Smt. Maniza Jumabhoy, hyd, Hyderabad V. ACIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 998/HYD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2474 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: U MINICHANDRAN
• Assessee Lawyers: C S SUBRAMANYAM
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Reasonable cause; Fair market value; Surrender of tenancy right; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 50C; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 998/HYD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY, HYDERABAD. PAN AHLPJ 3369F VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.S. SUBRAMANYAM REVENUE BY : SMT. U. MINICHANDRAN DATE OF HEARING : 11-04-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-06-2017 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) - IV, HYD ERABAD, DATED 22-03-2012 FOR AY 2007-08. 2. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE WAS A D ELAY OF 5 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL. IN THIS CONNECTION, ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF THE SAID DELAY WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT SHE IS A RESIDENT OF SINGAPORE DUE TO WHICH DELAY OCCURRED I N FILING THE APPEAL. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMING THE REAS ONS MENTIONED IN THE CONDONATION PETITION. AFTER HEARING THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS LD. DR AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RE ASONS GIVEN IN THE CONDONATION PETITION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT TH E DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS ON ACCOUNT OF REASONABLE CAUSE, THEREFOR E, WE ADMIT THE APPEAL AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERI TS. 2 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY 3. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SSESSEE HAD FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2007-08 ON 27/06/2008 D ECLARING THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 1,70,53,650/-. DURING THE SUR VEY CONDUCTED ON 11/03/2010 IN THE CASE OF SRI KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN A ND M/S ALLADIN INVESTMENTS AND PROPERTIES, HOWEVER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MORE THAN THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OFFERED CAPITAL GAINS ON THE BASIS OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS, THE RE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY WA Y OF A NOTICE U/S 148 SERVED ON 11/05/2010 AND THE REASSESSMENT O RDER WAS PASSED BY MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. 3.1 DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASK ED THE ASSESSEE V IDE LETTER DTD. 23.11.2010, TO FURNISH THE DETAILS ALONG WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THE COST OF ACQU ISITION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 79,36,350/- WHILE WORKING OU T THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND AT RS. 1,70,63,650/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 27.6.2008. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, ALONG WITH HER FAMILY MEMBERS, WAS THE OWNER OF A PROPERTY ADMEASURING 16,366 SQ. YARDS AT SANATHNAGAR, BY WAY OF SUCCESSION, WHICH WAS IN POSSESSION OF M/S. VOLTAS LTD. ON 199 YEARS LEASE. THE FAMILY PAID A SUM OF RS. 3 CRO RE TO M/S VOLTAS LTD. FOR TAKING BACK THE POSSESSION OF THE ENTIRE P ROPERTY THROUGH THEIR AGENT, M/S. ALLADIN INVESTMENTS AND PROPERTIES. (RS . 2,75,00,000/-, BESIDES RS. 25,00,000/- TOWARDS PROPORTIONATE REGIS TRATION EXPENSES). THE REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES SH ARE FOR THE PROPORTIONATE AREA SOLD CAME TO RS. 61,48,000/-. BE SIDES, THE ASSESSEE PAID A SUM OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- TO M/S. AL LADIN INVESTMENTS AND PROPERTIES AS CONSENTING PARTY AT THE TIME OF S ALE OF THE PROPERTY. COPIES OF DOCUMENTS/RECIEPTS WERE ALSO SUBMITTED. A COPY OF THE 3 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY ASSIGNMENT DEED DTD. 31/03/2003, EXECUTED BETWEEN M /S VOLTAS LTD. AND M/S. ALLADIN INVESTMENTS AND PROPERTIES WAS ALS O SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE CONFIRMATION LETTER REGARDING RS. 1,50,00, 000/- TOWARDS ASSESSEES SHARE OF COST. 3.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT EXCEPT FOR FI LING THE ABOVE MENTIONED LETTER, ASSIGNMENT DEED AND CONFIRMATION LETTER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY BANK ACCOUNTS SO AS TO VERIFY, THE GENUINENESS OF PAYMENTS CLAIMED AS MADE. ANY CASH F LOW STATEMENT OR BALANCE SHEET WAS ALSO NOT FILED. ON AN EXAMINAT ION OF THE ASSIGNMENT DEED, HOWEVER, HE NOTED THAT THERE WAS N O MENTION OF THE ASSESSEE'S NAME OR ANY REFERENCE TO HER THEREIN. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED AS TO UNDER WHAT CIR CUMSTANCES THE AMOUNTS WERE PAID TO M/S. ALLADIN INVESTMENTS AND P ROPERTIES. THE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. ALLADIN INVESTMENTS AND PROP ERTIES ONLY STATED THAT THEY HAD RECEIVED RS. 1,50,00,000/- TOWARDS TH EIR SHARE AS CONFIRMING PARTY, AS THEY WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN OBTA INING ASSIGNMENT DEED FOR THE SAID PROPERTY FROM M/S VOLTAS LTD. 3.3 ON A CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIM, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY WHICH HER ANCESTORS HAD LEASED TO M/S VOLT AS LIMITED ON 8.1.1963. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO DISPOSE OF T HE PROPERTY, SHE HAD CLAIMED HAVING PAID COMPENSATION TO THEM FOR TA KING POSSESSION AND SALE RIGHTS OVER THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. AS SUCH , THE EXPENDITURE WAS CLAIMED AS INCIDENTAL TO THE TRANSFER OF PROPER TY. 3.4 ON AN EXAMINATION OF THIS ISSUE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR GETTI NG THE LEASE RIGHTS CANCELLED WERE NOT ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE, AS THE EN CUMBRANCE HAS BEEN CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HER ANCESTORS. IN T HIS REGARD HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RANGA SETTY (159 ITR 4 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY 797) (KER.), HOLDING THAT' 'PAYMENT MADE BY THE LAN DLORD TO THE TENANT IN REGARD TO SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHTS CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE T RANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ROSHAN BABU MOHAMMAD HUSSEIN MERCHANT (275 ITR 231) (BOM) OPINING THAT AN ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTI ON OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO REMOVE THE ENCUMBRANCE CREATED BY HIMSE LF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO THE LAND BELONGED TO THE ANCESTORS AND THE ENCUMBRANCE HAS A LSO BEEN CREATED BY THEM. ACCORDINGLY, IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUE D THAT THE ENCUMBRANCE HAD BEEN CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE ANCEST ORS. BESIDES, HE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE B ANK ACCOUNTS STATEMENT TO PROVE THE FACT OF PAYMENT. ACCORDINGLY , THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. VOL TAS LTD. WAS REJECTED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE P REFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENDITURE TOWA RDS PROPORTIONATE COMPENSATION OF RS. 79,36,350/- IS ALLOWABLE U/S. 4 8(1) OF THE ACT, AS UPON SUCCESSION OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY, THE ASSES SEE HAD PAID THE COMPENSATION AS PER THE DOCUMENT SUBMITTED. THE REP RESENTATIVE AVERRED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEES ANCESTORS CREATE ANY LIEN, MORTGAGE OR ANY ACTIONABLE CLAIM, AND THE ASSESSEE WHO INHERITS THE PROPERTY MAKES PAYMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLEARING OF SUCH ACTIONABLE CLAIMS FOR PERFECTING THE TITLE, SUCH PA YMENTS SHOULD BE REGARDED AS COST OF ACQUISITION U/S. 48. HE AVERRED THAT THIS IS APPLICABLE FOR A PROPERTY UNDER SALE WHICH IS ANCES TRAL IN NATURE AND DEVOLVED ON THE ASSESSEE UPON INHERITANCE. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD 5 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF V S M R J AGADISH CHANDRA VS. CIT (227 ITR 240) 5.1 THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR VACATION OF PROPERTY AND P AYMENT MADE TO TENANT IS IN THE NATURE OF PAYMENT 'ONLY AND EXCLUS IVELY IN CONNECTION WITH THE SALE' AND THEREFORE, DEDUCTIBLE U/S 48(I). FOR THIS PROPOSITION HE CITED THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. SHAK UNTLA RAJESWAR (160 ITR 840) (DEL.) AND NAWZAR CHENOY VS. CIT (234 ITR 98) (A.P). THE REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE CASE LAW RELI ED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I.E. 159 ITR 797, IS OUT OF CONTE XT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, AS THE SAID CASE REFER TO COMPULS ORY ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY BY THE GOVERNMENT AND CONTEMPLATED ON THE BASIS OF 'ONE TRANSFER' ALONE BY THE ASSESSEE THEREIN. 5.2. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CO NTENDED THAT M/S ALLADIN INVESTMENTS AND PROPERTIES WAS THE AFFIRMIN G PARTY TO .BOTH SALE DEEDS AND HAD RECEIVED RS. 1,50,00,000/- FROM THE ASSESSEE BY CHEQUE, AS PER THE RECEIPT ISSUED BY THEM. HE SUBM ITTED THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- MADE TO THEM 'HAS BEEN ' TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SRI KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN IN THE' A.Y.2007-0 8 AND THEREFORE, SUCH AMOUNT SHOULD BE REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL CONSID ERATION FOR ARRIVING AT THE CAPITAL GAINS. 6. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND T HE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED P OSITION OF LAW THAT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISIN G FROM THE SALE OF ANY PROPERTY RECEIVED ON SUCCESSION, THE COST O F ACQUISITION THEREOF HAS TO BE TAKEN AS THE COST IN THE HANDS OF THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ENCUMBRANCE ON THE PROP ERTIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAD BE EN CREATED, BY HIS ANCESTORS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R M MERCHA NT HUSSEIN AND FANCY CORPORATION VS. DCIT (275 ITR 231) WHEREI N THE 6 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY DECISION IN THE CASE OF ARUNACHALAM VS. CIT (227 IT R 222)(S.C) AND JAGADISHCHANDRAN (VSMR) (227 ITR 222)(S.C) ALSO WAS REFERRED TO, THE ENCUMBRANCE CREATED BY THE EARLIER OWNER WAS CLEARLY NOT A PART OF SUCH OF COST OF ACQUISITION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF S UCCESSION, THE COST OF ACQUISITION WOULD GET RESTRICTED ONLY T O THAT IN THE HANDS OF HIS ANCESTORS, WHICH INDEED EXCLUDES THE C OST OF ANY ENCUMBRANCE CREATED BY THEM. ACCORDINGLY, EVEN IF T HE ASSESSEE HAD TO DISCHARGE THE LIABILITY ON THIS ACCOUNT BY M AKING ANY PAYMENT TO M/S. VOLTAS LTD., THIS CANNOT BE SAID AS CONSTITUTING A PART OF THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE PROPERTY TRA NSFERRED, FINDING NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ; THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTI ON OF ANY EXPENDITURE CONTENTEDLY INCURRED FOR GETTING THE RE LEASE OF THE PROPERTY. 6.1 LIKEWISE, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE PAID ANY SUM TO M/S. ALLADIN INVESTMENT AND PROPERTIES AT THE TIME OF SALE OF TH E PROPERTY ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAD ACTED AS THE CONSENTING PART Y, THE AMOUNT SO PAID IS ONLY AN APPLICATION OF THE CONSIDERATION . RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISH ED THAT BUT FOR INCURRING SUCH EXPENDITURE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY. THE MERE FACT THAT THE S UM OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SRI KARI M NAWAS ALLADIN ALSO DOES NOT MAKE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E A VALID CLAIM AS THE PURPOSE AND NECESSITY OF INCURRING SUC H EXPENDITURE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED AT ANY STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO ANY DEDUCTION EVEN ON THIS ACCOUNT. UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN DI SALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTIONS OF' RS. 79,36,350/- AND RS. 1,5 0,00,000/- IN COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS, GROUND NOS. 2 AND 4 ARE DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7. AS REGARDS THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 50C OF THE ACT, VIDE THE QUESTIONNAIRE DTD. 8.11.2010, THE ASS ESSEE HAD BEEN INFORMED THAT SHE HAD ADMITTED THE VALUE OF CONSIDE RATION AT RS. 4 CRORES ONLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, WHEREAS IN VIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY I.E. RS. 6,11,90,100/-, SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID QUERY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE SUBMI SSIONS DTD. 23.11.2010 SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY AT SANATHNAG AR WAS UNDER LONG LEASE WITH M/S. VOLTAS .LTD. AND WHEN THE SAME WAS REVERTED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE, CERTAIN AREA WAS LOST BY WAY OF ROAD WIDENING AND FOR FORMATION OF ROADS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HOUGHT OF 7 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY REGISTRATION WAS FOR THE GROSS AREA, THE NET AREA A CTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE BUYER WAS LESS. 7.1 ON A CONSIDERATION OF FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTICED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5OC OF THE ACT WERE APPLICAB LE IN THE INSTANT CASE. HE NOTICED THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGAR DING LOSS OF AREA COULD BE FILED. BESIDES, IT WAS NOT KNOWN AS TO HOW THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS NOT BEING AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSE E WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PURCHASERS THROUGH THE SALE DEEDS. THE ASSES SING OFFICER ALSO NOTICED THAT WHILE BOTH THE MARKET VALUE AND THE AC TUAL CONSIDERATION HAD BEEN MENTIONED AT RS. 3 CRORES IN THE DOCUMENT NO. 1106/2007, THE ENCUMBRANCE CERTIFICATE REFLECTED THE MARKET VA LUE AT RS.4,30,66,600/ -, THOUGH ACTUAL CONSIDERATION SHOW N WAS RS. 3 CRORES ONLY. IN VIEW OF THE HUGE VARIATION, THEREFO RE, A REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE SRO, SR NAGAR HYDERABAD, WHO INFORMED T HAT THE MARKET VALUE WAS RS. 4,30,66,600/- ONLY. AFTER PROV IDING A COPY OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE SRO, THE MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY IN DOCUMENT NO. 1106/2007 WAS CONSIDERED AT RS. 4,30,6 6,600/- AND ADOPTING THE TOTAL MARKET VALUE AT RS. 6,11,90,100/ -, AS AGAINST RS. 4 CRORES ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE COMPUTED. 8. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT THE PROPERTY ACTUAL LY RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VOLTAS LTD. WAS 2853 SQ. YARDS ON LY, AS AGAINST THE AREA SHOWN IN THE DOCUMENT AT 3353 SQ. YARDS. HE SU BMITTED THAT THIS HAD HAPPENED DUE TO ROAD WIDENING. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE VALUATION U/S. 50C WAS INCORRECT TO THIS EXTENT . 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ADMITTEDLY, THE MARKET VALUE OF THE P ROPERTIES IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C WAS RS. 6,11,90,100/ -. EVEN IF THERE IS TRUTH IN THE CONTENTION THAT THE ACTUAL AREA RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE 8 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY FROM VOLTAS LTD. WAS LESS THAN THAT SHOWN IN THE DO CUMENT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED THE ENTIRE PROPER TY ONLY BY WAY OF THE RELEVANT DEEDS AND THE MARKET VALUE OF SUCH PRO PERTY WAS RS. 6,11,90,100/- ONLY. FINDING NO MERIT IN THE CONTENT ION, OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE APPLICATION, OF THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND THE CONSEQUENT ADOPTION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 6,11,90,1001/- WAS UPHELD. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1 . THE COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PERFECTING TITLE AND T AKING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AS COST OF ACQUISITION. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED CONSIDERA TION PAID TO CONFIRMING PARTY AS PART OF COST OF ACQUISI TION. 3. THE COMMISSIONER ERRED IN APPLYING SECTION 5OC BY ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSI DERATION RECEIVED. 4. ANY OTHER GROUND AT TIME OF HEARING. 10.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED A P ETITION SEEKING ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT IN LAW FOR THE REASON THAT THE REGISTERED D OCUMENTS EXECUTED BY THE EXECUTANTS, WHICH INCLUDED THE ASSE SSEE, WERE NOT DEEDS OF SALE BUT ONLY AGREEMENTS OF SALE CUM I RREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAID DOCUMENTS DID NOT RESULT IN TRANSFER OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERT Y WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE SAID AGREEMENTS. 10.2 REFERRING TO THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN THE PETITION AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ASSESSED ON 1/3RD SHARE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS COMPUTED ON THE GROUND THAT SHE TRANS FERRED, BY WAY OF SALE, IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER[A.O] AS WELL AS THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) [C.I.T(A)] THAT THE PROPERTY WA S THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LEGAL DISPUTE IN 0.A NO.844 BEFORE ADDL.J UDGE, RR DIST 9 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY COURT, HYDERABAD, THAT SHE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SAL E CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, THAT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY HER BROTHER SRI KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN AND THAT THE SALE DEEDS INCLUDE HER NAME AS VENDOR AT THE INSTANCE OF THE BUYER TO AVOID FURTHER LEGAL DI SPUTES FROM THE FAMILY. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT HER CONTENTION AND BROUGHT TO TAX 1/3 SHARE OF CAPITAL GAIN. THE C.I.T(A) CONFIRMED T HE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HO N'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT) SEEKING RELIEF FROM THE LEVY OF TAX CHARGED ON THE AFORESAID CAPITAL GAIN. 2. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF FILING OF APPEAL BEFOR E THE HON'BLE ITAT, A DECREE HAS BEEN PASSED ON 06-03-2015 IN 0.A NO.844 OF 2007 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PLAINTIFFS , ALONG WITH SRI KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN AND SMT.MANIZA JUMABHOY, THE VE NDORS IN THE SALE DEEDS WHICH GAVE RISE TO THE CAPITAL GAINS . IN THE SAID SUIT, THE COURT DECREED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THEIR CLAIM FOR TITLE TO T HE PROPERTY, IN RESPECT OF WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN CO MPUTED BY THE AO. 3. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE REGISTERED DOCUMEN TS NOS.1814/2007 AND 1815/2007 WHICH WERE THE BASIS FO R CHARGING CAPITAL GAIN IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, ARE ONLY AGREE MENTS OF SALE CUM IRREVOCABLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND NOT D EEDS OF SALE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAID DOCUMENTS COULD NOT HAV E RESULTED IN CONVEYANCE OF TITLE TO THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE SU BJECT MATTER OF THE SAID AGREEMENTS. THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION HAS BEE N CLARIFIED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SURAJ LAMP S & INDUSTRIES (P) LTD., VS STATE OF HARYANA (2011) 14 TAXRNANN.COM 103. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN ASSESSING CAPITAL GAIN, HOLDING THAT THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS BEING AGREEMENTS OF SALE CUM GENERAL POWER OF ATTOR NEY GAVE RISE TO TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY MENTIONED TH EREIN, AND THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RAISE A GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS COUNT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HON'BLE I NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE 'S TAX ADVISOR OMITTED TO RAISE THE APPROPRIATE GROUND DUE TO INAD VERTENCE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPE AL NOW SOUGHT TO BE FILED HAS A RELEVANT BEARING ON THE VE RY CHARGEABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN. 4. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE ITAT TO FILE THE AFOREMENTIONED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN APPEAL NO.655/HYD/2014 PENDING BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND OF APPEAL 10 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AND DECIDED UPON WHILE ADJUD ICATING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. 11. WE ADMIT THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL A S IT IS RELEVANT ON THE CHARGEABILITY OF CAPITAL GAIN. 12. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 1 RELATING TO DENIAL OF A SSESSEES CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR PERFECTIN G TITLE AND TAKING POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY SOLD, LD. AR SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE P ROPERTIES SOLD BY HER, AS UNDER: A) FMV OF 3355 SQ.YDS AS ON 01/04/81 AT RS. 60/- PER SQ.YD. RS. 2,01,300 B) PROPORTIONATE COMPENSATION PAID TO M/S VOTALS LTD TO TAKE POSSESSION AND SALE RIGHTS IN 2003-04 RS. 61,48,000 INDEXED COST OF (A) ABOVE RS. 2,01,300 X 519/100 RS. 10,44,747 INDEXED COST OF (B) ABOVE RS. 61,48,000 X 519/463. RS. 68,91,603 TOTAL INDEXED COST CLAIMED 79,36,350 THE AO ALLOWED ONLY RS. 10,44,747/- AS THE COST OF ACQUISITION, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 12.1 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TH E DECISION OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS PATENTLY INCORRECT IN LAW. IN THIS CONNECTION THE LD. AR BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH, ITS DECISION IN A RELATED CASE VIZ., SMT. FARIDA ALLADIN VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 954/HYD/201 2 DT:12-06-2015 WHEREIN ON AN IDENTICAL ISSUE THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE C.I.T(A) ON THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF R.M MERCHANT HUSSAIN AND FANCY CORPORATION LTD (SUPRA) WAS MISPLACED AND FOLLOWING THE SUPREME COU RT'S DECISION IN THE CASES OF JAGADISHCHANDRAN VSMR (SUPRA) AND ARUN ACHALAM VS CIT (SUPRA) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE FOR S IMILAR ALLOWANCE. A COPY OF THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IS SUBMIT TED (PAGES 52 TO 11 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE SAI D DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH AND PRAYS FOR ALLOWANCE OF THE SUM OF RS.68,91,603 AS PART OF COST OF ACQUISITION IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN IN ASSESSEES CASE. 13. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORD ERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 14. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF SMT. FARIDA ALLADIN VS. ACIT (SUPRA), THE COORDINATE BENCH HELD AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALS O PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THA T THE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION WAS AN ANCESTRAL PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEES ANCESTORS HAD CREATED AN ENCUMBRANCE OVER THE SAID PROPERTY BY GIVING THE SA ME PROPERTY ON LEASE OF 99 YEARS TO M/S. VOLTAS LIMITED. IN ORD ER TO GET THE LEASE HOLD RIGHTS RELEASED FROM M/S. VOLTAS LIMITED AND OBTAIN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY, THE AMOUNT IN QUEST ION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS COMPENSATION AND THE SAME WAS CL AIMED AS DEDUCTION BEING THE COST OF ACQUISITION FOR THE PUR POSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN. THE A.O. HOWEVER DISALLOWED THE SAID DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A ) CONFIRMED THE SAID DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. BY RELYING O N THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. R.M. MERCHANT HUSSEIN AND FANCY CORPORATION LIMITED (SUPRA). 9. IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM ON THIS ISSUE, TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON TWO DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VSMR JAGADISHCHANDRAN (DECD) BY L.RS VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND R.M. ARUNACHALAM VS. CI T (SUPRA). IN THE CASE OF VSMR JAGDISHCHANDRAN (DECD) BY L.RS. VS. CIT (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT T HAT WHERE MORTGAGE WAS CREATED BY PREVIOUS OWNER DURING HIS L IFE TIME AND THE SAME WAS SUBSISTING ON THE DATE OF HIS DEATH, T HE SUCCESSOR OBTAINED ONLY THE MORTGAGORS INTEREST IN THE PROPE RTY AND BY DISCHARGING THE MORTGAGE DEBT, HE ACQUIRED THE MORT GAGEES INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY AND THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT PAID TO CLEAR OFF THE MORTGAGE WAS THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE MORTGAGEES INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS DEDUCTIBLE AS CO ST OF ACQUISITION UNDER SECTION 48. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BE EN REITERATED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF R.N. AR UNACHALAM VS. CIT (SUPRA) DECIDED SIMULTANEOUSLY. 12 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY 10. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, LEARNED D.R. HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THE AFORESAID DECISIONS OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT CITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE BY CONTENDING THAT THE SAME ARE RENDERED IN THE CONTEX T OF MORTGAGE OF PROPERTY WHEREAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE INVOLVES PAYMENT MADE FOR RELEASE OF LEASE HOLD RIGHTS. WE A RE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED D.R. IN OUR O PINION, THE PROPOSITION PROPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VSMR JAGADISHCHANDRAN (DECD) BY L.RS. VS. C IT (SUPRA) AS WELL AS R.N. ARUNACHALAM VS. CIT (SUPRA) WOULD B E APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ANY ENCUMBRANCE CREATED BY THE PREDE CESSOR WHICH HAS BEEN REMOVED BY THE SUCCESSOR TO THE PROP ERTY BY MAKING PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION. 11. IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIE D ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. R.M. MERCHANT HUSSEIN AND FANCY CORPORATION LTD., 2 75 ITR 231 WHILE CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE. A PERUSAL OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT IN THE SAID CASE HOWEVER SHOWS THAT THE SAME IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS INASMUCH AS THE PROPERTY I N THE SAID CASE WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE FREE FROM ENCUMBR ANCES AND SINCE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE TO R EMOVE THE ENCUMBRANCE WHICH WAS CREATED BY HIMSELF, THE HONB LE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE SAME WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE UN DER SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THE RELIANCE OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F R.M. MERCHANT HUSSEIN AND FANCY CORPORATION LTD., (SUPRA ) TO CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS ISSUE THU S IS CLEARLY MISPLACED. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOW THE DEC ISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VSMR JAGADISHC HANDRAN (DECD) BY L.RS. VS. CIT (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN THE C ASE OF R.N. ARUNACHALAM VS. CIT (SUPRA) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 48 ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. VOLTAS LIMITED FOR RELEASE OF LEASE HOLD RIGHTS CREATED BY HER ANCESTORS/PREDECESSORS. GROUN D NO.1 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 14.1 AS THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US IS MATERIALLY SI MILAR TO THE SAID CASE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH ON THIS ISSUE, WE ALLOW THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE. 15. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO D ENIAL OF ASSESSEE'S CLAIM FOR ALLOWANCE OF CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,50,00,000 PA ID TO CONFIRMING PARTY AS COST OF ACQUISITION, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE 13 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY PAID A SUM OF RS.1,50,00,000/- TO M/S. ALLADIN INVE STMENTS & PROPERTIES ( A CONCERN BELONGING TO SRI KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN) WHO WERE INSTRUMENTAL IN OBTAINING ASSIGNMENT DEED FOR THE SAID PROPERTY FROM M/S.VOLTAS LTD., THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEQU E NO.425079 DATED 05-032007. THE RECIPIENT CONFIRMED THE RECEIP T VIDE CONFIRMATION DATED 11-11-2010 FILED BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER (PLEASE SEE PAGE 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK). HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE A.O DENIED THE CLAIM STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE HIS ACCOUNT AND HELD THAT THE PAYMENT WAS NOT PROVED AN D IN APPEAL THE C.I.T(A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE HOLDING THAT TH E PAYMENT WAS ONLY APPLICATION OF INCOME. 15.1 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY WAS GIVEN ON LEASE WAY BACK IN THE YEAR 1963 TO M/S.HYDERABAD AL LWYN METAL WORKS LTD., BY THE SMT.ZUBEDA DOST MOHD ALLADIN AND OVER A PERIOD OF DECADES, THE PROPERTY PASSED INTO THE HANDS OF M /S.VOLTAS LTD., A REPUTED PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. WITH OUTSTANDING LE ASE PERIOD OF SEVERAL DECADES REMAINING, IT WAS A TASK OF SOME PR OPORTION TO GET THE LESSEE TO AGREE TO LET GO OF ITS LEASE HOLD RIG HTS PREMATURELY. THE ASSIGNMENT DEED RESULTED IN THE ASSESSEE BEING ABLE TO SELL THE PROPERTY AND REALISE RS.4 CRORES AS SALE CONSIDERAT ION. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PAY MENT OF THE SUM OF RS.1,50,00,000 WAS A NECESSARY OUTGO IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CONNECTION THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISIO N OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASGAR JAN VS CIT 298 ITR 60 KAR, IN THE SAID CASE, THE AMOUNT OF COMMISSION PAID WAS REFLEC TED BY THE RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION IN HIS I.T RETURN AND ACCEP TED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OF SUCH COMMISS ION IN COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE SEL LER WAS HELD ACCEPTABLE. 15.2 LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1 ,50,00,000/- HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY SRI KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN 14 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY HIS I.T ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2007-08 AS AM OUNT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I N THE CASE OF SRI KARIM NAWAZ ALLADIN IS SUBMITTED AT PAGES 31 TO 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND THE EVIDENCE PL ACED ON RECORD, LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE CLAIM OF ALLOWANCE OF THE SUM O F RS. L,50,00,000/- U/S.48 MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. 16. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORIT IES. 17. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL FACTS ON RECORD. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE AS SESSEE ALONG WITH THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS ALLOWED MR. KARIM NAWAZ AL LADIN AS PARTY IN THE NEGOTIATION AND BE A ASSIGNING PARTY. THE RELEV ANT AGREEMENT IS PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND DECLARED THIS PAYMENT AS APPLICAT ION ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE SAME WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY MR. K ARIM ALLADIN. THE SAME AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS DECLARED BY MR. KARIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND SALE CONSIDERATION FROM AS SIGNMENT RIGHT AND DECLARED AS CAPITAL GAINS. THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY REVENUE. AS FAR AS REVENUE IS CONCERNED, THE WHOLE SALE CONSIDERATI ON WAS DECLARED AND CHARGED FOR CAPITAL GAINS. THERE CANNOT BE ANY REVENUE LOSS. MOREOVER, THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX TWICE. ONCE THE REVENUE ACCEPT THE INCOME OFFERED BY MR. KARIM AS I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS, THE SAME HAS TO B E ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GR OUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18. AS REGARDS GROUND NO. 3 RELATING TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN BY APPLYING SEC. 5OC OF THE ACT, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE PREFERS NOT TO PRESS THIS GROUND. ACCORDIN GLY, THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 15 ITA NO. 998/H/12 SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- (P. MADHAVI DEVI) (S. RIFAUR RA HMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER AC COUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED: 2 ND JUNE, 2017. KV COPY TO:- 1) SMT. MANIZA JUMABHOY, C/O M/S MAHESH, VIRENDER & SRIRAM, CAS, 788/36 & 37A, AMEERPET, HYDERABAD. 2) ACIT, CIRCLE 6(1), HYDERABAD. 3) CIT(A) - IV, HYDERABAD 4 CIT - III, HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T., HYDE RABAD. 6) GUARD FILE