Chief Accounts Officer, Bangalore v. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 719/BANG/2014 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 71921114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN BLRCO0295B
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 719/BANG/2014
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Chief Accounts Officer, Bangalore
Respondent ITO, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 14-11-2014
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 23-05-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.P. NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 AND ITA NO.719 & 720/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE N R SQUARE BANGALORE 560 002. PAN: BLRCO 0295B VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD 16(1) BANGALORE. APPLICANT/APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPLICANT/APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAMPRIYADAS C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI C.H. SUNDAR RAO CIT(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 31.10.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.11.2014 O R D E R PER N.V. VASUDEVAN JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE APPEALS BY CHIEF ACCOUNTS OFFICER BRUH AT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS BBMP OR ASSESSEE ) AGAINST A COMMON ORDER DATED 5.3.2014 OF CIT(APPEAL S)-V BANGALORE [CIT(A)] CONFIRMING THE ORDERS DATED 27.3.2013 PA SSED BY THE ITO (TDS) ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 30 WARD-16(1) BANGALORE [ AO ] TREATING BBMP AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT FOR NOT DEDUCTING AT SOURCE U/S. 201(1) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT 1961 [THE ACT] AND ALSO LEVYING INTEREST ON BBMP U/S. 201(1A ) OF THE ACT ON THE TAX THAT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DEDUCTED AND PAID TO THE CR EDIT OF THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT. THE APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. THE MUNICIPAL GOVERNANCE OF BANGALORE VESTED WI TH THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE IN 1949 UNDER THE CITY O F BANGALORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION ACT 1949 (MYSORE ACT LXIX OF 1949) WH ICH STOOD REPEALED BY SEC.507 OF THE KARNATAKA MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS ACT 1976 (KMC ACT) AND CONTINUES TO BE GOVERNED BY KMC. THE CORPORATION W AS RENAMED AS BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE ( BMP ). NEW AREAS IN THE VICINITY OF THE CITY OF BANGALORE ALSO CAME UNDER THE CONTROL OF BMP AND BMP CAME TO BE RENAMED AS BRUHAT BANGALORE MAHANAGARA PALIKE. 3. BBMP IN DISCHARGE OF ITS FUNCTIONS UNDER THE KM C HAS TO ACQUIRE LAND FOR EXPANSION OF EXISTING ROADS OR FOR CONSTRU CTION OF UNDERPASS ETC. THERE ARE TWO MODES IN WHICH IT CAN ACHIEVE ITS PUR POSE. (I) IT CAN COMPULSORILY ACQUIRE LANDS SUBJECT TO EXISTENCE OF PUBLIC PURPOSE PAYMENT OF DUE COMPENSATION AND COMPLYING WITH THE OTHER PR OCEDURE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894; AND (II) BY V IRTUE OF THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.14-B OF THE K ARNATAKA TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1961 [ KTCP ] AS LOCAL AUTHORITY IT CAN BY PUBLIC NOTICE INFORM THE PUBLIC PURPOSE FOR WHICH LANDS AR E REQUIRED MENTIONING ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 30 THE LOCATION OF THE LAND WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR PUB LIC PURPOSE AND CALL UPON THE OWNERS OF THOSE LANDS TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF G ETTING DRC S (DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS CERTIFICATE) IN LIEU OF LAND T HAT ARE SURRENDERED OF THEIR LAND. THE OWNER OF ANY SITE OR LAND WHICH FA LLING WITHIN THE AREA SO MENTIONED CAN SURRENDER THE REQUIRED AREA TO BBMP F REE OF COST AND HAND OVER POSSESSION FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES. BBMP WILL PE RMIT DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA WHICH S HALL BE EQUAL TO ONE AND HALF TIMES OF THE AREA OF LAND SURRENDERED. THE DEV ELOPMENT RIGHT SO PERMITTED MAY BE UTILISED EITHER AT THE REMAINING P ORTION OF THE AREA AFTER THE SURRENDER OR ANYWHERE IN THE LOCAL PLANNING ARE A EITHER BY OWNER HIMSELF OR BY TRANSFER TO ANY OTHER PERSON AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. THE AREA REMAINING AFTER SURRENDER SHALL HAVE THE SAME FLOOR AREA WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE SURRENDER FOR THE ORIGINAL SITE OR LAND AS PER REGULATIONS. SEC.14-B OF KTCP READS THUS: 14-B. BENEFIT OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.- WHERE ANY AR EA WITHIN A LOCAL PLANNING AREA IS REQUIRED BY A PLANNING AUTHO RITY OR LOCAL AUTHORITY FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE AND THE OWNER OF ANY S ITE OR LAND WHICH COMPRISES SUCH AREA SURRENDERS IT FREE OF COS T AND HANDS OVER POSSESSION OF THE SAME TO THE PLANNING AUTHORI TY OR THE LOCAL AUTHORITY FREE OF ENCUMBRANCES THE PLANNING AUTHOR ITY OR THE LOCAL AUTHORITY AS THE CASE MAY BE MAY NOTWITHSTA NDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT OR THE REGULATIONS BUT SUBJEC T TO SUCH RESTRICTIONS OR CONDITIONS AS MAY BE SPECIFIED BY N OTIFICATION BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT PERMIT DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA WHICH SHALL BE EQUAL TO ONE A ND HALF TIMES OF THE AREA OF LAND SURRENDERED. THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT SO PERMITTED MAY BE UTILISED EITHER AT THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE AREA AFTER THE SURRENDER OR ANYWHERE IN THE LOCAL PLANNING ARE A EITHER BY HIMSELF OR BY TRANSFER TO ANY OTHER PERSON AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED. ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 30 THE AREA REMAINING AFTER SURRENDER SHALL HAVE THE S AME FLOOR AREA WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BEFORE SURRENDER FOR THE ORIGIN AL SITE OR LAND AS PER REGULATIONS. EXPLANATION.- FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SECTION - (A) PUBLIC PURPOSE MEANS.- (I) WIDENING OF AN EXISTING ROAD OR FORMATION OF A NEW ROAD; (II) PROVIDING FOR PARKS PLAYGROUNDS AND OPEN SPA CES OR ANY OTHER CIVIC AMENITIES; (III) MAINTAINING OR IMPROVING HERITAGE BUILDING OR PRECINCTS NOTIFIED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. (B) DEVELOPMENT RIGHT MEANS THE RIGHT TO CARRYOUT DEVELOPMENT OR TO DEVELOP LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. ILLUSTRATION NO.1 IN A PLOT AREA OF 500 SQUARE METERS AT ROAD A WH ERE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 1.5 I PLOT AREA : 500 SQUARE METERS II PERMISSIBLE FLOOR AREA RATIO : 1.5 III BUILDABLE FLOOR AREA : 500 X1.5 =750 SQUARE ME TERS IV AREA SURRENDERED :100 SQUARE METERS V ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA IN THE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS : 150 SQUARE METERS VI PLOT AREA AFTER SURRENDER :500-100=400SQUARE ME TERS VII BUILDABLE FLOOR AREA IN PLOT AREA OF 400 SQUAR E METERS (AFTER SURRENDER):- (A) IF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA IS NOT UTILISED IN THE SAME PLOT : 750 SQ.MTRS. (B) IF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA IS UTILISED IN THE SAM E PLOT : 750+150 = 900 SQUARE METERS ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 5 OF 30 ILLUSTRATION NO.2 IN A PLOT AREA OF 500 SQUARE METERS AT ROAD B WH ERE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 0.75:- I PLOT AREA : 500 SQUARE METERS II PERMISSIBLE FLOOR AREA RATIO : 0.75 III BUILDABLE FLOOR AREA : 500 X 0.75 =375 SQUARE METERS IV AREA SURRENDERED :100 SQUARE METERS V ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA IN THE FORM OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS : 150 SQUARE METERS VI PLOT AREA AFTER SURRENDER : 500-100 = 400SQUARE METERS VII BUILDABLE FLOOR AREA IN PLOT AREA OF 400 SQUAR E METERS (AFTER SURRENDER):- (A) IF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA IS NOT UTILISED IN TH E SAME PLOT (B) IF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA IS UTILISED IN THE SAM E PLOT : 375 SQUARE METERS : 375+150 = 525 SQUARE METERS ILLUSTRATION NO.3 IN A PLOT AREA OF 500 SQUARE METERS AT ROAD C WH ERE FLOOR AREA RATIO IS 0.75 AND DEVELOPMENT RIGHT OF 150 SQUARE M ETERS ORIGINATED AT ROAD A IS TRANSFERRED.- I PLOT AREA : 500 SQUARE METERS II PERMISSIBLE FLOOR AREA RATIO : 0.75 III BUILDABLE FLOOR AREA : 500 X0.75 =375 SQUARE M ETERS IV ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA TRANSFERRED FROM ROAD 'A' : 150 SQUARE METERS V TOTAL BUILDABLE FLOOR AREA : 375+150 = 525 SQUAR E METERS. 4. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AYS 10-11 & 11-12 THE OWNERS OF THE EXTENT OF LAND SITUATE IN THE VARIOUS AREAS AS SET OUT IN THE ANNEXURES I & II TO THIS ORDER SURRENDERED THEIR HOLDINGS FREE OF COST. ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 6 OF 30 5. AS CONTEMPLATED BY SEC.14-B OF THE KTCP BBMP GA VE THE OWNERS WHO SURRENDERED THEIR LANDS TO BBMP DRC PERMITTING DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL FLOOR AREA WHICH WAS EQUA L TO ONE AND HALF TIMES OF THE AREA OF LAND SURRENDERED. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT BBMP WAS UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE ON THE VALUE OF THE DRCS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194-LA OF THE ACT WHICH READS THUS: PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION ON ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 194LA. ANY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING TO A RESIDENT ANY SUM BEING IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSATION OR THE ENHANCED COMPENSATION OR THE CONSIDERATION OR THE ENHANCED CONSIDERATION ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE OF ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY (OTHER TH AN AGRICULTURAL LAND) SHALL AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT O F SUCH SUM IN CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTH ER MODE WHICHEVER IS EARLIER DEDUCT AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO TEN PER CENT OF SUCH SUM AS INCOME-TAX THEREON: PROVIDED THAT NO DEDUCTION SHALL BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION WHERE THE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENT OR AS THE CASE MA Y BE THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF SUCH PAYMENTS TO A RESIDENT DUR ING THE FINANCIAL YEAR DOES NOT EXCEED TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND RUPEES. EXPLANATION. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION ( I ) 'AGRICULTURAL LAND' MEANS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN IN DIA INCLUDING LAND SITUATE IN ANY AREA REFERRED TO IN ITEMS ( A ) AND ( B ) OF SUB- CLAUSE ( III ) OF CLAUSE ( 14 ) OF SECTION 2; ( II ) 'IMMOVABLE PROPERTY' MEANS ANY LAND (OTHER THAN A GRICULTURAL LAND) OR ANY BUILDING OR PART OF A BUILDING. ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 7 OF 30 7. ACCORDING TO THE AO DRCS WERE GIVEN IN LIEU OF M ONEY FOR THE LAND SURRENDERED AND THE MONEY VALUE OF THE DRCS HAVE T O BE DETERMINED BY ADOPTING THE GUIDANCE VALUE FOR THE LAND ACQUIRED F IXED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND REGIST RATION. IN COMING TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION THE AO AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DRAWN INSPIRATION FROM THE PROVISIO NS OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT (TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT FOR THE PRESENT APPEAL ) WHICH READS THUS: SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CERTAIN CASES. 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT ( HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY' ) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2).. EXPLANATION-1: EXPLANATION 2. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION THE EXPRESSION 'ASSESSABLE' MEANS THE PRICE WHICH THE STAMP VALUAT ION AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRAR Y CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE ADOPT ED OR ASSESSED IF IT WERE REFERRED TO SUCH AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPO SES OF THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. (3) . 8. THE AO HAS HOWEVER NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE PROVISIONS IN HIS ORDER. IT IS ON THE BASIS OF THE VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 8 OF 30 STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF THE LAND AS FI XED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS THAT THE A O DETERMINED THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY BBMP TO THE PERSONS WHO SURRENDER LAND WHICH IS SET OUT IN ANNEXURE-1 AND 2 ANNEXED TO THIS ORDER. 9. BEFORE THE AO THE STAND OF BBMP WAS THAT DRC I S A RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT EXTRA FLOOR AREA OVER AND ABOVE THE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE KARNATAKA T OWN & COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1961 SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS. IT MEANS IT IS AN ENTITLEMENT OF RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT EXTRA FLOOR AREA. THE RECIPIENT OF THE DRC CAN USE IT TO CONSTRUCT EXTRA FLOOR AREA ON HIS OWN PROPERTY OR CAN TRANSFER THE SAID RIGHT TO THIRD PARTY SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN THE NOTIFICATION GOVERNING GRANT OF DRCS. BBMP THUS POINTED OUT THA T THE RECIPIENT OF DRC DOES NOT DERIVE ANY INCOME BY ISSUE OF DRC. DRCS A RE NOT ISSUED IN LIEU OF MONEY OR MONEY CONSIDERATION QUANTIFIED ON THE B ASIS OF ANY VALUATION. 10. BBMP POINTED OUT THAT UNDER CHAPTER XVII OF TH E ACT WHICH DEALS WITH COLLECTION AND RECOVERY OF TAX LAYS DOWN IN PA RT A OF THE SAID CHAPTER IN SEC.190(1) LAYS DOWN THAT NOTWITHSTANDING REGULA R ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME IS TO BE MADE IN A LATER ASSE SSMENT YEAR THE TAX ON SUCH INCOME SHALL BE PAYABLE BY DEDUCTION OR COLLECTION AT SOURCE OR BY ADVANCE PAYMENT OR BY PAYMENT UNDER SUB-SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 192 AS THE CASE MAY BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. SEC.190(2) OF THE ACT FURTHER SAYS THAT NOTHING IN SECTION 190 SHALL ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 9 OF 30 PREJUDICE THE CHARGE OF TAX ON SUCH INCOME UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 4 . BBMP POINTED OUT THAT FOR APPLICATION OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS ARE R EQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED VIZ. (I) THERE SHOULD BE A SUM PAYABLE; (II) SUCH SUM SHALL BE A CONSIDERATION FOR COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY; (III) TAX SHALL BE DEDUCTED AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF SUCH SU M; (IV) PAYMENT MAY BE BY CASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY BBMP THAT A COMBINED READING OF SEC.19 0 AND 194LA OF THE ACT IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE SHOULD ACCRUE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. BY ISSUE OF DRC INCOME DOE S NOT ACCRUE OR ARISE TO THE RECIPIENT OF DRC. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F GE INDIA TECHNOLOGY CENTRE PRIVATE LIMITED LTD. V. CIT (327 ITR 456) HELD THAT THE PAYMENT MADE WHEN IT DID NOT COMPRISE ANY ELEMENT OF INCOME THE PAYER COULD NOT BE HELD LIABLE FOR NON-DEDUCTIO N OF TAX AT SOURCE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT VALUING DRCS BY APPLYING THE GUIDE LINE VALUE APPLICABLE FOR REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ST AMP DUTY ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRAR FOR REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENTS IS NOT COR RECT. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT DRCS ARE NOT ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH GUIDE LINE VALUES AND THEY HAVE NO RELEVANCE AT ALL. 11. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PERSON MAKIN G PAYMENT SHOULD MAKE PAYMENT OF A SUM OF MONEY WHICH CLEARLY INDI CATES THAT THE ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 10 OF 30 PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE O NLY WHEN PAYMENT IS MADE IN TERMS OF MONEY. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE EXPRESSION IN SEC.194LA AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF SUCH SUM IN C ASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE MEANS THAT PA YMENT CAN BE IN THE MODE OF GIVING CASH OR BY ISSUING CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR ANY OTHER MODE LIKE TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER OR MAIL TRANSFER VIA MONEY OR DER OR POSTAL ORDER BILL OF EXCHANGE PROMISSORY NOTE ELECTRONIC TRANSFER LIKE RTGS NEFT ETC. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT ISSUE OF DRCS CANNOT BE BRO UGHT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EXPRESSION BY ANY OTHER MODE USED IN SEC.194LA OF THE ACT. BBMP RELIED ON THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS IN INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT WHERE GENERAL WORDS FOLLOW ENUMERATION OF PERSONS OR THINGS BY WORDS OF A PARTICULAR AND SPE CIFIC MEANING SUCH GENERAL WORDS ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED IN THEIR WIDE ST EXTENT BUT ARE TO BE HELD AS APPLYING ONLY TO PERSONS OR THINGS OF THE S AME GENERAL KIND OR CLASS AS THOSE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED. IT IS A CANON OF S TATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WHERE GENERAL WORDS FOLLOW THE ENUMERATION OF PARTI CULAR CLASSES OF THINGS THE GENERAL WORDS WILL BE CONSTRUED AS APPLYING ONL Y TO THINGS OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS AS THOSE ENUMERATED. IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE GENERAL WORD IS PAYMENT OF SUCH SUM AND THE MODE OF PAYME NT QUALIFIED IS CASH ISSUE OF CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE. THE EXPRESSION ANY OTHER MODE HAS THEREFORE TO BE CONFINED ONLY TO PAYMENT O F ANY SUM IN A MODE OTHER THAN CASH CHEQUE OR DRAFT AND NOT TO A CASE WHERE DRCS ARE ISSUED. ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 11 OF 30 12. THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT AGREE WITH THE AFORESAI D SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BBMP. HE HELD THAT THE MODE OF ACQUIRING T HE LAND BY BBMP UNDER SEC.14-B OF THE KMC WOULD BE A TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.2(47) OF THE ACT AS THERE WAS RELIN QUISHMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHT TO A CAPITAL ASSET. HE HEL D THAT BY VIRTUE OF SUCH TRANSFER THERE ARISING CAPITAL GAIN U/S.45 OF THE A CT WHICH IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX AND HAS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE MANNER LAID DOW N IN SEC.48 OF THE ACT. HE ALSO HELD THAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS BY WHICH BBMP GETS LAND FOR ROAD WIDENING HAS AN ELEMENT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. THE TRANSFER OF LAND TO BBMP THOUGH IS STATED TO BE FREE OF COST BUT IN REA LITY THE OWNER GETS DRCS. THE QUESTION OF DETERMINING CONSIDERATION FO R TRANSFER CAN BE RESOLVED BY VALUING THE DRCS AND FOR THIS PURPOSE T HE BEST WAY TO DETERMINE THE VALUE IS TO RELY ON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.50-C OF THE ACT AND VALUE THE LAND SURRENDERED AS PER THE GUIDELINE VAL UES FIXED BY SUB- REGISTRATION FOR STAMP DUTY VALUATION AND REGISTRAT ION. THE AO ALSO HELD THAT ACQUIRING LAND U/S.14-B OF THE KMC WOULD BE AK IN TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW IN FORCE. THE AO ALSO HE LD THAT THE EXPRESSION ANY SUM MEANS ANYTHING IN THE NATURE OF COMPENSAT ION AND ISSUE OF DRCS IS IN THE NATURE OF ANY SUM AND THEREFORE TH E PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE. 13. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS THE AO HELD THAT BBMP W AS AN ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT AND DETERMINED THE TAX PAYABLE AND INTEREST ON TAX PAYABLE U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY IN THE MANNER INDICATED IN THE ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 12 OF 30 CHART GIVEN AS ANNEXURE-1 AND 2 RESPECTIVELY TO THI S ORDER FOR AY 10-11 & 11-12 RESPECTIVELY. 14. ON APPEAL BY BBMP THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE OR DERS OF THE AO. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) BBMP HAS PRE FERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BBMP FIRST SUBMITTED T HAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN A NY SUM OF MONEY IS PAID AS COMPENSATION ON ACCOUNT OF COMPULSORY ACQUI SITION UNDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE. HE DREW OUR ATTENTIO N TO THE ORDER OF THE AO WHEREIN THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THERE WAS A TRANSFER WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.2(47) OF THE ACT IN THE FORM OF RELI NQUISHMENT OR EXTINGUISHMENT OF RIGHT OF LAND OWNERS IN FAVOUR OF BBMP. ACCORDING TO THE AO THERE WAS AN ELEMENT OF COMPULSION IN THE MANNER BBMP ACQUIRED PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ROAD WIDENING LAYING U NDERPASS OR OTHER PUBLIC PURPOSE. HE FILED BEFORE US A SAMPLE COPY OF THE PU BLIC NOTICE THAT BBMP ISSUES WHEN IT NOTIFIES TO OWNERS OF PROPERTY REQUI REMENT OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE. FOR EXAMPLE A NOTICE DATED 26.8.2009 WAS FILED BEFORE US WHEREIN BBMP HAD INFORMED THAT IT REQUIRES LANDS FO R EXPANSION OF KANNUR MAILANAHALLI ROAD BAAGALOORU VILLAGE FROM THE POIN T OF KANNUR JUNCTION UPTO MAILANAHALLI VILLAGE. THE ESTIMATED EXPANSION OF THE ROAD IS STATED TO BE 45 MTRS. AND THE APPROXIMATE DISTANCE OF ROAD TH AT IS TO BE EXPANDED IS GIVEN AS 12.10 KMS. THE NOTICE INFORMS OWNERS HAVI NG LANDS OPPOSITE TO ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 13 OF 30 THE ABOVE MENTIONED ROAD THAT THEY CAN APPLY FOR TD R (TRANSFERABLE DEVELOPMENTAL RIGHTS) TO THE BBMP ACCORDING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS AS PER THE NOTIFICATION NO. UDD/BEM/RUPR A/2004 DAT ED 18.1.2005 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS NOTIFICATION LAYING DO WN CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF TDR). A COPY OF THE NOTIFICATION LAYING DOWN COND ITIONS FOR GRANT OF TDR WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE US THE PRINCIPLE CONDITIONS O F WHICH WERE (I) THE LAND SHALL BE SURRENDERED THROUGH A RELINQUISHMENT DEED; (II) DRC WILL BE ISSUED AND BE VALID FOR 5 YEARS AND IS TRANSFERABLE. (III ) BESIDES SEVERAL CONDITIONS FOR UTILISATION OF ADDITIONAL FAR GRANTED UNDER DRC ARE SPELT OUT THEREIN. HIS CONTENTION WAS THAT THE ENTIRE PROCESS BY WHICH DRCS ARE ISSUED HAS NO ELEMENT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION WHICH IS THE SINE QUO NON FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT. H IS SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE TERM COMPULSORY ACQUISITION IS NEITHER DEFINE D IN THE ACT NOR IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND THEREFORE ONE HAS TO LOOK AT THE DICTIONARY MEANING OF THE TERM COMPULSORY ACQUISIT ION. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DICTIONARY MEANING AS GIVEN IN THE ADVANCED LAW LEXICON BY P. RAMANATHA AIYER EDITED BY JUSTICE Y.V. CHANDR ACHUD 3 RD EDITION 2005 AT PAGES 936 WHICH READS THUS: COMPULSORY ACQUISITION: WHERE LAND OR AN INTEREST IN LAND IS PURCHASED OR TAKEN UNDER STATUTORY POWERS WITHOUT T HE AGREEMENT OF THE OWNER IT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMPULSORY AC QUIRED BUT WHERE THERE IS STATUTORY POWER TO TAKE MERE POSSESS ION OF THE LAND WITHOUT THE ACQUISITION OF ANY ESTATE OR INTEREST I N IT APART FROM THE POSSESSION IT IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN REQUISITION ED. (8. HALSBURYS LAWS (4 TH EDN.) PARA-1). ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 14 OF 30 16. THOUGH THE ABOVE MEANING IS GIVEN IN CONTRADIST INCTION TO WHAT IS REQUISITIONING YET THE MEANING OF THE TERM COMPUL SORY ACQUISITION IS THAT LAND SHOULD BE TAKEN UNDER STATUTORY POWERS WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF THE OWNER. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IN R ESPECT OF SOME OF THE SCHEMES FOR ROAD WIDENING WHERE THE OWNERS DID NOT RESPOND TO OFFER OF CDRS BBMP HAS RESORTED TO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION P ROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAND ACQUISIT ION ACT 1894. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN THE CASE OF COMPULSORY ACQUI SITION THERE ARE PROCEDURE FOR OBJECTING TO THE ACQUISITION ON THE G ROUND THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION IS NOT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE DETERMINATION OF COMPENSATION PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND THEREAFTE R TAKING POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP. SUCH ELEMENTS ARE ABSENT WHEN LAND OWNERS SURRENDER THEIR LAND TO BBMP UNDER THE SCHEME OF ISSUE OF CDR S. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS NO PROCESS OF QUANTIFICATI ON OR DETERMINATION OF VALUE OF LAND ACQUIRED WHEN BBMP TAKES OVER LAND UN DER THE CDR SCHEME. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY HIM THAT WHENEVER BB MP DOES COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND AND PAYS COMPENSATION IT DULY DEDUCTS TAX AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED U/S.194LA OF THE ACT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSI ON THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AND PAYING IT OVER TO THE G OVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE PAYMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF VI CARIOUS LIABILITY. THE SAID LIABILITY CAN BE EASILY AND WITHOUT ANY EFFORT DISC HARGED WHEN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IN A SUM OF MONEY I.E. IN THE FORM OF MONETARY ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 15 OF 30 COMPENSATION. AT LEAST IN CASES WHERE THE QUANTIFI CATION OF THE SUM OF MONEY TAKES PLACE IN TERMS OF MONEY BUT THE PAYMENT OR DISCHARGE OF THE LIABILITY IS MADE BY ADJUSTMENT WHICH IS OTHERWISE THAN BY PAYMENT OF MONETARY COMPENSATION IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE WO ULD STILL BE A LIABILITY. BUT WHERE NEITHER THERE IS QUANTIFICATION OF THE SU M PAYABLE IN TERMS OF MONEY NOR ACTUAL PAYMENT IN MONETARY TERMS IT WOUL D BE UNFAIR TO BURDEN A PERSON MAKING PAYMENT WITH THE OBLIGATION OF DEDU CTING TAX AT SOURCE AND EXPOSING HIM THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH DEFAULT. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY TAX IS THAT OF A THIRD PERSON AND NOT THAT OF BBMP AND THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE PROV ISIONS OF SEC.190 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN TOTALLY LOST SIGHT OF BY THE REVENUE I N THE PRESENT CASE. 17. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT ON THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICA BLE BECAUSE THERE WAS NO COMPENSATION PAID TOWARDS COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW IN FORCE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP LTD. 367 ITR 466(SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CONTEXT OF LEVY OF SURCHARGE ON INCOME TAX IN CASE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE APPROA CH IN CASES WHERE THE LIABILITY TO TAX IS NOT STIPULATED OR CANNOT BE APP LIED WITH PRECISION:- ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 16 OF 30 AT PAGE-491 TO 492 RATE AT WHICH TAX OR FOR THAT MATTER SURCHARGE IS TO BE LEVIED IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE TAX REGIME IN GOVINDA SARAN GANGASARAN V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 155 ITR 14 4(SC) THIS COURT WHILE EXPLAINING THE CONCEPTUAL MEANING OF A TAX DELINEATED FOUR COMPONENTS THEREIN AS IS CLEAR FRO M THE FOLLOWING PASSAGE FROM THE SAID JUDGMENT : THE COMPONENTS WHICH ENTER INTO THE CONCEPT OF A T AX ARE WELL KNOWN. THE FIRST IS THE CHARACTER OF THE IMPOS ITION KNOWN BY ITS NATURE WHICH PRESCRIBES THE TAXABLE EV ENT ATTRACTING THE LEVY THE SECOND IS A CLEAR INDICATI ON OF THE PERSON ON WHOM THE LEVY IS IMPOSED AND WHO IS OBLIG ED TO PAY THE TAX THE THIRD IS THE RATE AT WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED AND THE FOURTH IS THE MEASURE OR VALUE TO WHICH THE RATE WILL BE APPLIED FOR COMPUTING THE TAX LIAB ILITY. IF THOSE COMPONENTS ARE NOT CLEARLY AND DEFINITELY ASCERTAINABLE IT IS DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THE LEVY EXISTS IN POINT OF LAW. ANY UNCERTAINTY OR VAGUENESS IN THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME DEFINING ANY OF THOSE COMPONENTS OF THE LEVY WILL BE FATAL TO ITS VALIDITY. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RATE AT WHICH THE TAX IS TO BE IMPOSED IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF TAX AND WHERE THE RATE IS NO T STIPULATED OR IT CANNOT BE APPLIED WITH PRECISION IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO TAX A PERSON. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THIS VERY CONCEPTUA LISATION OF TAX WAS REPHRASED IN C.I.T BANGALORE V. B.C. SRINIVASA SHETTY IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- THE CHARACTER OF COMPUTATION OF PROVISIONS IN EACH CASE BEARS A RELATIONSHIP TO THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE. T HUS THE CHARGING SECTION AND THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS TOG ETHER CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRATED CODE. WHEN THERE IS A CASE TO WHICH THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS CANNOT APPLY AT AL L IT IS EVIDENT THAT SUCH A CASE WAS NOT INTENDED TO FALL W ITHIN THE CHARGING SECTION. ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 17 OF 30 IN THE ABSENCE OF CERTAINTY ABOUT THE RATE BECAUSE OF UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE DATE WITH REFERENCE TO WHICH THE RATE IS TO BE APPLIED IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT SURCHARGE AS PER THE EXISTING P ROVISION WAS LEVIABLE ON BLOCK ASSESSMENT QUA UNDISCLOSED INCOME . THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PROVISO ADDED TO SECTION 113 DEFINING THE SAID DATE WAS ONLY CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE. FRO M THE AFORESAID TABLE SHOWING THE DIFFERENT RATES OF SURCHARGE IN D IFFERENT YEARS IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT CHOICE OF DATE HAS TO BE FORMED AS IN SOME OF THE YEARS THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY SURCHARGE AT ALL. AT PAGE-494-495: AT THE SAME TIME IT IS ALSO MANDATED THAT THERE C ANNOT BE IMPOSITION OF ANY TAX WITHOUT THE AUTHORITY OF LAW. SUCH A LAW HAS TO BE UNAMBIGUOUS AND SHOULD PRESCRIBE THE LIABILIT Y TO PAY TAXES IN CLEAR TERMS. IF THE CONCERNED PROVISION OF THE T AXING STATUTE IS AMBIGUOUS AND VAGUE AND IS SUSCEPTIBLE TO TWO INTER PRETATIONS THE INTERPRETATION WHICH FAVOURS THE SUBJECTS AS A GAINST THERE THE REVENUE HAS TO BE PREFERRED. THIS IS A WELL ESTABL ISHED PRINCIPLE OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION TO HELP FINDING OUT AS TO WHETHER PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF ASSESSEE ARE TO PAY A PARTIC ULAR TAX OR NOT. NO DOUBT WITH THE APPLICATION OF THIS PRINCIPLE C OURTS MAKE ENDEAVOUR TO FIND OUT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLAT URE. AT THE SAME TIME THIS VERY PRINCIPLE IS BASED ON FAIRNESS DO CTRINE AS IT LAYS DOWN THAT IF IT IS NOT VERY CLEAR FROM THE PROVISIO NS OF THE ACT AS TO WHETHER THE PARTICULAR TAX IS TO BE LEVIED TO A PARTICULAR CLASS OF PERSONS OR NOT THE SUBJECT SHOULD NOT BE FASTENED WITH ANY LIABILITY TO PAY TAX. THIS PRINCIPLE ALSO ACTS AS A BALANCING FACTOR BETWEEN THE TWO JURISPRUDENTIAL THEORIES OF JUSTICE LIBERTARIAN THEORY ON THE ONE HAND AND KANTIAN THEORY ALONG WIT H EGALITARIAN THEORY PROPOUNDED BY JOHN RAWLS ON THE OTHER HAND. TAX LAWS ARE CLEARLY IN DEROGATION OF PERSONAL RIGH TS AND PROPERTY INTERESTS AND ARE THEREFORE SUBJECT TO STRICT CON STRUCTION AND ANY AMBIGUITY MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST IMPOSITION OF TH E TAX. IN BILLINGS V. U.S.14 THE SUPREME COURT CLEARLY ACKNO WLEDGED THIS BASIC AND LONG-STANDING RULE OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCT ION:- ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 18 OF 30 TAX STATUTES . . . SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED A ND IF ANY AMBIGUITY BE FOUND TO EXIST IT MUST BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE CITIZEN. EIDMAN V. MARTINEZ 184 U.S. 578 583; UNIT ED STATES V. WIGGLESWORTH 2 STORY 369 374; MUTUAL BENEFIT LIFE INS. CO. V. HEROLD 198 F. 199 201 AFF'D 201 F. 918;PA RKVIEW BLDG. ASSN. V. HEROLD 203 F. 876 880; MUTUAL TRUST CO. V. MILLER 177 N.Y. 51 57. AGAIN IN UNITED STATES V. MERRIAM THE SUPREME COURT CLEARLY STATED AT PP. 187-88: ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT IT IS URGED THAT TAXAT ION IS A PRACTICAL MATTER AND CONCERNS ITSELF WITH THE SUBST ANCE OF THE THING UPON WHICH THE TAX IS IMPOSED RATHER THAN WIT H LEGAL FORMS OR EXPRESSIONS. BUT IN STATUTES LEVYING TAXES THE LITERAL MEANING OF THE WORDS EMPLOYED IS MOST IMPORTANT FO R SUCH STATUTES ARE NOT TO BE EXTENDED BY IMPLICATION BEYO ND THE CLEAR IMPORT OF THE LANGUAGE USED. IF THE WORDS ARE DOUBT FUL THE DOUBT MUST BE RESOLVED AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT AND I N FAVOR OF THE TAXPAYER. GOULD V. GOULD 245 U.S. 151 153. AS LORD CAIRNS SAID MANY YEARS AGO IN PARTINGTON V. ATTORNEY- GENERAL : - AS I UNDERSTAND THE PRINCIPLE OF ALL FISCAL LEGISL ATION IT IS THIS : IF THE PERSON SOUGHT TO BE TAXED COMES WITHIN THE L ETTER OF THE LAW HE MUST BE TAXED HOWEVER GREAT THE HARDSHIP MA Y APPEAR TO THE JUDICIAL15 263 U.S. 179 44 S.CT. 69 (1923) 16 (1869) LR 4 HL 100 MIND TO BE. ON THE OTHER HAND IF THE C ROWN SEEKING TO RECOVER THE TAX CANNOT BRING THE SUBJEC T WITHIN THE LETTER OF THE LAW THE SUBJECT IS FREE HOWEVER APP ARENTLY WITHIN THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW THE CASE MIGHT OTHERWISE APPE AR TO BE. 18. THE NEXT SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BBMP WAS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO TRANS FER EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET CONSEQUENT TO SURRENDER OF LAND OWNERS TO BBMP FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF SEC.2(47) OF THE ACT THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHEN THERE IS A TRANSFER ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 19 OF 30 WHICH IS NOT BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY HIM THAT IF THERE IS A TRANSFER WHICH IS NOT BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THEN PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICAB LE. THERE IS NO OTHER PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES A TRANSFEREE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE WHEN MAKING PAYMENT TO A TRANSFEROR. HE POINTED OUT THAT SUCH AN OBLIGATION IS NOW IMPOSED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194IA OF THE ACT W HICH CAME INTO FORCE ONLY WITH EFFECT FROM 1.7.2014 IF THE CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER EXCEEDS RS.50 LACS. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT EVEN UNDER THE NEW PROVISIONS WHICH ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE AY10-11 & 11-12 I T WOULD BE DOUBTFUL WHETHER THERE WOULD BE OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. 19. THE NEXT SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BBMP WAS THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.50C OF THE ACT WOULD BE APPLICABL E ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF CAPITAL A SSET U/S.48 OF THE ACT. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT SEC.48 OF THE ACT ARE NOT A PPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS REGA RD RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM ON THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. SHRI PREM RATAN GUPTA (ITAT MUMBAI) WHEREIN IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.50-C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPL ICABLE WHEN TDR ARE TRANSFERRED. SEC.43A OF THE ACT WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2014 WHEREBY PROVISIONS OF SEC.50-C OF THE ACT WERE APPL ICABLE WHILE COMPUTING ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 20 OF 30 INCOME FROM BUSINESS WHERE PROPERTY IS STOCK-IN-TRA DE OF BUSINESS OF AN ASSESSEE. 20. THE OTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO THAT SEC.194LA OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN THERE IS INCOME CHARGEA BLE TO TAX AND WHEN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IS IN A SUM OF MONEY I.E. MONETARY CONSIDERATION AND NOT OTHERWISE. ACCORDING TO HIM THE EXPRESSION ANY SUM AND THESE EXPRESSIONS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE P ROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT APPLIES ONLY WHEN THERE ARE PAYMENTS OF QUANTIFIED IN TERMS OF MONEY. RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY HIM IN THIS REGARD ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF H.H.SRI RAMA VARMA VS. CIT 187 ITR 308 (SC) WHEREIN THE EXPRESSION SUM WAS HELD TO REFER TO PAYMENT OF MONEY AND NOT TO DONATIONS IN KIND. 21. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE PROVISIONS OF S EC.194B OF THE ACT WHICH IMPOSES OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX WHEN THE PA YMENT IS MADE IN KIND OR PARTLY IN KIND AND PARTLY IN MONETARY TERMS. CB DT IN CIRCULAR NO. F.NO.275/42/75-ITJ DATED 9.6.1975 WHEREIN THE CBDT OPINED THAT WHEN PAYMENT IS IN KIND THERE IS NO OBLIGATION TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE. FINANCE ACT W.E.F. 1-6-1997 A PROVISO WAS INSERTED TO SEC. 194-B OF THE ACT WHEREBY IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT WHEREVER WINNINGS FRO M LOTTERY IS PAID IN KIND THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYING SHALL BEFORE REL EASING THE WINNINGS ENSURE THAT TAX HAS BEEN PAID IN RESPECT OF THE WIN NINGS. THE AFORESAID ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 21 OF 30 OBLIGATION IS ONLY A MORAL OBLIGATION AND NOT A LEG AL OBLIGATION AND THEREFORE NO LIABILITY CAN BE FASTENED ON THE PERSON RESPONSI BLE FOR PAYING. 22. THE LEARNED DR PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE O RDER OF THE AO/CIT(A). HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. KANCHANGANGA SEA FOODS LTD. VS. CIT CIVIL APPEAL NOS.3844-3847 OF 2003 JUDGMENT DATED 7.7.2010 ; 325 ITR 540 (SC) WHEREIN THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER INCOME ACCRUED IN INDIA TO A NON- RESIDENT WHO HAD HIRED TRAWLERS TO AN INDIAN COMPAN Y AND THE HIRE CHARGES HAD TO BE QUANTIFIED AT 85% OF THE VALUE OF FISH CA UGHT OR 600000 US $ WHICHEVER IS LESS. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE INDIAN COMPANY CARRIED OUT FISHING IN ECONOMIC ZONE OF IND IA AND THE CHARTER FEE WAS PAID TO NON-RESIDENT EQUIVALENT TO 85% OF THE V ALUE OF THE FISH CAUGHT. THE QUANTIFICATION WAS ALSO DONE IN INDIA AND THERE FORE INCOME ACCRUES TO NON-RESIDENT IN INDIA. THE LEARNED DR LAID EMPHASI S ON THE POINT THAT EVEN WHEN CONSIDERATION IS QUANTIFIED OTHERWISE THAN IN TERMS OF MONEY INCOME ACCRUES OR ARISES. ON THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE REASON THAT T HERE WAS NO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE PLEA W AS NOT TAKEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THEREFORE IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS TO REMAND THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S. 23. IN HIS REJOINDER THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR BBMP SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F KANCHANGANGA ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 22 OF 30 SEA FOODS LTD. (SUPRA) IS ENTIRELY ON THE QUESTION OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME I N INDIA AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE EXPRESSION A SUM WOULD INCLUDE PAYMENT IN KIND. IN THIS REG ARD IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE OF KANCHANGANGA SEA FOODS LTD. (SUPRA) THERE WAS QUANTIFICATION OF SUM PAYABLE WHICH WAS IN MONETARY TERMS AND THE MEASURE WAS ONLY OF THE MONE TARY TERMS WAS WITH REFERENCE TO VALUE OF FISH CAUGHT AND THEREFORE THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE STANDS TOTALLY ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS REITERATED BY HIM THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THER E WAS NO QUANTIFICATION OF THE VALUE OF CDRS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OR NOT CAN BE DECI DED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THERE IS NO NEED TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AS THE ISSUE IS PURELY LEGAL. 24. WE HAVE GIVEN A VERY CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE FIRST ISSUE THAT ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION I S AS TO WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE REASON THAT (A) THERE WAS NO COMPULSORY ACQUISITION; (B) THERE WAS NO PAYMENT OF ANY MONETA RY CONSIDERATION. 25. ON THE ABOVE ISSUE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCEPTABLE . AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY HIM THE APPLICATION OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT TO T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IS PURELY A LEGAL ISSUE WHICH CAN BE DECIDED O N THE BASIS OF FACTS ON ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 23 OF 30 RECORD. AS RIGHTLY CONTENDED BY HIM THE PROCESS OF SURRENDER OF LAND FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE BY OWNERS OF LAND AND ISSUE OF CDRS HAS NO ELEMENT OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION WHICH IS NECESSARY TO ATTR ACT APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT. THE MEANING O F THE TERM COMPULSORY ACQUISITION IS THAT LAND SHOULD BE TAKEN UNDER STA TUTORY POWERS WITHOUT THE AGREEMENT OF THE OWNER. IT IS CLEAR FROM MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE SURRENDER OF LAND BY OWNERS WAS VOLUNTARY AND IN EX ERCISE OF OPTION UNDER A NOTIFICATION LAYING DOWN CONDITIONS FOR GRANT OF TDR IN EXERCISE OF POWERS U/S.14-B OF KTCP. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT BBMP WHERE VER OWNERS DID NOT RESPOND TO OFFER OF CDRS BBMP HAS RESORTED TO COMP ULSORY ACQUISITION PROCEEDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF TH E LAND ACQUISITION ACT 1894. IN THE CASE OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION THERE ARE PROCEDURE FOR OBJECTING TO THE ACQUISITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROPOSED ACQUISITION IS NOT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE DETE RMINATION OF COMPENSATION PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION AND THEREAFTE R TAKING POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP. SUCH ELEMENTS ARE ABSENT WHEN LAND OWNERS SURRENDER THEIR LAND TO BBMP UNDER THE SCHEME OF ISSUE OF CDR S. IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO PROCESS OF QUANTIFICATION OR DETERMINAT ION OF VALUE OF LAND ACQUIRED WHEN BBMP TAKES OVER LAND UNDER THE CDR SC HEME. WHENEVER BBMP DOES COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF LAND AND PAYS C OMPENSATION IT DULY DEDUCTS TAX AT SOURCE AS REQUIRED U/S.194LA OF THE ACT. WE ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROVISIONS FOR DEDUCTING TAX AT S OURCE AND PAYING IT OVER ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 24 OF 30 TO THE GOVERNMENT ON BEHALF OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE PAYMENT IS IN THE NATURE OF VICARIOUS LIABILITY. THE SAID LIABILITY CAN BE EASILY AND WITHOUT ANY EFFORT CAN BE DISCHARGED WHEN PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IN A SUM OF MONEY I.E. IN THE FORM OF MONETARY COMPENSATION. AT LEAST IN CASES WHERE THE QUANTIFICATION OF THE SUM OF MONEY TAKES PLACE IN T ERMS OF MONEY BUT THE PAYMENT OR DISCHARGE OF THE LIABILITY IS MADE BY AD JUSTMENT WHICH IS OTHERWISE THAN BY PAYMENT OF MONETARY COMPENSATION IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE WOULD STILL BE A LIABILITY. BUT WHERE NEITHE R THERE IS QUANTIFICATION OF THE SUM PAYABLE IN TERMS OF MONEY NOR ACTUAL PAYMEN T IN MONETARY TERMS IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO BURDEN A PERSON WITH THE OBLI GATION OF DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE AND EXPOSING HIM THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUCH DE FAULT. WE AGREE WITH HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE LIABILITY TO PAY TAX I S THAT OF A THIRD PERSON AND NOT THAT OF BBMP AND THE SPIRIT BEHIND THE PROVISIO NS OF SEC.190 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN TOTALLY LOST SIGHT OF BY THE REVENUE IN TH E PRESENT CASE. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE PRES ENT CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT WERE NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE TH ERE WAS NO COMPENSATION PAID TOWARDS COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UN DER ANY LAW IN FORCE AND THEREFORE THE ORDER U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 26. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT WOULD APPLY ONLY WHEN THERE IS MONETARY PAYMENT. I N THIS REGARD WE FIND THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT APPLIES ONL Y WHEN THE PERSON MAKING PAYMENT SHOULD MAKE PAYMENT OF A SUM OF MON EY WHICH CLEARLY ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 25 OF 30 INDICATES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE A CT ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN PAYMENT IS MADE IN TERMS OF MONEY. THE EXPRES SION ANY SUM USED IN SEC.194LA OF THE ACT IS A CLEAR INDICATION THAT THOSE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN PAYMENT IS OF CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF MONEY. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SRI H.H. RAMA VARMA (SUPRA) HAD AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE MEANING OF THE TERM SUM IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.80G OF THE ACT. THE ASSE SSEE IN THAT CASE DONATED EQUITY SHARES OF NIRLON SYNTHETIC FIBRES AN D CHEMICALS LTD. HAVING A FACE VALUE OF RS. 12 50 000 TO EACH OF TWO TRUSTS . THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION UNDER S. 80G OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID DONATIONS MADE BY HIM TO CHARITABLE TRUSTS. THE CLAIM WAS REJ ECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE EXPRESSION 'SUMS' OCCURRING IN S. 80G DID NOT I NCLUDE ANY DONATION MADE IN KIND IN THE SHAPE OF SHARES. THE HONBLE K ERALA HIGH COURT AGREED WITH THE VIEW AS AFORESAID TAKEN BY THE TRIB UNAL. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS O F SEC.80G OF THE ACT WHICH READS THUS:- '80G(1). IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESS EE THERE SHALL BE DEDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO (A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY FIFTY PER CENT ; AND (B) IN THE CASE OF ANY OTHER ASSESSEE FIFTY-FIVE P ER CENT OF THE AGGREGATE OF THE SUMS SPECIFIED IN SUB-S. (2). (2) THE SUMS REFERRED TO IN SUB-S. (1) SHALL BE THE FOLLOWING NAMELY : ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 26 OF 30 (A) ANY SUMS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS DONATIONS TO.... (IV) ANY OTHER FUND OR ANY INSTITUTION TO WHICH TH IS SECTION APPLIES'. 27. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD TO INTERPRET WHET HER THE EXPRESSION ANY SUMS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WOULD ALSO INCLUDE DONATIONS IN KIND. THE HONBLE COURT HELD AS FOLLO WS:- THE LANGUAGE USED IN S. 80G(2)(A) IS CLEAR AND UNA MBIGUOUS. ON A PLAIN READING OF THE SECTION IT IS APPARENT THAT AN ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION FROM HIS INCOME ON THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID BY HIM AS DONATION TO THE AUTHORITIES AN D FOR THE CAUSES SPECIFIED THEREIN. THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION 'ANY SUMS PAID' CONTEMPLATES PAYMENT OF AN AMOUNT OF MONEY. O NE OF THE DICTIONARY MEANINGS OF THE EXPRESSION 'SUM' MEANS A NY INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY. THE CONTEXT IN WHICH TH E EXPRESSION 'SUMS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE' HAS BEEN USED MAKES THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT CLEAR THAT IT REFERS TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS DONATION. THE ACT PROVIDES FOR ASSESSME NT OF TAX ON THE INCOME DERIVED BY AN ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESS MENT YEAR; THE INCOME RELATES TO THE AMOUNT OF MONEY EARNED OR RECEIVED BY AN ASSESSEE. THEREFORE FOR PURPOSES OF CLAIMING DE DUCTION FROM INCOME-TAX UNDER S. 80G(2)(A) THE DONATION MUST BE A SUM OF MONEY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PLAIN MEANING OF TH E WORDS USED IN THE SECTION DOES NOT CONTEMPLATE DONATIONS IN KI ND. DONATIONS MAY BE MADE BY SUPPLYING GOODS OF VARIOUS KINDS INC LUDING BUILDING VEHICLE OR ANY OTHER TANGIBLE PROPERTY BU T SUCH DONATIONS THOUGH CONVERTIBLE IN TERMS OF MONEY DO NOT FALL WITHIN THE SCOPE OF S. 80G(2)(A) ENTITLING AN ASSES SEE TO DEDUCTION. DONATION OF SHARES OF A COMPANY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PAYMENT OF ANY SUM OR AMOUNT THOUGH THE SHARES ON THEIR SALE MAY BE CONVERTED INTO MONEY. BUT THE DONATION SO MA DE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE AFORESAID SECTION. SIN CE THE EXPRESSION AND LANGUAGE USED IN S. 80G(2)(A) IS PLAIN AND CLEA R IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE COURTS TO ENLARGE THE SCOPE BY ITS INTERPRET ATIVE PROCESS ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 27 OF 30 FOUNDED ON THE BASIS OF THE OBJECT AND PURPOSE UNDE RLYING THE PROVISION FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO AN ASSESSEE. 28. SEC.194LA OF THE ACT ALSO USES THE EXPRESSION ANY SUM WHICH CLEARLY INDICATES THAT IT IS ONLY WHEN PAYMENT IS M ADE IN MONETARY TERMS THAT THOSE PROVISIONS ARE ATTRACTED. 29. WE ALSO AGREE WITH HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE EXP RESSION IN SEC.194LA AT THE TIME OF PAYMENT OF SUCH SUM IN C ASH OR BY ISSUE OF A CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE MEANS THAT PA YMENT CAN BE IN THE MODE OF GIVING CASH OR BY ISSUING CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR ANY OTHER MODE LIKE TELEGRAPHIC TRANSFER OR MAIL TRANSFER VIA MONEY OR DER OR POSTAL ORDER BILL OF EXCHANGE PROMISSORY NOTE ELECTRONIC TRANSFER LIKE RTGS NEFT ETC. DRCS CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE EX PRESSION BY ANY OTHER MODE USED IN SEC.194LA OF THE ACT. THE RULE OF EJUSDEM GENERIS IN INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES WHICH LAYS DOWN THAT WHERE GENERAL WORDS FOLLOW ENUMERATION OF PERSONS OR THINGS BY WORDS O F A PARTICULAR AND SPECIFIC MEANING SUCH GENERAL WORDS ARE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED IN THEIR WIDEST EXTENT BUT ARE TO BE HELD AS APPLYING ONLY TO PERSONS OR THINGS OF THE SAME GENERAL KIND OR CLASS AS THOSE SPECIFICALL Y MENTIONED IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE INTERPRETATION OF SEC.194LA OF TH E ACT. IT IS A CANON OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION WHERE GENERAL WORDS FOLLOW THE ENUMERATION OF PARTICULAR CLASSES OF THINGS THE GENERAL WORDS WIL L BE CONSTRUED AS APPLYING ONLY TO THINGS OF THE SAME GENERAL CLASS AS THOSE E NUMERATED. THE ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 28 OF 30 GENERAL WORD IN SEC.194LA OF THE ACT IS PAYMENT OF SUCH SUM AND THE MODE OF PAYMENT QUALIFIED IS CASH ISSUE OF CHEQUE OR DRAFT OR BY ANY OTHER MODE. THE EXPRESSION ANY OTHER MODE HAS THEREFORE TO BE CONFINED ONLY TO PAYMENT OF ANY SUM IN A MODE OTHER THAN CASH CHE QUE OR DRAFT AND NOT TO A CASE WHERE DRCS ARE ISSUED. EVEN ON THIS GROU ND THE ORDER U/S.201(1) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT DESERVES TO BE QUAS HED AND IS HEREBY QUASHED. 30. WE ARE ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KANCHANGANGA SEA FOODS LTD. (SUPRA) IS ENTIRELY ON THE QUESTION OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME IN INDIA AND H AD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE EXPRESSION A SUM WOULD INCLUDE PAYMENT IN KIND. THEREFORE ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE CASE O F KANCHANGANGA SEA FOODS LTD . (SUPRA) THERE WAS QUANTIFICATION OF SUM PAYABLE WHICH WAS IN MONETARY TERMS AND THE MEASURE WAS ONLY OF THE MONE TARY TERMS WAS WITH REFERENCE TO VALUE OF FISH CAUGHT AND THEREFORE THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE STANDS TOTALLY ON A DIFFERENT FOOTING FROM THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE PRESENT CASE THERE WAS NO QUANTIFICATION OF THE VAL UE OF CDRS. THEREFORE THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF KANCHANGANGA SEA FOODS LTD . (SUPRA) IN OUR VIEW WILL NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE. 31. IN VIEW OF THE CONCLUSION AS ABOVE WE DO NOT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTI ES BEFORE US AS TO ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 29 OF 30 WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SEC.50-C OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN APPLIED AND OTHER SUBMISSIONS. 32. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE WE HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.194LA OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE THE ORDERS U/S.201(1 ) & 201(1A) OF THE ACT AS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) ARE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW A ND HEREBY QUASHED. THE APPEALS OF BBMP ARE ALLOWED. 33. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED . SP NOS.206 & 207/BANG/2014 34. SINCE THE APPEALS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN HEARD A ND ADJUDICATED UPON HEREINABOVE THESE STAY PETITIONS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND AS SUCH THEY ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 . SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( N.V. VASUDEVA N ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R BANGALORE DATED THE 14 TH NOVEMBER 2014 . /D S/ ITA NOS.719 & 720/BANG/2014 & SP NOS. 206 & 207/BANG/2014 PAGE 30 OF 30 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT BANGALORE.