Dr.S.Chandra Sekhar, Rajahmundry V. THE ITO, WARD-4, Rajahmundry

ITA 350/VIZ/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0225 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CH OMKARESWAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Revision of order
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 54F; 263

Judgement Text

ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . . . . , ,, , . . . . , , , , % % % % BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . .. ./ // / I.T.A.NO.350/VIZAG/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 ) DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR RAJAHMUNDRY VS. ITO WARD-4 RAJAHMUNDRY [ PAN: BIHPS3544R ] (, , , , / APPELLANT) (-., -., -., -., / RESPONDENT ) , / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI C. SUBRAHMANYAM, AR -., / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CH. OMKARESWAR, DR / 3 / DATE OF HEARING : 15.09.2015 / 3 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.11.2015 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY DATED 15.3.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. FACTS ARE IN BRIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RE SIDENT AND FILED A RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` NIL. THE RETURN FILED BY ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 2 THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). THEREAFTER, FOL LOWING THE DUE PROCEDURE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT BY DETERMINING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF ` 1,23,13,044/-. 3. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT WHILE EXERCISING THE POW ER U/S 263 OF THE ACT, ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE DAT ED 18.2.2013 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE AND SHOW CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE WHY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE REVERSED. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A DETAILED REPL Y DATED 7.3.2013. THE LD. CIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERT Y AND AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 18.6.2007, THE SALE PRICE WAS ` 60 LAKHS. THE MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF THE REGISTRATION DATED 25.8 .2007 WAS ` 2,17,80,000/- AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE PROPERLY. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 3 4. IN SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF U/S 54F OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEI THER PURCHASED THE PROPERTY NOR CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED FROM THE SALE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THE AS SESSEE HAS ONLY CONTRIBUTED MONEY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AND THE LAND OWNED BY HIS FATHER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIG IBLE FOR THE BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE ACT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O REVISE HIS ORDER AS PER HIS OBSERVATIONS. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY FOR ` 60 LAKHS BY EXECUTING THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY (GPA) DATED 9.7.2007 AND THE MARK ET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF ` 1,59,72,000/- WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE DETAILS, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION ON 18.6.2007 THROUGH A CHEQUE AND SUBSEQUENTLY THRO UGH A GPA DT.9.7.2007 THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO THE PURCHASER AND THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY GOT REGISTERED ON 29.8.2007 AND SUBMIT TED THAT WHEN ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 4 ASSESSEE ALREADY RECEIVED THE AMOUNT AND SIGNED THE GPA AND TRANSFERRED HIS ENTIRE RIGHTS TO THE PURCHASER, THE TRANSFER WAS CONCLUDED AS PER SECTION 2(47)(V) OF THE ACT AND SUBSEQUENT D ATE OF THE REGISTRATION IS IMMATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE M ARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. S. VENKATA REDDY (2013) 57 SOT 117 (HYD) AND HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF CIT-VI HYDERABAD VS. ANAND FOOD PRODUC TS (2013) 39 TAXMANN.COM 187, SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DETAILS AND ALSO CONSIDERING TH E EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE PASSED AN ORDER, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH E ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 6. IN SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF U/S 54F OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY AND TH E SAME WAS INVESTED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE ON THE LAND BELON GING TO ASSESSEES FATHER AND ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING A 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE PARTITION DEED. HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BALRAJ VS. CIT 254 ITR 22 (DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT TO ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 5 CLAIM BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE ACT, IT IS NOT NECESSA RY THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD BECOME AN OWNER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND SIMPLY PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBSEQUENT SRO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY AND ALSO NOT APPLYING THE MIND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. TO SUPPORT HIS ARGUMENT, HE RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENTS IN THE CASE OF RAMPYARI DEVI SARAOGI VS. CIT 67 ITR 84 (SC) & 341 ITR 434 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JAWAHAR BHATTACHARJEE. THE LD. DR STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE A PROPER EN QUIRY, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT VALID FOR THE REASON THAT H E HAD PASSED ORDER WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE D ECISION IN THE CASE DUGGAL AND CO. VS. CIT 220 ITR 456. 8. SO FAR AS SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, H E HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF THE LAND ON W HICH THE SALE ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 6 CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INVESTED . THEREFORE, HE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE AC T. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RECOR DS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE A SSESSEE IS A NON- RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL FILED A RETURN OF INCOME BY DEC LARING NIL INCOME. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143( 1) OF THE ACT AND AFTER DUE PROCESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORD, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RAJA HMUNDRY ON 21.2.1985 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.6525/1985 FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 45,000/- AND ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS STAMP DUTY OF ` 2,280/- AND THE SAME PROPERTY WAS SOLD ON 9.7.2007 VIDE DOCUMENT N O.8719/2007 FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 60 LAKHS. HOWEVER, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SAME ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR WAS ` 1,59,72,000/-. HENCE, THIS MARKET VALUE AMOUNT I.E. 1,59,72,000/- IS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CALL ING THE DETAILS SUCH AS THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD TO THE PURCHASER ON 9.7.2007 THRO UGH A GPA. THE ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 7 ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO EXAMINED THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF ` 60 LAKHS AND MARKET VALUE AS ON DATE OF 9.7.2007 WAS ` 1,59,72,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY CAPITAL GAINS WAS CALCULATED. THE OBJE CTION OF THE LD. CIT IS THAT AS ON THE DATE OF THE REGISTRATION I.E. 29.8.2 007 THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS OF ` 2,17,80,000/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THIS FIGURE A ND CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE PAP ER BOOK PAGE NO.20 AND TRANSLATED COPY OF THE SAME AT PAGE 21 AND FROM THE DOCUMENT IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CHEQUE DA TED 18.6.2007 BEARING NO.357214 FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 60 LAKHS FROM THE PURCHASER AND GPA WAS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER ON 9.7.200 7 AND AS ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF GPA , THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS ` 1,59,72,000/- AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSING OFFICER CAM E TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS ` 1,59,72,000/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PURCHASER REGISTERED THE PROPERTY IN HIS NAME O N 29.8.2007, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS ` 2,17,80,000/-. IN OUR OPINION, ONCE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALE CONSIDERATION AND TRANSFERRE D THE PROPERTY TO THE PURCHASER THROUGH G.P.A., SUBSEQUENTLY FOR THE PURP OSE OF CALCULATION OF ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 8 THE CAPITAL GAINS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE DATE ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS T RANSFERRED THE PROPERTY TO THE PURCHASER I.E. 9.7.2007. ONCE PROP ERTY WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PURCHASER THROUGH GPA, IT IS OPEN TO THE PURCHASER TO REGISTER ACCORDING TO HIS CONVENIENCE. THEREFORE, THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY GOT REGISTERED IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER IS NOT A MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT ON THIS COUNT CANNOT STAND. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE DETAILS O F THE PROPERTY I.E. WHEN THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THE SUBSEQUENT SALE CONSIDERATION, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AS ON THE DATE OF THE EXECUTION OF THE GPA IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER, IN OUR OPINION, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A DETAILED ENQUIRY AND AFTER APPLICATION OF THE MIND ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ARVIND JEWELLERS 259 IT R 502 (GUJ) ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING MADE AN ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT MATERIAL ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 9 AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURS UANCE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AS WELL AS U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ACTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED MERELY BECAUSE A D IFFERENT VIEW WAS POSSIBLE APPRAISAL OF THE MATERIAL PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. VENKATA REDDY (SUPRA), THE HYDERABAD BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT AS PER SECTION 2(47)(V) OF T HE ACT WHEN THE VENDOR GIVEN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PURCHASER IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED THAT THE TRANSFER IS COMPLETE ON THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE SALE. THE TRANSFER WAS COMPLETED IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) BY GIVING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY IN TE RMS OF THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 13.6.2005 REGISTRATION WAS DELAYED ON BONAFIDE REASONS WHICH WAS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSE E AND SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 25.11.2005 WAS ONLY A LEGAL FORMALI TY. THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AN AND FOOD PRODUCTS (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ONLY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT A LL THE DETAILS BUT ALSO DISALLOWED SOME EXPENDITURE AND MADE ADDITION WHENE VER SAME WAS REQUIRED. A DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COUL D NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE SIMPLY BECAUSE IT DID N OT MAKE DETAILED DISCUSSION AND UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBU NAL. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRECEDENT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 10 ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONE OUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT SURVIVE. 10. IN SO FAR AS CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ACT IS CONCER NED, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED SITES FOR (1) ` 1,42,100/- ON 16.8.1994 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.5334/1994 (2) ` 1,81,800/- ON 12.8.1994 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.5422/1994 (3) ` 1,37,700/- ON 17.8.1994 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.5441/1994 (4) ` 93,450/- ON 18.8.194 VIDE DOCUMENT NO.5507/1994. THE ASSESSEE SOLD ALL THE PROPERTIES ON 18.6.2007 V IDE DOCUMENT NO.6542/2007 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF ` 80,91,000/-. THE SALE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD VALUE AT ` 2,73,87,000/- BY REGISTERED VALUER WHICH IS STANDING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TWO OTHER PERSONS I.E. K. PENCHALA NAIDU AND SMT. VARAL AKSHMI. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF RECORD, IT WAS FOU ND AS PER THE MEMORANDUM OF FAMILY AGREEMENT DATED 15.10.2006, TH E ASSESSEE SHARE WAS 1/3 RD OF THE TOTAL COST OF THE BUILDING AND THE REMAININ G SHARES BELONGING TO OTHER CO-OWNERS AS STATED ABOVE . ACCORDINGLY, THE ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 11 ASSESSEES SHARE IN THIS PROPERTY IS WORKED OUT TO ` 74,62,333/- BEING 1/3 RD SHARE AND ACCORDINGLY ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS ALLOWED . THE OBJECTION OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING A LL THE DETAILS OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH ASSESSEE WAS PURCHASED EARLIER AND SOLD SUBSEQUENTLY AND RECEIVED CONSIDERATION WAS INVESTED ON THE PROP ERTY WHICH I.E. IN THE NAME OF HIS FATHER SHRI S. PENCHALA NAIDU AND C LAIMED BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMIN ING ALL THE DETAILS HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN DETAILED MANNER. IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAI D TO BE ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER MAKING A DETAILED ENQUIRY, HE HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 54F OF THE ACT. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ANAND FOOD PRODUCTS AS DISCUSSED (SUPRA) THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMI SSIONER CANNOT SURVIVE. SO FAR AS MERITS OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ACT, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HA S CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF BALRAJ VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND OBS ERVED THAT FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT U/S 54F OF THE ACT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THA T THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BECOME A OWNER OF PROPERTY PURCHASED BY HIM BY REGI STRATION OF ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 12 DOCUMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS A MEMORAN DUM OF FAMILY AGREEMENT DATED 15.10.2006 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER & MOTHER. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ABOVE AGREEMENT (PA PER BOOK PAGE 28 & 29) ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR 1/3 RD SHARE OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR THE CLAIM U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THE DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT SQUARELY APPLIES T O THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE CASE AND WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N MERITS HAS ALLOWED THE CASE U/S 54F OF THE ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THIS CANNOT BE A CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PREC EDENTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE REVISION ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. CIT CANNOT SURVIVE AND IT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ACCOR DINGLY, WE QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER U/S 263 OF THE ACT. 11. SO FAR AS CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE LD. DR ARE CO NCERNED, THOSE CASE LAWS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E FOR THE REASON THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CALLING THE DETAILS AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.350/VIZAG/2013 DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, RAJAHMUNDRY 13 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH NOV15. SD/- SD/- ( (( ( . . . . ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( . .. . ) )) ) ( (( ( G. MANJUNATHA) ( (( ( V. DURGA RAO ) )) ) / // / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / // / JUDICIAL MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM: 6 / DATED : 18.11.2015 VG/SPS / - 7 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :8 1. , / THE APPELLANT DR. S. CHANDRA SEKHAR, 76-1-6, GANDHIPURAM, RAJAHMUNDRY 2. -., / THE RESPONDENT ITO WARD-4, RAJAHMUNDRY, E.G. DIST. 3. : / THE CIT, RAJAHMUNDRY 4. : () / THE CIT(A), RAJAHMUNDRY 5. -, , / // / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . . . . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // @A ( SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / // / ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE INITIALS 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER SR.PS 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER SR. PS 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER SR. PS 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER SR. PS 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR. PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK HD. C LK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER SR. PS