Damodarbhai Ishwarbhai Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(5), Ahmedabad

ITA 509/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0676 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BIREN SHAH; GULB THAKORE ARS
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 234B; 201; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DAMODARBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL 4/A PARK VIEW SOCIETY, OPP. ANAND BUNGLOW, GULAB TOWER AREA, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD PAN: ACCPP4435C (APPELLANT) VS THE IT O , WARD - 7( 1 )(5) , AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI SOMOGYAN PAL , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI BIREN SHAH & SHRI GULB THAKORE, ARS DATE OF HEARING : 02 - 04 - 2 019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 - 05 - 2 019 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 , ARI SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 7, AHMEDABAD DATED 14 - 1 2 - 2 016 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. ALL GROUND NO 1 TO 4 ARE PERTAINED TO THE COMMON ISSUE OF ASSESSING CAPITAL GAIN BY APPLYING SECTION 50C ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION PREVAILING IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 WHEREAS THE ACTUAL TRANSFER HAD TAKEN I T A NO . 509 / A HD/20 17 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 I.T.A NO. 509 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DAMODARBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 2 PLACE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ADJUDICATED TOGETHER. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 289025/ - WAS FILED ON 21 ST MARCH, 2012. THEREAFTER , THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S. 147 OF THE AC T BY ISSUING OF N OTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 24 T H DE C , 2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE CO URS E OF ASSESSMENT, ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSES S EE, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT DURING THE YEAR , THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED AT LAMBHA VILLAGE ON 28TH MAY, 2010, THE DOCUMENT PRICE OF WHICH WAS SHOWN AT RS. 7 LACS. HOWEVER, THE SUB - REGISTRAR HAS VALUED THE SAID PROPERTY AT RS. 66 , 7 9 , 592/ - FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FURTHER NOTICED THAT ASSESSE H AS NOT DECLARED ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING OUT OF THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE REFORE, A SHOW NOTICE DATED 4 TH SEP, 2014 WAS ISSUED TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON AFORESAID TRANSACTION SHOULD N O T BE WORKED OUT AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS . 66 , 79 , 592/ - AND COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 2 LA CS. THE ASSESSE E HAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS AGREEMENT TO SALE (BANAKHAT) DATED 23 RD OCTOBER, 2009 FOR THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND FOR RS. 7 LACS AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LACS HAS BEEN PAID BY THE BUYER ON THE SAME DATE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REFERRED SEC TI ON 53 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT 1882 THAT IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT THERE IS A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY TO THE BUYER IN THE PART PERFORMANCE OF THE C ONTRACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CLAIMED THAT HE HAS GIVEN POSSESSION OF THE LAND ON 23 RD O CTOBER, 2009 SO ACCORDING TO I.T.A NO. 509 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DAMODARBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 3 SECTION 53A OF T RANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT THOUGH THE REQUIRED REGISTRATION WITH THE SUB - REGISTRAR WAS PENDING BUT TRANSFER OF PROPERTY HAS TAKEN PLACE ON 23 RD OCTOBER, 2009. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE JANTRY RATE PREVAILING ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT SHOULD BE APPLIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE BUYER OF THE LAND HAS REQUESTED HIM TO CONVERT THIS LAND FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AS THE BUYER OF THE LAND WAS NON - AGRICULT URIST AND ACCORDING TO THE GUJARAT STATE LAND REVENUE RULE THE AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED TO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREAFTER , AFTER CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND TO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED WITH SUB - REGISTRAR ON 20 TH MAY, 2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT HE ALONG WITH THE SHRI TINKENDRA T. PATEL WAS THE JOINT OWNER OF THE LAND HAVING 50% SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE PLEADING OF THE ASSESSEE THAT I F ANY CAPITAL GAIN IS ARISEN TO THE ASSEEESSE THEN T HE SAME SHOULD BE CHARGED AS PER BANAKHAT DATED 23 RD OCTOBER, 2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ST AT ED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED D A TED 20 TH MAY, 2010 , IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SAID PROPER TY ON 22 ND MARCH, 2008 AND THEREAFTER ON 23 RD FEB, 2010, T HE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR A CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RESIDENCE PURPOSE AND THERE WAS NO MENTION OF SO - CALLED UN - REGISTERED AGREEMENT DATED 23 RD APRIL, 2009 M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BUYER AND FURTHER IN THE SALE DEED IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT ALL THE RIGHTS OF THE PROPERTY VESTED IN THE ASSESSEE WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE BUYER VIDE SALE DEED DATED 20 TH MAY, 2011. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMP UTED THE CAPITAL GAIN AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VALUE OF THE S AI D PROPERTY ADO P TE D BY THE SUB - REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED MADE ON 2 0 TH MAY, 2010 AND COMPUTED 50% SHARE OF I.T.A NO. 509 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DAMODARBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 4 SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISEN ON S ALE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY AT RS. 32 , 39 , 796/ - . 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FIELD APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER: - 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE AO MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT SOLD HIS PROPERTY AT BLOCK NO. 388, LAMBHA ON 20.05.2010 I.E. DURING RELEVANT YEAR BY WAY OF REGISTE RED DEED. SINCE THE STAMP DUTY AS PER THE VALUATION OF THE SUB - REGISTRAR WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT, THE AO APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. THE APPELLANT, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THA T THE SAID IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAD ACTUALLY BEEN TRANSFERRED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009 - 10 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR 2010 - 11 AS THE VIDE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 23.09.2009 HAD TRANSFERRED THE SAID LAND TO THE PURCHASER. AS PER SECTION 2(47 ) OF THE ITA 1961 /' TRANSFER', IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES, [(V) ANY TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE ALLOWING OF THE POSSESSION OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO BE TAKEN OR RETAINED IN PART PERFORMANCE OF A CONTRACT OF THE NATURE REFERRED TO IN SECTION 53A M OF THE TRANSFE R OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 (4 OF1882); 6.2.1 THUS, GOING BY THE ABOVE DEFINITION, IF A PURCHASER IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE CONTRACT HAS TAKEN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY OR HAS DONE SOME ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THE CONTRACT, THEN THE SAME WOULD FALL UNDER THE D EFINITION OF TRANSFER. IN THIS CASE, A PERUSAL OF THE BANAKHAT SHOWS THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.7 LAKHS, THE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4 LAKHS AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE BANAKHAOT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE BANAKHAT ITSEL F IN PARA - 7 MENTIONS THAT THE VACANT AND ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND WOULD BE HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. THUS, IT IS DEAR THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT ITSELF, THE POSSESSION HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE PURCHAS ER AND THE SAME WAS DONE ONLY AT THE TIME OF REGISTERING THE SAID DEED I.E. IN ASST. YEAR 2011 - 12. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT IT WAS THE APPELLANT WHO CARRIED OUT THE PROCESS OF CONVERSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND INTO NON AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE BUYE R WHO WAS NOT AN AGRICULTURIST. THUS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID PROPERTY HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER IN SEPTEMBER 2009 IN PART PERFORMANCE OF THE ACT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S. GOVINDRAI VS. DEVI SAHAI STATES THAT AS LONG AS IT CAN BE PROVED THAT THE BUYER HAS USED OR OCCUPIED OR MADE CERTAIN CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY TO MAKE IT FIT FOR HIS USE, THE DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE WOULD COME INTO PLAY. FROM THE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT POSSESSION HAD NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE PURCHAS ER AND THE SAID SALE HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASST. YEAR 2010 - 11. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHASER CARRIED OUT SOME WORK OF LAND LEVELING IN THE SAID PROPERTY. HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES OF CASH P AYMENTS IN RESPECT OF THIS EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. 6.2.2 CONSIDERING THE DISCUSSION ABOVE, 1 AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 20.05.2010 WAS THE ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER AND THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE AO IN INVOKING OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 TO 4 ARE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CAREFULL Y. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME FROM SALE OF IMPUGNED LAND REFERRED ABOVE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE CASE I.T.A NO. 509 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DAMODARBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 5 OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE VALUE OF THE SOLD PROPERTY ON T HE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY PAID WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 66,79,592/ - WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAS SOLD THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 7 LACS. THE REGISTERED SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY WAS MADE ON 20 - 05 - 2010. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE WAS AGREEMENT TO SALE (B ANKHAT) DATED 23/10/2010 FOR THE SALE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND FOR AMOUNT OF RS. 7 LACS AND ON THE DATE OF SALE AGREEMENT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4 LACS HAS BEEN PAID BY THE BUYER BY MODE OF BANKING CHANNEL. THEREFORE BY REFERRING T HE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF THE RAHUL G. PATEL VS. DCIT (2018) 97 TAXMAN.COM 598 (AHMEDABAD) , IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE APPLICABILITY OF THE P ROVISION S OF THE SECTION 50C SHOULD BE L OOKED AT ONLY ON THE DATE OF THE SALE AGREEMENT. WE HAVE PERUSED THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT REFERRED BY THE LD. COUNSEL AND NOTICED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACT OF THE ABOVE REFERRED CASES AS DESCRIBED BELOW . (I) AS PER COPY OF UNREGISTERED AGREEM ENT FOR SALE EXECUTED ON 23 - 10 - 2009 PLACED AT PAGE 32 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT WAS SPECIFIED THAT THIS AGREEMENT WAS FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. (II) AS PER CLAUSE 8 OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 23 - 10 - 2009 (BANA KHAT) BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT BUYER AND SELLER WERE FARMERS AND IT IS STIPULATED THAT SINCE THE TRANSACTION I S BETWEEN THE FARMERS, THERE IS NO BAR OF THE PROVISIONS OF L AND TENANCY ACT. I.T.A NO. 509 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DAMODARBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 6 (III) AS PER CLAUSE 7 OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 23 - 10 - 2009 AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEE D, THE SELLER WILL HAND OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND TO THE PURCHASER. (IV) HOWEVER, IT IS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXECUTED THE SALE DEED AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 23 - 10 - 2019. (V) THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED AT PAG E NO. 48 OF THE PAPER B OOK A COPY OF DEED OF UNDERSTATING MADE BY THE ASSESSE E AND AT PAGE NO. 5 OF THIS DEED OF UNDERSTATING IT IS STATED THAT THIS AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED ON 24 - 12 - 2009. (V I ) IN THE ABOVE REFERRED DEED OF UNDERSTATING WHICH WA S TERMED AS ANOTHER AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED ON 24 - 12 - 2009 IT WAS CATEGORICALLY EXPLAINED THAT BUYER OF THE LAND WAS NOT A FARMER THEREFORE NEW AGREEMENT FOR S A LE EXECUTED ON 24 - 12 - 2 009 FOR CONVERSION OF SAID AGRICULTURE LAND TO NON - AGRICULTURAL IN ORDER TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED LAND. (VII) IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID MATERIAL FACT IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED AS PE R THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED ON 24 - 12 - 2009. (VIII) A PART OF ABOVE IT IS CATEGORICALLY CLEAR THAT FALSE ASSERTION WAS MADE IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE (BANAKHAT) DATED 23 - 10 - 2009 AS PER CLAUSE 8 THAT BUYERS AND SELL ERS ALL WERE FARMERS AND THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS BETWEEN FARMERS AS PER THE PROVISION OF LAND TENANCY ACT. (IX) SINCE AS PER THE PREVAILING LAW IN THE S TATE OF GUJARAT AN AGRICULTURAL LAND CANNOT BE SOLD TO NON - FARMER THEREFORE T HE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED ANOTHER AGREEMENT FOR SALE ON 24 - 12 - 2009 TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED OF TH E I.T.A NO. 509 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DAMODARBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 7 LAND IN THE FORM OF NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT AGRICULTURAL LAND AS SPECIFIED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND EXECUTED ON 23 - 10 - 2009. (X) A CCORDINGLY, SALE DEED OF THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS EXECUTED ON 20/05/2010 AND NOWHERE IN THE SALE DEED A NY REFERENCE TO THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 23 - 10 - 2009 WAS MADE BUT ON THE OTHER HAND AT PAGE 13 OF THE SALE DEED DATED 20 - 05 - 2010 IT IS SPECIFIED THAT THE PERMISSION FOR CONVERTING THE SAID LAND INTO N ON - AGRICU LT URAL WAS GIVEN BY THE DISTT. COLLECTOR ON 23 - 02 - 2010. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE UNIQUE MATERIAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT SALE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND WAS NOT EXECUTED IN TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT TO SALE (BANAKHAT) DATED 23 - 10 - 2009. BUT THE ACTUAL SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 20 - 05 - 2010 IN RESPECT OF NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AFTER CONVERSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TO N ON - AGRICULTURAL LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ANOTHE R AGREEMENT FOR SALE EXECUTED ON 24 - 12 - 2009 IN THE FORM OF DEED OF UNDERSTANDING. WE CONSIDER THAT SINCE THE PROCESS OF SALE HAS BEEN MATERIALIZED IN CONSEQUENCE OF AGREEMENT FOR SALE IN THE FORM OF DEED OF UNDERSTANDING FOR NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND DATED 2 4 - 12 - 2009, THEREFORE , THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C TO DETERMINE THE SALE CONSIDERATION , JANTRI RATE PREVAILING FOR NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SALE (DEED OF UNDERSTANDING) DATED 24 - 12 - 2009 TO BE APPLIED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CALL FOR CIRCLE RATE FOR THE PU RPO SE OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF HIS PROPERTY IN RESPECT OF NON - AGRICULTURAL LAND AS ON 24 - 12 - 2009 F R O M THE DATE OF ANOTHER AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF N ON - AGRICULTURAL L AND IN THE FORM OF DEED OF UNDERSTATING EXECUTED. I.T.A NO. 509 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2011 - 12 PAGE NO DAMODARBHAI ISHWARBHAI PATEL VS. IT O 8 THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSABLE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6 . GROUND NO. L5 IS PERTAINING TO CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S. 234B AND 234 C OF THE ACT. SINCE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER THESE SECTIONS ARE MANDATORY, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL AND TH E SAME IS DISMISSED 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 27 - 05 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 27 /05 /2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,