SMT. KALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6-1, JAIPUR

ITA 1061/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8659 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROONIPAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report; Revised return; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Capital Gains
• Section: 2(A); 147; 131; 69; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 SMT. KALA MANISH DHAMEJA 3/322, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AFYPD8160R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. L. MOOLCHANDANI JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROONI PAL (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/07/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 20/07/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- 2, JAIPUR DATED 22.07.2019 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A CTION OF THE LD. AO OF INITIATING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE REASONS RECORDED IN THE CASE OF HER HU SBAND SHRI MANISH DHAMEJA, ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE. OBVIOUSLY SUCH FINDINGS ARE DEVOID OF MERITS AND DESERVE TO B E QUASHED SUMMARILY. 1(B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE VIT AL FACT THAT THE SO- CALLED TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE WAS NOT CURED BY THE L D. AO U/S 292B OF ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 2 THE ACT EVEN AFTER BEING POINTED OUT ABOUT SUCH MIS TAKE BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED WITHOUT CURING SUCH OMISSION. THUS THE AS SESSMENT ORDER SO PASSED WAS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVED TO BE QUASHED. 1(C) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE GROUND REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE RE-ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THUS THE APPEAL ORDER SO PA SSED IS NOT A WELL REASONED AND LOGICAL ORDER AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED SUMMARILY. 2(A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS. 6,17,720/- MADE BY THE LD. AO WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. IN THE PROCESS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO IGNORED THE VITAL FACTS AND DOCUMENTED DETAILS AS S UBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THUS THE APPEAL ORDER SO PASSED IS NOT A WELL-CONSIDERED/REASONED ORDER TO BE QUASH ED SUMMARILY. 2(B) FURTHER, IN THE PROCESS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AL SO DEVIATED FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO TO CONFIRM THIS ADDITION , WITHOUT ALLOWING PROPER AND DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT FOR SUC H DEVIATION. THUS THE APPEAL ORDER SO PASSED IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERV ES TO BE QUASHED SUMMARILY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY SIT UATED AT D-427, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR FOR RS. 15,00,000/- VIDE SALE DEED DA TED 11.03.2010. THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETUR N OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND, SH. MANISH DHAMEJA WAS RECORDED U/S 131 AND THEREAFTER, THE AS SESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN ON 30.12.2011 DECLARING SHORT TERM CAPITAL L OSS OF RS. 21,280/- AGAINST ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 3 THE SALE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. WHILE COMPUTIN G THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE COST OF LAND OF RS. 8,82,280/- AND CONSTRUCTION COST OF RS. 6,39,000/- AGAINST THE FUL L VALUE OF CONSIDERATION OF RS 15,00,000/-. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSU ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS 2,90,317/-, BEING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,89,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAS ESCAPED ASSESS MENT AND THE REASONS SO RECORDED READS AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25. 03.2011 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,76,040/-. FURTHER ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED ON 30.12.2011 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,86,800/- DECLAR ING SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 21,280/- AGAINST SALE OF IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY BEARING ADDRESS D-427, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR. THE TRANSACTI ON WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 25.03.2011. ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THIS OFFICE, IT IS G ATHERED THAT DURING IN OPEN ENQUIRY IN HIS STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY DURING THE LAST SIX YEARS A SUM OF RS. 3,50,000/- LACS IN HOUSE NO. D-427, SUBSEQUENT TO ITS PURCHASE WHEREAS AS PER COMPUTATION SUBMITTED BY HIM FOR THE CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN THE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN TO BE RS. 6,39,000/-. THIS DEPICTS THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2, 89,000/- IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, I HA VE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME LIABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T OF RS. 2,89,000/- WITHIN THE MEANING AND PURVIEW OF SECTION 147 OF TH E I.T.ACT, 1961 AND IT IS A FIT CASE OF ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 4 3. THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, ASSES SEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.04.2017 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,86,800/- INCLUDING CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 21,280/- FROM THE SALE OF THE A FORESAID PROPERTY. THEREAFTER, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WHEREIN HE DISALLOWED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS. 6,29,000/- IN ABSENCE OF ANY EV IDENCE TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF VOUCHERS/BILLS OF CONSTRUC TION MATERIAL, VALUATION REPORT OF APPROVED VALUER ETC. THE AO ACCORDINGLY C OMPUTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL OF RS. 6,17,720/- AS AGAINST SHORT TERM CAP ITAL LOSS OF RS. 21,280/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE RELEVANT FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) R EADS AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. REGARDING COST OF CONSTRUCTION NOT BEING ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEES HUSBAND IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED, ADMITTED THE COS T OF RS. 3,50,000/- WAS INCURRED ON THE CONSTRUCTION BUT DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVEST MENTS. ONLY, SOURCE OF A SUM OF RS. 1,20,000/- AS RECEIVED FROM FATHER IN LAW COULD BE PRODUCED. EVEN IF ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS ACCEPTED REGARDING ALLOWBILITY OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE FACT REMAI NED THAT THE SOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION DURING THE YEAR REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS SUSTAINED BY INVOCATION OF SECTION 69 O F THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ACCORDINGLY TO THIS, GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 5 5. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E VALIDITY OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SH. M ANISH DHAMEJA, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME BEING A FATAL MISTAKE CANNOT BE CURED U/S 292B OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASON ALON E, NOTICE U/S 148 AND SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE QUASHED. IT WAS FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED TO ASSESS THE ESCAPED INCOME OF RS. 2,89,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT S. HOWEVER, NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, THE VERY REASON FOR WHICH RE -ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED WERE FOUND SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AND NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE, THAN IN SUCH A SCENARIO, ANY OTHER ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE COST OF CONST RUCTION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 6. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,17,720/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS WHEREBY HE HAS DENIED THE DEDUCTION TOWARDS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMIT TED BY THE LD AR THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE P ROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2007 THE CONSTRUCTION WAS THEREAFTER CARRIED OUT ON THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2008 AND WHAT HAS BEEN SOLD IN THE YEAR 2010 IS A CONSTR UCTED PROPERTY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BEING AN OLD CONSTRUCTION, THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT KEPT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A VALUATION REPORT IN SUPPORT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH WAS SUBMITTED I N SUPPORT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION UNDERTAKEN ON THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 6 THAT VALUATION REPORT WAS DULY SUBMITTED EVEN BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS BEEN IGNORED BY BOTH THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. 7. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN DEVIATING FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS AND HAS GONE AHEAD AND MADE T HE ADDITION U/S 69 WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE QUANTUM OF THE ADDITION AS CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) IS ALSO NOT FAIR AND JUSTIFIED. IN THE ABOVE REFERRED FINDINGS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAD OBSERVED THAT HUSBAND OF THE APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED INVESTME NT OF RS. 3,50,000/- IN THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,20,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM FATHER-IN-LAW WHICH WAS ACCEPTABLE. HAVING CONSI DERED THESE FACTS AND FIGURES, NO SUCH ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. IN FACT, TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.15,21,280/- WAS MADE IN THE SAID PROPERTY; WHIC H INCLUDED THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS UNDERTAK EN THEREON. FOR THE PURPOSE, APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED BANK LOAN OF RS.10, 50,000/- AS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,20,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM FATHER-IN-LAW OUT OF HIS BANK WITHDRAWALS WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD. CI T (A) AS PER ABOVE FINDINGS. AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,50,000/- WAS A DMITTED AND CONFIRMED BY HER HUSBAND SH. MANISH AS DEPOSED IN THE OPEN ENQUIRY. THUS THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT OF RS.15,21,280/- MADE IN THE SO LD PROPERTY STOOD FULLY AND SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED VIDE LETTER DATED 4.12 .2017. THE LD. AO HAD HOWEVER TURNED DOWN SUCH EXPLANATION ON THE PLEA TH AT SUCH WORKING WAS NOT GIVEN WHILE FILING THE RETURN ORIGINALLY. THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT TAKE NOTE OF THIS EXPLANATION AND THE COPY OF VALUATION REPOR T ETC. AND HAD PROCEEDED ENTIRELY ON DIFFERENT LINE WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDI NG ON THESE FACTS & FIGURES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.6 ,17,720/-UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTIO N WORKS IGNORING THE VITAL ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 7 FACT THAT SUCH INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF THE BAN K LOAN OF RS.10,50,000/- PLUS THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM HER HUSBAND AND FAT HER-IN-LAW. THE ABOVE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER QUESTIONED BY THE REVENUE (RATHER ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN HER ABOVE FINDINGS). THUS THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) WAS FACTUALLY AND LEGA LLY INCORRECT AND DESERVED TO BE DELETED SUMMARILY. AS THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT I N THE SAID PROPERTY STOOD EXPLAINED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LD. AO, NO ADD ITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE LD. AO U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD FAILED TO APPRECIATE ALL THESE FACTS AND HAD PROCEEDED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITI ON OF EQUAL AMOUNT OF RS. 6,17,720/- UNDER DIFFERENT HEAD ON THE BASIS OF INCORRECT AND IMAGINARY FIGURES OF INVESTMENT ASSUMED BY HER ARBITRARILY. 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REASONS SO RECORDED, THE ESCAPED INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.2,89,000/- AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT. IN FACT, IN OPEN ENQUIRY, SH. MANISH, THE HUSBAND OF THE APP ELLANT HAD INFORMED THAT HE HAD INVESTED RS.3,50,000/- IN THE SAID PROPERTY (AFTER SECURING BANK LOAN OF RS.10,50,000/- AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,20,000/- R ECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW). A CONFIRMATION WAS ALSO FI LED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM ALONG-WITH SUPPORTING COPIES OF THE BANK ACCO UNTS ETC. NO DISCREPANCY OR MISTAKE WAS NOTED IN SUCH CONTENTIONS AND EXPLAN ATION. HOWEVER, THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS TURNED DOWN BY THE LD. AO ON THE PL EA THAT SUCH WORKING WAS NOT SHOWN WHILE FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN. AC CORDINGLY, THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CONSTRUCT ION WORKS WAS ALSO IGNORED WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON AND HAD DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.6,17,720/- TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF EQUAL AMOUNT; IGNORING THE BANK LOAN OF RS.10,50,000/- AND AMOUNTS RECEIVE D FROM HER HUSBAND AND FATHER-IN-LAW. NO ADDITION WHAT-SO-EVER WAS H OWEVER MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE UN-EXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.2,89,720/ AS S TATED IN THE REASONS. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IT IS SEEN THAT BOTH TH E AUTHORITIES HAVE BEEN ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 8 TAKING CONTRADICTORY VIEW IN RESPECT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT MADE THEREIN AS PER THEIR PERSONAL WHIMS . MORE-OVER THE EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCES OF INVESTMENT AS EXPL AINED VIDE LETTER DATED 4.12.2017 WAS NEVER QUESTIONED, THUS WARRANTING NO ADVERSE VIEW AS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AGAIN, THE LD. CIT (A) H AD NO REASON TO CHANGE THE HEAD OF ADDITION WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY OPPORTUNI TY TO THE APPELLANT. AND LASTLY, THE QUANTUM OF THE ADDITION OF RS.6,17,720 /- AS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT COMMENSURATE AND MATCH WITH THE FIG URES OF INVESTMENT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THUS THE ADDITION AS MADE A ND CONFIRMED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE DEVOID OF MERITS AND THE SAME DESERVES TO BE DELETED SUMMARILY. 9. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN T HE REASONS SO RECORDED BEFORE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, THE FAC TUAL POSITION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CLEARLY STATED WHEREIN SHE HAS SO LD THE AFORESAID PROPERTY BEARING D-427, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR. THE REASON AL SO TALKS ABOUT THE ORIGINAL AND REVISED RETURN FILED BY HER. THE DETAI LS OF THE RETURNED INCOME AS WELL AS THE DATE OF FILING HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTION ED WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PAN NO . OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO CLEARLY STATED IN THE REASONS SO RECORDED. THE NAME OF THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WRONGLY MENTIONED AND THE SAM E CANNOT BE A BASIS TO HOLD RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE GI VEN THE FINDING THAT SUCH A MISTAKE BEING TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFIE D U/S 292B OF THE ACT AND THE SAID FINDINGS SHOULD BE CONFIRMED AND THE CONTE NTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR SHOULD BE DISMISSED. FURTHER, ON MERITS, SHE RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS WELL A S SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 9 WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SHE ACC ORDINGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE NOTICE U/S 14 8 WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE INCOME TO THE EX TENT OF RS 2,90,317/-, BEING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2 ,89,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS ESCAPE D ASSESSMENT. THE LD AR HAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURC HASED THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2007, THE CONSTRUCTION WAS THEREAFTER CARRIED OUT ON THE PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2008 AND WHICH HAS SUBSEQUENTLY BEING SOLD IN THE YEAR 2010. THESE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AND EVEN ON P ERUSAL OF THE VALUATION REPORT, WE FIND THAT THE VALUER HAS STATED THE YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION AS 2008 AND HAS APPLIED THE PWD RATES FOR VALUATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS RELEVANT FOR YEAR 2008. THEREFORE, WHERE THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO IMPUG NED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY INVESTMENT MADE IN SUCH PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR AND QUESTION OF ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MAD E DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, AS SO STATED IN THE REASONS SO RECORDED, THUS, DOESNT ARISE FOR CONSIDERATION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHE RE THE VERY BASIS FOR WHICH REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED DOESN T SURVIVE, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION TOWARDS FAIL URE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. E VEN ON MERITS, WE FIND THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS SUPPORTED BY THE V ALUER REPORT WHICH HAS DETERMINED THE COST OF CONSTRICTION APPLYING THE PW D RATES AT RS. 713,150/- AS AGAINST COST OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 639,000/-. IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITION MADE IS HER EBY DELETED AND THE MATTER IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST TH E REVENUE. ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019 SMT. K ALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 10 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/07/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 20/07/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. KALA MANISH DHAMEJA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1061/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR