Smt. Usha Rani Bhatia, Indore V. The ITO 3(2), Indore

ITA 696/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 69622714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Gift; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 A.Y.2005-06 SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA INDORE PAN AJYB 1811F ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(2) INDORE ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N.D. PATWA RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 18.8.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 4 . 8.2015 O R D E R PER SHRI B.C. MEENA, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, INDORE, DATED 28.1 0.2013. SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 80,388/ - ON 30.9.2005. THE INFORMATION FROM THE CIT(DR) WAS RECEI VED THAT M/S. D.M. WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LTD., DEWAS, IS SHOW ING LIABILITY OF RS. 2,66,55,000/- AS LOAN FROM SMT. USHA R ANI BHATIA. ON THAT BASIS, THE CASE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED AFTER WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 2,12,89,000/-. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US ON TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW SINCE THERE WAS NO ESCAPEMENT OF ANY INCOME. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAS EARNED SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 3 THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ALLEGED TRANSFER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. 3. IT WAS PROVED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SUBJECT TO A MORTGAGED AND THE ASSESSEE ONLY RECEIVED UNDER REBEL THE RIGHT OF REDEMPTION AND AS SUCH THIS RIGHT WAS SUBJECT TO DISSATISFACTION OF THE LOAN AMOUNT 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN TAXING THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID TO THE BANK AS THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT. 5. THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD ARE ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED TRANSFER IN SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 4 THE A.Y. 2005-06 IS BADE IN LAW AND HENCE THE ADDITIONS DERIVES TO BE DELETED. 7. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A0 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SHRI LAXMANDAS BHATIA, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE, OWNED A HOUSE SITUATED AT 21, RACE COURSE ROAD, INDORE, WHICH WAS MORTGAGED WITH STAT E BANK OF INDIA IN 1983 AS GUARANTOR TO SECURE THE REPAYMENT OF LOANS GIVEN BY THE SAID BANK TO M/S. D.M. WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LTD. THE LAXMANDAS BHATIA DIED IN 1985. UNDER THE WILL EXECUTED BY HIM ON 1.8.1977, THE HOUSE WAS DEVOLVED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS HOU SE PROPERTY WAS ENCUMBERED PROPERTY AS THE BANK HAD A CHARGE AGAINST THE SAID PROPERTY. THE PRINCIPAL DEBTOR, M/S. D.M. WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LTD. COULD NOT PAY THEI R OUTSTANDING LOANS WHICH HAD MOUNTED TO RS. 2,66,50,000/- TO THE BANK. THE BANK PRESSURIZED THE LEGAL SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 5 HEIR (ASSESSEE) TO FORECLOSE THE LOAN BY SELLING THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE MADE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF THIS PROPERTY WITH M/S NAKOD A CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ON AS IN WHERE IS BASIS ALONG WIT H THE ENCUMBRANCE OF LOAN AND TO DISCHARGE THE OUTSTANDING LOAN, THEREAFTER TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AND GIVE CE RTAIN DEVELOPED/CONSTRUCTED AREA IN THE COMPLEX TO THE ASSES SEE. THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS HAVING CLAUSES WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- (A) THE DEVELOPER WOULD ARRANGE FOR DISCHARGE OF THE OUTSTANDING LOAN OF THE BANK ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. HE WOULD EVENTUALLY RECOVER THE AMOUNT SO PAID TO THE BANK ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BY CREATING A DEN OVER THE ASSESSEES PORTION OF THE BUILT UP AREA. THUS, AS SOON AS THE BUILT UP AREA WOULD BE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE THE AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD GO TO THE SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 6 DEVELOPER (CLAUSE 5 AND U/S 80IB(10) OF THE ACT OF THE AGREEMENT) (B) THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CRORE AS LOAN PREMIUM OVER AND ABOVE THE BUILT UP AREA BUT IT WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,66,55,000/- AS PAID BY THE DEVELOPER. (C ) THAT THE DEVELOPER ONLY OCCUPIED THE PLOT IN TH E CAPACITY OF A LICENCESEE THUS THERE WAS NO EFFECTIVE TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF THE SAID HOUSE (CLAUSE 14 OF THE AGREEMENT) 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE INHERITED THE PROPERTY WHICH IS AN ENCUMBERED PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO DISCHARGE THE LOAN TO GET FREE TITLE OVER THE PROP ERTY. THE LOAN WAS DISCHARGED TO GET BETTER TITLE OVER THE PROP ERTY SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 7 AND SUCH EXPENDITURE IS A PART OF ACQUISITION OR COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND HE RELIED ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS AS UNDER :- 1. CIT VS. R.M. ARUNACHALAM;227 ITR 222(SC) 2. CIT VS. DAKSHA RAMANLAL; 197 ITR 123 (GUJ. ) 3. CIT VS. SMT. THRESSIAMMA ABRAHAM; 227 ITR 802 (K ER) 4. CBI VS. V.C. SHUKLA; 1988 SCC 410 5. ACIT VS. PRABHAT OIL MILLS 52 TTJ 533 (AHD.) 6. CHIRONJILAL STEEL ROLLING MILLS VS. CIT 84 ITR 22 2(P&H) 7. ASHWINI KUMAR; 39 ITR 183(DEL) 8. STANAM SINGH CHHABRA; 74 TTJ 976 (LUCK) 9. ASHADEVI; 101 TTJ 332 (AHD) 10. ACIT VS.KAMLA PRASAD INGH;3 ITR(TRI) 533 (PAT) 11. SHETH AKSHYA PUSHPAVANDAN 130 TTJ 42 (AHD.) 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. THIS IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INHERITED THE PROPERTY AS ENCUMBERED PROPERTY. THIS PROPERTY WAS MORTGAGED AS GUARANTOR BY TH E SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 8 HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE STATE BANK OF INDIA, TO SECURE THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN BY M/S. D.M. WOOLE N MILLS PVT. LTD., HOWEVER, THE LOAN REMAINED OUTSTANDIN G. THE ASSESSEE GOT THIS PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF A WILL. TO MAKE THE TITLE CLEAR, AMOUNT OF RS. 2,66,50,000/- WAS TO BE PAID WHICH WAS MADE BY THE DEVELOPER NAKODA CONSTRUCTION WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER LEGAL OBLIGATION TO DISCHARGE THE LOAN TO GET FREE TITL E OVER THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS GIVEN IN COLLATERAL SECURITY. THEREFORE, THE LOAN DISCHARGED TO GET A BETTER TITLE O VER THE PROPERTY IS TOWARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT. MAKING T HE PAYMENT ON BEHALF OF M/S. D.M. WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LTD . SHALL NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIMING THIS AM OUNT TOWARDS THE IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY EVEN IN CASE WHERE M/S. D.M. WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LTD. IS SHOWING T HE LOAN OUTSTANDING. THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED THE RECOVERY O F SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 9 THE AMOUNT FROM THEM. M/S. D.M. WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LT D. HAS NEVER CONTACTED THE ASSESSEE OR THEY MADE ANY PAYMENT TO ASSESSEE. THE OUTSTANDING LOAN WAS DISCHARGED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT HAS NEVER BEEN CL AIMED FROM M/S. D.M. WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LTD. BY ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY M/S. D.M. WOOLEN MILLS PVT. LTD. ITSELF HAS WRITTEN OFF THE LIABILITY. SINCE THEY WERE IN HUGE L OSSES, THE CASE WAS REFERRED TO BIFR WHERE THE WINDING UP PROCEEDINGS ARE GOING ON. THEREFORE, SIMPLY MAKING A SELF CREATED BOOK ENTRY SHALL NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE F ROM CLAIMING THIS AMOUNT FOR BETTERMENT OF THE TITLE IN RESPECT OF THE ENCUMBERED PROPERTY INHERITED. THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY VARIOUS JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF R.M. ARUNACHALAM (SUPRA) WHERE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT SUC H AMOUNT WOULD BE TREATED AS COST OF ACQUISITION OR COST O F SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 10 IMPROVEMENT. THE RELEVANT PARA IS 14 WHICH IS REPRODUC ED BELOW :- 14. WHILE WE ARE AFFIRMING THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT, WE ARE UNABLE TO ENDORSE THE VIEW OF THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN AMBAT ECHUKUTTY MENON VS. CIT (SUPRA) TO WHICH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE HIGH COURT IN THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT. IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE, AS ONE OF THE HEIRS, HAD INHERITED PROPERTY FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER WHO HAD MORTGAGED THE SAME DURING HIS LIFE- TIME AND AFTER HIS DEATH THE HEIRS, INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE, HAD DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE CREATED BY THE DECEASED. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ACQUIRED UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT DEDUCTION OF THE SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 11 AMOUNT SPENT TO CLEAR THE MORTGAGE. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET HAD BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE BY SUCCESSION OR INHERITANCE ON THE DEATH OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER UNDER S. 49(1) OF THE ACT AND THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET IS TO BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST FOR WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER ACQUIRED IT, AS INCREASED BY THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSETS INCURRED OR BORNE EITHER BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE HIGH COURT, HAVING REGARD TO THE DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION COST OF IMPROVEMENT CONTAINED IN S. 55(1)(B) OF THE ACT, IN ORDER TO ENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF ANY IMPROVEMENT, THE EXPENDITURE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCURRED IN MAKING ANY SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 12 ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS TO THE CAPITAL ASSET THAT WAS ORIGINALLY ACQUIRED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER AND IF THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD MORTGAGED THE PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE AND HIS CO-OWNERS CLEARED OFF THE MORTGAGE SO CREATED, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THEY INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF EFFECTING ANY IMPROVEMENT TO THE CAPITAL ASSET THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PURCHASED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS OF THE HIGH COURT IN SALAY MOHAMAD IBRAHIM SAIT VS. ITO & ANR . (1994) 210 ITR 700 ( KER) AND K. V. IDICULLA VS. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 386 (KER) A CONTRARY VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. DAKSHA RAMANLAL (1992) 197 ITR 123 (GUJ) IN TAKING THE VIEW THAT IN A SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 13 CASE WHERE THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MORTGAGED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER DURING HIS LIFE-TIME AND THE ASSESSEE, AFTER INHERITING THE SAME, HAS DISCHARGED THE MORTGAGE DEBT, THE AMOUNT PAID BY HIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLEARING OFF THE MORTGAGE IS NOT DEDUCTIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS, THE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT IN A MORTGAGE THERE IS TRANSFER OF AN INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY BY THE MORTGAGOR IN FAVOUR OF MORTGAGEE AND WHERE THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAS MORTGAGED THE PROPERTY DURING HIS LIFE- TIME, WHICH IS SUBSISTING AT THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, THEN AFTER HIS DEATH HIS HEIR ONLY INHERITS THE MORTGAGORS INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY. BY DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE DEBT HIS HEIR WHO HAS INHERITED THE PROPERTY SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 14 ACQUIRES THE INTEREST OF THE MORTGAGEE IN THE PROPERTY. AS A RESULT OF SUCH PAYMENT MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLEARING OFF THE MORTGAGE THE INTEREST OF THE MORTGAGEE IN THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE HEIR. THE SAID PAYMENT HAS, THEREFORE, TO BE REGARDED AS COST OF ACQUISITION UNDER S. 48 R/W S. 55(2) OF THE ACT. THE POSITION IS, HOWEVER, DIFFERENT WHERE THE MORTGAGE IS CREATED BY THE OWNER AFTER HE HAS ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY. THE CLEARING OFF THE MORTGAGE DEBT BY HIM PRIOR TO TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT ENTITLE HIM TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER S. 48 OF THE ACT BECAUSE IN SUCH A CASE HE DID NOT ACQUIRE ANY INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY SUBSEQUENT TO HIS ACQUIRING THE SAME. IN CIT VS. DAKSHA RAMANLAL (SUPRA) THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 15 RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY A PERSON FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLEARING OFF THE MORTGAGE CREATED BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER IS TO BE TREATED AS COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE INTEREST OF THE MORTGAGEE IN THE PROPERTY AND IS DEDUCTIBLE UNDER S. 48 OF THE ACT. HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DAK SHA RAMANLAL (SUPRA) HELD THAT WHAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD WAS NOT THE CAPITAL ASSET THAT SHE RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT BUT IT WAS MORE THAN THAT I.E. THE INTEREST WHICH THE DONOR HAD TRANSFERRED TO THE MORTGAGEE. AS SHE WAS REQUIRED TO REDEEM THE MORTGAGE AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, SHE HAD PAID T O THE MORTGAGEE THE MORTGAGE AMOUNT. THE SAME WAS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERED AS A PART OF ACQUISITION OR COST OF IMPROVEMENT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS.SMT. THRESSIAMMA ABRAHAM (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS A GUARANTOR, HIS PROPERTY SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 16 WAS SOLD AND THE AMOUNT WAS USED TO DISCHARGE THE LOAN OF THE COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY AMOUNT. THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID DIRECTLY TO THE K. FINANCIAL CORPORATION BY THE PURCHASERS AND IT WAS THEREAFTER ONLY THAT THE MORTGAGED PROPERTY WAS RELEASED . THE HIGH COURT HELD THE AMOUNT AS AN EXPENSE IN CONNECTION WITH TRANSFER. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT IN THIS CASE THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.1981. THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS ACQUIRED BY ASSESSEE UNDER A WILL. IN SUCH CASE S, THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION HAS TO BE COMPUTED WI TH REFERENCE TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE PREVIOUS OWNER H AS HELD THE ASSET OR 1981 WHICHEVER IS LATER. IN THIS CASE, TH E PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE PR IOR TO 1.4.1981. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 17 CIT VS. MANJULA J. SHAH; 16 TAXMANN.COM 42(BOMBAY) HELD AS UNDER :- SECTION 48 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 CAPITAL GAINS COMPUTATION OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHETHER WHEN LEGISLATURE BY INTRODUCING DEEMING FICTION SEEKS TO TAX GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED UNDER A GIFT OR WILL AND CAP ITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 48 HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY APPLYING DEEMED FICTION. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT FICTION CONTAINED IN EXPLANATION 1(I)(B) TO SECTION 2(42A) CANNOT BE APPLIED IN DETERMINING INDEXED COS T OF ACQUISITION UNDER SECTION 48 HELD YES WHETHE R THEREFORE WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS ARISING ON TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET ACQUIRED BY ASSESSEE UNDER A GIFT OR WILL, INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION H AS TO BE COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO YEAR IN WHICH PREVIOU S OWNER FIRST HELD ASSET AND NOT YEAR IN WHICH SMT. USHA RANI BHATIA ITA NO. 696/IND/2013 18 ASSESSEE BECAME OWNER OF ASSET HELD YES (IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE) 7. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 24 AUGUST, 2015 SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 24 AUGUST, 2015 DN/-