M/S RADHA SWWAMI BUILDCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 1131/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9546 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Fair market value; Valuation report; Set aside
• Section: 43CA; 201

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 1131/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON PVT. LTD., SUN N MOON CHAMBERS, S-4, LINKING ROAD, 7 TH FLOOR, NEAR AJMER PULIA, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACCR 9835 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25/05/2019 MN?KKS 'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/07/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29/08/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.44,38,500/- U/S 43CA OF THE ACT, BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER AND SALES CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF FOLLOWING OFFICES:- PARTICULARS OF OFFICE SOLD (1) SALES CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED (2) VALUE ADOPTED BY SUB-REGISTRAR (3) VALUE AS PER DVO (4) ADDITION U/S 43CA (5)=(4)-(2) OFFICE NO.202 & 203 RS.1,40,00,000/- RS.2,91,02,652/- RS.1,79,16,900/- RS.39,16,900/- ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 2 OFFICE NO.426 RS.12,08,000/- RS.20,92,661/- RS.17,29,600/- RS.5,21,600/- RS.44,38,500/- 1.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.39,16,900/- IN RESPECT OF OFFICE NO.202 & 203 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE DVO. HE HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE LAND AREA TAKEN BY THE DVO IS MORE THAN THE LAND AREA TAKEN BY SUB-REGISTRAR AND ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE VALUATION OF CONSTRUCTION OF OFFICE NO.202 & 203 DETERMINED BY DVO IS MORE THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND THEREFORE, IN TERMS OF SECTION 43CA(2) R.W.S. 50C(3), THE LAND AREA AND VALUE ADOPTED FOR CONSTRUCTION BY SUB-REGISTRAR OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 43CA. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,21,600/- IN RESPECT OF OFFICE NO.426 BY IGNORING THAT ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT TO SALE THIS OFFICE VIDE AGREEMENT DT. 10.09.2010 FOR RS.12,08,000/- WHICH WAS FULLY RECEIVED BY 08.04.2011 AND THEREFORE, THE STAMP DUTY VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED OR IN ALTERNATIVE THE VALUE DETERMINED BY DVO AS ON THAT DATE AT RS.13,65,000/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADOPTED FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. 2. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ADD, ALTER, OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEALS. 3. NECESSARY COST BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 1.1 OF THE APPEAL ARE REGARDING ADDITION MADE U/S 43CA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT, THE ACT) BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE DVO AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF OFFICE NOS. 202 AND 203 SITUATED IN THE COMPLEX SUN N MOON CHAMBERS, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. THE ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 3 ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, SOLD OFFICE NOS. 202 AND 203 IN ITS MULTI STORIED COMPLEX SUN N MOON CHAMBERS, NEAR AJMER PULIA, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR VIDE SALE DEED DATED 18/10/2003 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.40 CRORES. THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF OFFICE NOS. 202 AND 203 AT RS. 2,91,02,652/-. THE A.O. PROPOSED TO TREAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AS DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION AND CONSEQUENTLY DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT TO BE ADDED U/S 43CA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE ADOPTION OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 43CA OF THE ACT, ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. REFERRED THE VALUATION TO THE DVO. THE DVO VIDE ITS VALUATION REPORT DATED 11/05/2018 HAS VALUED THE OFFICE NO. 202 AND 203 AT RS. 1,79,16,900/-, THUS THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE DVO COMES AT A HIGHER AMOUNT OF RS. 39,16,900/- IN COMPARISON TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 39,16,900/- U/S 43CA OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SUB- REGISTRAR HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 2,75,04,852/- WHEREAS THE DVO HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 1,20,41,900/-. THUS, THE LD ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 4 AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT LOWER OF THE TWO IS THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. AS REGARDS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION/VALUE OF BUILDING, THE SUB- REGISTRAR HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF BUILDING AT RS. 15,97,800/- WHERE THE DVO HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF BUILDING AT RS. 58,75,000/-, THUS THE LOWER OF TWO IS THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C(3) READ WITH SECTION 43CA(2) OF THE ACT. THUS, THE LD AR HAS CONTENDED THAT IF THE LOWER OF TWO VALUATION IN RESPECT OF LAND AS WELL AS BUILDING IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTAL VALUE OF TWO OFFICES NO. 202 AND 203 COMES AT RS. 1,36,39,700/-. THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD AR IS MORE CLEARLY DESCRIBES AS UNDER: PARTICULARS VALUE ADOPTED BY SUB-REGISTRAR (PB 22) VALUE AS PER DVO (PB 29) LOWER OF THE TWO VALUE OF LAND RS. 2,75,04,852/- RS. 1,20,41,900/- RS. 1,20,41,900/- VALUE OF BUILDING RS. 15,97,800/- RS. 58,75,000/- RS. 15,97,800/- TOTAL RS. 2,91,02,652/- RS. 1,79,16,900/- RS. 1,36,39,700/- IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VIMAL CHAND GOLECHA 201 ITR 442 AS WELL AS DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CITIBANK N.A. 261 ITR 570 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE LAND AND BUILDING ARE TWO SEPARATE ASSETS AND THEREFORE FOR DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF OFFICE LAND, FAIR MARKET VALUE OF BUILDING NEED TO BE CONSIDERED ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 5 SEPARATELY. HENCE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE LOWER OF THE TWO VALUES ONE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER DETERMINED BY THE DVO IN RESPECT OF LAND AND BUILDING ARE SEPARATELY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THEN THERE WILL BE NO ADDITION U/S 43CA OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUATION OF THE OFFICES BEARING NO. 202 AND 203 AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE DVO. THE A.O. HAS ADOPTED VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE DVO FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADDITION U/S 43CA OF THE ACT. THUS, THERE IS NO OPTION TO THE A.O. TO TAKE ANY THIRD VALUATION IGNORING THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE DVO OR THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LIMITED GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF FAIR MARKET VALUE ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF OFFICE BEARING NO. 202 AND 203 IS THAT INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING OVERALL VALUATION OF STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO SEPARATE VALUATIONS FOR LAND AND BUILDING OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. WE FIND FORCE IN THIS CONTENTION OF THE LD AR AS THE PROPERTY OFFICE BEARING NO. 202 AND 203 HAVING TWO COMPONENTS OF VALUE ONE IS LAND APPORTIONED OR ATTRIBUTED TO THESE TWO OFFICES AND ANOTHER IS VALUE OF STRUCTURE/BUILDING ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 6 AS PER THE AREA OF THE TWO OFFICES, THUS THE VALUE OF LAND HAS TO BE APPORTIONED IN THE RATIO OF THE AREA OF THESE TWO OFFICES TO THE TOTAL SALABLE AREA OF THE BUILDING. THE SECOND COMPONENT OF VALUE IS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH IS ALSO TO BE DETERMINED AS PER THE FAIR MARKET RATES PER SQ. FT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE TWO COMPONENTS IN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE OFFICES. AS IT IS APPARENT FROM THE DETAILS, WE HAVE REPRODUCED IN THE FOREGOING PARA, THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 2,75,04,852/- WHEREAS THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO OF THE LAND IS RS. 1,20,41,900/-. THE SECOND COMPONENT IN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY IS THE VALUE OF BUILDING WHICH WAS TAKEN AT RS. 15,97,800/- WHEREAS THE DVO HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF BUILDING AT RS. 58,75,000/-. THOUGH, THE TOTAL FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO IS SUBSTANTIALLY LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY, HOWEVER, IF TWO COMPONENTS BEING LAND AND BUILDING ARE TAKEN SEPARATELY THEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO IN RESPECT OF BUILDING IS HIGHER. HENCE, THE LOWER OF THE TWO VALUATIONS SHALL BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE DVO WHILE DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS TAKEN INCORRECT FACTS INTO CONSIDERATION. THE DVO HAS CONSIDERED THE BUILT-UP AREA OF THE OFFICES BY TAKING INCORRECT FACTS THAT THESE OFFICES ARE AT THIRD FLOOR WHEREAS THE ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 7 STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN BUILT UP AREA OF THE OFFICES BEING AT SECOND FLOOR OF THE COMPLEX. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT AS PER SALE DEED THESE TWO OFFICES ARE SITUATED AT SECOND FLOOR AND NOT AT THIRD FLOOR, FOR WHICH, ANNEXURE C AND D OF THE DVOS REPORT ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 8 THUS, THE AREA AS WELL AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE BUILDING IS DETERMINED BY THE DVO BY CONSIDERING THESE OFFICES SITUATED AT THIRD FLOOR WHEREAS AS PER THE SALE DEED AS WELL AS STAMP DUTY VALUATION THESE TWO OFFICES ARE STATED TO BE AT SECOND FLOOR OF THE COMPLEX. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS MATTER REQUIRES A FRESH CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 9 THE A.O./DVO. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE A.O./DVO FOR DETERMINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THESE TWO OFFICES NO. 202 AND 203 AFRESH BY VERIFYING THE CORRECT FACTS AND THEN THE VALUATION SHOULD BE BASED ON CORRECT FACTS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 7. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 43CA OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF OFFICE NO. 426. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD OFFICE NO. 426 VIDE SALE DEED DATED 13/1/2014 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.12,08,000/-. THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY ADOPTED THE VALUATION AT RS. 20,92,661/-. SINCE THE VALUATION WAS REFERRED TO THE DVO, THEREFORE, THE DVO DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF OFFICE NO. 426 AT RS. 17,29,600/-. SINCE THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE DVO WAS LOWER THAN THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY, ACCORDINGLY, THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 5,21,600/- BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED AND FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 43CA OF THE ACT. 8. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), THOUGH, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. EXCEPT A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE REGARDING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE SALE DEED SHOWN IN THE VALUATION REPORT INCORRECTLY. ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 10 9. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 10/09/2010 AND THEREFORE, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 43CA OF THE ACT HAS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND NOT ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A PART CONSIDERATION OF RS. 51,000/- LACS IN CASH ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND THEREFORE, WHEN SUBSEQUENTLY THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AND THE SAID CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT WAS ALSO TAKEN AS PART OF THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION THEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE OFFICE NO. 426 IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED AS ON THE DATE OF 10/09/2010 AND NOT ON THE DATE OF SALE DEED. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AS REFERRED BY THE LD. AR IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT. SINCE THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT THEREFORE, IT IS IN VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43CA(3) & (4) OF THE ACT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DETAILS OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THE SALE DEED, THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AND FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO IN RESPECT OF OFFICE NO. 426 ARE AS UNDER: ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 11 SALE DEED DLC DVO ADDITION BY THE A.O. OFFICE NO.426 RS.12,08,000/- RS.20,92,661/- RS.17,29,600/- RS.5,21,600/- THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THESE VALUES ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AND FAIR MARKET VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AS WELL AS SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE DVO SHOULD HAVE DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT DATED 10/09/2010. WE HAVE PERUSED THE AGREEMENT TO SELL AS WELL AS THE SALE DEED DATED 13/01/2014 AND FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 10/09/2010, HOWEVER, THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF THE SAID AGREEMENT IN THE SALE DEED DATED 13/1/2014. EVEN OTHERWISE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43CA(4), THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 43CA OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY ONLY IN CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION OR PART THEREOF HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY ANY MODE OTHER THAN THE CASH ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF ASSETS. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE QUOTE SUB-SECTION (3) AND (4) OF SECTION 43CA OF THE ACT. (3) WHERE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FIXING THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR TRANSFER OF THE ASSET AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF SUCH TRANSFER OF ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) MAY BE TAKEN AS THE VALUE ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER ON THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT. (4) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION OR A PART THEREOF HAS BEEN RECEIVED 57 [ BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR AN ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT ] ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER OF THE ASSET. ITA 1131/JP/2018_ M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON P LTD. VS DCIT 12 THUS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ALLEGED CONSIDERATION AS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (3) WILL NOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01 ST JULY, 2019. SD/- SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH C SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKA D@ DATED:- 01 ST JULY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S RADHA SWAMI BUILDCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1131/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR