Pradeep Kar, Bangalore V. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 596/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0428 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P K SRIHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: K R PRADEEP
• Keywords: Capital asset; Share purchase agreement; Principle of natural justice; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 45(2); 2(14); 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEOERGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI PRADEEP KAR, NO.862C, 13 TH MAIN, 3 RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560 052. PAN: AAVPK 2566J VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 12(1), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.R. PRADEEP, CA RESPONDENT BY : DR. P.K. SRIHARI, ADDL. CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 02.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.05.2016 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 19.02.2014 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-III, BANGALORE INTER ALIA ON VARIOUS GROUNDS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR A S IT IS AGAINST THE APP E LLANT IS AGAINST THE LAW , FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES , NATURAL JUSTICE, E QUIT Y , WITH O UT JURI S DICTION, BAD IN LAW AND ALL OTHER KNOWN PRINCIPLES OF LAW. ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 16 2. THAT THE TOTAL INCOME AND TOTAL TAX LIABILITY COMPU TED IS HEREBY DISPUTED. 3. THAT THE AO/CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING/HOLDING THE GA IN ARISING FROM TRANSFER OF FLAT IN NATIONAL CO-OPERATIVE GROU P HOUSING SOCIETY AS SH O RT TERM IN NATURE . 4. THAT THE AO / CIT( A ) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE INDE X ATION A S PER LAW. 5. THAT THE AO/CIT(A) ERRED IN REFUSING THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54 E C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 6. THE APPELLANT DENIES THE LIABILITY FOR INTEREST U/ S . 234D OF THE A CT. N O OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED BEFORE LEVYING INTEREST U/ S 234D OF THE I T A CT. 7. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE APPELLANT'S RIGHT OF SEEKI NG WAIVER BEFORE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY THE APPELLANT BEGS FOR CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF IN THE LEV Y OF INTEREST U/ S 234D OF THE ACT. 8. FOR THE ABOVE AND OTHER GROUNDS AND REASONS WHICH M A Y BE SUBMITT E D DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE REQUESTS THAT THE APPEAL BE ALLOWED AS PRA YED AND JUSTICE BE RENDERED. 2. GROUND NOS.1 TO 5 RELATE TO NATURE OF CAPITAL GA IN ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF FLAT ACQUIRED FROM A CO-OPERATI VE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE FLAT WAS BOOKE D IN A SOCIETY AND HE GOT ONE SHARE ALLOTTED ON 5.8.1993. THEREAFTER, VA RIOUS DEMANDS WERE RAISED BY THE SOCIETY AND HE ACCORDINGLY MADE THE P AYMENTS. FINALLY, POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.2.2003. LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE FLAT ON 19.1.2006 AND THE ASS ESSEE OFFERED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON INCOME EARNED ON THIS SALE TRANSACT ION. THE ASSESSING ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 16 OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE AND HELD IT TO BE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, HAVING OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HA S ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ON 22.2.2003 AND WAS SOLD ON 19.1.2006. THEREFORE ASSESSEE RETAINED THE CAPITAL ASSET WITH HIM FOR A PERIOD LESS THAN 36 MO NTHS AND IS ELIGIBLE ONLY FOR SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE CIT(APPEALS), BUT DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH HIM. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT BY ACQUIRING SHARE FOR ONE FLAT IN THE CO-OPERATIVE GR OUP HOUSING SOCIETY, THE ASSESSEE GOT CERTAIN RIGHTS IN THE CAPITAL ASSET ON THE VERY DAY OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AFTER ACQU ISITION OF SHARES FROM THE SOCIETY, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DIFFERENT PAYMENTS T O THE CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY ON THEIR DEMAND AND ACCORDING LY THE FLAT WAS CONSTRUCTED AND POSSESSION OF THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.2.2003. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGME NT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT V. H. ANIL KUMAR, 242 CTR 537, IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT COMPENSATION RECEIVED F OR GIVING UP THE RIGHT TO SPECIFIC AGREEMENT OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL CONSTITU TES, CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE TO TAX; HOWEVER DEDUCTION IS ALLOWABLE A S PER SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT]. HEAVY RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JINDAS PANCHAND GANDHI, 200 CTR 473 , IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 16 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING SOLD THE FLAT ALLOTTED TO HIM BY A CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AFTER A PERIOD OF 36 MONTHS FROM TH E DATE OF ALLOTMENT, CAPITAL GAIN ARISING TO HIM WAS LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN, DESPITE THE FACT THAT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WAS GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE MUCH LATER AND THEREFORE, HE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FROM SUCH G AINS AS PER LAW. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED UPON THE ORDER OF DELHI BE NCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SMT SITA DEVI WADHWA IN ITA NO.239(DEL)2010 , COPY OF THE SAME HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES THE RIGHT IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPER TY FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES IN HIS FAVOUR, THE PERIOD OF HO LDING THE CAPITAL ASSET SHOULD BE COUNTED FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF SHA RES AND NOT FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF FLAT TO HIM. 6. THE LD. DR, BESIDES PLACING RELIANCE UPON THE OR DER OF CIT(APPEALS), HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBL E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DR. V.V. MODI, 218 ITR 1 , IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING ACQUIRED A SITE UNDER LEASE-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT AND SOLD IT A FEW MONTHS AFTER BECOMING A BSOLUTE OWNER THEREOF, THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING THEREFROM WERE S HORT-TERM CAPITAL GAINS, THOUGH ASSESSEE HELD THE PROPERTY FOR 10 YEARS BEFO RE CONVEYANCE WAS SECURED BY HIM UPON PAYMENT OF ENTIRE SALE CONSIDER ATION IN RESPECT OF LEASE-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT. ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 5 OF 16 7. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUT HORITIES IN LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY AS SESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE SHARES FOR ALLOTMENT OF A FLAT BY THE SOCIETY ON 5. 8.1993. THEREAFTER, HE MADE VARIOUS PAYMENTS TO THE SOCIETY TOWARDS CONSTR UCTION OF CO-OPERATIVE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY BUILDING AND FINALLY THE CONS TRUCTED FLAT WAS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.2.2003, WHICH WAS SOLD ON 19. 1.2006. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED ON ITS SA LE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WHEREAS THE AO TREATED IT TO BE SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN. NOW THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS THE NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN ACCR UED TO THE ASSESSEE ON TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. 8. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT AS SESSEE ACQUIRED CERTAIN RIGHTS FOR ACQUISITION OF A FLAT IN THE SOCIETY BUI LDING FROM THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, HAVING BEEN ALLOTTED SHARE CERTIFICATE IN HIS FAVOUR FROM THE SOCIETY. SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE HELD THE SHARES OF THE SOCI ETY OF THE FLAT, IT WOULD BE ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE, IT CANNOT BE TRANSFER OR ALLOTTED TO ANYONE, UNTIL AND UNLESS THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERS THE SHARE CERTIF ICATE TO THE SOCIETY; MEANING THEREBY, BY SIMPLE ACQUISITION OF SHARE CER TIFICATE ON CERTAIN PAYMENT TO THE SOCIETY, ASSESSEE ACQUIRED CERTAIN R IGHTS IN THE IMMOVABLE ASSET. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AFTER ACQUISITION OF S HARE CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF THE FLAT IN THE SOCIETY, WHICH WAS LATER ON ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSE E. THUS, ON TRANSFER OF RIGHT IN THE FLAT, ASSESSEE ACQUIRES A CAPITAL GAIN . THE RIGHT IN THE FLAT IS ACQUIRED ON ALLOTMENT OF SHARE BY THE SOCIETY. IN RESPECT OF THIS PROPOSITION ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 6 OF 16 OF LAW, WE HAVE EXAMINED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BL E JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. H. ANIL KUMAR, 242 CTR 537, IN WHICH THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE WORD CAPITAL ASSET M EANS PROPERTY OF ANY KIND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARI LY BE CONFINED TO AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, WHEN THE WORD TRAN SFER IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, THOUGH INCLUDES SALE, EXCHANGE OR RE LINQUISHMENT OF THE ASSET, THE SAID ASSET NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE AN IM MOVABLE PROPERTY. THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN CONVEYANCE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FA LLS WITHIN THE EXPRESSION PROPERTY OF ANY KIND USED IN SECTION 2 (14) AND CONSEQUENTLY IT IS A CAPITAL ASSET. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE H ON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFER ENCE:- THE WORD 'CAPITAL ASSET' MEANS PROPERTY OF ANY KIN D HELD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH DOES NOT NECESSARILY BE CONFINED TO AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, WHEN THE WORD 'TRANSFER' IN RE LATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET THOUGH INCLUDES SALE, EXCHANGE OR REL INQUISHMENT OF THE ASSET, THE SAID ASSET NEED NOT NECESSARILY BE A N IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN A CONVEYANCE OF IMMOV ABLE PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN THE EXPRESSION 'PROPERTY OF A NY KIND' USED IN S. 2(14) AND CONSEQUENTLY IT IS A CAPITAL ASSET. IT IS BECAUSE THE EXPRESSION 'PROPERTY OF ANY KIND' IS OF WIDE IMPORT . WHEN THIS EXPRESSION IS READ ALONG WITH THE EXPRESSION DEFINE D IN S. 2(47)(II) I.E., 'EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THERE IN', THE GIVING UP OF A RIGHT OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE BY THE ASSESSEE TO GET CONVEYANCE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN LIEU OF RECEIVI NG CONSIDERATION, RESULTS IN THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE RIGHT IN PROPERTY, THEREBY ATTRACTING THE RIGOR OF S. 2(14) R/W S. 2(47). GIVING UP OF A RIGHT TO CLAIM SPECIFIC-PERFORMANCE BY CONVEYANCE IN RESPECT TO AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, AMOUNTS TO REL INQUISHMENT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A TRANSF ER OF CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. THE PAYMENT OF CONSI DERATION UNDER THE AGREEMENT OF SALE, FOR TRANSFER OF A CAPI TAL ASSET, IS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE , IN LIEU OF GIVING ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 7 OF 16 UP THE SAID RIGHT, ANY AMOUNT RECEIVED, CONSTITUTES CAPITAL GAIN AND IT IS EXIGIBLE TO TAX. HOWEVER, AS IS CLEAR FRO M S. 48, BEFORE THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS IS COMPUTED, THE DEDUCTIONS SET OUT IN S. 48 HAS TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY THE AMOUNT THUS ARRIVED AT, AFTER SUCH DEDUCTI ONS UNDER S. 48, WOULD BE THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEADING CA PITAL GAINS. IN THE INSTANT CASE BOTH THE ASSESSEES ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND PAID RS. 1,00,0 00 AS ADVANCE AMOUNT. IT IS THE COST OF ACQUISITION. THEY FILED A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT OF SALE. IT I S THEREAFTER UNDER AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THEM AND TH E PURCHASERS, THEY GAVE UP THEIR RIGHT TO SUE FOR SPE CIFIC PERFORMANCE IN LIEU OF A PAYMENT OF RS. 7,50,000. T HEREFORE, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THEM FOR GIVING UP THE RIGHT OF SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE I.E., TO GIVE UP THEIR RIGHT IN A CAPIT AL ASSET CONSTITUTES CAPITAL GAINS. HOWEVER, THEY ARE ENTITL ED TO DEDUCTIONS AS PER S. 48, BOTH REGARDING THE INVESTMENT MADE AS WELL AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND ONLY AFTER SUCH DEDUCTION THE AMOUNT ARRIVED AT WOULD BE EXIGIBLE TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX. 9. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JINDAS PANCHAND GANDHI, 200 CTR 473, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING SOLD THE FLAT ALLOTTED TO HIM BY A CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AFTER A PERIOD OF 36 MONTHS FROM TH E DATE OF ALLOTMENT, CAPITAL GAINS ARISING TO HIM WERE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, DESPITE THE FACT THAT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE FLAT WAS GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE MUCH LATER AND THEREFORE, HE WAS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION FROM SU CH GAINS AS PER LAW. 10. IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. SMT SITA DEVI WADHWA IN ITA NO.239(DEL)2010 , THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A SIMIL AR VIEW. 11. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DR. V.V. MODI, 218 ITR 1, IN ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 8 OF 16 WHICH THE DISPUTE WAS RAISED WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN AND IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED A SITE BY TOWN PLANNING AUTHORITY UNDER LEASE-CUM-SALE AGREEMENT. HE COULD SECURE CO NVEYANCE IN HIS FAVOUR AFTER 10 YEARS UPON PAYMENT OF ENTIRE SALE C ONSIDERATION. SALE DEED ACCORDINGLY EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR ON 29.3.1982. S AME BROUGHT ABOUT A MERGER OF INTEREST OF LESSER INTEREST HELD BY HIM I N THE BIGGER ESTATE ACQUIRED BY HIM UNDER THE SALE DEED UPON ACQUIRING THE TITLE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER HELD THAT THE QUESTION OF ASSESS EE INTENDING TO KEEP THE TWO CAPACITIES, ONE OF LEASEHOLD RIGHTS AND THE OTH ER OF OWNERSHIP, SEPARATELY DOES NOT ARISE. HE BECAME ABSOLUTE OWNE R ON 29.3.1982 AND THEREAFTER SOLD THE SITE ON 27.11.1982. WHAT HE TR ANSFERRED WAS A RIGHT HELD BY HIM FROM THE DATE OF SALE IN HIS FAVOUR AND NOT WHAT HE HELD EARLIER TO THAT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ACCORDINGLY HELD C APITAL GAIN ARISING FROM TRANSFER COULD ONLY GIVE RISE TO SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 12. BUT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRES THE RIGHT TO OBTAIN A FLAT IN THE SOCIETY ON THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARE CERTI FICATE IN HIS FAVOUR. LATER ON, HE HAS ALSO MADE THE PAYMENTS TO THE CO-OPERATI VE GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY ON THEIR DEMAND, MEANING THEREBY THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED SOME RIGHT IN THE CAPITAL ASSET ON THE ALL OTMENT OF SHARE CERTIFICATE IN HIS FAVOUR, THE FLAT WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT CANNOT BE TRANSFERRED OR ALLOTTED TO ANY OTHER PERSON, WITHOUT THE CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE I SSUE WITH REGARD TO NATURE OF CAPITAL GAIN ON SUCH TRANSFER OF RIGHT HA S BEEN ADJUDICATED BY THE ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 9 OF 16 LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KARUNESH AGARWAL V. DCIT IN ITA NO.182/LKW/2015 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY AS SOON AS THE A GREEMENT FOR SALE IS EXECUTED, THOUGH SALE DEED IS EXECUTED AFTER A CONS IDERABLE TIME. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EXTRACTED A S UNDER:- 26. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INVI TED OUR ATTENTION TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S SANJEEV LAL ETC. ETC. VS. CIT IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5899 & 59 00 OF 2014 ARISING OUT OF SLP NO. 16958 -59 OF 2013 IN WHICH THE ISSUE WAS RAISED WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WHICH HAS BEEN EXECUT ED ON 27 TH DECEMBER 2002 CAN BE CONSIDERED DAY ON WHICH THE PR OPERTY I.E. RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED. HAVING EXAM INED THE VARIOUS ASPECT AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW THE HONBLE APEX C OURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE PRINCIPLES WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE TAX LAWS, ONE CAN VERY WE LL INTERPRET THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54 R.W.S. 2(47) OF THE ACT I.E . DEFINITION OF TRANSFER WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO GET TH E BENEFIT U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE APEX COURT ARE EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 17. UPON PLAIN READING OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, I T IS VERY CLEAR THAT SO AS TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, ONE MUST PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/NEW ASSET WITHIN ONE YEAR PRIOR OR TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH TRANSFER OF TH E RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N HAD ARISEN, HAS TAKEN PLACE. 18. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE FOLLOWING THREE DATES ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS TRANSFERRED BY T HE APPELLANTS AND THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN REGISTERED ON 24TH SEPTE MBER, 2004. THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN EXECUTED IN PURSUANCE OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002 AND OUT OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.32 CRORES, RS. 15 L AKHS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANTS BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND A NEW RESID ENTIAL HOUSE/NEW ASSET HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT S ON 30TH APRIL, 2003. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THERE W AS A LITIGATION WHEREIN THE WILL OF LATE SHRI AMRIT LAL HAD BEEN CH ALLENGED BY ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 10 OF 16 HIS SON AND THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN RESTRAINED FROM DEALING WITH THE HOUSE IN QUESTION BY A JUDICIAL ORDER AND THE S AID JUDICIAL ORDER HAD BEEN VACATED ONLY IN THE MONTH OF MAY, 20 04 AND THEREFORE, THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED BEFO RE THE SAID ORDER WAS VACATED THOUGH THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH SEPTEMBER, 2002. 19. IF ONE CONSIDERS THE DATE ON WHICH IT WAS DECID ED TO SELL THE PROPERTY, I.E. 27TH DECEMBER, 2002 AS THE DATE OF T RANSFER OR SALE, IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE APPELLANTS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE A CT BECAUSE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN USED FOR PURCHASE OF A NEW ASSET/RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON 30TH A PRIL, 2003 I.E. WELL WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF T HE HOUSE WHICH RESULTED INTO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 20. THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IS WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH D ECEMBER, 2002 CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A DATE ON WHICH THE PROPE RTY I.E. THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. IN NORMAL C IRCUMSTANCES BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY, A RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSFEREE/VENDEE. WHEN SUCH A RIGHT IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, THE VENDOR IS RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE S AID PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR TH E RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED, HAS A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFO RCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, IF THE VENDOR, FOR SO ME REASON IS NOT EXECUTING THE SALE DEED. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SOME RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE VENDOR TO THE VENDE E. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE TIME WHEN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ENTERED INTO. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AFORESTATED QUESTION HAS TO BE A NSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES THE WORD TRANSFER IN RELAT ION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, ONE CAN SAY THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTINGUISHED BY EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSE T CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. RELEVANT PORTION OF SECTI ON 2(47), DEFINING THE WORD TRANSFER IS AS UNDER: 2(47) TRANSFER, IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES,- (I). ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 11 OF 16 (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR 21. NOW IN THE LIGHT OF DEFINITION OF TRANSFER AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS EXTINGUISHED AND THAT RIGHT IS TRANSFERRED TO SOMEONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL A SSET. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED DEFINITION, LET US LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF A CAPITAL ASSET HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002 FOR TRANSFERRING THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/ORIGINAL ASSET IN QUESTION AN D A SUM OF RS. 15 LAKHS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXEC UTED BECAUSE OF PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN SHRI RANJEET LAL ON ONE HAND AND THE APPELLANTS ON THE OTHER AS SHRI RANJEET LAL HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL UNDER WHICH THE PROPERTY H AD DEVOLVED UPON THE APPELLANTS. BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER PASSED I N THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJEET LAL, THE APPELLANTS WERE RESTRAINED FROM DEALING WITH THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND A LAW-ABIDING C ITIZEN CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO VIOLATE THE DIRECTION OF A COURT BY EXECUTING A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF A THIRD PARTY WHILE BEING RESTRAI NED FROM DOING SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR A JUSTIFIABLE REASON, WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANTS, THEY COULD NO T EXECUTE THE SALE DEED AND THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN REGISTERED ONL Y ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, AFTER THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJE ET LAL, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL, HAD BEEN DISM ISSED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE D EFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER, ONE CAN COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SOME RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION HAD BEEN T RANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND THEREFORE, SOME RIGHT WHIC H THE APPELLANTS HAD, IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION, HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BECAUSE AFTER EXECUTION OF THE AG REEMENT TO SELL IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. A RIGHT IN PER SONAM HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVO UR THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND WHO HAD ALS O PAID RS.15 LAKHS BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. NO DOUBT, SUCH CONTR ACTUAL RIGHT CAN BE SURRENDERED OR NEUTRALIZED BY THE PARTIES TH ROUGH SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT OR CONDUCT LEADING TO NO TRANSF ER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED VENDEE BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT HAND. ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 12 OF 16 22. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE TERM TRANSFER HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, EVEN IF LOO KED AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHICH GIVES REL IEF TO A PERSON WHO HAS TRANSFERRED HIS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND I S PURCHASING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE EITHER BEFORE ONE YEAR OF THE TRANSFER OR EVEN TWO YEARS AFTER THE TRANSFER, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO GIVE HIM RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF T AX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IF A PERSON, WHO GETS SOME EXCES S AMOUNT UPON TRANSFER OF HIS OLD RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND THEREA FTER PURCHASES OR CONSTRUCTS A NEW PREMISES WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATE D UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT WAN T HIM TO BE BURDENED WITH TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE, RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM IN RESPECT OF PAYING I NCOME TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE INTENTION OF THE LE GISLATURE OR THE PURPOSE WITH WHICH THE SAID PROVISION HAS BEEN INCO RPORATED IN THE ACT, IS ALSO VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE GIVEN SOME RELIEF. THOUGH IT HAS BEEN VERY OFTEN SAID THAT COM MON SENSE IS A STRANGER AND AN INCOMPATIBLE PARTNER TO THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IT IS ALSO SAID THAT EQUITY AND TAX ARE STRANGERS TO E ACH OTHER, STILL THIS COURT HAS OFTEN OBSERVED THAT PURPOSIVE INTERP RETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [(20 01) 3 SCC 359] THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT A PURPOSIVE INTER PRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOULD BE GIVEN WHILE CONSIDE RING A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAX. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SAID THAT HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH SUBSERVE THE O BJECT AND PURPOSE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE WHILE CONSTRUING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN ON E IS CONCERNED WITH EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX. CONSI DERING THE AFORESTATED OBSERVATIONS AND THE PRINCIPLES WITH RE GARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE TAX LAW S, ONE CAN VERY WELL INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 READ WI TH SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, I.E. DEFINITION OF TRANSFER, WH ICH WOULD ENABLE THE APPELLANTS TO GET THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 23. CONSEQUENCES OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO S ELL ARE ALSO VERY CLEAR AND THEY ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPE LLANTS COULD NOT HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE. IN PRACTICA L LIFE, THERE ARE EVENTS WHEN A PERSON, EVEN AFTER EXECUTING AN AGREE MENT TO SELL AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, TRI ES TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH AN ACT WO ULD NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BECAUSE ONCE AN AGREEMENT TO SE LL IS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, THE SAID PERSON G ETS A RIGHT TO ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 13 OF 16 GET THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN HIS FAVOUR BY FILIN G A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THEREFORE, WITHOUT HESITAT ION WE CAN SAY THAT SOME RIGHT, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY, B ELONGING TO THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED AND SOME RIGHT HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE, WHEN THE AGREEM ENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED. 24. THUS, A RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, VIZ. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANTS IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002. THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN PREVENTED FROM DEALING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE B Y AN ORDER OF A COMPETENT COURT, WHICH THEY COULD NOT HAVE VIOLATED . 25. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESTATED PECULIAR FACTS OF TH E CASE AND LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE APPELLANTS WERE ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH THEY HAD EARNED IN PURSUANCE OF TRANSFER OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEING HOUSE NO. 267, SECTOR 9-C, SITUATED IN CHANDIGARH AND USED FOR PURCHASE O F A NEW ASSET/RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 27. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF HONBLE A PEX COURT, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RE SIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS ACQUIRED THROUGH AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH WAS LATTER ON CONVERTED INTO SALE DEED AND THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EXECUTED WI THIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDU CTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) AND HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED ON CONVERSION OF RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE AND LAND APPURTENANT THERETO INTO STOCK IN TRADE ON 21.8.200 4. SINCE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT COMPUTED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN T ERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT AND HAS NOT ALLOWED DEDUCT ION TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 54 OF THE ACT, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RECOMPUTE TH E CAPITAL GAIN IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 45(2) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT TO THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE P URCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. 28. GROUND NO. 3 & 4 RELATE TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPE NDITURE PAID UNDER THE HEAD COMMISSION TO DIFFERENT COMMISSION AGENTS. IN THIS REGARD ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WE F IND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED COMMISSION EXPENSES OF RS.47,94,000/- T HE P & L A/C ON ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 14 OF 16 SALE OF 13 FLATS. THE COMMISSION CLAIMED TO BE PAID TO 25 PERSONS REMAINED OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.3.2010. IT WAS CLAIME D THAT FLATS WERE SOLD THROUGH THE EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANIES AND THEI R RELATIVES. THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSES SEE AND ACCORDINGLY HE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION. 29. ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE LD. CIT(A). 30. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL AND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTE RS IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. THE COPY OF RETURN OF ALL THE COMMISSION AGENTS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO IN WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION AS INCOME AND THE SAME WA S ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 31. THE COPY OF NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO TO COMMISS ION AGENTS, REPLY ACCEPTING THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION, BANK STATEMENT OF COMMISSION AGENTS, RETURN OF COMMISSION AGENTS AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF COMMISSION AGENTS ARE PLACED AS PAGE NO. 199 TO 440 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE F URTHER CONTENDED SINCE THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE ACCEPTED THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION AND OFFERED IT TO TAX WHICH WERE ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, THE REVENUE HAS NO RIGHT TO DISALLOW THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENDITU RE IN THE HANDS OF PAYER. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSIO N TO COMMISSION AGENTS SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 32. THE LD. DR SIMPLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 33. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LOWER AU THORITIES AND THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION ON SALE OF FLATS TO VARIO US COMMISSION AGENTS AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS THE AO RAISED QUERIES FROM THE COMMISSION AGENTS AND ASKED THEM T O FILE CONFIRMATION LETTERS ETC. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE C ONFIRMATION LETTERS ALONGWITH BANK STATEMENT AND COPY OF RETURN OF INCO ME ALONGWITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME WERE FILED. THE SAID EVIDENCE IS ALSO FIND BEFORE US AND AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 199 TO 440 OF THE COMP ILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HAVING CAREFULLY PERUSED, WE FIND THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE ACCEPTE D THE RECEIPT ON COMMISSION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE ALSO PAID THE TAX ON RECEIPT COMMISSION AND THE SAME WAS ACCE PTED BY THE ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 15 OF 16 REVENUE. SO ONCE THE RECEIPT OF COMMISSION HAS ACCE PTED IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT, THE PAYMENT OF THE SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYER. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT DOUBT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE T HE SAME COMMISSION IS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. ONCE THE RECEIPT OF THE COMMISSION IS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIE NT THE DEDUCTION OF SAME CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. WE THEREFORE, DID NOT FI ND OURSELVES IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). WE ACCO RDINGLY, SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE IN THIS REGA RD. 13. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID LEGAL PROPOSITION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED THE RIGHT IN THE FLAT FROM THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARE CERTIFICATE IN HIS FAVOUR, TH E CAPITAL GAIN ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE NATURE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN , WHEREAS COMPUTATION OF THE SAME VARIES ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF THE FLAT. A CCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PER LAW. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 11 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) (SUNIL KUMAR YA DAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 11 TH MAY, 2016. /D S/ ITA NO.596/BANG/2014 PAGE 16 OF 16 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.