SHRI RAJESH GUPTA S/o SHRI SHYAMSUNDER GUPTA, Bhopal V. THE ITO 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 609/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5609 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 2(14); 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., .., % BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAJESH GUPTA S/O SHRI SHYAMSUNDER GUPTA, BHOPAL .. ./ PAN: AEJPG8765K VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 1(1), BHOPAL / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL KAMAL GARG, C. A. / RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 10.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21.11.2016 / O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, BHOPAL .. . / I.T.A. NO. 609/IND/2015 %' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 2 OF 25 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 27.08 .2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS AGAINST APPE AL DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT DATED 19.03.2013 OF ITO, WARD 1(1), BHOPAL [HEREINA FTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO]. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A ) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,19,080/- MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED AT HOUSE NO . 1, ISLAMI GATE TO SINDHI COLONY, MAIN ROAD, SHAHJAHANABAD, WARD NO.13, BHOPAL. 2. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A ) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN AN ERRONEOUS STATUS OF PERSONS INASMUCH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS PURPORTED TO BE ACQUIRED ON BEHALF OF A JOINT HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS MERELY ONE OF THE MEMBERS AND IT WAS NEVER ACQUIRED BY OR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACI TY. 3. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A ) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,19,080/- IN THE APPELLANTS HAND FROM SALE OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 3 OF 25 SITUATED AT HOUSE NO.1, ISLAMI GATE TO SINDHI COLONY, MAIN ROAD, SHAHJAHANABAD, WARD NO.13, BHOPAL, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE APPELLANT OR ANY OF HIS REPRESENTATIVES NEVER LAWFULLY OWNED AND/OR POSSESSED THE SUBJECT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEFORE THE SALE THEREOF. 4. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A ) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,19,080/- IN THE APPELLANTS HAND FROM SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY CONSIDERATION FROM THE SALE OF SUBJECT PROPERTY DURING THE PREVIOUS YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FURTHER SINCE, NO LAWFUL POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY CASE OF TRANSFER. 5. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A ) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 50,19,080/- IN THE APPELLANTS HAND FROM SALE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CAN BE INVOKED FOR TRANSFER OF LAND OR BUILDING ONLY AND NOT FOR TRANS FER OF ANY RIGHT IN LAND OR BUILDING. 6. THAT, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A ) GROSSLY ERRED, BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL FACT THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY HAS BEEN ALLEGED TO BE ACQUIRED BY THE APPELLANT; BEFORE I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 4 OF 25 1.4.1981 AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT WAS ELIGIBLE T O SUBSTITUTE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 1.4.1981 IN PLACE OF COST OF ACQUISITION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS OF GENERAL NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUI RE ANY ADJUDICATION FROM OUR END. 4. GROUND NO.2 RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN T HE STATUS OF PERSONS, WHERE THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PROPOS ED TO BE ACQUIRED ON BEHALF OF JOINT HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY. 5. THIS GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US AND THE SAME IS TREATED AS WITHDRA WN AND DISMISSED. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 : 6. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT LATE SHRI SHYAM SUNDER GUPTA HAD PURCHASED ONE RESIDENTIAL HO USE PROPERTY SITUATED AT HOUSE NO.1, ISLAMI GATE TO SIN DHI COLONY, MAIN ROAD, SHAHJAHANABAD, WARD NO.13, BHOPAL, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,000/- VIDE REGISTERED PURCHA SE DEED DULY EXECUTED ON 25.03.1971 IN THE NAME OF SHRI RAJ ESH GUPTA (MINOR AT THAT TIME) FROM SMT. JAITOON BI AND SMT. I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 5 OF 25 ROSHAN AARA. THIS HOUSE PROPERTY WAS CLAIMED TO BE I N POSSESSION OF SHRI LIAQAT KHAN AND REMAINED TO BE I N POSSESSION OF HIS SUCCESSOR. THEREFORE, IT WAS CONTE NDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER THE POSSESSION NOR THE LEG AL TITLE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SALE ON 01.06.2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5 LAKHS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI MOHD . KHALIL. HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IS ALSO GIVEN IN THE NAME OF SHRI MOHD. IMRAN FOR GETTING THE SALE DEED REGISTERED ( PAPER BOOK. PAGE 50 -53). HOWEVER, SHRI MOHD IMRAN MEANWHILE DI ED. SHRI MOHD. KHALIL HAD SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD THIS HOUSE PROPERTY TO SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 2 LAKHS AND ENTERED INTO A REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 27.03.2010 F OR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12 LAKHS. IN THE REGISTERED DE ED SHRI RAJESH GUPTA, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SHOWN AS SELLER AND SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ HAS BEEN SHOWN AS PURCHASER. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SIGNED THE SALE DEE D AS A SELLER ON BEHALF OF SHRI MOHD. KHALIL, DUE TO DEATH OF SHRI MOHD. IMRAN, GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. IT WA S I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 6 OF 25 CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT TAKE POSSESSION OF THE HOUSE AS IT WAS IN POSSESSION OF S HRI LIAQAT KHAN. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY THE HON'BLE COURT ALSO NOT INTERFERED IN POSSESSION OF SHRI LIA QAT KHAN AND IN A WAY DECLARED HIM TO BE OWNER. THEREFORE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PROPERTY, THERE WAS NO CAPITAL ASSET HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, NO CAPITAL GAIN IS CHARGEABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE TITLE IN THE PROPERTY BY PURCHASING THE SAME FROM SMT. JAITOON BI AND SMT. ROSHAN AARA BY SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 25.03.1971 AND SINCE SAME WAS TRA NSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS A SELLER VIDE SALE DEED REGISTER ED ON 27.03.2010. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO LO NG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 50C, FULL VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS SH OWN AT RS. 50,60,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO CALCULATED THE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 50,19,080/- ( STAMP DUTY VALUAT ION OF RS. 50,60,000/- (-) INDEX COST RS. 40,920/- ( 6000/- X 382 / 100 ) I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 7 OF 25 AND ASSESSED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 50,1 9,080/-. AGGRIEVED WITH THIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 7. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO WAS MINOR AT THAT TIME FROM SMT. JAINTOON BI AND SMT.ROSHAN AARA FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,000/- ON 25.03.1971 VIDE DUL Y REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT THE TITLE OF THE PROPERTY WAS DISPUTED AS THE PROPERTY WA S IN POSSESSION OF SHRI LIAQAT KHAN. THE LD. CIT(A) REFE RRED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINE S THE CAPITAL ASSETS AS PROPERTY OF ANY KIND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE , WHETHER OR NOT CONNECTED WITH ITS BUSINESS. THE WORD HELD SIGNIFIES OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION, BUT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE , THE OWNERSHIP DID NOT REST WITH THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE D ECISION OF THE COURT NOR DID THE ASSESSEE HAVE POSSESSION OF T HE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW TH AT THE WORD PROPERTY IS A TERM OF WIDEST IMPORT AND SUBJEC T TO ONLY LIMITATION WHICH THE CONTEXT REQUIRED. IT SIGNIFIES EVERY I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 8 OF 25 POSSIBLE INTEREST WHICH A PERSON CAN HOLD AND ENJOY. THE EXPRESSION (PROPERTY OF ANY KIND) IS OF SUCH WIDE CO NNOTATION SO AS TO TAKE ANY TANGIBLE AS WELL AS INTANGIBLE ASS ETS OF ANY KIND, EXCEPT WHAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED BY SEC TION 2(14) OF THE ACT. A PROPERTY IS A BUNDLE OF RIGHT. THUS, THE WORD PROPERTY DOES NOT MEAN MERELY PHYSICAL PROPERTY T O HOLD MEANS THE RIGHT OR INTEREST IN IT. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS THAT TENANCY RIGHT IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND SU RRENDER OF TENANCY IS A TRANSFER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO SUPP ORTED HIS VIEW BY CITING DECISION IN THE CASE OF BAFNA CHARITA BLE TRUST VS. CIT, (1998) 230 ITR 864 (BOM), WHEREIN IT WAS HEL D THAT MORTGAGE IS A CAPITAL ASSET, BECAUSE THERE IS A TRA NSFER OF INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY FROM MORTGAGE TO MORTGAGE. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT ANY INTEREST IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS ALSO A CAPITAL ASSET AS HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. TATA SERVICES LIMITED, (1980) 122 ITR 594 (BOM), WHEREIN THE HON'B LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT U/S 2(14) OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961, A CAPITAL ASSET MEANS PROPERTY OF ANY KIND HE LD BY AN ASSESSEE, WHETHER OR NOT CONNECTED WITH HIS BUSINESS OR I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 9 OF 25 PROFESSION. THE WORD PROPERTY USED IN SECTION 2(14 ) OF THE ACT IS A WORD OF THE WIDEST AMPLITUDE AND THE DEFINIT ION AS RE- EMPHASIZED THIS BY THE USE OF WORD OF ANY KIND. A NY RIGHT, WHICH CAN BE CALLED PROPERTY WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET. A CONTRACT FOR SALE OF LAND IS A CAPABLE OF SPECIFIC PURPOSE. IT IS ALSO ASSIGNABLE. THEREFORE, A RIGHT TO OBTAIN CONVEYANCE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS CLEARLY A PROPERTY AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE LD . CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE WORDS HELD BY THE ASSESSE E IN SECTION 2(14) INCLUDE PHYSICAL, ACTUAL, CONSTRUCTIV E AND ALSO SYMBOLIC POSSESSION OF PROPERTY OF ANY KIND, AS WAS OBSERVED IN CIT VS. ALL INDIA TEA & TRADING CO.LTD., (1979) 117 ITR 525 (CAL). THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED PROPERT Y BY SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 25.03.1971 FOR RS. 6,000/- FROM SMT. JAITOON BI AND SMT. ROSHAN AARA, WHICH WAS A CAPITAL ASSET IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) FURTHER PO INTED OUT THAT THE DECISION DATED 01.03.2013 OF 3 RD ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL, WAS GIVEN SUBSEQUENT TO THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 10 OF 25 BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ. THIS CASE WAS FILED BY SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ ON 01.03.2013 TO OBTAIN INTERIM RELIEF TO DISPOSSESS SHRI LIAQUAT KHAN AND TO GIVE POSSESSION TO HIM. THE HON'BLE COURT DID NOT GRANT INTERIM RELIEF TO H IM BUT THE DECISION REGARDING OWNERSHIP TITLE WAS STILL PENDING FOR FINAL DECISION WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE CONCLUDING PARA 1 7 OF THE SAID DECISION. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SUBSEQUENT DECISION AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF T HE CAPITAL ASSET COULD NOT AFFECT THE TAXABILITY OF CAPITAL GA INS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED CAPITAL ASSET TO SHRI MOHD . MAHFOOZ VIDE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 27.03.2010, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AS A SELLER AND SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ WAS SHOWN AS PURCHASER. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL OF THE SAID PROPERTY WITH SHRI MOH D. KHALIL ON 01.06.2007, BUT THERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE SAI D AGREEMENT OF SALE WITH SHRI MOHD. KHALIL ON 01.06.2007, BUT TH ERE IS NO REFERENCE TO THE SAID AGREEMENT TO SALE WITH SHRI MO HD. KHALIL IN THE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 27.03.2010 FOR SALE OF PROPERTY I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 11 OF 25 TO SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ. IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE E ARLIER AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED OR NOT. NORMALLY, HAD THE EA RLIER AGREEMENT OF SALE IN EXISTENCE, THE EARLIER PURCHAS ER WOULD HAVE ENDORSED THE SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED WITH ANOTHER PARTY AND A CLEAR CUT REFERENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN TH E SALE DEED REGISTERED. NOW, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ VIDE SALE D EED REGISTERED ON 27.03.2010. AS PER SECTION 54 OF TRAN SFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, THE SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAVING A VALUE OF 100 RUPEES AND UPWARDS CAN BE MADE BY REGIS TERED SALE DEED IN EXCHANGE FOR A PRICE. THUS, THE ASSESS EE WAS HOLDING CAPITAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE SAID CAPITAL ASSET WAS TRANSFERRED BY SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 27.03.201 0. THE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS DE FINED IN SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE W AS LIABLE FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS ON THE PROFIT ARIS ING FROM THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET I.E. THE SAID PROPERT Y. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER REGISTE RED SALE DEED I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 12 OF 25 IS SHOWN AT RS. 12 LAKHS, WHEREAS AS PER DEEMING PROV ISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECE IVED OR ACCRUING 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 OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR A SSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIV ED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. THEREFORE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AT RS. 50,60,000/- IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND IN COMPUTI NG THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 50,09,080/- AND ADDI TION WAS CONFIRMED. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NOS. 39 -49 TO SUBMIT THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 13 OF 25 TRANSFERRED HIS ENTIRE RIGHT IN THE SUBJECT HOUSE P ROPERTY TO MOHD. KHALIL IN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL ON 01.06.2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION BEFORE EXECUTION OF THE AGREEM ENT AND NO CONSIDERATION WAS DUE TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGRE EMENT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELINQUISHED HIS SYMBOLIC POSSESSION IN THE SAID PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED HIS RIGHT IN THE SAID PROPERTY ON AS I S WHERE IS BASIS AND PURCHASER WAS ALSO AWARE OF THAT THE ASSESS EE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF AND ABSOLUTE LEGAL TITLE IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN PURSUANCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE ON THE INSTRUCTIONS OF BUYER SHRI MOHD. KHALIL, THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED ONE POWER OF ATTO RNEY IN FAVOUR OF SHRI MOHD. IMRAN DULY REGISTERED BEFORE T HE SUB- REGISTRAR OF PROPERTY ON 01.06.2007 FOR GETTING THE REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED (PAPER BOOK PAGE 50-53). LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE POWER OF ATTORNEY , THE I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 14 OF 25 POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER WAS GIVEN THE ABSOLUTE RIGH T TO EXECUTE THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE SUBJECT PRO PERTY EITHER IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASER WHOSE NAME WAS SET OUT IN THE SALE AGREEMENT OR IN THE NAME OF ANYONE ELSE AS PER THE DESIRE OF THE PURCHASER. MEANWHILE, SHRI MOHD. IMRAN WAS DIED A ND SUBSEQUENTLY MOHD. KHALIL SOLD THE RIGHT IN THE SUB JECT HOUSE TO SOME MOHD. MAHFOOZ FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12 LAKHS IN A REGISTERED SALE DEED DULY EXECUTED ON 27.03.2010. SINCE MOHD. IMRAN IN WHOSE FAVOUR THE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS EXECUTED HAD DIED, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SIGN ON THE SALE DEED AS THE SAID HOUSE, WHICH WAS SOLD BY MOHD. KHALIL TO MOHD. MAHFOOZ. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO TOOK US THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 54-62 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS. 50.60 LAKHS AND BASED UPON SUCH VALUATION, THE AO M ADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. SUBSEQUENTLY, MOHD. MAHFOOZ FILE D A PETITION BEFORE THE 3 RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BHOPAL, AGAINST THE SUCCESSOR OF SHRI LIAQAT KHAN FOR OBTAI NING THE I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 15 OF 25 LEGAL POSSESSION OF THE SAID HOUSE. THE HON'BLE DIS TRICT COURT IN ITS DECISION PRONOUNCED ON 01.03.2013 HELD THAT THE SUCCESSOR OF SHRI LIAQAT KHAN VIZ. WAHEEDULLAH KHAN , HANIF KHAN AND SHAMI KHAN, THE RESPONDENTS IN THE SAID PE TIT6ION WERE LAWFULLY OCCUPIER AND OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND ALSO HELD THAT SMT. JAITOON BI AND SMT. ROSHAN ARARA FRO M WHOM THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY U NDER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 25.03.1971 WERE NOT LEGA LLY ENTITLED TO EXECUTE IN SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PUR CHASE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SMT. JAIT OON BI AND SMT. ROSHAN AARA THROUGH THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 25.03.1971 HAS BEEN HELD ILLEGAL. THEREFORE, ONCE T HE PURCHASE HAS BEEN HELD ILLEGAL, ITS SUBSEQUENT SALES BY THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO BECOME ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO. IT WAS SUBMI TTED THAT ONCE THE SALE IS DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID IN THE E YES OF LAW, THEN NO CAPITAL GAIN ACCRURES TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR SUCH PROPOSITION, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF T HE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VITTHAL BHAI P. PATEL, I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 16 OF 25 (1999) 236 ITR 1001 (GUJ). THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE OBSERV ATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT SUBSEQUENT DECISION AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS COULD NOT AFFECT THE TAXABILITY OF T HE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT CORRECT AS WHEN THE TRANSACTION OF SALE IS DECLARED ILLEGAL, SHALL REMA IN ILLEGAL AT ALL TIMES AND EVEN AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH TRANSACTION WAS ACTUALLY ENTERED INTO AND ITS ILLEGALITY WOULD NOT S TART FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE COMPETENT COURT FINDING SU CH ILLEGALITY. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO A S WELL AS CIT(A). LD. SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FURT HER DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURC HASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY REGISTERED ON 25.03.1971 FOR RS. 6,000/- AND SAME WAS SOLD BY DULY REGISTERED SALE DE ED EXECUTED ON 27.03.2010. THE SALE DEED WAS SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVE D ON TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS LO NG TERM I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 17 OF 25 CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE UNDERLINED ASSETS IS TRANSFERRED BEING A HOUSE PROP ERTY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE VERY MUCH APPLICABLE AND HENCE, THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) WERE CORRECT IN ASSESSING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 50,19,080/- 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEE N THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT SHAHJAHABAD, BHOPAL, HAVING AREA OF 4572 SQ.FT. VID E REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 25.03.1971 FROM SM T. JAITOON BI W/O LATE SHRI SHEIKH NAWAB AND SMT. ROSHA N AARA, DAUGHTER OF LATE SHRI SHEIKH NAWAB FOR A TOTA L CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,000/-. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 01.06.2 007 WITH SHRI MOHD. KHALIL FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5 LAKHS IN WHICH IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE SELLER WOULD BE BOUND TO MAKE REGISTRY IN THE NAME OF PURCHASER OR ANY PERSO N AS DESIRED BY THE PURCHASER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EX ECUTED A GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY ON 01.06.2007 IN THE NAME OF SHRI I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 18 OF 25 MOHD. IMRAN, ACCORDING TO WHICH THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER IS ENTITLED TO EXECUTE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF AFORESAID PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF ANY PERSON AS PER PARA 6 OF THE SAID GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AGREEMENT. THIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS VALID FOR ONE YEAR FROM THE DA TE OF EXECUTION DATED 01.06.2007. WE FURTHER FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 27.03.20 10 WITH SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12 LAKHS. A PERUSAL OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 27.03.201 0 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE RECEIVED RS. 12 LAKHS IN CASH IN THE PRESENCE OF WITNESSES AND THERE IS N O AMOUNT REMAINED TO BE RECEIVED. THIS MEANS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS RECEIVED RS. 12 LAKHS IN CASH BY EXECUTING THIS REG ISTERED SALE DEED. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED AT PAGE 3 OF THE REGISTE RED SALE DEED THAT THE SELLER HAD PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF HOUSE NO .1 HAVING AREA OF 4572 SQ.FT. AND HAS ALSO LEGAL OWNERSHIP ON THE SAME ON WHICH THERE IS NO LOAN, DEBTS ARE TAKEN AND NO ON E OTHER IS A PARTNER OR SHAREHOLDER IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PRO PERTY. THE PAGE 3 OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED ALSO SHOWS THAT T HE WHOLE I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 19 OF 25 SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 12 LAKHS AS WRITTEN ON PAG E 1 OF THE SALE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE SELLER FROM THE PURCHASER SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ. THUS, ON GOING THROUG H THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 25.03.1971 AND REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 27.3.2010 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 6, 000/- ON 25.03.1971 AND THE SAME WAS SOLD ON 27.03.2010 BY REGISTERED SALE DEED FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF R S. 12 LAKHS. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE SALE DEED E XECUTED ON 27.03.2010 DOES NOT MENTION ANY REFERENCE OF AGREEM ENT TO SALE DATED 01.06.2007 CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED WITH SHRI MOHD. KHALIL. IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI MOHD. IMRAN HAD DIED IN THE MEANWHILE, THEREFORE, THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS GIVEN TO HIM, IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AND FURTHER THE SAME W AS VALID FOR ONLY ONE YEAR FORM THE DATE OF EXECUTION I.E. 0 1.06.2007 TO 01.06.2008. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT HE HAS SOLD THE SAID HOUSE ON 01.06.2007 TO SHRI MOHD. KHALIL, IS NOT ESTABLISHED FROM THE RECORD. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 20 OF 25 OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SALE MIGHT HAVE BEEN CANCELLED, AS THE REFERENCE OF THE SAME D OES NOT FIND ANY MENTION IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 27.03 .2010. IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY IOTA OF TRUTH WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SALE DEED DATED 27.10.2010 HAS BEEN E XECUTED AT THE INSTANCE OF MOHD. KHALIL, THEN THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ANY MENTION WITH REGARD TO THE SAME IN THE REGISTERE D SALE DEED AND THE EARLIER PURCHASER WOULD HAVE ENDORSED T HE SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED WITH ANOTHER PARTY AND A CLEAR CUT REFERENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED REGISTERED. THEREFORE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SHRI MOHD. MAHFOOZ, VIDE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 27.03.2010, WHICH AMOUNTS TO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE TRA NSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING A CAPI TAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF INTEREST IN SUCH PROPERTY AS ENVISAG ED IN SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THE SAID CAPITAL ASSET WAS TRANSFE RRED BY SALE THROUGH SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 27.03.2010 AS DEFIN ED U/S I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 21 OF 25 2(47) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABL E FOR TAX UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS FOR TRANSF ER OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS. WE FURTHER FIND THAT SUBSEQUENTLY 3 RD ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE COURT IN ITS DECISION PRONOUNCED ON 01.03.2013 HELD THAT THE SUCCESSOR OF SHRI LIAQAT KHAN, NAMELY , WAHEEDULLAH KHAN, HANIF KHAN AND SHAMI KHAN, THE RESPONDENTS IN THE PETITION, WERE LAWFULLY OCCUPIER AND OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE HON'BLE COURT AT PARA 12 OF THE ORDER ALSO HELD THAT SMT. JAITOON BI AND SMT. ROSHAN AARA FROM WHOM THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPER TY UNDER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 25.03.1971 WAS NOT LE GALLY ENTITLED TO EXECUTE IN THE SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THIS FINDING OF THE HON'BLE COURT IS A N INTERIM ORDER AND FINAL ORDER IS YET TO BE PASSED SUBSEQUEN TLY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT TO OUR NOTIC E TILL DATE THAT ANY FINAL ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE HON'BL E COURT IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED A CAPITAL ASSET BEING THE LAND AND BUILDING. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C WOULD BE VERY M UCH I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 22 OF 25 APPLICABLE. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF SHRI ATUL G. PURANIK VS. ITO, (2011) 11 ITR 0120 (MUM TRIB.), KANCAST (P ) LIMITED VS. ITO, (2015) 43 CCH 0435 (PUNE TRIB), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTION 50C WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE, WHERE THERE IS A TRANSFER OF LEASE HOLD RIGHT IN THE LAND AND BUILDI NG. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED LAND & BUILDING AND NOT LEASE RIGHT, HENCE THESE DECISIONS ARE DIST INGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED THE LAND AND BUILDING, WHICH WAS UNDER HI S POSSESSION AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 27.0 3.2010, THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAV ING AN INTEREST IN THE SAID PROPERTY AS IT HAD A REGISTERE D SALE DEED IN HIS FAVOUR DATED 25.03.1971 AND SAME WAS TRANSFERRED VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 27.03.2010. THEREFORE, P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C WOULD BE APPLICABLE, HENCE THE SALE CON SIDERATION IN THE INSTANT CASE WOULD BE AT RS. 50,60,000/- LAKH S AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 27.03.2010. THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. VITTHAL BHAI P. PATEL, (1999) 236 ITR 1001 (GUJ ), IS NOT I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 23 OF 25 APPLICABLE, AS IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS O WNER OF THE VACANT LAND, WHICH WAS PROHIBITED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO ANY PERSON AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 OF GUJARAT VA CANT LAND IN URBAN AREAS (PROHIBITION OF ALIENATION) ACT, 197 2. THEREFORE, SALE OF THE SAID LAND WAS DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID BY THE COLLECTOR ON 29 TH MARCH, 1975, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE WAS NO SUCH PROHIBITION AT THE TIME OF TRANSFE R OF LAND AND BUILDING AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE OWNER OF T HIS LAND AND BUILDING UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAD A TITLE OF THE SAID LAND AND BUILDING IN HIS NAME. HENCE, THE SAID DECI SION IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS NOT AS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RETURNED BACK TO PURCHASER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED HIS INTEREST IN THE LAND AND BUILDING U NDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, CONSIDERATION ARISING OUT OF SUCH TRANSFER IS DEFINITELY CHARGEABLE UNDER THE PROVISI ONS OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IN THE AFORESAID CASE, BY DEC LARING SALE AS NULL AND VOID, THE LAND REMAINED IN THE POSSESSI ON OF THE OWNER, WHO HAD TRANSFERRED THE SAID LAND IN DEFIANCE OF THE I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 24 OF 25 STATUTORY PROVISIONS, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE, HE HAS TRANSFERRED HIS OWNERSHIP AND BY VIRTUE OF COURT S ORDER DATED 01.03.2013, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REMAINED THE OWNER OF THE LAND AND BUILDING, BUT ALREADY RECEIVED CONSIDE RATION IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE UNDERLINED ASSET TRANSFERRED IS BEING LAND AND BUILDING, THEREFORE, PROVISION OF SECTION 50C ARE VERY MUCH APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) HAVE JUSTIFIED IN THEIR ACTION, HENCE, NO INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART IS REQUIRED. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IS UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NOS. 3 TO 5 ARE, THEREFORE, DI SMISSED. GROUND NO. 6 : 12. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 6, WHICH IS WITHOUT PREJUDICE FOR TAKING COST OF THE MARKET VALUE OF TH E PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 IN PLACE OF COST OF ACQUISITION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 13. WE FIND FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE INDEXATION COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS . 40,920/- AS AGAINST ACTUAL COST OF RS. 6,000/- WHILE COMPUTIN G THE I.T.A.NO. 609/IND/2015 A.Y.2010-11 SHRI RAJESH GUPTA,BHOPAL PAGE 25 OF 25 CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION HAS ALREADY BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO. HENCE , THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 14. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL ON THE ABOVE-SAID GROUNDS IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (..) (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (..) (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * / DATED : 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2016. CPU* 1516