SMT. BIRMA DEVI,JAIPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-2, JAIPUR

per provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) the land situate in the jurisdiction of

a municipality will be liable for capital gains provided such municipality

has population ten thousand and above. In the case of the assessee

these conditions were not satisfied as such the provisions of section

2(14)(iii)(a) were not applicable and the agricultural land sold by the

assessee was not an asset with reference to these provisions of section

28 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

2(14)(iii)(a). The provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(a) and 2(14)(iii)(b) are

quoted below: -

“Section 2(14)(iii)(a) and 2(14)(iii)(b) -

[(iii) agricultural land46 in India, not being land situate— (a) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality46 (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population46 of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the first day of the previous year ; or (b) in any area within such distance, not being more than eight kilometres, from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in item (a), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the Official Gazette47;]” So far as provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b) are concerned it is submitted

that these provisions require the agricultural land to situate within 8 km

of the local limits of the municipality as notified by Central Govt. It is

submitted that in this regard the Central Govt. issued notification on

06.01.1994 and thereafter there has been no notification on the issue. A

copy of this notification dated 06.01.1994 is available on paper book cited

supra. As per this notification explanation 2 the local limits of the

municipality shall be reckoned as on the date of the unification i.e.

06.01.1994. In other words the lands situate within 8 km of the municipal

limits as on 06.01.1994 shall be covered under the provisions of section

29 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

2(14)(iii)(b). It is submitted that as on 06.01.1994 the land of the

assessee was not within the distance of 8 km. from the municipal limits.

In view of this the provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b) are also not

applicable. It is submitted that the notification no. 9447 issued by the

Central Govt dated 06.01.1994 lays down limit of 8 km. from the

Municipal Limits as on 06.01.1994. It is submitted that the Municipal

limits have been notified by State Govt in Gazette on 25.09.1994. Copy of

Gazette Notification issued by State Govt dated 25.09.1994 is available on

paper book page number 38 to 46. Strictly speaking no municipal limits

are available as on the date of 06.01.1994. The nearest date for which

municipal limits are available are as per Govt. of Rajasthan Gazette

Notification dated 25.09.1994 which shows Village Bhankrota for the

purposes of Ward 12 wherein lies the agricultural land of the assessee as

the municipal limit. Therefore land falling within 8 km. from this municipal

limit of (Village Bhankrota) shall be an asset with reference to the

provisions of section 2(14)(iii)(b). The distance of the agricultural land

situate at village Muhana from Municipal Limit Bhankrota is more than 15

kilometers. Hence it was not an asset within the meaning of provisions of

section 2(14)(iii)(b). Therefore the sale of land does not attract capital

gains. The addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer deserves to be

30 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

deleted. The assessee is scanning below the google map outlining the

distance between Village Muhana and Bhankrota which is as under -

31 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

Considering the above position of law with respect to the provisions of

section 2(14)(iii)(a) & (b) the agricultural land sold by the assessee could

not treated as an asset and the question of levy of capital gain did not

arise. In view of this there was no case for disclosing capital gain on the

sale of such land and claiming deduction u/s 54B because the agricultural

land sold was not an asset. In view of this the addition made by the

Learned Assessing Officer does not hold good and deserves to be deleted.

He has relied upon the following case laws:

Dinesh kumar Jain Vs. ITO Ward 6(1) jaipur ITA No. 372/JP/2015

The fact of the case decided by the ITAT are quite similar to the facts of the case of the assessee. It is submitted that the honble ITAT decided the case taking into consideration the decisions on the issue of Hon,ble karnatka High court in the case of CIT Vs. Madhukumar N. (HUF) (2012) 208 Taxman 394/23 Taxman .com 341(kar), 2. Bombay High court in the case of commissioner of Income Tax Nagpur Vs . Ramesh Chandra Chordia (2015) 57 taxmann.com 394 (Bombay) and Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax II, Ludhiana Vs, Satinder Pal Singh (2010) 188 Taxman 54(Punj & Har.) The Hon'ble Tribunal has held that distance of 8 km shall be of municipal limit as on the date of 06.01.1994. 14. On the other hand, the ld CIT-DR has vehemently supported the

orders of the authorities below and contended that for claiming deduction

u/s 54B, the new agriculture lands should have been purchased on or

before 05.08.2013 i.e. the date of filing of ROI and if the sale

32 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

consideration is not used for purchase of agriculture land, then the same

should have been deposited in the capital gains deposit account scheme.

It is an undisputed fact that no such deposits were made in that scheme

by the assessee.

Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the judgement dated 18.08.2016 in the

case of Humayun Suleman Merchant Vs CCIT [2016] 73 taxmann.com 2

(Bombay) considered a number of decisions on the issue including the

case of CIT vs. K. Ramachandra Rao [2015] 230 Taxman 334 (Kar.), CIT

vs. Ravindra Kumar Arora [2012] 342 ITR 38 (Del.) and distinguished the

decision of Hon'ble High Court of Gauhati in the case of CIT Vs Rajesh

Kumar Jalan (Supra) as relied upon by the appellant and held as under:

"As the instant case is for assessment year 1996-97, it is the amended provision which applies. Therefore, now section 54F(1) which grants exemption from Capital gain tax where a flat is purchased either within one year prior to the sale of capital asset or within 2 years after the date of sale of the capital asset or where a residential house is constructed within 3 years from the date of sale of the capital asset, is now subject to the provisions of section 54F(4). Thus, where the consideration received on sale of capital asset is not appropriated (where purchase was earlier than sale) or utilized (where purchase is after the sale) then the same would be subject to the charge of capital gain tax, unless the unutilized amounts are deposited in specified bank account as notified in terms of section 54F(4). The exemption would be available to the unutilized amounts only if the mandate of sub-section (4) of section 54F is complied with. Further

