TRISHLA JAIN, JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BHARATPUR

ITA 1009/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6211 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Business income; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 54F; 142(1); 139(5); 54; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1009/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 SMT. TRISHLA JAIN 1, JAIN MEDICAL HALL OPP. GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL LALSOT (DAUSA) 303 503 CUKE VS. THE DCIT CIRCLE- BHARATPUR BHARATPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AWWPJ 0551 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ANOOP BHATIA, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY:SHRI J.C. KULHARI, JCIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 13/03/2018 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 /04/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 10-10-2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 014-15 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 55,10,833/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME BY DISALLOWING LEGITIMATE EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54 AS WELL AS 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. TH E ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAIN ST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 2 RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY ALLOWING THE EXEMPT IONS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54 & 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,63,887/- MADE BY AO AS CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C ) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILL EGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE, BRIEF FA CTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE ELECTRONICALLY FILED THE RETURN O F INCOE ON 31-08-2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 21,09,060/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR LIMITED SCRUTINY THROUGH CASS AND ACCO RDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 21-09-2016 BY THE ITO, WARD BEHROR WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER NOTICE U/ S 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 17-10-2016 TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT TENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED TH E DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 21,09,057/- AFTER REDUCING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISIT ION OF RS. 33,24,060/- FROM TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,09,44,000/- ON TRANSFER OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLOT NO. C-95, UCO BANK KE SAMNE, NAYA KATLA, DAUSA. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT OF RS. 55,10,883/- AS UNDER:- ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 3 S.N. SECTION UNDER WHICH DEDUCTION CLAIMED AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION (RS. ) COST OF NEW ASSET (RS. ) DATE OF ITS ACQUISITION / CONSTRUCTION 1. 54F 25,28,068/- 25,28,069/- 16-09-2014 2. 54F 29,82,816/- 43,84,492/- 16-09-2014 TOTAL DEDUCTION CLAIMED 55,10,883/- THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED THE PROC EEDS OF TRANSFER INTO A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT FLAT NO. 303, 3 RD FLOOR, SDC AURA, PLOT NO. B-1, KISAN MARG, NEAR TEJA JI TEMPLE, BARKAT NAGAR, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. THE REGISTERED DEED DATED 16-09-2014 WAS SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE AO. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. ON PERUSAL OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION, IT IS NOTED THAT YOU HAVE SOLD 3 SHOPS AND ONE PROP ERTY HAVING COMMERCIAL AREA ALSO TO VARIOUS PERSONS ON 22-03-20 14. IN THIS CONTEXT YOU ARE REQUIRED TO FURNISH FOLLOWING INFOR MATION AND DOCUMENTS. 1. CERTIFIED COPY OF WILL. 2. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT YOU HAVE NOT UTILIZED THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF NEW ASSET M ADE WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER OF THE O RIGINAL ASSET TOOK PLACE OR WHICH HAS NOT UTILIZED FOR THE PURCHASE OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW ASSET BEFORE THE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN OF I NCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND ALSO FAILED TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNT OF CA PITAL GAIN IN THE CASE OF SECTION 54 OR NET SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE CASE OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME, 1988 AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC 54(2) AND 54F(4) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISH THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT I.E. 31-07-2014 IN YOUR CASE. PLEASE FURNISH SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/S 54 AND 54 F OF THE ACT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO YOUR TOTAL IN COME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 4 THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPLY BEFORE TH E AO BUT THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO NOTED THAT IT I S CLEAR FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD P URCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY ON 16-09-2014. THE AO NOTED FROM THE RECOR DS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT UTILIZE THE AMOUNT OF NET SALE CONSIDERATION IN PURCHASING OR CONSTRUCTING THE NEW RESIDENTIAL H OUSE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT I.E. 31-07-2014. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO DEPOSIT TH E ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME, 1 988. ON ASKING ABOUT IT BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE AO AS UNDER:- THE SALE PROCEEDS OF PROPERTY WERE RECEIVABLE THR OUGH POSTDATED CHEQUESAS APPEARING IN SALE DEED COPIES SUBMITTED A LONGWITH OUR LETTER DATED 26-10-2016. THEREFORE, SAID CONSIDERAT ION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN BITS AND PIECES BETWEEN 26-03-2014 TO 26-08-2014. THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT IF ALL TH E CHEQUES GIVEN BY THE PURCHASER ARE NOT CLEARED THE SALE TRANSACTION CANN OT BE SAID TO BE COMPLETE LAWFULLY AND IN CASE OF ANY KIND OF DISPUT E THE ASSESSEE MAY BE REQUIRED TO REFUND EVEN THE PART AMOUNTS RECEIVE D BY HER TO CLAIM HERE TITLE BACK ON THE PROPERTY SOLD BY HER. THIS, BEFORE THE CLEARANCE OF FULL AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY WAY OF POSTDATED CHEQUES, WHICH FINALLY TOOK PLACE ON 26-08-2014 THE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER IN THE POSITION TO THE INVEST THE MONEY INTO A NEW PROPERT Y NOR SAID AMOUNT COULD BE DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHE ME, ON A SAFE SIDE EVEN. ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 5 THE AO THUS NOTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSE SSEE HAD ACQUIRED THE RESIDENTIAL PLOT AS PER REGISTERED DEED DATED 16-09 -2014 WHICH IS AFTER THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE OF RETURN I.E. 31-07-2014 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 55,10,883/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 12. ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER DEPOSITED THE AMO UNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH HAD BEEN PAID BY THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE SUB-REGIST RAR, IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME NOR PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN I.E. 31-07-2014 AS STIPULATED IN THE SECTION54(2) AND 54F(4) OF THE I. T. ACT, HOWEVER, THE SAME AMOUNT HAD BEEN UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR O THER PURPOSES. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACT, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 55,10,883/- IN THE CAPI TAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME, 1988. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE EXEMPTION FR OM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WILL NOT BE ALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. 2.2 IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED T HE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS OF THE CASE. THE BASIC QUESTION INVOLVED IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE APPELLANT IS FULFILLING THE CONDITION SPECIFIED IN SECTION 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT OR NOT? IT WOULD BE PRUDENT TO GO INTO THE QUESTION OF SEC 54 AND 54F OF THE ACT. 54(2) .. ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 6 54F (1) (4) . IF WE LOOK AT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 54 AND 54F O F THE ACT, THE SALIENT FEATURES THAT ARE APPLICABLE I N THE PRESENT CASE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE INCIDENCE OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISEN OUT OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY COVERED UNDER SECTION 54 A ND 54F IS PARAMOUNT. 2. THE RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS NOT RECOGNIZED FACTOR FOR APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 54 A ND 54F. 3. THE PROVISION OF THE ACT IS VERY UNAMBIGUOUS I.E. IF THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO AVAIL DEDUCTION U/S 5 4 AND 54F, THE UNUTILIZED PART OF THE CAPITAL GAIN HAS TO BE D EPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT IN ANY SUCH BANK OR INSTITUTION AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN AND UTILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH, ANY S CHEME WHICH THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY BY NOTIFICATION IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, FRAME IN THIS BEHALF AND SUCH RET URN SHALL BE ACCOMPANIED BY PROOF OF SUCH DEPOSIT. 4. THAT SUCH DEPOSIT BEING MADE IN ANY CASE NOT LATER THAN THE DUE DATE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB-SECTI ON (1) OF SECTION 139. NOW IN VIEW OF THE FOREGONE PROVISION OF THE ACT, L ET US EXAMINE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 1. THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAD TAKEN PLACE AND THE CAPITA L GAIN HAD ARISEN DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD TO A.Y. 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS CLAIMED THE CAPITAL GAIN IN TH E RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 7 2. IN THIS CASE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN 139(1) OF THE ACT WAS 31-07-2014. 3. THAT NO UNUTILIZED AMOUNT ARISEN AS A RESULT OF CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN CAPITAL GAIN DEP OSIT SCHEME OF THE BANK. THUS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE UNAMBIGUOUS PROVISION OF ACT AND THE FACTUAL MATRIX AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT I S MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN DENYING THE BENEFIT OF SECTION54 AND 54F OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGL Y, THE ADDITION OF RS. 55,10,833/- IS SUSTAINED AND THE AP PELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THE ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 55,10,833/- CONFIRMED B Y THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. 2.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 2.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 55,10,883/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH HAD BEEN PAID BY THE PURCHASER AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE SU B-REGISTRAR IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME NOR PURCHASED OR CONSTR UCTED A RESIDENTIAL ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 8 HOUSE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FURNISHING THE RETURN I.E. 31-07-2014 AS STIPULATED IN THE SECTION 54(2) AND 54F OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE SAME AMOUNT HAD BEEN UTILIZE D BY THE ASSESSEE FOR OTHER PURPOSES. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD.AR OF T HE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR QUASHING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH FOLLOWING SUB MISSIONS. 1. THE AO MADE A WRONG OBSERVATION THAT ASSESSEE RE CEIVED ENTIRE SALES CONSIDERATION OF PLOT BEFORE CLOSING THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE AO SET ASIDE TO CONSIDER THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SUBMISSIONS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT MERELY TREATING THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE BEING DIFFERENT WHICH IS NOT SO. 3. SECTION 54 AS WELL AS SECTION 54F BOTH OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 PROVIDE THE TIME LIMIT TO INVEST THE CAPITAL G AIN OR NET CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET SOLD BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 139 WHICH DULY INCLUDES TH E TIME LIMIT OF FILING RETURN WITHIN SECTION 139(4) TIME LIMIT EVEN . 4. THE ASSESSEE'S GENUINENESS OF NOT USING SALE PRO CEDS TILL THE CLEARANCE OF LAST CHEQUE WAS NOT AT ALL THE GIVEN E AR BY AO WHICH PROVES PREJUDICE ON THE PART OF THE AO RATHER THAN ACTING JUDICIOUSLY. 5. LD. CIT(A) DID NOT APPRECIATE THE REAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS POSITION OF LAW AND DID NOT DECIDE THE CASE ON MERITS. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS FACTUAL ASPEC TS WHICH NEEDS VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF AO, WE HOLD THAT THAT IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE IT ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 9 AFRESH BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3.1 IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,63,887/- MADE BY THE AO AS CONCEALED INCOME U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED REVISED ITR FOR A.Y. 2014-15 ON 25-10-2016 DECLARING CAPITAL GA IN OF RS. 23,02,515/- AND TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 23,02,515/-WHEREAS IN THE O RIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 31-08-2015 THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED CAPITAL GAIN O F RS. 21,09,057/- AND TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 21,09,057/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD S UBMITTED THE REPLY TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE AO AS TO THE ISSUE IN QUEST ION BUT THE AO DID NOT FIND IT CONVINCING WITH FOLLOWING OBSERVATION. 14.THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERE D CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE REVISED RETUR N AFTER EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A.Y. OR BEFORE TH E COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EARLIER IN THE LIGHT OF SEC TION 139(5) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25-10 -2016 IS AN INVALID/ BELATED RETURN AND NO COGNIZANCE CAN BE GI VEN THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESS EE HAD COMPUTED SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,09,44,000/- WHILE THE STAMP DUTY VALUE IS RS. 1,12,07,887/-. THE AO TOOK THE SUPPORT OF SECT ION 50C(1) OF THE I.T. ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 10 ACT, 1961 WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A R ESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEI NG LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED (O R ASSESSABLE) BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVT. (HEREINAFTER IN THIS SEC TION REFERRED TO AS THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STA MP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED (OR ASSESSABLE) SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER. THE AO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(1) OF THE ACT ADOPTED THE STAMP DUTY VALUE AT RS. 1,12,07,887/- F OR CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF RS. 1,09,44,000/- . THE AO THUS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,63,887/- AND NOTED THAT THE RETURN WAS REVISED O NLY AFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND FURTHER NOTED THAT IF TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY THE CONCEALED INCOME COUL D NOT BE UNEARTHED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO LEVY OF PENALT Y U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT. 3.2 IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION OF RS. 2,63,887/- MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. ON THE REASONS AND FACTS AS GIVEN IN ADJUDICATION OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1,2, AND 3, TH E ADDITION OF RS. ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 11 2,63,887/- IS SUSTAINED. APPELLANTS GROUND OF APP EAL ON THE ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 3.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS . 2,63,887/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALED INCOME OF ASSESSEE U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO WILLFUL DEFAULT ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE IN NOT OFFERING THE CAPITAL GAIN AS WELL AS EXEMPTION BY HAVING REFERENCE TO THE STAMP DUTY VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY. THE MOMENT ASSESSEE GOT TO KNOW ABOUT SUCH MISTAKE THE ASSESSEE CORRECTED ON HER OWN BY MAKING PAYMENT OF DIFFERENC E IN TAX LIABILITY. 3.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATI ON THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT DID NOT FIND MERIT TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN SUCH A SITUA TION, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1009/JP/2017 SMT. TRISH LA JAIN VS DCIT, CIRCLE-BHARATPUR 12 9.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES.. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 -04-2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPUN (VIJAY PAL RAO) ( BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04 /04/ 2018 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. TRISHLA JAIN, LALSOT (DAUSA) 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE - BHARATPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.1009/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR