Smt. R. Mallika, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2046/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77383 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURU BHASHYAM
• Assessee Lawyers: K MEENAKSHISUNDARAM ITP
• Keywords: Capital asset; Period of limitation
• Section: 54B; 54F; 139

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CH ENNAI. . . . , . !' !' !' !' , # # # # $% $% $% $% $& $& $& $& BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER $ ./ I.T.A.NO.2046/MDS/2013 # ' '' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 SMT. R. MALLIKA, 4/7, PILLAYAR KOIL STREET, 5 TH STREET, EKKATTUTHANGAL, CHENNAI 600 032. [PAN : APGPM8401C] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD IV (2), CHENNAI. ( () () () () /APPELLANT ) ( *+() *+() *+() *+() / RESPONDENT ) () , $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, ITP *+() , $ / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BHASHYAM, JCIT $ , -. / DATE OF HEARING : 22.07.2014 /0' , -. /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.07.2014 1 1 1 1 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIII, CHENNAI, DATED 02.09.2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, PURCHASED LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 0.41 ACRES AT MEDAV AKKAM ON 09.07.1999 FOR RS.48,500/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAME LAND WAS SO LD ON 13.02.2007 FOR RS. 81,16,360/-. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTURA L LAND TO THE EXTENT OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 2 4.34 ACRES AT THIRUVANNAMALAI ON 19.03.2008 FOR A T OTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 26,77,000/- AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54( B) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVE D AS UNDER: 6. THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IS GIVEN CAREFUL CO NSIDERATION. THE CASE IS DISCUSSED ISSUE-WISE AS UNDER: 6.1 ISSUE NO.1 FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IT IS CL EAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DENIED THE FACT THAT SHE HAS NOT MADE ANY D EPOSIT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME AS REQUIRED U1S.54B(2)OF THE I T ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE PROVISION U1S 54 B (1) OF THE I.T. ACT, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING EXEMPTION ITSELF- STARTS WITH THE WORDS, 'SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS O F SUB-SECTION (2) , THIS MEANS THAT THE CONDITIONS AS PER SUBSECTION(2) HAS TO BE FULFILLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54. 6.1 (1) SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 54B SAYS 'THE AMOU NT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF I NCOME UNDER SECTION 139, SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SU CH RETURN (SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE D UE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETU RN OF INCOME UNDER SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN AND UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE W ITH ANY SCHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT, AND , FOR THE PURPOSES OF SU B SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILIZED BY THE AMOUNT SO D EPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET. 6.1(2) THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNTS SCHEME, 1988, HAS BEEN NOTIFIED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE ON THE 22 ND OF JUNE, 1988. TO AVAIL OF THE EXEMPTION PROVIDED FOR IN SECTIONS 54, 54 B, 54 D, 54 F AND 54 G, TAXPAYERS WOULD HAVE HAD TO DEPOSIT THE UNAPPROPRIA TED AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE SPECIFIED BANKS BY THE DUE DAT E OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME LAID DOWN IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6.1(3) IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE THE DUE DATE FOR FILI NG THE RETURN U/S.139(1) WAS 31.07.2007. TILL THAT DATE, THE ASSESSEE HAD NE ITHER DEPOSITED THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 3 CAPITAL GAIN IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME NOR HAD UTILISE D ANY PORTION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IN ANY OTHER MODE OF INVESTMENT TOWARD S THE PURCHASE OF A NEW ASSET IN ORDER TO AVAIL EXEMPTION AS STIPULATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE 1. T. ACT. THESE FACTS, WERE CONFIRMED BY TH E ASSESSEE HERSELF IN HER LETTER DT.12-9-2011. 6.1(4) THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION THAT SECTION 139(1 ) IS OVER RIDDEN BY SECTION 139(4) AND THE ULTIMATE TIME LIMIT FOR FILI NG A BELATED RETURN IN THIS CASE IS 31-3-2009 AND THEREFORE THE LAST DATE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME' WAS 31-3-2009 AND NOT 31-7-2007 AND THE ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF HAVING FILED THE RETU RN OF INCOME ON 31-3- 2008 AFTER MAKING THE INVESTMENT U/S.54B ON 19-3-20 08, IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54B, IS HIGHLY RIDICULOU S AND DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. THE ACT UNAMBIGUOUSLY STATES THAT THE DEPOSI T SHOULD BE MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY OBSERVING THE ABOVE FACTS AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF ITAT IN [2006] 5 SOT 417 (DELHI), DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54(B) OF THE AC T. 3. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO UTILIZE THE FUNDS, THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN IS AS PER SECTION 139(4) AND NOT AS PER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. 5. THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ONLY D ISPUTE BEFORE US IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO UTILIZE T HE FUND SHE HAS TO DEPOSIT THE SAME UNDER CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT AS PER NOTIFICATION ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT DATED 22.06.1998 ACCORDING TO SECTIO N 139(1) OR 139(4) OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTUR AL LAND ON 13.02.2007 AND PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 19.03.2008. ACCORDIN G TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS PER SEC TION 139(1) IS ON 31.07.2007. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE DUE DATE OF FILING O F RETURN AS PER 139(4) IS ON 31.03.2009. UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, THE HONBL E PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MS. JAGRITI AGARWA L 339 ITR 610, CONSIDERED THE ISSUE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE SALE OF THE A SSET HAD TAKEN PLACE, ON JANUARY 13, 2006, FALLING IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2 006-07, THE RETURN COULD BE FILED BEFORE THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08, I.E., MARCH 31, 2007.THUS, SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTI ON 139 PROVIDES THE EXTENDED PERIOD OF LIMITATION AS AN EXCEPTION TO SU B-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTION (4) WAS IN RELA TION TO THE TIME ALLOWED TO AN ASSESSEE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) TO FIL E THE RETURN. THEREFORE, SUCH PROVISION WAS NOT AN INDEPENDENT PR OVISION, BUT RELATES TO THE TIME CONTEMPLATED UNDER SUBSECTION (1) OF SE CTION 139. THEREFORE, SUB-SECTION (4) HAD TO BE READ ALONG WIT H SUB-SECTION (1). THEREFORE, THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN O F INCOME ACCORDING TO SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT WAS SUBJECT TO THE EXTEND ED PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. 5. THOUGH THE DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED IN THE CO NTEXT OF SECTION 54, THIS AS WELL APPLIES TO SECTION 54(B) ALSO. AS PER THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEE C AN UTILIZE THE FUND I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 5 AVAILABLE AS PER SECTION 139(4) AND NOT UNDER SECTI ON 139(1). IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING TIME UPTO 31.03.2009 AS PER SECTION 139(4). BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 19.03.2008. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UND ER SECTION 54(B) OF THE ACT. NO JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION HAS BE EN FILED BY THE REVENUE OR FILED ANY HIGHER COURT DECISION HAVING MODIFIED OR REVERSED THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT. KEEPIN G IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JAGRITHI AGARWAL (SUPRA), THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER STANDS DELETED. 6. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO CLAIM OF EXEMPTION SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE CLAIM IN RESP ECT OF SECTION 54F IS CONCERNED, OUT OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 13.02.2007, THE ASSESSEE HAS USED . 50,49,970/- TO PURCHASE A SITE AT EKATTUTHANGAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSE ON 27.04.2007. ACCORD ING TO THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS ACTUALLY A DILAPIDATED HOUSE ON THE SITE WITH ALL FACILITIES NECESSARY FOR A RESIDENTIAL USE SUCH AS ELECTRICITY CONNECTION, DRAINAGE CONNECTION, WATER CONNECTION AND OTHER FAC ILITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PRIMARY REQUIREMENT TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SE CTION 54 OF THE ACT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 6 IS EITHER CONSTRUCTION OR PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTI AL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE HERSELF ACCEPTED THAT SHE HAS NOT CONSTRUC TED ANY NEW HOUSE AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT. THE WORDING IN THE SALE DEED FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDE R SECTION 54F IS A TESTIMONY TO THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY IS ONLY A V ACANT LAND AND NOT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 7. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS CONSIDERED T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ON VERIFICAT ION OF THE PURCHASE DOCUMENTS, THE PROPERTY WAS ONLY A VACANT LAND OF 1 210 SQ.FT. AT POOMAGAL ROAD, AMBAL NAGAR, EKKATTUTHANGAL VILLAGE, CHENNAI FOR A CONSIDERATION OF .45 LAKHS ON 25.04.2007. IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT SEC TION 54F STATES THAT THE NEW ASSET FOR BEING ENTITLED TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION INVARIABLY A RESIDENTIAL HOU SE AND NOT A VACANT LAND, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A SITE AL ONG WITH HOUSE IN I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 7 DILAPIDATED CONDITION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS E LIGIBLE FOR 54F EXEMPTION. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL S ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A HOUSE SITE OF 1210 SQ.FT. HAVING A HOUSE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT IT WAS IN DILAPIDATED CONDITION AND STATED THAT THERE WAS ELE CTRICITY CONNECTION, DRAINAGE CONNECTION, WATER CONNECTION AND OTHER FAC ILITIES AND THERE WAS HOUSE TAX ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AF TER CONSIDERING THE SALE DEED GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE ASSE SSEE PURCHASED VACANT LAND OF 1210 SQ.FT. AT POOMAGAL ROAD, AMBAL NAGAR, EKKATTUTHANGAL VILLAGE, CHENNAI. WHATEVER THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED BEFORE US, NOTHING WAS AVAILABL E IN THE SALE DEED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY MATERIAL TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THERE WAS A DILAPIDATED HOUSE WIT H FACILITIES LIKE ELECTRICITY, DRAINAGE, WATER, ETC. IN THE VACANT LA ND. THEREFORE, UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE IS NOT I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 8 ACCEPTED. TO CLAIM A BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F OF T HE ACT, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FULFIL THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: I. THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR HU F; II. THE ASSET IS TRANSFERRED ANY LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET III. THE ASSESSEE IS TRANSFERRED CAPITAL ASSET OTHE R THAN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IV. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON W HICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE OR CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HO USE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF WHICH TRANSFER IS TOOK PLACE. V. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN MORE THAN ONE RESIDEN TIAL HOUSE ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET INCLUSIV E OF ONE PURCHASED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 11. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FULFIL THE REQUIREMENT OF SUB-CLAUSE (4) OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE SHE ACQUIRED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AS REQUIRED UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (4) OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. AS PER THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE ON 12.09.2011 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHE HAS NOT CONSTRUCT ED ANY HOUSE IN THE VACANT LAND. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE AND WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) . 12. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED OTHER GROUNDS SUC H AS DENIAL OF INDEXATION IN RESPECT OF SAND FILLING FOR .1,93,458/- AND CONSTRUCTION OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 9 COMPOUND WALL FOR .1,77,525/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE RECEIPT PRODUCED HAVING INCURRED EX PENSES ON SAND LOADS, SAND FILLINGS, LABOUR ETC. IS DATED 22.06.19 99, WHEREAS, AS PER THE SALE DEED THE LAND ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS 09.07.1999. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO THE DEVELO PMENT OF COMPOUND WALL, PILE, PLITH BEAM, BRICK WORK, PLASTE R WORK, LABOUR, MATERIAL, ETC. THE RECEIPT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DATED 04.09.2005, WHEREAS, THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 13.02.2007. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED BOTH TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTRUSTED THE ABOVE WORK TO A N ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR SRI LAKSHMI CONSTRUCTIONS, VELACHERY AND THE CASH BILL OF THE FIRM WAS DATED 22.06.1999 FOR .1,45,000/- AND ANOTHER CASH BILL OF THE SAME FIRM FOR .1,70,000/- DATED 04.09.2005. HAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THE EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE AS BOGUS, HE WOULD HAVE VERIFIED THE ABOVE EXPENDITURES WITH THE FIRM. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE EXPENDITURES INCURRED BY THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NO.2046 .2046 .2046 .2046 /M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 13 33 3 10 ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THESE ISSUES AND DIRECT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO ALLOW 30% OF CASH BILL AMOUNTS OF .1,45,000/- AND .1,70,000/- FOR INDEXATION. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE ISSUES OF INDEXAT ION ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 22 ND OF JULY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) / VICE-PRESIDENT ( . !' !' !' !' ) (V. DURGA RAO) # # # # $% $% $% $% / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22.07.2014. VM/- 1 , *#-23 43'- /COPY TO: 1. () / APPELLANT, 2. *+() / RESPONDENT, 3. 5 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 5 /CIT, 5. 36! *#-# /DR & 6. !' 7 /GF.