33 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

the proviso to sub-section (4) of section 54F, safeguards the revenue where the assessee had not invested the amounts chargeable to Capital Gains within the time prescribed under sub-section (1) of section 54F. This by providing that in such cases, Capital Gain under section 45 would be charged on the unutilized amount as Income of the previous year in which the period of three years from the date of transfer of the capital asset expires. [Para 6(h)]

On the basis of the above broad analysis, the facts of the instant case need to be analyzed. The sale of capital asset took place on 29-4-1995 for a consideration of Rs. 85.33 lakhs. The agreement for purchase of construction of flat for consideration of Rs.69.90 lakhs was entered into by the assessee on 16- 7-1996. An amount of Rs. 35 lakhs were utilized by the assessee in purchase of flat before the return of income was filed on 4-11-1996 under section 139. However, the mandate under sub-section (4) of section 54F is that the amount not utilized towards the purchase of the flat has to be deposited before the due date of filing return of Income under section 139(1) in the specified bank account. In this case admittedly the entire amount of capital gains on sale of asset which is not utilized has not been deposited in a specified bank account before due date of filing of return under section 139(1). Therefore, where the amounts of capital gains is utilized before filing of the return of income in purchase/construction of a residential house, then the benefit of exemption under section 54F is available, (emphasis supplied) It is an undisputed position that except Rs.35 lakhs, the balance of the amounts subject to capital gains tax has not been utilized before date of furnishing of return of income, i.e., 4-11- 1996 under section 139.Therefore, on plain interpretation of section 54F, it appears that the impugned order of the Tribunal cannot be faulted. [Para 6(i)]

The mandate of section 54F(4) is clear that amount which has not been utilized in construction and/or purchase of property before filing the return of income, must necessarily be deposited in an account duly notified by the Central Government, so as to be exempted. [Para 6(o)]

34 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

Further, section 54F(4) specifically provides that the amounts which have not been invested either in purchase/construction of house have to be deposited in the specified accounts before the due date of filing of return of income under section 139(1). [Para 6(p)] (emphasis supplied)

It is a settled position in law that no occasion to give a beneficial construction to a statute can arise when there is no ambiguity in the provision of law which is subject to interpretation. Thus, in the face of the clear words of the Statute the intent of parties and/or beneficial construction is irrelevant. In the instant facts the provision of section 54F(4) are very dear. There is no ambiguity. Thus, there is no occasion to apply liberal/beneficial construction while interpreting the section as contended by the assessee. [Para 6(s)] (emphasis supplied)

In the instant case, the return of income is admittedly filed on 4-11-1996. In terms of section 54F(4) interpreted by the Gauhati High Court in CIT v. Rajesh Kumar Jalan [2006] 286 ITR 274/157 Taxman 398 the amount subject to capital gain on sale of the capital asset for purpose of exemption, has to be utilized before the date of filing of return of income. In instant case 4-11-1996 is the date of filing the return of Income. It is not disputed that on 4-11-1996 when the return of income was filed, the entire amount which was subject to capital gain tax had not been utilized for the purpose of construction of new house nor were the unutilized amounts deposited in the notified Bank Accounts in terms of section 54F(4) before filing the return of income. It is also to be noted that, the Assessing Officer had taken into account all amounts utilized for construction of a house before filing the return of income on 4-11-1996 for extending the benefit of exemption under section 54F. Therefore, in the instant facts, the decision of the Gauhati High Court in Rajesh Kumar Jalan's (supra) would not apply so as to hold that the assessee had complied with section 54F(4). [Para 6(w)] (emphasis supplied).

35 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

the case of Smt. Basaribanu Mohd. Rafiq Latiwala Vs ITO[2017] 81

taxmann.com 62 (Mumbai - Trib.), which reads as under:

"Section 54F of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Capital gains - Exemption of, in case of investment in residential house (Condition precedent) - Assessment year 2011-12 - Assessee transferred shares on which long term capital gain of Rs. 92.66 lakhs was earned - Assessee purchased an under construction residential property for total consideration of Rs. 98 lakhs and claimed deduction under section 54F - Assessee paid Rs. 52.47 lakhs out of consideration on sale of shares before due date of filing of return - Assessee did not deposit balance net consideration on sale of shares with capital gain account maintained with bank as stipulated under section 54F(4) before filing of return - Whether assessee would be entitled to exemption of amount which was invested in acquiring new residential property till date of filing of return of income - Held, yes [Para 9].

case of Shri Hariharan Ramasubramanian Vs ITO in I.T.A. No.

1616/Mum/2017 dated 29.08.2018, it has been held by the Hon'ble

Mumbai Tribunal that:

"6 ……We have considered rival contention and perused the material on record including cited case laws. The facts of the case are elaborately discussed by us in preceding para's of this order which are not repeated again. The dispute between rival parties is in narrow compass and the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Humayun Suleman Merchant(supra) has held that even if the assessee has not invested in the notified bank account under capital gain scheme of the bank as mandated u/s 54 of the 1961 Act but still the benefit of

36 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

deduction u/s 54 of the 1961 Act cannot be denied for investments made in new residential flat till the date of filing of return of income by the assessee with Revenue. Thus in our considered view keeping in view decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Humayun Suleman Merchant(supra) and also keeping in view the fact the assessee has not deposited the amount in notified bank account maintained under capital gain bank account scheme as provided u/s 54 of the 1961 Act before the due date of furnishing of return of income, deduction of Rs. 1.76 lakh on account of investment made in said residential flat being constructed by DLF at Bangalore cannot be allowed to the assessee u/s 54 of the 1961 Act as the said payment of Rs.1.76 lacs was made on 01-10-2013 while return of income was filed by the assessee on 31.07.2011."

No.3154/Ahd/2015, the similar issue of making investment in purchase of

property after filing of return of income was before the Hon'ble Tribunal

and it has been held that any investment after filing of ROI but before the

date of filing ROI u/s 139(4) has no meaning. It would be appropriate to

reproduce the relevant findings as under:

"9. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the authorities below. The assessee in the present appeal has controverted the denial of exemption claimed under s.54 of the Act towards capital gain arising on sale of residential property. Section 54 inter alia provides that capital gain invested in the purchase of residential House will be exempt from tax. Although, as per section 54, the assessee is given two years for purchase of House property (or three years for construction thereof) yet the taxable event of capital gains on transfer of original House property is

37 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

the year in which it is sold. In terms of S. 54(2), however, the assessee may at his discretion invest the capital gains before the filing of return of income to avoid incidence of tax. Section 54(2) inter alia specifies an alternative in the form of deposit under 'capital gain accounts scheme' before the due date of filing of return of income under s.139(1) of the Act. Thus, the amount of capital gains which is not utilized by the assessee for purchase or construction of new house before the date of furnishing of return of income ought to be deposited by him under the capital gains accounts scheme before the due date of furnishing the return.

9.1 In the instant case, the assessee claims to have utilized Rs.15 lakhs (50% of Rs.30 lakhs invested towards purchase of new residential House) before the due date of filing of return of income. The assessee simultaneously claims that another Rs.5 lakhs (50% of Rs.10 lakhs similarly invested) has been invested in the residential property before the actual filing of the return on 25/08/2011 i.e. within the time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act.

9.2 Section 54(2) enjoins that the capital gain is required to be appropriated by the assessee towards purchase of new asset before furnishing of return of income under s. 139 of the Act. Alternatively, in the event of non-utilization of capital gains towards purchase of new asset, the assessee is required to deposit the capital gains in specified bank account before the due date of filing of return of income under s. 139(1) of the Act. Any payment towards purchase subsequent to the furnishing of return of income (25/08/2011 - in the instant case) but before the last date available to file the return of income under s. 139(4) of the Act is irrelevant. Such subsequent payments after filing of return are required to be routed out of deposits made in capital gain account scheme. Thus, the plea of the assessee that utilization of capital gain can be made before the extended date for filing of return of income under s.139(4) of the Act even after filing of return do not coincide with the plain language employed under s.54(2) of the Act. Nonetheless, the capital

38 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

gain employed towards purchase of new asset before the actual date of furnishing return of income either under s,139(1) or under s.139(4) of the Act will be deemed to be sufficient compliance of section 54(2) of the Act.

9.3 The assessee, in the instant case, does not claim to have deposited the money in these specified bank account under capital gain scheme at all. Therefore, the claim of the assessee is required to be weighed on the second limb of section 54(2) of the Act, i.e. whether the capital gain has been utilized for purchase of new asset before the date of furnishing of return of income under s.139 of the Act. At this juncture, we notice that the legislature in its own wisdom has used the expression section 139 for purchase etc. of new asset while on the other hand, time limit under section 139(1) has been specified for deposit in the capital gain account scheme. When viewed liberally, the distinction between the two different form of expression of time limit can yield different results. S.139 encompasses both s, 139(1) and s.139(4) of the Act. There is presumption that words are used in an act of parliament correctly and exactly and not loosely and inexactly. In the present case, we are concerned with the utilization of capital gain towards purchase of new asset for which the legislature has stopped short by making reference of section 139 of the Act in variation to 139 (1) of the Act for deposit in capital gain scheme. This distinction assumes significance for interpretation of beneficial provision. Thus, a beneficial view may be taken to say that section 139 being omnibus would also cover extended time limit provided under s.139(4) of the Act. Thus, when an assessee furnishes return subsequent to due date of filing return under s.139(1) but within the extended time limit under s,139(4), the benefit of investment made upto the date of furnishing return of income under 139(4) cannot be denied on such beneficial construction. However, any investment made after the furnishing of return of income but before extended date available under s.139(4) would not receive beneficial construction in view of unambiguous and express

39 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

provision of s.54(2) of the Act. The suggestion on behalf of the assessee on eligibility of payments subsequent to furnishing of return of income is not aligned with and militates against the plain provision of law certified in s.54(2) of the Act.

9.4 In the light of the mandate of section 54(2) as noted above, we shall now turn to the facts of the case. It is the case of the assessee that Rs.40 lakhs in aggregate has been utilized towards purchase of new asset before furnishing the return of income under s.139(4) of the Act. The assessee claims to have 1A of her share) for purchase of new asset. invested Rs.20 lakhs (being However, we notice that assessee appears to have shown a total investment Rs.50 lakhs in aggregate i.e. 30 lakhs from personal account and Rs.20 lakhs (A share) from joint account as against her obligation to the extent of Rs.35 lakhs only. Also ambiguity exists on record as to whether the other joint owner (husband of the assessee) has availed claim of exemption, if any, upto 1/2 of his share only) or entire Rs.40 lakhs made through Rs.20 lakhs (being joint account towards purchase in his own right. In such circumstances, the assessee, in our view, would be entitled to exemption to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs being 50% of her share in the utilization of capital gain subject to the satisfaction of the AO that the aforesaid claim of payments from joint account has not been simultaneously availed by other joint owner also.

9.5 The other portion on the investment claimed from the personal account of the assessee is stated to have been made after furnishing the return of income but before extended the due date of filing of return of income. However, as noted above, once the return has been furnished, the subsequent payments made towards purchase would not be eligible for exemption unless the same was first deposited in capital gain account scheme and utilized therefrom. Therefore, the assessee is entitled to relief to the extent of Rs.20 lakhs only out of indexed capital gain subject, however, to the necessary verification of the claim of the other joint-owner as noted

40 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

above. The decision relied upon by the assessee does not spell anything different.

consideration could not be utilized earlier as the same was received by it

in August, 2014 only and thus, it was prevented by sufficient cause in not

making the investment earlier. It was submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that

the issue has been discussed by Ld. CIT(A) on page 11 of her order. The

assessee has failed to bring on record any exigency or circumstances

which lead to the delayed payments in August, 2014. It is pertinent to

mention here that the cheques as appearing in the sale deeds of land

sold by the assessee were deposited in the bank account of the assessee

in August, 2014 and the assessee did not submit any reason for not

depositing these cheques on an earlier date or receiving the post dated

cheques. Thus, the assessee has to blame itself and not the department.

Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Chandigarh in the

case of Hussan Lai Puri Vs ITO [2013] 38 taxmann.com 7 (Chandigarh),

41 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

which has been discussed by the Ld. CIT(A) on page 12 of her appellate

order.

relied upon a number of judicial pronouncements, which are related to

exemption u/s 54E/54EC, whereas in the instant case, exemption is

claimed u/s 54B. It is to be noted that sections 54E/54EC and 54B

operate in altogether different spheres. In section 54E/54EC, the

investment in the bonds are to be made within 6 months from the date of

transfer of capital asset, whereas u/s 54B, the agriculture land is to be

purchased before filing of ROI. Further, there is no concept of deposit in

capital gains deposit account scheme u/s 54E/54EC, whereas, u/s 54,

54B, 54F,if the amount of capital gains is not invested in the purchase of

land before filing of ROI, then the same has to be deposited in capital

gains deposit account scheme.

The ld. CIT-DR has further argued that as per 2nd proviso to section 21.

54E, in the case of compulsory acquisition of capital asset under any law

wherein the full amount of compensation awarded for such acquisition is

not received by the assessee on the date of such transfer, only in that

case, the period of six months could be extended. The said proviso is

being reproduced as under:

42 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

"Provided further that in a case where the transfer of the original asset is by way of compulsory acquisition under any law and the full amount of compensation awarded for such acquisition is not received by the assessee on the date of such transfer, the period of six months referred to in this sub-section shall, in relation to so much of such compensation as is not received on the date of the transfer, be reckoned from the date immediately following the date on which such compensation is received by the assessee or the 31st day of March, 1992, whichever is earlier."

As per the ld. CIT-DR, no such provision exists either u/s 54EC or 54B.

Thus, the provisions of section 54E/54EC and 54B/54/54F operates in

different spheres and the provisions of these sections are not pari

materia. Thus, it was submitted that the judicial pronouncements relied

upon by the ld. A.R. are not applicable to the facts of the instant case

before the Hon'ble Tribunal.

submitted by the ld. CIT-DR that the case of Chanchal Kumar Sircar Vs

ITO is related to section 54EC, the part payment have been received and

possession of land was also given but the investment u/s 54EC was made

before the date of registered sale deed. In the said case, the reliance was

placed on the judgement of Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in the

case of S. Gopal Reddy v. CIT [1990] 181 ITR 378, which was related to

compensation for acquisition and for delayed receipt of compensation and

the claim was u/s 54E. The delayed investment on account of delayed

43 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

receipt of compensation is covered under second proviso to section 54E

as discussed above.

In the case of CIT Vs. Cello Plast (supra), the time for making investment

was extended by the Hon'ble Court as the relevant bonds were not

available during the period of six months from the date of transfer of the

capital asset.

The case of Ram Agarwal Vs. JCIT is relating to Sec. 54, however, in the

said case, the deposit in the specified scheme could not be made on

31.08.1995, being the last date on account of bank strike and

consequently the deposit was made on 01.09.1995, which was allowed by

the Hon'ble Tribunal.

In the case of CIT Vs. Akhbar AM Dhala and ACIT Vs. Kamlakar Mogha,

the issues were relating to sec. 54EC and the investment in the bonds

was allowed beyond the period of 6 months as the relevant bonds were

not available in part of relevant period.

ITAT, Special Bench in the case of Jyotindra H Shodhan Vs ITO (2003) 87

ITD 312 (Ahd) wherein, it has been held by the Special Bench that:

"The question to be decided is whether for the purpose of allowing deduction under section 54E, the period of six months is to be reckoned from the date of

44 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

transfer or from the date of final receipt of sale consideration. Separate provisions have been made in the Act for both the situations. Where reckoning date is specifically provided as the date of receipt of the consideration, the period of six months is to be counted from the date of receipt. Conversingly, wherever it is not so specifically provided to be reckoned from the date of receipt it cannot be imported into the provision of section 54E(1), particularly when a contrary intention is expressed, namely, the period of six months is to be reckoned from the date of transfer in contrast to the date of receipt. [Paras 10 and 11]].

There is no ambiguity in the statutory provision related to the controversy under consideration. Section 54E(1) clearly provides that if the capital gain arises from a transfer of a long-term capital asset and the assessee has within a period of six months after the date of such transfer invested or deposited sale consideration in any specified assets, the capital gain would be dealt with in accordance with provisions of section 54E(l)(a ) and (b). The investment or deposit in specified assets within the stipulated period is a mandatory requirement of the section for getting benefit from tax on capital gain. [Para 16]

In view of the above, an assessee who desires to avail benefit of section 54E, must strictly satisfy all those conditions which are provided therein. One of the conditions of the section is that the assessee is to deposit whole or any part of the net consideration in any specified assets within a period of six months after the date of transfer. The transaction, in the instant case, took place when sale deed was executed and registered on 7-8-1982 and the investment was made by the assessee on 20-2-1987, i.e., after the stipulated period of six months from the date of transfer. Further the instant case did not fall under the proviso to section 54E(1) where under the period of six months is allowed to be reckoned from the date of receipt instead of date of transfer. The case of the assessee being not a case of compulsory acquisition of property, the benefit granted under the proviso would not be available to the assessee. The contention of the

45 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

assessee that the said stipulated period of six months was to be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration was not acceptable. In view of clear language of section 54E(1), the alternative submission that the view beneficial to the assessee was to be accepted, was also not acceptable. [Para 17]

The benefit of section 54E(1) was, therefore, not allowable to the assessee. The appeal of the assessee was to be dismissed. [Paras 18 and 19]"

The above decision of Special Bench was affirmed by the Hon'ble Gujarat

High Court in the case of Jyotindra H. Shodhan Vs ITO [2015] 54

taxmann.com 342 (Gujarat), wherein it has been held that:

"6. We have heard learned advocate for the parties and perused the material on record. In our view, the contention of learned advocate for the appellant- assessee is misconceived inasmuch as the six months' period will have to be counted when sale-deed was executed i.e. from 07.08.1982. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the contention of learned advocate for the appellant- assessee is not acceptable.

"17. From the aforesaid discussion, it is very clear that an assessee who desired to avail benefit of section 54E must strictly satisfy all those conditions which are provided therein. One of the conditions of the section is that assessee is to deposit whole or any part of the net consideration in any specified assets within a period of six months after the date of transfer. There is no dispute about the facts that the transfer in the present case took place when sale deed was executed and registered on 07.08.1982 and the investment of Rs.1,89,904/- is made by the assessee in National Rural Development Bonds on 20.02.1987 i.e. after the stipulated period of 6 months from the date of transfer. Further, this case does not falls under the provisions to Sec. 54E(1) whereof the period of six months is allowed to be reckoned from the date of receipt instead of date of transfer. The case of assessee being not a case of compulsory acquisition of property, the benefit granted under the provision would not be available to the assessee. The

46 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

contention of the assessee that this stipulated period of six months which is to be reckoned from the date of receipt of consideration is not acceptable. In view of clear language of Section 54E(1), the alternate submission, that the view beneficial to the assessee is to be accepted, is also not acceptable." 8. In view of the aforesaid discussions, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has not committed any error in dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Hence, the present appeal is dismissed. The questions of law raised in this appeal is answered in favour of the revenue and against the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the Tribunal was right in law in holding that benefit of Section 54E is available where the assessee has invested or deposited the whole or any part of net consideration in any specified asset within six months from the date of consideration received and not from the date of such transfer."

Sarala Devi K. Vs CIT [1996] 88 TAXMAN 18 (KER.), it has been held by

the Hon'ble Kerala High Court that the assessee is not entitled to claim

exemption under section 54E, since the deposit was made only in May

1978 and February 1979 whereas the sale took place on 17-3-1977.

The deposit was not admittedly made within six months. He has further

submitted that as per provisions of section 54B of the Act, the land sold

as well as purchased must be used for agriculture purposes. However,

the Ld. AR has filed a copy of "Jamabandi' in the name of the seller Smt.

Rupinder Kaur and that too for the year 2006-07 and not for the relevant

periods. Further, the said document does not reflect raising of any crops

on the said land during the period as required by the provisions of section

47 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

54B. It is humbly submitted that in the interest of justice, this aspect of

the matter may kindly be considered by the Hon'ble Tribunal. In view of

the above submission, the ld. CIT-DR has contended that the orders of

the lower authorities for declining the claim of deduction U/s 54B of the

Act may be upheld.

through the orders of the authorities below. We had also deliberated on

the judicial pronouncements referred by the lower authorities in their

respective orders as well as cited by the ld. AR and ld. DR during the

course of hearing before us in the context of factual matrix of the case.

From the record we found that during the year under consideration the

assessee had sold agricultural land as under: -

Particulars of lands Date of sale Value Details of consideration received Agricultural land at 06.02.2013 20813808 1) Rs. 700000/- by cash on Munaha, Sanganer 09.02.2013. Khasra No. 1168 2) Rs. 2,01,13,808/- by cheques in August-2014 Total Rs. 20813808/- Agricultural land at 06.02.2013 16656282 1) Rs. 700000/- by cash on Munaha, Sanganer 11.02.2013. Khasra No. 1179 2) Rs. 1,59,56,282/- by cheques in August-2014 Total Rs. 16656282/- Agricultural land at 06.02.2013 19411456 1) Rs. 700000/- by cash on Munaha, Sanganer 12.02.2013. Khasra No. 1175 2) Rs. 1,87,11,456/- by cheques in August-2014 Total Rs. 19411456/- Total 56881546

48 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

It is clear from the above table that the sale consideration was received

Rs.7,00,000/- cash in each case on 09.02.2013, 11.02.2013 &

12.02.2013. Thus a sum of Rs. 21,00,000/- was received in February

2013. Balance amount was received through cheques and stands

accounted for in the bank account of the assessee with Oriental Bank of

Commerce in August-2014. Apparently the sale conditions were such that

post dated cheques were received at the time of sale on 06.02.2013 and

the amount of Rs. 5,47,81,456/- (56881546-2100000) was received in

August 2014. Soon on receipt of this sale consideration of Rs.

5,47,81,456/- the assessee immediately invested the same in purchase of

agricultural land at Mauja Shekhpur, Fatehbad on 28.08.2014 for a sum

of Rs. 5,50,00,000/-. A copy of the purchase deed is available on paper

book page number 27 to 34. As the assessee immediately invested the

sales consideration in purchase of new asset, deduction was claimed u/s

54B in the computation of income. The assessee disclosed Nil capital

gains giving the following computation: -

Agricultural land 06/02/2013 Sales 56881546 consideration Less: indexed cost 1351360 Purchase F.Y. 1997-98 525000/331*852 Registry charges 1416597 F.Y. 1996-97 507115/305*852 Total 2767957 -2767957 Capital gain 54113589 Deduction u/s 54B 55000000 Deduction 54113589

49 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

Purchase of agricultural land on Capital gain Nil

However during the course of assessment proceedings the Assessing

Officer disregarded the submissions of the assessee that she could not

invest the sale consideration by the due date u/s 139(1) i.e. 31.07.2013

for filing return of income as the funds were stipulated to be received in

August-2014 as such there was no question for investing the same earlier

by 31.07.2013. In view of this the Assessing Officer disregarded the claim

of the assessee and made addition accordingly. However Ld. CIT(A) was

conscious that the sale proceeds could be invested in extended period

available for filing of return u/s 139(4). It is in the background of this that

the Ld. CIT(A) has observed on page 11 of the appellate order that "the

appellant has neither deposited the amount in the capital gain scheme

nor purchased the new asset not only till the date of filing return u/s

139(1) but even the extended date u/s 139(4)." The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

in observing that the assessee did not invest the funds in the purchase of

new asset even in the extended date available u/s 139(4). The provisions

of section 139(4) as these stood for the relevant period are quoted

below: -

“Section 139(4) - Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed61 to him under sub-section (1), or within the time allowed under a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of

50 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier "

The aforesaid provisions lay down that return can be filed at any time

before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment

year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier. In

this case the Assessment Year involved is Assessment Year 2013-14,

therefore time available for investing in the purchase of new asset was up

to 31.03.2015. The assessee invested the funds in August 2014 well

within the time available u/s 139(4). The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High

Court in the case of CIT Vs. Ms. Jagriti Aggarwal 339 ITR 610 has held as

under:-

Capital gains—Exemption under s. 54—Time-limit for making deposit under the scheme vis-a-vis purchase of new house property—As per sub- s. (2) of s. 54, the amount of capital gains is required to be deposited by the assessee before furnishing the return not later than the due date under s. 139(1) in a specified account only if such amount is not appropriated by the assessee towards the purchase or construction of new asset before the date of furnishing the return under s. 139—Sub-s. (4) of s. 139 is in fact, a proviso to sub-s. (1) and provides for extension of period of due date for filing the return in certain circumstances—Such provision is not an independent provision but relates to the time contemplated under sub-s. (1) of s. 139—Due date for furnishing the return of income as per s. 139(1) is subject to the extended period provided under sub-s. (4) of s. 139—In the instant case, assessee sold her residential house on 13th Jan., 2006 and purchased another property jointly with her father-in-law on 2nd Jan, 2007, and filed her return on

51 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

28th March, 2007, i.e., before the extended due date of filing of return under s. 139(4) for the relevant asst. yr. 2006-07—Therefore, assessee is entitled to exemption under s. 54

Income Tax, (2015) 173 TTJ 634 (Chd):

In the case of the assessee, the period under section 139(4) would be expiring on 31.03,.2011. Since the assessee made deposit of Rs. 50 lacs under Capital Gain Accounts Scheme on 14.10.2010. Therefore, it was deposited within the period prescribed under section 139(4) of the Act. Therefore, assessee would be entitled for exemption under section 54B of the Income Tax Act in respect of Rs. 50 lacs deposited with Punjab National Bank. This ground of appeal of the assessee is accordingly, allowed. The Assessing Officer is directed to give relief to the assessee accordingly.

(ii) CIT vs. Rajesh Kumar Jalan (2006) 286 ITR 0274 (ITAT Gauhati)

From a plain reading of sub-s. (2) of s. 54, it is clear that only s. 139 is mentioned in s. 54(2) in the context that the un-utilized portion of the capital gain on the sale of property used for residence should be deposited before the date of furnishing the return of the income-tax under s. 139. Sec. 139 cannot be meant only as s. 139(1) but it means all sub-sections of s. 139. Under sub-s. (4) of s. 139, any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-s. (1) of s. 142 may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier. Such being the situation, it is the case of the assessee that the assessee could fulfil the requirement under s. 54 for exemption of the capital gain from being

52 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

charged to income-tax on the sale of property used for residence upto 30th March, 1998, inasmuch as the return of income-tax for the asst. yr. 1996-97 could be furnished before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment whichever is earlier under sub-s. (4) of s. 139. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to claim benefit under s. 54 on the entire amount received by him on account of sale of his house property.

(iii) Nipun Mehtotra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Banglore Tribunal) 113 TTJ 0223

Perusal of sub-s. (4) of s. 54 shows that the assessee has to utilize the amount for the purchase or construction of the new asset before the date of furnishing the return of income under s. 139. There is no mention of any sub-section of s. 139. Hence, one cannot interpret that s. 139 mentioned should be read as s. 139(1). Similar language is appearing in s. 54(2). In the instant case, it is not disputed that sale consideration has been utilised before the date of filing of the return under s. 139(4). The assessee is entitled to exemption of Rs. 2,10,833 under s. 54F

the instant case, we hold that the case of the assessee is fully covered for

deduction U/s 54B of the Act as the investment made falls within the

period for filing the return U/s 139(4) of the Act.

and admitted facts are that the assessee sold agricultural land vide

registered deed on 06.02.2013. However the sales consideration were

53 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

received under various cheques as mentioned in the three sale deeds

were realized only in August 2014 as the cheques tendered against sales

consideration were post-dated. Return was filed well within time on

05.08.2013. In view of this it is clear that the assessee was not in a

position to invest in the new asset that agricultural land by 05.08.2013 as

the sales consideration itself was received in August 2014 and

immediately thereafter in August 2014 itself assessee made investment in

the purchase of agricultural land. From the record we found that soon on

realization of sales consideration the assessee had invested in the

purchase of agricultural land. Thus the spirit of law stands complied with.

The Assessing Officer should have considered the fact that when the

sales consideration itself has been received late, how could the assessee

be expected to make investments prior to receipt of the sales

consideration. It is only when the money is received in hands that

assessee could make investments. In view of this when the spirit of law

stands complied with, the deduction claimed by the assessee u/s 54B

should have been allowed.

pronouncements:

(i) Chanchal Kumar Sircar vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (KOLKATA TRIBUNAL) (2012) 16 ITR 0091, (2012) 50 SOT 0289

54 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

Exemption u/s 54EC—Assessee, the joint owner of the house property, sold parts of the building—Possession was handed over to buyers and consideration for the sale was made in installments—Consideration received by assessee on account of the sale was invested in NABARD Bonds which were beyond six months from the date of the transfer, though within six months from the date of receipt of the consideration— Assessee claimed an exemption under s. 54EC on Capital Gains—AO and CIT(A) held that for purpose of the exemption under s. 54EC, the period to be reckoned was from the date of the agreement and receipt of part payment at the first instance—Held, period of six months for making a deposit under s. 54EC should be reckoned from the date of actual receipt of the consideration—If period is reckoned from date of agreement and receipt of part payment at the first instance, then it would lead to an impossible situation by asking assessee to invest money in specified asset before actual receipt of the same—Assessee is eligible for an exemption under s 54EC of the Act on the part payment received after the completion of the transaction.

(ii) S. GOPAL REDDY vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH) (1990) 181 ITR 0378

Capital gains—Exemption under s. 54E—Second proviso to s. 54E(1) inserted w.e.f. 1st April, 1984 is clarificatory in nature and should be deemed to have prevailed even before 1st April, 1984—Therefore, though the property of assessee was compulsorily acquired in 1978, as the compensation of Rs. 66,605.13 was received on 19th Aug., 1981 and the assessee invested a sum of Rs. 50,000 in specified asset on 7th Feb., 1981, i.e. within six months of the receipt of compensation, exemption under s. 54E was available to him.

(iii) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. CELLO PLAST HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (2012) 76 DTR 0439)

55 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

Capital Gains–Exemption u/s. 54EC–Investment in Rural Electrification Corporation Limited (REC) bonds—Time limit—Six months—Availability of bonds—On 22/3/2006, respondent sold factory building earning long term capital gain—Assessee could purchase REC bonds only on 31/1/2007 due to unavailability of bonds from 4/8/2006 to 22/1/2007— Revenue denied deduction u/s 54EC to the assessee—Held, a person cannot be expected to make the investment on the first possible date on which the bonds were made available after the expiry of the six months period—During the period the bonds were unavailable a person is likely to invest elsewhere—To expect him not to do so would be unjust for reasons too obvious to state—Considering that the bonds were not available for such a long period, an extension of merely nine days is extremely reasonable in the present facts—Section 54EC having given the respondent a choice of investing in bonds, revenue cannot insist that the respondent ought to have invested in the bonds of the National Highway Authority—Revenue’s appeal dismissed

In this case also investment within the statutory period was beyond the control of the assessee as the bonds were not available and hence delayed investment in the bonds was accepted. In the case of the assessee also investment within statutory period was beyond his control. Hence the ratio of the case is applicable.

(iv) RAM AGARWAL vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (BOMBAY TRIBUNAL) (2002) 81 ITD 0163

Capital gains—Exemption under s. 54F—Time-limit for making deposit under the specified scheme—Claim for exemption was disallowed by the AO for two reasons, firstly as the assessee did not have business income the prescribed date for filing the return was 30th June, 1995, and not 31st Aug., 1995, and secondly even if the assessee was having business income the deposit made on 1st Sept., 1995, was not made within the

56 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

prescribed time i.e., by 31st Aug., 1995—Not justified—Merely on account of the fact that this was the first year in which the assessee earned commission would not alter the character of receipt from ‘business’ to ‘other source’—Commission received by the assessee for arranging sale of goods for another party fell under the head ‘business income’—Deposit could not be made on 31st Aug., 1995, due to a reason which was beyond the control of the assessee viz. strike in bank—Thus the assessee was not at fault in not depositing the amount before 31st Aug., 1995, and the deposit made on 1st Sept., 1995, satisfied the condition laid down in s. 54F—Therefore, assessee was entitled to exemption under s. 54F.

(v) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. AKBAR ALI DHALA (HIGH COURT OF MADRAS) (2014) 89 CCH 0209 ChenHC/ 226 Taxman 254 Capital gains—Exemption to capital gains investment in certain bonds— Time limit of investment, when funds not available—Assessee claimed exemption from capital gains u/s 54EC on sale of his property on 22.11.2006 and investment was made in REC Bonds on 2.7.2007, which was well beyond period of six months stipulated in Section 54EC— Assessee submitted that REC Bonds were not available between 1.4.2007 and 21.5.2007 (on which date six months period expires) and, therefore, he could not invest within six months as stipulated in Section 54EC—AO rejected assessee’s claim of capital gains exemption u/s 54EC—CIT(A) affirmed findings of AO holding that bonds were available on date of sale of asset by assessee, namely, 22.11.2006, till 31.3.2007, that there was four months period available to assessee to invest— Tribunal allowed assessee’s claim of exemption u/s 54EC holding that since bonds were not available during period from 1.4.2007 to 1.7.2007, assessee had no other option except to invest in REC Bonds on 2.7.2007—Held, purport of Section 54EC is to grant a benefit to assessee, who had invested capital gain that arises from transfer of

57 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

long—term capital asset, within a period six months after date of such transfer, in long—term specified asset—There is no hard and fast rule that assessee should invest on a particular date within six months period specified in said provision—More so when assessee is entitled to invest in any such long term specified asset specified in Explanation (b) to Section 54EC(3) that would be most beneficial to him—Assessee will be entitled to exercise his option during entire period of six months—Thus assessee can wait till last date to see whether any bond that is profitable to him is issued/available in market—Fact that REC Bonds were not available for a period of 51 days shows that prejudice was caused to assessee, as he will not be able to exercise right any time during entire period of six months—Non availability of bonds from 1.4.2007 to 1.7.2007, creates an artificial cut—off period contrary to Section 54EC— Statutory benefit granted u/s 54EC cannot be curtailed on ground that said option should have been exercised in a period earlier to six months, even though such right was available to assessee for a period of six months as a whole, because assessee cannot be expected to visualize unforeseen eventualities and do the impossible—Tribunal was justified in holding that assessee was entitled to capital gains exemption u/s 54EC—Revenues’ appeal dismissed.

(vi) Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs. KAMLAKAR MOGHA (HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY) (2015) 125 DTR 0273 (Bom),

Capital Gains—Capital gain not to be charged on investment in certain cases—ITAT allowed deduction of Rs.22 lacs claimed u/s 54EC for investment in purchase of REC Bonds—Held substantive provision u/s 54EC(1) mandates investment within period of six months after date of transfer—National Highway Authority Bonds and bonds issued by Rural Electrification Corporation Limited were specified to be long term specified assets—Assessee transferred premises on 07.07.2006 and,

58 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

therefore, was duty bound to invest within six months i.e. by 06.01.2007—Statutorily, Assessee had time of six months to make investment and the fact that he did not make this investment at any time during that period when bonds were available was, therefore, not relevant—Show cause notice dated 03.12.2009 was issued to Assessee in connection with investment in question and to it Assessee replied satisfactorily—Division Bench of Court at Bombay in Income tax Appeal No. 3731 of 2010 held that availability of bonds only for limited period during statutory period could not prejudice Assessee's right to exercise same up to last date—Option or discretion given by Parliament to Assessee needs to be honored—REC Bonds became available in VIA issue on 22.01.2007 and, therefore, investment made therein could not be said to be after undue or unreasonable delay—Revenue’s appeal dismissed.

In view of the aforesaid case laws it is established beyond doubt that if the circumstances are beyond the control of the assessee and the bonafides of the assessee are clear, in such circumstances even delayed investment i.e. beyond the period of six months is also eligible for deduction under various provisions of section 54. Thus the case of the assessee also deserves to succeed.

that exemption under section 54B and 54E/54EC operate in altogether

different spheres. In section 54E/54EC, the investment in the bonds are

to be made within 6 months from the date of transfer of capital asset,

whereas u/s 54B, the agriculture land is to be purchased before filing of

ROI. Further, there is no concept of deposit in capital gains deposit

59 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

account scheme u/s 54E/54EC, whereas, u/s 54, 54B, 54F, if the amount

of capital gains is not invested in the purchase of land before filing of

ROI, then the same has to be deposited in capital gains deposit account

scheme. In this regard, we observe that the contention of the learned DR

is not acceptable on the ground that the amount of capital gain can be

invested in purchase of land only on receipt of the sale consideration and

the intention of the legislature is that the amount of sale consideration

should not be utilized otherwise other than purchase of agriculture land

and in the instant case the assessee has invested the wholesale

consideration in purchase of another agriculture land within two days

which is clear from the bank statement of the assessee. The period of six

month or condition of investment prior to the filing of ROI is applicable

only in the cases where sale consideration has been received before filing

of ROI. When the sales consideration itself was received after filing of

ROI then the case law relied upon by the AR is squarely applicable in the

instant case. Specially the case of CIT Vs Jagriti Aggarwal (High Court of

Punjab and Haryana) (2011) 339 ITR 0610 wherein it has been held. That

the assessee is entitle to claim benefit u/s 54, if the investment was made

in purchase of new assets or deposit in account before the expiry of one

year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the

60 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO

completion of the assessment whichever is earlier under sub-s. (4) of s.

139.

to section 54E is also relevant, But this is not a case of compulsory

acquisition where second proviso to section 54E is applicable similarly the

provisions of section 54 and 54B are pari materia, but the provision of

section 54E / 54EC are not pari materia with 54B / 54F. We found that

the case law cited by the learned AR in the case of Chanchal Kumar Sircar

Vs ITO is applicable because of the circumstances in that case it was held

that the period of limitation for making deposit or investment in new

assets should be reckoned from the date of actual receipt of the

consideration- If period is reckoned from date of agreement and receipt

of part payment at the first instance, then it would lead to an impossible

situation by asking assessee to invest money in specified asset before

actual receipt of the same. Likewise in other cases it was held by the

various authorities that the liberal interpretation should be considered in

case of exemption. The case of Jyotindra H Shodhan Vs ITO (2003) 87

ITD 312 (AHD.) (SB), is also not applicable because the case is related to

the provision of section 54E and not 54B.

61 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO 32. In view of above discussion, we direct the Assessing Officer to

allow the assessee’s claim of deduction U/s 54B of the Act amounting to

Rs. 5,39,67,384/- on sale of agricultural land. The other grounds raised

by the assessee with regard to the fact that agricultural land so sold by

the assessee are not an asset U/s 2(14)(iii)(a) or (b) of the Act as these

provisions stood then and therefore no capital gains are leviable. The

assessee had also raised a ground that the agricultural land sold by the

assessee is not urban but rural agricultural land. As we have already

decided the issue for granting deduction U/s 54B of the Act we are not

going into the grounds taken by the assessee with regard to nature of

land so held and sold by the assessee being in the nature of agricultural

land or not.

hereinabove.

Order pronounced in the open court on 12th April, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼jes'k lh 'kekZ½ (VIJAY PAL RAO) (RAMESH C SHARMA) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 12th April, 2019 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Birma Devi, Jaipur. 1. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The I.T.O., Ward 6(2), Jaipur. 2.

62 ITA 678/JP/2018_ Birma Devi Vs. ITO vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 678/JP/2018) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत