SMT. ANGOORI DEVI, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-4, JAIPUR

ITA 1261/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1964 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C GUPTA J DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH A , 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 VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1261/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI 10, PANCHWATI COLONY, JDA SCHEME GURJAR KI THADI, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2(4) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: BDGPD 4832 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. JAIN,ADVOCATE & SHRI ASHOK KUMAR GUPTA, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. GUPTA, JCIT-DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23/03/2020 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 /05/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) -1, JAIPUR DATED 12-09-2018 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2011-12. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. NO REOPENING IS PERMISSIBLE WHERE FULL DISCLOS URE HAS MADE:- THAT THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND F ACTS WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MADE A FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSUR E OF ALL THE ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 2 RELEVANT MATERIALS IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WHEN THE O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED. REASONS FOR REOPENING FAIL TO MENTION W HICH MATERIAL WAS FAILED TO BE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS ANY FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISC LOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. TH ERE IS NO FINDING OF CONCEALED INCOME. THE REOPENING IS BASED ON VALUATI ON ADOPTED FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY BY THE SUB- REGISTRAR. (NO EV IDENTIARY VALUE) 2. REOPENING BY INVOKING SECTION 50C:- (A)THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS VOID AB- INITIO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BECAUSE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C ARE DEEMING PROVISIONS ENACTED SPECIFICALLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48. THEREFORE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY CANNOT BY ITSELF BE MADE THE BASIS OF RE- OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. (B)THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MERE ADOPTION OF HIGHER VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE STA MP VALUATION AUTHORITY CANNOT LEAD TO A FORMATION OF BELIEF OF E SCAPEMENT OF INCOME, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE VALUE SO ADOPTED IS A DOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES ONLY. -ITO VS SHIV SAKTI BUILD HOME (P) LTD. 61 DTR 37 JO DHPUR -ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS ITO WARD TONK 56 TAX WORLD 87 -CIT VS K.K. ENTERPRISES 178 TAXMAN 187 (RAJ.-HC) 3. REASONS NOT PROVIDED :- THE LD. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 148/143(3) WITHOUT VALID AND PROPER SERVICE OF REASONS RECORD U/S 148(2) ON THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE, SUCH ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AB INITIO . -GNK DRIVERSHAFTS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO 259 ITR 19 ( SC) -CIT VS. VIDESH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD. 340 ITR 66 AND -CIT VS. TREND ELECTRONICS (BOM.-HC) 4. MINUS (-) POINTS OF PROPERTY: UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. C IT (A) 1ST, JAIPUR, HAS NOT APPRECIATED VARIOUS ATTRIBUTES, CHA RGES, ENCUMBRANCES, LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS, OF THE PL OT UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE PLOT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE TE NANT. ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 3 5. SALE PRICE VS. 50C: UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. C IT (A) IST, JAIPUR, HAS ERRED IN TAKING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERA TION OF RS. 24,86,065/- AS AGAINST RS. 12,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF HOME/SHOP AT GANGAPUR CITY BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. 6. PROPER DEDUCTION NOT ALLOWED: UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. C IT(A) IST, JAIPUR, HAS ERRED IN TAKING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN F.Y . 1984-85 AT RS. 36,560/-INSTEAD OF RS. 1,01,310/- AND COST OF CONST RUCTION IN F.Y. 2002-03 AT RS. 70,265/- INSTEAD OF RS. 1,60,840/- O N COMPUTING THE INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRI VING AT THE AMOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF HOUSE/S HOP AT GANGAPUR CITY. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HER RET URN OF INCOME ON 10-10-2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,38,130/- INCLUDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,35,744/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE A O REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 17-10-2013 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED SALE CONSIDE RATION OF PROPERTY AT GANGAPURCITY AT RS. 12.00 LACS WHEREAS THE VALUE AD OPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY IS AT RS. 24,86,065/-. THEREFORE, TH E AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, T HE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS TO BE TAKEN AT RS. 24,86,065/- INSTEAD OF RS. 1 2.00 LACS. THUS THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSED THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S 50C OF THE ACT. THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 148 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT O N 22-08-2014 HAD ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 4 ADOPTED THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 24,86,0 65/- U/S 50C OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N AT RS. 20,49,864/- AS AGAINST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2,35,744 /-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND CONTENDED THAT DESPITE THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST ADOPTING THE DEEMED FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION U/S 50C OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR DETERMINATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED THE VALUAT ION TO THE DVO WHO HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y AT RS. 20,59,400/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION BY ACCEPTING THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO. 2.2 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION COMPRISES OF SHOPS AT GROUND FLOOR AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT FIRST FLOOR. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT ONLY ONE SMALL SHOP IS FACING THE ROAD SIDE AND OTHER SHOPS ARE AT THE BACK SIDE OF THE PROPERTY WHEREAS THE DVO HAS APPLIED THE DLC R ATE AS APPLICABLE FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURT HER CONTENDED THAT EVEN AS PER SALE DEED THE FACTS REGARDING PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY VARIOUS TENANTS AND DISPUTES BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE T ENANTS ARE PENDING IN ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 5 THE COURT, IS DULY MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEREFORE, THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS ATTACHED WITH VARIOUS DEFICIENCIES. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS A DISTRESSED SALE DUE TO THE FACT THAT ENTIRE PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS AND DISPUTES FO R GETTING THE PROPERTY VACATED FROM THE TENANTS ARE PENDING IN THE COURT. THEREFORE, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE ADOPTED AS P ER DLC RATE WHICH ARE APPLIED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AS WELL AS DVO. THE DVO THOUGH ACCEPTED THE SALE IN QUESTION AS DISTRESSED SALE BU T ALLOWED ONLY 15% DISCOUNT FROM THE DLC RATE WHILE DETERMINING THE FA IR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO HAS ALSO NOT PROPERLY VALUED THE COST OF CO NSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. HENCE, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSES SEE CONTENDED THAT IF ALL THESE FACTORS ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THEN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE MORE THAN THE ACTUAL SALE CO NSIDERATION OF RS. 12.00 LACS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO MEN TIONED THE SAME IN THE SALE DEED. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON VARI OUS DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS AS UNDER:- 1. SHRI NARAYAN M MORE VS ITO (ITA NO. 959 TO 964/BANG/2014 DARTED 31-08-2016 ITAT BANGLORE BENCH). ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 6 2. CIT VS M/S. KK. ENTERPRISES, UDAIPUR (ITA NO. 37 OF 2006 DATED 18-08-2008 OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT, JODHPUR) 3. SHRI ARUN KUMAR CHOUDHARY VS ITO (ITA NO. 268/JP/2015 DATED 08-09-2016 ITAT JAIPUR BENCH) 4. ITO VS SHIV SHAKTI BUILD HOME (P) LTD. (ITA NO. 157/JD/2009 DATED 11-02-2011 ITAT JODHPUR BENCH) 5. SHRI MANOJ DUBEY VS ITO (ITA NO.294/JP/2016 DATED 09-06-2017 ITAT JAIPUR BENCH) 6. ACIT VS ROYAL STICHES PVT. LTD. (ITA NO. 977/MDS/2009 DATED 30-03-2010 ITAT CHENNAI BENCH) THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT PRIOR TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE AO ISSUED NOTICE ON 29-08-2 013 U/S 133 (6) OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR INFORMATION REGARDI NG THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE THE ASS ESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 26-09-2013 HAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS LET OUT SINCE THE YEAR 1995 AND THE TE NANT HAS ALREADY FILED A SUIT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO VACATE THE PROPERTY FROM THE TENANT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ENTIRE PROPERT Y IS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE E NQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO THEN ADOPTING THE DLC RATE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 7 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THOUGH THE AO HAS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO THE DV O, HOWEVER, THE AO LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED THE SAME TO THE DVO AND AFTER T HE REPORT OF THE DVO, FULL CONSIDERATION WAS ADOPTED AS DETERMINED B Y THE DVO. THEREFORE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT TH E AO HAS NOT REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN REDRESS ED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS S USTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,59,400/- AS F ULL VALUE CONSIDERATION BEING DETERMINED BY THE DVO AS AGAINS T RS. 24,86,065/- ADOPTED BY THE AO. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THE DVO HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE BY CONSIDERING THE DLC RATES FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IN THE YEAR WHICH WAS ALSO ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. THE DVO HAS THEN GIVEN THE DISCOUNT/ REBATE OF 15% DUE TO DISTRESSED SALE OF THE PROPERTY. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT DVO HAS NOT CITED ANY COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES OR REASONS FOR GIVING REB ATE OF 15% AS TO HOW THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS REDUCED ONLY TO 15% BY THE REASONS THAT THE PROPERTY IS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS AND DISPUTE IS PENDING IN THE COURT. ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 8 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE SALE DEED ITSELF MANIFESTS THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND IT IS EXPLAINED IN THE SAL E DEED THAT WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY AT THE GROUND FLOOR THERE ARE 05 SHOPS AN D AT FIRST FLOOR THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. ALL THE 05 SHOPS AS WELL AS RE SIDENTIAL HOUSE ARE OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS AT A RATE OF RS. 1210/- PER MONTH AND RS. 2200/- PER MONTH RESPECTIVELY. THUS THE ENTIRE RENT OF TH E PROPERTY IS ONLY RS. 3410/-. CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE PROPERTY BEIN G OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS AND TENANTS HAVE ALREADY APPROACHED THE COU RT FOR GETTING THE INTERIM STAY AGAINST DISPOSSESSION FROM THE PROPERT Y BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THE PROPERTY WILL NOT FETCH A GOOD PRICE UNLESS VACANT POSSESSION IS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECOR D THE MATERIAL WHICH DISTINGUISHES THE CASE FROM THE NORMAL TRANSFER AS PROPERTY WAS OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS AT A MEAGER RENT AND ALSO DISPUTE IS PENDING IN THE COURT. CERTAINLY ADVERSE FACTORS AFFECT THE FAIR MARKET VA LUE AND NO BUYER WOULD LIKE TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY IF THE VACANT AND UND ISPUTED POSSESSION IS NOT HANDED OVER TO HIM AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER. THE REFORE, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHEN THE PROPERTY IS ATTACHED WITH VARIOUS FACTORS ADVERSELY AFFECTING THE VALUE/ PRICE OF THE PROPERT Y, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 9 DETERMINED BY THE DVO BY ADOPTING THE DLC RATES AND GIVING ONLY 15% DISCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF DISTRESSED SALE IS NOT JUSTI FIED. THE DVO HAS NOT CITED ANY COMPARABLE INSTANCES OF A SIMILARLY SITUA TED PROPERTY OCCUPIED BY THE TENANTS. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE CANNOT FETCH A PREVAILING MARKET PRICE WHICH IS IN THE AREA. ACCOR DINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT SALE CONSID ERATION AS AGREED BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND REFLECTED IN THE SALE DEED IS REPRESENTING CORRECT FAIR MARKET PRICE OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. HENC E, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ACCO UNT IS DELETED. 3.1 THE NEXT ISSUE IS REGARDING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUN T OF COST OF ACQUISITION AS WELL COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS DENIED BY THE AO AND BY THE LD. CIT(A). 3.2 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS . 1,01,310/- IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1984-85 AS WELL AS COST OF CONSTRUCT ION IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AT RS. 1,60,840/-. THE AO WHILE COMPUTING T HE CAPITAL GAINS HAS ADOPTED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1984-85 AT RS. 35,560/- AND FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 AT RS. 70,265/-. 3.3 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 10 3.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) REJEC TED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FI LED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM THAT GROUND FLOOR OF THE PRO PERTY WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE YEAR 1984-85. FURTHER THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO AS ON 9-04-2010 WAS COMPARED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY HIGH AS AGAINST THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE DVO. AT OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT AO AS WELL AS THE DVO HAS ACCEPTED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GROUND FLOOR IN THE FINANCIAL Y EAR 1984-85 AND FIRST FLOOR IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03. THEREFORE, THERE I S NO BASIS FOR DOUBTING THE YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE RESPECT IVE FINANCIAL YEARS AT RS. 1,01,130/- AND 1,60,840/- RESPECTIVELY AND INDE XED COST OF THE SAME AT RS. 5,76,251/- AND RS. 2,55,833, TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,32,084/-. THE AO ON THE OTHER HAND ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUC TION AT RS. 35,560/- AND RS. 70,265/- AND INDEXED COST OF RS.2,02,265/- AND RS. 1,01,764/- TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,04,029/-. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AVERAGE INDEXED COST TAKEN BY THE ITA NO.1261/JP/2018 SMT. ANGOORI DEVI VS ITO, WARD- 2(4), JAIPUR 11 ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE AO WOULD BE A JUST AND R EASONABLE AMOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AVERAGE OF T WO AMOUNTS COMES TO RS. 5,68,056/- AND THE SAME SHALL BE ALLOWED AS DED UCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RECOMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY CONSIDERING THE INDEXED COST O F CONSTRUCTION AS INDICATED ABOVE. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06 /05/202 0. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 06/05/ 2020 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. ANGOORI DEVI, , JAIPUR 2 IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2(4), 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 NO1261/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR