Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Agra
Ito -1(3), Mathura vs Ramesh Chandra Kulshresth & Brother ... on 10 October, 2018
In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal,
Agra Bench, Agra
Before:Shri A.D. Jain, Judicial Member And
Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member
ITA No.228/Agr/2018
A.Y.: 2013-18
Income Tax Officer-1(3), vs. Shri Ramesh Chandra
Radhika Vihar, Phase-II, Kulshresth& Brother HUF,
N.H.2, Mathura. 1980, Dampier Nagar,
Mathura (U.P.)
PAN AAGHR 8785M
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri Waseem Arshad, Sr. D.R.
Respondent by Shri Anurag Sinha, Advocate
Date of Hearing 11.09.2018
Date of Pronouncement 10.10.2018
ORDER
Per, DR. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.;
This is Revenue's appealagainst the order dated 26.12.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT(A) -1, Agra on the following grounds:
"1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts and deleting the addition of Rs. 2,74,36,000/- made by the AO on account of long term capital gain without appreciating full facts of the case and because-
(a) Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 clearly provides that the AO may refer the valuation of the capital assets to a Valuation Officer. It indicates 2 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 that intent of the legislature is that it is not necessary for the AO to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation Officer in all such cases. The AO may make such reference to DVO, if he deems fir/necessary.
(b) The order dated 28.02.2017 of CIT(A)-1, Agra in the case of Smt. Hazra Begum Vs ITO-1(2) Agra in ITA No. 52/CIT(A)-1/Agra/ITO-1(2), Agra/2013-14 cited by the assessee, through not accepted in principle, was not contested by the department due to amount of disputed tax being below the monitory limit prescribed in instruction no. 21/2015 dated 10.12.2015 for fitting of appeal u/s
254.
(c) The facts of above case of Smt. Hazra Begum Vs ITO-1(2) Agra are different from the case of the assessee. Also the facts of cases of CIT Vs Chandra NarainChaudhary (Allahabad High Court) and case of CIT Vs Chandra NarainChaudhary (Allahabad High Court) relied upon in above case relied upon in above case are different from the case of the assessee, as explained in annexure.
(d) Even otherwise, the question of law in the case of CIT Vs Chandra NarainChaudhary (Allahabad High Court) was decided in favour of the revenue and instead of giving outright relief to the assessee, Hon'ble Court remanded the matter to the AO to decide the valuation of the capital asset in accordance with law as explained by it. Similarly, In addition to the facts being different (as mentioned above), in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta High Court) too (mainly relied upon by CIT(A) in assessee's case under question), Hon'ble Court, like Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, remanded the matter to the AO to make assessment de novo in accordance with law after valuation by DVO.
(e) Findings of Hon'ble High Court as pointed out above in (d) have been misread by the CIT(A), and consequently instead of exercising his conferred upon him by provisions of section 250(4) of I.T. Act 1961 has granted relief allowed the appeal of the assessee out-rightly.3 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
2. In view of above, the order of the learned CIT(Appeals) being erroneous in law and on facts deserved to be quashed and that the order of the AO to be restored.
3. Notwithstanding grounds above, alternatively, it is prayed that respectfully following the decisions of Hon'ble High Courts in theabove mentioned cases of CIT Vs Chandra NarainChaudhary (Allahabad High Court) Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta High Court), the matter be remanded to the AO to make assessment de novo in accordance with law after valuation by DVO.
4. The appellant craves leave to add or alter any or more ground or grounds of Appeal as may be deemed fit at the time of hearing of appeal."
2. The sole issue for adjudication before us is to decide whether it is discretion of the AO to refer or not to refer to DVO for valuation of a capital asset u/s Section 50C(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961in the peculiar facts of the case ?
3. The facts of the case, relevant to adjudication of the issue are that during the year under consideration assessee had sold its ancestral property at Etah (U.P) for a consideration of Rs.36,00,000/- whereas for the purpose of payment of stamp duty the property was valued at Rs. 3,06,86,000/-. The detail of the sales, as evidenced by Registered Deed is as under:
S. No. Date Purchaser's Actual Circle
Name Consideration Valuation
1. 22.3.13 Avinash Sharma 9,50,000/- 70,22,000/-
4
ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
2. 22.3.13 Avinash Sharma 7,50,000/- 76,51,000/-
3. 21.3.13 Avinash Sharma 19,00,000/- 1,60,13,000/
-
36,00,000/- 3,06,86,000/
-
4. Inthe Return of Income, assessee had claimed deduction under section 54-F of the Act on the ground that it had purchased a residential house in Radha Florence, Vrindavan for a consideration of Rs. 44,00,000/- and therefore, no liability got worked out under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain' ('LTCG').However, the Ld. AO,noted that the total sale consideration in view of the deeming provisions of section 50-C of the Act aggregating to Rs. 3,06,86,000/- is to be adopted as against Rs. 36,00,000/- shown in the Registered Deed and thus the consideration fell short by Rs.2,70,86,000/- in comparison to value adopted for stamp value purposes which the Ld AO added to the income of the assessee relying on deeming provision of section 50C of the Act.
5. Being aggrieved, assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld CIT(A)-I, Agra whoafter consideration of the matter and submission made by the assessee quashed the addition observing vide para-7as under:
"I have carefully considered the appellant's submissions, facts of the case and the legal position in this regard.5 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
As regards the issue of applicability of section 50C for the purpose of computing long term capital gain in this case, the relevant fact in this case is that the appellant, vide its replies dated 15.01.2016 and 08.03.2016, had taken objection against the A.O.'s proposed action of applying the provisions of section 50C and certain reasonable grounds for not accepting the stamp value for the purpose of computation of capital gains arising out of its property were provided by it to the A.O. during the assessment proceedings. Also, it is an undisputed fact that the A.O. has chosen not to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer and proceeded to rebut some of those grounds on his own, and thereafter determined the capital gains on the stamp value in accordance with the provisions of section 50C of the Act.
A perusal of the judicial precedents cited by the appellant indicates that in this case, the A.O. was not legally justified not to refer the matter to the Valuation Officer, Hon'ble Calcutta High Court's has held in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal V. CIT (372 ITR 83) that the AO, discharging a quasi-judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving the assessee an option to follow the course provided by law, which in that case, was the reference to the valuation officer, Hence, in light of the above facts and judicial precedents, the appellant's grounds no. 2 and 3 are allowed and it is held that the actual value as per sale deed should be adopted by the A.O. for the purpose of computing the appellant's long term capital gain.
7.2 Further, as regards the issue of quantum of deduction allowable to the appellant under section 54F. on going through the judicial precedents available in reference to the question that whether 'capital gain' and 'net consideration' have to be worked out within the framework of section 54F of the Act, without imposing any fiction created by section 50C, I find that judicial opinion is by and large in favour of the appellant and it answers the above question in the affirmative. I also find that the decision of Hon'ble 'ITAT, Bangalore in the case of GouliMahadevappa, Ramrathna Oni, Gangavathi vs ITO [ITA no. 587/Bang./2009) heavily relied upon by the A.O has been reversed on this issue in favour of the appellant by the Hon'ble High Karnataka Court vide its order dated 06.01.2012 (2013) 356 ITR 0090 (Karn.).6 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
Hence, in light of the facts and circumstances of the case and in respectful compliance to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble judicial authorities cited by the appellant in its submission above, I am convinced that the fiction of section 50C cannot be carried to the provisions of section 54F while arriving at the figures of capital gain. and 'net consideration'.
Ground no. 4 is accordingly allowed and the A.O. is directed to compute the deduction under section 54F accordingly".
6. While taking the aforesaid grounds of appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the revenue has notchallenged the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) with regard to quantum of deduction allowable to the appellant assessee under section 54F of the Act holding that deeming fiction under section 50- C of the Act cannot be imported in such a case where assessee has invested the consideration in purchase of residential house and claimed deduction under section 54-F of the Act.
7. The Ld. Sr. D.R in his arguments stated that the first appellate authority has clearly misread the provision of section 50C(2) which requires that the AO 'may' refer the valuation of the capital assets to a Valuation Officer. According to the submission of the Ld. D.R It indicates that intent of the legislature is that it is not necessary for the AO to refer the valuation of the capital asset to a valuation Officer in all cases. The AO may refer to DVO, if he deems fit and, therefore, according to Ld. Sr. D.R, it is discretion of the AO to refer or not to refer to DVO for valuation.It was also submitted 7 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 by the Ld. Sr. D.R that the Ld. CIT(A) has allowed relief to the assessee placing reliance upon the Judgment of CIT Vs Chandra Narain Chaudhary ignoring to take note that the case was decided in favour of the revenue where instead of giving outright relief to the assessee, the Hon'ble Court remanded the matter to the AO to decide the valuation of the capital asset. In the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT 372 ITR 83 the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court like the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, remanded the matter to the AO to make assessment de-novo after valuation by DVO. Thus, it was prayed that the case be set-aside for reference to the DVO.
8. The Ld. A.R of the assessee placed strong reliance on the order passed by the Ld CIT(A), and also placed reliance on certain case laws which shall be discussed in the following paras at appropriate place.He vehemently opposed to the prayer made for setting aside the case of the assessee for the purpose of obtaining valuation report from DVO.
9. Heard both the parties, perused the records and considered the provision of law in the light of cases cited before the Bench by both the parties.
8ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
10. It is an undisputed fact that during the course of assessment proceedingsassessee has objected to the proposed action of substituting the circle valuation as against real consideration which is evidenced and confirmed by registered deeds,and vide Reply dated 05.02.2016 (APB-120-
158) it was submitted before the AO that:
"During the year we have sold our ancestral property of Rs.36,00,000/- and invested in Bank FDR's of Capital gain within time and purchased residential house by maturing FDR's in A.Y.15-16.
That there is a difference between my sale price received and circle rate. The valuation of Rs.36,00,000/- in the sale deed is true and correct and no amount was received over the amount of Rs.36,00,000/.
As in the case of Gyan Chand Batra Vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)Bench-A (2010) 133 TTJ , it was held that if the property is sold below the rate of 50C and the amount is utilized in purchase/ construction of residential house then the capital gain is exempted from tax.
Fact wise the property sold by the assessee was under so much dispute that it was highly impossible to find a buyer for such property occupied by the tenants who were not ready to vacate and any how wish to remain in occupation of the property evidences are enclosed. [In support of claim] If you are not satisfied until the reply and evidences, it would be requested to refer it to the Valuation officer of the Income Tax Department for Valuation."
11. Vide the said Reply filed before the Ld. AO, it was demonstrated that the subject property was under illegal occupation of tenants since 1975. The assessee also furnished a detailed Note 9 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 alongwith related evidences in evidence thereof and stated as under:
(APB-122-158) BRIEF SUMMARY OF DISPUTE
1. Pandit Uma Dutt S/o Sh. Jamuna Prasad was a tenant of the premises since long @ Rs. 20 per month which was subsequently increased to Rs. 40 per month.
2. He did not pay rent from 01.11.1974 hence notice dated 17.12.1975 was sent to him for payment of rent and vacating the premises.
3. The tenancy was terminated by notice dated 17.12.1975 and suit was filed.
4. The Court decreed the suit vide order dated 10.08.79(Case No. S.C.C. 295/76) decree dated 22.08.79.
5. Pt. Uma Dutt filed revision against above vide S.C.C. revision No. 43/79.
The revision was dismissed with costs vide order dated 31.08.1988.
6. Pt. Uma Dutt filed a Writ in Allahabad High Court (Writ No 18814 of 1988) and the Petition was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 02.04.2003.
7. Thereafter for the execution of High Court order Suit was filed in the Court of Civil S.C.C.,Etah vide case No. S.C.C. Ex. 3/03 which remained pending for long, since we had no family member living in Etah and the Tenants were local and were getting the judgment onthe case postponed on one or the other pretext, we remained unsuccessful for a long time.
8. Due to long litigation over the property nobody had the courage to buy the property belonging to Dr. Ramesh Chand Kulshreshtha& Brothers HUF. 10 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
9. Under the aforementioned, very briefly stated circumstances it can be appreciated that virtually we had no option in hands to be able to command for the sale price of the said property and it was apparent that in the near future the property would slip out from our hands. Being unable to find anyone and in our pity circumstances we could find Mr. Avinash Sharma a local resident of Etah of equally matching character with the tenants in occupation of the property showed courage and stated his own rates for the property. However before being able to execute the Sale deed Dr. Ramesh Chand Kulshreshtha expired on 31.08.2012 and his younger brother Dinesh Chand Kulshreshtha became Karta of the abovementioned HUF. Since the deal was already settled Dinesh Chand Kulshreshtha as Karta of HUF executed the Sale Deeds.
10. Although the circle rate does not match with the real rates whatever amount we in our own circumstances could have managed to get we agreed for the price offered by the purchaser. The said properties under long litigation had no market price much less the price notified by the Government. Mr. Avinash Sharma who bought the land vide sale deeds executed in First quarter of year 2013 has not been able to get the physical possession of the same properties till now (after 3 years of sale) and is presently still under litigation against the tenants."
11. In addition to the above, some local people and other tenants of HUF property also filed false cases to grab the property, HUF owned a Temple of Lord Shiva adjoining the Land under dispute. Mr. Rajendra Sharma a tenant on the adjoining land near Temple raised a claim as Sarvarkar of the Temple. He filed a Sit (O/s No. 01/2010) in the Court of Additional District Judhe/Special Judge (E.C Act) Etah but the Suit was finally struck off by order dated 29.03.2011.Ultimately Mr. Rajendra Sharma filed an Appeal before the Hon'ble High Court but remained unsuccessful.
12. Mr. Satish Chandra revised a claim that Smt. Kalawati Devi (Mother of Ramesh Chand Kulshreshtha Karta of HUF) executed a will dated 11 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 09.01.2000 giving her share in HUF property to Mr. Satish Chandra and filed a suit No. 48/2007, but ultimately he did not get any relief.
12. During the course of assessment proceedings before the AO, finally vide Reply dated 02.03.2016(APB-159-160)assessee submitted as under:
"That our property (ancestral) was more than 100 years consisting of temple, land and houses at Etah. The property was illegally occupied by tenants almost since 1965 were neither vacating nor purchasing it. Cases of eviction filed against tenants in 1975/76 and after long litigant they last cases at district level. Tenants [Illegal] filed writ petition in Allahabad High Court in 1988, and it was dismissed on 2003 due to death of writ filer.
During the pendency of litigation someone filed a WILL purported to be from a lady our HUF wishing all giving to the person named in the WILL. Case is still pending.
In the meantime a local man approached us to buy the property under dispute and agreed to make registry after settlement of dispute by our Karta [Dr. R.C. Kulshrestha].
Unfortunately one Karta expired on 31/08/2012, In the meantime some of tenants tempered the records In municipal records at Etah.
So due to the unavoidable conditions and in the meantime circle rates increased very high and the stamp duty had to be paid at the current circle rate prevailing although the price paid on distress sale was a very small.
But keeping in view the above circumstances, we have sold our property hurriedly and received Rs. 36,00,000/- from sale of property, besides this amount we have not received any amount.
So, it is therefore kindly requested to accept my above submission and the assessment be made on returned income."12 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
13. The AO while framing the assessment,observed in the assessment order that no evidence was filed to show that property was illegally occupied by other persons; The AO rejected the claim of the assessee placing reliance to the decision of Bangalore Bench of the Hon'ble ITAT in the case of 'ShriGouliMahadevappaVs.ITO', in ITA No. 587/Bang/2009. It was also observed by the AO that it is also not ascertained whether the decision of Hon'ble Jaipur Bench of ITAT had attained finality and accepted by the Department. Therefore, the AO, as per provisions of section 50C & 54F of the Act and in view of decision by Hon'ble ITAT in 'ShriGouliMahadevappa (supra)', worked out long term capital gain by taking the sale consideration at Rs.3,06,86,000/- Less Indexed Cost of acquisition Rs.4,26,000/- = Rs. 3,02,60,000/-.
14. However, while doing so the AO, did not take into consideration the evidences brought on records by the assessee and the circumstances under which the assessee was placed to sell its property below the Circle rate and without acceding to the request for reference to the DVO went ahead to adopt the Circle valuation of the property, which action of the AO has clearly no approval in law.
13ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
15. There is no dispute that the submissions as referred above raising objection for substituting the value of immovable property on circle rate against real consideration were filed before the Ld. AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, as a matter of fact detailed reasons alongwith sufficient evidences were filed before the Ld. AO to demonstrate that it is a case of distress sale where the questioned property was subject matter of vigorous litigation reaching upto the stage of Hon'ble High Court; that Property was let out to tenants against whom eviction suit was filed and decreed by the competent court against which revision was also filed which was dismissed by the Hon'ble Court against which Writ was filedbefore the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court bearing Writ No. 18814 of 1988 which was dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court on 02.04.2003; thatfor the execution of the order Suit was filed in the Court of Civil S.C.C, Etah which also remained pending for a long time since no member of theHUF resides in Etah to follow up the suit; thatadjoining the property there existed a Temple, one person claiming himself to be Sarvarkar of the Temple also filed a Suit in the Court of Additional District Judge, Etah which was dismissed against which matter was carried up by him to the Hon'ble High Court which also got rejected by the Hon'ble High Court; thatin the 14 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 meantime a Will was executed by a member of the HUF desiring the transfer of property in favor of the third person;and that according to the assessee, the purchaser of the property Shri. Avinash Sharma has still been able to get physical possession of the property till today as the Karta of HUF was expired before the transfer of property. Since, it was under the aforementioned circumstances the Seller had virtually no option to be able to command for the sale price and had to satisfy himself with whatever was coming to hand. Thus, according to the submission of the assessee the property has no market price much less the price notified by the Government for payment of Stamp duty. Evidences in respect of the litigation mentioned above was also brought on records of the AO, which all were summarily ignored for no good reason assigned in the body of assessment order. Even the Ld. Sr. D.R before us has not disputed that such evidences despite being available on records of assessment were not at all addressed much less disputed by the Ld. AO. No reply was furnished as to what prevented the Ld. AO to refer the matter to the Valuation Cell for determination of fair market value on the face of specific request being made by the assessee at the stage of assessment before him. 15 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
16. Thus, the action of the AO is based on wrong assumption of facts on records that no evidence was filed by the assessee to show that the property was under illegal possession of the tenants. Assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings furnished evidences to show that the subject property is under dispute. AO, without considering these evidences, or calling for any further evidence in this regard, has chosen to comment that no evidence was filed.
17. We have no hesitation to hold that the AO has passed an order which in itself cannot be appreciated in law. While proceeding under section 143(3),the Assessing officer is bound to hear such evidences as the assessee may produce in in support of his return and, if after hearing the evidences so produced, he still thinks that he is not satisfied on any particular point, he can require the assessee to produce further evidences on that point. If the AO intended to go ahead with the proposed action of substituting the value as provided under section 50C of the Act, he was duty bound to have demonstrated with reasons, evidences and legal position as to how the facts as stated by the assessee are unbelievable or calls for rejection. In the matter of valuation, law is fairly well settled that value mentioned in the registered document can be substituted by following the 16 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 process prescribed under the law. The assessment order is silent on this material aspect.
18. Now, coming to the merits of the addition which has been made taking the aid of the deeming provisions of section 50C of the Act, it is considered expedient to have a look over the provisions of the said section. Sub-section (2) clearly mandates that where the assessee claims that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer the AO would refer the valuation of such property to the Valuation Officer.Hon'bleCalcutta High Court, in the case of 'Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT',(2015) reported in 372 ITR 83 has clearly held that the AO, discharging quasi- judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to follow the course provided by law, which in that case, was the reference to the valuation officer.In the present case, inv view of the assessee's specific request and claim before the AO that stamp valuation of the property sold was not its "fair market value", it was the bounden duty of the AO to have referredthe matter to the Valuation Officer which, for the reasons not borne out from the records, was not done.
17ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
19. Now, being aggrieved the revenue contends that, as the legislaturevide section 50C(2) has used the term 'may' and, therefore, the intent of legislature is that reference to valuation cell is dependent upon the sweet will of the AO and it is not necessary for the AO to refer to valuation cell in all cases. This stand of the revenue is in direct conflict with the view propounded by the Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of 'Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT', (2015) 372 ITR 83 (Calcutta) wherein examining the similar issue the Hon'ble High Court observedthat:
"forthe aforesaid reasons, the valuation by the departmental valuation officer contemplated under section 50C is required to avoid miscarriage of justice. The legislature did not intend that the capital gain should be fixed merely on the basis of the valuation to be made by the District Sub-Registrar for the purpose of stamp duty. The legislature has taken care to provide adequate machinery to give a fair treatment to the citizen/taxpayer. There is no reason why the machinery provided by the legislature should not be used and the benefit thereof should be refused. Even in a case where no such prayer is made by the advocate representing the assessee, who may not have been properly instructed in law, the Assessing Officer, discharging a quasi-judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and to give a fair treatment by giving him an option to follow the course provided by law."
20. This pleading of the revenue itself suggests that revenue concedes that the assessment ought to have been framed after making reference to 18 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 the DVO. The question therefore, which arises for determination is whether at this belated stage appeal can be filed solely to seek a second inning in the matter where it is admitted that omission to carry out statutory function is for no apparent reason brought on record before us much less attributable to any conduct on part of the assessee.
21. It is also noteworthy to mention that in the first place the case of the revenue is that AO committed no wrong in making the assessment without referring the matter to the DVO. Still the Department prays for setting aside of assessment solely for referring to the DVO.
22. Under identical circumstances the co-ordinate Bench in ITA No. 343/Agra/2017in the case of ACIT, Circle-1, Agra Vs.Shri. Tarun Agarwal vide order dated 28th, August 2018 (APB-170-187), reported at (2018) 97 taxmann.com 346 (Agra - Trib.)had the occasion to consider the identical situation in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of Chandra NarainChaudhary (supra).In the case of TarunAgarwal (supra) too assessee, by giving various reasons, specifically claimed that the stamp valuation adopted for the property sold was not its "fair market value". However, it is noted that the AO without disputing any of the reasons given by the assessee and without referring the matter to 19 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 the DVO made the impugned addition without dealing with the submission/objection raised by the assessee. The Bench after due consideration of precedents available on the issue and in the light of facts of the case held as under:
"8. We have no hesitation to hold that the order as passed by the AO is an epitome of a non-speaking orderwhich itself cannot be appreciated in law. In the light of facts submitted by the assessee that had impacted thefair market value of the property sold if the AO intended to go ahead with the proposed action of substitutingthe value as provided under section 50C of the Act he was duty bound to have demonstrated with reasons,evidences and legal position as to how the facts as stated by the assessee are unbelievable or calls forrejection. In the matter of valuation, law is fairly well settled that value mentioned in the registered documentcan be substituted by following the process prescribed under the law. The assessment order is silent on thismaterial aspect.
9. Appellant has a statutory right and is fully entitled to know the reason for disagreement on the detailedsubmissions filed during the course of assessment proceedings before the AO. Judicial consideration of theissue by the AO in the light of the submission made by assessee is necessary. Passing of a reasoned order isall the more necessary where there is provision for contesting it in appeal. In a case like the one on handwhere the AO has virtually given no reasons, the right of appeal will be devoid of any substance. Needless toadd, it is neither possible nor appropriate for an appellate court to attempt to probe the probable mentalprocess by which the authority below had reached its conclusion in a given case where such process is not atall disclosed in the impugned order.
10. The requirement legally mandated for recording reasons, which leads to the passing of the order, andconveying the same to the affected party by an authority exercising quasi-judicial powers, is basicallyintended to serve two-fold purpose, namely:20 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
(1) that the party aggrieved, in the proceeding, acquires knowledge of the reasons and in a proceedingbefore the High Court or the Supreme Court (since there is no right of appeal or revision) it has anopportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority were erroneous,irrational or irrelevant; and(2) that the obligation to record reasons and convey the same to the party concerned operates as adeterrent against possible arbitrary action by the quasi-judicial or the executive authority investedwith judicial power.
11. This concept has been made an essential component of the concept of natural justice as no justice can besaid to have been dispensed with, if the reasons for the decisions reached are not mentioned and apparent inthe order passed. Further, it is only a speaking order that can indicate whether the decision maker has actedlawfully and in just and fair manner. This is necessary to inspire confidence of the taxpayer and to make himaware the grounds which weighed in the mind of AO in determining the questions of facts and law arising fordetermination. The requirement of the speaking order is all the more necessary, if appeal is provided againstit. It enables the appellate authority to know the reasons for it and to test the validity of the order. A speakingorder indicates the mind of the author of the order as well as reasons for the findings arrived at and isnecessary for knowing the reasons for the decision arrived at and to indicate whether in coming to thedecision mind has been applied reasonably, relevantly and rationally. The mandate of giving reasons orpassing a reasoned order or giving a reasoned decision is not only a part of natural justice, but it is a safeguardagainst arbitrariness. When an adjudicator is obliged to give his reasons for conclusions, it will make itnecessary for him to consider the matter carefully. The compulsion to give reasons introduces clarity in theorder and minimizes chances of irrelevant consideration from entering into a decisional process. In fact, recording of reasons ensures that the authority has applied its mind to the case and the reasons that compelledthe authority to take a decision in question are germane to the contents and scope of power vested in theauthority. Therefore, giving of reasons by an adjudicating authority goes to the very root of the process ofdecision-making or adjudication and, therefore, it is not just a formal 21 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 requirement, but indicates that theadjudicating authority has applied its mind to the merits of the case and also to avoid any doubt as to anyperfunctory approach. The Assessing Officer being a quasi-judicial authority, the assessment order passed byhim must be a speaking order, giving full reasons for the conclusions arrived at. This requirement derives itsauthority from the maxim that justice should not only be done but also be seen to be done. Thus, theimpugned order passed by the AO does not meet the requirement of law and cannot be allowed to stand. Theaction of the AO making the addition thus cannot be appreciated and such an order is no order in the eyes oflaw.
12. Now, coming the merits of the addition been made taking aid of deeming provisions of section 50C of theAct, it is considered expedient to have a look over the provision of the said section.
Section 50C of the Income Tax Act reads as under --
Special provision for full value of consideration in certain cases. 50C. (1) Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of acapital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted or assessed or assessable byany authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuationauthority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted orassessed or assessable shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of theconsideration received or accruing as a result of such transfer :
Provided that where the date of the agreement fixing the amount of consideration and the date ofregistration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed orassessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes ofcomputing full value of consideration for such transfer:
Provided further that the first proviso shall apply only in a case where the amount of consideration, or apart thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by useof electronic clearing 22 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 system through a bank account, on or before the date of the agreement for transfer.
(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), where
(a) the assessee claims before any Assessing Officer that the value adopted or assessed or assessableby the stamp valuation authority under sub-section (1) exceeds the fair market value of the propertyas on the date of transfer;
(b) the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority under sub-section(1) has not been disputed in any appeal or revision or no reference has been made before any otherauthority, court or the High Court, the Assessing Officer may refer the valuation of the capital assetto a Valuation Officer and where any such reference is made, the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3),(4), (5) and (6) of section 16A, clause (i) of sub-section (1) and sub-sections (6) and (7) of section23A, sub-section (5) of section 24, section 34AA, section 35 and section 37 of the Wealth-tax Act,1957 (27 of 1957), shall, with necessary modifications, apply in relation to such reference as theyapply in relation to a reference made by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 16Aof that Act.
Explanation 1.-For the purposes of this section, "Valuation Officer" shall have the same meaning as inclause (r) of section 2 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).
Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, the expression "assessable" means the price which thestamp valuation authority would have, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any otherlaw for the time being in force, adopted or assessed, if it were referred to such authority for the purposesof the payment of stamp duty.
(3) Subject to the provisions contained in sub-section (2), where the value ascertained under sub-section(2) exceeds the value adopted or assessed or 23 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 assessable by the stamp valuation authority referred to insub-section (1), the value so adopted or assessed or assessable by such authority shall be taken as the fullvalue of the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer.
13. Thus, Sub-section (2) clearly mandates that where the assessee claims that the value adopted or assessedor assessable by the stamp valuation authority exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date oftransfer the AO would refer the valuation of such property to the Valuation Officer. Hon'ble Calcutta HighCourt, in the case of Sunil Kumar Agarwal v. CIT [2014] 47 taxmann.com 158/225 Taxman 211/372 ITR 83has clearly held that the AO, discharging quasi judicial function, has the bounden duty to act fairly and tofollow the course provided by law, which in that case, was the reference to the valuation officer. In the presentcase, in view of the assessee's specific dispute and claim before the AO that stamp valuation of the propertysold was not its "fair market value", it was the bounden duty of the AO to have referred to the ValuationOfficer which, for the reasons not borne on records, was not made.
14. On the similar facts and circumstances, the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of ITO v. Aditya Narain Verma(HUF) [2017] 88 taxmann.com 840, upheld the order passed by the Ld CIT (Appeals), who annulled theassessment order where assessee stated before the AO that the stamp valuation cannot be applied as the salewas made under distressing circumstances. The Revenue challenged the action of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) onthe grounds as mentioned in the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT, which were as under:
"1. The learned CIT (A) has erred in law in allowing the assessee's appeal and annulling the orderpassed by the AO
2. The order of learned CIT(A) is erroneous and bad in law and deserves to be cancelled and the orderpassed by the AO deserves to be sustained on the facts of the case.24 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
3. The spirit of s. 50C regarding full value of consideration has not been appreciated by the learnedCIT(A). The full value of consideration and indexed cost of acquisition were rightly adopted by theAO in respect of both the properties.
4. Even if the learned CIT(A) was of the view that the matter should have been referred to theValuation Officer under s. 50C (2)(a) of IT. Act, 1961, he might have directed the AO to makevaluation after referring to Valuation Officer, if AO has made valuation without any such reference.
5. The order of the learned CIT(A) in annulling the assessment is not acceptable as far as the matter ofreferring the case to Valuation Officer is concerned. The matter may be set aside to the file of theAO for referring the case to valuation officer as required under s. 50C (2)(a) of the I. T. Act, 1961."
14.1 The ITAT, Delhi rejected all the grounds raised by the revenue and approved the order passed by the Ld.CIT (Appeals) holding as under:
"On the very perusal of the provisions laid down under s. 50C of the Act reproduced herein above, wefully concur with the finding of the learned CIT(A) that when the assessee in the present case hadclaimed before AO that the value adopted or assessed by the stamp valuation authority under sub-s. (1)exceeds the fair market value of the property as on the date of transfer, the AO should have referred thevaluation of the capital asset to a Valuation Officer instead of adopting the value taken by the Stateauthority for the purpose of stamp duty. The very purpose of the legislature behind the provisions laiddown under sub-section (2) of section 50C of the Act is that a Valuation Officer is an expert of thesubject for such valuation and is certainly in a better position than the AO to determine the valuation.Thus, non-compliance of the provisions laid down under sub s.(2) by the AO cannot be held valid andjustified. The Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Shashi Kant Garg (supra) hasbeen pleased to hold that it is well settled that if under the provisions of the Act an authority is requiredto exercise powers or to do an act in a particular manner, then that power has to be exercised and the acthas to be performed in that manner alone and not in any 25 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 other manner. Similar view has been expressedby the other decisions cited by the learned Authorised Representative in this regard hereinabove. Thefirst appellate order on the issue is thus upheld. The grounds are accordingly rejected."
15. Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Chandra NarainChaudhri[2013] 38 taxmann.com275/219 Taxman 60 in a case, though having different facts where assessee therein had filed more than onevaluation Report, in the context of section 50C of the Act, held that "whenever objection is taken or claim ismade before AO, that the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the Stamp Valuation Authority undersub-section(1) of Section 50-C exceeds the fair market value of the property on the date of transfer, the AOhas to apply his mind on the validity of the objection of the assessee. He may either accept the valuation ofthe property on the basis of the report of the approved valuer filed by the assessee, or invite objection fromthe department and refer the question of valuation of the capital asset to DVO in accordance with Section 55-A of the Act. In all these events, the AO has to record valid reasons, which are justifiable in law. He is notrequired to adopt an evasive approach of applying deeming provision without deciding the objection or torefer the matter to the DVO under Section 55-A of the Act as a matter of course, without considering thereport of approved valuer submitted by the assessee.The Hon'ble High Court further held that Section 50-C of the Act is a rule of evidence in assessing thevaluation of property for calculating the capital gain. The deeming provision under Section 50 C (1) of theAct is rebuttable. It is well known that an immovable property may have various attributes, charges,encumbrances, limitations and conditions. The Stamp Valuation Authority does not take into considerationthe attributes of the property for determining the fair market value in the condition the property is a offeredfor sale and is purchased. He is required to value the property in accordance with the circle rates fixed by theCollector. The object of the valuation by the Stamp Valuation Authority is to secure revenue on such sale andnot to determine the true, correct and fair market value on which it may be purchased by a willing purchasersubject to and taking into consideration its situation, condition and other attributes such as it occupation bytenant, any charge or legal encumbrances.
26ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
16. Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Allahabad in the case of Dr. Shashi Kant Garg v. CIT [2006] 152Taxman 308/285 ITR 158 has also observed "that if under the provisions of the Act an authority is required toexercise power or do an act in a particular manner, then that power has to be exercised and the act has to beperformed in that manner alone and not in any other manner."
17. In the present case, as discussed above the AO not only passed a cryptic order without disputing any ofthe grounds of dispute raised by the assessee but also failed to follow the procedure prescribed in law i.e.making of a reference to the DVO as mandated by section 50C (2) of the Act. Therefore, the addition madeby the AO cannot be approved.
18. Now, having held that since the AO failed to follow the procedure prescribed under the law and for thisreason the addition cannot be held legally valid, the next question arises for consideration is whether the casebe set aside to the AO for following the said procedure and then pass fresh order.
19. In this respect we are alive that though the powers of the Tribunal are wide enough but they should not beused to allow the department to make up its shortcomings, for doing so would defeat the purpose of justiceand fair play. Objection that the assessee did not request the AO for making reference to the valuation cell,suffice would be to observe that assessee has no obligation to instruct the AO to follow the law.
20. Deciding similar issue, ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of ACIT v. Lalitha Karan [IT Appeal No. 1130(Hyd.) of 2015, dated 4-1-2017] (copy placed in assessee's compilation on Pgs. 7 - 15) has observed in para7.1 -
"when deeming provision was to be invoked, the same has to be construed strictly and it has to be takento its logical conclusion i.e. upon not following the proper procedure prescribed therein, particularly, inthe backdrop of the fact that the assessee has prima-facia shown that it was a tenanted property and,therefore, 27 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 subject to certain encumbrances and also the fact the in the absence of obtaining a DVO'sreport, asssessee cannot be put to the trouble of facing a virtual trial even after five years of appearingbefore AO/DVO at this stage to prove the sale price declared by her is reasonable."
21. In the case of Asstt. CIT v. Anima Investment Ltd. [2000] 73 ITD 125 Third Member, ITAT, Delhiobserved in para 13 of the order as under:
"The powers of the Tribunal in the matter of setting aside an assessment are large and wide, but thesecannot be exercised to allow the AO an opportunity to patch up the weak part of his case and to fill upthe omission. In my opinion, a party guilty of remissness and gross negligence is not entitled toindulgence being shown. In this context, I would like to make a reference to a decision of the ChennaiBench of the Tribunal in the case of Tatia Skyline & Health Farms Ltd. v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 66 TTJ(Chennai) 203 : (1999) 70 ITD 387 (Chennai). In this decision, on the assessee's request that the case besent back to the AO for another round of enquiry and fresh assessment in accordance with law. TheBench, rejecting the assessee's request has held that the remand order should be made in very rare andexceptional case, for example, if at original stage, patently grave error was committed by the originalauthority or that the order was made in haste owning to the limitation or that the first appellate authorityhad violated the rules of natural justice. Nothing like this has happened on the present case. The Benchhas further observed that the Courts have also cautioned the Appellate Authorities by holding thatremand should be made only in those cases where the original authorities have not passed orders inaccordance with law but in no case, remand should be made only in those cases where the originalauthorities have not passed orders in accordance with law but in no case, remand should be made toenable an assessee to fill in the blanks or lacuna in the case which remains present. What applies to theassessee, would equally apply to the AO. Likewise, in the case of Smt. NeenaSyalv. Asstt. CIT (1999)70 ITD 62 (Chd.), the Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal has observed that it is not the function of theTribunal to allow further opportunity to the AO to cover up legal lapses made by him, by restoring thematter back to his file. Therefore, 28 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 remand/setting aside order could not be made in this case to enable theAO to make up his earlier deficient work by initiating assessment proceedings for the third time after alapse of considerable time."
22. In the case of Raj Kumar Jain v. Asstt. CIT [1994] 50 ITD 1 (ITAT, Allahabad) (TM), Ch. G.Krishnamurthy, the then President of ITAT, as a Third Member also observed in para 5 as follows -
"The Tribunal acting as an appellate authority has to see whether the assessment framed by the AssessingOfficer and whether the appellate order appealed against was according to law and properly framed onfacts and whether there was sufficient material to support it. When there is no material to support it andwhen as observed by the learned Accountant Member the additions made by the Assessing Officer couldnot be sustained, it is not for the Tribunal to start investigations suo-moto and supply the evidence for theDepartment. If the additions are not supported by evidence, the only course open to the Tribunal is todelete the additions pointing out how the additions made could not be sustained for want of adequatesupporting material. It is for the Department to gather the material and make proper assessments and theTribunal is not in that fashion an IT authority. Under the IT authorities stipulated under the IT Act, the Tribunal is not one of them. It is purely an appellate authority. Therefore, the object of the appeal beforethe Tribunal is whether the addition or disallowance sustained was in accordance with law and supportedby material. If there is no sufficient material, the addition must be deleted. The Tribunal cannot orderfurther enquiry with a view to sustain the addition. This will amount to taking sides with the partieswhich is not the function of a judicial authority like the Tribunal."
23. Hon'ble Supreme Court also in the case of Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1]observed as follows: --
It has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who areentrusted with the task of calculating and realising that price should familiarise themselves with the relevantprovisions and become well-versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be 29 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 atthe cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue. At the same time, we have tobear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that staleissues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity. (emphasissupplied)
24. Recently, this Bench in the case of Dr. Sanjay Chobey (HUF) v. ACIT [IT Appeal No. 140 (Agr.) of 2018,dated 2-7-2018], in the pariMateriaof facts allowed the assessee's appeal by observing, vide para 14, as under:
"The lower authorities passed the order in summery manner without going into the merits of the case andanalyzing the legal issue involved, the applicability of Section 50C(2)(a) of the Act, in a particular. Wefurther find that the AO has not found any adverse material evidence to indicate that the assessee hasreceived any excess money over and above the sale consideration, in the return of income. In light of thepeculiar facts of this case and in the absence of the DVO report, we are of the considered opinion that theassessee cannot put to travel up facing virtual trial to appear before the AO after three years to prove thatthe sale consideration declared by him was reasonable."
25. In the present case, it is noted that the Assessing Officer neither discussed the contentions of the assesseefor taking actual consideration as fair market value of the property sold nor referred the matter to the DVO aswas required U/s. 50C(2) of the Act. The AO has also not found or alleged that the assessee received anyexcess amount over the sale consideration mentioned in the deeds.
26. We are of the considered opinion that the department cannot be allowed a second inning, by sending thematter back to AO, enabling it to fill the lacunae and shortcomings and putting the assessee virtually to face are-trial for no fault of him and to again prove before the AO that the sale consideration was the "fair marketvalue" of the property sold by him. This would amount to giving a lease of 30 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 life to an order which on the basisof facts on records is unsustainable in law.Therefore, in the light of these facts and the failure of the AO tofollow the procedure as prescribed under section 50C (2) in particular, we do not find any infirmity in theorder of the CIT(A) in quashing the addition made by the AO.
27. In view of the above, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld and resultantly appeal of thedepartment is dismissed."
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its Judgment in the case of 'Parusram Pottery Works Co. Ltd Vs ITO', 106 ITR 0001 (SC)] observed that-
"It has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realising that price should familiarize themselves wi/th the relevant provisions and become well-
versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity."
24. Revenue, has placed reliance on the case of 'Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs CIT', (2014) 47 taxmann.com 158 (Calcutta). Thesaid case is distinguishable on facts for the very reason that in the case referred no 31 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 such request was made by the assessee before the AO. Requirement of clauses (a) and (b) of sub-Section (2) of Section 50C are also not met by the assessee. In the case under consideration assessee vide Reply dated 05.02.2016 made a specific request before the AO to refer the matter to the DVO, which request was not acceded to. Assessee thus has complied with the condition laid down in clause (a) of sub-section (2) to Section 50C of the Act. Further, in the referred case the relief sought by the assessee was that the order under challenge should be set aside and the matter should be referred to the valuation officer. In the case on hand the challenge made by the assessee is that in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case,no set-aside is called for to make the deficiency good. Thus, the case relied upon is distinguishable on facts.
25. The next case relied on by the revenue, is of 'CIT Vs Chandra NarainChaudhary', by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and on the strength on such reliance it is pleaded that the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court remanded the matter to the AO to make assessment de-novo in accordance with law after valuation by DVO. Therefore, the Hon'ble ITAT should set-aside the matter back to the file of the AO.
32ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
26. In the case of 'Chandra NarainChaudhary (supra)', the assessee therein substantiated its case by furnishing three different valuationreports of the approved valuer. The first report was based on the valuation ason 1.4.1981; the second report was based on the valuation as on October 2004 and the third report by the same approved valuer was based on distresssale value of the property. The third valuation report was prepared during theproceedings before AO. The assessee however did not choose it to file thesame before AO in remand proceedings, and filed it as an additional evidence in appeal which was rejected by the CIT (A) after considering the report of AO on remand, and such rejection was upheld by the Hon'ble ITAT.
27. The Hon'ble High Court's findings are to be seen in the light of attending facts of the case where on the face of the valuation Reports and in view of the findings recorded by the Ld CIT(A) in Para- 5.2 of its order as also reproduced by the Hon'ble High Court, wherein the Ld CIT(A) held that the facts of the case warrant and compel the AO to have made reference to the DVO as assessee had furnished report from the approved valuer and relied upon the same and that the Hon'ble High Court set-aside the matter to the AO for deciding afresh after referring the question of valuation to the 33 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 DVO. Since, the Report of a technical expert (Approved Valuer) brought on records by the assessee could only be discredited or disputed by Report of another technical expert (Departmental Valuation officer, DVO). Therefore, in such a case the Hon'ble High Court referred the matter back and more so where the Hon'ble High Court had no occasion to examine the objection by the assessee that set-aside would amount to giving a fresh lease of life to an order which is otherwise unsustainable in law.
28. In the present case, it is noted that the Assessing officer neither discussed the contentions of the assessee for taking actual consideration as fair market value of the property sold nor referred the matter to the DVO as was required U/s 50C(2) of the Act despite specific prayer made by the assessee at the first stage. The AO has also not found or alleged that the assessee received any excess amount over the sale consideration mentioned in the deeds. In the light of these facts and particularly on the failure of the AO to follow the course as prescribed under section 50C(2) and respectfully following various decisions discussed above, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in quashing the addition made by the AO. We are also of the considered opinion that the department cannot be allowed a second inning, by sending the matter back to AO, 34 ITA No. 228/Agr/2018 enabling it to fill in the lacunae and shortcomings of the assessment order, and putting the assessee virtually to face a re-trial for no fault of hisandto again put him to prove before the AO that the sale consideration was the "fair market value" of the property sold by him. This would amount to giving life to an order which on the basis of facts on records is unsustainable in law.
29. In view of above discussion and in view of our findings in the cases of 'Tarun Agarwal Vs ACIT', Agra (supra) and 'Dr. Sanjay Chaubey (HUF) Vs ACIT', Jhansi, and also placing reliance upon the decisions of co-ordinate Benches in the cases of 'ITO v. Aditya Narain Verma (HUF)',;'ACIT Vs Lalitha Karan', and 'ACIT Vs Anima Investment Ltd,', we hold that at this stage, the AO cannot be allowed a second inning, by sending the matter back enabling him to make good his own shortcomings and putting the assessee virtually to face a re-trial for no fault on his part and to again prove before the AO that the sale consideration was the "fair market value" of the property sold by him. This would amount to giving a lease of life to an order which on the basis of facts on records is unsustainable in law.
35ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
30. In the above view and legal precedents in these peculiar facts of the case, the failure of the AO to follow the procedure as prescribed under section 50C(2) in particular, we do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) in quashing the addition made by the AO.
31. In result, the above appeal of the Department is dismissed.
(Order pronounced in the open Court on 10/10/2018)
Sd/- Sd/-
(A.D. Jain) (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena)
Judicial member Accountant Member
Dated: 10/10/2018
Aks - Doc
Copy of order forwarded to:
(1) The appellant (2) The respondent
(3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A)
(5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File
By order
Assistant Registrar
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal
Agra Bench, Agra
36
ITA No. 228/Agr/2018
Date
1. Draft dictated / (DNS) 27.10.2018 PS
2. Draft placed before author 09.10.2018 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM/AM
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.