Shri Vinod Ugardas Patel, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, (OSD), Circle-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 529/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9544 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 09-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.529/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) VINOD UGARDAS PATEL NIRMA HOUSE ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD / VS. THE ASST.CIT (OSD) CIRCLE-10 AHMEDABAD # ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAVPP 9679 F ( #% / APPELLANT ) .. ( &#% / RESPONDENT ) #%' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR WITH SHRI HIMANSHU SHAH, ARS &#%(' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR )*( + / DATE OF HEARING 09/12/2016 ,-./(+ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02/01/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 02/12/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2 010-11. 2. THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE GROUND IN THE CAPTIONED A PPEAL IS DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 F OF THE INCOME TAX ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 2 - ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') AG AINST THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON TRANSFER OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ASSET . 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL G AINS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON WHICH DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT FOR A SUM OF RS.59,32,904/- WAS CLAIMED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) FOUND THAT THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS NOT SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE AFORESAID DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED THERETO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) READ AS UNDER:- 4.3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT, THE ARGUMENTS TA KEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORDS. ON CAREFUL ANALYSIS OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT IT IS SE EN THAT THE SAME ARE NOT SUPPORTING THE CASE OF APPELLANT AND HENCE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THIS CASE TO THE EXT ENT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O IS BASED UPON CORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF T HE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE CONTEMPORARY LAW. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER , IT IS PERTINENT TO POINT OUT AT THIS STAGE THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SEC 54F. [CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF CERTAIN CAPITAL ASSETS NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CASE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE.] ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 3 - 54F. (1) 64 [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTI ON (4), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF ANY LO NG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET, NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SE CTION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PER IOD OF ONE YEAR BEFORE OR 65[TWO YEARS] AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSF ER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED, OR HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AF TER THAT DATE CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW ASSET), THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL BE DEALT WIT H IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS T O SAY, (A) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS NOT LESS THAN T HE NET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, THE WHOLE OF SUCH CA PITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 : (B) IF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET IS LESS THAN THE N ET CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, SO MUCH OF THE CAPIT AL GAIN AS BEARS TO THE WHOLE OF THE CAPITAL GAIN THE SAME PROPORTION AS TH E COST OF THE NEW ASSET BEARS TO THE NET CONSIDERATION, SHALL NOT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45: 66[PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SECT ION SHALL APPLY WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE, (I) OWNS MORE THAN BRIE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER TH AN THE NEW ASSET, ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; OR (II) PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN T HE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF TH E ORIGINAL ASSET; OR (III) CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET; AND (B) THE INCOME FROM SUCH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, OTHER T HAN THE ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OWNED ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET, IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPER TY'.] ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 4 - EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 67[***] 68[***] 'NET CONSIDERATION', IN RELATION TO THE TRA NSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET, MEANS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS RE DUCED BY ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN CONN ECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WHERE THE ASSESSES PURCHASES, WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 69[TWO YEARS] AFTER THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSE T, OR CONSTRUCTS, WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER SUCH DATE, ANY RESI DENTIAL HOUSE, THE INCOME FROM WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INC OME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY', OTHER THAN THE NEW ASSET, THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET NOT CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF SUCH NEW ASSET AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (A), OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, CLAUSE (B), OF SUB-SECT/ON (1), SH ALL BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' RE LATING TO LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSETS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED. (3) WHERE THE NEW ASSET IS TRANSFERRED WITHIN A PER IOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS PURCHASE OR, AS THE CASE MAY B E, ITS CONSTRUCTION, THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET NOT CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ON THE BASIS OF THE COST O F SUCH NEW ASSET AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (A) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, CLAU SE (B), OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER T HE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS' RELATING TO LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSETS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH NEW ASSET IS TRANSFERRED.] 70[(4) THE AMOUNT OF THE NET CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOT APPROPRIATED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASS ET MADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE O RIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE, OR WHICH IS NOT UTILISED BY HIM FOR THE PURC HASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RET URN OF INCOME UNDER ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 5 - SECTION 139, SHALL BE DEPOSITED BY HIM BEFORE FURNI SHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHI NG THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN, AND UTI LISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME? 1 WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MA Y, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND S UCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB- SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, ALREADY UTILISED B Y THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET: PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SU B-SECTION IS NOT UTILISED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONST RUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1 ), THEN, (I) THE AMOUNT BY WHICH (A) THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRA NSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET NOT CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ON THE BASIS OF THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET AS PROVIDED IN CLAUSE (A) OR, AS (HE CASE MAY BE, CLAUSE (B) OF SUB- SECTION (1), EXCEEDS (B) THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO CHARGED HAD THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (1) BEEN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FR OM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES; AND (II) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW THE UNUTILISED AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID.....' 4.3.2 A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE STATUTORY CONDITIONS I NDICATE THAT DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IS PERMISSIBLE INTER ALIA, IF FOLLOWING OPTIONA L AND MANDATORY CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED '- ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 6 - OPTIONAL CONDITIONS A) THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR B EFORE OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENT IAL HOUSE. B) OR HAS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM TH E DATE OF TRANSFER CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE MANDATORY CONDITIONS I) PROVIDED THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWNS A RESIDENT IAL HOUSE ON THE DATE OF TRANSFEROR II) DOES NOT PURCHASES ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHI N THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OTHER THEN THE N EW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BOUGHT OR III) DOES NOT CONSTRUCTS ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WIT HIN THE PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OTHER THEN TH E NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTED AND IV) THE INCOME FROM THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS ASSES SED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. V) THE ASSESSEE WILL BE REQUIRED TO FORFEIT THE DE DUCTION CLAIMED U/S.54 IN CASE HE TRANSFERS THE NEW ASSET, FOR WHIC H DEDUCTION WAS CLAIMED WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION. 4.3.3 AT THE OUTSET IT IS SEEN FROM A PERUSAL OF TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT UPON RECO RD BY THE APPELLANT TO INDICATE THAT IT IS SATISFIES THE CONDITIONS PRE SCRIBED IN ITEM NO. I) TO ITEM NO. IV) ABOVE. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF L AW THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS TO JUSTIFY ONE'S CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ALWAYS RESTS UP ON THE TAX PAYER. 4.3.4 AS FAR AS THE ARGUMENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED A REPLY TO THE A O BY HIS LETTER DT 1-2-2013 IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAME SUFFERS FROM VICE OF BEING AN INCORRECT ARGUMENT. A S PER THE A O'S RECORDS, THE SAID LETTER WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF A O ON 1-2-2013. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE A O ON 28-1-2013. NOW ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 7 - ANY COMMUNICATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ORDER HAS NO MEANING IN THE EYES OF LAW AND CANNOT BE CON SIDERED FOR ANY MEANINGFUL PURPOSE. THUS THE ARGUMENT THAT DETAILS WERE PROVIDED TO THE A O ARE INCORRECT. 4.3.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE POSITION EXPLAINED I N PARA 4,3.4 ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN OTHERWISE THE IMPUGNED LETTER NOW HERE EXPLAINS OR GIVES ANY DETAILS OF ANY CONSTRUCTION OF ANY HOUSE PROPERTY HAVING BEEN TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WITHIN THE MANDATORY THREE Y EAR PERIOD. THE IMPUGNED LETTER IS MERELY A TWO PAGE LETTER SIMPLY INDICATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND ON 12-8-200 9 FOR RS 1,06,71,500/-. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION WHAT SOEVER HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE ATTACHED WITH THE SAID LETTER. THE APPE LLANT HAS INDICATED A WORD ON THE BOTTOM OF THE LETTER 'ENCLOSURES AS ABO VE BUT THE SAME IS ACTUALLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO 667 OF 1993 WHICH FINDS MENTIONS IN THE LAST PARA OF THE IMPUGNED LET TER 1-2-2013. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT ONCE A GAIN ARE INCORRECT AND NOT SUPPORTING HIS CASE. 4.3.6 AS FAR AS THE RELIANCE OF THE APPELLANT ON TH E CBDT CIRCULAR NO 667 OF 1993 IS CONCERNED, NO DOUBT THE SAID CIRCULA R SAYS THAT THE COST OF LAND IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE OVERALL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BUT PROVIDED THERE IS AN EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTION OF ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BY THE APPELLANT. THIS WITHOU T PREJUDICE TO THE FACT THAT THE CBDT CIRCULAR DO NOT TALKS OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN LAND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE BUT ONLY TALKS OF INVESTMENTS IN L AND WHICH HAVE DIRECT LINKAGES WITH THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED. 4.3.7 IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F HAS BEEN A SUBJECT OF GREAT LEGAL CONTROVERSY AND HON'BLE HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS INCLUDING THOSE HAVING JURISDICTIONAL BIN DING HAVE DELIBERATED UPON THE SAME AND LAID DOWN RATIOS TO B E FOLLOWED WHILE CONSIDERING ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION. TO ILLUSTRATE S OME RECENT DECISIONS ON THIS MATTER, HON'BLE COCHIN TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GEROGE DYNAMICS VS ACIT.35 TAXMAN.COM 547 HAVE HELD THAT T HE DEDUCTION U/S. 54F WOULD BE ADMISSIBLE ONLY IF EVIDENCES OF C ONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE MANDATORY PERIOD IS PL ACED ON RECORDS. ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 8 - GOING A STEP FURTHER HON'BLE ITAT HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF USHARANI KALIDINDI VS ITO 37 TAXMAN.COM 360 HAVE HELD THAT M ERELY CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE WITHIN THE MANDATORY PERIOD PER SE WOULD NOT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BUT EVIDENCES HAVE TO BE PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY DEMONSTRATE THAT THE HOUSE HAD BECOME ACTUALLY HABITABLE. HON'BLE ITAT, HYDERABAD IN THE CASE OF N IMMAGUDDA SRIDEVI 58 SOT 54 HAVE HELD THAT IF THE INVESTMENT IN THE P ROPERTY FOR WHICH DEDUCTION U/S. 54F IS CLAIMED WAS BOUGHT PRIOR TO T HE DATE OF TRANSFER THEN NO DEDUCTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE. THE HON'BLE T RIBUNAL HAVE HELD AS UNDER :- '.....FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CHANDRU L. RAHEJA V. I TO [1988] 27 ITD 551 (BOM.) WHEREIN HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD ALRE ADY PURCHASED LAND, STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF A BUILDING THEN ONLY THAT PART OF THE INVESTMENT IN NEW HOUSE THAT WAS MADE OUT OF THE SA LE PROCEEDS RECEIVED AFTER THE TRANSFER OF THE OLD HOUSE WOULD QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. 16. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHANTABEN P. GAN DHI V. CIT [1981 J 129 ITR 218/ 6 TAXMAN 356 (GUJ) HELD THAT WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS COMPLETED BEFORE THE DA TE OF TRANSFER OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO RELIEF U/S. 54 IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL GAIN RECEIVED ON SALE OF EXISTING PROPER TY. 17. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR TH AT WHATEVER INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONSTRUCTION OF NEW PROPERT Y WITHIN THE PERIOD STIPULATED U/S. 54F AFTER THE SALE OF EXISTING PROP ERTY THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. IN OTHE R WORDS, THE INVESTMENT IN NEW PROPERTY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLE D FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT MADE BEFORE THE SALE O F PROPERTY. ONLY THAT PORTION OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NEW PROPERTY IN A CCORDANCE WITH SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/ S. 54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RES IDENTIAL BUILDING AFTER THE SALE OF EXISTING PROPERTY BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME U/S. 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SHALL CONSIDER THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONSTRU CTION OF NEW PROPERTY AFTER THE SALE OF EXISTING PROPERTY IN TER MS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 9 - ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUANTIFICATION OF DEDUCT ION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT....' A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DECISION SHOWS THAT HON'BLE HYDERABAD TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF NONE OTHER TH AN HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHANTABEN P GANDHI SUPRA. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY LAID DOWN THAT NO DEDUCTION U/S. 5 4F WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF INVESTMENT WAS MADE PRIOR TO DATE OF TRANSFER OF ASSET. 4.3.8 IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ABOVE POSITI ON HAS ALSO BEEN ECHOED BY HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL IN THEIR SPECIAL BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF JYOTINDRA H SHODHAN 87 ITD 312 WHERE THE HO N'BLE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE JUDGEMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF SHANTABEN P GANDHI SUPRA, HAVE HELD THAT NO DEDUCTI ON U/S. 54F WOULD BE AVAILABLE IF INVESTMENT WAS MADE PRIOR TO DATE O F TRANSFER OF ASSET. 4.3.9 IT IS AN UNDISPUTED AND ADMITTED FACT OF THE CASE THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED PIECE OF LAND WAS MADE B Y THE APPELLANT ON 12-8-2009 I.E. PRIOR TO DATE OF TRANSFER OF ASSET. CONSEQUENTLY, IN RESPECTFUL COMPLIANCE TO THE DECISIONS DISCUSSED SU PRA, NO DEDUCTION CAN BE ALLOWED TO THE APPELLANT U/S. 54F OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE. 4.3.10 THERE IS ANOTHER ASPECT OF THIS CASE WHICH S HOWS THAT NO DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS ADMISSIBLE TO THE APPELLANT IN THIS CASE. AS PER THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT IT HAS MADE I NVESTMENT IN PLOTS OF LAND BY WAY OF TWO PURCHASE DEEDS DATED 12/8/2009. THE IMPUGNED PURCHASE DEEDS HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. THUS, THERE ARE TWO PURCHASE DEEDS BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER 14044 DATED 12/8/ 2009 AND REGISTRATION NUMBER 14045 DATED 12/8/2009. THE PURC HASE DEED BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER 14044 DATED 12/8/2009 IS BETWEE N THE SELLERS (BEING 4 PARTIES ) AND THE APPELLANT AND HIS BROTHE R AS JOINT PURCHASERS. AS PER THE DEED THE APPELLANT AND HIS BROTHER HAVE AGREED TO BUY A PLOT OF LAND, WHICH IS A PART OF A SCHEME WHERE PLOTS AR E SOLD BY THE VENDOR'S IN A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW SCHEME NAMED AS KALAHAR EXOTICA AT AHMEDABAD, BEARING PLOT NUMBER! 35 ADMEASURING 1208 .19 SQ MTRS FOR ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 10 - A CONSIDERATION OF RS 67,19,250/-. ON THE SAME DATE BY ANOTHER PURCHASE DEED BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER 14045 THE APPELLANT BUYS FROM THE SAME SET OF SELLERS ANOTHER PLOT OF LAND, BEARING PLOT NUMBER136 ADMEASURING 1207.36 SQ MTRS FOR A CONSIDE RATION OF RS 67,14,600/-. THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE TWO PLOT O F LANDS COMES TO RS 1,00,74,225/- ( 33,59,625/- BEING 50% OF RS 67.19.2 50/-. PLUS RS 67.14.600/-.). THE QUESTION THAT THUS ARISES IS HOW CAN THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE INVESTED RS 1,06,71,500/- IN HIS SU BMISSIONS TO WARDS COST OF LAND PURCHASED . THIS IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FACT THAT THE EVEN THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE IN ADMISS IBLE UNDER SECTION 54F IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 4.3.11 IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE IMPUGNED LA ND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT ARID THE SELLERS DATED 12-8-2 009 INCLUDES AN ANNEXURE-C PRESCRIBING TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF PURC HASE. THUS, IT IS CONTAINED IN ANNEXURE-C THAT PURSUANT TO THIS PURCH ASE OF LAND THE APPELLANT SHALL BE REQUIRED ONLY TO CONSTRUCT A RES IDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE IMPUGNED PLOT OF LAND AFTER OBTAINING ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS, CLEARANCES AND CERTIFICATIONS FROM THE AUDA AND / O R LOCAL MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES AS THE CASE MAY BE. THUS, THE CONSTRUCT ION ACTIVITY TO BE TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT WAS TO BE GOVERNED BY AUDA / MUNICIPAL AUTHORITIES. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRO VIDE EVEN AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT ANY SUCH APPROVAL WAS EVER OBTAINED A ND WHETHER AFTER SUCH APPROVAL ANY HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED FOR WHICH B UILDING USE PERMISSION WAS GRANTED(BU). 4.3.12 THERE IS YET ANOTHER ISSUE ARISING FROM DISC USSIONS IN PARA 4.3 .10 ABOVE WHICH INDICATE TOWARDS IN ADMISSIBILITY O F THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 5 4F OF THE ACT. AS DISCUSS ED ABOVE THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED TWO PLOTS OF LAND THROUGH P URCHASE BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER 14044 AND 14045 BOTH DATED 12/8 /2009. THE APPELLANT, CANNOT CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F FOR HAVING CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE UPON BOTH THESE PIE CES OF LAND., BECAUSE BOTH ARE INDEPENDENT PLOTS UPON WHICH, AS PER TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT OF THE PURCHASED DEED, INDEPENDENT HOUSES WERE REQUIRE D TO BE MADE. NOW THE QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHICH OF THE TWO DEEDS IS RELEVANT FOR CONSIDERING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF DEDUCTION OF THE A PPELLANT UNDER SECTION ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 11 - 54F OF THE ACT, OTHER THINGS REMAINING THE SAME. TH E PURCHASE DEED BEARING REGISTRATION NUMBER 14044 COMES FIRST IN TH E CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER AND HAS THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED, EVEN A S HYPOTHETICALLY, FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF ANY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER S ECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE IMPUGNED PURCHASE DEED SHOWS THAT THE APPE LLANT WAS ONLY 50% OWNER OF THE PLOT OF LAND. A DETAILED EXAMINATI ON OF THE SAID PURCHASE DEED SHOWS THAT ONLY ONE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IS PERMITTED TO BE MADE ON THE IMPUGNED PLOT OF LAND. NOW WHEN THE APP ELLANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE ENTIRE PLOT OF LAND HE IS NOT IN A POS ITION TO CONSTRUCT ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR WHICH HE CAN JUSTIFIABLY CLAI M DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. EVEN HYPOTHETICALLY IT IS A SSUMED THAT APPELLANT IS ELIGIBLE FOR ANY CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTIO N 54F OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PRODUCT LAND THEN THE AMOUNT IN VESTED BY THE APPELLANT HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY RS.33,59,625 /- BECAUSE THAT WAS THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT AS PART OF HIS CONTRIBUTION. AS FAR AS THE SECOND PLOT OF LAND IS CONCERNED THE SAME BE IRRELEVANT SINCE ONLY ONE HOUSE IS ALLOWED UNDER THE ACT. THIS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FACT THAT UPON NEITHER OF THE TWO PLOTS OF LAND IS THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. 4.3.13 IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSIONS MADE IN THE PREC EDING PARAGRAPHS CLEARLY INDICATING THAT FIRSTLY THE APPELLANT IN T HIS CASE HAS ONLY PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND. SECONDLY THE APPELLANT DID NOT PROVIDE TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE OF HAVING CONSTRUCTED ANY RESIDENTIAL HOUS E ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND, THIRDLY THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE A NY SUCH EVIDENCE EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF CURRENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, FOURTHLY THE INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED PLOTS OF LAND WAS MADE P RIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ASSET AS WELL AS OTHER ARGUMENTS DISCUS SED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS IT IS HELD THAT THIS CASE THERE IS NO JU STIFICATION FOR ALLOWING THE APPELLANT ITS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS THEREFORE BASED UPON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND CONTEMPORARY LAW. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER OF RS.59,32,904/- IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED AND THE GROUN D OF APPEAL NUMBER 2 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 12 - 5.1. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 & 4 ARE REGARDING CH ARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234B & 234C OF THE ACT. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY AS PER THE DECISION OF KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMLINGA IYER 108 TAXMAN PAGE-1 (KER.) HOLDING THAT LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST U/S.234A/234B/234C WAS AUTOMATIC. HENCE T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6.1. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 IS REGARDING INITIAT ION OF PENALTY WHICH CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR GRIEVANCE AS THE SAME IS PREMATURE. THE ASSESSEE WILL GET ENOUGH OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE A.O . AT THE TIME OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL I S DISMISSED. 7.1. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IN IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE MR.S.N.SOP ARKAR AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND WHEREIN THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BEEN EVEN TUALLY COMPLETED ALBEIT WITH SOME DELAY. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE CONSIDERATION ARISING ON TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET GIVING RISE TO CAPITAL G AIN HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED IN THE PLOT OF LAND AND THEREFORE THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT ARE SUBSTANTIALLY COMPLIED WITH. THE LD.AR THEREAF TER RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SARDARMAL KOTHARI R EPORTED IN (2008) 302 ITR$ 286 (MAD.) AND OF CIT VS. SMT. B.S. SHANTHAKUM ARI REPORTED IN (2015) 60 TAXMANN.COM 74 (KARN.) AND CONTENDED THAT IN ORDER TO GET ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 13 - BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54F, THE ASSESSEE NEED NOT CO NSTRUCT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND OCCUPY THE SAME WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE TRANSFER. THE LD.AR NEXT SUBMITTED THAT THE CONSTR UCTION HAS EVENTUALLY BEEN COMPLETED ON THE PLOT OF LAND, COST OF WHICH H AS BEEN CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 54F OF THE AC T. TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, HE FILED ELECTR ICITY BILLS SHOWING OUTGO TOWARDS ELECTRICITY CHARGES. THE LD.AR ACCORDING LY PURSUED THE BENCH TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO TO BE DECI DED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. THE LD.DR MR.PRASOON KABRA RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE IS SUE IN LENGTH WHEREBY THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F HAS BEEN DENIED BY A REASONED ORDER. HE SUBMITTED IN FURTHERANCE THAT BENEFIT UNDER SECT ION 54F IS GOVERNED BY SEVERAL CONDITIONS AND FULFILLMENT OF WHICH WAS NOT PROVED BEFORE AO OR CIT(A). HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEDUCTION C LAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE CO NTROVERSY IN THE INSTANT CASE REVOLVES AROUND THE ELIGIBILITY OF DED UCTION OF S. 54F IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THIS INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON THE GROUND THAT A PLOT OF LAND HAS BEEN PURCHASED ON WHICH RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED BY THE A SSESSEE. IT IS THE CASE ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 14 - OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO TH E BENEFIT OF BENEVOLENT PROVISION OF SECTION 54F ON DEPLOYMENT OF NET CONSI DERATION ARISING ON SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET ( TRANSFER OF A LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET NOT BEING A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE) FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NOTWITHSTANDING DELAY IN CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE ST IPULATED PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. AT THE THRESHOLD, WE FIND OURSELVES IN AGREE MENT WITH THE PROPOSITION CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THA T SECTION 54F OF THE IT ACT IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION FOR PROMOTING THE CON STRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THEREFORE REQUIRES TO BE CONSTRUED LIBERA LLY FOR ACHIEVING THAT PURPOSE. THE INTENTION OF LITERATURE IS TO ENCOURA GE INVESTMENTS IN THE ACQUISITION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OR OCCUPATION IS NOT THE STRICT REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW SO LONG AS THE CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN APPROPRIATED FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE CONDITION OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF 3 YEARS HAS BEEN SOMEWHAT READ DOWN AND RELAXED BY THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THUS OBSERVE THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WIT HIN A STIPULATED PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT, THIS BY ITSELF WOULD NOT ACT AS AN HANDICAP FOR AVAILING BENEFIT OF 54F. ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 15 - 9. WE, HOWEVER, SIMULTANEOUSLY NOTE THAT SEVERAL OB JECTIONS ON FACTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) WHILE DENYING SECT ION 54F OF THE ACT. THE OBJECTIONS RANGES FROM PURCHASE OF ONLY PLOT OF LAND AND NO EVIDENCE OF CONSTRUCTION COST TAGGED THEREON TO OBJECTION IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE OF PLOT PRIOR TO TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET IN DERO GATION OF CONDITION STIPULATED UNDER S. 54F OF THE ACT WHEREBY DEPLOYME NT OF FUNDS IN CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY ONLY AFTER THE TRANSFER OF OR IGINAL ASSET IS ELIGIBLE FOR RELIEF. THESE OBJECTIONS RECORDED BY CIT(A) AS EXTR ACTED SUPRA ARE ESSENTIALLY FACTUAL IN NATURE. THE MONEY STATED TO BE UTILIZED AND APPROPRIATED TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PLOT OF LAND AND C ONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEREON AFTER THE TRANSFER OF ORI GINAL ASSET IN TERMS OF S. 54F IS REQUIRED TO BE ASCERTAINED TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM. IN THE ABSENCE OF FACTUAL DETAILS BEFORE US, WE ARE UN ABLE TO ADDRESS THE FACTUAL CONTROVERSIES INVOLVED. IT WAS ASSERTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BE EN EVENTUALLY COMPLETED. COPIES OF SOME ELECTRICITY BILLS WERE PR ODUCED TO LEND SUPPORT TO SUCH ASSERTIONS. HOWEVER, A BARE READING OF S. 54F WOULD SUGGEST THAT CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE BEYOND STIPULATED TIME LIMIT OF 3 YEARS IS NOT THE ONLY CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTI ON CLAIMED. THE OTHER CONDITIONS WOULD THUS CONTINUE TO APPLY. 10. PERTINENT HERE TO NOTE THAT INVESTMENT MADE FO R THE PURPOSES OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PRIOR TO THE SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 16 - WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F OF THE ACT. THE MONEY DEPLOYED IN PURCHASE OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEREON AFTER THE SALE OF ORIGINAL ASSET IS HOWEVER REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF ELI GIBILITY UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF OTHER COND ITIONS. 11. THUS, IN THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, WE CONS IDER IT EXPEDIENT THAT THE MATTER IS EXAMINED AFRESH AFTER GRANTING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE AO T O VERIFY THE ENTIRE ISSUE DE NOVO AND SATISFY HIMSELF THAT THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN DULY COMPLIED WITH. HOWEVER, IN THE SAME VAIN, WE CLARIFY THAT MERE DELAY IN COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY O F THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WILL NOT ACT AS A FETTER FOR ELIGIBILITY OF DEDUCTI ON UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE ISSUE IS THUS SET ASIDE AND REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS NOTED ABOVE. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 02/01/2017 SD/- SD/- () ( ) (RAJPAL YADAV) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/01/2017 3..),.)../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO. 529/AHD/2014 VINOD UGARDAS PATEL VS. ACIT ASST.YEAR 2010-11 - 17 - !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. #% / THE APPELLANT 2. &#% / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 456+ 7+ / CONCERNED CIT 4. 7+ ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. 89:+)56 , 56/ , 4 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :<* / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, &8++ //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION :20.12.2016 (DICTATION-PAD 14- P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21.12.2016 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.03.01.2017 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 03.01.2017 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER