Prem Kumar Khokha, Gwalior V. I.T.O., Range02(3), Gwalior

ITA 221/AGR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 72766 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ATHISHAN ANSARI
• Assessee Lawyers: R K BHAMBANI
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report
• Section: 68; 154; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 ASSTT. YEAR : 2009-10 PREM KUMAR KHOKHA, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, C/O R.K. BHAMBANI, ADVOCATE, 2(3), GWALIOR. 5, VIVEKANAND COLONY, PHALKA BAZAR, GWALIOR. (PAN: AEUPK 0635 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.K. BHAMBANI, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ATHISHAN ANSARI, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 21.01.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER : 31.01.2014 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR DATED 01.03.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. ON GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.66,012/-. IT IS NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD S HOWN INTEREST INCOME FROM ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 2 BANK ON FD AT RS.49,183/-. ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEM ENT FURNISHED, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FIVE FDRS WHEREIN TOTAL INTEREST EARNED WAS CALCULATED AT RS.1,01,751/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE DEPOSITS WITH THE BANK WERE BOTH STANDING AS BUSINE SS AS WELL AS PERSONAL ACCOUNT. THE INTEREST OF RS.44,763/- WAS TAKEN IN T HE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN BUSINESS AND RS.49,183/- WAS TAKEN IN THE INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES AND INCLUDED IN RS.59,183/-.THUS, BANK INTEREST OF RS.1 ,01,751/- WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS, HOWEVER, HELD T HAT SINCE THE ENTIRE INCOME OF RS.1,01,751/- WAS INTEREST ON FDRS AND NO PLAUSIBLE REASON HAS BEEN ADDUCED TO BREAK THE INTEREST INTO TWO PARTS, SHOWING ONE PART AS BUSINESS INCOME AND ANOTHER PART AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFOR E, THE ADDITION WAS MADE. THE AO ON EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE FOUND THE INTERE ST WAS RECEIVED ON SIX FDRS, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AT PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AND ONLY RS.35,739/- WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME A ND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.66,012/- WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. THEREF ORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW, THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TO THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME (PB-2), IN WHICH THE INCOME FROM ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 3 BUSINESS WAS SHOWN AT RS.67,310/- WHICH INCLUDES TH E BANK INTEREST OF RS.44,763/- WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY PROFIT AND LOSS A CCOUNT (PB-3). IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS.59,183/- WHICH INCLUDES THE BANK INTEREST OF RS. 49,183/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AS WEL L AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS POINT IS NOT EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW FROM THE RECORD AND THERE APPEARS SOME MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTO RE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF MATER IAL BEFORE HIM AND BY EXAMINING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO SHALL GI VE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. ON GROUND NO.2, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDI TION OF RS.43,924/- AS INTEREST INCOME. THIS GROUND IS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 4 6. ON GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,26,000/- IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN THE CA PITAL ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,26,000/-. IT WAS EXPLAI NED BEFORE HIM THAT ON CLOSING OF PPF ACCOUNT, THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,22,625/- WAS REC EIVED AND SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FROM THE BANK WITH DRAWAL, WHICH WAS MADE FROM TIME TO TIME. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.1,04,636/- FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. FROM THE JOIN T ACCOUNT IN BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT, RS.63,000/- WAS ALSO WITHDRAWN. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT JUSTIFY THE CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION WAS MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS .4,22,685/- ON CLOSURE OF THE PPF ACCOUNT ON 03.04.2008 AND INSTEAD OF CREDITING THE SAME IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE CREDITED THE SAME IN THE JOIN T ACCOUNT. SALE PROCEEDS OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT GWALIOR WAS CREDITED IN SBI ACCOU NT AND THEN IN HDFC BANK AND ALSO THE RECEIPTS FROM HIS SON AS THE PAYMENT F OR PURCHASE OF FLAT IN MUMBAI HAD TO BE SENT THROUGH HDFC BANK. THE DEBITS OF BOT H THE ACCOUNTS WERE USED TO GIVE CREDIT OF RS.1,26,000/- IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT. TH E SOURCE WAS, THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THROUGH PPF ACCOUNT AND SALE OF PROPERTY. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BECAUSE THERE IS NEITHER ANY CASH WITH DRAWAL OF RS.1,26,000/- FROM ANY BANK ACCOUNT NOR THERE IS ANY CHEQUES TRANSFER AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ISSUE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 5 7. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE AR E OF THE VIEW, THIS ISSUE ALSO REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION PARTLY AT THE LEVEL O F THE AO. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IS FILED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WH ICH ON 15.03.2009 AND 21.03.2009, THERE ARE CREDIT TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS.26,000/- AND RS.1,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB 9(7) TO SHOW THAT FROM THE JOINT ACC OUNT, CHEQUES NO. 205279 WAS CREDITED TO THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE OF RS. 26,000/- AND SIMILARLY, RS.1,00,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED THROUGH CHEQUES NO. 2 05280, BUT THE JOINT ACCOUNT STATEMENT FILED AT PB 9(7) SHOWS THE AMOUNT OF THIS CHEQUES WAS RS.631/- ONLY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB-12 TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A CROSS ENTRY BY CLEARING FROM ICICI BANK HAVING ENTRY OF R S.1,00,000/- ON 21.03.2009 THROUGH CHEQUES NO.400360. SINCE THE CROSS ENTRY OF RS.26,000/- IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE JOINT ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, IT REQUIRES RECO NSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO, BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE O F RS.1,00,000/- CREDITED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT THROUGH CHEQUES NO.205280. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- SHALL HAVE TO BE CONFIRMED. WE ACCORD INGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THE EXTENT TO VERIFY THE C REDIT OF RS.26,000/- AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAY BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO THE ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 6 ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. ON GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.2,20,000/- U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. THIS ADDITION RELATES TO RS.2,20, 000/- CREDITED IN BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE DEP OSITS ON TRANSFER IN BANK OF INDIA IN SB A/C ON VARIOUS DATES, THE DETAILS AND S OURCE OF WHICH WAS NOT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO. AS PER AGREEMENT DATED 01. 11.2008 FOR SALE OF MOTOR CAR, DEPOSIT OF RS.90,000/- BY CASH AND RS.1,40,000 /- BY CHEQUES WAS SHOWN BY THE PURCHASER BUT NO DETAILS REGARDING PAYMENT AND CHEQUES NUMBER ETC. WAS SHOWN. THE AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) RE GARDING DEPOSIT OF RS.1,20,000/- AND RS.1,00,000/- ON 04.11.2008 AND 2 1.03.2009 RESPECTIVELY FROM BANK OF INDIA AND IT WAS NOTED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT WHO HAS ISSUED THESE CHEQUES. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,20,000/- W AS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT U/S. 68 OF THE IT ACT. IT WAS S UBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD A CAR BEING BUSINESS ASSET F OR RS.2,30,000/- TO SHRI AMIT GAWADE ON 01.11.2008. NEITHER THE BILLS OF PURCHASE AND SALES AND TRANSFER OF REGISTRATION CERTIFICATES WERE FURNISHED. THE DEPOS IT WITH THE BANK ACCOUNT COULD NOT BE LINKED TO SALE OF CAR. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED ADDITION AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 7 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PB 12, WHICH IS BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF INDIA, IN WHICH BY CLEARING OF CHEQUES NO. 400358 RS.1,20,000/- WAS C REDITED AND SIMILARLY ON 21.03.2009 THERE IS CLEARING BY CHEQUES NO. 400360 OF RS.1,00,000/-. THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,20,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED FROM ACCOUN T OF MRS. VEENA KHOKHA AND FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT (PB-14(2), IT WAS SHOWN T HAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,20,000/- WAS TRANSFERRED ON 04.11.2008 AND SIM ILARLY ON 21.03.2009, THERE WAS A TRANSFER OF RS.1,00,000/- THROUGH CHEQUES. TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO E XPLAIN THIS ISSUE. CONSIDERING THESE BANK ACCOUNTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MA TTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO WITH DIREC TION TO RE-DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT PRODUCED. HE SHALL GIVE SUFFICIENT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GR OUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. ON GROUND NO.5, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,75,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.9,33,000/-. ON SCRUTINY OF THE STATEMENT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OF SB A/C OF HDFC BANK, THE AO OBSERVED TH AT RS.9,33,000/- WAS ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 8 DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY CASH CR EDIT AND TRANSFERS. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY INFORMA TION ABOUT HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT NOR SHOWED THE SAME IN THE BALANCE SHEET. T HE AO CALLED FOR INFORMATION U/S. 133(6) FROM THE BANK ABOUT THE DEPOSITS DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2009. THE CREDIT TO THE TUNE OF RS.9,33,000/- IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK WAS CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDIT ION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE. THE LD. CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,71,025/- IS EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,000/- WAS CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. THIS A MOUNT PERTAINS TO TWO ENTRIES OF RS.1,50,000/- DATED 02.02.2009 NOT APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SOURCE OF CASH ENTRY OF RS.25,0 00/- WAS NOT FOUND AS EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED O F RS.1,75,000/-. 11. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE IN THE MATTER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT TO PB 13(2) TO SHOW THE ACCOUNT OF ANKI T KHOKHA FROM WHERE ANOTHER DEPOSIT OF RS.1,50,000/- WAS MADE ON 02.02. 2009. HOWEVER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTR ADICT THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ENTRY OF RS.1,50,000/- WAS NOT APPE ARING AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED OF RS.25,000/- WAS NOT EXPLAINED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 9 RECORD TO EXPLAIN BOTH THESE ENTRIES, THE LD. CIT(A ) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,75,000/-. THIS GROUND IS ACCOR DINGLY, DISMISSED. 12. ON GROUND NO. 6 & 7, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF SALE OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT RS.17,33,960/-. THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE DISPUTE ON THIS ISSUE IS OF C OST OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE H OUSE IN 1989-90 AT RS.10,50,000/- WHEREAS THE SAME IS TAKEN BY THE AO AT RS.4,48,000/-. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE VI DE PURCHASE DEED DATED 20.11.2008 FOR RS.54,00,000/-, BUT THE STAMP DUTY V ALUE OF RS.69.50 LACS WAS ADOPTED BY THE AO, WHICH IS NOT APPEALED AGAINST BY THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE JOI NTLY WITH HIS SON IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE INVESTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.35,17,520/-, THE CREDIT OF WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO ALTHOUGH PURCHASE DEED OF THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, N OTED THAT ONLY POINT OF DISPUTE BEFORE HIM IS COST OF ACQUISITION OF HOUSE SOLD. TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED OF THE LAND, HENCE, THE DISPUTE OVER THE LAND COST TAKEN BY THE AO AT RS.48,000/- AND THAT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS .62,000/- CANNOT BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE FAILE D TO ADDUCE ANY PROOF REGARDING THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF SUCH HOUSE BEFORE THE AO A S WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A). IN ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 10 THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THE ESTIMATE OF AO OF TOTAL COST AT RS.4,48,000/- WAS FOUND JUSTIFIED. AS A RESULT, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.17,33,960/- WORKED OUT BY THE AO WAS CONFIRMED. 13. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. AUTHORITIES BELO W. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE AN Y EVIDENCE TO PROVE ANY INVESTMENT MADE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE PROP ERTY IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION , NO FURTHER RELIEF COULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE, HOWEVER, PRODUCED A DUPLICATE COPY OF THE VALUATION REPORT (UNSIGNED) A ND REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO GIVE BENE FIT OF HIGHER COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO ADMIT DUPLICATE COPY OF VALUATION REPOR T CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS PHOTOCOPY DUPLICATE VALUATION REPORT AND IS NOT SIG NED BY ANY PERSON. FURTHER, THE VALUATION REPORT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ACTUAL COST INCU RRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS THE CONSTRUCTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROOF REGARDING CONSTRUCTION COST OF SUCH HOUSE AND ANY INVESTMENT MADE THEREIN, WOULD CLEARL Y DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FROM ANY RELIEF. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO SATISFY AS TO HOW UNSIGNED AND DUPLICATE VALUATION REPORT COULD BE TR EATED AS IN EVIDENCE UNDER ANY ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 11 LAW. THE REQUEST OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. THIS GROUND HAS NO MERIT AND IS DISMISSED. 14. ON GROUND NO.8, THE ASSESSEE ALTERNATIVELY CLAI MED ON THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 6 & 7 REGARDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE GROUND OF APPEAL REGARDING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.20,00,000. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT DECIDING THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO SHOW AS TO WHETHER THIS GROUND WAS RAISED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). HE HAS REFERRED TO GROUND NO. 11 RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CITY(A), BUT THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF INVESTMENT OF RS.20,00,00/- IN THE PURCHASE OF RESI DENTIAL PROPERTY WAS NOT FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RAISED SPECIFICALLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION FOR THE LD. CIT(A) TO HAVE DECIDED THE ISS UE OF RS.20,00,000/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SPECIFICALLY NOTED IN PARA 2.8 THAT THE AO HAS ALREADY GIVEN CREDIT OF RS.35,17,520/- WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GA IN. THEREFORE, WHEN THE ISSUE OF RS.20,00,000/- WAS NOT RAISED, THE LD. CIT(A) WA S NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON SUCH ALLEGED GROUND OF APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED APPLICATION U /S. 154 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS STILL PENDING. LET THE ASSESSEE MAY PURSUE HIS APPLICATION GIVEN BEFORE ITA NO. 221/AGRA/2013 12 THE LD. CIT(A). WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, GROUND NO. 8 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY TRUE COPY