TMI Blog2015 (11) TMI 866X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the ld Assessing Officer for the purposes of computation of capital gain as per Section 50C is rightly assessed. Section 50C inserted by the Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 01/4/2003, therefore, same is squarely applicable on the transfer made during the financial year 2003-04 relevant to A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee claimed that these properties were covered U/s 2(47)(v) of the Act does not stand to support the assessee’s case wherein number of discrepancies were noted above, as such alleged agreement to sale cannot be enforced by the court of law as time and manner prescribed in these alleged agreement to sell has much before and not followed by both the parties expired. The ld Assessing Officer has taken the consideration on the basis of deed U/s 50C, therefore, whatever construction was made on these lands were treated by him as belonged to assessee at the time of transfer as no documentary evidences were submitted by the assessee at the time of assessment that these lands has been got transferred on the basis of alleged agreement to sell in different year to different persons and they constructed building thereon. If these facts were correct, the purchaser might have filing income ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... vani Kumar Mukherjee, son of Shri Satkori Mukherjee whereas singed by ‘Athak Kumar Mukherjee’. In both the alleged agreements to sell singed by Athak Kumar Mukherjee. The assessees have not produced any evidence that these transactions have been disclosed by the assessees at the time of alleged agreement to sell in respective years in their respective income tax returns. Accordingly, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed and revenue’s appeal is allowed. - Decided against assessee. Whether property is assessable under Chapter 4(iv) of the Act, which is liable to be assessed U/s 11(1a) of the Act - Held that:- The assessee claimed benefit of Section 11 but it has to be registered Trust and property is to be held wholly for the charitable and religious purpose thereafter benefit of Section 11(1a) can be availed by the assessee as such this issue was not raised before the lower authority and assessee has not produced any evidence regarding the application of capital gain for the religious or charitable purpose by obtaining registration U/s 12A of the Act from the competent authority, therefore, this ground of appeal is dismissed.- Decided against assessee. - ITA No. 887/JP/2012, ITA N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... c fact that Transfer of Capital Asset had already completed, in terms of Section 2(47)(v), 2(47)(vi) and explanation 2 to the Section 2(47), in the relevant assessment years i.e. 1981-82 itself, when the agreement to sale was executed accompanied with handing over of physical possession of Capital Asset and purchaser had made construction over it and enjoying the property for business/residence. 5. That the ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of A.O. by ignoring the law that Section 50C came on the Statute w.e.f. 01/4/2003 and the transactions through Agreement to sell or Power of Attorney came in the enlarged scope of Section 50C(1) w.e.f. 01/10/2009 whereas the Capital Assets of the assessee were transferred by way of agreement from assessment year 1981-82 itself. 6. Without prejudice to above grounds, the appellant submits that the ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of A.O. who has wrongly initiated proceedings for assessment year 2004-05, as sale deed in question was not registered in the said assessment year. The relevant sale deed i.e. Mohan Joshi was executed, presented and registered before Registration Authority on 31/3/2003 i.e. assessme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ils but no compliance was made by them. Therefore, the ld Assessing Officer decided the case U/s 144 of the Act. The ld Assessing Officer observed that in all the cases, details available with the department revealed that all these properties were acquired by all the assessees prior to 01/4/1981 for ascertaining fair market value (in short FMV) of all the properties as on 01/4/1981. The ld Assessing Officer collected information in respect of transfer of immovable properties during the contemporary period in respect of similar properties sold and also to ascertain the FMV based on the value adopted by the registering authority during the period nearby 01/4/1981. As such the ld Assessing Officer called for information U/s 133(6) of the Act in respect of DLC rates of the above properties as on 01/4/1981 from Sub-Registrar Jaipur-2, who vide letter No. 1240 dated 11/11/2011 had stated that DLC for the year 1981 was not decided by the department. The DIG (Stamp), Jaipur had also submitted the same report. He further observed that simultaneously, it was noticed that Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee , who happens to be the father/husband of the assessees had entered into an agreement of sale o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation Act further provides that except in special circumstances, no document other than a will shall be accepted for registration unless presented for that purpose to the proper office within four months from the date of its execution other than special circumstances as provided U/s 25 thereof. 10.5 The Rajasthan Stamps Duty Act, 1998 requires every instrument to be duly stamped unless it is exempted under that Act. Thus all the instruments which operate to transfer or convey any right in respect of immovable property including instruments or partition, lease, mortgage, power of attorney etc. have to be duly stamped under the Rajasthan Stamp Duly Act. A plane reading of above clarifies that any document which purports to transfer right in any immovable property in the State of Rajasthan, has to be properly stamped under the Rajasthan Stamp Duty Act and duly registered under the Indian registration Act. There is no valid transfer of rights in respect of any immovable property unless these two legal obligations are discharged by the transacting parties. Mere agreements between two parties cannot override the provisions of law. Even transactions of the type referred to U/s 53A of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 981 is taken at ₹ 7,08,076/- and at ₹ 1,69,628/- (1/3 of ₹ 5,08,884/-) respectively. The property situated at Hathi Babu Ka Ahata, Kachchi Basti, Jaipur was sold to Sh. Mohan Joshi by three Co-owners, Smt. Seema Mukherjee and two sons namely Alok Mukherjee and Aroop MUkherjee, therefore assessee s share in this property is 1/3 rd . Long term capital gain arising to the assessee s hands is thus computed in the following manner:- Dt. Of registration Description of Property Indexed cost of acquisition Evaluated value taken by the Sub Registrar Long term capital gain 20/06/2003 P.No. 5, Vaibhav Nagar, Jaipur 234435/- ₹ 1081961 ₹ 8,47,526/- 10/07/2003 P.No. 10, Vaibhav Nagar, Jaipur 148470/- ₹ 737875 ₹ 5,89,405/- 15/10/2003 P.No.2, Hathi Babu Bagh, Station Road Jaipur 144292/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the I.T. Act, 1961. The subsequent registration of the sale deeds of these properties took place in A.Y. 2004-05. As Sec.50C was introduced in this statute with effect from 01/04/2003 it cannot be made applicable retrospectively on transfer of these properties which took effect prior to 01/04/2003 as per Sec. 53A of TP Act, read with Sec.2(47)(v) of the I.T. Act, 196l . I have carefully perused the order of the AO and the submissions of the AR and consider it necessary to summarize the facts of the case to bring clarity to the issue. The facts of the case are as follows: 1. A suit for partition of immovable properly by metes and bounds was filed by Smt. Seema Mukherjee wife of Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee father of Shri Aroop Mukherjee and Alok Mukherjee on 18/03/1963 in the court of Senior Civil Judge Jaipur City No.1. The plaintiff submitted that the impartible estate of the defendant was resumed by the Rajasthan Govt. on 01/11/1958 and Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee was paid in terms of cash and bonds by way of compensation. It was pleaded by Smt. Seema Mukherjee that the rule or primogeniture ceased to be applicable after the resumption proceedings by the Govt. and so the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... heir having gone, the other incident refusing right of partition, which was necessary to maintain the integrity of the estate and save it from fragmentation, automatically dwindles. Reference may be made to the Law of Impartible Estates by Bankim C.De at page 46, wherein it is mentioned that an estate or tenure which was originally impartible does not necessarily continue to be so and one single change in its nature of tenure, one single instance of non-observance of the custom will destroy it completely . And also the maxim Cessante Causa, cessat effectus which means when the cause ceases, the effect ceases, Thus the character of the property left with the defendant after the resumption of the State Grant i.e. the impartible estate assumes the character of the ancestral property as if in the hands of a sole surviving coparcener, having all the incidents of coparcenary property). The reliance by the learned advocate for the defendant on the provisions of Sec.27 of the I.T. Act, I96I , is not of any help to him, as firstly the provision relied on is a deeming provision which is generally introduced in an enactment in order to enlarge the meaning of the words and treat a person ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty would devolve upon individual heirs in the prescribed proportion and not on a HUF constituted by his heirs as was the case before the coming into force of this Act. 7 . Since after partition, effected on 31/07/1963, the property under consideration had become the individual property of Shri Alok Kumar Mukherjee after his intestate death it devolved upon his heirs in their individual capacity. 8. During the course of assessment proceedings the assessee informed the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 19/12/2011 that Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee died on 13/05/1983 and his wife Smt. Seerna Mukherjee and his two sons namely Alok Mukherjee and Aroop Mukherjee became the owners of this property, accordingly each of them was one third coshares. Therefore, at the time of registering the document these co-owner signed in the capacity of one third share owners of this property. 9. Regarding the applicability of Sec.53A of TP Act, read with Sec,2(47)(v) of I.T. Act, it is observed that the object of section 53A of TPA was to safeguard the interest of the transferee and prevent fraud in cases of transfer when an Agreement to Sale was made but could not be registered. From th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ally and lawfully transferred/conveyed only by a registered deed of conveyance. Transaction of the nature of GPA sales or SA/GPA/WILL transfers do not convey title and do not amount to transfer, nor can they be recognized or valid mode of transfer of immovable property. The courts will not treat such transactions as completed or concluded transfers or as conveyance as they neither convey title nor create any interest in an immovable property. They cannot be recognized as deeds of title, except to the limited extent of section 53A of the TP Act. Thus as clarified by the Hon ble sc section 53A of TPA grants a limited privilege to the transferee to protect its right in case of unregistered Agreements to Sale. This privilege cannot be abused by the transferor to defraud the Income Tax Department of revenue. Therefore, the submissions of the AR are not acceptable given the facts of the case and the law applicable to these facts. The Agreements to Sale pertaining to A.Y. 1976-77 1981-82 cannot be recognized u/s 2(47)(v) of I.T. Act, 1961 since income was not declared, nor conditions u/s 53A of TPA fulfilled in the case of first 4 properties. It is held that the transfer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) Ramesh Jain, 5, Hathi Babu Ka Bgh, Jaipur Alok Mukherjee (Minor) 09/08/1975 A.Y. 1976-77 (See Paper Book page No. 13 to 14) 05/05/2003 A.Y. 2004-05 (See Paper Book page No. 15 to 23) 12912/- b) Naresh Kumar PUrohit (Second buyer from original buyer Smt. Kusum Devi) 10, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Jaipur. Alok Mukherjee (Minor) 28/05/1975 A.Y. 1976-77 (See Paper Book page No. 24 to 30) 07/07/2003 A.Y. 2004-05 (See Paper Book page No. 31 to 36) 12667/- c) Rajkumar (Nominee of Shiv Ratan, original buyer), 2 Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Jaipur. Alok Mukherjee (Minor) 01/12/1975 A.Y. 1976-77 (See Paper Book page No. 37 to 39) 14/08/2003 A.Y. 2004-05 (See Paper Book page No. 40 to 45) 6600/- d) Mahaveer Prasad (Nominee of Shihv Ratan, Original buyer), 2, Tahi Babu Ka Bagh, Jaipur Alok Mukherjee (minor) -do- 14/08/2003 A.Y. 2004-05 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer computed the long term capital gain by taking stamp value as sale consideration and indexed cost of FMV as on 01/4/1981. Though the assessee had sold land plot only. But the value of subsequent construction by the buyers have also been wrongly considered by ld A.O. as part of sale consideration of assessee, for the purpose of working out capital gains. The ld CIT(A) had held the above properties belonging to Alok Mukherjee (HUF) and accordingly deleted the addition in the hands of individual, while upholding the same in hands of HUF. 6.2 The ld AR further submitted that Mahaveer Hotel, a partnership firm having Late Shri Ramrikh Joshi and his son Shri Mohan Joshi as partners, occupied this property, measuring 488.49 sq.m since 1959 as tenant. Late Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee sold this property for ₹ 100000/- to Mahaveer Hotel by executing an agreement on 01/08/1980 Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee expired before the registration and the registration of property was got done subsequently by the successors as substituted executants i.e. Smt. Seema Mukherjee, Shri Alok KMkherjee and Shri Aroop Mukherjee on 31/3/2003. On the buyer s side, Shri Ramrikh Joshi, one of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Act, 1908 and Rajasthan Stamp Act, 1998. Further he placed reliance on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamps (supra) and held that transfer had taken place at the time of registration only and not earlier. 6.4 He further argued that the ld CIT(A) had discussed the definition U/s 2(47)(v) of the Act. However, the ld CIT(A) took a turn that those owners i.e. Shri Alok Mukherjee and Late Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee might had not disclosed any capital gain in the ITRs of 1976-77 and 1981-82, therefore the transfer would be deemed for A.Y. 2004-05 and capital gain tax would be payable now as the same was not paid earlier. The presumption of the ld CIT(A) is unilateral, therefore, he further relied on the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lapms (supra) and justified the transfer in A.Y. 2004-05 in contrast to the definition U/s 2(47). It is contrary to the provisions of Income Tax law as per Section 45 of the Act, any capital gain is to be computed in the previous year, in which the transfer giving rise to the accrual of the capital gain in question took place. He further relied on the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Vimal Chand Surana (2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sion of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sun Engineering Works (P) Ltd. (1992) 198 ITR 297 on how to interpret the ruling of the decision of Hon ble Apex Court. In case of Sanjeev Lal Anr. Vs. CIT Anr. (2014) 365 ITR 389 (SC) the Hon ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of transfer U/s 2(47), which is squarely applicable in the case of assessee. He further relied on the following case laws:- (i) CIT Vs. Hormasji Vaid 250 ITR 542. (ii) CIT Vs. Rajasthan Mirror Mfg. Co. (2002) 125 Taxman 1. (iii) CIT Vs. Vishnu trading Investment Co. (2003) 128 Taxman 777. 6.5 The ld AR further argued that Section 50C is not applicable in the case of assessee as this section brought in the statute w.e.f. A.Y. 2003-04 is aimed to substitute the valuation assessed by the Sub-Registrar in the case the consideration received by assessee is lesser that such valuation and transfer on the basis of agreement to sell is covered w.e.f. 01/10/2009 by extending the words assessed or assessable. The ld Assessing Officer substituted the consideration at ₹ 36,12,659/- in place of actual consideration of ₹ 40,859/- in the case of Ramesh Jain, Naresh Kumar Purohit, Rajk ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ere before any authority that these properties were belonged to HUF. Therefore, the ld DR argued that the status of this assessability of capital gain is to be taxed as individual not HUF. The ld AR of the assessee has not objected about the status. 8. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and perused the material available on the record. The assessee has challenged the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer on the ground that the provisions of Section 2(47)(v) of the Act is applicable on this transfer, Section 50C is not applicable on this transaction and year of assessability is A.Y. 2003-04 and not for A.Y. 2004-05. The assessee made five transactions as mentioned by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order. The first property is plot No. 5, Baibhav Nagar, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Station Road Jaipur. The assessee claimed that the transfer took place on 09/08/1975 by Late shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee father of Shri Alok Mukherjee in the capacity of guardian as Alok Mukherjee was minor on 09/8/1975. The second party was Shri Ramesh Jain. The total area disclosed in the alleged agreement to sell at 269 sq.yard with consideration of ₹ 12,912/-. The father of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... luding construction thereon for consideration of ₹ 38,000/-. This agreement shows that she purchased this plot from Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee for ₹ 25,480/- paid ₹ 1100/- to him and got possession on it. She got constructed boundary on it and also on 25/1/1985 ₹ 2000/- was paid to Shri Alok Kumar Mukherjee and remaining amount has been shown at ₹ 12,480/-. Smt. Kusum Devi received ₹ 25,520/- out of total consideration of ₹ 38,000/- at the time of agreement and it was decided that remaining amount of ₹ 12,480/- would be paid at the time of registry to the original owner i.e. Shri Alok Kumar Mukherjee. Finally the registry of this plot was got on 07 th July, 2003 by Shri Alok Kumar Mukherjee in the capacity of individual in the name of Shri Naresh Kumar Purohit, son of Shri Panna Lal Purohit. There was a reference in this registration deed about the partition order dated 30/05/1963, the minority of the assessee but no reference has been made on agreement to sell dated 28/8/1975 made with Smt. Kusum Devi whereas she had made agreement to sale on 20/01/1988 with Shri Umeshchand Purohit in the registry made in the name of Naresh Kumar Pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... registry to Shri Rajkumar as per this deed. The stamp authority has calculated the stamp value of this property at ₹ 8,02,627/-. 8.3 The another registry of this plot was made by the assessee in the name of Shri Mahaveer Prasad, son of Shri Ram Chandraji vide agreement dated 14/8/2003. The area has been same and stamp value assessed by the stamp authority at ₹ 9, 90,196/-. The area mentioned in the deed of registry at same purchase namely Shri Mahaveer Prasad has been shown natural brother of Shiv Ratan. The remaining consideration against the alleged agreement to sell dated 01/12/1975 has been shown at ₹ 7640/-whereas on page No. 4 of conveyance remaining consideration has been shown at ₹ 8680/-. The assessee has claimed at the time of deed that he is sole owner of this plot and now as per this deed he transferred this plot to Shri Mahaveer Prasad and handed over the possession on it at the time of registration. 8.4 The property situated at Hathi Babu Ka Ahata, Kachhi Basti, jaipur was alleged to be sold through the agreement to sell dated 01/8/1980 by the father of the assessee Shri Avani Kumar Mukherjee on 1 st Sept. 1980 to Mahaveer Hotel through ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perty was transferred as per Hindu Succession Act in the name of first party i.e. Seema Mukherjee, Alok Mukherjee and Aroop Kumar Mukherjee. The area has been shown as 477.29 sq.mt. comprising of 16 rooms, five toilets in agreement to sell. However, in deed of registration, the area has been shown 488.49 sq.mt. This premises was given on rent to the purchaser. As per registered deed, the total consideration already taken by the seller had been shown at ₹ 50,000/-(30,000 + 20,000), however, in the alleged agreement to sell, it was ₹ 30,000/- only. As per this deed, remaining amount has been received by the first party at ₹ 50,000/- at the time of registry. 8.6 On the basis of alleged agreement to sell and deed of registration, it is proved that alleged agreement to sell are different. Even alleged agreement to sell is presumed to be genuine as per the terms and conditions, the alleged agreement to sell is not existed on the date of registry. As both the parties have not performed terms and conditions of the alleged agreement to sell in prescribed time and prescribed manner. Therefore, it is a breach of contract. Even area as well as remaining consideration are n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iable for capital gain tax U/s 45. As per registered deed, the assessee got ₹ 50,000/- at the time of registry before Sub-Registrar, Jaipur who has signed the registry on 02/4/2003. Therefore, the assessee got consideration as per terms and agreement of the registered deed on 02/4/2003. Accordingly, the assessability of this capital gain on account of transfer of this property is liable to be assessed in A.Y. 2004-05. The case law relied by the ld AR is not squarely applicable. The ld CIT(A) was wrong in deciding the assessment of four parties under the head HUF as argued by the ld DR, these properties were sold in the capacity of individual and the assessee had claimed status as individual. No where it has been claimed that these properties were belonged to HUF, therefore, the status of assessability of these four immovable properties referred by the ld CIT(A) is to be held assessable in the capacity of individual not HUF. Further only one witness has been signed on alleged agreement to sell dated 09/8/1975 of property at Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Jaipur and transferer written in the agreement as Avani Kumar Mukherjee, son of Shri Satkori Mukherjee whereas singed by Athak Kumar M ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Section 50C came on the Statute w.e.f. 01/4/2003 and the transactions through Agreement to sell or Power of Attorney came in the enlarged scope of Section 50C(1) w.e.f. 01/10/2009 whereas the Capital Assets of the assessee were transferred by way of agreement from assessment year 1976-77 to 1988-89 itself and purchaser has made construction on it and enjoying the property since then. 6. Without prejudice to above grounds, the appellant submits that the ld CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of A.O. who has wrongly initiated proceedings for assessment year 2004-05, as sale deed in question was not registered in the said assessment year. The relevant sale deed i.e. Mohan Joshi was executed, presented and registered before Registration Authority on 31/3/2003 i.e. assessment year 2003-04. Hence the whole proceedings for assessing capital gains is void ab- inito for the sale deed in favour of Mohan Joshi. 10. Regarding transfer of property at 56, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Station Road, Jaipur, which was sold on 22/5/2003 at ₹ 8,90,437/-. In this case also, the case was reopened by the Assessing Officer on both the properties long term capital gain which has not been ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e (Individual) similar to co-owner late Smt. Seema Mukherjee and Shri Alok Mukherjee. 11.2 The assessee challenged this issue before the ld CIT(A), who had deleted the addition in the hands of HUF by observing that this property was belonging to the individual Shri Aroop Mukherjee. The assessee HUF challenged before the ld CIT(A) that the reopening U/s 148, the assessability in HUF, years of assessability, invoking provisions of Section 50C and transfer U/s 2(47), which has been decided by the ld CIT(A) in favour of the assessee. 11.3 The revenue challenged the deleting the status of HUF and considered this capital gain as individual, therefore, assessability in the hands of individual, we have already decided this issue in the hands of Alok Mukherjee and Late Smt. Seema Mukherjee (Individual) as Shri Aroop Mukherjee has 1/3 rd share in this property. The same findings are applicable here and accordingly, we dismiss the revenue s appeal. It is informed that no appeal has been filed in case of Shri Aroop Mukherjee (Individual) for A.Y. 2004-05. 12. ITA No. 872/JP/2012 for A.Y. 2004-05 Satkori Mukherjee Charitable Trust Vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Jaipur. This is an assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ued to the assessee. After considering the FMV as on 01/4/1981 the ld Assessing Officer computed the capital gain in the hands of Trust at ₹ 77,81,718/- i.e. capital gain at plot No. 327, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Jaipur (1/2 nd share) at ₹ 38,90,859 and plot No. 327, Hathi Babu Ka Bagh, Jaipur (1/2 nd share) at ₹ 38,90,859/-. 12.2 The assessee Trust challenged this issue before the ld CIT(A) on the ground of reopening U/s 148 of the Act, application of Section 50C and transfer U/s 2(47)(v) and adopting the FMV as on 01/4/1981. The ld CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee s appeal on all the grounds and held the Assessing Officer s assessment as valid assessment. 12.3 Now the assessee Trust is before us and it has challenged the reopening U/s 148 on ground No. 1 and 2 of the appeal, which have not been pressed by the assessee, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed. Ground No. 3 is for challenging for not considering the transfer U/s 2(47)(v)(vi) of the Act and ground No. 4 is application of Section 50C, which has been decided by this Bench in detail in the case of Alok Mukherjee. The facts and circumstances are identical, therefore, our view are same as g ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
