NITIN PAL SINGH, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 214/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2084 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Revised return
• Section: 54B; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR LQJH FNOK FLAG] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.214/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH, B - 23, GOVIND MARG, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 5, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFGPS8812R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.212/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI NARENDRA PAL SINGH HUF, B-23, GOVIND MARG, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 5, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AADHN7212G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.211/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI VIPIN JEET SINGH, B - 23, GOVIND MARG, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE - 5, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ALZPS6028G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL. CIT ) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/ 03/2017 ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015, SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH& OTHERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR 2 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/05/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASS ESSEES INVOLVING COMMON ISSUE OF LEVY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE A CT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), JAIPUR OF EVEN DATE I.E, 21.01. 2015 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IN CASE OF SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH, SHRI NARENDRA PAL SINGH HU F FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND VIPIN JEET SINGH FOR A.Y. 2006-07. SINCE COMMON ISS UE OF LEVY OF PENALTY WITH SIMILAR FACT PATTERN ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPE ALS, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY CONSOLIDATED ORDER. F OR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION, THE CASE OF SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH HAS BEEN TAKEN AS LEAD CASE WITH CONSENT OF THE BOTH THE PARTIES. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE NEVT A TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR FOR RS. 26,31,459 AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE COST OF LAN D AT RS. 17,83,600/-, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS 8,47,859 WERE COMPUTE D. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND OF RS. 479,333/- AT VILLAGE PHULE RA, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF R S. 368,526 ON WHICH TAXES WERE DULY PAID AND REPORTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED RETURN WHEREIN THE COST OF THE LAND WAS TAKEN AS RS. 1,12,769/- AS AGAINST RS. 17,83,600/- SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT WAS CLAIMED AT RS. 14, 21,878/- AS AGAINST RS. 4,79,333/- SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT REVISED RETURN STATING THAT SINCE THE ORIGINAL RETU RN WAS FILED BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING THE RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE A REVISED RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 (5) OF T HE ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE INDEXED COST OF LAND SOLD AT R S. 1,12,769/- AS AGAINST ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015, SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH& OTHERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR 3 RS. 17,83,600/- SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE DEVELOPMENT/IMPR OVEMENT IN THE SAID LAND AND HAS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD. FURTHER, DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54B WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 4 ,79,333/- AS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE WAS ACCORDINGLY COMPUTED DETERMINING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 20,39,357/- AS AGAINST RS. 3,68,526/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ORIGINA L RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO SIMULTANEOUSLY INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE COST OF IMPR OVEMENT OF LAND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 4,54,500/- AND TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE INDEXED COST OF LAND AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 1,12,796/-, THE TOTAL DEDUCTION FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 5,67,269/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 17,83,600/- IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,16,331/- REGARDING COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF LAND WAS CONFIRMED. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE SAID FINDING OF THE LD. C IT(A) AND THE SAME HAS ATTAINED FINALITY IN ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER APPEAL. FURTHER, THE ISSUE REGARDING REVISED RETURN NOT ACCEPTED OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SIMILARLY, THE ADDI TIONAL CLAIM U/S 54B MADE UNDER THE REVISED RETURN WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 4. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX,DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSEED INCOME RELATES TO DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 12,16,331/- REGARDING DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENT C OST OF THE LAND WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH IS IN CONSIDERATION BEFORE THIS BENCH. ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015, SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH& OTHERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR 4 5. THE AO AS WELL AS LD CIT(A) HAS STATED THAT THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO ITS C LAIM OF COST OF DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENT IN THE COST OF LAND IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR S UBMITTED THAT NECESSARY EXPLANATIONS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A ) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE AND ARGUMENTS T AKEN BY SH. SETHI QUITE CAREFULLY. IT IS A FACT THAT COPIES OF BILLS /VOUCHERS REGARDING COST OF IMPROVEMENT WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WA S NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HE WAS NOT HAVING ABS OLUTE OWNERSHIP OVER THE PLOTS UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WERE HELD JOINTLY WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE RE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE BECAUSE OF WHICH THESE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE FURNISHED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS. ACCORDING TO ME UNDER RULE 46A(1)(C) SUCH ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE ARE HEREBY ADMITTED. THOUGH THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAIN TAIN PROPER CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AS WELL AS NO BOOKS OF AC COUNTS ARE MAINTAINED THEREFORE, CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT I S NOT VERIFIABLE. HOWEVER, EXISTENCE OF THE SAME CANNOT BE DENIED KEE PING IN VIEW THE SPECIFIC MENTION IN SALE DEED BEARING NO. 103764 RE GARDING 15 BIGHA AND 1 BISWA LAND THAT THERE IS PAKKA BOUNDARY WALL CONSTRUCTED IN THE PARRI PHERI OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND ALONG WIT H PAKKA CONSTRUCTED HOUSE. THOUGH, THE VOUCHERS WERE FURNISHED BUT IT D ID NOT RECONCILE WITH THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AS CLAIMED BY APPELLAN T AND MOREOVER IT IS ALSO NOT VERIFIABLE THAT SUCH COST HAS BEEN INCU RRED IN RESPECT OF THE PLOT UNDER CONSIDERATION. SIMILAR MENTION WAS FOUN D IN ANOTHER SALE DEED BEARING REGISTRATION NO. 103763 FOR 8 BIGHA AN D 3 BISWA LAND THAT SAID LAND IS HAVING ON TWO SIDE PAKKA CONSTRUCTED B OUNDARY WALL. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT HAS TO BE ESTIMATED AND IN ABSENCE OF VERIFIABLE DETAILS REGA RDING EXACT PERIOD OF IMPROVEMENT PARTICULARLY WHEN DIFFERENT PERSONS HAV ING SHARE IN THE SAME LAND HAS SHOWN HAS SHOWN IN DIFFERENT YEARS TH E COST OF IMPROVEMENT WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE ONCE THE WORK IS DONE JOINTLY BY ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015, SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH& OTHERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR 5 DIFFERENT CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE, I CONSIDER SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT AS INCURRED DURIN G THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH MEAN S THAT ON SUCH COST NO INDEXATION BENEFIT IS TO BE ALLOWED. NOW A FAIR ESTIMATE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT. CONSIDERI NG THE VOUCHERS FURNISHED BY DIFFERENT CO-OWNERS IN THEIR RESPECTIV E APPEALS WHICH ARE BEING DECIDED SIMULTANEOUSLY BY ME IN OTHER TWO CAS ES ALSO NAMELY VIPIN JEET SINGH AND NARENDRA PAL SINGH HUF. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW IT SHALL BE JUSTIFIABLE TO ESTIMATE SUCH COST OF IMPRO VEMENT ON CONSTRUCTION OF PAKKA BOUNDARY WALL AT RS. 1 LAC PE R BIGHA AND WHEREVER, SUCH LAND CONSIST OF CERTAIN PAKKA CONSTR UCTION THEN SUCH ESTIMATED COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS ADOPTED AT RS. 1.2 5 LAC PER BIGHA. SINCE, AS PER SALE DOCUMENT BEARING REGISTRATION NU MBER 103764 WHICH IS IN RESPECT OF 15 BIGHA AND 1 BISWA LAND THE APPE LLANT IS HAVING 5/24 SHARE THEREFORE, HIS SHARE IN BIGA TERMS COMES 3.1 BIGHA AND LAND AS PER THIS SALE DEED IS HAVING PAKKA BOUNDARY WALL CO NSTRUCTION AND CONSTRUCTED HOUSE THEREUPON AND THEREFORE, ON THE A PPELLANT SHARE SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 3,87, 500/-. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF 8 BIGHA AND 3 BISWA LAND INVOLVED IN THE SALE DEED AS PER REGISTRATION NO. 103763 THERE IS A MENTION OF CONST RUCTION OF PAKKA BOUNDARY WALL AND APPELLANT SHARE IS 1/12 TH WHICH MEANS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING OWNERSHIP OVER 0.67 BIGHA LAND AND @ RS. 1 LAC PER BIGHA SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT ON ESTIMATE BASI S IN THIS CASE IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 67,000/- WITH THIS DISCUSSION TOT AL COST OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT IS WORKED OUT AT RS. 4,54,500/- WITHOUT GIVING ANY FURTHER BENEFIT ON ACCOUNT OF IN DEXATION SINCE IT IS PRESUMED THAT SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN INC URRED IN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATIO N BECAUSE THERE WERE NO REGULAR BOOKS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE REGAR DING EXACT PERIOD OF SUCH INCURRING OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT. WITH THI S DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERING INDEXED COST OF LAND AS ADOPTED BY ASSE SSING OFFICER AT RS. 1,12,769/- TOTAL DEDUCTION FROM THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE AT RS. 5,67,269/- AS AGAINST SUCH CLAIM OF RS. 17,83,600/- AND THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 12,16,331/- R EGARDING INDEXED COST OF LAND AND IMPROVEMENT IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 6. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE EQUALLY RELEVANT IN THE PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS AS BOTH ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015, SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH& OTHERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR 6 THE PARTIES HAVE RELIED ON THE SAME IN SUPPORT OF T HEIR RESPECTIVE POSITIONS AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY SEPARATE AND INDEPENDENT FIND INGS BY THE AO IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE LD CIT(A) HAS CLEARLY MEN TIONED THAT EXISTENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF LAND CANNOT BE DENIED KEEPING IN VIEW THE SPECIFIC MENTION THEREOF IN SAL E DEED BEARING REGISTRATION NO. 103764 WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THERE WAS PAKK A BOUNDARY WALL ALONG WITH PAKKA CONSTRUCTED HOUSE. SIMILARLY, IN SALE DEED BEARING REGISTRATION NO. 103763, IT IS STATED THAT THE LAND IS HAVING PA KKA CONSTRUCTED WALL ON TWO SIDES. THEREFORE, THE INCURRENCE OF THE EXPENDITUR E TOWARDS COST OF IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOPMENT OF LAND WAS DULY EXPLAINED AND DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH VERIFIABLE DOCUMENTATION IN FO RM OF SALE DEED AND WHICH HAS BEEN DULY VERIFIED AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD CIT(A). AT THE SAME TIME, REGARDING THE EXACT QUANTUM OF SUCH EXPE NDITURE, THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT IT IS A FACT THAT THE COPIES OF BIILS/V OUCHERS REGARDING COST OF IMPROVEMENT WERE NOT FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. HOWE VER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT APPELLANT WAS NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AND HE WAS NOT HAVING ABSOLUTE OWNERSHIP OVER THE PLOTS UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WERE HELD JOINTLY WITH OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS, THERE WAS R EASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING SUCH DETAILS AND VOUCHERS DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SAME WERE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND EXAMI NED BY THE LD CIT(A). THEREFORE, BESIDES THE SALE DEEDS, THERE WERE BILLS /VOUCHERS WHICH WERE PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. AT THE SA ME TIME, GIVEN THE FACT THAT SUCH IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT OVER A P ERIOD OF TIME JOINTLY BY DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS HAVING SHARE IN THE SAME L AND AND HAS BEEN CLAIMED AND SHOWN IN DIFFERENT YEARS, THE LD CIT(A) HELD TH AT A FAIR ESTIMATION FOR SUCH COST OF IMPROVEMENT SHOULD BE MADE IN HANDS OF RESP ECTIVE FAMILY MEMBERS AND SUCH ESTIMATION HAS NOW ATTAINED FINALITY IN AB SENCE OF ANY FURTHER APPEAL BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. CONSIDERING THE VOUCHERS FURNISHED BY THE DIFFERENT CO-OWNERS NAMELY NITIN PAL SINGH, VIPIN JEET SINGH, NARENDRA PAL SINGH HUF, ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015, SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH& OTHERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR 7 THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS. 4,54,500/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHERE THERE IS DUE DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND NECESSARY EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING EVI DENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN SUPPORT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THE INCUR RENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE HAS THUS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE REVENUE BUT GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE INVOLVING LONG PERIOD DURING WHICH SUCH EXPEND ITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED AND THAT TOO, BY DIFFERENT CO-OWNERS AND THE FACT T HAT THE ASSESSEE DOESNT MAINTAIN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , AN ESTIMATION APPROACH WAS ADOPTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHILE DENYING THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF LAND. IN OUR VIEW, THE DISALLOWA NCE OF EXPENDITURE IN SUCH PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE CANNOT BE BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR H AS REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MA HENDRA SINGH KHEDLA 71 DTR 189 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ADDITION S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE BASED ON ESTIMATE, PENALTY UNDER SECTI ON 271(1)(C) COULD NOT BE LEVIED. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. KRISHI TYRE RETREADING & RUBBER IND USTRIES (2014) 360 ITR 580 ( RAJ). 8. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE ENTIRETY O F FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE INSTANT CASE. TH E PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS 4,22,837 LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) I S HEREBY DELETED. THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 212/JP/15 &ITA NO.211/JP/15 ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015, SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH& OTHERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR 8 IN CASE OF VIPIN JEET SINGH (ITA NO.212/JP/15), UND ER SIMILAR FACT PATTERN, THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENT OF LAND HAS BEEN AL LOWED AT RS. 4,54,500/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS 132,731 HAS BEEN CONFIRMED W HILE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE PENALTY OF RS 131,773 HAS BEEN LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IN RELATION TO SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF DEVELOP MENT/IMPROVEMENT OF LAND. SIMILARLY, IN CASE OF NARENDRA PAL SINGH HUF (ITA NO.211/JP/15),THE COST OF DEVELOPMENT/IMPROVEMENT OF LAND HAS BEEN ALLOWED AT RS. 645,500/- AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS 16,60,658 HAS BEEN CONFIRMED WHI LE COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE PENALTY OF RS 5,17,272 HAS BEEN LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IN RELATION TO SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF DEVELOP MENT/IMPROVEMENT OF LAND. IN BOTH OF THESE CASES, BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE RELIE D ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS WHEREIN HE HAS HAS GI VEN SIMILAR FINDING STATING THAT THE INCURRENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE CANN OT BE DOUBTED. AT THE SAME TIME, THE EXPENDITURE HAS TO BE ESTIMATED GIVEN THE LONG PERIOD DURING WHICH SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED AND THE FACT THAT SUC H EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BY VARIOUS CO-OWNERS AND ACCORDINGLY, AN E STIMATION OF SUCH EXPENDITURE TOWARDS THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT/DEVELOP MENT OF LAND WAS MADE AND THE SAME HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. GIVEN THE IDEN TICAL FACT PATTERN OF THESE TWO CASES WITH THE FACTS, AS WE HAVE EXAMINED EARLI ER, IN CASE OF SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH (ITA NO. 214/JP/15), OUR FINDINGS AND DIRECTI ONS CONTAINED THEREIN SHALL APPLYMUTATISMUTANDIS IN THESE TWO CASES. THE PENA LTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IN THESE TWO CASES IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED AND THE G ROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES IS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, ALL APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/05/2017. ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015, SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH& OTHERS VS. THE ACIT, JAIPUR 9 SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 29/05/2017 SANTOSH* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI NITIN PAL SINGH, SHRI NARENDRA PAL SINGH HUF AND SHRI VIPIN JEET SINGH, B-23, GOVIND MARG, ADARSH NAGAR, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, 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, 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 214, 212 & 211/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR.