SHRI JOHRI LAL SODHANI, Jaipur V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Jaipur

ITA 1046/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6332 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S NEHRA JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Fair market value; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 69; 263; 132

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. 1046/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI JOHRI LAL SODHANI D-105, SHIVAR AREA BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AGWPS 7021 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY:SHRI A.S. NEHRA, JCIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11/07/2018 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 /07/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 01-11-2017 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2011-12. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCH ASED 444.44 SQ YD. OF PLOT NO. C-63, SHIVAR AREA, BAPU N AGAR, JAIPUR FOR RS. 1,68,33,609/- AS AGAINST ACTUAL CONS IDERATION OF RS. 76 LAKHS THEREBY CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 92,33,609/- BY TREATING IT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2 1.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN RELYING ON THE AGREEMENT DATED 25-06-2009 EXECUTED FOR SALE OF 266.66 SQ. YD AREA WITH CONSTRUCTED HOUSE THEREON FOR ARRI VING AT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AT RS. 1,68,33,609/- IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT P URCHASED THE LAND AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 25-06-2009 BUT HAS PURCHASED 444.44 SQ. YD OF LAND OF THE SAID PLOT WH ICH WAS UNDER DISPUTE VIDE SALE DEED DATED 12-05-2010. HE F URTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION BY NOT GIVING ANY ON THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY ASSUMING INC ORRECT FACTS. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.03.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.11,88,32 0/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 31-01-2014 AT RETURNED INCOME. THEREAFTER, AN ORDER OF REVISION U/S 263 WAS PASSED BY THE PCIT ON 26-02-2016 (PB 56-63) WHEREBY ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) ON 31-0 3-2014 WAS SET ASIDE TO THE AO TO MAKE ASSESSMENT DENOVO WITH A DIRECTION TO COLLECT INFORMATION RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT OF AY 2011-1 2 UNDER CONSIDERATION, FROM ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO MAKE IND EPENDENT ENQUIRIES BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE FINAL CONCLUSION. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DIRE CTION GIVEN ABOVE, AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN PURSUANCE TO THE SAID DIRECTION, THE DCIT IN ASSESS MENT PROCEEDING U/S 263/143(3), ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 18.05.20 16 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 3 1. YOU HAVE PURCHASED PLOT NO. C-63, SHIVNAR AREA, LAL KOTHI MARG, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR ON 12.05.2010 FROM SHRI RA JIV RATAN SHUKLA. THE AREA OF THE ABOVE PURCHASED PLOT IS 444.44 AND THE VALUE DECLARED BY YOU IS RS. 76,00,000/-. DURING SEARCH SOME INCRIMINATING D OCUMENTS FOUND WHICH WAS SEIZED LATER ON. IN AS-5 TWO AGREEMENT WERE FOU ND WHICH BETWEEN YOU AND SHRI RAJIV RATAN SHUKLA PERTAIN TO SELL OF ABOV E MENTIONED PLOT @ 37876/- PER SQ. YARD. THE VALUE OF THE ABOVE PLOT COMES TO RS. 1,68,33,609/- WHEREAS YOU HAVE SHOWN THE VALUE OF ABOVE PROPERTY IS RS. 7 6,00,000/-. SHOW CAUSE WHY THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 92,33,609/- IS NOT ADDED IN YOUR TOTAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. YOU ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE COPIES OF SALE DEED MADE ON DATED 12.05.2010 OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PLOT AND AL L THE AGREEMENT MADE EARLIER. 3. AS PER ANNEXURE AS-5, PAGE NO. 22 TO 25 AN AGREEMEN T WAS FOUND. THIS AGREEMENT MADE ON JUNE 2009 TO SALE THE LAND M EASURING 222.22 SQ. YARD ON SAME PLOT @38,482/- PER SQ. YARDS. AS PER THIS A GREEMENT RS. 5 LAKHS PAID IN CASH. WHY THE SAME IS NOT ADDED ON YOUR TOTAL IN COME. IN RESPONSE TO SAME, ASSESSEE FILED THE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO WHICH IS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2 TO 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. HOWEVER, THE AO CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE B UT DID NOT FIND TENABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS. (I) THE SEIZED ANNEXURE AS-5 IS AN AGREEMENT TO SAL E DATED 25.06.2009 SIGNED BY JOHARI LAL SODANI AND OWNER OF THE PLOT WHICH IS A SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO DETERMINE THAT THE RATE OF PLOT OF THE SAID LAND IS RS.37,876/- PER SQ. YARDS. (II) THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE SALE A GREEMENT DATED 25.06.2009 ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS MENTIONED IN SAL E DEED DATED 12.05.2010. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SAME LAND WA S REGISTERED ON 12.05.2010 AS MENTIONED IN SALE AGREEMENT DATED 25. 06.2009 WHEREIN THE RATE FIXED IS RS.37,876/- PER SQ. YARDS. FURTHE R, PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED DURING THE SEARCH AND A DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LACS ON THE SAME WAS MADE IN AY 2010-11. ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 4 (III) THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO MAT ERIAL TO ESTABLISH THAT HE HAS MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS.92,33 ,069/- IS BASELESS AND ILLOGICAL AS THE SALE AGREEMENTS SEIZED FROM TH E RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THERE WAS AGREEMENT BET WEEN BOTH THE PARTIES TO FINALISE THE DEAL @ RS.37,876/- PER SQ. YARDS. (IV) THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS EXE CUTED FOR CONSTRUCTED HOUSE BUT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FO R THE VACANT AND DISPUTED LAND (WITH SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA) DUE TO W HICH THE RATES HAVE BEEN DRASTICALLY REDUCED IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS: (A) THE ORIGINAL PLOT (C-63, SIVAD AREA, BAPU NAGAR , JAIPUR) UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 889.00 SQ. YARDS HAV ING NORTH-SOUTH (N- S) 80 FT. AND EAST-WEST (E-W) 100 FT. (B) THE AGREEMENT DATED 20.01.2000 EXECUTED BETWEEN SHRI RAJIV RATAN SHUKLA AND SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA WAS OF 185.80 SQ. METER (OR 222.22 SQ. YARD). MEASURING NORTH SOUTH 5 0 FT AND EAST WEST 40 FT. THIS IS STATED TO BE DISPUTED AREA. AGREEMENT DATED JUNE, 2009 WAS OF 222.22 SQ. YARD MEASURING N-S 40 FT. AND E-W 50 FT. (D) AGREEMENT DATED 25.06.2009 IS OF 266.66 SQ. YAR D MEASURING N-S 40 FT. AND E-W 60 FT. (E) SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 12-05-2010 FOR 444.44 SQ. YARD WITH CONSTRUCTION MEASURING N-S 40 FT. AND E-W 100 FT. THUS, AS PER PARAS B & D ABOVE, THE N-S LENGTH OF T HE PLOT UNDER AGREEMENT WITH ASSESSEE AND SM.T KAMLA DEVI G HIYA IS 50 FT. AND 40 FT. RESPECTIVELY (I.E., 90 FT.) WHEREAS, THE N-S LENGTH OF THE ORIGINAL PLOT WAS ONLY 80 FT. THUS, 10 FT. OF THE N -S LENGTH WAS COMMON IN BOTH THE DEALS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR TH AT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN AGREEMENT OF THE DISPUTED AREA @ RS.37,879/- PER SQ. YARD. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT RATE OF RS.17,1 00/- PER SQ. YARD TAKEN IN THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 12-05-2010 IS DUE TO THE DISPUTED AREA IS A FRAMED STORY TO ADJUST THE ON-MONEY PAID BY HIM IN CASH. (V) THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT THE PORTION OF THE PLO T MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS VACANT AREA WHEREAS INITIALLY AGREEMEN T WAS OF CONSTRUCTED AREA IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE AS PER THE SITE PLAN /MAP ATTACHED WITH THE SALE DEED DATED 12-05-2010, THE NORTHERN HALF P ORT OF THE TOTAL AREA (I.EPORTIONA FINALLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE) IS ALSO PARTLY ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 5 CONSTRUCTED PORTION. HENCE THERE CANNOT BE MUCH DIF FERENCE IN THE RATES OF THE SAME PLOT. THE AO THEREAFTER HELD THAT IN CASE OF A PARTY WHO RELIES ON RECITALS HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS OTHERWISE, IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS IN THOSE DOCUMENTS AND RELY ON THOSE RECITALS. IF AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT OPEN TO EVADE TAX. THE TAXING AUTHORIT IES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PROD UCED BEFORE THEM. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRC UMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS . ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.37,876/- PER SQ. YAR D AS PER THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 25.06.2009 AND NOT RS.17,100/- PER SQ. YARD AS PER THE SALE DEED EXECUTED. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAI D IS RS.1,68,33,609/- AND NOT RS.76,00,000/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.92,33, 609/- IS PAID OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IN THE ABOVE BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES SURROUNDING THIS CASE, IT IS BEYOND THE DOUBT THAT ASSESSEE HAS FINALLY PURCHASED 444.44 SQ. YARD OF THE LAND @ 17,100/- PE R SQ. YARD AT THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 76 LACS BUT AS PER AGREEMENT T O SALE DATED 25-06- 2009 (I.E. SEIZED AS ANNEXURE AS 5 PAGE 3 TO 8) THE RATE OF THIS PLOT/LAND WAS FIXED AT RS. 37,876/- PER SQ. YARD. H ENCE, IN REALITY ITS VALUE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF RS. S1,68,33,609/ -. THEREFORE, ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 6 DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 92,33,609/-PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED / UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . 2.2 IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT NO FA CTUAL REBUTTAL IS OFFERED TO THE FINDINGS OF AO ESPECIALLY TO THE TRANSACTION INDICATED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AS-5. THE ASSESSEE NOWHERE DISPUTED THE CONTENTS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT AS-5. DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE IN CHEQUE AN D IN CASH IN AGREEMENT DATED 25.06.2010 EXACTLY MATCHES WITH THE SALE DEED DATED 12.05.2010. A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LACS WA S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THIS AGREEMENT. ACCORDING LY, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT PARA 5 OF LD. CIT(A)S OBSER VATION AS TO HIS DECISION IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMISS IONS MADE IN THIS REGARD. IT WOULD BE VERY PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN PARA 5 & 6 OF THE ORDER U/S 1 43(3)/263. SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 5. THE ASSESSEE'S REPLY IS DULY CONSIDERED AND EXAMINED BUT NOT FOUND TENABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLO WING FACTS/REASONS. (I) THE DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED AS ANNEXURE AS-5 (PAGE 3 TO 8) DURING SEARCH IS AN AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 25- 06-2009 SIGNED BY SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI AND THE O WNER OF THE PLOT SHRI RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA IS SUFFICIENT EVIDENC E TO DETERMINE THE RATE OF SAID LAND AT RS. 37,876/- PER SQ. YARDS. (II) THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE BY CHEQUE AND CAS H AS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 25-06-2 009, EXACTLY APPEARS IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 1 2-05- 2010, WHICH CLEARLY STATES THAT THE PROPERTY GOT RE GISTERED ON 12.05.2010 WAS SAME PIECE OF LAND AS MENTIONED I N THE ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 7 SALE AGREEMENT DATED 25.06.2009, WHEREIN THE RATE W AS FIXED AT RS. 37,876/- PER SQ. YARD. IT IS ALSO WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE PAYM ENT MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 25-06-2009 WAS NEVER DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH A DISCLOSURE OF RS. 10 LACS WAS ALSO MADE BY THE AS SESSEE FOR AY 2010-11 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED/CASH PAYMENT O F RS 10 LACS TO THE PERSON WITH WHOM SAID AGREEMENT WAS EXE CUTED. (III) THE ASSESSEE PLEA THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL T O ESTABLISH THAT HE HAS MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT O F RS. 92,33,609/- IN PURCHASE OF SAID PROPERTY IS BASELES S AND ILLOGICAL WITH THE FACTS THAT SALE AGREEMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS T HAT THERE WAS AGREEMENT BETWEEN BOTH THE PARTIES TO FINALIZE THE DEAL @ 37,876 PER SQ. YARD. (IV) FURTHER, ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT DIFFERENCE OF TH E RATE OF PROPERTY AS PER AGREEMENT FOUND IN THE SEARCH AN D SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 12-05-2010 WAS DUE TO THE REASON T HAT AGREEMENT WAS MADE FOR THE CONSTRUCTED HOUSE AREA B UT ACTUAL SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FOR THE VACANT AND DI SPUTED LAND (WITH SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS: (A) THE ORIGINAL PLOT (I.E. C-63, SIWAR AREA, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR) UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 889.00 SQ YAR DS (I.E. NORTH-SOUTH (N-S) 80 FT. AND EAST-WEST (E-W) 100 FT .) (B) WHEREAS, AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 20-01-2000, WHI CH WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN SHRI RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA & OTH ERS AND SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA THE PORTION UNDER CONSIDERATI ON WAS NORTH-EAST (N-E) CORNER OF THE ORIGINAL PLOT MEASUR ING 185.80 SQ. METER (I.E. NORTH-SOUTH (N-S) 50 FT. AND EAST-W EST (E-W) 40FT.). THE SAME AREA HAS BEEN STATED AS DISPUTED A REA BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO WHICH RATES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN REDUCED DRASTICALLY. (C) AS PER AGREEMENT DATED JUNE 2009, THE AREA UNDE R CONSIDERATION IS E-S CORNER OF ORIGINAL PLOT (I.E. 222.22 SQ YARD. N-S 40 FT. AND E-W 50 FT.). (D) AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 25 JUNE 2009 THE AREA UNDER CONSIDERATION IS E-S CORNER OF ORIGINAL PLOT (I.E. 266.66 SQ. YARDS, N-S 40 FT. AND E-W 60 FT.). ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 8 (E) FINALLY, SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 12-05-2010 F ROM THE PORTION OF N-E CORNER OF THE ORIGINAL PLOT MEAS URING SQ. YARD (I.E. N-S 40 FT AND E-W 100 FT.) WITH CONSTRUC TION. HENCE, IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT AS PER PARA (B) AND (D) MENTIONED ABOVE THE N-S LENGTH OF THE PLOT UNDER AGREEMENT WITH SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI AND SM T. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA ARE 40 FT. AND 50 FT. RESPECTIVELY (I.E. 40 + 50 = 90 FT.), WHEREAS TOTAL N-S LENGTH OF THE ORIGI NAL PLOT WAS ONLY 80 FT. HENCE, 10 FT. OF THE N-S LENGTH WAS COM MON IN BOTH THE DEALS, THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI JO HARI LAL SODHANI MADE AN AGREEMENT OF THE DISPUTED AREA @ 37 879/- PER SQ. YARD. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT RATE (I.E. 17100/- PER SQ. YARD) TAKEN IN THE SALE DEED DATED 12-05-2010 WAS DUE TO DEALING IN DISPUTED AREA IS A FRAMED STO RY TO ADJUST THE ON-MONEY PAID BY HIM IN CASH. FURTHER, ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT PORTION OF THE PLOT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS VACANT AREA WHEREAS I NITIALLY AGREEMENT WAS MADE OF THE CONSTRUCTED AREA IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE AS PER SITE PLAN/MAP ATTACHED WI TH THE SALE DATED 12-05-2010, THE NORTHERN HALF PART OF TH E TOTAL PLOT AREA (I.E. PORTION FINALLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSE E) IS ALSO PARTLY CONSTRUCTED PORTION. HENCE, THERE CAN'T BE S O MUCH DIFFERENCE OF THE RATES ON THE SAME PLOT. 6. HAVING DEALT WITH EACH OF THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING FOUND THE SAME TO BE UNTENABLE IT IS IMPORTA NT TO PLACE ON RECORD CERTAIN ASPECTS WHICH HAVE A BEARING ON THE ISSUE AT HAND. IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTI L IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS N OT THE REAL. IN A CASE OF THE PRESENT KIND A PARTY WHO RELIES ON A RECITAL IN A DEED HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EX ECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECITALS. IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUME NT EITHER EXECUTED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE OPEN TO EVADE TAX. THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUI RED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BE FORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMST ANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS . THE PERUSAL OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN DICATES THAT NO FACTUAL REBUTTAL IS OFFERED TO THE FINDING OF THE A O ESPECIALLY TO THE TRANSACTION INDICATED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AS-5 ( PG 3-5). THE APPELLANT NOWHERE HAS DISPUTED THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOC UMENT AS-5. IT IS ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 9 NOTICE WORTHY THAT DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE IN CHEQU E AND IN CASH IN AGREEMENT DATED 25.6.2010 EXACTLY MATCHES WITH THE SALE DEED DATED 12.5.2010. IT MAY BE EMPHASIZED THAT A VOLUNTARY DI SCLOSURE OF RS. 10 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF THI S AGREEMENT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH TH E FINDING OF THE AO, AND UPHOLD THE ORDER AS IT IS. THE GROUND R AISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DISMISSED. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS. 92,33,609/- BY TREATING IT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT FOR WHICH THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION ALONGWITH CASE LAWS. 1. THE COMPLETE SEQUENCE OF THE TRANSACTION OF PU RCHASE OF THE PLOT MEASURING 444.44 SQ YARD FROM RAJIV RATAN SHUK LA VIDE SALE DEED DATED 12-05-2010 FOR RS.76 LACS IS AS UNDER:- (I) SHRI RAJIV RATAN SHUKLA OWNS A PROPERTY AT C-63 , SIWAR AREA, LAL KOTHI, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR MEASURING 889 SQ. YAR DS HAVING N-S AREA 80 FT. AND E-W AREA 100 FT. ON HALF PORTION OF THIS PLOT I.E., ON 444.44 SQ. YARDS, A HOUSE IS CONSTRUCTED WHICH IS O CCUPIED BY OWNER AS HIS RESIDENCE. THE REMAINING 444.44 SQ. YARDS IS A VACANT AREA CONTAINING A SMALL CONSTRUCTION ON THE BACKSIDE. TH E SITE PLAN OF THE LAND OF THE PLOT IS AT PB 51 . (II) SHRI RAJIV RATAN SHUKLA INTENDED TO SALE A PAR T OF THIS PROPERTY. ACCORDINGLY, HE AND HIS WIFE ENTERED INTO SALE AGRE EMENT IN JUNE, 2009 (PB 1-4) WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF S-E CORNER OF THE PLOT MEASURING 222.22 SQ. YARDS HAVING N-S AREA 40 FT. AND E-W ARE A 50 FT. FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.85.51 LAKHS. AS PER THIS AGREEM ENT ASSESSEE PAID ADVANCE OF RS.11,000/-. (III) THEREAFTER, THE ABOVE SALE AGREEMENT WAS MODI FIED VIDE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 25.06.2009 (PB 5-10) WHEREBY HE AGREED TO SALE S-W CORNER OF THE PLOT MEASURING 266.66 SQ. YARDS HAVING N-S AREA 40 FT. AND E-W AREA 60 FT. FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.101 LAK HS. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 10 PAID RS.30 LAKHS OUT OF WHICH RS.20 LAKHS WAS PAID BY CHEQUE AND RS.10 LAKHS BY CASH. (IV) ON 25.10.2009, A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE OF ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ABOVE TWO AGREEMENTS WERE FOU ND. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), ASSESSEE ADMITTED TH AT CASH PAYMENT OF RS.10 LAKHS MADE BY HIM ABOVE IS NOT DISCLOSED AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAX IN THE RETURN FILED FOR AY 2010-11. (V) SUBSEQUENTLY, SHRI RAJIV RATAN SHUKLA, OWNER OF THE PLOT, CHANGED HIS MIND AND DECIDED TO RETAIN WITH HIM THE PORTION OF PLOT WITH CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS UNDER HIS OCCUPATION AS RESIDENCE AND OFFERED THE ASSESSEE TO BUY THE VACANT LAND MEASURI NG 444.44 SQ. YARDS INSTEAD OF THE LAND AND CONSTRUCTED HOUSE AS PER TH E EARLIER AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, SINCE HE HAD ALREADY ENTERED INTO AN AGREE MENT TO SALE DATED 20.01.2000 (PB 11-16) WITH SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA FOR N-E CORNER OF THE PLOT MEASURING 185.80 SQ. METERS (222.22 SQ. YA RDS) HAVING N-S AREA 50 FT. AND E-W AREA 40 FT. FOR CONSIDERATION O F RS.5 LAKHS AND HAD RECEIVED RS. 4 LAKHS, HE OFFERED TO SELL THE ENTIRE VACANT AREA OF 444.44 SQ. YARDS TO THE ASSESSEE AT A LOWER RATE THAN THE RATE AT WHICH HE HAS EARLIER AGREED TO SELL THE OTHER PORTION OF THE PLO T WITH CONSTRUCTED HOUSE THEREON. (VI) THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THIS PROPOSAL AND ACCORD INGLY ENTERED INTO SALE AGREEMENT DATED 15.01.2010 (PB 17-22) FOR N-E CORNER OF THE PLOT MEASURING 444.44 SQ. YARDS HAVING N-S AREA 40 FT. AND E-W AREA 100 FT. FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.76 LAKHS WITH THE U NDERSTANDING THAT ASSESSEE WOULD GET THE AGREEMENT WITH SMT. KAMLA DE VI GHIYA CANCELLED AND SETTLE THE DISPUTE WITH HER. IT WAS A LSO AGREED THAT THE AMOUNT PAYABLE TO SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA FOR CANCELL ATION OF THE AGREEMENT AND SETTLING THE DISPUTE WOULD BE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION AGREED WITH SHRI RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA, WHO AGREED TO IT, AS HE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO GET THIS PLOT VACATED FROM SMT. KA MLA DEVI GHIYA. (VII) THE ASSESSEE, THEREAFTER, BY USING HIS INFLUE NCE WAS ABLE TO GET THE AGREEMENT CANCELLED BETWEEN SHRI RAJEEV RATAN S HUKLA AND SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA. THIS CANCELLATION DEED WAS REGIST ERED ON 11.05.2010 (PB 23-27) . FOR THIS, ASSESSEE PAID RS.8 LAKHS TO SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA BY CHEQUE (PB 42) . AFTER EXECUTION OF CANCELLATION DEED, AN APPLICATION WAS FILED WITH SESSION COURT T O WITHDRAW THE ONGOING COURT CASE BETWEEN KAMLA DEVI GHIYA AND RAJ EEV RATAN SHUKLA (PB 28-31) . THEREAFTER, THE SAID VACANT PLOT OF 444.44 SQ. YA RD WAS REGISTERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE VIDE SALE DEED DATED 12.05.2010 (PB 43-51) AFTER RELINQUISHMENT OF RIGHT BY TWO SISTERS OF SH RI RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA (PB 32-41) . IN THIS SALE DEED REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 11 SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT AND ALSO PAYMENT OF RS.8 LA KHS MADE TO SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA. (VIII) THUS, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED VACANT AREA OF 444.44 SQ. YARDS OF THE PLOT AT C-63, SIWAR AREA, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR VI DE SALE DEED DATED 12.05.2010 (PB 43-51) FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.76 LAKHS JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE FOR WHICH PAYMENT OF RS.35 LAKHS WAS MADE IN T HE PRECEDING YEARS AND PAYMENT OF RS.41 LAKHS IS MADE IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION AS AGAINST THE EARLIER AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF 266.66 SQ. YARDS AREA ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION THEREON. 2. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT CAN BE NOTED THAT THE PR OPERTY FINALLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PROPERTY FOR WHIC H AGREEMENT WAS FOUND IS DIFFERENT. THE AGREEMENT WAS FOUND FOR CONSTRUCTED PLOT AND FOR 222.22 SQ. YARD WHEREAS THE PLOT FINALLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS OF 444.44 SQ. YARD OF VACANT LAND WITH SMALL ROOM CONSTRUCTED OF WHICH FO R PART OF THE AREA SELLER HAS ALREADY ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR SALE IN T HE YEAR 2000. THE ASSESSEE GOT VACATED THIS PORTION OF THE PLOT FROM SMT. KAML A DEVI BY USING HIS OWN INFLUENCE. THUS, BOTH THE PLOTS FOR WHICH AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED ON 25-06- 2009 AND FOR WHICH THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED ARE DI FFERENT AND CANT BE COMPARED FOR DETERMINING THE RATE AT WHICH THE PLOT IS FINALLY PURCHASED. 3. THE CIT IN ORDER U/S 263 HAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECT ED THE AO TO MAKE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE F INAL CONCLUSION. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT MADE ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY. THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY ENQUIRY, THE ALLEGATION OF ON MONEY PAYMENT MADE BY HIM IS ON SU RMISES AND CONJECTURES. FURTHER, THE AO HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION AGAINST TH E SELLER OF THE PLOT. ALL THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PROVES THAT THE ALLEGATIO N OF ON MONEY LEVIED BY THE AO IS ONLY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION WITHOUT ES TABLISHING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF ANY EXTRA CONSIDERATIO N FOR PURCHASE OF THE PLOT. THEREFORE, THE COMPARISON OF THE RATE MADE BY AO WI TH EARLIER AGREEMENTS IS INCORRECT AND ON THAT BASIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FOR. 4. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT BURDEN TO PROVE THAT WH AT IS APPARENT IS NOT REAL IS ON THE PERSON WHO ALLEGES SO AND THIS B URDEN MUST BE DISCHARGED BY STRICT LEGAL PROOF AND NOT ON CONJECTURES AND SURMI SES. FOR THIS RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- CIT VS. BEDI & CO. PVT. LTD 230 ITR 580 (SC) IT WAS HELD THAT THE BURDEN OF SHOWING THAT THE APP ARENT STATE OF AFFAIRS WAS NOT THE REAL ONE LAY HEAVILY ON THE DEP ARTMENT. CIT VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL 87 ITR 349 (SC) THE FACT THAT AN ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SATISFY THE AUTHORITIES AS TO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE DEPOSITOR DERIVED MONEY C ANNOT BE USED AGAINST ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 12 ASSESSEE. THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT REAL IS ON THE PARTY WHO CLAIMS IT TO BE SO. FROM THE SIMPLE FACT THAT T HE EXPLANATION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF MONEY FURNISHED BY A, IN WHOSE NAME T HE MONEY IS LYING IN DEPOSIT, HAS BEEN FOUND FALSE, IT WOULD BE A REMOTE AND FAR FETCHED CONCLUSION TO HOLD THAT MONEY BELONGS TO B. THERE W OULD BE IN SUCH A CASE NO DIRECT NEXUS BETWEEN THE FACTS FOUND AND THE CON CLUSION DRAWN THEREFROM 5. AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION U/S 69. IN FACT THE COR RECT HEAD SHOULD BE SECTION 69B. AS PER THESE SECTIONS,WHERE THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE & SOURCE OF INVESTMENT / EXCESS AMOUNT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT SATISFACTORY, THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT/ EXCESS AMOUNT MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ONCE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED AN EXPLANATION, THE BURDEN SHIFTS ON THE AO TO BRING COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH AS TO WHY THE EXPLA NATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFACTORY. IN THE PRESENT, AFTER PROVIDIN G EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, AO HAS BROUGHT NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DISPROVE TH E EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69/69B IS BA D IN LAW. RELIANCE IN THIS CONNECTION IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- (I) CIT VS. KHANDELWAL SHRINGI & CO. (2017) 159 DTR 59 (RAJ.) (HC) CIT(A) HAVING FOUND THAT THE EARLIER AGREEMENT SUPP OSEDLY ENTERED INTO BY THE SELLERS WITH ANOTHER PARTY WHIC H FORMED THE BASIS OF THE OPINION OF AO THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF LAND PUR CHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.7 CRORES WAS NEVER EXECUTED AND THA T THE AO DID NOT ADDUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE MARKET V ALUE OF THE LAND WAS RS.7 CRORES AS AGAINST THE DECLARED CONSIDERATI ON OF RS.1.87 CRORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED. (II) CIT VS. DINESH JAIN(HUF) & OHRS. [2012] 79 DTR 457 (DEL) (HC) THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH OPERATION U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED AT BUSINESS/RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE A SSESSEE. THE MATERIALS SEIZED IN SEARCH REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE P URCHASED ONE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AT GURGAON FOR RS. 17,55,000/- FETCHING A RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 7.02 LAKHS WHICH IS STATED TO BE DIS PROPORTIONALLY HIGH IN COMPARISON WITH THE AMOUNT INVESTED. AO THEREFOR E TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INVESTED MORE THAN WHAT WAS DISCLOSED IN THE SALE DOCUMENT WHICH ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69B. THE ASSESSEE DENIED INVESTING ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE T HE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE DOCUMENT. AO, HOWEVER CALCULATED THE FAIR MA RKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER WEALTH TAX ACT,1957. HE ACCORDINGLY ARRIVED AT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 82,87,800/- AND MADE T HE ADDITION FOR THE DIFFERENCE. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE ADDUCED ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 13 EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF COMPARABLE PROPERTIES IN TH E SAME BUILDING, AND SEVERAL OTHER INSTANCES TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PRICE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SALE DOCUMENT, REPRESENTED THE REAL AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION FOR THE PROPERTIES AND NOT HING WAS PAID AS ONMONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE STATED CONSIDERATION . THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PE R PRICE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS SACROSANCT AND HE UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO IN PRINCIPLE, HOWEVER, HE REDUCED THE ADDITIONS. THE T RIBUNAL RULED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT BEF ORE THE HIGH COURT, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- WE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE QUESTION IS CONCLU DED BY THE JUDGMENTS CITED ABOVE, BOTH OF THE SUPREME COURT AN D OF THIS COURT, BUT THE CONTENTION OF MR. SABHARWAL FOR THE REVENUE IS THAT WHERE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES PERMIT AN INFERENCE OF UNDE RSTATEMENT OF CONSIDERATION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO LOOK FOR DIRE CT EVIDENCE OF UNDERSTATEMENT WHICH, IN THE VERY NATURE OF THINGS, IS IMPOSSIBLE TO OBTAIN. HE POINTS OUT TO WHAT HE DESCRIBES AS DISP ROPORTIONATELY HIGH RETURNS FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES THE RENTAL INCOME IS 40% OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE FIRST YEAR, AND THAT W OULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE UNLESS A MUCH HIGHER AMOUNT THAN WHAT WAS DECLARED HAD BEEN INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RETURNS, ACCORDI NG TO HIM, ARE SO HIGH THAT THEY SHOCK THE CONSCIENCE OF THE COURT. H E CONTENDS THAT JUDICIAL NOTICE CAN BE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT, UNDE R SECTION 57 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, THAT NOTIFICATIONS HAVE BEEN ISSUED U NDER SECTION 75 OF THE STAMP ACT PRESCRIBING CIRCLE RATES FOR THE PROP ERTIES AND RARELY DO PROPERTIES GET TRANSFERRED FOR SUCH RATES. THESE ARGUMENTS ARE CERTAINLY ATTRACTIVE BUT THE LA NGUAGE EMPLOYED BY SECTION 69B IS THE FIRST STUMBLING BLOC K WHICH MR. SABHARWAL HAS TO OVERCOME. THE SECTION IN TERMS REQ UIRES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FIRST FIND THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS EXPENDED AN AMOUNT WHICH HE HAS NOT FULLY RECORDED IN HIS BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS ONLY THEN THAT THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. TILL THE INITIAL BURDEN IS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SECTION REMAINS DORMANT. A FINDING OBVIOUSLY SHOULD REST ON EVIDENCE. IN T HE PRESENT CASE, IT IS COMMON GROUND THAT NO INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL WAS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH WHICH REVEALED ANY UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE. THAT IS PRECISELY THE REASON WHY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD TO RESORT TO RULE 3 OF SCHEDULE III TO THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THIS RULE DOES NOT EVEN CLAIM TO ESTIMATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF AN ASSET; IT MERELY LAYS DOWN A PROCEDURE FOR COMPUTING THE VALU E OF AN ASSET FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THE SCHEDULE DE RIVES ITS AUTHORITY FROM SECTION 7(1) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. THE SECTIO N, AS IT NOW STANDS, ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 14 HAS DROPPED ALL PRETENSIONS TO ASCERTAINING THE FAI R MARKET VALUE OF AN ASSET FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT. PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT MADE W.E.F. 1-4-1989 THE SECTION PROVIDED FOR THE E STIMATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF AN ASSET ON THE PRINCIPLE OF WHAT I T WOULD FETCH IF SOLD IN THE OPEN MARKET. THIS INVOLVED AN ASSUMPTION OF AN OPEN MARKET, BE IT FICTIONAL, A WILLING SELLER AND A WILLING BUYER, ALL FICTIONAL. THIS FICTION FACILITATED A REALISTIC ESTIMATION OF THE F AIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, AND IT MOVED WITH THE UPS AND DOWNS OF TH E MARKET. NOT ANYMORE. FROM 1-4-1989, THE VALUE WAS FROZEN. FOR A LL TIMES TO COME, AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY THAT FETCHES RENT SHALL BE VA LUED AT 12.5 TIMES THE NET MAINTAINABLE RENT. THERE IS A FUNDAMENTAL FALLACY IN INVOKING THE PROV ISIONS OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT TO THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT BOTH THE ACTS ARE COGNATE AND HAVE EVEN BEEN SAID TO CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRATED SCHEME OF TAX ATION. UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, WE ARE TO FIND WHAT WAS THE REAL AN D ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHETHER THE FULL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. UNDER SECTION 7(1) OF THE WEALTH TAX ACT AS IT STOOD BEFORE 1-4-1989, WE ARE TO ESTIMATE THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET; AFTER THIS DATE, IT IS NOT EVEN ESTIMATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE, BUT COMPUTATION OF THE VALUE OF THE A SSET ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN RULES PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. IF A DIES LEAVING PRIME PROPERTY IN CONNAUGHT PLACE TO HIS SON B, B PAYS NOTHING FOR THE PROPERTY; THE PROPERTY MAY COMMAND A MARKET PRICE OF SEVERAL CROR ES. IF A, BECAUSE OF HIS LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR B, SELLS TH E PROPERTY FOR RUPEE ONE TO B; IN THIS CASE, THE CONSIDERATION PAID IS ONLY RUPEE ONE, THOUGH THE PROPERTY IS WORTH SEVERAL MILLIONS. IF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER B HAS TO MAKE AN ADDITIO N UNDER SECTION 69B, HE CAN DO SO ONLY IF HE FINDS THAT B HAS EX PENDED MONEY WHICH HE HAS NOT FULLY RECORDED IN THIS BOOKS OF AC COUNT; HE CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION MERELY BECAUSE THE PROPERTY COULD FETCH SEVERAL CRORE OF RUPEES IN THE MARKET. SECTION 69B DOES NOT PERMIT AN INFERENCE TO BE DRAW N FROM THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE TRANSACTION THAT THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY MUST HAVE PAID MORE THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT SUCH AN INFERENCE COULD BE VERY SUBJECTIVE AND COULD INVOLVE THE DANGEROUS CON SEQUENCE OF A NOTIONAL OR FICTIONAL INCOME BEING BROUGHT TO TAX C ONTRARY TO THE STRICT PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 265 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF IN DIA AND ENTRY 82 IN LIST I OF THE SEVENTH SCHEDULE THERETO WHICH DEALS WITH TAXES ON INCOME OTHER THAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS WAS ON E OF THE MAJOR CONSIDERATIONS THAT WEIGHED WITH THE SUPREME COURT IN K.P. VARGHESE IN WHICH CASE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 52 FELL FOR INTERPRETATION. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT PARLIAMENT CAN NOT CHOOSE TO TAX AS ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 15 INCOME AN ITEM WHICH IN NO RATIONAL SENSE CAN BE RE GARDED AS A CITIZENS INCOME OR EVEN RECEIPT. SECTION 52(2) (WH ICH NOW STANDS OMITTED) APPLIED TO THE TRANSFEROR OF PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION THAT WAS LESSER THAN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY 15% OR MOR E; IN SUCH A CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFERRED THE POWER TO AD OPT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS THE SALE PRICE AND COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY. THE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT IT WAS THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS UNDERSTAT EMENT OF CONSIDERATION AND ONCE THAT BURDEN WAS DISCHARGED I T WAS NOT REQUIRED OF HIM TO PROVE THE PRECISE EXTENT OF UNDERSTATEMEN T AND HE COULD ADOPT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE STATED CONSIDERATI ON AND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS THE UNDERSTATEMENT. THE SUB-SECTION WAS HELD TO PROVIDE FOR A STATUTORY BEST JUDGMENT ONCE ACTUAL UNDERSTATEMENT WAS PROVED; IT OBVIATED THE NEED TO PROVE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF UNDERSTATEMENT. ADDITIONAL REASONS FOR TH E RESULT WERE (A) THAT THE MARGINAL NOTE TO THE SECTION REFERRED TO CASES OF UNDERSTATEMENT; (B) THE SPEECH OF THE FINANCE MINI STER WHILE INTRODUCING THE PROVISION; AND (C) THE ABSURD OR IR RATIONAL RESULTS THAT WOULD FLOW FROM A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SUB -SECTION, WHICH COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INTENDED BY THE LEGISLATURE. WHILE THE OMITTED SECTION 52(2) APPLIED TO THE TRAN SFEROR OF THE PROPERTY, SECTION APPLIES TO THE TRANSFEREE THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY. IT REFERS TO THE MONEY EXPENDED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT NOT RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WHICH IS A CLEAR REFERENCE TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEING USED IN THE INVESTMENT. AP PLYING THE LOGIC AND REASONING IN K.P. VARGHESE IT SEEMS TO US THAT EVEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 69B IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO FIRST PROVE THAT THERE WAS UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE CONSIDER ATION (INVESTMENT) IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ONCE THAT UNDERVALUATION I S ESTABLISHED AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE SOURCE OF T HE UNDISCLOSED PORTION OF THE INVESTMENT, CAN PROCEED TO ADOPT SOM E DEPENDABLE OR RELIABLE YARDSTICK WITH WHICH TO MEASURE THE EXTENT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE INVESTMENT. ONE SUCH YARDSTICK CAN BE THE FA IR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WEAL TH TAX ACT. WE HOWEVER CLARIFY THAT THIS COURT IS NOT CONCLUDING T HAT SUCH YARDSTICK IS DETERMINATIVE; IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT B Y US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT GATHER FOUNDATIONAL FACTS TO POINT TO UNDERVALUATION THE ADOPTION OF THE NORMS UNDER THE WEALTH TAX ACT IS NOT COMMENTED UPON BY US. THE ERROR COMMITTED BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES I N THE PRESENT CASE IS TO JUMP THE FIRST STEP IN THE PROCE SS OF APPLYING SECTION 69B THAT OF PROVING UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE INVESTM ENT AND APPLY THE MEASURE OF UNDERSTATEMENT. IF ANYTHING, THE LANGUAG E EMPLOYED IN ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 16 SECTION 69B IS IN STRICTER TERMS THAN THE ERSTWHILE SECTION 52(2). IT DOES NOT EVEN AUTHORIZE THE ADOPTION OF ANY YARDSTICK TO MEASURE THE PRECISE EXTENT OF UNDERSTATEMENT. THERE CAN THEREFORE BE NO COMPROMISE IN THE APPLICATION OF THE SECTION. IT WOULD SEEM TO REQUIR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN TO SHOW THE EXACT EXTENT OF UNDERSTATE MENT OF THE INVESTMENT; IT DOES NOT EVEN GIVE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THE OPTION OF APPLYING ANY REASONABLE YARDSTICK TO MEASURE THE PR ECISE EXTENT OF UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE INVESTMENT ONCE THE FACT OF U NDERSTATEMENT IS PROVED. IT APPEARS TO US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVE UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE PURCHASE PRICE, BUT ALSO TO SHOW THE PRECISE EXTENT OF THE UNDERSTATEMENT. THERE IS NO A UTHORITY GIVEN BY THE SECTION TO ADOPT SOME REASONABLE YARDSTICK TO MEASU RE THE EXTENT OF UNDERSTATEMENT. BUT SINCE IT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE IN ALL CASES TO PROVE THE PRECISE OR EXACT AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTME NT, IT IS PERHAPS REASONABLE TO PERMIT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RELY ON SOME ACCEPTABLE BASIS OF ASCERTAINING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY TO ASSESS THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. WHETHER THE BASIS ADOPTED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AN ACCEPTABLE ONE OR NOT MAY DEPEND ON T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. THAT QUESTION MAY HOWEVER ARISE ONLY WHEN ACTUAL UNDERSTATEMENT IS FIRST PROVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ONLY TO THIS EXTENT THAT THE RIGOUR OF THE BURDEN PLACED ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RELAXED IN CASES WHERE THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SHOW UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE INVESTMENT, BUT EVIDE NCE TO SHOW THE PRECISE EXTENT THEREOF IS LACKING. IN LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VS. COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX, BIHAR AND ORISSA, THE SUPREME COURT DISAPPROVE D THE PRACTICE OF MAKING ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENTS ON MERE SUSPICI ON AND SURMISE OR BY TAKING NOTE OF THE NOTORIOUS PRACTICES PREVAILIN G IN TRADE CIRCLES. SINCE THE ENTIRE CASE HAS PROCEEDED ON THE ASSUMPTI ON THAT THERE WAS UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE INVESTMENT, WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED MORE THAN WHAT WAS RECORDED IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, WE ARE UNABLE TO APPROVE OF THE DECISION O F THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. SECTION 69B WAS WRONGLY INVOKED. THE O RDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS APPROVED; THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF L AW IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE CIT. (III) CIT VS. SMT. K. C. AGNES 128 TAXMAN 848 (KER. ) IN THIS CASE THE SALE DEED SHOWED THAT THE PRICE WA S RS. 8,000 PER CENT WHILE THE AGREEMENT SHOWED THAT THE PARTIE S AGREED PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT RS. 12,951 PER CENT. A RECEIPT WAS ALSO RELIED IN THE FORM OF A LETTER TO SHOW THAT THE PROPERTY WAS AGRE ED TO BE PURCHASED AT RS. 12,951 PER CENT. ON THESE FACTS THE COURT HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 17 WHEN A DOCUMENT SHOWS A FIXED PRICE, THERE WOULD B E A PRESUMPTION THAT IT IS THE CORRECT PRICE AGREED U PON BY THE PARTIES. IT IS TRUE THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE AGREEM ENT, THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED. BUT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT PRIC E STATED IN THE AGREEMENT WILL BE THE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. SOMETIMES, IT MAY BE HIGHER AND SOMETIMES IT MAY BE LOWER. SOM ETIMES INTENTIONALLY A LESSER VALUE MAY BE SHOWN IN THE SA LES DEED. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED TO BE SO, UNLESS IT IS PROVED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS ACTED UPON AND UNLESS THE AMOUNT STAT ED IN THE AGREEMENT WAS PAID FOR THE SALE, WE CANNOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEE D IS NOT CORRECT . IN THIS CASE, FURTHER IT IS FOUND THAT IN THE ASSES SMENT OF PASHA, IT WAS FINALLY FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT WAS REC EIVED ONLY AT RS. 8,000 PER CENT. IT IS TAKING INTO ALL THESE MATTERS INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE PROPE RTY WAS SOLD AT THE RATE OF RS. 8,000 PER CENT. THUS, THE TRIBUN AL, ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D ON THE APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE, CAME TO THE CONCLUSION TH AT RS. 12,951 WAS NOT THE AMOUNT FOR WHICH THE PROPERTY WA S SOLD. ACCORDING TO US, THERE IS NO RULE THAT THE AMOUNT S HOWN IN THE RECEIPT WAS THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID. SO FAR AS THE O THER QUESTIONS ARE CONCERNED, WE DO NOT FIND THAT ANY SU BSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISE BECAUSE AS ALREADY STATED, T HE ONLY QUESTION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE SALE DEED IS CORRECT OR NOT. ACCORDING TO US, THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE SALE DEED IS THE CORRECT AMOUNT UNLESS THERE ARE CI RCUMSTANCES TO IGNORE THE SAME . IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS.92,33,609/- CO NFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS UNCALLED FOR AND BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 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. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS OB SERVED BY THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 444.44 SQ. YARDS OF THE LAND @ 17,100/- PER SQ. YAR D AT THE ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 18 CONSIDERATION OF RS. 76.00 LACS BUT AS PER AGREEMEN T TO SALE DATED 25-06-2009 (I.E. SEIZED AS ANNEXURE AS-5, PAGE 3 TO 8), THE RATE OF THIS PLOT/LAND WAS FIXED AT RS. 37,876/- PER SQ. YARD. A CCORDING TO THE AO THE VALUE OF THE PLOT/LAND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WA S OF RS. 1,68,33,609/-. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 92,33,609/- WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED / E XPLAINED INCOME. THE AO THUS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 92,33,609/- U/ S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFI RMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. IT IS NOTED FROM THE AVAILABLE RECORDS THAT THE RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA OWNED A PROPERTY AT C-63, SIWAR AREA, LAL K OTHI, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR MEASURING 889 SQ. YARDS HAVING N-S AR EA 80 FT AND EAST WEST AREA 100 FT. INITIALLY, RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA EN TERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF JUNE, 2 009 (PB1-4) TO SELL 222.222 SQ. YD OF THIS LAND OF EAST SOUTH CORNER HA VING SIZE AT EAST WEST 50 FT AND NORTH SOUTH 40 FT FOR RS. 85.51 LACS . THIS AGREEMENT WAS MODIFIED ON 15-06-2009 (PBP 5-10) ACCORDING TO WHICH THE AREA WAS INCREASED TO 266.66 SQ. YD FOR RS. 1.01 CRORE. AS PER THE AGREEMENT ON THIS PORTION OF THE LAND THERE WAS CON STRUCTED HOUSE. SUBSEQUENTLY, SHRI RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA ENTERED INTO ANOTHER ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 19 AGREEMENT ON 15-01-2010 (PBP 17-22) WITH THE ASSESS EE WHEREBY HE DECIDED TO SELL NORTH EAST PORTION OF THIS LAND MEA SURING 444.44 SQ. YD HAVING EAST WEST 100 FT AND NORTH EAST 40 FT AREA O F LAND FOR RS. 76.00 LACS . THIS WAS A VACANT LAND HAVING A SMALL CONSTRUCTION ON THE BACK SIDE (PB51) . ON 222 SQ. YARD PORTION OF THE I MPUGNED AREA OF LAND, SHRI RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA HAS EARLIER ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 20-1-2000 WITH SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA FOR RS. 4.98 LACS AGAINST WHICH HE HAS RECEIVED RS. 4.00 LACS. THE AGREEMENT WITH SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA WAS DULY REGISTERED WITH THE OFFICE OF S UB-REGISTRAR, JAIPUR (PB11-16). AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 15-01- 2010, THE ASSESSEE WAS TO GET CANCELLED THE AGREEMENT DATED 2 0-01-2000 BY USING HIS INFLUENCE AND IF ANY AMOUNT IS WAS TO BE PAID TO SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA FOR CANCELLATION OF THIS AGREEMENT, THE SAME IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE BY USING HIS INFLUENCE AFTER PAYMENT OF RS. 8.00 LACS TO SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA C OULD GET THE AGREEMENT DATED 20-01-2000 CANCELLED BY MUTUAL SETT LEMENT (PBP 23- 29) AND THE SAME WAS DULY APPROVED BY DISTT. AND SE SSION COURT AS PER THE ORDER SHEET DATED 11-05-2010 (PBP 30-31). A LL THESE FACTS SHOWS THAT THE EARLIER AGREEMENT OF JUNE 2009 WAS F OR THE DIFFERENT ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 20 PORTION OF THE LAND. THE AGREEMENT OF JUNE 2009 WAS OF THAT PORTION OF THE LAND ON WHICH THERE WAS AN EXISTING HOUSE WHERE AS THE SUBSEQUENT AGREEMENT OF 15-01-2010 WAS FOR THE VACANT PORTION OF THE LAND ON A PORTION OF WHICH THERE WAS AN ENCUMBRANCE BY WAY OF REGISTERED AGREEMENT ENTERED BY SHRI RAJEEV RATAN SHUKLA WITH SMT. KAMLA DEVI GHIYA. IN THESE FACTS, THE RATE AS PER THE AGREEMEN T OF JUNE 2009 CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN PURSUANCE TO AGREEMENT DATED 15-01-2010. IT IS ALSO NOTED THA T NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO ESTAB LISH THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THAT RECORDED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 12-05-2010 (PBP 43-51). THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE ACT. AS PER THIS SECTION, A DDITION CAN BE MADE BY THE AO WHERE THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE/ SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT SATISFACTORY. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS DISC USSED ABOVE, EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SATISFACTO RY AND THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CASES (SUPRA) RELIED ON BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FA CTS, CIRCUMSTANCES ITA NO.1046/JP/2017 SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 21 OF THE CASE AND THE JUDGEMENTS (SUPRA), WE DO NOT C ONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 -07-2018 . 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:- 20 /07/ 2018 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI JOHARI LAL SODHANI, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 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.1046 /JP/2017 ) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR