Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's father entered an agreement cum GPA for land in 2008 for Rs. 76.5 lakhs and subsequently died in 2009. In 2010, the assessee and other legal heirs executed a sale deed for the same land for Rs. 1 crore. The AO assessed Long-Term Capital Gains (LTCG) of Rs. 2,65,82,146/- on the assessee under Section 50C for A.Y. 2011-12. The CIT(A) held that the transfer was completed in 2008 and restricted the assessee's taxable share of additional consideration to Rs. 1,93,750/- as income from other sources, leading to cross-appeals by the Revenue and the assessee.
Held
The Tribunal held that the original agreement cum GPA lost legal force after the father's death, and the transfer was effected by the registered sale deed in 2010, making the entire consideration subject to LTCG. Applying the second proviso to Section 50C(1), the Tribunal directed the AO to recompute LTCG using the stamp duty valuation as of the agreement date (13/10/2008), with the LTCG to be divided among all 8 legal heirs. The Tribunal also ruled that the land was not agricultural as it was within municipal limits, dismissing the assessee's claim for exemption and the CIT(A)'s allowance for compensation due to lack of evidence.
Key Issues
1. What is the correct assessment year for capital gains on the transfer of the property, considering an agreement cum GPA and a subsequent sale deed after the original owner's death? 2. Whether the additional consideration received by legal heirs constitutes Long-Term Capital Gains or income from other sources. 3. Whether the property qualifies as agricultural land exempt from capital gains tax. 4. The applicability of Section 50C, specifically regarding the date for stamp duty valuation when an agreement and final sale deed are on different dates.
Sections Cited
148, 2(47)(v), 50C, 48, 2(14), 53A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-Shri Manjunatha, G.
(िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Pratap Raju Byrraju Vs Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 11 (5) PAN:ECXPB6437D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR िनधा��रती �ारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 3rd & 18th July, 2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Vijay Pal Rao, Vice President These cross appeals are directed against the order dated 18/10/2019 of the learned CIT (A)-5, Hyderabad for the A.Y.2011-12.
Page 1 of 18 the Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: "1. The order of the learned CIT (Appeals) is contrary to the law and to the facts of the case.
2. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the capital gains were liable to be taxed in the hands of Late Sri B. Soma Raju in the Asst. Year 2009- 10 on the plea that the transfer was completed then itself. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have held that no transfer took place in view of the fact that Late Sri B. Soma Raju did not have any right over the land since it was an assigned land under Andhra Pradesh Assigned Land (Prohibition of Transfers) Act, 1977.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CITA) ought to have held that the transaction does not fall under the ambit of sub-clause of (ü) and (v) of clause (47) of section 2 of the Income tax Act, in view of the fact that the capital asset being an assigned land belongs to State Government as laid down in AGPA Act, 1977 and cannot be transferred by the Late Sri B. Soma Raju unless the rights are legally transferred to him.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the assignees must obtain a No objection Certificate from the State Government and they must transfer their rights conferred on them by virtue of the NOC in writing in favour of late Sri B. Soma Raju to enable him and then only the transfer could be effected by allowing possession of the impugned capital assets to the vendees.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CITÍA) ought to have held that the Late Sri B. Soma Raju did not transfer the impugned capital assets in the F. Y 20082009 in view of the fact that he did not have any rights on the impugned capital assets as explained in ground No. 4 above.
6. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the Late Shri B Soma Raju was liable to pay the capital gains in the FY 2008 2009. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, he ought to have held that the transfer of the impugned capital assets was effected in the Asst. Year 201 1-12 by the assessee only after the assignees have Page 2 of 18 relinquished their rights in writing by joining the assessee in completing the transfer of the capital asset.
7. The learned CIT (Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee is not liable to pay tax on the capital gains of Rs. 2,65,82,146/- by deleting the addition, On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, he ought to have held that the assessee is liable to pay tax on capital gains of Rs. 2,65, 82,146/- 8. The learned CIT(Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee is liable to pay capital gains on an amount of Rs. 28, 94,750/-. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, he ought to have held that the assessee has to pay capital gains considering the entire sale consideration of Rs. 2,39,58,000/-.
9. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in not taking into consideration the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M/s. Suraj Lamp & Industries Vs. state of Haryana & another wherein it was held that decisions recognizing of accepting SA/GA/ will transactions as concluded transfers, as contrasted, from an agreement to transfer, are not good in law.
10. The learned CIT Appeals) erred in holding that the assessee is liable to pay tax only on an income of Rs. 1,93, 750/-under the head Income from other sources.
11. On the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have held that the Assessing officer has correctly assessed the full value of consideration U/s. 50C of the Income tax Act, 1961 and there is no arithmetical mistake.
12. Any other ground urged at the time of hearing”.
Ground Nos. 1 & 12 are general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication.
Ground Nos 2 to 7 are regarding the additions made by the Assessing Officer on account of Long-Term Capital Gains
Page 3 of 18 arising from sale of immovable property vide sale deed dated 24/07/2010 which was deleted by the learned CIT (A).
Brief facts leading to the controversy are culled out that the assessee is an individual and has not filed any return of income for the AY 2011-12. On the basis of the information about the sale of immovable property by the assessee, vide 2 sales deeds both dated 24/07/2010, a land situated at Pet Basheerabad Village, Quthbullapur Mandal, R.R District bearing No. 15/1/0 for a consideration of Rs.90 1lakhs and Rs.1.00 crore respectively, the AO reopened the assessment by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act On 23/3/2018. This land bearing Survey No.25/1/0 admeasuring 3 acres and 23 guntas was originally assigned in favour of one Shri Bire Nandham S/o Duragiah was sold to Shri B. Rama Raju vide sale deed dated 11/04/1989 registered as Document No.2382/89. Thereafter, Shri B. Soma Raju, the father of the assessee entered into an agreement of sale-cum-GPA dated 13/10/2008 in favour of one Shri Y. Ravi Prasad against a consideration of Rs.76,50,000 /-. Thereafter, Shri B. Soma Raju expired on 29/10/2009. In order to have a clear title of the land in question in favour of Shri Y. Ravi Prasad, having a sale agreement cum GPA dated 13/10/2008 in his favour, he approached the assessee and other legal heirs of Shri B Soma Raju for execution of sale deed which was executed on 24/07/2010 by the assessee on his behalf as well as a GPA Holder of the other 7 legal heirs of Shri B Soma Raju for a consideration of Rs.l crore, out of which a sum of Rs.76,50,000/-
Page 4 of 18 was said to be already received by late Shri Soma Raju at the time of agreement of sale cum GPA dated 13/10/2008. The Assessing Officer has invoked the provisions of section 50C of the Act and adopted the market value of the property being the stamp duty valuation at Rs.2,66,20,000/- and consequently assessed the Long-Term Capital Gains of Rs.2,65,82,146/-.
The assessee challenged the action of the AO before the CIT (A) who has accepted the claim of the assessee that the property was already sold by the diseased father of the assessee Cum GPA dated 13/10/2008 for a consideration of Rs.76,50,000/- and after the death of Shri B Soma Raju, the sale deed was executed by the legal heirs of late Shri B. Soma Raju to remove the defect in the title of the property in favour of Shri Y. Ravi Prasad. The CIT (A) thus, held that the transfer of the property in question was already completed on 13/10/2008 and the extra amount received by the assessee of Rs.23,50,000/- is required to be shared between all the 8 legal heirs. The learned CIT (A) has also allowed the claim of the assessee by estimating the compensation of Rs.2 lakhs each to consenting parties, total amounting to Rs.8 lakhs and the balance of Rs.15,50,000/- was held to be apportioned equally among the 8 legal heirs resulting the share of the assessee at Rs. 1,93,750/- to be taxed as income from other sources. Thus, the CIT (A) has restricted the addition to the tune of Rs.1,93,750/- as against the addition of LTCG made by the AO of Rs.2,65,82, 146/-.
Aggrieved by the impugned order of the CIT (A), the Revenue has filed the present appeal.
Earlier, these cross appeals were disposed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20/12/2021 against which the assessee filed the appeal before the jurisdictional High Court and vide judgment dated 4/7/2024, the Hon'ble High Court has set aside the earlier order of this Tribunal and remanded the matter to the Tribunal with the direction to decide both the matters in accordance with law. Thus, these cross appeals are again placed before us for hearing and disposal.
The learned DR has submitted that the transaction of the transfer of the immovable property in question cannot be held to be completed only by way of the alleged agreement of sale-cum GPA dated 13/08/2008. The executor Shri B Soma Raju expired on 29/10/2009 and therefore, the GPA shall have no legal force. The ld DR has thus, submitted that after the death of Shri B. Soma Raju, the prospective buyer Shri Y. Ravi Prasad left with no legal title over the property and consequently only by the sale deed dated 27/07/2010, the title of the property was transferred in favour of the buyer by the legal heirs through the assessee. The assessee has received the entire sale consideration, and the assessee has failed to produce any record to show that the sale consideration received by the assessee was shared with the other legal heirs and therefore, the capital gain arising from the transfer of the property is eligible to be assessed in the hands of the Page 6 of 18 assessee. The learned DR has further submitted that since the sale consideration in the sale deed is only Rs.1 crore, whereas the stamp duty valuation of the land in question is Rs.2,66,20,000/- and therefore, on the terms of Section 50C of the Act, the AO has rightly taken the full value consideration as market value of the property and then assessed the LTCG in the hand of the assessee. The ld DR has further submitted that even the property in question was assigned property and prior to the denotification by the Govt. on 21/05/2010, the ownership of the property vested with the State Govt. and could not be transferred by way of alleged agreement of sale cum GPA. He has further submitted that the CIT (A) has also allowed the deduction of Rs.8 lakhs as payment to the consenting parties, whereas the assessee has not produced any record in support of the said document. However, the estimation of Rs.2 lakhs by the CIT (A) is also without any basis. This is a matter of fact and cannot be estimated when the assessee has not produced any evidence of payment of the alleged amount to the consenting parties. He has referred to the recitals of the sale deed and submitted that even Late Shri B Soma Raju did not have a clear title as the mutation of the land in his name was not carried out in the Patta Passbook and therefore, he could not transfer the land without execution of sale deed. He has submitted that the AO has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lime Industries Ltd Vs. State of Haryana reported in AIR 2012 SUPREME COURT 206, dated 11/10/2011, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the transfer of immovable property can only be made through
Page 7 of 18 the registered sale deed. Thus, the sale consideration received by the assessee against the sale of the immovable property by executing a sale deed cannot be treated as income from other sources but is liable to be assessed as capital gain. The stamp duty valuation as on the date of sale is required to be taken as deemed full consideration. He has relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer.
On the other hand, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that the property in question had transferred by Late Shri B Soma Raju vide agreement of sale cum GPA dated 13/10/2008. He has further submitted that the sale of agreement cum GPA was also subsequently registered with the Sub Registrar on 12/10/2010 and therefore, when the consideration was received by Shri B Soma Raju and the possession was given to the buyer against the consideration, then in terms of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act, the transaction of the transfer of the immovable property is complete and hence the capital gain, if any, arising from the said transaction of transfer of immovable property cannot be assessed for the AY 2011-12. The further consideration of Rs.23,50,000/- was paid by the buyer to the vendors and the consenting parties and therefore, the total consideration is recorded in the sale record is 1 crore out of which Rs.76,50,000/- was already received by Late Shri B. Soma Raju. The enhanced sum was shared by 8 legal heirs and 4 consenting parties and the document who have executed the sale deed dated 24/07/2010. The learned AR has pointed out that though the land in question
Page 8 of 18 was an assigned land, however, all the transfers were made after taking necessary permission of the competent authority. Even before execution of the agreement of sale cum GPA 13/10/2008, the permission was taken from the competent authority placed at page No. 110 of the paper book. He has supported the impugned order of the CIT (A) and submitted that when there are 8 legal heirs of late Shri B Soma Raju, then the consideration received at the time of execution of sale deed has to be apportioned among all the legal heirs and cannot be assessed as income of only one legal heir being the assessee. He has further submitted that it is stated in the sale deed itself that the mutation of the property was not transferred in the name of Shri B Soma Raju and was still in the name of Shri Bire Nandham S/o Durgaiah and therefore, it was agreed upon between the parties that some part of the sale consideration will be given to the consenting parties who are legal heirs of late Bire Nandham as Patidar in the Revenue record. Thus, the ld Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the CIT (A) has taken a right decision in holding that the transfer took placed when agreement of sale cum GPA was executed against the sale consideration and possession of the land was handed over the buyer to Shri Y. Ravi Prasad. Alternatively, the ld AR has submitted that the provisions of Section 50C provides that if there is a prior agreement and part consideration is received, then the stamp duty value will be assessed and will be taken as on the date of the agreement. Thus, the stamp duty value as on the date of sale of agreement-cum-GPA is required to be taken as deemed full value consideration u/s 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961.
We have considered the rival contentions as well as the relevant material available on record. This case has a chequered history as one Shri Byrraju Soma Raju (now diseased), the father of the assessee has executed a document titled as agreement of Sale-cum-General Power of Attorney dated 13/10/2008 but the said document was finally registered on 12/01/2010. It is pertinent to note that before the said document was finally registered with the Sub Registrar, Qutubullapur Shri B. Soma Raju, the father of the assessee already died on 29/10/2009. Thereafter, the assessee along with other legal heirs executed the sale deeds dated 24/07/2010 in respect of the land bearing No.15/1/0 situated at Basheerabad, Qutubullapur for a total consideration of Rs.1,00,00,000/-. Since this transaction of sale deed dated 24/07/2010 was reported and the assessee has not filed any return of income for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer reopened the assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on 23/03/2018. The assessee took the plea that the transaction of transfer of land in question was already completed vide sale agreement cum GPA dated 13/10/2008 executed by his late Father Shri Byrraju Soma Raju. Further, the assessee also contended that the sale consideration to the extent of Rs.76,50,000/- was already received by his father at the time of the said agreement of sale cum GPA and the assessee as well as the other legal heirs received only the additional amount of Rs.23,50,000/- which is shared by 8 legal heirs. The Assessing Officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and assessed the Long-Term Capital Gains as per section 50C of the Act at Page 10 of 18 Rs.2,65,82,146/-. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the learned CIT (A) who accepted the contention of the assessee and held that the transaction of the transfer of the land in question completed as per the provisions of section 2(47)(v) r.w.s. 53A of the Transfer of Property act when the agreement of sale cum GPA dated 13/10/2008 was executed by the diseased father of the assessee. The learned CIT (A) has further allowed the claim of the assessee as deduction towards compensation paid to the consenting parties and also held that the balance amount out of the payment of Rs.23,50,000/- to be apportioned equally among the 8 legal heirs and to be taxed as income from other sources. Thus, the addition was restricted by the learned CIT (A) only to Rs.1,93,750/- in the hand of the assessee as against the Long-Term Capital Gains assessed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.2,65,82,146/-. It is pertinent to note that in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Balbir Singh Mani reported in 398 ITR 531, the agreement for transfer of immovable property is required to be registered as per the Registration Act, 2001. In the absence of the registration of the agreement for transfer of immovable property, the provisions of section 2(47)(v) cannot be pressed into service to bring such transactions vide unregistered agreement in the definition of transfer of immovable property. In the case in hand, it was a document titled as agreement of sale cum GPA dated 13/10/2008 and thereafter, the executor died on 29/10/2009which renders the document without any legal force so far as the GPA is concerned. Subsequently, the said document
Page 11 of 18 was registered on 11/01/2010. Since the said document did not transferred a legal title in favour of the prospective buyer being only an agreement to sell cum GPA and the executor has already died on 29/10/2009 and therefore, in such a situation the prospective buyer approached the legal heir of Shri B Soma Raju, executor of the sale deed. The assessee is one of the legal heirs has received the consideration for execution of the sale deed on his own behalf as well as on behalf of the other legal heirs being a power of attorney holder of 7 other legal heirs of Shri B Soma Raju. It is also not in dispute that in the sale deed, the sale consideration is agreed between the parties at Rs.1 crore and therefore, even the parties did not adhere to the terms & conditions of the earlier agreement of sale cum GPA dated 13/10/2008 and revised the sale consideration from Rs.76,50,000/- to Rs.1 crore. Therefore, the earlier agreement cum GPA was not considered by the parties themselves as a document of transfer and consequently, they decided to execute a sale deed dated 24/07/2010. Prior to the said sale deed, the transaction of transfer was even not reported and even could not be reported so long as it was only an agreement of sale cum GPA and remained unregistered till 12th January, 2010 and thereafter, the present sale deed was executed on 24/07/2010. Thus, from these facts, we find that the parties have revised their terms & conditions of the transfer of land in question and also revised the consideration from Rs.76,50,000/- to Rs.1 crore and hence, the consideration was received by the assessee along with other legal heirs as well as his diseased father cannot be given different
Page 12 of 18 colour and category of income, but the entire consideration was received for transfer of property in question. Thus, treating this amount received by the legal heirs as income from other sources by the learned CIT (A) is contrary to the facts emerging from the record. Therefore, the income in the hand of the assessee is to be assessed as Long-Term Capital Gains arising from transfer of the land in question.
There is another question involved in this case regarding the adoption of deemed full value consideration as per the provisions of section 50C of the Act. The Assessing Officer has adopted the stamp duty valuation as on the date of sale deed i.e. 24/07/2010, however, the fact remain that there was an earlier agreement cum GPA dated 13/10/2008 entered into by late Shri Byrraju Soma Raju and at the time of the said agreement cum GPA, the payments were also received as the details of the same is mentioned in the document as under:
Thus, apart from the cash, a sum of Rs.12,75,000/- was also received through cheques dated 13/10/2008 and therefore, it satisfies the condition of 1st and 2nd proviso to section 50C (1) of the Act. For the sake of ready reference, the same is reproduced as under: “Section 50C(1) in The Income Tax Act, 1961 (1)Where the consideration received or accruing as a result of the transfer by an assessee of a capital asset, being land or building or both, is less than the value adopted ] [ Inserted by Act 21 of 1998, Section 23 (w.e.f. 1.4.1998).][or assessed or assessable] [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section 25, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.10.2009).][by any authority of a State Government (hereafter in this section referred to as the "stamp valuation authority") for the purpose of payment of stamp duty in respect of such transfer, the value so adopted] [Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 24 (w.e.f. 1.4.2003).] [or assessed or assessable] [ Substituted by Act 33 of 2009, Section 25, for certain words (w.e.f. 1.10.2009).][shall, for the purposes of section 48, be deemed to be the full value of the consideration 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 of registration for the transfer of the capital asset are not the same, the value adopted or assessed or assessable by the stamp valuation authority on the date of agreement may be taken for the purposes of computing 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 a part thereof, has been received by way of an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or by use of electronic clearing system through a [bank account or through such other electronic mode as may be prescribed] [Inserted by Act 20 of 2002, Section 24 (w.e.f. 1.4.2003).], on or before the date of the agreement for transfer.”
Therefore, the stamp duty valuation, as on the date of the agreement may be taken as deemed full value consideration u/s 50C(1) of the Act. Accordingly, we direct the Assessing Officer to recompute the Long-Term Capital Gains and adopt the deemed full value consideration by taking into consideration the stamp valuation as on 13/10/2008. Since the sale deed has been executed by the 8 legal heirs of Shri B. Soma Raju, and therefore, the total consideration of Rs.1 crore or deemed full value consideration is required to be divided among 8 legal heirs while calculating the Long-Term Capital Gains instead of only the differential amount of Rs.23,50,000/-.
14.1 The learned CIT (A) has also allowed the claim of deduction u/s 48 towards some compensation paid to the consenting parties, however, the assessee has failed to produce any record for making such payment towards compensation for giving the consent of execution of the sale deed in question. Even otherwise, the learned CIT (A) has also not given the finding that the assessee has produced any record, but it is only estimated without any basis. Therefore, in the absence of any record, the said claim of the assessee cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned CIT (A) is set aside, and the Assessing Officer is directed to recompute the Long-Term Capital Gains in the hand of the assessee in terms of the above finding and only 1/8th of the Long-Term Capital Gains is to be assessed in the hand of the assessee.
Page 15 of 18 Assessee 15. The assessee in the cross appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal: “I. The appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-5 is erroneous and contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case to the extent the additions as made by the Income-tax Officer are sustained.
2. The learned CIT(A) should have accepted the submissions of the assessee that the lands sold through the two Sale Deeds bearing Doc.Nos.10065/2010 and 10066/2010, both dated 24-7-2010 were agricultural lands and therefore they are not capital asset' not liable to capital gains tax.
3. The learned CIT(A) ought to have noted that the lands sold are agricultural lands, they are though situated in Qutbullapur Municipality at the time of purchase, such Municipality was not notified by the Govt. of India Ministry of Finance, vide Notification No.9447, dated 6-1-1994 and they are agricultural lands and, therefore, the sale of such agricultural lands is exempt from tax.
4. The learned CIT(A) failed to note that the lands that were sold under the two Sale Deeds mentioned in Ground No.2 supra were situated beyond 8 kms. from the boundary of Secunderabad Municipality and hence, they have to be treated as agricultural lands qualifying for tax exemption.
5. The learned CIT(A) was not justified in stating that the extra amount of Rs.23,50,000/- paid by the Vendee as per the Sale Deed bearing Doc.No. 10065/2010, dt.24-7-2010, should be apportioned between the 12 Vendors stated in the sale deed and should be taxed as income from other sources, having held that the sale was liable to be taxed in the Asst. year 2009-10 in the hands of Sri B. Soma Raju, father of the appellant herein.
6. Any other ground or grounds of appeal that may be urged at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the agricultural lands sold were not capital asset and therefore sale thereof was not liable to long term tern capital gains tax.”
16. Ground No.1 is general in nature and does not require any specific finding.
17. Ground Nos 2 to 4 are regarding the land in question as an agricultural land and therefore, it falls in the exclusion clause of section 2(14) of the I.T. Act.
We have heard the learned AR as well as the learned DR and also considered the relevant material available on record. The assessee himself has not disputed the fact that this land is situated within the Municipal limits of Qutubullapur and has not produced any record to show that the land in question falls in the exclusion clause of capital asset in terms of section 2(14) of the I.,T. Act. The learned CIT (A) has also considered this fact while deciding this issue that the assessee admitted that this land is within the municipal limit of Qutubullapur Municipality and hence, does not fall in the exclusion clause of capital asset as per section 2(14) of the I. T,. Act. Accordingly, we do not find any merit/substance in these grounds of assessee’s appeal and the same are dismissed.
Ground No.5 is regarding the assessment of Rs.23,50,000/- as income from other sources for the year under consideration. This issue is common to the issue involved in the appeal of the Revenue and in view of our findings on this issue while deciding the appeal of the Revenue, the same stands dismissed.
In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.