Shri Asit Rameshchandra Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Jt. CIT, Range-2, Ahmedabad

ITA 2804/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8599 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Retrospective amendment; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Valuation report; Competent authority; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 143(3); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE, SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2804/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) SHRI ASIT RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH 2396/, MAKERIWAD, NR. H. P. PETROL PUP, NR. ZAKARIA MASJID, RLIEF ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380001 APPELLAN T VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT & ITA NO. 3190/AHD/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) DCIT, CIR.1(2), AHMEDABAD APPELLANT VS. SHRI ASIT RAMESHCHANDRA SHAH 2396/, MAKERIWAD, NR. H. P. PETROL PUP, NR. ZAKARIA MASJID, RLIEF ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380001 RES PONDENT PAN: ADIPS1552N /BY ASSESSEE : SHRI S. N. DIVATIA, A.R. /BY REVENUE : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR. D.R. ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 2 - /DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.09.2017 ORDER PER S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEE AND REVENUE HAVE INITIATED THEIR INST ANT CROSS APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AGAINST THE CIT(A)-XX, AHME DABADS ORDER DATED 30.09.2014, IN CASE NO. CIT(A)-VI/JCIT-R-2/242/13-1 4, INTER ALIA CONFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION MAKING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ADDITION OF RS.65,50,266/- AFTER REDUCING COST OF ACQUISITION O F THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL ASSET SOLD AS ON 01.04.1981 FROM RS.25,78,300/- @ R S.700/- PER SQ.YD. TO RS.7,35,750/- ONLY @ RS.250/- PER SQ.YD AS WELL AS IN DELETING SECTION 54 EC DEDUCTION DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50LACS; RESPECTIVELY, IN PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT T HE ACT. 2. WE COME TO ASSESSEES APPEAL FIRST SEEKING TO DE LETE THE ABOVE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ADDITION OF RS.65,50,266/-. WE NOTICE AT THE OUTSET THAT THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS UNDER CHALLENGE COMPRISE OF A VER Y DETAILED DISCUSSION, ASSESSEES EXPLANATION AND ASSESSING OFFICERS CONC LUSION AS FOLLOWS: 4.1. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE APPELLANT FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS UNDER:- 3.0 FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 7,35,750/- INSTEAD OF RS.25,78,300/-. 3.7 THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE REJECTING FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 SHOWN AT RS.25,78,300/- BY THE APPELL ANT AS PER REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT DATED 30.10.2010 AND TAKING AT RS.7, 35,750/-, IT IS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.3 TO 4.5 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS OBS ERVED BY AO THAT IN VIEW OF THE LOCATION OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SOLD BY T HE APPELLANT VIS-A-VIS THE COMPARABLE INSTANCE GIVEN BY THE VALUER, THE FMV WA S ESTIMATED AT ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 3 - RS.250/- PER SQ. YARD AS ON 01.04.1981. ACCORDINGLY , THE COST OF ACQUISITION FOR SHARE OF THE APPELLANT WORKED AT RS.3,67,875/ - AND INDEXED COST AT RS.26,15,591/- INSTEAD OF RS.91,65,957/- WHICH RESU LTED INTO ADDITION OF RS.65,50,266/-. 3.2 THE APPELLANT BEGS TO SUBMIT THAT THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW AS U NDER : (A) FIRSTLY, THE AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT I N ORDER TO ASCERTAIN A FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE P URPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN, THE AO HAS TO REFER THE SAME TO VA LUATION OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A. THE SAID SECTION CONTEMPLATE TWIN SITUATIONS IN WHICH SUCH A REFEREN CE COULD BE MADE BY AO I.E. (I) WHERE THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VA LUE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE THAN THE ESTIMAT E MADE BY A REGISTERED VALUER (II) IN ANY OTHER CASE, IF HE IS OF THE OPIN ION THAT THE FMV EXCEEDS THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE BY MORE THAN 15% OR HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET ETC. IN SHORT, THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 55A ENABLES AO TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WITH R EGARD TO ASCERTAINING FMV OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IN CASE HE DIFFERS FROM TH E VALUATION MADE BY THE REGD. VALUER AND THE SAME RULES OUT HIS POWER TO ES TIMATE SUCH VALUE ON HIS OWN FOR THE REASON THAT THE AO IS NOT AN EXPERT IN THE MATTER OF VALUATION. THIS SECTION PROVIDES EXPERT ASSISTANCE TO THE AO W HO IS OTHERWISE NOT IN A POSITION TO COUNTER OR DISLODGE A CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT IS BACKED BY THE REPORT OF A REGD. VALUER. (B) SECONDLY, EVEN IF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A WERE TO BE INVOKED BY AO, THE REFERENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN ILLEGAL. THIS PROVISION HAS COME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BY VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING THE J URISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND TRIBUNAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSES SEE HAS TAKEN FMV AS ON 01.04.1981 ON THE BASIS OF REGD. VALUERS REPORT, THE VALUATION AS ESTIMATED BY THE DVO AT A LOWER VALUE CANNOT BE SU BSTITUTED. REFER TO : (1) HIRABEN JAYANTILALSHAH (310ITR 31)(GUJ) (2) GAURANGINIBEN SHODHAN (T.A. 149 OF 2013) DT. 21.01.2014. (GUJ) (C) THIRDLY , EVEN ON MERITS OF THE CASE, THE VALUATION MADE BY AO HIMSELF WAS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : (I) IT IS CONTENDED BY AO THAT THE PLOT BEARING P.P .NO. 840 WAS SITUATED AT ASHRAM ROAD WHICH IS 30.50 METERS WIDE ROAD (AS AGAINST 30 FEET WIDTH STATED BY THE VALUER) WHEREAS THE APPELL ANT'S PLOT WAS ABOUT 2 KM. INSIDE MAIN ASHRAM ROAD SO THAT IT CANNOT HAVE HIGHER COMMERCIAL VALUE. THE APPELLANT CONTENTS THAT THE PUC WAS SITU ATED IN WELL DEVELOPED AREA ABUTTING TO ASHRAM ROAD AND NEAR PALDI JUNCTIO N AS STATED BY REGD. VALUER. SINCE, THE ASHRAM ROAD EXTENDS FROM KOCHRAB ASHRAM, PALDI JUNCTION TO VADAJ CROSS ROADS AND AS NOTICED FROM T HE CERTIFIED MAP ANNEXED BY AO, ITS DISTANCE CANNOT BE 2 KMS. AS STA TED BY AO. (II) THE NEXT CONTENTION OF AO THAT HAVING REGAR D TO THE VALUE RS.484.10 P. PER SQUARE YARD OF PLOT BEARING P.P. NO.840, T HE VALUE OF PUC COULD BE ESTIMATED AT RS.250 PER SQ. YARD SHOULD BE REJECTED BECAUSE IT IS MERE A ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 4 - PRESUMPTION AND SURMISE. THE PERUSAL OF THE SIZE OF THE PLOT RELATING TO P.P. NO. 840 AS GIVEN IN VALURE'S REPORT SHOWS THAT IT A DMEAUSERED ABOUT 2418 SQ. MT AND SOLD DURING THE PERIOD OF ULC ACT WHEREA S THE PUC WAS NOT COVERED UNDER ULC ACT AS PER THE ORDER DATED 30.11, 1982 OF DY. COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, ULC, ABAD. THERE FORE, THE PUC WOULD NATURALLY FETCH HIGHER VALUE THAN P.P. NO.840. IT M AY BE NOTED AS OBSERVED BY VALUER IN HIS CLARIFICATION DATED . 20.05,2014 T HAT EVEN IN RESPECT OF PLOTS NEARBY ASHRAM ROAD, THE FMV WAS TAKEN AT RS.1 200 PER SQ. YARD (COPY ENCLOSED). THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THIS E XPLANATION SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS FRESH EVIDENCE BECAUSE THE REGD. VALUER WAS EXAMINED BY AO ON 06.02.2014 WHEREIN HE HAD EXPLAINED THE BASIS OF VA LUATION MADE BY HIM. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE VALUATION OF LAND ESTIMATED BY REGD. VALUER AT RS. 700 PER SQ. YARD C ANNOT BE SAID TO BE ARBITRARY OR EXCESSIVE AS ALLEGED BY AO SO THAT THE SAME SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND THE FMV WORKED OUT BY AO SHOULD BE RES ORTED. DECISION : 4.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AN D SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.65,5 0,266/- FOR THE REASON THAT THE COST OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS TAKEN BY THE APPELLAN T AT RS.91,65,857/- AS AGAINST THE AO'S WORKING AT RS.26,15,591/-. ON FACTS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT IN THE JOINT OWNERSHIP WITH THE 50% SHARE IN A PROPERTY NA MELY BANKERS BUNGALOW IN VILLAGE KOCHRAB, PALDI, AHMEDABAD CONTAINING LAND A REA OF 2479 SQR. MTRS. BEING KNOWN AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CONSTRUCTED AREA THE REUPON OF 293.24 OF SQR. MTR. WAS SOLD. THIS PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED FROM ANCESTORS . DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH SMT. SWATIBE N S. SHAH SOLD THE JOINT PROPERTY FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 1,11,50,000/ -. SO THE APPELLANT'S SHARE OF 50% THEREIN WORKED OUT AT RS.5,55,75,000/-. AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.91,65,8 57/- AND THE COST OF TRANSFER AT RS.2,50,000/-. THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE P ROPERTY WAS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AS ON 1.4.1981 WHICH WAS BASED UPON THE V ALUATION REPORT OF THE REGISTERED VALUER SHRI INDUPRASAD C. PATEL DTD. 30. 10.2010. SO AS PER VALUATION REPORT DTD. 30.10.2010 THE VALUER DETERMINED THE MA RKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.25,78,300 AS ON 1.4.1981 ON THE BASIS OF A SALE INSTANCE OF AN ANOTHER PROPERTY AT FINAL PLOT NO.840 WITH AREA OF 2418 SQR.MTRS SOL D ON 1.10.1981 FOR A SUM OF RS.14,00,000/-. THE VALUER COMPUTED THE RATE OF THE PROPERTY OF FINAL PLOT NO.840 AT RS.484.10 PER SQR. YD. WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERV ATIONS IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE APPELLANT. 'CONSIDERING THE SITUATION AND LOCALITY OF THE PROP ERTY, DEVELOPMENT OF SURROUNDING AREA SHAPE AND SIZE OF THE PLOT AND PRE VAILING MARKET RATE OF LAND IN VICINITY ABUTTING ON T.P. ROAD ON 2 SIDES A ND SALE DATA AVAILABLE I EVALUATE THE LAND VALUE AT RS.7007- PER SQR. YD. THUS THE VALUER HAS TAKEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION @ RS.700/- PER SQR. YD. FOR THE APPELLANT'S PROPERTY WHICH WAS HIGHER AS AGAINST TH E SALE INSTANCE OF FINAL PLOT AT RS.484.10 PER SQR. YD. FURTHER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO MADE THE NECESSARY INQUIRIES FROM THE MUNICIPA L CORPORATION, REGISTERED VALUER AND FROM THE APPELLANT AND IT IS FOUND THAT THE PLOT NO.850/1 OF THE ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 5 - APPELLANT WAS SITUATED INSIDE 2 KMS. AWAY FROM TH E ASHRAM ROAD AT 40 FT. WIDE ROAD WHILE THE SALE INSTANCE PROPERTY AS TAKEN BY T HE VALUER WAS SITUATED ON THE MAIN ROAD OF THE ASHRAM ROAD ON 30.50 MTRS WIDE RO AD. SO THE SALE INSTANCE PROPERTY WAS ON A FAR FAR BETTER LOCATION BEING SIT UATED ON MUCH WIDER ROAD ON THE MAIN ASHRAM ROAD WHILE THE PROPERTY OF THE APPELLAN T WAS SITUATED FIRSTLY ON THE LESS WIDER ROAD AND THAT TOO ON THE 2 KMS. AWAY FRO M THE MAIN ASHRAM ROAD. THEREFORE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE APPELLANT 'S PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MUCH LESS THAN THE SALE RATE OF 484.10 PER SQR. YD. OF THE FINAL PLOT NO. 840 TAKEN AS A SALE INSTANCE BY THE VALUER. THE DETAILED DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE INQUIRIES AND THE OUTCOME OF SUCH INQUIRIES ARE DIS CUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE A.O. A COPY OF THE T.P. SCHEME NO. OBTAINED FROM THE AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION HAS BEEN MADE PART OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER ALSO FROM WHICH IT IS VERY MUCH APPARENT THAT THE LOCATIONS O F THE SALE INSTANCE PROPERTY WAS WELL LOCATED AND ITS VALUE MIGHT HAVE BEEN MUCH HIG HER THAN THE APPELLANT'S PROPERTY VALUE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTORS THE AO HA S TAKEN THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.250/-PER SQR. YD. FOR THE APPELLANT'S PROPERT Y AND ACCORDINGLY THE TOTAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.7,35,750/- AS ON 1.4.1981 (2943 SQR. YD. X RS.250/-). SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD THE 50% OWNERSHI P IN THE PROPERTY SO THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.3,67,875 AND AFTER INDEXATION THE INDEXED COST WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.26 ,15,591/- AS AGAINST THE APPELLANT'S WORKING AT RS.91,65,857/-. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THE SAME GROUNDS AS WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS. FIRSTLY HE HAS OBJECTED TO THE ESTIMATION OF THE COST OF ACQUISITI ON AS ON 1.4.1981 ADOPTED BY THE A.O. @RS.250/- PER SQR. YD. FOR THE REASON THAT THE AO DID NOT HAVE SUCH EXPERTISE TO VALUE THE PROPERTY MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 55A EXISTS IN THE ACT. THE SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN EXA MINED AND FOUND THAT THE REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A ARE NOT MANDATORY IN NATURE WHICH IS APPARENT FORM THE WORD 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFI CER'. SO HERE MAY REFER WORD HAS BEEN USED NOT 'SHALL REFER', THUS IT WAS NOT TH E MANDATORY REQUIREMENT TO REFER SUCH MATTERS TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINA TION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. SECONDLY THE REFERENCE U/S.55A COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THAT CONDITION WHEN THE AO IS OF THE OPINION THAT VALUE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT WAS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE THEN THE ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTE RED VALUER. HERE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER ( OF THE APPELLANT) WAS NOT LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. BUT IT WAS EXCESSIVE TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT APPLY FOR MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE REGISTERED VALU ER. SO IN FACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 55A ARE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF THE ESTIMA TION TO DETERMINE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF A PROPERTY WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATIO N OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND NOT FOR ESTIMATION OF THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPELLANT'S CO NTENTION IS FOUND NOT ACCEPTABLE. EVEN THE APPELLANT HIMSELF IS CONTRADIC TING HIS OWN STAND OF REQUIREMENT OF THE REFERENCE BY THE A.O. TO THE VAL UATION OFFICER U/S.55A BY SAYING THAT THE REFERENCE IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO WOULD H AVE BEEN ILLEGAL IN VIEW OF ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 6 - CERTAIN JUDGMENTS QUOTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. BY SAYING THIS THE APPELLANT'S THOUGHT THAT WHATEVER RATE HE HAS ADOPTED AS A COST OF ACQUISITION I.E. R5.700/-/PER SQR. YD. AS ON 1.4.1981 BECAME THE FINAL AND NEITHE R THE AO WOULD ESTIMATE AT HIS OWN CONSIDERING THE COMPARABLE INSTANCES, NOR THE R EGISTERED VALUER COULD HAVE DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981 U/S .55A OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND NEVER INT ENDED SO. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS SIMPLY CONTENDED THAT THE PLOT IN P.P. NO.840 W AS SOLD DURING THE PERIOD OF ULC ACT WHEREAS THE PUC WAS NOT COVERED UNDER ULC A CT AND THEREFORE THE PUC WOULD NATURALLY FETCH HIGHER VALUE THAN THE FP. NO. 840. THIS CONTENTION HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT FIRST TIME AND WITHOUT ANY B ASE AND WORKING. IN THE INCOME- TAX ACT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS TO BE DETERMINED AS ON 1.4.1981 AND ACCORDINGLY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS TAKEN A COMPARABLE INSTAN CE OF THE SALE PROPERTY ON 01.10.1981. SO THE SALE INSTANCE WAS COMPARABLE AND THE SALE RATE NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDING TO THE LOCATIONS AND THE SIZE OF THE ROAD ITSELF WHICH THE AO DID IN THE ASSESSMENT CORRECTLY. SO THERE WAS NOTHING W RONG IN THE STAND OF THE A.O. FOR ESTIMATING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS.250/- PER SQ.FT. AS IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE SALE INSTANCE QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS M ADE ATTEMPTS TO REDUCE ITS CAPITAL GAIN INCOME BY INFLATING ITS COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 1.4.1981 AND IT WAS NOTHING BUT AN ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE TAX LIABILITY ARISED THEREUPON. THUS CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION THE AO'S ACTION FOR MAKING THE ADDITION FOR THE DISALLO WANCE OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS FOUND CORRECT AND JUSTIFIED AND THEREFORE THE SA ME IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPELLANT'S GROUND IS DISMISSED. 3. THE ASSESSEES FIRST PLEA BEFORE US IS THAT SECT ION 55A(A) AS APPLICABLE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE ITS AMENDMEN T BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01.07.2012 NOWHERE ENVISAGES THE ASSESS ING OFFICERS INTERFERENCE WITH A REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT IN C ASE FAIR MARKET VALUE ESTIMATED THEREIN OF THE CAPITAL ASSET SOLD IS ALRE ADY MORE THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE QUOTED AT ASSESSING OFFICERS BEHEST. LEARNE D COUNSEL REFERS TO THE ABOVE AMENDMENT PROVISION CONTAINING CRUCIAL EXPRES SION LESS THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BEFORE BEING SUBSTITUTED BY AT VARI ANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE W.E.F. 01.07.2012. THE ASSESSEE THEN STATES THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE THEREFORE ERRED IN REDUCING HIS FA IR MARKET VALUE FROM RS.700/- PER SQ.YD. TO RS.250/- ONLY RESULTING IN T HE IMPUGNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ADDITION BEING MADE IN HIS HANDS. ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 7 - 4. THE ASSESSEE NEXT PLEA IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DISTURBED HIS REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT WITHOUT MA KING SECTION 55A REFERENCE TO THE DVO. CASE LAW (2014) 367 ITR 238 (GUJ) CIT VS. GAURANGINIBEN S. SHODHAN INDIVIDUAL IS ALSO REFERRED TO BUTTRESS THE ABOVE LEGAL ARGUMENTS. 5. MR. DIVATIA THEREAFTER REFERS TO ASSESSEES ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE APPLICATION DATED 16.11.2016 SEEKING TO HIGHLIGHT L OCATION OF TWO PROPERTIES BY WAY OF VARIOUS DIAGRAMS IN COLOURED VERSION AND THE FACT THAT THE SAMPLE PROPERTY PLOT NO.840 CAME UNDER THE URBAN CEILING L AW WHEREAS THERE WAS NO SUCH RESTRICTION IN THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL ASSET S OLD. HE TAKES US TO PAPER BOOK PAGES 469, 470 TO 472 IN PAPER BOOK. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALSO APPEARS TO HAVE ATTACHED RELEVANT SKETCH OF THE TOW N PLANNING SCHEME, ELLIS BRIDGE INDICATING ASSESSEES CAPITAL ASSET, THE ABO VE SAMPLE PROPERTY. MR. DIVATIAS CASE IS THAT ALL THIS MATERIAL SUFFICIENT LY INDICATES THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN DISTURBING ASSESSEES VAL UATION REPORT IN QUESTION. 6. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND DRAWS STRONG SUPPORT FROM BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ACTION UND ER CHALLENGE ARRIVING AT THE IMPUGNED FAIR MARKET VALUE. HE TAKES US TO THE REL EVANT ANNEXURE ATTACHED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INDICATING INTER ALIA THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION TO BE SITUATED ON ROAD HAVING WIDTH OF 40FT. ONLY AS AGAI NST THE SAMPLE PROPERTY 840 SITUATED ON MAIN ASHRAM ROAD HAVING WIDTH OF 30 MTRS. HIS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEES REGISTERED VALUER STATED THIS ASHRAM ROADS WIDTH TO BE 30FT. ONLY. HE THEN ONCE AGAIN ASKS US TO STAY BACK ON T HE ABOVE TOWN PLANNING SCHEME ANNEXURE INDICATING ASSESSEES CAPITAL ASSET TO BE ADJOINING A CREMATION GROUND HAVING VERY SERIOUS DEPRECIATING E FFECT IN VALUATION. HE THEN SUBMITS THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION HAD SEEN PARTITION AS WELL. HE ACCORDINGLY SEEKS TO CONFIRM BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES ACTION REJECTING ASSESSEES VALUERS REPORT. ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 8 - 7. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THEREAFTER C OMES TO ASSESSEES TWIN LEGAL ARGUMENTS (SUPRA). HE PLEADS THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY REJECTED HIS VALUATION SINCE THE CASE FELL UNDER SECTION 55A(B) OF THE ACT THEN CLAUSE (A) THEREIN. AND THAT THERE IS NO EMBARGO UPON AN ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUCH A CASE TO COMPULSORILY MAKE A REFER ENCE TO THE DVO. WE INVITED HIS ATTENTION TO ASSESSEES ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE (SUPRA). HIS CASE IS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY TREATE D PLOT NO.840 IN THE SAME SCHEME TO BE THE BENCHMARK IN DECIDING FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION AS ON 01.04.1981. HE THEREFORE SEEKS T O REJECT ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS AS WELL. 8. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. RELEVANT FINDINGS PERUSED. THERE IS HARDLY ANY DIS PUTE ABOUT THE ASSESSEE HAVING JOINTLY SOLD THE IMPUGNED CAPITAL ASSET FP N O. 850/1 MEASURING 2493SQ.MTRS. TPS 3/6, BANKERS BUNGALOW, NEAR GANDH IKUNJ SOCIETY, OPPOSITE KARVE COLLEGE, NUTAN SARVODAYA SOCIETY, PR ITAMNAGAR, KOCHRAB, PALDI, AHMEDABAD IN THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. HI S REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT IN PAGES 3 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK STATES AT PAGE 10 THAT HE HAD HIMSELF CONSIDERED PLOT NO.840 HAVING AREA MEASURING 248SQ. MTR. @RS.484.10 PER SQ.MTR. FOR ARRIVING AT THE IMPUGNED VALUATION AS O N 01.04.1981 TO BE @RS.700/- PER SQ.MTR. SITE PLAN AVAILABLE IN THE C ASE FILE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEES PLOT IS SITUATED AT A DISTANCE FROM THE MAIN ASHRAM ROAD WHEREAS PLOT NO. 840(SUPRA) IS ON THE MAIN ROAD ITSELF HAVI NG 30.5MTRS. WIDTH. BOTH THESE PLOTS ARE IN THE SAME TOWN PLANNING SCHEME. THEIR SIZE (SUPRA) IS ALSO BETWEEN 2000 TO 3000 SQ.MTRS. IT HAS COME ON RECOR D THAT THE LATTER PLOT WAS SOLD ON 01.10.1981 THOUGH A REGISTERED SALE DEED FO R RS.484.10/- PER SQ.MTR. DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT WAS SITUATED ON THE MAIN R OAD WHEREAS ASSESSEES CAPITAL ASSET FALLS MUCH INTERIOR THAN THE SAID RO AD. WE THEREFORE SEE NO REASON OR JUSTIFICATION ON ASSESSEES PART IN SEEKI NG TO ENHANCE FAIR MARKET ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 9 - VALUE OF HIS PLOTS SOLD TO RS.700/- DESPITE THE FAC T THAT THE SAME LOCATION SUFFERS FROM VARIOUS DEPRECIATING FACTORS AS WELL A S ITS DISTANCE FROM MAIN ROAD SEEMING TO BE AT LEAST BETWEEN 500 TO 1KMTR. THESE CRUCIAL FACTS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEES PLOT DID NOT ENJOY MUCH C OMMERCIAL VALUE SINCE SANDWICHED BETWEEN SABARMATI RIVER ON THE ONE HAND AND ASHRAM ROAD ON THE OTHER. THERE IS FURTHER NO MATERIAL THAT THE S AID PLOTS VALUE IN ANYWAY SUFFERED BECAUSE OF URBAN LAND CEILING LAW OR ITS E FFECT THEREUPON. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN TRAVELLI NG FURTHER TO ADOPT VALUATION OF NATRAJ OR G. S. SHODHAN SITUATED AT MUCH FAR D ISTANCE IN A DIFFERENT LOCALITY & SCHEME THAN THE ABOVE SAMPLE PLOT. THE ASSESSEES ASSERTIONS IN THIS REGARD BASED ON COLOURED MATERIAL AND OTHER DO CUMENTS ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 9. THE NEXT QUESTION THAT ARISES ON MERITS FOR OUR APT ADJUDICATION IS AS TO WHETHER BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE CORRECTLY V ALUED ASSESSEES PLOT @RS.250/- ONLY THAN THE ABOVE SAMPLE PROPERTY SOLD ON 01.10.1981 @RS.484.10/- PER SQ.MTR. WE RELY ON OUR ABOVE DISC USSION TO OBSERVE THAT BOTH THESE PLOTS ADMITTEDLY FORM PART OF THE SAME S CHEME WHEREIN ONE OF THEM IS SITUATED ON MAIN ASHRAM ROAD AND THE OTHER ONE FALLS IN RESIDENTIAL AREA AS ON 01.04.1981. THE FORMER PROPERTY THEREFO RE CAN BE HELD TO BE HAVING COMMERCIAL POTENTIAL WHEREAS ASSESSEES PLOT IS IN PURELY RESIDENTIAL AREA HAVING ITS ON VALUE. WE THEREFORE CONSIDER IT AS AN APPROPRIATE INSTANCE TO OBSERVE THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEES VALUATION @ RS.700/- CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN TOTO SO ARE BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FINDINGS DRASTICALLY REDUCING THE ABOVE VALUATION TO RS.250/- ONLY WITHO UT ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE. ALL THIS MAKES US TO OBSERVE THAT APPLICATION OF TH UMB RULE IN SUCH A CASE WOULD MEET LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE. WE THEREFORE TAKE AVERAGE OF SALE PRICE OF RS.484.10/- PER SQ.MTR. AND THE PRICE IN QUESTION TAKEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES @RS.250/- ; COMING TO RS.367.05 PER SQ.MTR. AS THE APPROPRIATE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSESSEES PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981. WE MAKE IT ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 10 - CLEAR THAT OUR INSTANT ADJUDICATION IS BASED ON THE ABOVE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ACCORDINGLY FINALIZE CONSEQUENTIAL COMPUTATIO N. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE PARTLY SUCCEEDS ON MERITS. 10. WE NOW ADVERT TO ASSESSEES TWIN LEGAL ARGUMENT S. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN EITHER OF THEM. THE ASSESSEES FIRST PLEA IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED IN REGISTERED VALUERS RE PORT U/S.55A(A) OF THE ACT SINCE THE AMENDMENT IN QUESTION AUTHORIZING HIM TO PROCEED ON SUCH BASIS W.E.F. 01.07.2012 DOES NOT APPLY WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. WE HOWEVER NOTICE THAT CLAUSE(B) SUFFICIENTLY ANSWERS ASSESSEE S FORMER LEGAL PLEA BEING INCLUSIVE IN NATURE SINCE HAVING CRUCIAL EXPRESSION IN ANY OTHER CASE. SAME IS THE OUTCOME OF ASSESSEES LATTER LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT IT WAS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE DVO IN VIEW OF OUR SUFFICIENT DISCUSSION ON MERITS SUPPORTING BOTH THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES ACTION ON MERITS SINCE THE ABOVE REGISTERED VALUERS REPORT DID SUFF ER FROM APPARENT IRREGULARITIES. THE ASSESSEES TWO LEGAL CONTENTIO NS ARE THEREFORE REJECTED. IT CASE LAW (SUPRA) IS NOT FOUND TO BE APPLICABLE IN F ACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE AS THEIR LORDSHIPS DEALT WITH AN INSTANCE OF APPLICATI ON OF SECTION 55A(A). WE THEREFORE DECLINE ASSESSEES LEGAL ARGUMENTS. ITS MAIN CASE ITA NO.2804/AHD/2014 PARTLY SUCCEEDS ON MERITS. 11. WE NOW PROCEED TO DEAL WITH REVENUES APPEAL IT A NO.3190/AHD/2014 RAISING SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN SEEKING TO REVIVE SECTION 54EC DEDUCTION DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50LACS. WE NOTICE HEREIN AS WELL THAT THE CIT(A)S FINDING UNDER CHALLENGE DULY TAKE NOTE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS AS UNDER: 5.1. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 11 - 5. DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC 5.1 IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE CLAI MED DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC OF THE ACT AT RS. 1.00 CRORE. AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 54EC, DEDUCTION WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 50.00 LAKHS BY INSE RTING A PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC BY FINANCE ACT, 2007. 5.2 A BARE READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT INVESTMENT IN LONG TERM SPECIFIED ASSETS HAS BEEN R ESTRICTED TO RS. 50,00,000/- BY INSERTING OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SE CTION 54EC. THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN SUCH ASSETS AT RS. 1 CRORE AND C LAIMED EXEMPTION. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE VIDE THIS OFFICER NOTICE DAT RED 23/09/2013 WAS REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN. 5.4 THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CONSI DERED CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE TWO INVE STMENTS OF RS. 50 LAKHS WACH MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS IN EACH FINANCIAL YEAR WERE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED U PON THE ORDERS OF AHMEDABAD ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASPI GINWALA VS. ASST. COM. OF INCOME-TAX IN IT A NO. 322/AHD/2011 DATED 30/03/201 2 AND ITAT CHENNAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF COROMANDEL INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VS. ASST. COM. OF INCOME-TAX (2013) 36 TAXMANN.COM. 6. 5.6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDIN GS OF JAIPUR BENCH OF HON'BLE ITAT, INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE 20/04 /2011 IN NHAI CAPITAL BONDS ARE NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54EC. THEREFORE DEDUCTION IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 50,00, 000/-. THIS W OULD MEAN AN ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEES INCOME. 5.2. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION DTD. 08.09.2014 ASUNDER:- 4.0 INVESTMENT U/S.54EC 4.1 THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE DENIAL OF EXEMPTION U/S.54EC TO THE EXTENT OF RS.50 LACS BY AO. IT IS D ISCUSSED AT PARA 5.4 OF THE ORDER. IT IS STATED BY AO THAT TWO INVESTMENTS OF R S. 50 LACS EACH MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF A CA PITAL ASSET BUT OVER TWO FINANCIAL YEARS, THE EXEMPTION OF RS.1 CR. AS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE. THE AO HAS SOUGHT TO DISTINGUISH THE CA SE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. 4.2.1 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IN VIEW OF THE DEC ISION OF JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ASPI GINWALA VS. ACIT (20 TAXMA N.COM 75) (AND), THE SAME WAS BINDING UPON AO AND THE EXEMPTION TO THE E XTENT OF FURTHER RS.50 LACS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN DENIED. THE DISTINCTION BROUGHT OUT BY AO IS NOT CORRECT IN AS MUCH AS, THIS CONTENTION HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY FOLL OWED BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL TROUGH OUT INDIA. RECENTLY, IT AT, PANJ IM BENCH HAS ALSO HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN CASE OF ITO V. MS RANI A FALEIRO (142 ITD 21) ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 12 - WHEREIN THE LEGAL ASPECTS HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH IN D ETAIL AND A SEPARATE REASONING HAS BEEN GIVEN. 4.2.2 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL WAS AVAILABLE, THE AO OUGHT NOT TO HAVE FO LLOWED THE DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH WHICH WAS NOT BINDING UPON HIM. 4.2.3 THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE CEILIN G ON INVESTMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXEMPTION U/S. 54EC WAS INTRODUCED IN VI EW OF THE NON AVAILABILITY OF PRESCRIBED BONDS TO THE GENERAL PUB LIC ON ACCOUNT OF HEAVY INVESTMENT MADE BY CORPORATE AND OTHER ENTITIES. TH IS SECTION PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE INVESTMENT NOT EXCEEDING RS.50 LAC S IN EACH FINANCIAL YEAR AND IT WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE CAPITAL ASSE T SOLD. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE MAY HAVE SOLD DIFFERENT CAPITAL ASSETS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR BUT THE CEILING OF RS.50 LACS WOULD NOT OPERATE QUA THE CAPITAL ASSETS. TO ILLUSTRATE, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS EXHAUSTED THAT LIMI T BY INVESTING RS.50 LACS IN FINANCIAL YEAR NO. 1 AND HE AGAIN MAKES INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LADS IN F. Y. NO. 2, THE FURTHER INVESTMENT IN THE SECOND YEAR CA NNOT BE MADE BY HIM IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS SOLD IN THAT F. Y. TH US, IN NONE OF THE YEARS, THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT EXCEED AS CONTEMPLATED BY THE LEGI SLATURE. IT WOULD BE TAKING A TWO NARROW VIEW OF THE BENEFICIAL PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 54EC WHEN IT IS INTENDED TO GRANT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FROM TAXATION OF CAPITAL GAINS. RECENTLY, HON'BLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF SANJIV LAL ( 365 ITR 389)HAS OBSERVED THAT A PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE MADE SO AS TO ALLOW THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION AND WHEREVER TWO VIEWS ARE POS SIBLE, THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS HEL D IN CASE OF VIKRANT TYRES LTD ( 274 ITR 821)(SC) AND VEGITABLES PRODUCT S LTD.(_88 ITR_92). IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE EXEMPTION U/S.54EC TO THE EXT ENT OF RS. 50 LACS AS DENIED BY AO SHOULD BE ALLOWED. DECISION: 5.5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SU BMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.54EC OF I.T. ACT OF RS.1 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARIS ED ON SALE OF ITS BUNGALOW. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY ON 28.10.2010 AND AS A TAX PLANNING IT HAS INVESTED RS.50 LAKHS IN THE BONDS O F NHAI ON 04.01.2011 AND SECOND INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR BY CHEQUE CLEARED ON 20.4.2011 AS PER THE ALLOTMENT ADVICE OF NHAI DTD. 24.05.2011. THUS THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ELIGIBLE FOR THE DEDUCTION OF RS.50 LAKHS ONLY AGAINST THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DERIVED AND ACCO RDINGLY THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED AND RELYING UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BEL IT AT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJKUR JAIN & SONS -H UF. 5.5. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS SOLD A P LOT OF LAND ON 28.10.2010 AND ON THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISED THEREUPON THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION U/S.54EC OF RS.1 CRORE FOR THE SPECIFIED INVESTMENT MADE IN BONDS OF NHAI ON 28.02.201 1 AT RS.50 LAKHS AND ANOTHER INVESTMENT O F RS.50 LAKHS ON 20.4.201 1. ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 13 - THE AO HAS GRANTED THE DEDUCTION ON THE INVESTMENT IN BONDS U/S.54EC MADE ON 28.02.2011 BUT DID NOT GRANT THE DEDUCTION FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE ON 20.4.2011 FOR THE REASON THAT THE SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT WAS B EYOND THE COMPLETION OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN WHICH TRANSFE R OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TAKEN PLACE. IN SUPPORT, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CIR.2, AJMER VS. SHRI RAJKUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) (2012) 50 SOT 21. 5.6 ON THE OTHER SIDE THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THA T THE INVESTMENT LIMIT OF RS.50LAKHS IS APPLICABLE TO A FINANCIAL YEAR ONLY A ND HE CAN MAKE ANOTHER INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AL SO BUT WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY. HE HAS MENTIONED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC (W.E.F. 1.4.2007) THAT THE INVESTME NT OF RS.50 LAKHS CAN BE MADE IN 'ANY FINANCIAL YEAR'. SO THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FIRST INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SUBSEQUENT INVESTMENT IN AN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR AND AS SUCH THE PROVISO DOES NOT DEBAR THE ASSESSEE TO CLA IM THE DEDUCTION IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR ALTHOUGH MADE WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME HE HAS RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS. 5.7. IN THE CASE OF ASPI GINWALA, SHREE RAM ENGINEE RING & MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT, CIRCLE, BARODA IN IT APPEAL NO .3226 OF 2011 VIDE ORDER DTD. 30.03.2012 THE HON'BLE ITAT BENCH-C, AHMEDABAD HAS GRANTED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 1 CRORE IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS MADE B UT WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE TRANSFER. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FINDINGS ARE AS U NDER:- 'THE DISPUTE WHICH IS TO BE DECIDED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54EC THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION OF RS.1 CRORE AS SIX MONTHS PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN ELIGIB LE INVESTMENT INVOLVES TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. IF THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS 'YES', WHETHER INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN NHAI BONDS ON 26 -5-2008 BEYOND SIX MONTHS PERIOD IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO SUBSCRIPTION FOR ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM 1.4.2008 TO 26.5.2008. IT IS CLEAR FROM PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC THAT WHERE ASSESSEE TRANSFERS HIS CAPITAL ASSET AFTER 30 TH SEPTEMBER OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR HE GETS AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.50 LAKHS EA CH IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS AND IS ABLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UP T O RS. 1 CRORE UNDER M 54EC. SINCE THE WORDING OF THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC IS CLEAR, THE BENEFITS - WHICH ARE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIE D. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, ASSESSEE IN INSTANT CASE, WAS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTIO N OF RS.1 CRORE AS SIX MONTHS' PERIOD FOR INVESTMENT IN ELIGIBLY INVESTMEN TS INVOLVED WAS TWO FINANCIAL YEARS. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE MATTER, WHE THER INVESTMENT OF RS. 50 LAKHS MADEIN NHAI BOND ON 26.5.2008 CAN BE CONSI DERED TO BE MADE WITHIN SIX MONTHS PERIOD AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECT ION 54EC, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO MAKE INVESTMENT IN SUCH BONDS B ETWEEN 1.4.2008 TO ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 14 - 21.4.2008. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT SUBSCRIPTION OF ELIGIBLE BONDS WAS. CLOSED DURING THIS PERIOD TILL 26.5.2008 AND ON THE 1 ST DAY OF THE REOPENING OF THE SUBSCRIPTION, THE ASSESSEE MADE TH IS INVESTMENT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFIC IENT CAUSE WHICH WAS BEYOND HIS CONTROL IN MAKING INVESTMENT IN THESE BO NDS WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED. FURTHER VARIOUS JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES HA VE TAKEN A VIEW THAT EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTED IN SUCH CASE WHERE THER E IS A DELAY IN MAKING INVESTMENT DUE TO NON-AVAILABILITY OF THE BONDS AND HAVE HELD THAT IT IS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE EXEMPTION SHOULD BE GRANTE D. THUS, IT IS HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE AS SESSEE ON 26.5.2008 BEYOND SIX MONTHS WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION IN VIE W OF THE FACT THAT NO SUBSCRIPTION FOR ELIGIBLE INVESTMENT WAS AVAILABLE ON THE ASSESSEE FROM 1.4.2008 TO 26.5.2008.' FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF SMT.SHRIRAM INDUBAL VS. ITO , BUSINESS WARD-VI(3), CHENNAI [2013] 32 TAXMANN.COM 118 (CHENNAI - TRIB.) SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS - NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 - WHETHER WHERE ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.1 CRORE IN CAPIT AL BONDS IN TWO EQUAL INSTALLMENTS IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEARS WITHI N SIX MONTHS PERIOD FROM DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET, ASSESSEE WA S ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UP TO RS.1 CRORE HELD, YES.' FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ITO, WD-2, MARGAS, GOAD, VS. MS. RANIA FALEIRO [2013] 33 TAXRNANN.COM 611 (PANAJI - TRIB.) SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 - CAPITAL G AINS - NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS [QUANTUM OF EXEMPTION] - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHETHER CONDITION FOR AVA ILING OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC REQUIRES THAT INVESTMENT CAN BE MADE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 6 MONTHS AND IF 6 MONTHS FALL WITHIN TWO DIFFERE NT FINANCIAL YEARS, ASSESSEE CAN MAKE INVESTMENT IN TWO DIFFERENT FINAN CIAL YEARS PROVIDED IN A FINANCIAL YEAR INVESTMENT MADE DID NOT EXCEED RS. 50 LAKHS HELD, YES - ASSESSEE SOLD A PROPERTY ON 5.2.2008 AND COMPUTED CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.1.16 CRORES - SHE HAD INVESTED IN CAPITAL GAINS BONDS A SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS ON 31.3.2008 AND A SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS ON 30.6 .2008 - IN RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, SHE CLAIMED EXE MPTION UNDER SECTION 54EC OF CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. ONE C RORE - WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 0EC FOR RS.ONE CRORE - HELD, YES.' FURTHER IN THE CASE OF COROMANDEL INDUSTRIES (P) LT D. VS. ASSISTNAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE 1(3), CHENNAI [2013] 36 TAXMANN.COM 6 (CHENNAI - TRIB.) 'SECTION 54EC OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CAPITAL GAINS - NOT TO BE CHARGED ON INVESTMENT IN CERTAIN BONDS [LIMIT OF IN VESTMENT] - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 - ASSESSE SOLD CAPITAL ASSE TS AND EARNED LONG- TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1.10 CRORES -ASSESSEE INVE STED RS.50 LAKHS EACH ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 15 - IN TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN REC BONDS WITH SIX MONTHS - CASE IF REVENUE WAS THAT ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION ONLY FOR RS.50 LAKHS AND REMAINING CLAIM OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS DENIED- TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SMT. SRIRAM INDUBAL V. IT [2013] 32 TAXMANN .COM 118 (CHENNAI) HELD THAT IF ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.50 LAKHS EACH IN SPECKIFIED ASSETS IN TWO DIFFERENT FINANCIAL YEAR BUT WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET, RESTRICTIVE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC WOULD NOT LIMIT EXEMPTION CLAIM TO RS.50 LAKHS ONLY WHETHER FOLLO WING SAME, EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE UPTO RS.1 CRORE WAS A LLOWED-HELD, YES.' RECENTLY THE HON'BLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD B BENCH HAS AL SO DECIDED THIS VERY ISSUE IN THE CASE OF SMT. JYOTIKABEN BHUPENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ACIT, CIR.10 AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO 2013/AHD/2011 DTD. 5.9.2014 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE GRANTING THE DEDUCTION U/S.54EC FOR RS.L CRORE IN T WO DIFFERENT YEARS FOR THE SAME LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE DEC ISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE U NDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,42 ,35,320/- ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON TRANSFER OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET ON 01.02.2008. THE ASSESSEE INVESTEDRS.50 LAKHS ON 29.02.2008 I.E. F.Y . 2007-08 AND RS.50 LAKHS ON 30.06.2008 I.E. FY 2008-09. THUS THE ASSES SEE INVESTED IN RS.1 CRORE IN SPECIFIED BONDS WHICH ARE ELIGIBLE FOR DED UCTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET GIVING RISE TO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS.1 CRORE U/S.54 EC OF THE ACT IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHICH WAS DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISO TO SUB-SEC TION (1) OF SECTION 54EC OF THE ACT, INSER4TED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007, W.E .F. 01.04.2007. HE FURTHER SUPPORTED HIS ACTION BY THE EXPLANATORY NOT ES ON THE PROVISONS OF FINANCE ACT, 2007 AND CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3/2008 DATE D 12.03.2008 AS WELL AS BY THE FINANCE MINISTER SPEECH AND THE NOTI FICATION NO.380/2006 DATED 22.12.2006, WHEREIN SPECIFIC REFERENCE WAS MA DE TO PARAGRAPH 28.2 OF SUCH EXPLANATORY NOTES WHICH STATED THAT THE GOV ERNMENT DECIDED TO IMPOSE A CEILING ON THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT THAT COULD BE MADE IN SUCH BONDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID SECTION HAS BEEN AMEND ED SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR A CEILING ON INVESTMENT BY AN ASSESGEE IN SUCH LONG -TERM SPECIFIED ASSETS. 12. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. BEFORE US THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL:- I) IT AT BANGALORE IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIVEK JAI RAZBHOY IN ITA NO.236/BANG/2012 II) ITAT CHENNAI IN THE CASE OF SMT. SRIRAM INDUBAL , REPORTED IN 32 TAXMANN.COM 118 ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 16 - IN) ITAT PANAJI IN THE CASE OF MS. RAINA FALEIRO, 3 3 TAXMANN.COM IV) ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRITIBEN GAU TAMBHAI ADANI, IN ITANO.808/AHD/2012 14. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF JAIPUR 'A ' BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. SHRI R AJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) (SUPRA). 15. WE FIND THAT THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 54 EC , INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2007, W.E.F. 01.04.2007, READS AS UNDE R :- 'PROVIDED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OFAPRIL1_2007 IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASSET BY AN ASSESSEE DUR ING ANY FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. ' 16. THE CBDT VIDE ITS CIRCULAR NO. 3/2008 DATED 12. 03.2008 AT PARAGRAPH 28. 2 THEREON OPINED AS UNDER: '28.2 THE QUANTUM OF INVESTIBLE BONDS ISSUED BY NHA I AND REC BEING LIMITED, IT WAS FELT NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT THE B ENEFIT WAS AVAILABLE TO ALL THE INVESTORS. FOR THIS PURPOSE, IT WAS NECESSARY T O ENSURE THAT THE LIMITED NUMBER OF BONDS AVAILABLE FOR SUBSCRIPTION IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR SMALL INVESTORS. THEREFORE, WITH A VIEW TO ENSURE EQUITAB LE DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS AMONGST PROSPECTIVE INVESTORS, THE GOVERNMENT DECID ED TO IMPOSE A CEILING ON THE QUANTUM OF INVESTMENT THAT COULD BE MADE IN SUCH BONDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID SECTION HAS BEEN AMENDED SO A S TO PROVIDE FOR A CEILING ON INVESTMENT BY AN ASSESSEE IN SUCH LONG- TERM SPECIFIED ASSETS. INVESTMENTS IN SUCH SPECIFIED ASSETS TO AVAIL EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 54EC, ON OR AFTER 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 2007 WILL NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES IN A FINANCIAL YEAR. ' 17. THUS, A READING OF THE AFORESAID PROVISO AND CI RCULAR SHOWS THAT THE PROVISO HAS BEEN INSERTED TO LIMIT THE INVESTME NT IN ELIGIBLE BONDS TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS IN A FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE S AID PROVISO DOES NOT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPTION U/S 54EC IN A FINANCI AL YEAR TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS. THE ABOVE VIEW STANDS FORTIFIED WITH T HE INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014, W.E.F. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 'PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY AN AS SES SEE IN THE LONG-TERM SPECIFIED ASST, FROM CAPITAL GAINS ARISING FROM TRA NSFER OF ONE OR MORE ORIGINAL ASSETS, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE ORIGINAL ASSET OR ASSETS ARE TRANSFERRED AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT FINANC IAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED FIFTY LAKH RUPEES. 18. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF), WHICH WAS CITE D BY THE ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 17 - DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WAS CONSIDERED BY THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIVEK JAIRAZBHOY ( SUPRA) AND THEREAFTER IT WAS HELD THAT THE PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC DOES NOT LIMIT THE AMOUNT OF EXEMPTION WHICH IS AVAILABLE AS PER PROVISION OF SE CTION 54EC. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION U/S 54EC TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF IN VESTMENTS MADE IN SPECIFIED CAPITAL BONDS OFRS. 1 CRORE WHICH WERE WI THIN THE LIMIT OF PROVISO TO SECTION 54EC I. E. RS. 50 LAKHS IN A FINANCIAL Y EAR AND WERE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54EC IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE INVESTMENT S I.E. RS.50 LAKHS ON 02.08.2008 AND RS.50 LAKHS ON 30.06.2008. THUS, THI S GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION INCLUDING THE D ECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL ITAT WHICH IS BINDING UPON THIS OFFICE ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE, THERE IS NO CASE TO MAKE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SECOND INVESTMENT MADE IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEAR BUT WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERT Y. IT IS SEEN FROM THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE ITAT R EFERRED ABOVE EXCEPT JAIPUR BENCH, THE INVESTMENT MADE U/S.54EC TO THE E XTENT OF RS.1 CRORE IN TWO FINANCIAL YEARS BUT THE LAST INVESTMENT WITHIN 6 MO NTHS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER HAS BEEN GRANTED. THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT SUPPORT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE JURISDICTIO NAL HON'BLE ITAT BENCH-C, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF ASPI JINWALA HAS GRANTED S UCH DEDUCTIONS AND THE SAME IS BINDING UPON THIS OFFICE. HENCE, THE CLAIM OF TH E APPELLANT IS ACCEPTED AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. TOWARDS DEDUCTION U/S .54EC OF THE ACT IS DELETED. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 12. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SE EKS TO REVIVE THE IMPUGNED DEDUCTION DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED HIS IMPUGNED CAPITAL GAINS IN TWO SETS OF INVESTMENTS OF RS.50LACS EACH IN AS MANY FINANCIAL YEARS; ALTHOUGH WITHIN SI X MONTHS OF THE SAME ARISING FROM SALE OF THE ABOVESTATED CAPITAL ASSET. WE HOWEVER NOTICE THAT A CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF JYOTIKABEN BHUPENDRBHA I SHAH (SUPRA) HAS ALREADY DECIDED THE VERY ISSUE IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR THEREBY ACCEPTING AN IDENTICAL CLAIM OF SECTION 54EC DEDUCTION. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAILS TO INDICATE ANY DISTINCTION TH EREIN OR ANY JUDICIAL PRECEDENT IN HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OR T HAT OF HONBLE APEX COURT. ITA NOS. 2804 & 3190/AHD/14 (SHRI ASIT R. SHAH VS. JT.CIT) A.Y. 2011-12 - 18 - WE THEREFORE AFFIRM THE CIT(A)S FINDINGS UNDER CHA LLENGE. THE REVENUES SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND AS WELL AS ITS APPEAL ITA N O.3190/AHD/2014 FAIL. 13. THE ASSESSES APPEAL ITA NO.2804/AHD/14 IS PART LY ALLOWED WHEREAS REVENUES CROSS APPEAL ITA NO.3190/AHD/2014 IS DISM ISSED. [PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 14 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2017.] SD/- SD/- ( MANISH BORAD ) ( S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 14/09/2017 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- / REVENUE 2 / ASSESSEE ! / CONCERNED CIT 4 !- / CIT (A) ( )*+ ,--. . /0 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1 +23 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / . // . /0