' '' ' )-2 )-2 )-2 )-2 320- 320- 320- 320- / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. %& / APPELLANT 2. )%& / RESPONDENT 3. - *7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. *7- / CIT (A) 5. 2; )-+ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. = >? / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ 1 , @/ B , $