Sri C.G. Narendramath, Hubli V. ITO, Hubli

ITA 583/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0578 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2009
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JASON P BOAZ
• Assessee Lawyers: S PARATHASARATHI SHRI VINAY
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Gift; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Fair market value; Valuation report; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 234B; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI K.P.T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 583 & 584/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 (1) SRI C.G. NARENDRAMATH, JAVALI SAL, HUBLI. (2) SMT. GOURAMMA G. NARENDRAMATH, JAVALI SAL, HUBLI. : APPELLANTS VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), HUBLI. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. PARATHASARATHI SHRI VINAY RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JASON P. BOAZ O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS PREFERRED BY (I) C.G.NARENDRAMATH (INDIVIDUAL) IN ITA NO:583 AND (II) SMT.GOURAMMA G.NARENDRAMATH (IN DIVIDUAL) IN ITA NO:584 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A), HUBLI. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 2 OF 18 I. C.G.NARENDRAMATH ITA NO:583 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED NINE GROUNDS, OUT OF WH ICH, GROUND NOS:1, 7 AND 9 ARE GENERAL AND NOT SPECIFIC AND, THEREFORE , THEY DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS, THE ESSENC E AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUES ARE REFORMULATED IN A CONCISE MANNER AS UNDER: (I) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C WERE NOT APPLICABL E TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.40 CRORES BEING THE VALUE CONSIDERED FOR STAMP DUTY AS AGAINS T RS.1 CRORE OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATION - BEING A LEASE HOLD PROPERTY, THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER TH ERE BEING NO GUIDELINE VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AND SUCH VA LUE FOR TRANSFER OF LEASE HOLD RIGHT, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 50C WERE NOT APPLICABLE; (II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THERE BEING NO MATERIAL ON RECOR D TO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS AT RS.1.40 CRORES AND ADOPTIN G THE SAME AS CONSIDERATION WAS BAD IN LAW; & (III) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT . II. SMT. GOURAMMA G. NARENDRAMATH ITA NO:584 3. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED NINE GROUNDS, OUT OF WHICH GROUNDS NO. 1, 7 AND 9 ARE GENERAL AND NOT SPECIFIC AND, THEREFORE, THEY DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. IN THE REMAINING GRO UNDS, THE ESSENCE AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUES ARE REFORMULATED IN A CONCI SE MANNER AS UNDER: (I) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.37 CRORES BEING THE VALUE CONSIDERED FOR STAMP DUTY AS AGAINS T RS.40 LAKHS OF ACTUAL CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 3 OF 18 (II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THERE BEING NO MATERIAL ON RECOR D TO VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD WAS AT RS.1.37 CRORES AND ADOPTIN G THE SAME AS CONSIDERATION WAS BAD IN LAW; & (III) CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT . 4. AS THE ISSUES RAISED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE I DENTICAL, THEY ARE DELIBERATED AND DISPOSED OFF, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVE NIENCE, IN THIS COMMON ORDER. I. C.G.NARENDRAMATH - ITA NO:583 : 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING LANDS BEARING CTS NOS: 135, 134/9, 134/10, 134/11, PART OF 134/12 & 13 AND 1/3RD SHARE IN CTS 134/7 WERE GIVEN ON LEASE FOR 41 YEARS FROM MAY 1979 TO THREE PARTIES AS PER THE LEASE DEED DATED 31/5/1979. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEA R RELEVANT TO THE AY UNDER DISPUTE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SAID PROPE RTY TO TWO OF THE LESSEES TO WHOM THE LAND WAS GIVEN ON LEASE AND CL AIMED CAPITAL LOSS ON THE SALE OF THESE LANDS. 5.1. HOWEVER, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SUB-RE GISTRAR HAD ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AT RS.1,40,32,000/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED RS.1 CRORE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH WAS T HE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED. AS THE ACTUAL CONSIDERA TION RECEIVED WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE T AKEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY [SVA] AS P ER THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C(1) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 4 OF 18 5.1.1. WHEN THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SOUGHT FOR HIS OBJECTION, IF ANY, THE ASSESSEE CAME UP WITH A REBUTTAL THAT THE PROPERTY WAS NOT A FREE-HOLD ONE AND, THUS , IT CANNOT BE SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET; AND THAT THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY (SVA) GENERALLY ADOPTS THE VALUATION AREA-WISE AND THEY WILL NOT SU PPOSE TO CONSIDER THE POSITION AND FACTS OF THE PROPERTY SOLD ETC. AS TH E ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED FOR ADOPTING THE VALUE FIXED BY THE SVA, THE AO MAD E A REFERENCE TO THE DVO U/S 50C(2) RWS 55A OF THE ACT. 5.1.2. BRUSHING ASIDE THE CONTENTIONS PUT-FORTH B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE AO HAD CONCLUDED THUS 15. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(3) WHERE THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER (VO) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY (SVO), THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVO WILL BE TAKEN TO BE THE FULL VAL UE OF CONSIDERATION FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. IN THIS CASE, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE VO IS MORE THAN THE VALUE ADOP TED BY THE SVO. THEREFORE, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVO AS PER SALE DEED AT RS.1,40,32,000/-IS ADOPTED AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AND CAPITAL GAINS HAS BEEN WORKED OUT ACCORDINGLY. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE TOOK UP THE ISSUE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) FOR REDRESSAL. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEE S VERSION AND THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO, THE CIT (A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT 5. I HAVE GONE THROUGH ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE AR A ND SEEN THAT THE VALUATION AS PER S.50C OF THE ACT, BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION IS NOT APPLICABLE IF THE LAND IS SOLD DURING THE PE RIOD OF THE LEASE AND THE ACTUAL SALE VALUE HAS TO BE CONSIDERED TO C OMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX WHICH IS AT RS.1 CRORE. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT IN A LARGE SCALE IN REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION THE ILLEGA L MONEY IS INVOLVED AND PAID AS AN UNACCOUNTED CONSIDERATION. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO INTRODUCE SECTION 50C IS TO C URB SUCH ILLEGAL ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 5 OF 18 TRANSACTION WHERE THE HUGE MONEY IS PAID AS A CONSI DERATION AND IT IS NOT ACCOUNTED ANY WHERE. THEREFORE, AS PER T HE RATES PRESCRIBED IN THAT CITY AFTER THE SURVEY IS FIXED A S MINIMUM SALE RATE ON WHICH THE STAMP DUTY IS PAID AND THE SAME I S ADOPTED OR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN TAX BY VIRTUE OF S.50C OF TH E ACT. IN THE SECOND PLACE THE VALUATION BY THE DVO AT RS.2,28,52 ,000/- IS A MARKED INDICATOR THAT HOW THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO N OT DECLARE THE CORRECT SALE PRICE OF THE LAND. THE DVO AFTER CONS IDERING THE SALE OF LAND DURING THE LEASE PERIOD AS (SIC) HAS VALUED THE SAID LAND. HOWEVER, AO IS VERY GENEROUS IN NOT ADOPTING THE VA LUE WORKED OUT BY THE DVO AND ADOPTED VALUE AS PER S.50C OF TH E ACT WHERE THERE IS ONLY INCREASE OF 20% ONLY. UNDER THE CIRC UMSTANCES RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THE SITUAT ION EXPLAINED AS ABOVE. AS PER S.50C(2)(A) OF THE ACT THE FAIR MARK ET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE EASILY HELD AS THE VALUATION MADE B Y THE DVO WHICH IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE VALUE REGISTERED WITH THE SUB- REGISTRAR. THE DVO AS PER HIS REPORT HAS ALREADY C ONSIDERED THE DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 20% OF RS.5712956/- FOR TH E LEASE HOLD LAND TO ARRIVE AT FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS.2.28,52,0 00/- HELD. THE VALUE ADOPTED AT RS.14032000/- IS MOST REASONABLE. THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C ARE SPECIAL PROVISIONS ONLY TO CONSIDER FULL VALUE IN CERTAIN CASES AND IT IS PROVIDED THAT WHER E THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IS LESS THAN VALUE ADOPTED BY STA MP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHA LL BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF S.48 OF THE ACT. THUS, IT IS AN OVERRIDING SECTION AND ALSO DEEMING SECTION IN CASES WHERE THE CAPITAL ASSET IS TRANSFER FOR LESS THAN T HE MARKET VALUE. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7. AGITATED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRES ENT APPEAL. THE LD. ARS ARGUMENTS ESSENTIALLY REVOLVED AROUND WHAT HAS BEEN URGED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN CONCLUSIO N, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT (I) THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C WERE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBSTITUTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.1.40 CRORES BEING THE VALUE CONSIDERED FOR STAMP DUTY AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 CRORE W AS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THE ADDITION REQUIRES TO B E DELETED; - WHAT WAS TRANSFERRED WAS THE LESSORS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS ALREADY SUBJECTED TO 40 YEARS LE ASE (TO ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 6 OF 18 EXPIRE ONLY IN 2020) AND THUS FOR THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRAN SFER AND THERE BEING NO GUIDELINE VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPO SES AND SUCH VALUE FOR TRANSFER OF LEASE-HOLD RIGHT, TH E PROVISIONS OF S.50C WAS NOT APPLICABLE AND CONSEQUE NT CAPITAL GAINS AS DETERMINED WAS OPPOSED TO LAW; - A MERE FACT THAT THE TRANSFEREE WAS WILLING TO PA Y STAMP DUTY AS DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR WAS NOT CON CLUSIVE TO ADOPT THE SAME BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF S.5 0C; - A MERE FACT THAT THE TRANSFEREE WAS WILLING TO PA Y STAMP DUTY AS DETERMINED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR WAS NOT CON CLUSIVE TO ADOPT THE SAME BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF S.5 0C OF THE ACT WHEN THE SAID VALUE DID NOT REPRESENT THE A CTUAL MARKET VALUE OF THE RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY TRANSFERR ED; & - THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSED VALUATI ON AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO WAS REFRAINED FROM ADOPTING THE SAME VALUE FOR CAPITAL GAIN COMPUTATION AND, THUS, THE ADDITION WAS TO BE DELETED. 7.1. TO FURTHER STRENGTHEN HIS CASE, THE A R, DURI NG THE COURSE OF HEARING, FURNISHED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 45 P AGES WHICH CONSISTS OF, INTER ALIA, COPIES OF (I) LEASE DEED DT.31.5.79, (I I) ABSOLUTE SALE DEED DT.3.2.06, (III) ENDORSEMENT OF THE SUB-REGISTRAR T O THE DVO ETC., 7.2. ON HIS PART, THE LD. D. RS URGE WAS CENTRED ON THE REASONING OF THE AO WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) REQUIRE S NO INTERFERENCE AT THIS STAGE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS, DOCUMENTS FURNISHED D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING BY THE LD. A.R AND ALSO THE JUDICIAL PRECED ENTS ON WHICH THE LD. D.R. HAD PLACED RELIANCE. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 7 OF 18 8.1. ON A PERUSAL OF THE LEASE DEED EXECUTED ON 31 .5.1979 BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE (THE LESSOR) AND THREE OF THE LESSEES, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT (I) THE LEASE FOR 41 YEARS FROM 31.5.1979; (II) THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WAS LEASED TOGETHER WIT H EXISTING STRUCTURES WITH THE OPTION OF THE LESSEES EITHER TO RETAIN THE STRUCTURES OR DEMOLISH THEM; (III) EARNEST MONEY OF RS.10,000/- + (A) RENT OF RS.3400/MONTH FOR 5 YEARS FROM 1981 (B) RS.4000/MON TH FOR 5 YEARS FROM 1986; & (C) RS.5000/MONTH FOR REMA INING 29 YEARS FROM 1991; (IV) ON EXPIRY OF LEASE, THE LESSEE(S) TO RETURN T O THE LESSOR, THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY WITH BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES; (V) CLAUSE 17 STIPULATES THAT THE LESSOR HAS THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY AS PER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THIS LEASE DEED BY WAY OF GIFT, SALE OR MORTGAGE IN ANY MANNER, TO ANY PERSON OR BODY OF PE RSONS, ON SUCH TRANSFER OF THE LESSORS INTEREST, THE LESS EE SHALL BE LIABLE TO PAY THE RENT AS RESERVED IN TERM NOS.4 & 6 ABOVE, TO THE TRANSFEREE OF THE LESSOR 8.1.1. AS PER THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 3.2.20 06, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT 1. (ON PAGE 3) THAT IN PURSUANCE OF THE SAID AGRE EMENT AND IN CONSIDERATION OF SUM OF RS. THE VENDEES/PURCHASERS ABOVE NAMED HAVE PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.1,00,00,000/- (RS.ONE CRO RE ONLY) PAID BY THE VENDEES TO THE VENDOR(THE RECEIPT WHERE OF THE VENDOR HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGES) THE VENDOR AS BENEFICIAL OWNER , DOES HEREBY CONVEY THE VENDEES FREE FROM ENCUMBRANCES, ALL THOSE PROPERTIES MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO AND MARKED IN YELLOW COLOUR AND WITH ALPHABETS A.B.G.H. AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE OF PROPERTIES, WHIC H ARE ALREADY IN ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE VENDEES. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 8 OF 18 2. THE VENDOR HEREBY FURTHER AGREES TO RETAIN A SHOP ON THE GROUND FLOOR MARKED IN RED COLOUR IN THE MAP ATTACH ED HERETO AND MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE PRO PERTIES AND THE VENDOR SHALL BE FULL AND ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SAID SHOP. 3. PART OF CTS NO.134/12, MEASURING 1199 SQ. YARDS (TOTALLY MEASURING 3400 SQ. YARDS). OUT OF THE SAID 1199 SQ . YARDS PERTAINING TO CTS NO:134/12, THE VENDOR HAS RETAINE D THE LAND AND SUPER BUILT-UP STRUCTURE OF THE SHOP SHOWN BY R ED COLOUR IN ANNEXED MAP WITH ALPHABETS I.J.K.L., MEASURING TOWA RDS EAST: 12.4, TOWARDS WEST: 7.1 TOWARDS NORTH 15 AND TO WARDS SOUTH 16.4, AND THE SAID SHOP IS SITUATED ON THE GROUND FLOOR. 4. EXCEPT THE ABOVE MENTIONED SHOP THE REMAINING PR OPERTIES HAVE BEEN SOLD TO THE VENDEES UNDER THIS SALE DEED .. (ON PAGE 5) SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTIES SOLD ALL THAT PIECE AND PARCEL OF COMMERCIAL OPEN LAND B EARING. 1. CTS NO.134/9 106 SQ YARDS 2. CTS NO.134/10 40 SQ YARDS 3. CTS NO.134/11 20 SQ YARDS 4. CTS NO.134/13 20 SQ YARDS 5. CTS NO.135 24 SQ YARDS 6. 1/3RD SHARE IN CTS NO.134/7 25 SQ YARDS 7. PART OF CTS NO.134/12 MEASURING 1199 SQ YARDS TO THE SOUTHERN SIDE TOTALLY MEASURING 3400 SQ.YARDS. EX CEPT A SHOP PREMISES MEASURING, TO THE EASTERN SIDE 12.4 WEST ERN SIDE 7.1 AND NORTHERN-SIDE 15 FEET, SOUTHERN SIDE 16.4 IN THE GROUND FLOOR ONLY. AS MARKED IN RED COLOUR IN THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO. AND MARKED WITH ALPHABETS I.J.K.L. THE VENDOR HAS RETA INED THE LAND AND SUPER-BUILT STRUCTURE OF SHOP SHOWN BY RED COLO UR IN THE ANNEXED MAP. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 9 OF 18 8.1.2. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LESS OR (THE ASSESSEE) HAD THE RIGHT TO TRANSFER THE SCHEDULE PROPERTY OR SELL TO ANY PERSON OR BODY OF PERSONS AS THE CASE MAY BE. AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE S ASSERTION THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IS NOT A FREEHOLD PROPERTY TO SELL IN THE OPEN MARKET DOESNT HOLD WATER. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF BEING A PRUDENT B USINESSMAN WOULD NOT HAVE VENTURED TO PART WITH HIS PROPERTY FOR ANYTHIN G LESS THAN THE MARKET PRICE PREVAILED AT THE RELEVANT TIME. 8.1.3. FOR PROPER UNDERSTANDING, THE ISSUE, IN BRI EF, IS THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED THE ACTUAL CO NSIDERATION OF RS.1 CRORE AS AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVA AT RS .14032000/- WHICH CANNOT BE ADOPTED FOR DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS . HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION ALLEGED T O HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVA, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVA AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C(1) OF THE ACT. THIS WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE A SSESSEE VIDE HIS COMMUNICATION DATED 7/10/2008 TO THE AO THAT (I) THE SAID PROPERTY WAS LEASEHOLD AND LEASED TO THE PURCHASER TILL 2020; (II) THE SAID PROPERTY WAS NOT A FREE-HOLD PROPERT Y TO SELL IN THE OPEN MARKET AND IT WAS SOLD BEFORE THE COMPLETION O F LEASE PERIOD; & (III) THE SVA GENERALLY ADOPT THE VALUATION AREA- WISE AND THEY ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER THE POSITION AND FACTS OF THE PROPERTY SOLD. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 10 OF 18 8.1.4. BRUSHING ASIDE THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS WITH HIS ELABORATE REASONS SET-OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE AO [AFTE R ASCERTAINING THE GUIDELINE RATE PREVAILED AT THAT RELEVANT TIME FROM THE SVA] REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO WHO HAD DETERMINED THE VALUE OF T HE DISPUTED PROPERTY AT RS.22852000/-. TAKING A CUE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C(3), THE AO, AT HIS WISDOM, HAD TAKEN THE VALUE OF RS.1,40,32,000/- , ADOPTED BY THE SVA FOR THE SAID PROPERTY UNDER DISPUTE, AND WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY. 8.1.5. SINCE THE CONSIDERATION [RS.1,00,00,000/-] CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER DISPUTE, WAS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVA [RS.1,40,32,000] FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE ADO PTED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVA AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THIS WAS STRONGLY OBJECTED TO BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON S MENTIONED SUPRA. 8.2. LET US NOW HAVE A GLANCE AT WHAT S.50C SAYS: 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUI NG AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURP OSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALU E SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUIN G AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC TION (1), WHERE- (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATIO N AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 11 OF 18 (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REF ERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2),(3),(4),(5 )AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB- SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECT ION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEAL TH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957) SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFI CATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY I N RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION.- FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, V ALUATION OFFICER SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R ) OF SE CTION 2 OF WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SEC TION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORIT Y REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSE D BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE C ONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. 8.2.1. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE SVA WAS EXCESSIVE THAN W HAT WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AS CONSIDERATION, THE AO WAS LEF T WITH NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO TAKE RECOURSE TO S.50C(2) OF THE ACT TO R EFER THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. 8.2.2. ON A PERUSAL OF THE REPORT OF THE DVO, WE FIND THAT THE VO HAD ARRIVED THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,28,52,000/- AND THE WORKING OF THE DVO IS ILLUSTRATED AS UNDER: ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 12 OF 18 BUILDING VALUE AFTER ALLOWING DEPRECIATION RS.1,17,26,898 ADD: LAND COST AT RS.1320/SFT. RS.1,68,37,880 2,85,64,778 LESS: BEING A LEASE HOLD PROPERTY AND THE LEASE PER IOD WILL BE IN FORCE FOR 14 YEARS AS ON THE DA TE OF SALE REBATE OF 20% 57,12,95 6 FMV OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 3.2.2006 RS.2,2 8,52,000 8.2.3. TAKING INTO ALL THESE ASPECTS INTO CONSID ERATION AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C(3) WHERE THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE VO EXCEEDED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVA, THE AO HAD ADOPTED THE VA LUE OF RS.1,40,32,000/- AND HAD WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAI NS ACCORDINGLY. 8.3. AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED: 3.2.2006, THE VEN DOR (THE ASSESSEE) WAS PAID RS.1 CRORE BY THE VENDEES AND CO NVEYED THE VENDEES ALL THOSE PROPERTIES MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN THE SC HEDULE OF PROPERTIES WHICH WERE ALREADY IN ACTUAL POSSESSION OF THE VENDEES. HOWEVER, THE VENDOR (THE ASSESSEE) HAD RETAINED SHOP ON THE GROUND FLO OR MARKED IN RED COLOUR IN THE MAP ATTACHED HERETO AND MORE FULLY DE SCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE VENDOR SHALL BE FULL AND ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SAID SHOP. 8.3.1. THIS CRUCIAL ASPECT HAS BEEN LOST SIGHT(S) OF - (I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER, (II) THE DVO TO WHOM THE SCHEDULE PROPERT Y WAS REFERRED FOR VALUATION AND ALSO (III) THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY. ON A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT RECORDS, THE FOLLOWING MOST IMPORTANT QUESTIONS ARE EMERGED: (I) WHETHER THE DVO HAD TAKEN INTO COGNIZANCE/CONSIDERATION THIS ISSUE IN ARRIVING AT THE FMV AT RS.2.28 CRORES.? ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 13 OF 18 (II) HAD THE DVO, FOR ARGUMENT SAKE, CONSIDERED TH E VALUE OF THE SHOP IN ARRIVING AT THE FMV, IF SO, WHERE WAS S UCH WORKING DONE BY HIM? (III) WHETHER THE AO HAD CONSIDERED THIS VITAL ASP ECT WHILE ADOPTING THE SVAS FIGURE OF RS.1,40,32,000/- TO WO RK OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS? HOWEVER, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE AO DOESNT CONTAIN ANY SUCH CONSIDERATION AND ULTIM ATE CONCLUSION OF THE AO; (IV) EVEN DURING THE HEARING BEFORE US, NEITHER TH E LD. A.R. NOR THE LD. D R HAD TOUCHED UPON THIS VERY ISSUE; (V) WE ARE UNABLE TO GAUGE THE UNDERSTANDING BETWE EN THE VENDOR AND THE VENDEES AND ALSO THE BASIS ON WHICH THE VENDOR HAD RETAINED A SHOP ON THE GROUND FLOOR TH E LAND AND SUPER-BUILT UP STRUCTURE - ( MORE FULLY DESCRI BED IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPH) OF THE BUILDING. EVEN THE SA LE DEED WHICH WAS EXECUTED ON 3.2.2006 ALSO SILENT; (VI) WHETHER THE VENDOR ( THE ASSESSEE) WAS PAID R S.1 CRORE + THE SHOP FOR PARTING WITH THE REMAINING LANDS? 8.4. REVERTING BACK TO THE MAIN ISSUE, ON A PERU SAL OF THE DVOS REPORT, WE FIND THAT (I) THE DVO, VIDE NOTICE U/S 50C OF I.T. ACT RWS 1 6(A)(4) OF W.T. ACT, HE PROPOSED TO ESTIMATE THE FMV OF THE SU BJECT PROPERTY AT RS.2.28 CRORES (DETAILS OF FMV ARRIVED AS PER ANNEXURE I ENCLOSED) AND REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO F URNISH HIS OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, BY 26.12.2007 (SIC) 26.12.2 008 AT 11 A.M. THE ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE DVO S NOTICE ONLY ON 26/12/2008. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS L ETTER DATED: 29/12/2008 OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE D VO (RECEIVED ON 29/12/08 BY THE DVO AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT). THE MOOT QUESTION NOW IS -WHETH ER THE OBJECTION(S) OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED B Y THE DVO BEFORE FINALLY ARRIVING THE FMV RS.2.28 CRORES? IF SO, WHAT WAS THE STAND OF THE DVO IN THE MATTER? (II) WHILE ADOPTING THE LAND COST AT RS.1320/SFT., WHETHER THE DVO HAD COMPARED THIS RATE WITH THE SALES INSTANCES OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN THE VICINITY AT THAT RELEVANT PERIOD AND IF SO, SUCH SALE INSTANCES [LAND COST + DIMENSION O F THE ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 14 OF 18 PROPERTY + LOCATION-WISE] SHOULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY HIS STAND. THIS HAS BEEN PRECISE LY MISSING IN HIS REPORT. (III) IT A NUT-SHELL, THE DVOS REPORT IS BALD WHI CH DOESNT THROW ANY LIGHT AS TO HOW HE HAD ARRIVED AT THE FI GURE OF RS.2.28 CRORES. TO ILLUSTRATE FURTHER WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION AT 26% AND 68% ON THE BUILDING? - WHETHER THE DVO HAD TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE VENDOR (THE ASSESSEE) HAD RETAINED A SHOP ON GROUND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING (AS PER THE SALE DEED)? IF SO, WHA T WAS THE VALUE SO ARRIVED AT FOR THE SAID SHOP? - WHAT WAS THE YARD-STICK APPLIED IN ALLOWING A REB ATE OF 20% BEING A LEASE HOLD PROPERTY TO ARRIVE AT FMV? - SINCE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS ON RECORD TO SU GGEST THAT THE ASSESSEES OBJECTION TO THE DVOS ESTIMATI ON HAD BEEN CONSIDERED IN ARRIVING AT THE FMV AT RS.2.28 C RORES, IT IMPLIES THAT THE NATURAL JUSTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN A GO-BY ON THIS COUNT. 8.4.1. IN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE ISS UE AFRESH ON THE BASIS OF THE DIRECTIONS DETAILED IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPH S AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE AO SHALL SEEK CL ARIFICATION FROM THE DVO THE BASIS ON WHICH HE HAD ARRIVED AT THE FMV. SINCE THE VENDOR (AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED: 3.2.2006) HAD RETAINED A SHOP FULL Y DESCRIBED IN THE SCHEDULE WHICH HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE DVO W HILE ARRIVING AT THE FMV AT 2.28 CRORES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT THE DVO SHALL REWORK THE FMV AFRESH. WHILE DOING SO, THE AO SHALL AFFORD A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT IS O RDERED ACCORDINGLY. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 15 OF 18 9. THE OTHER GROUND IS CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234 B OF THE ACT. WE HAVE SINCE REMITTED BACK THE MAIN ISSUE FOR RECONSI DERATION; THIS GROUND HAS BECOME REDUNDANT AND, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. HOWEVER, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234 B OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE WHICH IS NOT APPEALABLE . 10. BEFORE PARTING WITH, WE WOULD LIKE TO ANSWER TH E ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C ARE NOT APP LICABLE IN HIS CASE. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS WITHIN HIS POWER TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C OF THE ACT. THE STAND OF THE AO HAS BEEN VINDICATED B Y THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, NOTABLY (I) THE HONBLE ITAT, JODHPUR SMC BENCH REPORTE D IN [2007] 112 TTJ (JD) 76 IN THE CASE OF NAVNEET KUMAR THAKKAR V. ITO HAD OBSERVED THAT APPLICABILITY OF S.50C- LEGAL FICTION HAS BEEN CRE ATED BY S.50C ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE CASES WHERE THE CONSIDERATIO N RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSE SSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT F OR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUC H TRANSFER- LEGAL FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ENACTED-WHAT IS RELEVANT FOR THE APPLICABILITY O F S.50C IS THAT THE PROPERTY WHICH IS UNDER TRANSFER BY THE ASSESSE E SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AT A HIGHER VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURP OSE THAN THAT RECEIVED OR ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE-VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES HAS TO BE IN RESPEC T OF VERY SAME PROPERTY - IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE TRANSFERRE D A PROPERTY BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED WIT H THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY- SEC. 50C DID NOT APPLY- IN CONCLUSION: SEC. 50C DOES NOT APPLY TO THE CASE S IN WHICH THE TRANSFERRED PROPERTY IS NOT THE SUBJECT-MATER OF RE GISTRATION AND THE QUESTION OF VALUATION FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES H AS NOT ARISEN; ASSESSEE HAVING TRANSFERRED A PROPERTY BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NOT REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTERING AUTHO RITY, S.50C DID NOT APPLY;. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 16 OF 18 THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE FINDING, IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW, IS THAT IF THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WAS IN RES PECT OF THE VERY SAME PROPERTY, THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C ARE APPLICABLE. THE STAND OF THE AO WAS IN TOTAL CONFORMITY WITH THE ABOVE FINDING AND THAT HE WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF S.50C OF THE ACT. (II) YET AN ANOTHER FINDING, THE HONBLE ITAT, JAI PUR A BENCH REPORTED IN [2009] 20 DTR (JP)(TRIB) 365 IN THE CASE OF SMT.VIJ AYLAXMI DHADDHA V. ITO, WAS DIRECTLY ON THE POINT. IT HAD HELD THUS - PROVISIONS OF S. 50C CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE ABSE NCE OF A REGISTERED DOCUMENT I.E., IN ABSENCE OF THE VALUE A DOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT I.E., THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF S TAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE PRESE NT CASE, THERE WAS NO REGISTERED SALE DEED TO ENABLE THE AO TO ADO PT OR ASSESS THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF S.48 TREATING THE SAME AS FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVE D HIGHER AMOUNT IN CONSIDERATION AGAINST THE SALE OF PLOT TH AN SHOWN BY THE PARTIES IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE. THUS, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.53100/- IN QUESTION. NAV EEN KUMAR THAKKAR V. ITO (2007) 112 TTJ (JD) 76 FOLLOWED. 10.1. THE PROVISIONS OF S. 50C CANNOT BE INVOKED I N THE ABSENCE OF A REGISTERED DOCUMENT I.E., IN ABSENCE OF THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT I.E., THE STAMP V ALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE SALE DEED IS REGISTERED AN D REGISTRATION FEES WERE PAID AS PER VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SVA WITHOUT BEING CHALLENGED. HENCE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C IS APPLICABLE IN THIS GIVE N CASE. ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 17 OF 18 SMT.GOURAMMA G.NARENDRAMATH IN ITA NO:584: 11. THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE MORE OR LESS IDENTICAL [EXCEPT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RETAINED ANY SHOP AS IN THE CASE OF C.G.NARENDRAMATH (ITA NO:583)]TO THE ISSUES WHIC H HAVE BEEN DELIBERATED EXHAUSTIVELY AND ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSIO N BY US IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE - (I) THE DVO, VIDE NOTICE U/S 50C OF I.T. ACT RWS 1 6(A)(4) OF W.T. ACT DATED: 17/12/2008, HE PROPOSED TO ESTIMATE THE FMV OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.2.54 CRORES (DET AILS OF FMV ARRIVED AS PER ANNEXURE I ENCLOSED) AND REQUIRE D THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH HER OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, BY 26.1 2.2007 (SIC) 26.12.2008 AT 11 A.M. THE ASSESSEE STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE DVOS NOTICE ONLY ON 26/12/2008. THE ASSESSEE VIDE HER LETTER DATED: 29/12/2008 OBJECTED TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE DVO (RECEIVED ON 29/12/08 BY THE DV O AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEMENT). THE DVO IN HIS ORDER DATE D 30/12/2008 HAD ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F ILED HER OBJECTIONS ON 29.12.2008 AND, HOWEVER, DETERMIN ED THE FMV OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.2,54,58,000/- ONLY. F ROM THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE LD.A.R. WE COULD NOT MAKE OUT WHETHER THE OBJECTION(S) OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DVO BEFORE FINALLY ARRIVING THE FMV RS.2.54 CRORES AND IF SO, WHAT WAS THE STAND OF THE DVO IN THE MATTER? (II) IT A NUT-SHELL, THE DVOS REPORT IS BALD WHI CH DOESNT THROW ANY LIGHT HOW HE HAD ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF RS.2.54 CRORES. TO ILLUSTRATE FURTHER WHAT WAS THE BASI S FOR ALLOWING DEPRECIATION ON THE BUILDING? A. WHAT WAS THE YARD-STICK APPLIED IN ALLOWING A R EBATE OF 20% BEING A LEASE HOLD PROPERTY TO ARRIVE AT FMV? 13. AS THE ISSUES NOW BEFORE US ARE SIMILAR REFE RRED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT OUR FINDINGS IN THE CASE OF C.G.NARENDRAMATH [ITA ITA NO.583 & 584/B/09 PAGE 18 OF 18 NO:583] IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS ARE HOLD GOOD F OR THIS CASE ALSO. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 14. IN THE RESULT: (I) THE ASSESSEES APPEAL [C.G.NARENDRAMATH - ITA NO: 583] IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (II) THE ASSESSEES APPEAL [SMT.GOURAMMA G.NARENDR AMATH - ITA NO:584] IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- ( K.P.T. THANGAL ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH OCTOBER, 2009. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.