The ACIT. Circle-2(2), Ahmedbad V. Rajendra Harjivandas Prajapati, Ahmedbad

ITA 822/AHD/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1162 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD“A”BENCH Before:Smt.AnnapurnaGupta,AccountantMember AndShriT.R.SenthilKumar,JudicialMember RajendraHarjivandas Prajapati, 25,NandigramSociety, Nr.RailwayCrossing, Nr.Vedhshala, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013. PAN:AAWPP1180G (Appellant) Vs TheDCIT, Circle-2(2) Ahmedabad. (Respondent) And TheACIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad. (Appellant) Vs RajendraHarjivandas Prajapati, 25,NandigramSociety, Nr.RailwayCrossing, Nr.Vedhshala, Naranpura, Ahmedabad-380013. PAN:AAWPP1180G (Appellant) AssesseeRepresented:ShriDhinalShah,AR RevenueRepresented:Ms.SaumyaPandeyJain,Sr-DR Dateofhearing:10-04-2024 Dateofpronouncement:05-07-2024 आदेश/ ORDER PERT.RSENTHILKUMAR,JUDICIALMEMBER:- ThesecrossappealsarefiledbytheAssesseeandthe Revenueasagainsttheappellateorderdated05.03.2019passed ITANo.949/Ahd/2023 AsstYear2011-12 ITANo.822/Ahd/2019 AsstYear2011-12 I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 2 bytheCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals)-10,Ahmedabad arisingoutoftheorderpassedundersection143(3)r.w.s263of theIncomeTaxAct,1961(hereinafterreferredtoas‘theAct’) relatingtotheAssessmentYear2011-12. 2.Thebrieffactsofthecaseisthattheassesseeisanindividual derivingincomefrombusinessandcapitalgain.FortheAsst.Year 2011-12,theassesseefiledhisReturnofIncomewherein assessmentwascompletedu/s.143(3)oftheAct,bypassing AssessmentOrderdated21.02.2014,determiningtotalincomeat Rs.28,53,050/-.Lattertheassessmentwasrevisedu/s.263ofthe Actonthegroundsthattheassesseehasclaimeddeduction u/s.54ECoftheActamountingtoRs.1.5croreonaccountof investmentinRECbondsagainstlong-termcapitalgainsof Rs.804.42lakhfromthesaleof3piecesoflandwhichareas follows: SrNoLandSaledatedSalevalueL.T.C.GDateof Investment Amt.Of Investment 1.Agri Landat SrNo. 500, 502, 502/2 12/10/20108,01,33,0557,99,31,95131/03/201050,00,000 2.Agri Landat No8 Block 24/06/20103,63,9003,26,42121/07/20105,00,000 3. Agri. Landat No.6 Block 24/06/2010 2,07,4001,83,32708/04/201150,00,000 I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 3 3.ThesaidclaimwasallowedbytheAO.Onscrutinyofthe assessmentorderitwasrevealedthattheRECbondsforRs.50 lakhwaspurchasedon31.03.2010whichprecededthedateof transferofanyofthethreeproperties.Onthedateofpurchaseof anotherRECbondsoftheRs.50lakhon21.07.2010,capitalgain ofRs.5.10lakhonlywasavailableasagainstLTCGdeduction.To beeligiblefordeductionu/s.54ECoftheAct,investmentinlong- termspecifiedassetisrequiredtobemadewithinaperiodofsix monthsafterthedateoftransferoftheoriginalasset.Inthe presentcase,theassesseehadmadeinvestmentofRs.50lakhon 31.03.2010whichwaspriortothedateoftransfer/salenamely 12.10.2010&24.06.2010ofanyofthethreeproperties.Thus, deductionofRs.94.90lakhwasirregularlyallowedbytheAOwhile passingtheassessmentorderandalsoirregulardeduction u/s.54ECoftheAct,amountingtoRs.94.90lakhwhichareliable tobewithdrawn.Therefore,arevisionorderdated08.03.2016was passedbyPCITdenyingthebenefitofdeductionu/s.54ECofthe Act.TheAOhasgiveneffecttothisorderanddemandedtax thereon. 4.Aggrievedagainstthegivingeffecttheasseseefiledanappeal beforetheLd.CIT(A),whopartlyallowedtheappealoftheassesse byallowingdeductionu/s.54ECofRs.1croreandconfirmedthe disallowancetoRs.44,90,000/-byobservingasfollows: 4.11findthatonaplainreadingoftheabovesaidprovision,itis evidentthatSection54EC(1)oftheActrestrictsthetimelimitforthe periodofinvestmentafterthepropertyhasbeensoldtosixmonths. Thereisnocapontheinvestmenttobemadeinbonds.Thefirst I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 4 provisotoSection54EC(1)oftheActspecifiesthequantumof investmentanditstatesthattheinvestmentsomadeonorafter 01/04/2007inthelong-termspecifiedassetbyanappellantduring anyfinancialyeardoesnotexceedfiftylakhrupees.Inotherwords, asperthemandateofSection54EC(1)oftheAct,thetimelimitfor investmentissixmonthsandthebenefitthatflowsfromthefirst provisoisthatiftheappellantmakestheinvestmentof Rs.50,00,000/-inanyfinancialyear,itwouldhavethebenefitof Section54EC(1)oftheAct.IagreewiththeargumentoftheAR.that itisclearandunambiguousfromthelanguageoftheaboveproviso thatwhereappellanttransfershiscapitalassetafter30th Septemberofthefinancialyearhegetsanopportunitytomakean investmentofRs.50lakhseachintwodifferentfinancialyearsand isabletoclaimexemptionuptoRs.1Croreu/s54ECoftheAct. Thus,theprovisotothesaidSectionasapplicablefortheyearunder considerationLe.A.Y.2011-12anduptoA.Y.2012-13mentions"Any FinancialYearandnotthe"RelevantFinancialYear 4.2Inordertoremoveanyambiguityitwouldbeappropriatetorefer totheNotesonClauses-FinanceBill2014andtheMemorandum explainingtheprovisionsintheFinance(No.2)Bill,2014,whichread asunder: "NotesonClausers-FinanceBill2014: Clause23oftheBillseekstoamendsection54ECofthe Income-taxActrelatingtocapitalgainnottobechargedon investmentincertainbonds.Theexistingprovisionscontained insub-section(1)ofsection54ECprovidethatwherecapital gainarisesfromthetransferofalong-termcapitalassetand theappellanthaswithinaperiodofsixmonthsinvestedthe wholeorpartofcapitalgainsinthelong-termspecifiedasset, theproportionatecapitalgainssoinvestedinthelong-term specifiedassetoutoftotalcapitalgainshallnotbechargedto tax.Theprovisotothesaidsub-sectionprovidesthatthe investmentmadeinthelong-termspecifiedassetduringany financialyearshallnotexceedfiftylakhrupees. Itisproposedtoinsertaprovisobelowfirstprovisoinsaid sub-section(1)soastoprovidethattheinvestmentmadeby anappellantinthelong-termspecifiedasset,fromcapitalgain arisingfromtransferofoneormoreoriginalassets,duringthe financialyearinwhichtheoriginalassetorassetsare transferredandinthesubsequentfinancialyeardoesnot exceedfiftylakhrupees I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 5 Thisamendmentwilltakeeffectfrom1stApril,2015undwill, accordingly,applyinrelationtoassessmentyear2015-16 andsubsequentyears." Memorandum:ExplainingtheprovisionsintheFinance(No.2) Bill,2014: CapitalgainsexemptiononinvestmentinSpecifiedBonds Theexistingprovisionscontainedinsub-section(1)ofsection 54ECoftheActprovidethatwherecapitalgainarisesfrom thetransferofalong-termcapitalassetandtheappellanthas, atanytimewithinaperiodofsixmonths,investedthewhole oranypartofcapitalgainsinthelong-termspecifiedasset, outofthewholeofthecapitalgain,shallnotbechargedtotax. Theprovisotothesaidsub-sectionprovidesthatthe Investmentmadeinthelong-termspecifiedassetduringany financialyearshallnotexceedfiftylakhrupees However,thewordingsoftheprovisohavecreatedan ambiguity.Asaresultthecapitalgainsarisingduringthe yearafterthemonthofSeptemberwereinvestedinthe specifiedassetinsuchamannersoastosplittheinvestment intwoyearsie.,onewithintheyearandsecondinthenext yearbutbeforetheexpiryofsixmonths.Thisresultedinthe claimforreliefofonecrorerupeesasagainsttheintended limitforreliefoffiftylakhsrupees Accordingly,itisproposedtoinsertaprovisoinsub-section(1) soastoprovidethattheinvestmentmadebyanappellantin thelong-termspecifiedasset,outofcapitalgainsarisingfrom transferofoneormoreoriginalasset,duringthefinancial yearinwhichtheoriginalassetorassetsaretransferredand inthesubsequentfinancialyeardoesnotexceedfiftylakh rupees. Thisamendmentwilltakeeffectfrom1stApril,2015andwill, accordingly.applyinrelationtoassessmentyear2015-16 andsubsequentassessmentyears." 4.3InviewoftheNotesonClausesFinanceBill2014andthe MemorandumexplainingtheprovisionsintheFinance(No.2)Bill, 2014asreproducedhereinabove,Ihavenodoubtthatthe legislaturehaschosentoremovetheambiguityintheprovisoto I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 6 Section54EC(1)oftheActbyinsertingasecondprovisobutonly w.e.f.01/04/2015andsubsequentyearsandnotretrospectively.I findsupportfromdecisionsrenderedbyvariouscourtsoflaw includingthejurisdictionalcourtascitedbytheappellant,wherein interalia,theabovepositionoflawasprevailingpriortoA.Y.2015-16 hasbeenaccepted.InthedecisionoftheHon'bleITAT,Ahmedabad BenchinthecaseofAspiGinwala,ShreeRamEngg&Mfg. Industriesus.ACIT(2012)52SOT16/20taxmann.com75(Ahd.)on identicalfacts,itisheldasunder: Theappellantsoldpropertyon22.10.2007andcomputed long-termcapitalgains.Thesection54ECinvestmentwas requiredtobemadewithin6monthsie.onorbefore 21.04.2008.TheappellantinvestedRs.50lakhsinREC bondson31.12.2007(F.Y.2007-08,withinthe6Mtimelimit) andRs.50lakhsinNHAIbondson26.5.2008(F.Y.2008-08, beyondthe6Mtimelimit)andclaimedadeductionofRs.1 crore.Theappellantclaimedthatnoeligibleschemewas availableforsubscriptionfrom1.4.2008to28.5.2008andthat heappliedintheNHAIbondsassoonasitopenedandthat hewaspreventedbysufficientcausefrominvestingwithin thetimeperiodof6months.TheAssessingOfficer&CIT(A) rejectedtheclaimforexemptionofRs.50lakhsinrespectof theNHAIbondsonthegroundthat(1)itexceededthe monetarylimitofRs.50lakhsprescribedinsection54ECand (ii)itwasmadebeyondthetimelimitof6months OnappealtotheTribunal,heldallowingtheappeal(1)The Provisotosection54ECprovidesthattheinvestmentmadeina longtermspecifiedassetbyanappellant"duringany financialyearshouldnotexceedRs.50lakhs.Itisclearthatif theappellanttransfershiscapitalassetafter30thSeptember ofthefinancialyearhegetsanopportunitytomakean investmentofRs.50lakhseachintwodifferentfinancial yearsandisabletoclaimexemptionuptoRs.1croreunder section54EC.Thelanguageoftheprovisoisclearand unambiguousandsotheappellantisentitledtogetexemption uptoRs.Icroreinthiscase:(i)Thoughthetimelimitof6 monthsformakingtheinvestmentundersection54ECexpired on21.4.2008,nobondswereavailableforsubscription between1.4.2008to28.5.2008.Theinvestmentwasmadeas soonasthesubscriptionopenedon26.5.2008.Theappellant wasaccordinglypreventedbysufficientcausewhichwas beyondhiscontrolinmakinginvestmentintheseBonds withinthetimeprescribed.Exemptionshouldbegrantedin I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 7 caseswherethereisadelayinmakinginvestmentduetonon availabilityofthebonds. Theabovepositionisreiteratedandconfirmedbyvariousother courtsoflawasunder: CITVs.C.Jaichander(2015)370ITR579/229Taxman10 (Mad.)(HC) CIT.Vs.SnramIndubai(2015)370ITR579(Mad.)(HC) CITVs.CoromandelIndustriesLtd.(2015)370ITR586/230 Taxman548(Mad)(HC) Mrs.LilavatiSayanius.ITO(2014)49taxmann.com579 (Mumbai-Trib.) ITOVs.RaniaFaleiro(Ms.)(2013)142ITD769(Panji)(Trib.) Thus,inviewoftheabovefactsandoverwhelmingpositionoflaw coupledwiththeclearlegislativeintentiontoinsertthesecond provisotoSection54EConlywef01/04/2015Le.A.Y.2015-16and subsequentyearsrestrictingthemaximuminvestmentofRs.50 lakhsirrespectiveoffinancialyear,Iamoftheopinionthatfroma plainreadingofSection54EC(1)andthefirstprovisoasapplicable fortheyearunderconsiderationie.A.Y.2011-12,itisclearthatprior toinsertionoftheSecondProvisotoSection54ECw.e.f. 01/04/2015applicabletoA.Y.2015-16andsubsequentyears,the timelimitforinvestmentissixmonthsfromthedateoftransferand evenifsuchinvestmentfallsundertwofinancialyears,thebenefit claimedbytheappellantamountingtoRs.1crorecannotbedenied andtheadditionasmadebytheAOisnotjustified.Therearetwo properties/twobanakhatandtwoinvestmentsasperdetailsbelow. TheAssessingOfficerisoftheopinionthattheinvestmentdated31- 3-2010hasbeenmadebeforethesaledeeddated11-10-2010. Survey No. AmountRsInvestment U/s.54EC Date Investment AmountRs.Reference/ Banakhat dated 502/2 2,32,56,773RECBonds31-03-201050,00,00008-04-2011 498& 500 5,68,76,282RECBonds08-03-201050,00,00011-10-2010 8,01,33,055 I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 8 However,theappellantwasinreceiptofRs.70lakhsbeforethe dateofinvestmenton31-3-2010ieRs.35lakhson8-3-2010and anotherRs35lakhson25-3-2010.Therefore,thereismisreadingof factsbytheAssessingOfficerandtheappellantiseligibletoget benefitofinvestmentofRs.1croreConsequently,thedisallowance willberestrictedtoRs.44,90,000/-andthesameisconfirmed.The groundNo.1oftheappealispartlyallowed 5.Aggrievedagainsttheappellateorder,therevenueisinappeal beforeusinITANo.822/Ahd/2019,raisingthefollowinggroundsof appeal: 1.TheCIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsinholdingthatthe investmentinlongtermasseteligiblefordeductionu/s54ECisnot restrictedtoRs50Lacs 2.TheCITIA)haserredinlawandonfactsintreatingthe clarificationamendmentinProvisoIoftheSection54ECtobe prospectiveinnature 3.TheLd.CIT(A)haserredinlawandonfactsinallouingthe deductionu/s54ECoftheITActinrespectofbondspurchasedprior tothedateofsaleofpropertywhichresultedinLTCG. 4.Theappellantcravesleavetoamendalteranygroundoradda newground,whichmaybenecessary. 6.Wehaveheadtherivalcontentionatlengthandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecordsincludingthepaperbookandcase lawsfiledbytheassessee.Thegroundsraisedbytherevenueisno moreresintgrea,sincetheissueissettledbytheJurisdictional HighCourtaswellasvariousHighCourtswhichwerebeing consideredbytheLd.CIT(A)inhisappellateorderextractedabove. TheLd.CIT(A),alsoconsiderednotesandclausesofFinanceAct, 2014andMemorandumexplainingprovisionof(Billno.2)ofthe FinanceAct,therebyParliamenthastoremovetheambiguityinthe provisotosection54EC(1)oftheAct,byinsertionofsecondproviso I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 9 witheffectfrom01.04.2015onwards,whichisapplicable prospectively.Itisundisputedfactthattheinvestmentsmadeby theassesseeinRECBondson31.03.2010,08.04.2010and 21.07.2010forRs.50,00,000/-eachwhicharemuchbeforethe insertionof2 nd provisotosection54EC(1)oftheActwitheffect from01.04.2015.Further,theaboveamendmentwasconsidered bytheCo-ordinateBenchofthisTribunalinthecaseofAspi GinwalaandShreeRamEngg.&Mfg.V/sACIT,theabove decisionsarealsoextractedinhisorderpassedbyLd.CIT(A)at parahraph4.3.Thus,wedonotfindanyinfirmityintheorder passedbytheLd.CIT(A),therefore,thegroundraisedbythe Revenueisdevoidofmeritsandliabletobedismissed. 6.1Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheRevenueinITA No.822/Ahd/2019isherebydismissed. 7.NowcomingtotheITANo.949/Ahd/2023,appealfiledbythe assesseeandGroundsofappealareasfollows: “...ThelearnedCIT(A)haserredinrestrictingthedeductionuptoRs. 50,00,000andconfirmingtheadditionofRs.44,90,000underSection 54ECinasmuchastheassesseehadreceivedadvancesamountofmore thanRs.44,90,000priortoinvestmentofRs.50,00,000on21-07-2010 andthereforethesameisalsoeligiblefordeductionunderSection54EC...” 8.Theregistryhasnotedthatthereisadelayof1654daysin filingtheaboveappealbytheassessee.Thecondonationofdelay affidavitfiledbytheassesseereadsasfollows: 1.RajendraHarjivandasPrajapati,agedabout61yearsresidingat25, NandigramSociety,Nr.RailwayCrossing,Nr.Vedhshala,Naranpura, Ahmedabad380013doherebysolemnlyaffirmasunder I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 10 IhadreceivedCIT(A)OrderforA.Y.2011-2012underSection143(3)read withSection263dated05-03-2019on20-03-2019 TheCIT(A)hadpartlyallowedtheappealandtheDepartmenthasfiledan appealtoHonbleITATagainstthereliefgrantedbyCITIA)byITANo. 822/Ahd/2019ThisappealispendingbeforeHon'bleITAT. IdidnotfileappealagainsttheCIT(A)Orderdated05-03-2019tothe extentofrestrictingthedeductionunderSection54EConmis- understandingoflaw TheCITIA)hasgiventhereliefonthegroundthatanamountofRs. 50,00,000wasreceivedinadvanceandthesameiseligiblefordeduction underSection54ECThereisareasonablejurisprudenceintheformof Hon'bleHighCourtandITATdecisionsonthisprinciple. IbelievethattheclaimofdeductiontotheextentofRs.44,90,000under Section54ECnotgrantedbyCITAalsoiseligiblefordeductiononthe sameprinciplethattheadvanceagainstsaleofpropertyiseligiblefor deductionunderSection54EC IrealizedthisonlyonthelastdateofhearingoftheITATbasedonthe adviceoftheAR Inviewofthis,theappealisfiledbelatedlyandyourhonoursareprayed tocondonethedelayandadmittheappeal Whateverstatedaboveistrueandcorrecttothebestofmyknowledgeand belief. 