INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4-2, JAIPUR V. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL, JAIPUR

MA 20/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2004 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR RAM SINGH ACIT
• Keywords: Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Set aside
• Section: 54B; 2(14); 54; 2

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM MA NO. 20/JP/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 557/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 THE ITO, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL, 2/230, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADKPA 5661 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : DR. RAM SINGH (ACIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 31/05/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/06/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. BY WAY OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION THE REVEN UE IS SEEKING RECTIFICATION OF THE MISTAKE IN THE ORDER DATED 18. 09.2018 OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AS WELL AS LD. AR AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS ALLOWED THE CL AIM OF DEDUCTION MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 2 U/S 54B OF THE ACT BY CONSIDERING THE PAYMENT OF PU RCHASE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE SALE DEED 2 9.11.2012 AND RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTING ASSET BY SALE DATED 28.01.2013. THE LD. DR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH SOME OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECEIPT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE EXISTING ASSET HOWEVER, TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1.09 CRORES THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAI D BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE RECEIPT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THU S TO THAT EXTENT THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IS NOT AVAILABLE AS TH E SAID INVESTMENT WAS NOT MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE EXISTING ASSET. THE LD. DR HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED MAY BE MODIFIED BY REDU CING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT BY A SUM OF RS. 1.09 C RORES. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE SALE TRANSACTION VI DE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 22.11.2012 AND THEREFORE, THE SALE WAS PRIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE SALE DEED DATED 28.01.2013. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS PAYMENT OF PURCHASE CONSID ERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS E STABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SUBSEQUEN T TO SALE OF THE MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 3 EXISTING PROPERTY. HE HAS ASSERTED THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED AN ELABORATE ORDER ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AFTER CONSIDERING E ACH AND EVERY FACTS AS WELL AS CONTENTION OF THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS NOT MADE OUT OF CASE OF APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE IMPUGNE D ORDER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT ALL THESE FACTS WH ICH ARE NOW RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAVE B EEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 TO 6.2 OF T HE IMPUGNED ORDERS HAVE DISCUSSED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND AFTER ANA LYZING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE HAS HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION OF SALE IS P RIOR TO THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE REPRODUCED THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 6 TO 6.2 ARE AS UND ER:- 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,47,60,900/- ON 29/11/2012 WHICH IS PRIOR TO T HE SALE OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND VIDE SALE DEED DATED 28/ 01/2013. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND IS PRIOR TO THE SALE OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND NOT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND . THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2 012 AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CONSI DERATION MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 4 THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AND ALSO HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE PURCHASER THEN THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF EXISTING AGRICU LTURAL LAND COMPLETED ON 22/11/2012 WHICH IS PRIOR TO THE PURCH ASE OF THE NEW ASSET VIDE SALE DEED DATED 29/11/2012. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DOUBTED THE EXISTENC E OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012, HOWEVER, WE FIN D THAT THE DETAILS OF CONSIDERATION AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEM ENT TO SELL AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 ARE S AME. FOR SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, WE REPRODUCE THE DETAILS OF C HEQUES THROUGH WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SALE CONSID ERATION AS UNDER: SL. NO. CHEQUE NO. NAME OF THE BANK AMOUNT DATED 1. 358891 VIJAYA BANK, VIDYADHAR NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR 88,00,000/- 04/01/201 3 2. 308537 SYNDICATE BANK, SETH COLONY BRANCH, JAIPUR 9,00,000/- 27/01/201 3 3. 349005 VIJAYA BANK, VIDYADHAR NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR 80,00,000/- 25/02/201 3 4. 349006 VIJAYA BANK, VIDYADHAR NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR 80,00,000/- 25/02/201 3 5. 349008 VIJAYA BANK, VIDYADHAR NAGAR BRANCH, JAIPUR 57,77,440/- 28/01/201 3 TOTAL 3,14,77,440/ - THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT SOME OF THESE CHEQUES WERE D ATED PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 AND SOME OF THE CHEQ UES ARE POST DATED I.E. 25/02/2013. THE ONLY ONE CHEQUE OF RS. 5 7,77,440/- IS DATED 28/01/2013. THESE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. T HE CHEQUE DATED 01/4/2013 WAS PRESENTED AND ENCASHED IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 07/01/2013, THEREFORE, IT IS EST ABLISHED FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSE E RECEIVED THE PART SALE CONSIDERATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 88.00 LACS ON MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 5 07/01/2013 WHEN THE SAID CHEQUE WAS ENCASHED AND CR EDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS FACT SHOWS T HAT PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013, THE ASSESSEE AND THE PU RCHASER HAD AGREED FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE CHEQUES WERE ALSO HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE PURCHA SER MUCH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013. ON CE THE PARTIES HAVE THE PRIOR AGREEMENT REGARDING THE SALE CONSIDE RATION OF THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND THEN THE AGREEMENT TO SE LL DATED 22/11/2012 CANNOT BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT SELF SERVING D OCUMENT. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CONSIDERATION THROUGH THE POST DATED CHEQUES ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY PURCHASING THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES. WE NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE PURCHAS E CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE CHEQUES WHICH WERE ENCASHED AFTER THE SALE DEED DATED 29/11 /2012. WE FIND FROM THE BANK STATEMENT THAT THE FIRST PART OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON 12/12/2012, THE SECOND PA RT OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON 21/12/2012 AND THE THIRD PART OF THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON 16/01/2013. THUS, THE ENC ASHMENT OF THE CHEQUES OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS PURCHA SE CONSIDERATION CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEI VED THE SALE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES AND ALSO P AID THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES. THE PART PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS MADE AFTE R RECEIPT OF THE PART PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 88.00 LACS O N 07/01/2013 WHEREAS THE PURCHASER CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON 16/ 01/2013. ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE COMPLETED EVEN PRIOR TO THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013. HENCE THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS SALE CONSIDERATIO N WERE PAID AND RECEIVED RESPECTIVELY THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUE S, ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT FROM THE RECORD WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED INDEPENDENTLY BEING THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THOUGH IN THE FIRST SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 THE ENTIRE FAC TS WERE NOT MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 6 NARRATED, HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY ON 15/2/2013 A CORR ECTION DEED WAS EXECUTED AND REGISTERED WHEREIN ALL THESE DETAI LS AND FACTS WERE CLEARLY MENTIONED REGARDING THE HANDING OVER T HE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IN QUESTION AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTIO N OF AGREEMENT DATED 22/11/2012. HENCE, SO FAR AS THE FACTS EXPLAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED, THESE ARE ESTABLISHED FROM THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH WERE NEITHER QUESTIONED NOR FOUND TO BE BOGUS. THE DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE REGISTERED AS SALE DEEDS FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS ARE ALS O OTHERWISE NOT IN DISPUTE AND FURTHER THE DETAILS OF THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION AS PER THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. THUS, IN THESE FACTS AS ES TABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS PUR CHASE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES A RE RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE OF ELIGIBILIT Y OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT. 6.1 SECTION 54B OF THE ACT WAS BROUGHT INTO STATUTE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1970 AS A CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT OF S ECTION 2(14) AND SECTION 47 WHEREBY THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FRO M TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN THE MUNICIPAL OR OTHE R URBAN AREA WAS BROUGHT TO TAX EVEN WHERE SUCH LAND WAS HELD FOR BO NAFIDE AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THEREFORE, WITH A VIEW TO RE LIEVING THE BURDEN OF TAXATION ON THE CAPITAL GAIN IN SUCH CASE S, A PROVISION HAS BEEN MADE U/S 54B FOR EXEMPTING FROM THE TAX, T HE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. THUS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54B ARE BENEFICIAL PROVISION AND RELIEVING THE GENUINE ASSESSEE FROM T HE TAX BURDEN ON TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SUBJECT TO THE CON DITION THAT SUCH AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS BEING USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR PARENTS FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS, WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF SALE, HAS ACQUIRED NEW AGRI CULTURAL LAND. THUS THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS NOT EXCEED ING THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF NEW LAND SHALL NOT BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX. THE CONCESSION/BENEFIT GIVEN IN SECTION 54B WILL BE FOR FEITED IF THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERS THE FRESH LAND ACQUIRED BY HIM W ITHIN A PERIOD MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 7 OF THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF ITS PURCHASE. THUS THE OBJECTION AND SCHEME OF GRANTING THE BENEFIT U/S 54B IS TO RE LIEVE THE GENUINE ASSESSEE FROM THE BURDEN OF CAPITAL GAIN TA X ON TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED NEW AGRICULTURAL ASSET BY INVESTING THE CAPITAL GAIN AND AS SUCH THE PURPOSE WAS TO SUBSTITUTE THE EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND BY NEW AG RICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE ELIGIBILITY OF BENEFIT OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT, THE PREDOMINANT AND SUBSTANTIAL CON DITION OF SUBSTITUTING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HAS TO BE SATISF IED. THE DATE OF ACTUAL TRANSFER OF EXISTING LAND OR EVEN THE PURCHA SE OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND MAY NOT BE ALWAYS RELEVANT FOR TH E PURPOSE OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT. FOR INSTANCE, IN CASE OF AC QUISITION OF LAND BY THE GOVERNMENT, THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND TOOK PL ACE WHEN THE GOVERNMENT TAKES OVER THE POSSESSION BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE COMPENSATION AND EVEN IN SOME CASES ENHANCED COMPENSATION IS RECEIVED AFTER LAPSE OF SO MANY YEARS, THEREFORE, THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION ARE NOT CONTEMPORANEOUS. UNTIL AND UNLESS, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED COMPENSATION/CONSIDERATION, THE A CQUISITION OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT POSSIBLE, HENCE THE RE LEVANT DATE IS THE RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION OR CONSIDERATION AND NO T THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF DOCUMENT AS HELD BY THE HONBLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. JANARDHAN DASS 299 ITR 210. 6.2 THE REQUIREMENT FOR AVAILING THE BENEFIT OF SEC TION 54B IS TO USE THE CAPITAL GAIN FOR PURCHASE OF NEW AGRICUL TURAL LAND AND IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT RECEIVE THE SALE CONSIDERATIO N THEN THE QUESTION OF PURCHASING NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND DOES N OT ARISE AND THE VERY OBJECT OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT WOULD BE DEFEATED. HENCE THE RECEIPT OF COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT OF CO NSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET ARE THE RELEVANT DATES FO R DETERMINING THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54B OF THE ACT ARE SATISF IED. IN THE CASE IN HAND, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE COMPENS ATION PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION FOR AC QUISITION OF NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND THEN THE TRANSACTION HAS TO B E LOOKED INTO IN MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 8 THE OVERALL FACTS AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE SOLD EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND PURCHA SED NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND. IF THE INTENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS MANIFEST FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE FRESH AGRICULTURAL LAND IN LIEU OF THE EXISTING AGRICULTU RAL LAND THEN THE CONDITIONS AS ENVISAGED IN SECTION 54B OF THE ACT A RE SATISFIED. WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES W HICH WERE ENCASHED IN PART PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT OF THE PURCHA SE CONSIDERATION THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES. AS DISCUS SED ABOVE, BOTH THE RECEIPTS OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND PURCHAS E CONSIDERATION ARE THROUGH POST DATED CHEQUES AS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD AND NONE OF THE CHEQUES WAS ENCASHED ON THE DATE OF EXE CUTION OF THE SALE DEED BUT THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS AFTER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 AND MUCH PRIOR T O THE SALE DEED DATED 28/01/2013 WHEREAS THE ENTIRE PURCHASE C ONSIDERATION WAS PAID OUT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE SALE DEED DATED 29/11/2012. THESE FACTS CLEARLY EST ABLISHED THAT THE RECEIPT AS WELL AS PAYMENT ARE THROUGH POST DAT ED CHEQUES AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE EXI STENCE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 UNDER WHICH THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SUB SEQUENT DOCUMENTS CONSIST OF CORRECTION DEED AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PURCHASER HAS SUPPORTED THE FACT THAT THE CONSI DERATION FOR SALE OF THE EXISTING LAND WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 22/11/2012 AND POSSESSION W AS ALSO HANDED OVER ON THE SAID DATE OF AGREEMENT. HENCE WH EN THE AGREEMENT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY ACTED UPON AND IN PERFOR MANCE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE PARTIES HAVE FINALLY EXECUT ED THE SALE DEED THEN THE TRANSACTION WILL BE CONSIDERED AS TRA NSFERRED AS ON THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS C ONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F M/S RAJASTHAN AGENCIES PVT. LTD. VS ITO (SUPRA) IN PARA 6 AND 7 A S UNDER: 6. EVEN OTHERWISE THE TERM TRANSFER AS PER SECTION 2(47) R.W.S. 48 OF THE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS WIDER THAN THE TERM SALE AND IT MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 9 INCLUDES ALL RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES IN THE PROPERTY EITHER IN PRAESENTI OR ACCRUING IN FUTURE AS VESTED IN VENDOR. ONCE THE SE RIGHTS VESTED IN THE VENDOR WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE TRANSFER, THE VENDOR RETAINS NO RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY TO BE RE-CONVEYED IN THE SUBSEQUENT SALE DEED EXCEPT THE OBLIGATION TO GET T HE PROPERTY CONVERTED FOR NON AGRICULTURAL USE AND EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED. THE INTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES ARE RELEVANT AND MUST BE ASCERTAINED FROM A DOCUMENT AS A WHOLE. WHERE THE DEED OF TRANS FER HAS BEEN EXECUTED THOUGH IN VIOLATION OF LAW PRESCRIBING FOR A PREVIOUS SANCTION OR SUBSEQUENT VALIDATION BY A COMPETENT AU THORITY AND THOUGH NOT REGISTERED WOULD STILL ATTRACT THE APPLI CATION OF DOCTRINE OF PART PERFORMANCE. IN THE CASE IN HAND SINCE, THE AGRICULTURAL LAND COULD NOT BE SOLD IN VIEW OF SECTION 42 OF THE RAJASTHAN TENANCY ACT, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007 AND THEREAFTER THE LANDS WERE CONVERTED INTO NON AGRICULTURAL LAND AND MORE SPECIFIC FARM H OUSE LAND ON 03.02.2010 AND 05.02.2010 AND THEREAFTER THE SALE D EED WAS EXECUTED BY THE VENDORS ON 13.04.2010. AS IT IS CLE AR FROM THESE ACT AND EVENTS THAT IT IS CONTINUOUS PROCESS OF TRA NSFER WHICH BEGINS WITH THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11.04.2007, CONVERSION OF THE LAND USE ON 03/05.02.2010 AND ULTIMATELY EXE CUTION ON SALE DEED ON 13.04.2010. THE SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010 IS A PERFORMANCE OF OBLIGATION UNDER THE AGREEMENT TO SA LE DATED 11.04.2007, THEREFORE, THE CONVERSION OF THE LAND A FTER THE EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT TO SALE IS A POST FACTO CONV ERSION AND THE TRANSFER WOULD EFFECTS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT T O SALE SPECIFYING ALL THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED U/S 2(4 7) (V) OF THE ACT R.W.S. 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT. ONCE, T HE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED IN PURSUANT TO AGREEMENT TO SALE AND ALL T HE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 2(47) OF THE ACT ARE SATISFIED IT WO ULD CONSTITUTE TRANSFER AND WOULD BE EFFECTIVE FROM THE DATE OF AG REEMENT TO SALE ITSELF. 7. THOUGH AS PER THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT TO THE REGIS TRATION ACT 1908 VIDE AMENDMENT ACT 2001 AN AGREEMENT FOR S ALE OF ANY MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 10 IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WITHOUT REGISTRATION SHALL HAVE NO EFFECT OF TRANSFER HOWEVER, THE AGREEMENT IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN ALONG WITH THE SALE DEED EXECUTED SUBSEQUENTLY. IT IS NOT A CASE OF TRANSFER BASED ONLY ON UNREGISTERED DOCUMENTS BUT I N THIS CASE THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT HAVE EXECUTED SALE DEE D IN PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT. THEREFORE, THE TRANSF ER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A COMBINE D ACT OF AGREEMENT TO SALE AND SALE DEED AS A SINGLE TRANSAC TION OF TRANSFER WITH EFFECT FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TRANSACTION WAS INTENDED AND CONCEIVED BY THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION. HE NCE, AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 11/04/2007 CONVERSION OF LAND USE BY JDA ON 03.02.2010 AND 05.02.2010 AND EXECUTION SALE DEED D ATED 13.04.2010 ARE INTERLINKED AND INSEPARABLE CHAIN OF EVENTS NECESSARY FOR TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER. THE CONTENTS OF THE SALE DEED DATED 13.04.2010 CLEARLY SHOW THAT IT IS IN FU RTHERANCE OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THE SALE DEED CLEARLY S TATES THAT MADE OF PAYMENT OF CONSIDERATION AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THEREFORE, THE POSSESSI ON WAS HANDED OVER AND CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SALE DEED. THE SALE DEED IN FACT RATIFY THE TRANSAC TION OF TRANSFER VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.2007. THE PARTIES WERE V ERY MUCH AWARE ABOUT THE NEED OF CONVERSION OF LAND USE AND ACCORDINGLY APPLIED TO JDA FOR CONVERSION WHICH WAS GRANTED IN THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 2010 AND THEREAFTER THE SALE DEED WAS EXE CUTED. HENCE, THE TRANSFER AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT DATED 11.04.200 7. THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES CAN BE GATHERED FROM THE T ERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, SUBSEQUENT PERFORMANCE BY THE PARTIES IN TERMS OF AGREEMENT GETTING THE LAND CONVERTED TO NON AGRICUL TURAL USE AND EXECUTION ON SALE WHICH HAS REAFFIRMED THE STATUS O F THE PARTIES TO THE AGREEMENT AND THE TRANSFER UNDER THE AGREEMENT INSTEAD OF ALTERING THE SAME. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CAS E OF SANJAY LAL VS. CIT 365 ITR 389 WHILE CONSIDERING THE QUEST ION AS TO WHETHER THE DATE ON WHICH AGREEMENT FOR SALE WAS EX ECUTED COULD MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 11 BE CONSIDERED THE DATE ON WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS TR ANSFER HAS HELD IN PARA 20 TO 25 AS UNDER:- 20. THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY THIS COURT IS WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH D ECEMBER, 2002 CAN BE CONSIDERED AS A DATE ON WHICH THE PROPE RTY I.E. THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED. IN NORMAL C IRCUMSTANCES BY EXECUTING AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, A RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE TRANSFEREE/VENDEE. WHEN SUCH A RIGHT IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, THE VENDOR IS RESTRAINED FROM SELLING THE S AID PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVOUR TH E RIGHT IN PERSONAM IS CREATED, HAS A LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENFO RCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT, IF THE VENDOR, FOR SO ME REASON IS NOT EXECUTING THE SALE DEED. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL SOME RIGHT IS GIVEN BY THE VENDOR TO THE VENDE E. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE ENTIRE PROPERTY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE TIME WHEN AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS ENTERED INTO. IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AFORESTATED QUESTION HAS TO BE A NSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WHICH DEFINES THE WORD 'TRANSFER IN RELAT ION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, ONE CAN SAY THAT IF A RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY IS EXTINGUISHED BY EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE CAPITAL ASSE T CAN BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED. RELEVANT PORTION O F SECTION 2(47), DEFINING THE WORD 'TRANSFER' IS AS UNDER: 2 (47) 'TRANSFER', IN RELATION TO A CAPITAL ASSET, INCLUDES,- (I)** ** ** (II) THE EXTINGUISHMENT OF ANY RIGHTS THEREIN; OR' 21 NOW IN THE LIGHT OF DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER' AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN ANY RIGHT IN RESPECT OF ANY CAPITAL ASSET IS EXTINGUISHED AND THAT RIGHT IS TRANSFERRED TO SOMEONE, IT WOULD AMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL A SSET. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED DEFINITION, LET US LOOK AT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IN RESPECT OF A CAPITAL ASSET HAD BEEN EXECUTED ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2002FOR T RANSFERRING THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE/ORIGINAL ASSET IN QUESTION AN D A SUM OF RS. MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 12 15 LAKHS HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXEC UTED BECAUSE OF PENDENCY OF THE LITIGATION BETWEEN SHRI RANJEET LAL ON ONE HAND AND THE APPELLANTS ON THE OTHER AS SHRI RANJEET LAL HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL UNDER WHICH THE PROPERTY H AD DEVOLVED UPON THE APPELLANTS. BY VIRTUE OF AN ORDER PASSED I N THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJEET LAL, THE APPELLANTS WERE RESTRAINED FROM DEALING WITH THE SAID RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND A LAW- ABIDING CITIZEN CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO VIOLATE THE DIRECTION OF A COURT BY EXECUTING A SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF A THIRD PARTY WHILE BEING RESTRAI NED FROM DOING SO. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR A JUSTIFIABLE REASON, WHICH WAS NOT WITHIN THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANTS, THEY COULD NO T EXECUTE THE SALE DEED AND THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN REGISTERED ONL Y ON 24TH SEPTEMBER, 2004, AFTER THE SUIT FILED BY SHRI RANJE ET LAL, CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE WILL, HAD BEEN DISM ISSED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESTATED FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE D EFINITION OF THE TERM 'TRANSFER', ONE CAN COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT SOME RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION HAD BEEN T RANSFERRED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE AND THEREFORE, SOME RIGHT WHIC H THE APPELLANTS HAD, IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET IN QUESTION, HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED BECAUSE AFTER EXECUTION OF THE AG REEMENT TO SELL IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE APPELLANTS TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. A RIGHT IN PER SONAM HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE, IN WHOSE FAVO UR THE AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED AND WHO HAD ALS O PAID RS. 15 LAKHS BY WAY OF EARNEST MONEY. NO DOUBT, SUCH CO NTRACTUAL RIGHT CAN BE SURRENDERED OR NEUTRALIZED BY THE PART IES THROUGH SUBSEQUENT CONTRACT OR CONDUCT LEADING TO NO TRANSF ER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PROPOSED VENDEE BUT THAT IS NOT THE CASE AT HAND. 22. IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT THE TERM 'TRANSFE R' HAS BEEN DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, EVEN IF LOO KED AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 OF THE ACT WHICH GIVES REL IEF TO A PERSON WHO HAS TRANSFERRED HIS ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND I S PURCHASING ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE EITHER BEFORE ONE YEAR OF THE TRANSFER OR MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 13 EVEN TWO YEARS AFTER THE TRANSFER, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS TO GIVE HIM RELIEF IN THE MATTER OF PAYMENT OF T AX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IF A PERSON, WHO GETS SOME EXCES S AMOUNT UPON TRANSFER OF HIS OLD RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AND THEREA FTER PURCHASES OR CONSTRUCTS A NEW PREMISES WITHIN THE TIME STIPULATE D UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT, THE LEGISLATURE DOES NOT WAN T HIM TO BE BURDENED WITH TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND THEREFORE, RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN TO HIM IN RESPECT OF PAYING I NCOME TAX ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE INTENTION OF THE LE GISLATURE OR THE PURPOSE WITH WHICH THE SAID PROVISION HAS BEEN INCO RPORATED IN THE ACT, IS ALSO VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE GIVEN SOME RELIEF. THOUGH IT HAS BEEN VERY OFTEN SAID THAT COM MON SENSE IS A STRANGER AND AN INCOMPATIBLE PARTNER TO THE INCOME TAX ACT AND IT IS ALSO SAID THAT EQUITY AND TAX ARE STRANGERS TO E ACH OTHER, STILL THIS COURT HAS OFTEN OBSERVED THAT PURPOSIVE INTERP RETATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS V. CIT [2001] 247 ITR 658/115 TAXM AN 69 THIS COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT A PURPOSIVE INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHOULD BE GIVEN WHILE CONSIDE RING A CLAIM FOR EXEMPTION FROM TAX. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SAID THAT HARM ONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROVISIONS WHICH SUBSERVE THE O BJECT AND PURPOSE SHOULD ALSO BE MADE WHILE CONSTRUING ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN ON E IS CONCERNED WITH EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAX. CONSIDERING THE AFORESTATED OBSERVATIONS AND THE PRINCIPLES WITH REGARD TO THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE PERTAINING TO THE TAX LAWS, ONE CAN VERY WE LL INTERPRET THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 READ WITH SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, I.E. DEFINITION OF 'TRANSFER', WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE AP PELLANTS TO GET THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 23 CONSEQUENCES OF EXECUTION OF THE AGREEMENT TO S ELL ARE ALSO VERY CLEAR AND THEY ARE TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT HAVE SOLD THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE. IN PRAC TICAL LIFE, THERE ARE EVENTS WHEN A PERSON, EVEN AFTER EXECUTING AN A GREEMENT TO SELL AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, TRIES TO SELL MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 14 THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER. IN OUR OPINION, SUCH AN AC T WOULD NOT BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BECAUSE ONCE AN AGREEMENT TO SELL IS EXECUTED IN FAVOUR OF ONE PERSON, THE SAID PERSON G ETS A RIGHT TO GET THE PROPERTY TRANSFERRED IN HIS FAVOUR BY FILIN G A SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND THEREFORE, WITHOUT HESITAT ION WE CAN SAY THAT SOME RIGHT, IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY, B ELONGING TO THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN EXTINGUISHED AND SOME RIGHT HAD BEEN CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE, WHEN TH E AGREEMENT TO SELL HAD BEEN EXECUTED. 24 THUS, A RIGHT IN RESPECT OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, VIZ. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE AP PELLANTS IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDEE/TRANSFEREE ON 27TH DECEMBER, 2 002. THE SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANTS HAD BEEN PREVENTED FROM DEALING WITH THE RESIDENTIA L HOUSE BY AN ORDER OF A COMPETENT COURT, WHICH THEY COULD NOT HA VE VIOLATED. 25 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESTATED PECULIAR FACTS OF TH E CASE AND LOOKING AT THE DEFINITION OF THE TERM TRANSFER' AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE APPELLANTS WERE ENTITLED TO RELIEF UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH THEY HAD EARNED IN PUR SUANCE OF TRANSFER OF THEIR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEING HOUSE NO. 267, SECTOR 9-C, SITUATED IN CHANDIGARH AND USED FOR PURCHASE O F A NEW ASSET/RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THUS, IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT WHEN AGREEMENT TO SALE IN RESPECT OF IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY IS EXECUTED A RIGHT IN PERSONAE IS CREATED IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDE E AND THEREBY THE VENDOR IS RESTRAIN FROM SELLING THE PROPERTY TO SOMEONE ELSE BECAUSE THE VENDEE GETS THE LEGITIMATE RIGHT TO ENF ORCE SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE OF THE AGREEMENT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT WE HOLD THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WOULD BE REGARDED AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT TO SA LE DATED MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 15 11.04.2007. THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE ARE SET ASIDE. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AS WE LL AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FOLLOWING THE EAR LIER ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISF IED THE CONDITIONS OF ACQUIRING NEW AGRICULTURAL LAND AGAIN ST THE SALE OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE, IT IS A C ASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF EXISTING AGRICULTURAL LAND BY NEW AGRICULTURAL L AND AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED F OR TOTAL COST OF RS. 2,47,60,900/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE QUA THIS ISSUE. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AFTER ANALYZING AND EVALUATION OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND EVIDENCE. THE SAID DECISION ON MERITS OF THE CASE CANNOT BE RECONSIDERED IN THE PR OCEEDINGS U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE IS REITERATING ITS S TAND AND IT WAS TAKEN BY THE AO WHILE DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLIC ATION HAS POINTED OUT ANY APPARENT MISTAKE ON THE FACE OF THE ORDER W HICH CAN BE RECTIFIED U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT. THE JURISDICTION O F THE TRIBUNAL U/S 254(2) OF THE ACT IS VERY LIMITED AND CIRCUMSCRIBED TO RECTIFY THE APPARENT MISTAKE ON RECORD BUT NOT TO REEVALUATE TH E FACT AND EVIDENCE ALREADY CONSIDERED WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON MERITS. HENCE, MA NO. 20/JP/2019 ITO VS. SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL 16 WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERITS OR SUBSTANCE IN THE MISCE LLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED BY THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/06/2019. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 17/06/2019. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- ITO, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SMT. RUKMANI DEVI AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {M.A. NO. 20/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR