S.S.R.Manthirikumar, CHENNAI V. ITO, Cuddalore

ITA 1931/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2465 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SUBASHREE
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 54F; 2(14)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , !' .$%$&, ( ') BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1931/CHNY/2016 & +& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI S.S. MANTHIRIKUMAR, NO.1, PALLA STREET, SOORAPPA NAICKEN CHAVADI, CUDDALORE 607 002. PAN : ANJPM 4272 A V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), CUDDALORE. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.1970/CHNY/2016 & +& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. BANUMATHY, NO.1, PALLA STREET, SOORAPPA NAICKEN CHAVADI, CUDDALORE 607 002. PAN : AIEPB 0121 B V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), CUDDALORE. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANTS BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. M. SUBASHREE, JCIT 3 1 4( / DATE OF HEARING : 07.02.2019 56+ 1 4( / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.03.2019 2 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUDUCHERRY, FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008- 09. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING TH E SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 FOR COMPUTATION OF CAPITA L GAIN. 3. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES ALONG WITH THEIR BROTHER SHRI S. S.R. RAMADOSS, SOLD 53,380 SQ.FT. OF LAND TO M/S HIMADRI ENTERPRIS ES PVT. LTD. FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF 5,18,23,000/- BY MEANS OF A REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 30.10.2007. OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO.1931/CHN Y/2016 RECEIVED 2,25,00,086/- TOWARDS HIS SHARE. THE ASSESSEE IN I .T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/2016 RECEIVED 20,00,000/-. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 48,22,828/- WAS PAID BY THE SELLER IN FAVOUR OF M/S REPCO BANK, 3 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 PONDICHERRY TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF THE OUTSTANDING L OAN AMOUNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED CAPITAL GAIN OF 49,03,255/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FOR THE PURPO SE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN, ACCORDING TO THE LD. C OUNSEL, THE ASSESSEES HAVE TAKEN FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04. 1981 AT 100/- PER SQ.FT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAK EN THE VALUE AT 1.38 PER SQ.FT. REFERRING TO THE VALUATION REPORT OBTAINED BY THE REVENUE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAMADOSS, ONE OF THE CO -OWNERS, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 1 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER F IXED THE VALUE AT 39.66 PER SQ.FT. THIS IS AN AVERAGE VALUATION FIXE D BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE L D. COUNSEL, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER HAS TAKEN THREE SALE INSTANCES. IN THE CASE OF FIRST INSTANCE, THE RATE WAS FIXED AT 59.78 PER SQ.FT. IN THE CASE OF SECOND INSTANCE, IT WAS FIXED AT 38.51 PER SQ.FT. IN THE THIRD INSTANCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE INSTANCE AT 22.69 PER SQ.FT. IN AN AVERAGE, HE HAS TAKEN 39.66 PER SQ.FT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE PROPERTY IS SITUA TED AT A PRIME LOCATION IN CUDDALORE TOWN. IN FACT, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE REAR SIDE OF BUSY LAWRENCE ROAD. EVEN IN THE YEAR 1981, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE LAND WAS HAVING HIGH POTENT IAL FOR 4 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 DEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL CAMPUS AND CINEMA THEATRE S, ETC. THE FRONTAGE OF BUILDING WAS 178 FT. HAVING LOCATED IN A PRIME LOCATION OF CUDDALORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACTORS WHICH WERE REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ESTIMATING THE VALUATION. THERE FORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE VALUATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. M. SUBASHREE, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AFTER GETTING REPORT FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR, FOUND THAT THE VALUE OF THE LAND AS ON 01.04.1981 IS 1.38 PER SQ.FT. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOW ED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR FOR REGISTRA TION OF PROPERTY, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIG HTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. VALUATION OF PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 HAS TO BE MADE ON THE BAS IS OF THE LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY, POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVE LOPMENT, AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE AROUND THE PROPERTY, ACCESS TO TH E INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES, ETC. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS SIMPLY 5 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 FOLLOWED THE GUIDELINE VALUE FIXED BY THE SUB-REGIS TRAR FOR REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY AT 1.38 PER SQ.FT. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT THE GUIDELINE VALUE IS ONLY TO GUIDE TH E SUB-REGISTRAR TO FIND OUT MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPO SE OF COLLECTION OF STAMP DUTY. THE GUIDELINE VALUE MAY NOT ALWAYS REP RESENT THE MARKET VALUE. THE MARKET VALUE IS SOMETHING DIFFER ENT FROM GUIDELINE VALUE, WHICH IS PRESCRIBED FOR GUIDING TH E SUB-REGISTRAR TO FIND OUT THE MARKET VALUE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MARKET VALUE IS NOT A CONSTANT FIGURE. IT WOU LD FLUCTUATE DEPENDING UPON VARIOUS FACTORS SUCH AS THE AREA OF THE LAND, LOCATION OF LAND, AVAILABILITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE FA CILITIES AROUND THE LAND, POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, ACCESS TO T HE INFRASTRUCTURE FACILITIES TO THE LAND, ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY OF THESE FACTORS, HAS SIMPLY ADOPTED THE GUIDEL INE VALUE OF THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY. 6. FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICERS REPORT IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS, IT APPEARS THAT THE PROPER TY IS LOCATED IN PRIME LOCATION OF CUDDALORE. THE PROPERTY APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN LOCATED ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF LINK ROAD TO RAILWAY OVER BRIDGE AND CUDDALORE MAIN BUS STAND. THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATI ON OFFICER HAS 6 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 ALSO NOTED THAT IT IS LOCATED ON THE REAR SIDE OF B USY LAWRENCE ROAD AND EVEN IN THE YEAR 1981, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATI ON OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS HIGH POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL CAMPUS / CINEMA THEATRES / KALYANA MANDA PAM, ETC. THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING IS ADMITTEDLY 178 FT. BY CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUILDING, FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIA L FOR ESTABLISHING COMMERCIAL CAMPUS / CINEMA THEATRES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY C OULD NATURALLY BE ESTIMATED AT 100 PER SQ.FT. AS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSEES. EVEN THOUGH THE VALUATION OFFICER HAS TAKEN THREE INSTAN CES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BY CONSIDERING TH E LOCATION AND POTENTIAL FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, IT WOULD EASILY F ETCH 100/- PER SQ.FT. AS ON 01.04.1981. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THE MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AT 100/- PER SQ.FT. AND THEREAFTER RECOMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN. 7. NOW COMING TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTI ON 54F OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES, SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEES HAVE 7 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 MADE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE BUILDING. HOWE VER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MISTOOK THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE S AND FOUND THAT IT WAS ONLY A RENOVATION OF EXISTING BUILDING. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE F OR WHICH THE ASSESSEES ARE CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOUND THAT IT IS A RENOVATION OF EXISTING BUILDING, THE M ATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSID ERATION. 8. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. M. SUBASHREE, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES SPENT THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR RENOV ATION OF EXISTING BUILDING. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., FOR THE PURPO SE OF CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSE ES HAVE TO INVEST THE CAPITAL GAIN IN A NEW PROPERTY. SINCE A DMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEES SPENT THE MONEY FOR RENOVATION OF BUILDIN G, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EX EMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES RENOVATED THE EXIS TING BUILDING. NOW THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL THAT T HEY HAVE PUT UP 8 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 AN ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION. THE VALUATION REPORT S AID TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER INDICATE S THAT THE ASSESSEES SPENT THE MONEY FOR IMPROVING THE BUILDIN G. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A CONFUSION WHETHER IT IS RENOVATION OF E XISTING BUILDING OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES OR IT IS IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING BUILDING AS CLAIMED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER. IN THOSE FACTUAL SITUATION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F OF THE ACT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AND FIND OUT TH E NATURE OF WORK THAT WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEES BY SPENDING TH E CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISA LLOWANCE OF LOAN AVAILED FROM REPCO BANK AND INTEREST PAID THER EOF. 11. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE ES, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF 48,22,828/-. ACCORDING TO THE 9 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEES BORROWED THE LOAN FROM R EPCO BANK BY MORTGAGING THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING T O THE LD. COUNSEL, UNLESS THE ASSESSEES CLEARED THE LOAN, THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE SOLD, HENCE, THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND INTEREST TO REPCO BANK HAS TO BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 12. ON THE CONTRARY, MS. M. SUBASHREE, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES BORROWED COMMERCIAL LOAN BY MORT GAGING THE PROPERTY ALONG WITH CO-OWNERS. UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., WHAT IS TO BE ALLOW ED IS EXPENDITURE FOR SALE OF PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY WAS MORTGAGED L ONG BACK BEFORE THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE LOAN SAID TO BE OBTAINED FROM REPCO BANK IS NEITHER FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY OR FOR SALE OF PROPERTY. THEREFORE, NEITH ER THE LOAN AMOUNT NOR THE INTEREST CAN BE ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEES ALONG WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS APPEAR TO HAVE BORROWED LOAN FROM REPCO BANK, PONDICHERRY. WHILE TRANSFERRING THE LA ND, THE PURCHASER OF THE LAND PAID 48,22,828/- DIRECTLY TO REPCO BANK TOWARDS SETTLEMENT OF LOAN FOR RELEASING THE DOCUME NT. THE 10 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE ALLOWED WHILE DEDUCTING CAPITAL GAIN. EVEN THOUGH THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT IT WAS A COMMERCIAL LOAN BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEES AND OTHER CO-OWNERS BY MORTGAGING THE PROPERTY, IT IS NOT KNOWN THE PUR POSE FOR WHICH THE LOAN WAS BORROWED. UNLESS THE PURPOSE FOR WHIC H THE LOAN BORROWED WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO DECIDE WHETHER IT I S ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION OR NOT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED. ACCORDINGLY, ORDE RS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE CLAIM OF DE DUCTION OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND INTEREST TO REPCO BANK IS REM ITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OF FICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL THA T MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEES AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRES H IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES. 14. THE ASSESSEES HAVE RAISED ONE MORE GROUND WITH REGARD TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRANSACTION OF PROPERTY. 15. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE ES, REFERRING TO PARA 7.5.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), SUBMIT TED THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER TO THE P OWER OF 11 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 ATTORNEY AGENT FOR NEGOTIATING THE SALE AND IT WAS NOT HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUN SEL, NO CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED FROM POWER OF ATTORNEY A GENT ALSO, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO SALE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, EXECUTION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THIRD PARTY FOR NEGOTIATING THE SALE CANN OT BE CONSIDERED TO BE SALE OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2 (14) OF THE ACT. 16. WE HEARD MS. M. SUBASHREE, THE LD. D.R. ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT PRODUCED ANY E VIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER AND SALE PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED ON THE DATE OF SALE. THEREF ORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE PROPER TY WAS SOLD ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUTED. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT IS ONLY TO MANAGE OR NEGOTIATING THE PROPERTY FOR SALE. THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BY THE ASSESS EES DOES NOT CONFER OR TRANSFER ANY RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY ON A NY PERSON. AT THE BEST, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT MAY ACT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSI DERED OPINION THAT 12 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 MERE EXECUTION OF POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE EITHER BY HIMSE LF OR THROUGH POWER OF ATTORNEY AGENT AND ALSO HAND OVER THE PHYS ICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 53A O F TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. MOREOVER, IN CASE THERE WAS AGREEME NT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PURCHASER, BY WHICH THE PURCHASER WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY, THEN ALSO THERE MAY BE TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF 2(14) OF THE ACT. IN THE CAS E BEFORE US, IT NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEES ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE OR ARRANGEMENT ALLOWING THE PURC HASER TO CONTINUE TO ENJOY THE PROPERTY. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTA NCES, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE EXEC UTION OF SALE DEED AND HANDING OVER POSSESSION PURSUANT TO SALE DEED W OULD BE THE DATE OF SALE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHA LL VERIFY THE SALE DEED AND FIND OUT WHEN ACTUALLY THE POSSESSION OF T HE PROPERTY WAS HANDED OVER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE SALE DEED AND OTHER MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE 13 I.T.A. NO.1931/CHNY/16 I.T.A. NO.1970/CHNY/16 ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 7 TH MARCH, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !'.$%$& ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 8 /DATED, THE 7 TH MARCH, 2019. KRI. 1 /49: ;:+4 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANTS 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. 3 <4 () /CIT(A), PUDUCHERRY 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, PUDUCHERRY 5. := /4 /DR 6. >& ? /GF.