9.Onperusaloftheaffidavititmakesitclearthatthereisno mentioningabouttheclearreasonforthedelaywithproper explanation.Itisseenfromtherecordsthelistofdatesandevents whichareasfollows: Sr.NoDateParticulars 1.28.09.2011AssesseefileditsReturnofIncomedeclaringincomeof Rs.28,53,050/- 2.21.02.2014Regularassessmentu/s.143(3)oftheAct,made acceptingtheReturnedIncome. 3.08.03.2016Ex-parterevisionorderpassedbyPCITafterproviding threehearingstotheassesseeanddeniedpartialclaim ofexemptionu/s.54ECoftheAct. 4.22.09.2016GivingeffectorderpassedbytheAOu/s.143(3)r.w.s I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 11 10.Fromperusaloftheabovelistofdatesandevents,the originalappealfiledbytheRevenuewasdismissedasearlierin August2019bythisTribunalandM.AfiledbytheRevenuewas alsodismissedbytheCo-ordinateBenchofthisTribunal.Thesame waschallengedbeforetheHon'bleHighCourtofGujaratbyfiling theWritPetitionandvidejudgmentdated08.07.2022,theHon'ble GujaratHighCourtremittedthematterbacktothethisTribunalto decidetheappealonmerits.Itisthereafter,thepresentappealis filedbytheassesseeon28.11.2023.Itisseenthattheasseseewas notapartyintheproceedingswhenDepartmentappealwas dismissedonaccountofLowTaxEffectandMAwasalsofiledby theRevenuewasalsodismissedevenDepartment’sappealbefore theHon’bleHighCourtofGujarat.WhentheHon’bleHighCourtof Gujaratset-asidethematterbacktothefileoftheITAT.Onservice ofnotice,theassesseefiledthepresentappealwithadelayof1654 days.Hence,thedelayinfilingtheappealisherebycondoned. 11.Sinceitisaundisputedfactthattheassesseeinvestedin RECbondsofRs.1.5croresbysellingthreeimmovableproperties 263oftheAct. 5.05.03.2019Ld.CIT(A)givenpartialrelieftotheassessee. 6.14.08.2019ITANo.822/Ahd/2019filedbytheRevenuewas dismissedonthegroundofLowTaxEffect. 7.11.03.2020MANo.380/Ahd/2019filedbytheRevenuewasalso dismissedbytheITAT. 8.2021TheRevenuehaschallengedthisBatchofMA'sbefore HighCourtofGujaratbyfilingWritPetition. 9.08.08.2022Hon'bleGujaratHighCourthasremittedthematterback tothefileofITATtodecidetheappealsonmerits. 10.28.11.2023PresentAppealfiledbytheassesseewithadelayof 1654days. I.T.ANos.949&822/Ahd/2023-2019A.Y.2011-12PageNo RajendraHPrajapativs.DCIT 12 muchbeforetheinsertionofthesecondprovisotosection54EC(1), asfollows: 12.ThustheLd.CIT(A)isnotcorrectinrestrictingthebenefitof deductionu/s.54EConlytotheextentofRs.1crore.Thus,the aboveorderoftheLd.CIT(A)ismodifiedandtheLd.AOisdirected tograntadeductionu/s.54ECofRs.1.5crores.Hence,the groundsraisedbytheassesseeisherebyallowed. 13.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisallowed. 14.Inthecombinedresults,theappealfiledbytheassessee isallowedandappealfiledbytheRevenueisdismissed. Orderpronouncedintheopencourton05/07/2024 Sd/-Sd/- (ANNAPURNAGUPTA)(T.R.SENTHILKUMAR) ACCOUNTANTMEMBERJUDICIALMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated05/07/2024 Manish Sr. No Survey/ BlockNo AssesseeShare of(Rs.) Advance Amount Received Investmentin RECBonds Dateof Investment 1.Survey No.502/2 2,32,56,77370,00,00050,00,00031.03.2020 1a.1,62,56,77344,90,00021.07.2010 2.Survey No.498& 500 5,68,76,2821,25,00,00050,00,00008.04.2011 3.BlockNo.6/85,09,748Nil5,10,00021.07.2010