The DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Motibhai Revabhai Prajapati, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 386/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1678 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGADISH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Search and seizure; Retrospective amendment; Additional evidence; Block assessment; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 54B; 133A; 153A; 80IB; 132

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR. NO. IT(SS)A.NO. AND ASSTT.YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 376/AHD/2014 AY : 2011-12 SHREE KANTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 11, REVABHAI SHOPPING CENTRE VASTRAL ROAD ODHAV, AHMEDABAD 382 418. PAN : AGAPP 3413 E. ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(4) AHMEDABAD. 2. 378/AHD/2014 AY: 2011-12 SHRI KALPESHBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PRAJAPATI 602, MADHAV BUNGALOWS VASTRAL ROAD, ODHAV, AHMEDABAD 3802 418. PAN : AGWPP 0208 P. ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(4) AHMEDABAD. 3. 379/AHD/2014 AY : 2011-12 SHREE MOTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 14, NIRMAL PARK CO-OP. HS.G SOCIETY, NR.C.T.M. CHAR RASTA OPP: N.H. NO.8 AHMEDABAD 382 418. PAN : AAMPP 2426 R. ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(4) AHMEDABAD. 4. 384/AHD/2014 AY : 2011-12 ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(4) AHMEDABAD. SHREE KANTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 11, REVABHAI SHOPPING CENTRE VASTRAL ROAD ODHAV, AHMEDABAD 382 418. PAN : AGAPP 3413 E. IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 2 5. 385/AHD/2014 AY : 2011-12 ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(4) AHMEDABAD. SHRI KALPESHBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PRAJAPATI 602, MADHAV BUNGALOWS VASTRAL ROAD, ODHAV, AHMEDABAD 3802 418. PAN : AGWPP 0208 P. 6. 386/AHD/2014 AY: 2011-12 ACIT, CENT.CIR.1(4) AHMEDABAD. SHREE MOTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 14, NIRMAL PARK CO-OP. HS.G SOCIETY, NR.C.T.M. CHAR RASTA OPP: N.H. NO.8 AHMEDABAD 382 418. PAN : AAMPP 2426 R. / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI JAGADISH, CIT - DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL KSHATRIYA, AR / DATE OF HEARING : 29/02/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/03/2016 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12 BY SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED ON 16.9.2014. TH E ASSESSEEES AND THE REVENUE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS AGAINST THESE SEPARATE ORDERS OF EVEN DATED. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEES ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH THE RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUN AL) RULES, 1963 - THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. IN BRIEF, THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEES ARE ENTI TLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IF YES, THEN WH ETHER THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 3 THE EXEMPTION OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRIC ULTURE LAND VIS--VIS ON- MONEY ON PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURE LAND. 3. THE FACTS IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON. THER EFORE, FOR FACILITY OF REFERENCE, WE MAINLY TAKE UP THE FACTS FROM THE CAS E OF SHRI KANTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI. 4. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF GALAXY GROUP ON 21.7.2011. THE ENTIRE GROUP, CONSISTS OF FOUR SUB-GROUPS, IS MAINLY ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AND REAL-ESTATE. THE CASE OF THE PRES ENT ASSESSEES BELONGS TO MADHAV GROUP. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WERE CARRI ED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE AS SESSEE-GROUP. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED UPON THE A SSESSEES ON 11.1.2012. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, RETURN OF INCOME WAS FIL ED FOR ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12 ON 9.2.2012 BY THE ASSESSEES DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.16.37,330/- (IN THE CASE OF SHRI KANTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI), RS.29,8 9,400/- (IN THE CASE OF SHRI KALPESHBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PRAJPATI) AND RS.95,50,850/ - (IN THE CASE OF SHRI MOTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI). ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIM ED EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM HAS BEEN TABULATED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE STATEMENT OF FACT S FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). SUCH DETAILS EXHIBITS, AMOUNTS AS PER THE SALE DEED , ON-MONEY RECEIPT, TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION, INVESTMENT MADE BY EACH ASSESSE E IN ASSTT.YEAR 2011-12. FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE, SUCH DETAILS ARE BEI NG NOTED AS UNDER: SR.NO. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL IN WHOSE HANDS THE DISCLOSURE IS AMOUNTS AS PER SALE DEED ON MONEY RECEIVED TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION INVESTMENT MADE IN ANOTHER AGRICULTURE LAND IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 4 MADE. WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD AND EXEMPTION U/S/54B CLAIMED. A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2011-12 A.Y. 2011-12 1. MOTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 3938100 15150659 19088759 20268652 2. BHAGWANBAHI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 4803074 18478391 23281465 20805607 3. KALPESHBHAI B. PRAJAPATI 2094300 8057191 10151491 9771229 8. WHILE EXAMINING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES, THE LD.AO HAS CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE THAT IN ORDER TO CLAIM EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEES ARE REQUIRED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AGRI CULTURE LAND TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED BY HIM OR HIS PARENTS FOR AGR ICULTURE PURPOSE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS BEFORE THE TRANSFER . IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE AGRICULTURE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEES WER E USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURE, THE ASSESSEES HAVE FILED COPIES OF RE VENUE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE STATE REVENUE OFFICIALS I.E. FORM NO.7/12. TH EY ALSO PLEADED THAT THE AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS WERE BEING CARRIED OUT THROU GH THIRD PERSONS UNDER THE MECHANISM OF CROP SHARING PATTERN. THE LD.AO HAS R EJECTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR TWO REASONS, VIZ. (A) ASSESSEES HA VE FAILED TO PRODUCE COMPLETE DETAILS OF REVENUE RECORD IN THE SHAPE OF FORM NO.7/12. THEY HAVE NOT SHOWN AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THE PAST, AND ACCOR DINGLY, HE DID NOT GRANT EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 9. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE PARTLY. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASS ESSEES THAT THE AGRICULTURE IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 5 OPERATIONS WERE BEING CARRIED OUT IN THE AGRICULTUR E LAND IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS BEFORE ITS TRANSFER. THE LD.CI T(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AS WELL AS EQUIVALENT TO THE VALUE SHOWN IN THE REG ISTERED PURCHASE DEED. IN OTHER WORDS, ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, OVE R AND ABOVE, THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE SALE DEEDS WERE NOT TREATED AS ELIGIB LE FOR CLAIM OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE IN ITS A PPEAL HAS BEEN IMPUGNING THE GRANT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B BY THE LD. CIT(A), WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR APPEALS HAVE PLEADED THAT SUCH C LAIM OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED AS WELL AS UTI LIZED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND. 10. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEES IS THAT THEY HAVE REC EIVED THE AMOUNTS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AS MENTIONED IN THE S ALE DEED AS WELL AS CASH WHICH HAS BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION. BOTH THESE AM OUNTS HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND, AND THEREFORE, THEY Q UALIFY FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. 11. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OU TSET CONTENDED THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF CO-OWNERS, SHRI BHAGWANBHAI R. PRAJAPATI. THE TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE GRANT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH, OVER AND ABO VE, THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED, AND THE AMOUNTS OUT OF WHICH HAVE BEEN USED FOR PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURE LAND. HE PLACED ON RECORD, COPY OF ITAT ORDER IN IT(SS)A.NO.377/AHD/2014 AND IT(SS)A.NO.24/AHD/2015. 12. THE LD.DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTI ONS OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 6 DEMONSTRATE THE USER OF AGRICULTURE LAND FOR THE PU RPOSE OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS BEFORE THE TRANS FER. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) SO FAR AS DENIAL OF EXEMP TION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED ON-MONEY CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE WITH HELP O F ANY PLAUSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT CASH COMPONENT WAS USED IN PURCHASE OF NEW AGR ICULTURE LAND. 13. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. SECTION 54B OF THE ACT HAS DIRECT BEARI NG ON THE CONTROVERSY. THEREFORE, IT IS PERTINENT FOR US TO TAKE NOTE OF T HIS SECTION. IT READS AS UNDER: CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF LAND USED FOR AGRICULTU RAL PURPOSES NOT TO BE CHARGED IN CERTAIN CASES. 54B. (1) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION ( 2), WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BE ING LAND WHICH, IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH T HE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDI VIDUAL OR HIS PARENT, OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOS ES (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSE E HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THAT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER L AND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, THEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAP ITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEA R IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCO RDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SA Y, I) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS GREATER THA N THE COST OF THE LAND SO PURCHASED (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE NEW AS SET), THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PER IOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE, THE COST SHALL BE NIL; OR (II) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGE D UNDER SECTION 45; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PER IOD OF THREE YEARS OF IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 7 ITS PURCHASE, THE COST SHALL BE REDUCED, BY THE AMO UNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN. [(2) THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT UT ILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE O F FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139, SHALL BE DEPOSI TED BY HIM BEFORE FURNISHING SUCH RETURN [SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTI ON 139] IN AN ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE S PECIFIED IN, AND UTILISED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY SCHEME WHICH THE C ENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY, BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RETURN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH D EPOSIT; AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUB-SECTION (1), THE AMOUNT, IF ANY, AL READY UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE NEW ASSET TOGETHER WITH THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET : PROVIDED THAT IF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED UNDER THIS SU B-SECTION IS NOT UTILISED WHOLLY OR PARTLY FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE N EW ASSET WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION (1), THEN, (I) THE AMOUNT NOT SO UTILISED SHALL BE CHARGED UN DER SECTION 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET EXPIRES; AND (II) THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ENTITLED TO WITHDRAW SUC H AMOUNT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEME AFORESAID. 14. A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 54B WOULD INDICATE TH AT WHERE THE CAPITAL AGAIN AROSE FROM A TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND, WHICH IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFE R TOOK PLACE, WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS PARENTS OR HUF FOR AGRI CULTURE PURPOSE, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER TH AT DATE, PURCHASED ANY OTHER LAND FOR BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSES, THEN, INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR, IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MECHANISM PROVIDED UNDER CLAUSE (I) AND (II) OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS MEANING OF SECTION 54B AND ITS APPLICABIL ITY IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE CONCERNED, THAT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. DISPUTE IS WHETHER ASSESSEES HAVE USED IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 8 THE CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND IN THE TWO YEARS IMMED IATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE OR NOT. THE CASE OF THE AO IS THAT THE ASSESSEES FAILED TO PRODUCE COPY OF FORM NO.7/12 T O DEMONSTRATE AGRICULTURE OPERATION . WHEN THE DISPUTE TRAVELLED TO THE CIT(A ), THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO SUBMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS CAL LED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE AO HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN PARA 4.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. T HIS REPORT IS VERBATIM IN ALL THE ORDERS. THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF FACILIT Y OF REFERENCE, IT IS BEING TAKEN FROM THE CASE OF SHRI KANTIBAHI REVABHAI PRAJPATI. THIS REPORT READS AS UNDER: 4.2 AS THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM U/S.54B OF THE ACT IN THE FORM OF 7/12 EX TRACT FROM REVENUE RECORD COVERING THE PERIOD OF 2 YEARS PRECEDING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE SAME WAS REMANDED TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 09.09. 2014 STATED AS UNDER: '2. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS TO BE REPORTED THAT Y OUR HONOUR HAS REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE UNDERSIGNED STATING THAT NEW /ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF 7/12 AND 12 EXT RACTS HAS BEEN SUBMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE YOUR HONOUR . IN THIS REGARD IT IS STATED THAT THE 7/12 AND 12 EXTRACTS W HICH HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF HAVE ALREADY BEEN SU BMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAS RECOGNIZED TH IS FACT IN ITS SUBMISSION, FOR EG. IN THE CASE OFKANTIBHAI R, PRAJ APATI FOR A.Y.2011-12, THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 3.5 HAS SUBMITTED AND I QUOTE 'THE 7/12 EXTRACT GIVEN TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R; THE NOTING OF THE AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY IS DULY GIVEN ... A COPY O F 7/12 EXTRACT OF THE LAND IS ENCLOSED ON PAGE NO. 14 TO 39. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT NO NEW/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AND THE 7/12 EXTRACTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE ID. ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, NO COMMENTS ARE BEING OFFERED ON THE EVIDENCE ALREADY ON RECORD. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE IT IS STATED THAT EV EN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT 7/12 AND 12 EXTRACTS HAVE BEEN SUBMITT ED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IT IS OF NO HELP TO THE ASSESSE E AS DEDUCTION IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 9 U/S.54B HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE BASIC REQUIREMENT FOR CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION U/S.54B OF T HE ACT THAT THE LAND SHOULD BE SUED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING AN I NDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT, OR A HUF FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES WAS NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTI CED THAT, PRIMARILY THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING AGRICULTURAL INC OME, IF ANY, IN THE FORM OF RENT RATHER THAN BY CARRYING OUT AGRICU LTURAL ACTIVITIES. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACKNOWL EDGED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT EVEN IF THE AGRICULTURAL INCO ME IS PRESUMED TO BE THERE IT IS IN THE FORM OF RENT AND NOT FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS PARE NT. MOREOVER, IN GRASIM INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. COLLECTOR O F CUSTOMS, BOMBAY AIR 2002 SC 1706, HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OBSE RVED: 'THAT DIFFERENT EXPRESSIONS LIKE 'SIMILAR' AND 'OTH ER' HAVE NOT BEEN USED WITHOUT ANY BASIS. NO WORDS OR EXPRESSION S USED IN ANY STATUTE CAN BE SAID TO BE REDUNDANT OR SUPERFLU OUS. ' THUS, IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT NO SECTION OR WORD IN A STATUTE CAN BE INTERPRETED IN A MANNER WHICH RENDERS ANY OF THE WO RD IN A STATUTE SUPERFLUOUS. IF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT IS I NTERPRETED IN A MANNER SUGGESTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND NEED NOT BE USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS PARENT AND IT SUFFICES THAT THE LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY ANYBODY, IT WILL RENDE R THE WORDS BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT, OR A HUF IN SECT ION 54B REDUNDANT. SUCH AN INTERPRETATION WILL RENDER THE T ERM THE LAND SHOULD BE USED BY THE ASSESSEE, BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT, OR A HUF FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND THE TERM THE LAND SHOULD BE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE AS SAME. THUS, THE LEGISLATURE'S USE OF WORDS SUCH AS BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PAR ENT, OR A HUF BECOMES MEANINGLESS. THIS IS AGAINST THE DECISION O F THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND CANNOT BE THE INTENTION OF THE LE GISLATURE AND ALSO CANNOT BE THE LOGICAL INTERPRETATION OF THE OT HERWISE CLEAR LAW. THEREFORE, YOUR HONOUR IS REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASONS MENTI ONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AS NOTED ABOVE. 9. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AFTER GOING THR OUGH THIS REPORT AS WELL AS EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS I N THE CAPITAL ASSET WHICH IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 10 WERE TRANSFERRED BY THEM. A PERUSAL OF REPORT WOUL D INDICATE THAT BASICALLY THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LAND WAS BEING CULTIVA TED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THIRD PERSONS. THEY THEMSELVES HAVE NOT CA RRIED OUT THE AGRICULTURE OPERATION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE RECEIVED RENTAL INCOME WHICH CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH THE AGRICULTURE INCOME. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EMPHASIZED ON THE FACTS THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54B IS USER OF THE LAND FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSES. IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEES OUGHT TO HAVE DERIV ED AGRICULTURE INCOME OUT OF THAT LAND. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF BOTH THESE ANAL OGIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A BARE PERUSAL OF SECTION 54B WOULD INDICATE T HAT THE LAND OUGHT TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES. IT CAN BE USED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENTS OR HUF. ASSESSE ES HAVE BEEN USING THIS LAND TO CARRY OUT AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS THROUGH TH IRD PERSONS EITHER ON CROP SHARING PATTERN OR ON RECEIVING LUMPSUM AMOUNT. THEY CAN CARRY OUT SUCH ACTIVITY THROUGH HIRED LABOUR. IN FORM NO.7/12 IN THE COLUMN OF CULTIVATION, SELF CULTIVATION HAS BEEN WRITTEN. THAT MEANS, THE LAND WAS UNDER THE OCCUPATION OF THE ASSESSEES. THEY HAVE PUT SOME LA BOURERS OR SOME PERSONS FOR CARRYING OUT THE AGRICULTURE OPERATION, THAT WO ULD NOT MEAN THAT LAND WAS NOT USED BY THEM FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. THEREFOR E, AS FAR AS THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE CONCERNED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 11. AS FAR AS THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE CONC ERNED, CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER HAS CONSIDE RED THIS ISSUE. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL READ AS UNDER: 6.1 AT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO EXPLAIN THAT CLAIM U/S. 54B OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BE ALLOWED AGAINST ON MONEY RECEIVED BY HIM OUT OF BOO KS. HE EXPLAINED THAT AFTER DISCLOSURE U/S. 132(4) OF I NCOME IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 11 TAX ACT, 1961, MONEY SO RECEIVED HAS BECOME PART OF HIS SALE CONSIDERATION AND WAS ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM U/S. 54B OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY IN HIS BOOKS BEFORE PURCHASE OF NEW LAND. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, BIFURCATION OF DISCLOSURE MA DE DURING COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING WAS AS UNDER: NATURE OF DISCLOSURE AMOUNT REMARKS 1) ON MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE: GATRAD, TA. & DIST. AHMEDABAD RS. 8,00,00,000/- DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF 6 INDIVIDUAL WHO HAVE SOLD THE AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT VILLAGE: GATRAD, TA. & DIST. AHMEDABAD A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 2) 'ON MONEY' RECEIVED ON SALE ,, OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SITUATED AT NIRMAL BUNGLOWS, VASTRAL, AHMEDABAD. RS.43,00,000/ - DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF MOTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI WHO OWNED THE BUNGLOW-A.Y. 2012- 13 3) UNDER STATEMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION (ON MONEY) OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS 85 COMMERCIAL SHOPS. RS. 7,29,00,000/- DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF 4 BUSINESS CONCERNS: I) MADHAV ORGANIZERS II) MADHAV ASSOCIATES III) MADHAV DEVELOPERS IV) MADHAV ENTERPRISES - A.Y. 2011-12 & 2012-13 4) 'ON MONEY' & OTHER BUSINESS INCOME RECEIVED ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. RS.24,30,00,0 00/- DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF VARIOUS BUSINESS CONCERNS 85 INDIVIDUALS- A.Y. 2006-07 TO 2009-10 8S 2012-13 TOTAL DISCLOSURE RS.40,02,00,0 00/- SHOWN IN THE BLOCK RETURN OF INCOME. ON GOING THROUGH ABOVE TABULAR DATE OF DISCLOSURE, IT MAY BE OBSERVED THAT DISCLOSURE OF RS.8 CRORE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED ON VILLAGE: GATRAD, TALUKA/DISTRICT: AHMED ABAD. THE DISCLOSURE ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED IN L IEU OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LAND HAS BIFURCAT ED IN VARIOUS GROUP PERSONS HANDS AS UNDER: SR. NO. NAME OF INDIVIDUAL AMOUNTS AS PER ON MONEY RECEIVED TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION INVESTMENT MADE IN IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 12 IN WHOSE HANDS THE DISCLOSURE IS MADE SALE DEED ANOTHER AGRICULTURE LAND WITHIN PRESCRIBED PERIOD AND EXEMPTION U/S.54B CLAIMED 1 2 3 4 5=3+4 6 1 MOTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 3938100 15150659 19088759 20268652 2 BHAGWANBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 3938100 15150659 19088759 9247100 3 KANTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI 5985791 21937120 27922911 21086618 4 KALPESHBHAI B. PRAJAPATI 3277017 11515920 14792937 10052240 5 SACHIN M. PRAJAPATI 3277017 11515920 14792937 1287140 6 YATIN K. PRAJAPATI 1229325 4729724 5959049 2829574 21645350 80000002 101645352 64771324 ON GOING THROUGH ABOVE TABLE, IT MAY BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.1,90,88,759/- (INCLUDING O N MONEY) (ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN RS.95,25,836/- ONLY ON WHICH THE EXEMPTION U/S.54B WAS CLAIMED) ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF OF GATRAD LAND. THE SAID SALE CONSIDERATION INCLUDES MOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN SALE DEED AND ON MONEY RECEI VED THEREON. OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED, ASSESS EE HAS INVESTED RS.92,47,100/- (ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MISTAKENLY TAKEN AS RS.90,90,582/-) IN ANOTHER NEW AGRICULTURE LAND WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED FOR RELIEF OF EXEMPTION U/S.54B TO THE EXT ENT OF HIS CONTRIBUTION OF RS.92,47,100/- (WHICH HAS BEEN MISTAKENLY TAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS RS.90,90,5 82/- ) TOWARDS PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURE LAND OUT OF S ALE IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 13 CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OF RS.1,90,88,759/- (INCLUDI NG ON MONEY) (ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN RS.95,25,836/- ONLY) ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF GATRAD AGRICULTURE LAND. ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S.54B ON TH E GROUND THAT BASIC REQUIREMENT OF CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54B IS THAT FIRST CONDITION OF LAND SHOULD BE U SED BY ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL OR HIS PARENT OR HUF F OR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. WE HAVE DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PRECEDING FAVOUR IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. 6.2 REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF CLAIM OF CLAIM OF O N- MONEY THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. S UMAN PAPER & BOARDS LTD. (2009) 221 CTR 0781 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF AMENDMENT ON THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 158BB BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 ST JULY, 1995 THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SEC.80-I OR SECTI ON 80-IA IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE REVEN UE HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION WITH REGA RD TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. 6.3 IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO THE BENEFIT OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B WITH REGARD TO THE ON MONEY. BOTH ARE BENEFICIAL PROVISIONS IN THEIR O WN SPHERES SO DRAWING THE SAME ANALOGY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR GETTING BENEFIT OF EX EMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B WITH REGARD TO THE ON MONEY. T HIS VIEW IS FORTIFIED BY DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHETH DEVELOPERS (P) L TD. IN ITA NO.3724 OF 2010, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT ASSES SEE WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO RECOMPUTED THE TAX PAYABLE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1995 TO 21-2-2002 UNDER SECTION 158BB AFTER GIVING BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IB. THUS IT WAS HELD THAT FOR BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLE D TO CLAIM DEDUCTION IN ITS INCOME UNDER SECTION 80IB. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DECISION, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENT ITLED IN CLAIMING EXEMPTION ON TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING ON MON EY. THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 14 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISS ED WHILE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS INDICATED ABOVE. 12. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT STATEMENT OF SH RI MOTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJPATI AND SHRI KANTIBHAI REVABHAI PRAJAPATI WERE RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THEIR STATEMENT T HEY HAVE DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.40 CRORS. THIS SUM OF RS.40 CRORES WAS STATE D TO BE RECEIVED IN CASH ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND, OVER AND ABOVE, THE AMOUN TS STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX ATION. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER ANY DISTINCTION CAN BE DRAWN BETWEEN THE TO TAL SALE CONSIDERATION ON THE STRENGTH THAT PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RE CEIVED IN CASH OR PART WAS RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE, WHICH HAS BE EN STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. WHEN EVIDENCE TO THIS EFFECT THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, OVER AND ABOVE THE ONE STATED IN THE SALE DEED, WERE UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS WERE BEING OFFERED FOR TAXATION, THEN, THOSE CASH COMPONENTS WOULD PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS TO BE COMPUTED ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT. THEREFORE, WHILE GRA NTING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, THERE CANNOT BE ANY SEGREGA TION FOR THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN CASH VIS--VIS THE AMOUNTS STATED IN TH E REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS ERRED IN SEGREGATIN G BOTH THESE COMPONENTS. IN THE FINDING EXTRACTED (SUPRA), THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER AND HELD THAT THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN CASH ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND WOULD ALSO BE TREATED AT PAR WITH THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CASH COM PONENTS IN THE SHAPE OF ON- MONEY IS ALSO TO BE TREATED AT PAR WITH THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 15 13. FURTHER, ON AN ANALYSIS OF THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE FIND ONE MORE ANGLE TO THE DISPUTE. THE LD.AO HAS DENIED THE EXEMPTION TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THEY DID NOT FULFILL THE CONDITIONS ENU MERATED IN THE SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, I.E., THE LAND WAS NOT BEING USED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING TWO YEARS FOR AGRICULTURE PURPOSE. THIS FINDING WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE FU LFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. WE HAVE CONCURRED WITH TH E FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPHS. BECAUSE OF THIS STAND AT THE END OF THE AO, HE DID NOT EXAMINE THE QUANTIFICATION OF EXEMPTION REQUIRE D TO BE GRANTED TO EACH ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 14. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) AGAIN RESTRICTED THE A DMISSIBILITY OF EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B EQUIVALENT TO THE AMOUN TS OF CAPITAL GAIN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SALE CONSI DERATION MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CIT(A) H AS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE COMPONENTS OF ON-MONEY. BY RESPE CTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEES ARE ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54B OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE SALE DEED AS WELL AS ON CASH COMPONENTS. BUT S UCH AMOUNTS OUGHT TO BE UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF NEW CAPITAL ASSET AS CONTE MPLATED IN SECTION 54B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THIS ASPECT CAN BE EXPLAINED BY WAY OF DETAILS TABULATED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND EXTRACTED B Y US. FOR EXAMPLE, SHRI MOTIBHAI HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.39,38,100/- STATE D IN THE SALE DEED. HE RECEIVED RS.1,51,50,659/- IN CASH. THAT IS ON-MONE Y. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY HIM IS OF RS.1,90,88,759/ -. HE ALLEGED THAT INVESTMENT OF RS.2,02,68,652/- WAS BEING MADE BY HI M DURING THIS YEAR, AND THEREFORE, THE EXEMPTION TO THE EXTENT OF TOTAL SAL E CONSIDERATION WILL BE ADMISSIBLE TO HIM. NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT(A) HAS VERIFIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING INVESTMENT. WHETHER IN THIS INVESTMENT OF IT(SS)A NO.376 /AHD/2014 & 5 ANRS. (6 APPEALS) 16 RS.2,02,68,652/- ANY CASH COMPONENT IS INVOLVED OR NOT. IF INVOLVED WHAT IS THE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE PAYMENT OF SUCH MONEY. WHETHER THE VENDOR OF SHRI MOTIBHAI HAS SHOWN THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURE LAND TO THIS EXTENT. THERE IS NO FINDING QUA THE UTILIZATION OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION BY SHRI MOTIBHAI FOR THE PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTUR E LAND. QUA THIS ASPECT, THE ORDERS ARE SILENT. COPY OF THE STATEMENT RECOR DED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OR COPIES OF PURCHASE DEEDS IN ENGLISH TRANSACTION HAV E NOT BEEN FILED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO THAT HE WILL VERIFY THE CLAIM OF INVESTMENT MADE BY EACH ASSESSEE AS PER SUB- CLAUSE (1) AND (II) OF SECTION 54B(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. AFTER ASCERTAINING THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF N EW AGRICULTURE LAND THAT WILL BE SET OFF AGAINST THE GAIN SHOWN BY THE ASSES SEES COMPUTED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE SAL E DEED, AS WELL AS DECLARED IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT I. E. THE AMOUNTS STATED IN THE SALE DEED AS WELL AS CASH COMPONENTS OFFERED ADDITI ONALLY. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMI SSED AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND MARCH, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 02/03/2016