The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar V. S. Dalbir Singh, Jalandhar

ITA 27/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0602 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKER
• Assessee Lawyers: S S KALRA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Fair market value; Assessment record
• Section: 54B; 54F; 142(1); 148; 54; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. (CAMP AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 27(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN: CLQPS4591H DY. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX VS. SH. DALBIR SINGH, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, S/O SH. DHANNA SINGH, JALANDHAR, VPO SARMASTPUR. DISTT. JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.BHAWANI SHANKER, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.S. KALRA, CA DATE OF HEARING: 27/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/06/2016 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM; THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10, AGAINST THE ORDER, DATED 17.10.2014, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A), JALANDHAR. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1.(A) WHETHER THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS RI GHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,42,24,170/- MADE BY THE AO ( ON AC COUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN), RELYING UPON THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF SANJEEV LAL VS. CIT REPORTED AS (2014) 269 CTR 1 (SC) WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AND BY IGNORING THE FACTS SUBMITTED IN REMAND REPORT. (B) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN ALLOWING EXPENSES U/S 48(1) PAID AT RS.79,70,797/- FOR EVICTION OF LAND TO THE THIRD PARTY CULTIVATORS OF LAND WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS KHUD KASHT. 2 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 (C) WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS RIGHT IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54B WHEREAS THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BEFORE SALE OF LAND ON WHICH THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS ARISEN. 2. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID DUE TAX ON CAPITAL GAIN INCOME OF RS.2,42,24,176/-, ADDED THIS AMOUNT AS T HE ASSESSEES INCOME, VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AR GUMENTS OF THE AR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEED INGS. THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAV E ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED THAT AN AMOU NT OF RS. 3,17,60,750/- HAD BEEN PAID TO 11 PERSONS FOR EVICTING THEM FROM THE IMPUGNED PIECE OF LAND BEFORE THE TRANSACTION COULD BE FINALIZED FOR SALE. THE DETAILS REGARDING THE EVICTION MONEY PAID TO DIFFERENT PERSONS HAD BEEN S UBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD TO BE CORRECT. SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT PAID AS EARNEST MONEY HAD TO BE PAID FOR ENSURING THE SMOOTH SALE O F THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY THE SAID AMOUNT HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE GROSS SALE C ONSIDERATION TO WORK OUT THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTAT ION OF CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED DURING THE REMAND PR OCEEDINGS THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PUR POSES AND THE LAND PURCHASED WAS ALSO BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF AGRICULTURE ONLY. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S THAT SINCE THE LAND IN QUESTION IS BEING USED FOR THE AGRICULTURAL PURPOS ES BY THE PERSONS WHO HAD THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND THOSE PERSONS HAD TO BE PAID EVICTION CHARGES AS DETAILED ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 54B AS THE SAID LAID WAS NOT BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE AS THE REQUIREMENT OF USAGE OF AGRICULTURAL L AND IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAND AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PERSON WHO OWNS IT. FOR INSTANCE, IF A PERSON OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND DERIVES RENT FROM THE SA ME, IT ALSO QUALIFIES AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME NOT TAXABLE UNDER INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 EVEN THOUGH THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ARE NOT PERFORMED PERSONALL Y BY SAID OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE SITUATION IN THE CURRENT CASE IS ALSO SA ME AS THE OWNER OF THE LAND HAD GIVEN IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF TILING WHO IN THE COURSE OF TIME DEVELOPED VESTED INTEREST IN THE FORM OF POSSE SSION OF LAND BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT LAND ITSELF HAD BEEN USED FOR AGRICULT URAL PURPOSES ALL ALONG AND 3 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 DOES NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER OF BEING USED AS AGRICU LTURAL LAND WHETHER THE OPERATIONS ARE PERFORMED BY THE OWNER OR THE TENANT . THEREFORE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE IS REJECTED. THE SE COND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE IN THE REMAND REPORT IS THAT CERTA IN REGISTRATIONS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAD BEEN EFFECTED BEF ORE THE DATE OF SALE AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT STRICTLY GET COVERED BY THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 54B. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENT FOR PU RCHASE OF LAND HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST SALE OF LAND. IN FACT, PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE DIRECTLY BY THE BUYER OF THE AGRICUL TURAL LAND FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLERS WHO SOLD THE LAND TO THE APPELLANT. THE AR HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO. 359 DATED 10.05.1983 WHICH IS WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 54E. THE SAID CIRCULAR QUALIFIES THE SITUATION AS U NDER:- SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PROVIDES FO R EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IF THE NET CONSIDERATION IS INVE STED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPECIFIED ASSETS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTE R THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER. A TECHNICAL INTERPRETATION OF S.54E COUL D MEAN THAT THE EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS WOULD NOT BE AV AILABLE IF PART OF THE CONSIDERATION IS INVESTED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF EXEC UTION OF THE SALE DEED AS THE INVESTMENT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN MA DE WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER. ON CONSIDERATION OF MATTER IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF LAW, IT IS FELT THAT THE FOREGOING INTERPRETATION WOULD GO AGAINST THE P URPOSE AND SPIRIT OF THE SECTION. AS THE SECTION CONTEMPLATES INVESTMENT OF THE NET CONSIDERATION IN SPECIFIED ASSETS FOR A MINIMUM PERIOD AND AS EARNES T MONEY OR ADVANCE IS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION THE BOARD HAVE DECIDED TH AT IF THE ASSESSEE INVESTS THE EARNEST MONEY OR THE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN SPECIFIED ASSETS BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ASSET THE AMOUNT SO INVESTED WILL QUALI FY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 9. IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE NET CONSIDERATION WAS INVESTED IN SPECIFIED ASS ETS AND EARNEST MONEY OR ADVANCE BEING PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54E OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE ON THE SAME LINES AND THE L EGISLATURES INTENTION IN RESPECT OF SECTION 54B CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DIFFERE NT AS THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF INCORPORATING THE IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SECTION 54B IS TO ENSURE THAT ANYBODY SELLING AGRICULTURAL LAND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED T O TAXATION IF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF ARE USED FOR BUYING AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE FACT THAT THE ADVANCE/ EARNEST MONEY HAD BEEN USED FOR MAKING THE CONSEQUENTIAL PU RCHASE SHOULD NOT COME IN THE WAY OF ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONB LE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAL ETC. VS. CIT 269 CTR 1 WHICH IS DIRECTL Y ON THE ISSUE OF DEFINITION OF TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 2(47) AND CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 54. THE 4 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 HONBLE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT EVEN AN AGREEMENT T O SELL COULD AMOUNT TO A TRANSFER FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 2(47)/54. THE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE COURT ARE AS UNDER:- IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY, A RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREA TED IN FAVOUR OF TRANSFEREE/VENDEE. WHEN SUCH RIGHT IS CREATED IN F AVOUR OF THE VENDEE, THE VENDOR IS RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE SAID PROP ERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE RIGHT IN PE RSONAM IS CREATED, HAS A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMA NCE OF THE AGREEMENT, IF THE VENDOR, FOR SOME REASON IS NOT EXECUTING THE SA LE DEED. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SOME RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE VENDOR TO THE VENDEE. THOUGH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE TIME WHEN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ENTERED INTO. LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFIN ES THE WORD TRANSFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, ONE CAN SAY THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTINGUISHED BY EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSET CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. IN THE LIGHT O F DEFINITION OF TRANSFER AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, IT IS CL EAR THAT WHEN ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS EXTINGUISHED AND TH AT RIGHT IS TRANSFERRED TO SOMEONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL A SSET. AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF A CAPITAL ASSET HAD BEEN EXECUTE D ON 27 TH DECEMBER, 2002 FOR TRANSFERRING THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/ORIGINA L ASSET IN QUESTION AND A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF EAR NEST MONEY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXEC UTED BECAUSE OF PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN R ON ONE HAND AN D THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER AS R HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE W ILL UNDER THE PROPERTY HAD DEVOLVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. BY VIRTUE OF AN OR DER PASSED IN THE SUIT FILED BY R, THE ASSESSEE WERE RESTRAINED FROM DEALI NG WITH THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND A LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO VIOLATE THE DIRECTION OF A COURT BY EXECUTING A SALE DEED I N FAVOUR OF A THIRD PARTY WHILE BEING RESTRAINED FROM DOING SO. IN THE CIRCU MSTANCES, FOR A JUSTIFIABLE REASON, WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE CONTRO L OF THE ASSESSEE, THEY COULD NOT EXECUTE THE SALE DEED AND THE SALE DEED H AD BEEN REGISTERED ONLY ON 24 TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, AFTER THE SUIT FILED BY R, CHALLE NGING THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL, HAD BEEN DISMISSED. IN THE L IGHT OF THE AFORESTATED FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TR ANSFER, ONE CAN COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SOME RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITA L ASSET IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND THEREF ORE, SOME RIGHT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD, IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET I N QUESTION, HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BECAUSE AFTER EXECUTION OF THE AGREEME NT TO SELL IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO SOME ONE ELSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. A RIGHT IN PERSONAM HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTE D AND WHO HAD ALSO PAID RS.15 LACS BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. NO DOUBT, SUCH CONTRACTUAL 5 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 RIGHT CAN BE SURRENDERED OR NEUTRALIZED BY THE PART IES THROUGH SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT OR CONDUCT LEADING TO NO TRANSFER OF THE P ROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED VENDEE BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT HAND. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE TERM TRANSFER HA S BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, EVEN IF LOOKED AT THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHICH GIVES RELIEF TO A PERSON WHO HAS TRANSFERRED HIS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND IS PURCHASING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE EITHER BEFO RE ONE YEAR OF THE TRANSFER OR EVEN TWO YEARS AFTER TRANSFER, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO GIVE HIM RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF TAX ON THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN. IF A PERSON, WHO GETS SOME EXCESS AMOUNT UPON TRANSFER OF HIS OLD PR EMISES WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLA TURE DOES NOT WANT HIM TO BE BURDENED WITH TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE, RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM IN RESPECT OF PAYING INCOME TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE OR THE PURPOSE WITH WH ICH THE SAID PROVISION HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE ACT, IS ALSO VERY CLEAR THAT TH E ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN SOME RELIEF. THOUGH IT HAS BEEN VERY OFTEN SAID TH AT COMMON SENSE IS A STRANGER AND AN INCOMPATIBLE PARTNER TO THE INCOME TAX ACT A ND IT IS ALSO SAID THAT EQUITY AND TAX ARE STRANGERS TO EACH OTHER, STILL THIS COU RT HAS OFTEN OBSERVED THAT PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PRO VISIONS OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING THE PRINCIPLES WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE TAX LAWS, ONE CAN VERY WELL INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF S.54 R/W S.2(47), I.E. DEFINITION OF TRANSFER WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO GE T THE BENEFIT UNDER S.54 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS VS. CIT(2001) 165 CTR (SC) 629: (2001) 3SCC 359 APPLIED. IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE AND LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER AS DEFINED UNDER S.2(47) THE AS SESSEE WERE ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER S. 54 IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WH ICH THEY HAD EARNED IN PURSUANCE OF TRANSFER OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND USED FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW ASSET/RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE AUTHORITIES ARE DIRECT ED TO REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASST. YEAR 2005-06 AFTER TAKING IN TO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WERE ENTITLED TO THE RELIEF, SUBJECT TO FU LFILMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS SANJEEV LAL ETC. ETC. (JUDGMENTS DT. 29 TH JAN, 2013 OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT IN IT APPEAL NOS. 153 & 154 OF 2012) SET ASIDE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES AND DIRE CT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT ON THE ISS UE, THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 IS ALLOWED. THE DIF FERENCE OF RS. (-)15,79,477/- POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BETWEEN SALE A ND PURCHASE CONSIDERATION ALSO WOULD NOT LEAD ANY TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN AS BEN EFIT OF INDEXATION GIVEN ON ANY REASONABLE VALUE WOULD LEAD TO NEGATIVE GAIN. THEREFORE NO CAPITAL GAIN IS LEVIABLE ON THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION.THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 4. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION CORRECTLY MADE BY THE AO; THAT WHILE DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAL VS. CIT, 269 CTR 1 (SC), IS NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE; THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO; THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN ALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS.79,70,797/- UNDER SECTION 148(1), FOR EVICTION O F LAND TO THE THIRD PARTY CULTIVATORS OF LAND WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS KHUD KASH T; THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B EVEN IN THE FACE OF THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BEFOR3 THE SALE OF LAND , ON WHICH, CAPITAL GAIN HAS ARISEN. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. S.S. KALRA , ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND HA S REITERATED THE STAND MAINTAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SU BMISSION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THESE HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN PA RA-3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODUCE THESE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER: PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT U/S 144 FRAMED BY THE A.O. V IDE ORDER DATED 23/09/2013 WHEREIN HE HAS ASSESSED A SUM OF R S. 2,42,24,176/- AS CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SOLE REASONING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. AND THU S HE CONSEQUENTLY INVOKED SECTION 144. 7 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE:- (I) FROM THE VERY ASSTT. ORDER IT IS EVIDENT THAT T HE A.O. WAS IN AN UNDUE HURRY TO FRAME THE ASSTT. WITHOUT AFFORDIN G A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF I NCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 AND TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 143(1) & 142(1). THE A.O. HAS DONE THAT AFTER THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND THEREAFTER HE JUST ISSUES ONLY ONE NOTICE U/S 143(2) & 142(1) DATED 30/08/2013 FOR 10/09/2013. THE A.O. T HEREAFTER NOT EVEN THINKING OF PROVIDING ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ASSESSEE JUMPS OVER FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 144. T HIS ACT OF A.O. OF DEEMING IT NOT NECESSARY TO ISSUE ANOTHER NOTICE TO BE FAIR AND ACT IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER HAS RESULTED IN THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT U/S 144. THE ASSTT. WAS TIME BARRING ONLY ON 31/03/201 4 AND THE A.O. HAD WELL MORE THAN SIX MONTHS WITH HIM TO FRAM E THE ASSTT. BUT THE A.O. IN HIS HURRY TO FRAME THE ASSTT. ACTED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF THE SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS THE ASSTT. SUFFERS ON THIS ASPECT AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. (II) FROM THE ORDER OF THE A.O. THE FOLLOWING LEGAL ISSUES ARE MADE OUT:- 1. THAT THE ASSTT. SUFFERS ON A/C OF LACK OF OPPORTUNI TY AND THIS NEEDS TO BE ANNULLED. II. THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KILOMETERS F ROM KARTARPUR AND THUS ITS SALE IS EXEMPT AND NO CAPITAL GAINS AR E ASSESSABLE BEING AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. III. THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS WRONGLY BEEN WORKED OUT WITHOUT INDEXATION. IV. SO MUCH SO, EVEN THE DEMAND HAS NOT BEEN WORKED OUT PROPERLY. V. NO REASONS WERE EVEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 WHICH SEEM TO BE VAGUE AND UNTENABLE. (III) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE LEGAL ISSUES ON FACTS IT IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR SOLD HIS SHARE OF LAND APP. 651 MARLAS FOR RS. 2,76,67,500/- ALTHOUGH THE DEPTT. HAS TAKE 186.40 MARLAS FOR RS. 8 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 2,65,76,750/-. THIS AMOUNT IS TO FURTHER GO DOWN W HEN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 79,70,797/- IS SUBTRACTED FOR AMOUNT PAID FOR EVICT ION OF LAND TO THE PERSONS WHO WERE IN POSSESSION THEREOF AND SHALL QU ALIFY FOR THE DEDUCTION U/S 48(1) OF THE ACT. COMPLETE DETAILS WITH DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE IS ENCLOSED FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS SEPARATELY MOVIN G APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ACT. THUS THE NET CONSIDERATION CO MES TO (2,76,67,500 79,70,797 = 1,96,96,703/-). THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED HAD PURC HASED THE FOLLOWING AGRICULTURAL LAND AFTER RECEIPT OF SALE C ONSIDERATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,96,96,703/-. I) AGRICULTURAL LAND 62K 5M IN VILLAGE KINGRA FOR RS. 1,16,71,875/- + EXPENSES RS. 6,00,000/-. THUS TOTALING RS. 1,22,71 ,875/- FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS DIRECTLY MADE BY M/S. BHAGWATI AGRI CULTURAL FARMS TO THE SELLER MR. SURINDER SINGH AS PER FOLLO WING DETAILS:- S.NO. DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT 1. 19/03/2008 187954 10,00,000.00 2. 25/03/2008 187958 99,000.00 3. 28/03/2008 187960 15,00,000.00 4. 02/04/2008 187961 99,000.00 5. 11/06/2008 384603 2,03,89,375.00 6. 25/06/2008 CASH 22,000.00 ----------------------- 2,31,09,375.00 ----------------------- TOTAL LAND PURCHASED 123 K 5 M = 2465 MARLAS PERTAI NING TO TWO BROTHERS FOR WHICH JOINT PAYMENT MADE BY BHAGWATI A GRICULTURAL FARM AS PER DETAILS ENCLOSED COUPLED WITH THE BANK STATEMENT OF BHAGWATI AGRICULTURAL FARM:- ASSA SINGH (AS PER REGD.) 61K (1220 MARLA)= 1,14,3 7,500.00 9 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 DALBIR SINGH (AS PER REGD.) 62K 5M (1245 MARLAS) = 1,16,71,875.00 ----------------------- 2,31,09,375.00 ----------------------- II) AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 13K 13M IN VILLAGE KHAK HLI, TEH. & DISTT. HOSHIARPUR WORTH RS. 25,13,000/- FOR WHICH T HE PAYMENT WAS DIRECTLY MADE BY BHAGWATI AGRICULTURAL FARM. III) PURCHASED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN VILLAGE SARMASTPUR W ORTH RS. 24,00,000/- WHOSE PAYMENT STANDS MADE DIRECTLY BY M /S. BHAGWATI AGRICULTURAL FARM AND WHICH ENTITLES HIM F OR EXEMPTION U/S 54F THAT IF ANY MEAGER ESTIMATE OF COST OF LAND IS APPL IED AS ON 01/04/1981 AND CONSEQUENTLY AFTER INDEXATION, THE S AME SHALL WELL BE FULLY COVERED UNDER SECTION 54B & 54F OF THE ACT AND THUS THERE SHALL BE NO CAPITAL GAINS OR QUESTION OF ANY TAX. THE ASSESSEE IS SEPARATELY MOVING AN APPLICATION UN DER RULE 46A OF THE ACT FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE PRAYS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE AND ON THAT BASIS REQUESTS FOR DELETION OF CONSEQUENTIAL A DDITION ON A/C OF CAPITAL GAINS. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM T HE AO. THIS REMAND REPORT. THIS REMAND REPORT, AS REPRODUCE IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: 4. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE SENT TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS SEEKING HIS OPINION ON THE ISSUE OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF I.T.ACT, 1961 AND A LSO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO NIL CAPITAL GAIN AR ISING OUT OF THE IMPUGNED 10 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS REPORT DATED 24.09.2014 SUBMITTED HIS COMMENTS AS UNDER:- IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THIS CASE WAS ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT AN INCOM E OF RS. 2,42,24,176/- . THE ASSESSMENT RECORD REVEALS THAT INSPITE OF NU MBER OF OPPORTUNITIES AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY AND FURNISH ANY REPLY. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST WITH LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF LAW. THEREFORE, IN VIEW O F THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED IN THI S CASE. THE MERITS OF THE CASE IN LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE IN THE OFFICE OF YOUR GOODSELF ARE BEING DISCUSSED AS FOLL OWS:- I. AS REGARDS THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED IN HIS REPLY THAT HIS SHARE OF LAND 651 MARLAS WAS SOLD FOR RS. 2,76,67,500/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT WAS TO BE REDUCED BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 79,70,797/- PAID FOR THE EVICTION OF LAND TO PERSONS IN POSSESSION OF THE LAND. THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION THEREFORE IS RS. 1,96,96,703/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED C OPY FARDS OF THE SAID LAND WHICH MENTION THE LAND TO BE KHUD KHAST I.E. A GRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED CONFIRMATIONS OF RECEIP T BY THE ELEVEN PERSONS WHO WERE PAID THE AMOUNTS FOR EVICTION. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE PERSONS IN POSSESSION OF LAND HAVE STATED THAT THEY WERE CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON THE SAID LAND. THIS MEAN S THAT THE LAND WAS NOT BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES WHICH IS ONE OF THE BASIC PREREQUISITES FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U NDER SECTION 54. II. AS REGARD THE SALE OF THE LAND THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS PURCHASED TWO PIECES OF LAND AND A RESIDENTIAL HOUS E BEING DISCUSSED AS FOLLOWS:- A. FIRST ONE BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 62 KANAL 5 MARLAS AT VILL. KINGRA FOR RS. 1,22,71,875/-. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DATE O F PURCHASE OF THIS LAND PREDATES THE DATE OF SALE OF THE FOLLOWING PORTIONS OF THE L AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE:- I. REGISTRY DATED 29.08.2008 RS. 1,00,72,500/-. II. REGISTRY DATED 28.08.2008 RS. 1,27,92,500/- III. REGISTRY DATED 21.08.2008 RS. 1,32,60,000/- 11 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 IV. REGISTRY DATED 17.09.2008 RS. 8,50,000/- THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE FARD OF THIS LAND WH ICH MENTION THE LAND TO BE KHUD KHAST I.E. AGRICULTURAL LAND. B. THE OTHER LAND MEASURING 13 KANAL 13 MALRAS FOR RS. 25,13,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FINAL REGISTRY OF THE SAID L AND IS NOT DONE AS THE MATTER IS IN THE COURT. THEREFORE, THE FINAL SALE OF THIS LAND HAS NOT BEEN DONE TILL DATE. C. AS REGARDS, THE PURCHASE OF HOUSE, THE HOUSE HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN MAY, 2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS HOUSE BEING IN LAL LAKIR, NO REGISTRY HAS BEEN DONE. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B & 54F MAY BE DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 8. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COUNTER COMMENTS TO T HE REMAND REPORT. THESE ARE AS FOLLOWS: I. THAT AS FAR AS ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE A.O. HAS ABSOLUTELY NO OB JECTION TO ITS ADMISSION AND THEREFORE NO COMMENTS ARE OFFERED. II. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE THE A.O. HAS C ONCEDED THAT THE LAND SOLD AND PURCHASED IS AGRICULTURAL WHICH IS THE BAS IC REQUISITE OF SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR CLAIM OF EXEM PTION. III. THE A.O. HAS ALSO PERUSED THE EVIDENCE AND HAS AGREED THAT EVICTION CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 79,70,797/- WERE PAID AS PER THE EVIDENCE FILED WHICH SHALL BE DEDUCTED FROM THE SAL E OF SALE CONSIDERATION U/S 48(1). IV. HOWEVER THE A.O. HAS THE FOLLOWING OBJECTIONS:- I) SINCE THE LAND SOLD WAS NOT BEING USED BY THE HIMSE LF IN VIEW OF THE EVICTION CHARGES PAID, THE CLAIM DOESNT FAL L UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 54B, II) THAT THE FOUR REGISTRATIONS OF PURCHASE AS PER FOLL OWING DETAILS PREDATES THE DATE OF SALE:- A) REGISTRY DATED 29.08.2008 RS. 1,00,72,500/- B) REGISTRY DATED 28.08.2008 RS. 1,27,92,500/- C) REGISTRY DATED 21.08.2008 RS. 1,32,60,000/- 12 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 D) REGISTRY DATED 17.09.2008 RS. 8,50,000/- III) AND THE THIRD OBJECTION THAT FOR THE LAND 13K 13M W ORTH RS. 25,13,000/- THE REGD. IS YET TO TAKE PLACE. IV) AND LAST ONE THAT AS FAR AS RESIDENTIAL HUSE IS CON CERNED, NO REGD. IS DONE. THE OBJECTION OF THE A.O. ARE DEALT WITH AS UNDER:- I) AS FAR AS THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE A.O. THAT IN V IEW OF EVICTION CHARGES PAID THE LAND WAS NOT USED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS CONCERNED IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS TRUE THAT PART OF THE LAND WAS BEING CULTIVATED BY THE PERSONS TO WHOM EVICTION CH ARGES WERE PAID AND THIS CULTIVATION WAS WITH THE CONSENT OF T HE ASSESSEE AND NOT THAT THEY WERE FORCIBLY CULTIVATING THE LAN D. AND FOR THIS THE ASSESSEE MUST BE IN RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION IN THE SHAPE OF PATTA MONEY / LEASE MONEY. IT WAS ONLY WHEN THE QU ESTION OF SALE OF LAND AROSE THAT THEY INSISTED NOT TO VACATE THE LAND AND THEY HAD TO BE PAID THE AMOUNT SETTLED FOR GIVING T HE VACANT POSSESSION. THESE THINGS ARE VERY COMMON IN INDIA. THIS WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF USE. THE ASS ESSEE AS OWNER RECEIVING THE CONSIDERATION FOR USE OF LAND HAS TO BE TREATED AS THE REAL AND VIRTUAL USER OF THE LAND. THE SECTION 54B USES THE WORD WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT DOESNT SPEC IFY OR HAS ANY QUALIFICATION AS TO ITS USE. AGRICULTURE INCOME IS ASSESSED FOR AMOUNT RECEIVED ON A/C OF LEASE OR PATTA MONEY IN A LL CASES AND THE DEFINITION AS PER SECTIONS 2(1A) IS CLEAR AND THERE FORE IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD BEEN THE VIRT UAL USER. THE SUPREME COURT IN ITS LATEST JUDGMENT IN PARA 22 OF DECISION SANJEV LAL VS. CIT REPORTED AS 269 CTR (SC) 1 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THOUGH IT HAS BEEN VERY OFTEN SAID THAT COMMON SEN SE IS A STRANGER AND THE INCOMPATIBLE PARTNER TO THE IT ACT AND IT I S ALSO SAID THAT EQUITY AND TAX ARE STRANGERS TO EACH OTHER, STILL T HIS COURT HAS OFTEN OBSERVED THAT PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE GI VEN TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THUS IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS THE ASSESSEE FULLY QUAL IFIES FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. 13 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 II) COMING TO THE SECOND OBJECTION OF THE A.O. THAT THE FOUR REGISTRATIONS PREDATES THE DATE OF SALE, IT IS SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- THAT THE DATES OF REGD. AS MENTIONED BY A.O. ARE:- A) REGISTRY DATED 29.08.2008 RS. 1,00,72,500/- B) REGISTRY DATED 28.08.2008 RS. 1,27,92,500/- C) REGISTRY DATED 21.08.2008 RS. 1,32,60,000/- D) REGISTRY DATED 17.09.2008 RS. 8,50,000/- THAT THE A.O. HAS LOST SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT ALTHO UGH IN FOUR ABOVE CASES THE REGISTRATIONS TOOK PLACE AFTER THE PURCHA SE BUT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN THE FIRST THREE REGISTRATION WAS RECEIVED MUCH BEFORE THE REGISTRATIONS AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS:- I) RS. 1,00,72,500/- RECEIVED ON 21/01/2008 II) RS. 1,27,92,500/- RECEIVED ON 21/01/2008 III) RS. 1,32,60,000/- DATE NOT CLEAR BUT IN ANY CASE BE FORE 21/04/2008 IT WAS AGAINST THIS MONEY THAT THE PURCHASE WAS MAD E. THE LEGAL POSITION AND COURTS ARE CLEAR ON THE SUBJECT. IN EX ACTLY SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE SUPREME COURT IN LATEST JUDGMENT OF SANJEEV LAL ETC. VS. CIT REPORTED AS (2014) 269 CTR (SC) 1 HAS HELD THAT PURCHASE MADE WITH ADVANCE OR EARNEST MONEY, ALTHOU GH THE REGISTRATIONS EFFECTED LATER SHALL QUALIFY FOR EXEM PTION. YOUR HONOURS ATTENTION IS FURTHER INVITED TO THE CIRCULA R OF THE BOARD VIDE CIRCULAR NO. 359 DATED 10/05/1983 WHICH ALTHOUGH IS U/S 54E, BUT THE CRUX IS THE SAME. THUS THE ASSESSEE FULLY QUAL IFIES FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54B. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, EVEN ON FACTS NO CAPITAL GAIN CAN BE WORKED OUT IF WE SEE THE FOLLOWING WORK ING:- REGISTRATIONS WHICH WERE DONE REGISTRATIONS WHICH WERE DONE AFTER THE PURCHASE ALTHOUGH BEFORE THE PURCHASE AMOUNT RECEIVED MUCH BEFORE RS. 1,00,72,500.00 RS. 3,19,60,000.00 RS. 1,27,92,500.00 RS. 4,13,44,000.00 RS. 1,32,60,000.00 RS. 8,50,000.00 . . RS. 3,69,75,000.00 RS. 7,33,04,000.00 14 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 PERCENTAGE RS. 3,69,75,000.00 33.53% RS. 7,33,04,000.00 66,47% ---------------------------- TOTAL = RS. 11,02,79,000.00 ---------------------------- SHARE OF DALBIR SINGH RS. 2,76,67,500.00 LESS EVICTION CHARGES RS. 79,70,797.00 ---------------------------- BALANCE = RS. 1,96,96,703.00 ---------------------------- THE ABOVE CONSIDERATION IS DIVIDED IN THE RATIO OF 33.53 : 66.47 WHICH COMES TO RS. 1,96,96,703 X 33.53/100 = RS. 66,04,305.00 RS. RS. 1,96,96,703 X 66.47/100 = RS. 1,30,92,398.0 0 AS AGAINST THIS THE RESPECTIVE PURCHASE IS AS UNDER :- PURCHASE MADE AFTER THE SALE PURCHASE MADE AFTER THE SALE RS. 25,13,000.00 RS. 1,22,71,875.00 ADD: HOUSE (RESI) RS. 24,00,000.00 RS. 1,46,71,875.00 DIFFERENCE DIFFERENCE 66,04,305 25,13,000 = 40,19,305.00 1,30,92,398 1,46,71,875 = - 15,79,477.00 IF A VERY MEAGREST ESTIMATE OF VALUE AS ON 01/04/19 81 IS APPLIED FOR INDEXATION THE AFORESAID FIGURES SHALL TURN OUT TO BE NEGATIVE. AND THEREFORE ON FACTS THERE IS NO LIABILITY TO CAPITAL GAIN AS THE NEGATIVE FIGURE OF RS. -15,79,477/- TOO SHALL ALSO BE OFFSET AGAIN ST ANY POSITIVE FIGURE. III) THE THIRD OBJECTION OF THE A.O. IS THAT AS FAR AS P URCHASE OF LAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 25,13,000/- IS CONCERNED, THE REGD HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THAT THE A.O. WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE RE GD. COULD NOT BE MADE BECAUSE THE MATTER WAS IN COURT OF LAW AND THIS FACT FINDS PLACE IN THE VERY AGREEMENT ITSELF. HERE TOO THE VERDICT OF SANJEEV LAL JAIN VS. CIT REPORTED AS (2014) 269 CTR (SC) SHALL APPLY WHICH HAS HELD AS UNDER:- IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, A RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CR EATED IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSFEREE/VENDEE BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHEN SUCH A RIGHT IS CREATE D THE VENDOR IS 15 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE SAID PROPERTY TO SOMEON E ELSE AS THE VENDEE IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED HA S A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT IF THE VENDOR FOR SOME REASON IS NOT EXECUTING THE SALE DEED-THUS, BY VIRT UE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SOME RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE VENDOR TO THE VE NDEE THOUGH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE TIME WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ENTERED INTO, IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISION OF S. 2(47) WHICH DEFINES THE WORD TRANSFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSETS, IT CAN BE SAID THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTINGUI SHED BY EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSET CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE ARE - THE SAME AS THE A MOUNT PAID ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT HAS TO BE ALLOWED FOR EXEMPTION PURPOS ES U/S 54B. IV) THE FOURTH AND THE LAST OBJECTION OF THE A.O. I S THE NON REGISTRATION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN REVENUE RECORDS THERE IS SOME AREAS WHICH ARE WITHIN LAL LAKIR WHERE TRANSFERS ARE ONLY MADE THROUGH AGREEMENTS AND NO REGD. TAKES PLACE. THE A .O. HAS SIMPLY IGNORED THIS FACT. THUS IN VIEW OF ABOVE ALL THE OBJECTIONS OF THE A.O . BEING ERRONEOUS AND NOT BASED ON FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION, IT IS THEREF ORE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON A/C OF CAPITAL GAINS B E DELETED. 6. THE PERUSAL OF THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY GOES ON TO SHOW THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY COULD BE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE APPEL LANTS REQUEST TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DESERVES TO SUCCEED ON MERITS. 9. IT WAS AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, I.E., THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS, THE AOS REMAND REPORT AND THE ASSESSEES COUNTER C OMMENTS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HELD AS FOLLOWS, WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE: 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AR GUMENTS OF THE AR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING REMAND PRO CEEDINGS HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,17,60,750/- HAD BEEN PAID TO 11 PERSONS FO R EVICTING THEM FROM THE IMPUGNED PIECE OF LAND BEFORE THE TRANSACTION C OULD BE FINALIZED FOR SALE. THE DETAILS REGARDING THE EVICTION MONEY PAI D TO DIFFERENT PERSONS 16 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 HAD BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLA NT IN THIS REGARD TO BE CORRECT. SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT PAID AS EARNEST MON EY HAD TO BE PAID FOR ENSURING THE SMOOTH SALE OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY T HE SAID AMOUNT HAS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE GROSS SALE CONSIDERATION TO WOR K OUT THE NET SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CA PITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED DURING THE REMAND PR OCEEDINGS THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURA L PURPOSES AND THE LAND PURCHASED WAS ALSO BEING USED FOR THE PURPOSES OF AGRICULTURE ONLY. 8. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S THAT SINCE THE LAND IN QUESTION IS BEING USED FOR THE AGRICULTURAL PUR POSES BY THE PERSONS WHO HAD THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND AND THOSE PERSONS HA D TO BE PAID EVICTION CHARGES AS DETAILED ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 54B AS THE SAID LAID WAS NOT BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, I DO NO T AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE AS THE REQUIREME NT OF USAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS WITH REFERENCE TO THE LAND AND NOT WITH REFERENCE TO THE PERSON WHO OWNS IT. FOR INSTANCE, IF A PERSON OWNS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND DERIVES RENT FROM THE SAME, IT ALSO QUALIFIES AS AG RICULTURAL INCOME NOT TAXABLE UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 EVEN THOUGH THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ARE NOT PERFORMED PERSONALLY BY SAID OWN ER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE SITUATION IN THE CURRENT CASE IS ALSO SA ME AS THE OWNER OF THE LAND HAD GIVEN IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE P URPOSE OF TILING WHO IN THE COURSE OF TIME DEVELOPED VESTED INTEREST IN THE FORM OF POSSESSION OF LAND BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT LAND ITSELF HAD BEEN USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES ALL ALONG AND DOES NOT LOSE ITS CHARACTER OF BEING USED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND WHETHER THE OPERATIONS ARE PERFOR MED BY THE OWNER OR THE TENANT. THEREFORE, THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON THE ISSUE IS REJECTED. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE IN THE REMAND REPORT IS THAT CERTAIN REGISTRATIONS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAD BEEN EFFECTED BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE AND THEREFORE WOULD NOT STRICTLY GET COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 4B. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE CLEAR THAT THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST SALE OF LAND. INFACT, PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE DIRECTLY BY THE BUYER OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FROM THE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLERS WHO SOLD THE LAND TO THE APPELLANT. THE AR HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO. 359 DATED 10.05.198 3 WHICH IS WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 54E. THE SAID CIRCULAR QUALIFI ES THE SITUATION AS UNDER:- SECTION 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 PROVIDES FO R EXEMPTION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IF THE NET CONSIDERATION IS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SPECIFIED ASSETS WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE OF SUCH TRANSFER. A TECHNICAL INTERPRETATION OF S.54E COULD 17 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 MEAN THAT THE EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS W OULD NOT BE AVAILABLE IF PART OF THE CONSIDERATION IS INVESTED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED AS THE INVESTMENT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS HAVING BEEN MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS AFTE R THE DATE OF TRANSFER. ON CONSIDERATION OF MATTER IN CONSULTATION WITH THE MINISTRY OF LAW, IT IS FELT THAT THE FOREGOING INTERPRETATION WOULD GO AGAINST THE PURPOSE AND SPIRIT OF THE SECTION. AS THE SECTION CONTEMPLATES INVESTMENT OF THE NET CONSIDERATION IN SPECIFIED ASSETS FOR A MINIMUM PER IOD AND AS EARNEST MONEY OR ADVANCE IS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION THE BOARD HAVE DECIDED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE INVESTS THE EARNEST MONEY OR T HE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN SPECIFIED ASSETS BEFORE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ASS ET THE AMOUNT SO INVESTED WILL QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER S. 54E OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. 9. IT HAS BEEN CLARIFIED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WAS TO ENSURE THAT THE NET CONSIDERATION WAS INVESTED IN S PECIFIED ASSETS AND EARNEST MONEY OR ADVANCE BEING PART OF SALE CONSIDE RATION SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN INVESTED FOR EXEMPTION UNDE R SECTION 54E OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE ON THE SAME LINES AND THE LEGISLATURES INTENTION IN RESPECT OF SECTI ON 54B CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DIFFERENT AS THE ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF INCORPORAT ING THE IMPUGNED PROVISION OF SECTION 54B IS TO ENSURE THAT ANYBODY SELLING AGRICULTURAL LAND SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO TAXATION IF THE PROCEEDS THEREOF ARE USED FOR BUYING AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE FACT THAT THE ADVANCE / EARNEST MONEY HAD BEEN USED FOR MAKING THE CONSEQUENTIAL PURCHASE SHO ULD NOT COME IN THE WAY OF ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 54B. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGME NT OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SANJEEV LAL ETC. VS. CIT 269 C TR 1 WHICH IS DIRECTLY ON THE ISSUE OF DEFINITION OF TRANSFER UNDER SECTION 2(47) AND CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54. THE HONBLE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT EVEN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL COULD AMOUNT TO A TRANSFER FOR TH E PURPOSES OF SECTION 2(47)/54. .. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES AND DIRE CT JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT ON THE ISS UE, THE APPELLANTS CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 IS ALLOWED. T HE DIFFERENCE OF RS. (- )15,79,477/- POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER B ETWEEN SALE AND PURCHASE CONSIDERATION ALSO WOULD NOT LEAD ANY TAXA BLE CAPITAL GAIN AS BENEFIT OF INDEXATION GIVEN ON ANY REASONABLE VALUE WOULD LEAD TO NEGATIVE GAIN. THEREFORE NO CAPITAL GAIN IS LEVIABLE ON THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION. 18 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THERE FORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 10. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAD WORKED O UT THE RESULTANT CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 2923/- PER MARLA. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE SAID CLAIM HAD BEEN FILED. THE AR WAS THEREFORE REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM ON THE ISSUE. THE AR VIDE H IS LETTER DATED 14.10.2014 SUBMITTED HIS ARGUMENTS AS UNDER:- KINDLY REFER TO THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE A BOVE CASE AND ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING YOUR HONOURS HAD DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY THE VALUE ADOPTED AT RS. 20 LACS AS ON 01/04/1981 F OR WORKING OUT THE INDEXATION. IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS SUBMITTED AS UND ER:- THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 01/04/198 1 FOR WORKING OUT INDEXATION HAS BEEN RS. 20 LACS WHICH GIVES A R ATE PER MARLS @ RS. 2923/- AS ON 01/04/1981 (20,00,000 / 684). TO JUST IFY THE LAND RATE AS ON 01/04/1981 @ RS. 2923/- PER MARLA KINDLY FIND EN CLOSED THE CERTIFICATE OF LAMBARDAR OF THE VILLAGE WHICH INTERALIA STATES THAT THE LAND RATE PER ACRE OF LAND AT VILL. SAMASTPUR WAS RS. 4,50,000/- TO RS. 5,00,000/- PER ACRE. IF WE TAKE THE VALUE AT RS. 5,00,000/- PER A CRE THE PER MARLA VALUE COMES TO RS. 3125/- (5,00,000 / 160). HE HAS FURTH ER MENTIONED IN THE CERTIFICATE THE FOLLOWING FACTS:- I. THAT THE LAND FALLS ON THE MAIN G.T. ROAD, NATIONAL HIGHWAY NO.1, I.E., JALANDHAR PATHANKOT ROAD. II. THAT LOCATION IS 12 MILE STONE FROM JALANDHAR. III. KISHAN GARH CHOWK IS 1 KM FROM THE PRESENT LOCATION . IV. THE MAIN HOSHIARPUR ROAD PASSES FROM THE BACK AND T HE DISTANCE FROM THE PLACE IS 1 KM APP. AND V. THE D.A.V. UNIVERSITY WAS BEEN SET UP BECAUSE OF LO CATIONAL ADVANTAGE. THAT TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE VERSION OF THE CERTIFICAT E YOUR HONOURS ATTENTION IS INVITED TO THE RATE FIXED BY THE I.T.A.T. (ASR) BENCH OF THE LAND SITUATED ON MAIN HOSHIARPUR ROAD IN THE CASE OF BASANT METAL & RAVI KUMAR JAIN IN ITA NOS. 553 & 560 OF 2011 DATED 06/08/2012 WHOSE DISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEES LOCATION IS ABOUT 1 KM. THE RATE ADO PTED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE FRONT WAS @ RS. 6000/- PER MARLA AND ON THE BAC K @ RS. 4000/- PER 19 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 MARLA WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS PER COPIE S OF BOTH ORDERS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. EVEN IF AVERAGE IS TAKEN (6000 + 4000), THE RATE WORKS OUT AT RS. 5000/- PER MARLA AS AGAINST RS. 2923/- A DOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE ACCEPTED BEING O N MUCH LOWER SIDE. VERY IMPORTANT:- THE AFORESAID RATE AND VALUATION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. DURING HIS REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND HIS REPORT IS CLEAR ON THE S UBJECT. 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR ON TH E ISSUE AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ADOPTED AT RS. 2 923/- PER MARLA IS BASED UPON THE REPORT OF THE LOCAL REVENUE AUTHORIT Y WHICH IS QUITE LOGICAL AND RECORDS VARIOUS FACETS OF THE IMPUGNED LAND AND ITS RELATED VALUATION ON THE GIVEN DATE. THE AR HAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECO RD THE VALUATION ADOPTED IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR LAND IN RESPECT OF PA RTICULAR CASE HEARD BY HONBLE ITAT AMRITSAR WHEREIN THE VALUATION AT RS. 5,000/- PER MARLA HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. IN VIEW OF THESE INDISPUTABLE FAC TS, THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS. 2923/- PER MARLA AS ON 01.04.1981 IS REASONABLE AND THEREFORE ACCEPTABLE. THE COMPUTATI ON OF CAPITAL GAIN IN VIEW OF ABOVE COMES TO NIL. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10. THERE IS NO REBUTTAL TO THESE WELL REASONED FI NDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID A SUM OF RS.3,17,60,750/- TO 11 (ELEVEN) PERSONS FOR EVICTING THEM FROM THE IMPU GNED PIECE OF LAND BEFORE THE SALE OF LAND COULD BE FINALIZED. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TRIED TO MAKE MUCH OUT OF THE FACT THAT THIS LAND WAS KHUD KHASHT , OR SELF CULTIVATED LAND OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, THAT BEING S O, THERE COULD HAVE BEEN NO QUESTION OF PAYMENT FOR EVICTION OF ANY PERSON FROM THE LAND. HOWEVER, THE MATTER HAS COME CLEAR ON REMAND TO THE A.O. BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LAND WAS NO DOUBT SELF-CULTIVATED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, TH IS CULTIVATION WAS THROUGH CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS, TO WHOM THE LAND WAS LEASED OUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CULTIVATION. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ISSUE OF SALE OF THE LAND AROSE, THESE PERSONS REFUSED TO BUDGE AND IT WAS, ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE PAYMENT HAD TO BE MADE TO 20 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 THEM. THIS POSITION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE R EMAND REPORT. IN THIS REGARD, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT WERE NOT ATTRACTED, SINCE THE LAND WAS NOT USED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. HERE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COR RECTLY OBSERVED THAT THE REQUIREMENT UNDER THE LAW IS THAT OF THE USAGE OF T HE LAND, AS TO WHETHER IT IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES OR NOT. THE REFERENC E, OBVIOUSLY, IS TO THE LAND PER SE AND NOT TO THE OWNER THEREOF. 12. REGARDING THE OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE REG ISTRATION QUA THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND HAVING BEEN EFFECTED BEFORE TH E DATE OF SALE, IT REMAINS UNDISPUTED THAT, AS PER THE REMAND REPORT, THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE OUT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SAL E OF LAND. SUCH PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE DIRECTLY BY THE PERSONS WHO PURCHA SED THE LAND FROM THE ASSESSEE, TO THE PERSON WHO SOLD IT TO THE ASSESSE E. THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO.359 DATED 10.05.1983, THOUGH APPLICABLE TO SECTION 54E , AS CORRECTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS APPLICABLE EQUALLY TO SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. 13. CONCERNING THESE ISSUES, SANJEEV LAL VS. CIT (SUPRA), UNDENIABLY IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE. THEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT IN N ORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BY EXECUTING AB AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY, A RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSFREE/VEN DEE AND ON SUCH RIGHT, VENDOR IS RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE IMMOVABLE PRO PERTY, THE VENDEE HAVING A RIGHT TO ENFORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEM ENT OTHERWISE. 21 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 15. APROPOS CAPITAL GAIN, ON THE BASIS OF FAIR MAR KET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 14.1981, SUCH VALUE WAS ADOPTED AT RS.2923/- P ER MARLA. THIS WAS BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE LOCAL REVENUE AUTHORITY, WHICH REMAINED UNDISPUTED. BESIDES, THE VALUATION ADOPTED REGARDING SIMILAR LA ND WAS ALSO RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN, THE VALUATION OF RS.5000/- PER M ARLA HAD BEEN CONSIDERED. 16. IN THESE FACTS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS WELL JUSTIF IED IN ACCEPTING THE RATE OF RS.2923/- PER MARLA AS ON 01.04.1981 CONCERNING TH E ASSESSEES LAND. IT WAS DUE TO THESE FACTS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION AND, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, CORRECTLY SO, THAT THE COMPUTA TION OF CAPITAL GAIN CAME TO NIL. MOREOVER, THE ISSUE STANDS DIRECTLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF BROTHER AND SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE, FOR A.Y. 2009-2010, I.E., THE SAME ASSESS MENT YEAR, AS THE ONE UNDER CONSIDERATION HEREIN. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS PASSED BY ONE OF US, I.E. THE LD. A.M., ON 11.03.2016, IN ITA NOS. 26 & 28(AS R)/2015. 17. THEREFORE, FINDING NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO ANY ISSUE RAISED, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS CONFIRMED I N ITS ENTIRETY, REJECTING THE GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT, AS SHORN OF MERIT. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/0 6/2016. SD/- SD/- 22 ITA NO..27(ASR)2015 A.Y. 2009-10 (T. S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/06/2016. /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE:SH. DALBIR SINGH S/O S. DHANNA SINGH, VPO SARMASTPUR, TEH. KARTARPUR, DISTT. JALANDHAR. (2) THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JALANDHAR. (3) THE CIT(A), JLR (4) THE CIT, JLR (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER