SANJAY VAID, Jaipur V. ITO, Dausa

ITA 229/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2041 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY DCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: G G GUPTA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Document seized; Onus to prove; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 148; 132

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 229/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SANJAY VAIDH, B-3, NEELGIRI APARTMENT, D- 34, SARASWATI MARGH, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- DAUSA. PAN NO.: AAWPV 7730 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.G. GUPTA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/10/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 18/01/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2 010-11, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS RS. 1,26,71,000/ - AS AGAINST THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 95,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE SALE CONSID ERATION AS ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 2 RS. 1,26,71,000/- ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION MADE BY A THIRD PARTY WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSES SEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE ADMI SSION, THE IMPUGNED VALUE WAS ADOPTED AS SALE CONSIDERATIO N. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING 10% OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT FOR WANT OF VOUCHERS/ BILLS RELATING TO THE LABOUR PAYMENT, PAR TICULAR WHEN THE PAYMENT OF LABOUR AND THE CONSTRUCTION MAD E WAS NOT DISPUTED; AND IGNORING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BILLS HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE PURCHASER AND THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENT WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING 10% OF THE TOTAL COST OF IMPROVEMENT, I GNORING THAT THE DISALLOWANCE, IF AT ALL WARRANTED, WAS TO BE MADE FOR LABOUR PAYMENTS WHICH AGGREGATED RS. 9,78,478/- RES TRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 97,848/- RATHER THAN RS. 4, 64,060/- AS THE AO HIMSELF IN HIS ORDER STATED THAT ALL BILLS O F MATERIAL PURCHASED HAD BEEN SUBMITTED AND ONLY LABOUR BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED. 5. THE ID. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A.234B&234C. T HE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING O F ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A S EARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN THE CASE OF DR. RATAN KUMAR SHARM A, JAIPUR ON 17/02/2011 AND A PAPER WAS SEIZED FROM HIS RESIDENCE WHERE THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS MENTIONED AT RS. 1,26,71,000/- AND THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE BUYER THROUGH CHEQUES/CASH WERE ALSO MENTIONED THEREIN. IN SOME OF THE PLACES, THERE WERE SIGNATURES OF THE ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 3 ASSESSEE ALSO. DR. SHARMA HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTE D THIS FACT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND HE HAD DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT AS A MOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT. 3. IN THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL, THE ISS UE RAISED IS REGARDING SALE CONSIDERATION ADOPTED AT RS. 1,26,71 ,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 95,00,000/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD EXECUTED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING A S UNDER: 5.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS REMA ND REPORT OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS AND CROSS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. T HE FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE EMERGED. 1. THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF DR. RATAN KUMAR SHARMA GROUP ON 17/02/2011. 2. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION DOCU MENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND WITH REGARD TO PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT F LAT NO. B-3, PLOT NO. D-34, NEELGIRI APARTMENTS, BANI PARK, JAIPUR FR OM SH. SANJAY VAIDH FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. L,26,71,000/-(PAGE NO.77, ANNEXURE BS, EXHIBIT-6). 3. THAT DETAILS OF THE PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN FOU ND IN PAGE NO. 62, 64, 67 & 77 OF ANNEXURE BS, EXHIBIT-6). 4. THAT AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DOCUMENTS, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS SHOWN AT RS. 50 LAKHS AS PER FOLLO WING DETAILS; I. RS. 31,00,000/- CH.NO. 198909 DATED: 06/09/200 9 ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 4 II. RS. 3,00,000/- CH.NO. 198928 DATED: 04/02/2010 III. RS. 16,00,000/- CH.NO. 198932 DATED:05/03/20 10 5. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION DR. RATAN KUMAR SHARMA HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION PAI D TO SH. SANAJAY VAIDH ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY IS RS . 1,26,71,000/- AS IS MENTIONED IN PAGE NO.62,64,67 & 77 OF ANNEXURE-B S, EXHIBIT-6 SEIZED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. 6. THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED BY SH. S ANJAY VAIDH THE CAPITAL GAIN IS CALCULATED AT THE SALE CONSIDER ATION OF RS. 95 LAKH INSTEAD OF RS. 1,26,71,000/- 7. THAT THE A.O ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND REASSESSED THE INCOME WHICH HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 8. THAT IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE A.O HA S ENHANCED THE SALE CONSIDERATION BY RS. 31,71,000/- TAKING TH E SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1,26,71,000/- AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 5.5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION BELONGED TO SH. SANJAY VAI DH AND HAS BEEN SOLD TO DR. RATAN KUMAR SHARMA DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. THAT IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE REGISTERED SALE DEE D HAS SHOWN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 50 LAKHS ONLY. HOWEVER, SH. SANJAY VAIDH HAS DECLARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 95 LAKHS WHI LE CALCULATING CAPITAL GAIN. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE ST ATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION WHERE DR. RAT AN KUMAR SHARMA, THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY, WHO HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID TO SH. SANJAY VAIDH IS RS. 1,26,71,000/-. DR. SHARMA ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 5 HAS ALSO SURRENDERED THE ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 5.5.3 THE RELEVANT SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE STATEMENT OF DR. RATAN KUMAR SHARMA WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT DURING REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS SUBM ITTED THAT AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 22,37,300/- W AS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY SH. PAWAN AGARWAL S/O SH. M L AGARWAL ON BEHALF OF SH SANJAY VAIDH. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIME D THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW SH. PAWAN AGARWAL AND THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW AN YTHING ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 22,27,300/- SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RE CEIVED BY SH. PAWAN AGAIWAL ON HIS BEHALF AS THE FINAL PART OF SA LE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE SUBMISSION FILED BY T HE APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED TO THE A.O FOR EXAMINATION AND HIS COMMENT S AND ALSO TO RECORD STATEMENT OF SH. PAWAN AGARWAL S/O SH. M L A GARWAL. THE REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A.O VIDE LETTER DATED 18/10/2016. THE COPY OF THE REMAND REPORT WAS PROVI DED TO THE APPELLANT FOR CROSS REPLY. THE REPLY FROM THE A.R W AS SUBMITTED ON 04/01/2017. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE A.O HAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PROVIDE THE ADDRESS OF SH. PAWAN AGARWAL AND HENCE COULD NOT BE CONTACTED FOR RECORDING OF THE S TATEMENT. 5.5.4 IN THE CROSS REPLY THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN TH E PLEA THAT IN ABSENCE OF STATEMENT OF SH. PAWAN AGARWAL, THERE IS NO JUSTIFI CATION FOR ADDITION OF RS. 22,27,300/- WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO PAWAN AGARAWAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER REITERATED THAT HE DOES NOT K NOW SH. PAWAN AGARWAL AND THAT SH. AGARWAL IS THE WITNESS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND NO CROSS EXAMINATION WAS PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT. 5.5.5 THUS, THE APPELLANTS SOLE DEFENSE IN HIS FAV OUR IS THE NON AVAILABILITY OF ADDRESS OF SH. PAWAN AGARWAL AND LACK OF CROSS E XAMINATION. IN THIS ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 6 REGARD IT IS IMPERATIVE TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE PAYMENT WAS HANDED OV ER TO SH. PAWAN AGARWAL ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AS FINAL P ART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT HE DO ES NOT KNOW SH. PAWAN AGARWAL. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THIS CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT I HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENT OF THE DOCUMENT SIZED DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION WHERE THE DETAILS OF THE SALE CONS IDERATION AND THE PAYMENTS THEREOF HAVE BEEN GIVEN. IT IS * IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE PAGE NO. 77 OF ANNEXURE-BS HAS GIVEN A COMPLETE DET AIL OF SALE CONSIDERATION. IT IS DOCUMENTED THAT THE SALE CONSI DERATION IS RS. 1,26,71,000/-. OUT OF THIS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 50 LAKH S BY WAY OF 3 CHEQUES AMOUNTING TO RS. 31 LAKHS, RS. 3 LAKHS AND RS.16 LAKHS WERE PAID. A TOTAL OF RS. 35 LAKHS WERE SHOWN TO HAVE BE EN PAID IN CASH. THUS, BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.41,70,000/- WAS TO BE GIVEN. NOW, PAGE NO. 67 OF ANNEXURE-BS GIVES PAYMENT OF FO LLOWING DETAILS; CH.NO. 198909 DATED: 06/09/2009 AMOUNTING TO RS. 31 LAKHS CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS DATE OF RECEIPT 15/10/2 009 CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 15 LAKHS DATE OF RECEIPT 21/10/ 2009 CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 10 LAKHS DATE OF RECEIPT 03/12/ 2009 CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS DATE OF RECEIPT 04/01/2 010 CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS PAGE NO.62 OF ANNEXURE BS CH.NO.198298 OF RS. 3 LAKHS ON BEHALF OF SANJAY VAI D 04/02/2010 CH.NO. 198932 OF RS. 16 LAKHS DATE: 05/03/2010 CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LAKHS DATE OF RECEIPT 05/03/2 010 AMOUNT RS. 13,50,000/- PAGE NO.64 OF ANNEXURE BS RECEIPT OF RS. 22,27,300/- DATED 29/03/2010 BY SH. PAWAN AGARWAL S/O SH. M L AGARWAL ON BEHALF OF SH. SANJAY VAIDH A S FINAL PAYMENT OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE HOUSE. THE TOTAL AMOUNT AS MENTIONED IN ABOVE MENTIONED 3 PAGES COMES TO RS. 1,25,77300/- WHICH ALMOST TALLIES WITH THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 7 ACCEPTED BY THE BUYER IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH OPERATION. NOW I HAVE TRIED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELL ANT THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW SH. PAW'AN AGARWAL. IN THIS REGARD, I HAVE PER USED THE DETAILS OF THE RECEIPTS OF THE AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF SH. SANJAY VAIDH AS PER THE SEIZED PAPERS PAGE NO 62, 64 & 67 OF ANNEXURE-BS. I T IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT PAGE NO. 62 AND 67 OF ANNEXURE-BS GIVES T HE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS BOTH BY CHEQUES AND THE CASH WHICH HAS BEE N RECEIVED EITHER BY SH. SANJAY VAIDH HIMSELF OR ON HIS BEHALF. SH. S ANJAY VAIDH HAS HIMSELF COUNTER-SIGNED ON THE SIDE OF THE PAYMENTS SHOWN WHICH HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON HIS BEHALF BY RAKHI. IT IS IM PORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE CHEQUE NO. 198928 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED ON 04/02/2010 ON HIS BEHALF AND THE RECIPIENT HAS PUT HIS SIGNATURE ALSO. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE CHEQUE NO 198928 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.3 LAKHS IS THE PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND BE LONGED TO SANJAY VAIDH BUT RECEIVED ON HIS BEHALF BY A PERSON WHO HA S PUT HIS SIGNATURE THERE. THE AUTHENTICITY OF THIS PAPER IS ALSO NOT IN DOUBT AS SH. SANJAY VAIDH HAS ALSO PUT HIS SIGNATURE AT 2 PL ACES ON THIS PARTICULAR PAGE. THE RELEVANT SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOW ING THE PAYMENTS ARE SCANNED AS UNDER: ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 8 THE AMOUNT IS RECEIVED BY SH. PAWAN AGARWAL S/O- SH . M.L. AGARWAL ON 29/03/2010 ON BEHALF OF SH. SANJAY VAIDH. SH. PA WAN AGARWAL HAS PUT HIS SIGNATURE ON THIS RECEIPT. THE SIGNATURE OF SH. PAWAN AGARWAL MATCHES WITH THE SIGNATURE ON PAGE NO. 64 OF ANNEXU RE-BS WHEN HE HAD RECEIVED CHEQUE NO. 198928 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS ON BEHALF OF SH. SANJAY VAIDH (THE RELEVANT PART OF TH E SEIZED DOCUMENT SCANNED ABOVE IS ENCIRCLED FOR READY REFERENCE). TH IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THE FACT SH. PAWAN AGARWAL IS KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO INFER THAT WHEN SH. PAWAN AGARWAL IS RECEIVING THE CHEQUE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT THEN HE IS KNOWN TO HIM BUT WHEN HE IS RECEIVING CASH ON HIS BEHALF THEN HE IS NOT K NOWN TO THE APPELLANT. MERELY BECAUSE A PERSON IS NOT TRACEABLE, OR HIS AD DRESS IS NOT KNOWN, THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF A PAPER SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION THAT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND AUT HENTIC BY THE BUYER CANNOT BE THROWN TO DUSTBIN. THEREFORE, APPEL LANTS PLEA THAT SH. PAWAN AGARWAL IS NOT KNOWN TO HIM IS NOT TENABL E IN VIEW OF THE IRREFUTABLE FACTS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABI LITY IN THIS CASE. THE CONCEPT OF PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE CAN BE VISUALIZED AS A SCALE REPRESENTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF, WITH THE TOTALITY OF EVIDENCE PRESENTED BY EACH SIDE RESTING ON THE RESPECTIVE TR AYS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE SCALE. IF THE SCALE TIPS EVER SO SLIGHTLY TO THE SIDE OR THE OTHER, THE WEIGHTIER SIDE WILL PREVAIL. IF THE SCALE DOES NOT TIP TOWARD THE SIDE OF THE PARTY BEARING THE BURDEN OF PROOF, THAT PART Y CANNOT PREVAIL. TRIAL LAWYERS WILL OFTEN INSTRUCT JURIES THAT THEIR CLIENTS MUST PREVAIL AT TRIAL IF THEY HAVE PROVED THEIR POSITIONS BY AS LIT TLE AS 51 PERCENT LIKELIHOOD OF PROBABILITY (ANYTHING FROM 51 TO 100 PERCENT CONSTITUTES A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE). IN OTHER WORDS, IF A JURY BELIEVES THERE IS A 51-49 PERCENT LIKELIHOOD THAT A DEFENDANT (IN A CIVIL CASE) WAS ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 9 NEGLIGENT OR LIABLE, THE PLAINTIFF/ COMPLAINANT HAS MET ITS BURDEN OF A PREPONDERANCE OF EVIDENCE, AND WILL PREVAIL. T HIS IS PARTICULARLY HELPFUL WHEN JURIES ARE TOM BETWEEN THE TESTIMONY O F TWO EXPERT WITNESSES PRESENTING OPPOSITE OPINIONS OR VIEWS. WH ETHER IT IS AN ISSUE OF CREDIBILITY OR OF EXPERTISE, THE JURY WILL DECIDE WHICH IS THE MORE LIKELY VERSION, THAT WARRANTS MORE EVIDENTIARY WEIGHT. IN VIEW OF THE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCES THAT SH. PAWAN AGARWAL IS KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT AND HAS ACCEPTED CHEQUE PART OF TH E SALE CONSIDERATION ON HIS BEHALF IN THE PAST. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CASH RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT I S NOT GENUINE. HERE IN THIS CASE, THE BUYER HAS ACCEPTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,26,71,000/- WAS PAID TO SH. SANJAY VAIDH AS THE S ALE CONSIDERATION OF THE RELEVANT PROPERTY. THE COMPLETE DETAILS OF P AYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN WRITTEN IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH BORE SIG NATURES OF THE APPELLANT ALSO. THEREFORE, THE AUTHENTICITY AND VER ACITY OF EVIDENCES SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND MA DE AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE A.O HAS RIGHT LY TAKEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1,26,71,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 9 5 LAKHS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 31,7 1,000- IS SUSTAINED. APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISS UE IS DISMISSED. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. DURING THE APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS, THE LD AR HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS RECORDED B Y THE LD. CIT(A). THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK CLEARLY E STABLISHED THAT THE TRANSACTION AGREED UPON WAS OF RS. 1,26,71,000/-. TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED FULLY AND TRULY SALE CONSIDERATION IN HIS RETURNED INCOME. THE REGISTRY DOCUMENT WAS ONLY FOR RS. 50.00 LACS. THE ASSESSEE ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 10 DISCLOSED RS. 95.00 LACS. HOWEVER, THE SEIZED DOCUME NT CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS OF RS . 1,26,71,000/-. THE PURCHASERS HAVE SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT. THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE WHICH HE COULD NOT CONTROVERT. THUS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ESTABLISHES THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS OF RS. 1,26,71,000/- AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED MATERI AL WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NO. 24 TO 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN VIEW OF T HIS, I HAVE NO HESITATION IN CONFIRMING THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT( A) IN THIS REGARD ON THIS ISSUE. 5. IN THE GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4, THE ISSUE INVOLVED I S REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE COST IMPROVEMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT THIS ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,64,046/- ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTION OF 10% EXPENSES CLAIMED ON IMPROVEMENT OF THE PROPERTY FOR WANT OF PROPER VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO LABOUR PAYMENT AND OTHER COST. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANT SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD. AS THE APPELLANT IS CLAI MING COST OF IMPROVEMENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 46,40,460/- FOR CA LCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN BU T NOT ALL VO UCHERS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIMS. THEREFORE, I DO NOT INTEND TO INTERFERE IN THE A.OS DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT CLAI MED BY THE APPELLANT FOR WANT OF PROPER VOUCHERS. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,64,046/- ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT MADE TO THE ITA 229/JP/2017_ SANJAY VAIDH VS ITO 11 PROPERTY IS SUSTAINED AND THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING 10% AD HOC DIS ALLOWANCE OUT OF THE COST IMPROVEMENT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE FORE, I ALLOW THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SANJAY VAIDH, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-DAUSA. 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. 229/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR