Smt Neha Rajendra Bhoite, Jalgaon V. Dy. CIT, Jalgaon

ITA 2281/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 228124514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S PRAVEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: P S SHINGTE
• Keywords: Capital asset; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F; 148; 54; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2281/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SMT. NEHA RAJENDRA BHOITE, 182, PITRU CHHAYA NEAR GURUDATTA MANDIR, SHIVAJI NAGAR AUTO STOP, JALGAON-425001 PAN NO. AAQPB9249Q .. APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, JALGAON .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.S. SHINGTE REVENUE BY : SMT. S. PRAVEENA DATE OF HEARING : 11-07-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-08-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 09-10-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT GRANTING THE CLAIM U/S. 5 4F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR A SUM OF RS.30,73,912/-, AND BY REJ ECTING APPELLANTS CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD. 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27-01-2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 5,85,170/-. DURING 2 THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE CO-PARCENERS WHO HAS JOINTLY SOLD THE LAND OF KADAM FAMILY LOCATED AT PUNE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.3. 40 CRORE ON 25-10- 2007. AS PER SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED AN A MOUNT OF RS.53,12,500/- AS HER SHARE OF CONSIDERATION. FROM THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THE A.O. NOTED THAT AF TER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, THE ASSESS EE HAS COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.45,71,405/-. OUT OF T HE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.35,72,240/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 54 AMOUNTING TO RS.30,73,912 /- AND DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.14,97,493/-. FROM THE DETA ILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S THE A.O. NOTED FROM THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED AS WELL AS THE POSSESSION DEED OF THE FLAT PURCHASED AT PUNE THAT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54 DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE IN CONFORMITY WITH PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT. HE NOTED THAT THE SALE TRANSACTION HAS OCCURRED IN THE MONTH OF OCTOB ER, 2007 AND THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO SOBA ASSOCIATES WITH WHOM THE FLAT WAS BOOKED SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT AS UNDER: DATE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT PAID 23-09-2009 RS.1,00,000/- 22-10-2009 RS.4,07,825/- 26-01-2010 RS.16,50,000/- 26-04-2011 RS.5,00,000/- 03-06-2011 RS.5,00,000/- 25-07-2011 RS.2,27,675/- 3 2.2 FROM THE ABOVE THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.5,07,825/- ONLY WITHIN TWO YEARS FROM THE DAT E OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY FOR ACQUISITION WHICH CANNOT BE TREATED AS SUBSTANTIAL PORTION OF RS.35,72,240/-. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO OPEN SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT FOR THE UNUTILIZED PORTION OF THE INVE STMENT IN THE NOTIFIED BANK AND HAS KEPT THE AMOUNT IN HER ROUTINE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR MAKING SH ORT TERM FIXED DEPOSITS AND EARNED INTEREST THEREON. THE A.O., THEREFORE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIO NS AS STIPULATED IN SEC. 54 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.30,73,912/- MADE U/S.54 OF THE I.T. ACT BY THE A SSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.21,87,500/- ON 22-10-2007 AND THE BALA NCE AMOUNT OF RS.31,25,000/- WAS RECEIVED ON 26-01-2008. THE ABO VE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITED INTO A NEW AND SPECIALLY OPENED SAVING AC COUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF BARODA VIDE A/C. NO. 15320100005945. THE O RIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 15-10-2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1, 00,682/-. THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE DATED 27-12-2010 U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS FILED ON 27-01-2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.15,85,170/- AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S.54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE AMOUN T RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LAND WAS UTILIZED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FLAT THROUGH BUILDER SOBA ASSOCIATES. THE AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER WAS ENT ERED ON 14-10-2009 FOR PURCHASING A FLAT AT E-34, 6 TH FLOOR, WING-E, SOBA OPTIMA, SURVEY NO.37, VADGAON, PUNE FROM THE BUILDER FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS.33,85,500/-. AN AMOUNT OF RS.35,72,240/- WAS MA DE OUT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND TO THE BUILDER TOWARDS TH E CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAT 4 AND OTHER INCIDENTAL EXPENSES STARTING FROM 21-09-2 009 TILL 25-07-2011 THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) AT PAR A 4 OF HIS ORDER. IT WAS ARGUED THAT FROM THE VERY BEGINNING THE ASSESSEE HA D THE INTENTION OF BUYING THE HOUSE PROPERTY. THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT JUST FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPOSIT OF SALE CON SIDERATION AND FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW FLAT IS SUPPORTED BY THE DATE OF DE POSITS AND WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT TO THE BUILDER BEFORE THE COMPLE TION OF PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET I.E. BEFORE 24-10-2010 AND THE FLAT WAS IN HIS POSSESSION AT THE TIME OF HEARING. AN AMOUNT OF RS.23,45,075/- WAS PAID BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF 3 YEARS OUT OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.35,86,916/-. IT WAS ARGUED THA T THE SCHEDULED DATE OF POSSESSION OF FLAT BY THE ASSESSEE, AS PER AGREEMEN T, WAS 15-08-2010 WHICH WAS WELL WITHIN THE TIME OF 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF LAND WHICH IS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54F OF THE I .T. ACT. HOWEVER THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAT WAS DELAYED DUE TO REASONS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FINALLY GOT THE POSSE SSION FROM THE BUILDER ON 27-07-2011. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AGREEMENT WA S FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF FLAT THROUGH A BUILDER AND NOT AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS AND THE CIRCULAR ISSUE D BY THE CBDT NO. 471 DATED 15-10-1986 AND CIRCULAR NO. 672 DATED 16- 12-1993 IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IS UNJ USTIFIED AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. DISTINGUISHING THE VARIOUS D ECISIONS CITED BEFORE HIM AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE AHMEDABAD BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL 5 IN THE CASE OF THAKORLAL HARKISANDAS INTWALA VS. IT O REPORTED IN 43 SOT 347 (AHD), HE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN DISAL LOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE DOING SO HE FURTHER NOTED THAT SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OPENED A CAPITAL GAINS SAVING ACCOUNT WITH THE BANK , SHE HAS NOT FULFILLED THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S. 54F(4) OF THE I.T. A CT. FURTHER, AGREEMENT WITH THE BUILDER SAHA ASSOCIATES WAS MADE AS LATE A S ON 14-10-2009 I.E. ALMOST AFTER EXPIRY OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRA NSFER OF LAND. HE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE, ON RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION OF RS.21 ,87,500/- ON 27-10-2007 HAS MADE FIXED DEPOSIT OF RS.11,00,000/- AND THE BA LANCE AMOUNT RS.10,00,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN BY HER. OUT OF THE BA LANCE CONSIDERATION OF RS.31,25,000/- RECEIVED ON 19-02-2008 SHE CONVERTE D RS.30,00,000/- INTO A FIXED DEPOSIT ON 02-04-2008. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT AT THAT POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE ANY EXPRESS INCLINAT ION OF PURCHASING OR CONSTRUCTING ANY RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. THE ASSESSE E SEEMED TO BE INCLINED ON EARNING INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSIT. THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT MADE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENT TO THE BUILDER WITHIN 2 YEARS F ROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF LAND. THE PAYMENT OF RS.5,07,825/- OUT OF THE T OTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.35,86,916/- CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE SUBSTANTI AL PAYMENT SINCE IT IS AMOUNTING TO ONLY 14.15% OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION . HE, ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE A.O. AND THE LD. CIT(A). REFERRING TO THE CHART FILED BY HIM HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID AN AMOU NT OF RS.33,85,500/- TO THE BUILDER TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE FLAT WHICH I S AS UNDER: 6 DATE AMOUNT 23-09-2009 RS.1,00,000/- 22-10-2009 RS.4,07,825/- 21-01-2010 RS.16,50,000/- 26-04-2011 RS.5,00,000/- 03-06-2011 RS.5,00,000/- 25-07-2011 RS.2,27,675/- TOTAL 33,85,500/- 4.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAGTAR SINGH CHAWLA RE PORTED IN 259 CTR 388 HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE UTILIZED TH E CAPITAL GAINS FOR PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BEFORE EXTENDED DUE DATE U/S. 139(4), THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF SEC. 54F AND NOT LIABLE TO C APITAL GAIN TAX. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF JAGAN NATH SINGH LODHA VS. ITO REPORTED IN 85 TTJ 173 HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE VERY BE GINNING IS TO PURCHASE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND HE HAVING DONE SO WITHIN 2 YE ARS OF SALE OF FLAT HE WAS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/S. 54 IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT INVESTED EVEN THOUGH HE FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT IN THE CAPIT AL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME DURING THE INTERVENING PERIOD. REFERRING TO THE DE CISION OF THE MADRAS B BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M.A.C. KHA LEELI VS. DCIT REPORTED IN 47 TTJ 639, 48 ITD 191, HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/ S. 54 WHEN THE ASSESSEE, DOING CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, DEPOSITED CA PITAL GAIN FROM TRANSFER OF BUILDING IN THE HOUSING DIVISION OF HIS CONSTRUC TION BUSINESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING NEW RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. RAJESH KUMAR JALAN REPORTED IN 286 ITR 274 HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE HON'BLE HIGH 7 COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT IN CONSTRU ING A BENEFICIAL ENACTMENT, THE VIEW THAT ADVANCES THE OBJECT OF THE ENACTMENT AND SERVES ITS PURPOSE MUST BE PREFERRED TO THE ONE WHICH OBST RUCTS THE OBJECT AND PARALYSES THE PURPOSE OF THE BENEFICIAL ENACTMENT. IT WAS HELD IN THE SAID DECISION THAT A PLAIN READING OF SUB-SEC. 2 OF SEC. 54 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT ONLY SEC. 139 IS MENTIONED IN SEC. 54(2) IN THE CON TEXT THAT THE UNUTILIZED PORTION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PROPERTY USED FOR RESIDENCE SHOULD BE DEPOSITED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHI NG THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139. SEC. 139 CANNOT BE MEANT ONLY SEC. 139(1 ) BUT IT MEANS ALL SUB- SECTIONS OF SEC. 139. UNDER SUB-SEC. 4 OF SEC. 139 , ANY PERSON WHO HAS NOT FURNISHED A RETURN WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED TO H IM UNDER SUB-SEC. 1 OF SEC. 139 MAY FURNISH THE RETURN FOR ANY PREVIOUS YE AR AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER I S EARLIER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALLOWED THE CL AIM OF THE BENEFIT U/S. 54 ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY HIM ON ACC OUNT OF SALE OF HIS HOUSE PROPERTY WHEN THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SPECIFIED ACCOUNT BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT FOR FILING OF RETUR N U/S. 139(4). REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MS. JAGRITY AGGARWAL REPORTED IN 339 ITR 61 0, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HEL D THAT SUB-SEC. 4 OF SEC. 139 IS IN FACT, A PROVISO TO SUB-SEC. 1 AND PR OVIDES FOR EXTENSION OF PERIOD OF DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES AND, THEREFORE, EXEMPTION U/S. 54 WAS ALLOWABLE WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED NEW PROPERTY BEFORE EXTENDED DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN AS PER SEC. 139(4) AND FILED RETURN WITHIN SUCH EXTENDED T IME. REFERRING TO THE 8 DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF FATHIMA BAI VS. ITO REPORTED IN 32 DTR 243 HE SUBMITTED THA T THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE, HAVING UTILISED THE ENTIRE CAPITAL GAIN BY PURCHASING A HOUSE PROPERTY BEFORE THE EXTENDED DUE DATE U/S. 139(4) IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE I.T. ACT. REFERRING TO THE LATEST DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANJEEV LAL VS. CIT VIDE CIVIL APPEAL NO.5899-5900 OF 2014 ORDER DATED 01-07-2014 (COPY FILED) HE SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE I SSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ABOVE CITE D DECISION. HE, ACCORDINGLY, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED THE FLAT WITH A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET, THEREFORE, THE DEDUCTION U/S.54F SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSE SSEE. 5. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.53,12,500 /- BEING HER SHARE IN THE JOINT PROPERTY SOLD ON 25-10-2007. THERE IS AL SO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE KEPT THE MONEY IN HER SAVINGS ACC OUNT AND DID NOT DEPOSIT THE MONEY IN THE SPECIFIED CAPITAL GAIN ACC OUNT SCHEME WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. WE FIND THE A.O. DENIED THE BENEF IT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FULFILLED T HE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED U/S. 54 OF THE I.T. ACT SINCE IT HAS NOT PAID SUBST ANTIAL AMOUNT WITHIN A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF PROP ERTY FOR ACQUISITION OF THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT NOR DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN THE SPECIFIED CAPITAL GAIN 9 ACCOUNT WITH ANY SPECIFIED BANK AND THE MONEY WAS D EPOSITED IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. WE FIND THE CIT(A) ALSO UPHEL D THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAIN TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF N EW RESIDENTIAL FLAT WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S. 54F OF THE I.T. A CT AND THEREFORE, SHE IS ENTITLED TO BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE I. T. ACT. 6.1 FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION ON 25-10-2007. SHE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT ON 14-10-2009. FROM THE COPY OF THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME (A COPY OF WHIC H IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK 110) WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDU CTION U/S.54F OF THE I.T. ACT WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROCEEDE D WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE I.T ACT. THE DETAILS OF PAYME NT MADE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE FLAT ARE ALREADY GIVEN AT PARA 7 OF THIS I MPUGNED ORDER. WE FIND AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LA L VS. CIT VIDE CIVIL APPEAL NO.5899 AND 5900 OF 2014 ORDER DATED 01-07-2 014 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTLY COVERED B Y THE ABOVE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, WE FIND IT IS A VERY RECENT DECISION AND WAS NEITHER AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOR BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE SAID CASE, VIS-A-VIS THE FAC TS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (CITED SUPRA) AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE 10 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOL D AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08-08-2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 08 TH AUGUST, 2014 RK/SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-II, NASHIK 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE