DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR V. ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

ITA 243/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3267 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S NEHRA
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Rectification of order; Principle of natural justice; Valuation report; Competent authority; Condonation of delay; Reassessment proceedings; Capital Gains
• Section: 50C; 133(6); 48; 13; 22; 147; 148; 54; 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES A JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PRIVATE LTD., B-8, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, BAIS GODOWN, JAIPUR CUKE VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-06, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AABCD6662M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. PRAMOD PATNI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SH. A. S. NEHRA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15/02/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/06/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 17.10.2018 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A), HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACT A S WELL AS IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF REOPENING ASSESSMENT U/S . 148 OF IT ACT, 1961 ON THE BASIS OF INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND UNC ONCLUDED PROCEEDINGS UNDER SOME OTHER LAW AND WHICH ACTION O N PRIME FACIE BASIS ITSELF WAS BAD IN LAW AND BEYOND JURISDICTION . 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN LAW IN ENDORSING THE AO CONSIDERING THE VALUE OF LA ND SOLD AT RS.90,19,200/- U/S 50C, AS AGAINST THE STAMP AUTHOR ITIES OWN CERTIFIED VALUE OF RS. 75,06,000 AT THE TIME OF ACT UAL REGISTRATION ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 2 OF CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY AND ITS SALE TRANSACTION. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO I N ADOPTING SUCH HIGHER SALE VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 90,19,200/- ON ARB ITRARY BASIS BASED ON AN INTERNAL DEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION AND INCOMPLETE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE STAMP LAW AND BASED ON SAME M AKING ADDITION OF RS. 14,19,200/- UNDER THE INCOME HEAD ' INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS'. SUCH HIGHER REPLACED VALUE OF LAND FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES HAVING NEITHER BEEN CONVEYED TO THE P ARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION NOR ANY ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY ON SUCH I NCREMENTAL VALUE OF LAND HAVING BEEN RECOVERED FROM THE PARTIE S TO THE TRANSACTION IN THE 12 YEAR PERIOD AFTER SUCH DATE O F ACTUAL REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT ON 28/30.05.2008. FURTHER, WHILE DOING SO, THE CIT(A), OVERLOOKING A SPECIFIC CLARIFICATIO N ON THE ISSUE SOUGHT BY THE COMPANY UNDER RTI ACT FROM THE DY. IN SPECTOR GENERAL OF STAMPS DT. 5 TH FEB.,2018 WHO OUTRIGHTLY DENIED OF ANY SUCH REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE RELIED UPON BY THE AO FOR RE-OPENING THE CASE AFTER 8-9 YEARS AND IN REASSESS ING THE TOTAL INCOME. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS A DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN THIS REGARD, TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME HAS DECLA RED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BY ADOPTING THE TRANSACTION VALU E OF RS. 76,00,000/- AS PER THE REGISTERED CONVEYANCE DEED DATED 28.05.2008 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C HAS SUBSTITUTED THE TRANSACTION VALUE WITH RS. 90,19,200/- BASIS INFORM ATION RECEIVED FROM SUB REGISTRAR STAMPS. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE PRESENT CASE IS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS. 90,19,200/ - AS AGAINST DECLARED ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 3 TRANSACTION VALUE OF RS. 76,00,000/-. IT WAS SUBMIT TED THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO ITS RTI APPLICATION FOR THE CLARIFICATION FROM DEPUTY DIRECTOR. STAMPS, GOV T OF RAJASTHAN DATED 5 TH FEB, 2018 THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE DATED 20.01.20 09 WAS EVER MADE FOR REVISION IN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE. FURTHER, NO SUCH ORDER AGAINST SUCH REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID CRITICAL COMMUNICATION WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A), JAIPUR WHO HAD EARLIER HEARD THE MATTER AND SUBSEQUENTLY, ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER WHO HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNE D ORDER AND INSPITE OF FACT THAT THE SAID CRITICAL COMMUNICATION FOUND MENTIONED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER, THE SAME HAS ESCAPED THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. CIT(A). BEING A MISTAKE AP PARENT FROM RECORDS, THE ASSESSEE PURSUED THE MATTER WITH LD. CIT(A), AJMER AND ALSO FILED THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION HOWEVER, IN SPITE OF ITS BEST EFFORTS, THE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF TILL DATE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE REASONABLE BELIEF THAT WHERE TH E SAID RECTIFICATION APPLICATION IS DISPOSED OFF BY THE LD. CIT(A), AJME R, THE ASSESSEE WOULD GET NECESSARY RELIEF HOWEVER IN SPITE OF THE BEST E FFORTS, THE APPLICATION HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OFF AND THEREFORE, LEFT WITH NO OPTION FOR GRANT OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED THE PRESENT APPEAL THOUGH WITH A DELAY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL DESERVES FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED ON MERITS. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR OPPOSED THE DELAY IN FILI NG THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A SU BSTANTIAL DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND MERE PENDENCY OF A RECTIFICA TION APPLICATION CANNOT BE THE GROUND FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 4 4. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PURSUED THE MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SU PPORT OF ITS CONDONATION APPLICATION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE RE HAS BEEN A CHANGE IN THE JURISDICTION OF THE COMMISSIONER APPEALS DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL WHERE THE MATTER WAS HEARD INITIALLY BY LD C IT(A) JAIPUR AND THEREAFTER, BY LD CIT(A), AJMER WHO HAS FINALLY PAS SED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND DURING SUCH APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN CLARIFICATION REGARDING REFERENCE/REVALUATION OF TH E VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO ITS RTI APPLICATION AND WHICH HAS APPARENTLY SKIPPED THE ATTENTION OF T HE LD CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PURSUING THE MATT ER SEEKING RECTIFICATION WHICH IS PENDING ADJUDICATION TILL DATE. WE THEREF ORE FIND THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH A CLARIFICATION WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED BY A COMPETENT REGULATORY AUTHORITY IS CRITICAL FOR DETE RMINING THE ISSUE AT HAND AND THE MATTER WAS REGULARLY PURSUED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HOPEFUL THAT WHERE THE SAME IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND APPROPRIATE ORDER IS PASSED BY TH E LD CIT(A), THE WHOLE OF THE ADDITION WOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED AND DUE TO CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE EXIGENCIES OR OTHERWISE, THE SAME COULDNT BE CONSI DERED BY THE LD CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND EVEN APPROPRIA TE RECTIFICATION ORDER IS NOT PASSED TILL DATE, THE ASSESSEE IS DILIGENT I N PURSUING ITS MATTERS AND THE EXPLANATION SO OFFERED FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FOUND TO BE REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE IN INTEREST O F SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND THE DELAY IS HEREBY CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR NECESSARY ADJUDICATION. 5. NOW, COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, THE LD A R RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING AS ALSO CO NTAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE SAME READ AS UNDER: ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 5 GROUND NO. 1: 1. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN LAW IN REOPENING ASSESSMENT U/S. 148 OF IT ACT, 196 1 ON THE BASIS OF INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND PROCEEDINGS UNDER SOME O THER LAW AND WHICH ACTION ON PRIME FACIE BASIS ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AN D BEYOND JURISDICTION. SUBMISSIONS: 1.1 IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASS. YR. 2009- 10 ON 30.09.2009 INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WAS OFFERED AS PER THE TRANSACTION VALUE OF SALE OF LANDS WHICH WAS MARGINALLY MORE TH EN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE DETERMINED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR OF STAMPS & R EGISTRATION FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY & REGISTRATION FEES AS IS EVIDENT FRO M THE STAMP DEPARTMENTS ADVISE ON TOP OF THE REGISTERED CONVEYA NCE DEED PLACED AT PAGE 60 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE TRANSACTION VALUE [ RS. 76,00,000/-] BEING MORE THEN THE ASSESSED STAMP DUTY VALUE [ RS. 75,06 ,000/-], STAMP DUTY COLLECTED ON SUCH TRANSACTION VALUE AS PER SAID AUT HORITIES ENDORSEMENT ON THE COPY/S OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS [ATTACHED AS PAGES 60-68 WITH ITAT PAPER BOOK]. THE HIGHER OF THE TWO VALUES VIZ., RS. 76,00,000 OFFERED FOR TAX CALCULATION IN THE ITR AND HENCE TO THIS EXTENT THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE CO. IN DISCLOSING FULLY AN D TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 1.2 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THUS OFFERED ITS INCOME FROM L ONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL TRANSACTIO N VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WHICH WAS ABOVE THE ESTIMATED AND ASSESSED STAMP DU TY VALUE BY THE STAMPS & REGISTRATIONS AUTHORITIES, WHICH ACTION I N ANY MANNER CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE: ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 6 A. A FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSING FUL LY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT A/S YR. [FIRST PROVISO TO SEC.147] OR B. UNDERSTATEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OF ITS INCOME OR CLA IMING EXCESSIVE LOSS/ DEDUCTION/ ALLOWANCE/ RELIEF IN THE RETURN.[E XPLANATION 2 (B)TO SEC.147] OR C. THE ASSESSEE FULFILLING ANY OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THE SEC.147 FOR JUSTIFYING THE ACTION OF REOPENING/ REASSESSMENT. 1.3 PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED TO THE COMPAN Y, THE CO. DEMANDED COPY OF REASONS RECORDED ALLEGING ESCAPE MENT OF ASSESSMENT/ INCOME AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE AO , VIDE ITS LETTER NO. 180 DT. 24.04.2016 FURNISHED THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 FOR REASSESSMENT : DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SOLD A PROPER TY FOR RS. 76,00,000/- ON 28.05.2008. AS PER INFORMATION RECEI VED FROM SUB-REGISTRAR OF JAIPUR DISTRICT. THE SUB REGISTRAR HAS VALUED TH E PROPERTY AT RS. 90,19,200/- AGAINST THE VALUE OF RS. 76,00,000/- SH OWN AS SALE CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE ITR FOR THE A . Y. 2009-10, IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAS CALCULATED LTCG BY TAKING VALUE A T RS. 76,00,000/-. AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C, VALUE OF PROPERTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 90,19,200/- FOR CALCULATING LTCG. IN VIEW O F ABOVE FACTS, THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,19,200/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSME NT. 1.4 THE ABOVE NOTICE REMAINED TO BE REPLIED WITHIN TIME SINCE SUCH NOTICE NOT REACH THE ASSESSEE CO. ON A/C OF SOME TE CHNICAL REASONS AND LATER WHEN A COPY OF SAID NOTICE / LETTER DT. 24.04 .2016 WAS COLLECTED IN ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 7 PERSON BY THE AR OF THE A COMPANY, SAME WAS REPLI ED TO VIDE ARS REPLY DT. 09.11.2016 DRAWING ATTENTION OF THE AO TO WARDS THE BASIS OF DECLARING INCOME ON SALE OF THE TWO LANDS ON THE BA SIS OF VALUE OF THE REGISTERED DOCUMENTS WHICH CONTAINED AS ENDORSEMENT S U/S 54 OF THE RAJASTHAN STAMP ACT CERTIFYING THE VALUE OF THE DOC UMENT FOR REGISTRATION AT RS. 76.00 LACS WHICH WAS MORE THEN THE STAMP DUT Y ASSESSMENT OF RS. 75,06,000 /- [PAGE 60 OF PAPER BOOK CARRYING PAGE 1 OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED DT. 29.05.2008] 1.5 POST THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE AO ISSUED A SHOW C AUSE DT. 16.11.2016 (PAGE 16-17 OF PAPER BOOK ) DEMANDING AN EXPLANATION TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE VALUE OF LAND AS PER SEC. 50 C AND AS TO WHY SAME SHOULD NOT BE ADDED BACK IN THE TOTAL INCOME AS PE R PROVISION OF SEC.50C OF THE ITA. THE SAID LETTER OF SUB REGISTRAR STAMPS INFORMED THAT THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS INITIALLY TAKEN AT RS. 76.00 L ACS ON 30.05.2008 TO HAVE BEEN LATER REVALUED AT RS. 90,19,200/- AND REFERENC E OF WHICH MADE TO APPROPRIATE SUPERIOR AUTHORITY IN THE SAID DEPT. AN D COPY OF LETTER DT. 15.11.16 ADDRESSED TO AO IN THE CASE IN RESPONSE TO INFORMATION SOUGHT U/S 133(6) DT. 15.11.16 ATTACHED. COPY OF ANY SUCH REFERENCE MADE FOR REVALUATION TO APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES WAS HOWEVER NOT ATTACHED WITH SUCH REPLY FROM STAMP DEPT. TO THE AO. 1.6 A DETAILED OBJECTION TO ABOVE WAS FURNISHED BY ASSE SSEE ON 21.11.2016 (PAGES 18-20 OF PAPER BOOK) EMPHASIZING AND DRAWING ATTENTION TOWARDS VARIOUS TECHNICAL DEFICIENCIES I N THE UNCONCLUDED REFERENCE MADE BY DY REGISTRAR STAMPS WHICH IS SUMM ARIZED AS UNDER: I. DOCUMENTS EXECUTED WERE AT VALUE CERTIFIED BY TH E STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES U/S 54 OF THE RAJASTHAN STAMP ACT, 1998 ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 8 II. NO REVISIONS OF REFERENCE CAN BE MADE WITHOUT A FFORDING THE PARTIES AND OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVIDE THEIR OBJECTIONS, WHIC H WAS NEVER DONE IN THE 7 YEAR PERIOD SINCE SUCH ALLEGED REFERENCE. III. NO NOTICES RECEIVED FOR ANY SUCH PROPOSED REVI SION ALLEGED EITHER BY THE PURCHASER OR SELLER PARTIES NOR ANY REMAIN PEN DING AS PER PARTIES CONFIRMATION. IV. THE ABOVE NOTICE NEITHER MENTIONS THE AREA OF P ROPERTY OR THE BASIS FOR ITS PROPOSED REVISION OR EVEN THE DATE OF SUCH SUBSEQUENT VISIT FOR REASSESSMENT ETC. V. ALLEGED REFERENCE SO MADE REMAINS UNCONCLUDED TI LL DATE IN ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF ANY SUCH APPROVAL HAVING BEEN GIVEN. THUS ANY RELIANCE ON AN UNCONCLUDED REFERENCE/ PROP OSAL FOR REVISION IN VALUE OF PROPERTIES IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE P ROVISIONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND HENCE TO BE DROPPED. 1.7 FURTHER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID, EVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF ITA DO NOT PERMIT ANY SUCH REASSESSMENT ON REVISION OF STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE REFERENCE IN THE SECTION IS TO THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED (OR ASSESSABLE) BY ANY A UTHORITIES OF THE STATE GOVT. (STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES) AND ON SIMPLE READING OF SAME, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SITUATIONS SUCH AS THE PRESENT CASE AS THAT OF REVISION OR REASSESSMENT IN VALUE IS NEITHER ENVISAGED NOR PE RMITTED UNDER THE SECTION (SEC.50) TO CARRY OUT ANY REVISION IN THE V ALUE AND CONSEQUENTIALLY IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HERE THE TERMS HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED IN THE CONTEXT THEY ARE USED AND UNLESS SUCH TERM REA SSESSMENT OR REVISION IN VALUE WAS INCLUDED IN THE SAID SECTIO N OR ANY OF ITS PROVISO OR SUB SECTIONS, CARRYING OUT ANY RECTIFICATION/ REVIS ION ON THE BASIS OF ANY ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 9 SUCH REVISION IN VALUE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHO RITIES WOULD BE AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THUS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 1.8 THE OBJECTIONS RAISED IN THE ABOVE DETAILED SUBMISS IONS DT. 21.11.2016 WERE SUMMARILY DEALT IN BRIEF BY THE AO AT PAGE 4 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER [PAGES 24 OF PAPER BOOK] INCLUDING W.R.T. THE OBJECTION AS TO UNCONCLUDED PROCEEDINGS FOR ENHANCEMENT / REV ALUATION OF PROPERTY BEING NOT FINAL BUT AFTER WHICH, THE CONCLUSION DRA WN BY AO WITHOUT ACTUALLY DEALING WITH/ CONTROVERTING THE SAID REASO NING AS WELL AS THE LEGALITY OF THE SUBMISSIONS IN CONCLUDING ARBITRARI LY THAT THE REVISED VALUE SHOULD BE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1.9 IN VIEW OF ABOVE ENTIRETY OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE ST ATED FACTS, THIS IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER M ORE THAN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE PRETEXT OF F AILURE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DISCLOSING FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NE CESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT AS CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR REASSESSMENT UNDER FIRS T PROVISO TO SEC 147 OF ITA AND THEREFORE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF REASSES SMENT SHOULD BE HELD AS NULL AND VOID BEING BEYOND JURISDICTION. GROUND NO. 2: 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FACT AS WELL AS IN LAW IN CONSIDERING THE VALUE OF LAND SOLD AT RS. 90 ,19,200/- U/S 50C, AS AGAINST THE STAMP AUTHORITIES OWN CERTIFIED VALUE O F RS. 75,06,000 AT THE TIME OF ACTUAL REGISTRATION OF PROPERTY SALE TRANSA CTION. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITIONS ADOPTING SUCH HIGHER VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 90,19,200/- ON ARBITRARY BASIS OF CERTAIN INTERNAL DEPARTMENTAL CO MMUNICATION AND INCOMPLETE PROCEEDINGS UNDER STAMP LAW AND ACCORDIN GLY MAKING ADDITION ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 10 OF RS. 14,19,200/- UNDER THE INCOME HEAD INCOME FR OM CAPITAL GAINS. SUCH HIGHER REPLACED VALUE OF LAND FOR STAMP DUTY P URPOSES HAS NEITHER BEEN CONVEYED TO THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION NOR ANY ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY ON SUCH INCREMENTAL VALUE OF LAND HAS BEEN DEP OSITED BY THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION IN THE 8 YEAR PERIOD AFTER SUCH DATE OF ACTUAL REGISTRATION OF DOCUMENT ON 28/30.05.2008. THUS AD OPTION OF SUCH ARBITRARY VALUE OF RS. 90,19,200/- UNDER PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 50C IN PLACE OF THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION / REGISTRATION VALU E OF RS. 76,00,000 AND ACCORDINGLY MAKING ADDITION TO TOTAL INCOME IS THUS BAD IN LAW. SUBMISSIONS: 2.1. IT IS MORE THEN CLEAR FROM A SIMPLE READING O F SEC.50C OF ITA THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE 'STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED SHALL, FOR THE PUR POSES OF SECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED. 2.3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OFFERED ITS INCOME FOR TA XATION ON THE BASIS OF A DULY REGISTERED SALE DEED CONSIDERING ITS VALUE B Y THE THEN STAMP AUTHORITIES AT RS. RS. 76,00,000 AND THUS ITS SUCH ACTION CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE A FAILURE IN DISCLOSING FULLY AND TRUL Y ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR ITS ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS AN ESSENTIA L CONDITION PRECEDENT/ TO EXIST FOR REASSESSMENT UNDER FIRST PROVISO TO SEC 1 47 OF ITA. 2.4. ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE ALLEGED ARBITR ARY PROCEEDINGS BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES IN TERMS OF MAKING THE REFERENCE BY THE SUB REGISTRAR- IV, JAIPUR VIZ., TO HIS SUPERIOR WAY BACK ON 21.01. 2009 AND WHICH ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 11 REMAINED UNCONCLUDED MORE THEN 7 YEARS, BOTH FROM T HE DATE OF REGISTRATION OF THE DOCUMENT AS WELL AS FROM THE DA TE OF SUCH REFERENCE AND THAT ALSO WITHOUT ANY DETAILS AND OPPORTUNITIES TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED WHICH WERE MANDATORY EVEN UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF THE RAJASTHAN STAMP ACT, 1998. ATTENTION TOWARDS SEC.54 OF THE RAJ STAMP ACT. 1998 IS ALSO DRAWN. NEITHER THE LETTER DT. 15. 11.2016 OF THE SUB REGISTRAR-IV, JAIPUR TO THE AO REFERRED TO IN THE O RDER OF THE AO CONVEYING ANY DETAILS WRT. DATE OF REVISIT TO THE PROPERTY, B ASIS OF SUCH REVALUATION/ REVISION OR OUTCOME OF SUCH REFERENCE AS ALSO W.R. T. EXTENDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES CONCERNED TO RENDER THEI R OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED REVISION IN VALUE OF PROPERTY AND THUS ALL THIS CONVEYED ILLEGALITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE STAMP LAWS, WHICH TOO REMAIN UNCONCLUDED AND HENCE CANNOT FORM THE BASIS OF A REASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS UNDER ANOTHER CENTRAL STATUTE SUCH AS IT ACT. 2.5. THE COMPANY, THE SELLER OF LAND AS WELL AS T HE BUYER OF SAID LAND, BOTH CONFIRM THAT NEITHER OF THEM HAD RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OR DEMAND FOR SUCH REVISION IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ALREADY REGISTERED NOR HAS ANY OF THEM DEPOSITED AND ADDITIONAL STAMP DUTY ON THE ALLEGED DIFFERENTIAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND NO SUCH DEMA ND REMAINS PENDING AGAINST THEM. THAT BEING SO, ANY ACTION U/S 147 REA D WITH SEC. 50 OF ITA IS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AN D ALSO AGAINST EQUITY AS WELL. 2.6 THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF ITA DO NOT PERMIT ANY SUCH REASSESSMENT OR REVISION OF STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND THUS THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE QUASHED HOLDING T HE SAME TO BE NULL AND VOID AND OUT OF JURISDICTION OF THE AO. ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 12 2.7 ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT DESPIT E THE A COMPANY RAISING OBJECTIONS W.R.T. THE FACT OF BASIS OF SUCH ALLEGEDLY PROPOSED REVISION/ REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SHARING OF R EASONS TO BE RECORDED FOR INITIATION OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS NOT SHARED ANY DOCUMENT / INTIMATION FROM THE STAMP AUTHORITY FOR IMITATION O F SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND THE CORRESPONDENCE DT. 15.11.2016 AS SHARED WERE ON LY SUBSEQUENT CLARIFICATION SOUGHT WHICH TOO WAS INADEQUATE SINCE NOT REFERRING TO ANY CONCLUSION BY THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES TO THE ALLEG ED REFERENCE MADE BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES IN THE MATTER. FURTHER UNDER ANY RULE OF LAW, SUCH REVISIONS OR ALLEGED REVISIONS AFTER SUCH LONG TIME GAPS OF 7-8 YEARS WITHOUT EVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY BEING AFFORDED TO THE EFFECTED PARTIES IS AGAINST THE RULE OF LAW AND IS OBJECTED TO. 2.8 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THROUGH ITS ADVOCATE MR. A JAY KUMAR BHARGAVA, WHO ALSO ASSISTED THE COMPANY IN THE PROC ESS OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEEDS IN 2008, ALSO MADE AN ENQUIRY IN THE MAT TER OF ANY SUCH REFERENCE MADE BY THE SUB REGISTRAR-IV, JAIPUR VIDE COMMUNICATION DT. 21.01.2009 TO HIS SUPERIOR OFFICER BUT DESPITE A RE ASONABLE EFFORT OF HIS AT THE OFFICE OF THE COLLECTOR STAMPS TO ASCERTAIN THE OUTCOME OF SUCH REFERENCE ON 21.01.2009 MADE IN THE MATTER OF REVAL UATION / REASSESSMENT OF THE PROPERTY SOLD BUT DESPITE ALL T HE EFFORTS, COULD NOT ARRIVE AT ANY TRAIL OF SUCH REFERENCE OR OF ITS REV ISION/ REVALUATION. NOR ANY PENDENCY TO SUCH REFERENCE IS ON RECORD OF SUCH DEP ARTMENT. MR. AJAY KUMAR BHARGAVA, ADVOCATE ACCORDINGLY BASED ON HIS RESEARCH ISSUED A CONFIRMATORY CERTIFICATE IN SUPPORT OF ABO VE FACTUAL POSITION VIZ., THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH REFERENCE OR REVISION IN THE VALUATION OF SUCH PROPERTY AFTER ITS REGISTRATION ON THE RECORDS OF T HE STAMP DEPT. NOR ANY SUCH REFERENCE REMAINING PENDING IN THE COMPUTER RE CORDS OF SUCH STAMP & REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT. ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 13 2.09 IN VIEW OF AFORESAID FACTUAL POSITION VIZ., NO REVISION IN THE VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ALLEGED WAS MADE OR WAS IN THE PROCESS OF BEING MADE AND NO DISPOSAL OF REFERENCE , IF AT ALL ANY, BY THE COLLE CTOR STAMPS WAS THERE TILL DATE, THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH BEI NG WITHOUT ANY BASIS WAS APPEALED TO BE DESERVING TO BE QUASHED AND HELD AS NULL AND VOID. 2.10 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIO NS, ATTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ALS O FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT ( RIGHT TO INFORMATION ACT) WITH THE STAMP AND REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT FOR ASCERTAINING THE FINAL OUTCOME OF ANY SUCH REFERENCE MADE BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR-IV ON 21.01.200 9 TO COLLECTOR STAMPS / SUPERIORS AS CONVEYED IN SUB REGISTRAR IV LETTER DT. 15.11.2016 ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2017. COPY OF SUCH APPLICATION DT. 11 TH DEC.,2017 WITH COPY OF ITS ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPT IN THE OFFICE OF THE SU B REGISTRAR OFFICE, WAS ATTACHED FOR REFERENCE AND RECORD OF THE CIT(A) THE N HEARING THE APPEAL. IF FOR ANY REASONS, APPELLANTS AFORESAID REQUEST TO QU ASH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE DID NOT BEAR A FAVORABLE CONSIDERATION BY THE CIT(A), IT WAS REQUESTED TO K EEP THE PROCEEDINGS IN APPEAL PENDING FOR SOME TIME SAY 2 MONTHS FOR DISPO SAL AND SUITABLE REPLY / OUTCOME TO SUCH APPLICATION UNDER THE RTI ACT WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY OR A FACTUAL POSITION OF THE REFE RENCE MADE IS ASCERTAINED FROM THE SAID DEPARTMENT. 2.11 THE CIT(A)-2 JAIPUR, THEN HEARING THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY ADJOURNED THE HEARING AND WITH EFFORTS, AN APPROPRIATE CLARIF ICATORY REPLY DT. FEB.5 TH , 2018 WAS ISSUED BY THE DY. DIRECTOR, STAMPS, GOVT O F RAJASTHAN IN RESPONSE TO COS APPLICATION AGAINST THE RTI APPLI CATION AND WHICH CLARIFICATORY REPLY DT. FEB.5 TH , 2018 CATEGORICALLY DENIED AS UNDER: ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 14 I. NO SUCH REFERENCE FROM SUB REGISTRAR 4 , JAIPUR VIDE LETTER NO.57 DT. 21.01.2009 WAS RECEIVED BY THE SAID DEPT. OF DY . DIRECTOR STAMPS . AND II. NOR ANY SUCH ORDER PASSED IN ANY SUCH REFERENCE. 2.12. THE ABOVE CLARIFICATORY REPLY DT. FEB.5 TH , 2018 OF THE DY. DIRECTOR, STAMPS, GOVT OF RAJASTHAN, AS SHARED WITH THE AR BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ACCORDINGLY FURNISHED TO THE THEN CIT( A)-2, JAIPUR WITH SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 20 TH JULY, 2018 WHO HEARD AND CLOSED THE APPEAL HEARING ON SAID DATE. THE APPEAL NO. THEN BEING E- 308/16-17 WITH CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR. 2.13. UNFORTUNATELY THEREAFTER, THE ORDER IN SAID APPEAL REMAINED TO BE PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR DESPITE THE HEARING HAVING BEEN CONCLUDED BY HER AND THE CASE GOT TRANSFERRED UNDER CERTAIN ADMINISTRATIVE POWERS OF THE CCIT OR EQUIVALENT, AND FOR WHICH NO FORMAL INTIMATION/ADVISE IN THE MATTER WAS ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE COMPANY. 2.14. LATER ON 13.10.2018, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED A NOTICE OF HEARING DT. 10.10.18 FOR THE VERY SAME A/ S YR. IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WITH DIFFERENT APPEAL NO. VIZ., 92/201 6-17 FROM CIT(A), AJMER FOR HEARING ON 17.10.2018 CAMPING AT JAIPUR A T ITAT BUILDING. ON WHICH DATE (17.10.2018), THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, MR. PRAMOD PATNI A SR. PARTNER IN THE CA FIRM M/S SHAH PATNI & CO. WHI LE LEAVING FOR THE HEARING IN APPEAL AT AROUND 10.30 AM OR SO RECEIVED A PHONE CALL WHICH INFORMED HIM OF DEMISE OF HIS FATHER IN LAW, DR. S. K. JAIN, RESIDING AT JAIPUR AND WAS THEN ADMITTED IN A HOSPITAL IN IMMED IATE VICINITY OF ARS OFFICE. DUE TO WHICH NEWS, PRAMOD PATNI LEFT THE AP PEAL FILE AS IT IS IN HIS OFFICE AND RUSHED TO THE HOSPITAL FOR NEEDFUL FURTH ER ACTIONS IN THE SAID MATTER. THUS, MR. PATNI COULD NOT ATTEND TO THE APP EAL HEARING. FURTHER AT ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 15 SUCH TIME NON OF HIS JR.PARTNERS HAD REACHED THE OF FICE WHO COULD HAVE BEEN BRIEFED ABOUT THE CASE AND SEEKING AN ADJOURNM ENT IN THE MATTER. COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF DR. S.K. JAIN ATTACHED . 2.15. AFTER MR. PATNI INFORMED ONE OF HIS JR. PART NERS OF HIS INABILITY TO ATTEND TO AN APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), AJMER, DIRECTION S WERE ISSUED TO HIM FOR SEEKING A. ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING IN THE CASE AFTER 7 DAYS STATING SAID PECULIAR EVENT HAVING OCCURRED AND ACCORDINGLY MR. KAILASH T. , JR. PARTNER VISITED THE CIT(A), AJMER, CAMPING AT ITAT BLDG. AT JAIPUR AND ATTEMPTED TO SUBMIT THE APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT , WHICH THE CIT(A), AJMER DECLINED TO ACCEPT AND GRANT ON A/C OF HIS OW N REASONS AND WHILE ALSO EXPRESSING THAT HE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTING THE A DJOURNMENT APPLICATION SINCE DID NOT HAVE THE APPEAL FILE FOLDER READILY W ITH HIM SINCE NOT CARRIED FROM AJMER AS ALSO SINCE MR. KAILASH COULD NOT SUBM IT A POA OR COPY OF POA WHEN ASKED FOR SINCE HE READILY DID NOT CARRY A NY OF THE SAME SINCE SAME WAS FILED EARLIER AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APP EAL WITH CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR. HOWEVER STILL, BEFORE THE JR. PARTNER KAILASH T. LE FT CIT(A)S CHAMBER, HE WAS MADE TO SIGN ON A FRESHLY MADE PROCEEDING SHEET BY THE CITA), AJMER. MR. KAILASH WAS ALSO INFORMED BY CIT(A), AJM ER TO SEND COPIES OF APPEAL MEMO AS ALSO ALL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY E.MAIL ON HIS MAIL ID, WHICH HE SHARED WITH THE JR. PARTNER. 2.16. ACCORDINGLY, OUR AR, MR. KAILASH THATHERA, J R. PARTNER OF M/S SHAH PATNI & CO. CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS, A FIRM WITH 60-6 5 YEARS EXPERIENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS BY THE FOLLOWING E. MAILS AS UNDER: A. BY E.MAIL DT. 17.10.2018 AT 12.46 A.M. WITH WHIC H FILED. I. FORM NO. 35 AS UPLOADED ON 11/01/2017 W.R.T. ONL INE FILING WITH CIT(A)-2, JAIPUR. II. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 16 III. WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE CIT (A) IN REASS. PR OCD. DEC., 17 1 ST RESUBMISSION IV. SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION ON 16.2.18 2 ND RESUBMISSION V. REPLY FROM REGISTRATION AND STAMP DEPT., GOVT. O F RAJASTHAN AGAIN RTI DT. 5.2.18 B. BY 2 ND E.MAIL DT. 18.10.2018 AT 16.20 PM WITH WHICH FILED . 1. POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF AR FIRM AND ITS PART NERS/ ASSOCIATES. C. BY 3 RD E.MAIL DT. 22.10.2018 AT 12.18 PM WITH WHICH FILED . 1. APPLICATION REQUESTING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING DT. 1 7/10/2018* 2. POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF AR FIRM AND ITS PART NERS/ ASSOCIATES. *ACCEPTANCE OF WHICH WAS REFUSED ON 17.1 0.20 FOR WANT OF POA & APPEAL FOLDER NOT BEING READILY AVAILABLE 2.17. THOUGH VIDE THE FIRST 2 EMAILS, ABOVE DT. 17 TH & 18 TH OCTOBER, THE JR. PARTNER MR. KAILASH THATHERA, SUBMITTED THE REQUIRE D DOCUMENTS, HE MISSED ON SENDING THE SAID ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIO N DT. 17.10.2018, WHICH HIS SR. PARTNER HAD ASKED HIM TO SUBMIT. HENC E WHEN MR. PRAMOD PATNI RESUMED OFFICE AFTER THE MOURNING PERIOD AS WELL AS AN INTERMITTED OFFICE HOLIDAY, WHEN HE ENQUIRED OF SUCH ADJOURNMEN T APPLICATION HAVING BEEN FILED AND IF NOT REASONS FOR SAME, THE JR. PAR TNER REALIZED HIS MISTAKE AND FINALLY FILED THE SAME WITH THE 3 RD E.MAIL DT. 22.10.18. 2.18. HOWEVER, SURPRISINGLY THE ASSESSEE CO. RECEI VED BY POST ON 16.11.18 THE ORDER IN APPEAL BY THE CIT(A), AJMER, DT. 17 TH OCT.,2018 AND ON READING OF WHICH OBSERVED THE FOLLOWING: I. THE ORDER IN APPEAL PASSED IN THE DATE OF 17.10. 2018 ITSELF, WHILE THE POA FAVORING THE SENDER OF EMAIL AND SUBMISSION S ITSELF SENT ON 18.10.2018. ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 17 II. THE CONCLUSION PARA IN THE ORDER IN APPEAL BASE D ONLY ON 1 ST SET OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS EVIDENT FROM PARA 2.1. TO PA RA 4.3. AT PAGES 8-9- 10 OF ORDER PLACED AT PAGE. NOS. 57 TO 59 OF THE 1 ST PAPER BOOK BEFORE THE ITAT. THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE CIT (A) IN REASS. PROCD. TO CIT(A), AJMER WITH EMAIL DT. 17.10.18 AS ITEM AT SR . NO. 3. III. THE CONCLUSION DRAWN AND THE ORDER SO PASSED A ND THE CONCLUSION DRAWN OUTRIGHTLY IGNORING SUBMISSIONS ATTACHED AS I TEM NOS. 4 AND 5 IN THE VERY SAME MAIL TO CIT(A), AJMER CONTAINING THE SUPPLEMENTARY SUBMISSION 2 ND RESUBMISSION AND THE REPLY FROM REGISTRATION AND STAMP DEPT., GOVT. OF RAJASTHAN AGAIN RTI APPLICATI ON DT. 5.2.18, WHICH WERE SUBMITTED AS ATTACHMENT WITH THE VERY SAME MAI L DT. 17.10.18. 2.19. FACTUALLY STATING, THE SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBM ISSION OR THE 2 ND RESUBMISSION WITH CLARIFICATORY LETTER FROM DY. D IRECTOR STAMPS DT. 5 TH FEB.,2018 WERE ALSO ALREADY FILED WITH THE CIT(A)-2 , JAIPUR IN THE COURSE OF CONCLUDED APPEAL HEARING ON JULY 20,2018 WHO HAD HEARD AND CLOSED THE HEARING PRIOR TO THE CASE GETTING TRANSFERRED T O THE CIT(A), AJMER. 2.20. SINCE THE AFORESAID MISTAKE OF NON CONSIDERATION OF VITAL CORRESPONDENCE FROM A GOVT. DEPT. ITSELF NOR GIVING ANY FINDING ON OR W.R.T. THE SAME DESPITE NARRATING / REFERRING TO TH E SAME W.R.T. THE SUPPLEMENTARY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BY THE AR WHICH W ERE MADE MORE THEN ONCE AT PARA 4.2.(4 &5) OF CIT(A), AJMER ORDE R [ AT PAGE 52 OF PAPER BOOK] , AND SUCH MISTAKE BEING OF A NATURE W HICH WAS APPARENT FROM RECORDS, IT WAS A FIT CASE TO CALL FOR A RECTI FICATION OF ORDER IN APPEAL U/S 154 OF ITA AND ACCORDINGLY THE AR OF THE ASSESS EE COMPANY FOLLOWED ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 18 UP THE MATTER PERSONALLY WITH THE CIT(A), AJMER ON HIS SUBSEQUENT CAMPING VISITS AT JAIPUR IN FOLLOWING GIVEN MANNER AND FURTHER ACTIONS FOR JUSTICE IN THE CASE : A. MEETING THE CIT(A), AJMER PERSONALLY DURING A SUBSE QUENT CAMPING BENCH AT ITAT OFFICE, JAIPUR ON 14 TH NOV.,2018 EXPLAINING THE ENTIRE MATTER AND DRAWING ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IT WA S A CLEAR CASE OF MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORDS AND HENCE RECTIFIABL E BY HIM BASED ON ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY MAIL BEFORE HIM ON 17 TH OCT.,2018 ITSELF. B. THOUGH UNUSUAL FOR THE CIT(A), AJMER BUT WITH MINOR PERSUASION, SOUGHT HIS EXPLICIT CONSENT TO THE ASSESSEE FILING A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION TO SET RIGHT THE ANOMALY IN THE ORDER AND ACCORDING LY SUBMITTING A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION WITH ALL ATTACHMENTS RELI ED ON BY E. MAIL BY THE AR, ON 16.11.2018 ITSELF. C. THE ABOVE RECTIFICATION APPLICATION WITH ALL SUPPOR TING DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON, FURTHER SENT BY THE CA OFFICE BY REGD. POST TO CIT(A)- AJMER AS PER COPY OF REGD. AD RECEIPT DT. 17 TH NOV.,2019 ATTACHED. 2.21 HERE ATTENTION IS ALSO DRAWN TO YET ANOTHER NO TICE DT. 14.11.18 FOR HEARING IN APPEAL ON 22.11.18 FOR THE SAME YEAR AS A/S YR. 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE COMPANY UNDER REFERENCE OF APPEAL NO. E- 308/2016-17 RECEIVED, WHICH TOO WAS CARRIED BY THE AR TO MEET THE LEARNED CIT(A)- AJMER ON 14.11.18 ITSELF ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE ORDER IN APPEAL DT. 17.10.18 WHICH WAS RECEIVED VIDE EMAI L FROM CIT(A)_JAIPUR DT. 09.11.2018. ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 19 ATTENTION TO THIS FRESH NOTICE, EVEN AFTER HAVING P ASSED ORDER IN APPEAL WAS SHOWN TO CIT(A)- AJMER, MR. ANIL SINGH, WHO EVE N THEN SHOWING DISMAY TOWARDS THE WORKING OF HIS OFFICE, ASSURED T HAT SINCE HE HAVING AGREED TO THE COMPANY FILING A RECTIFICATION APPLIC ATION FOR CARRYING OUT NECESSARY AMENDS, IF REQUIRED, IN THE APPEAL ORDER, NECESSARY JUSTICE WOULD BE DONE IN THE CASE. 2.22 IN VIEW OF ALL THE AFORESAID DEVELOPMENTS IN T HE CASE, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE CO., FEELING CONFIDENT OF A FAVORABLE OUTC OME IN THE CASE AT THE LEVEL OF THE CIT(A), AJMER ITSELF, ADVISED THE CO. FOR NOT FILE A CASE AT THE ITAT, KEEPING THE TIME AND EFFORT OF THE BENCH IN M IND. HOWEVER, WHEN DESPITE REPEATED REMINDERS, NO DISPOSAL OF THE APPL ICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF APPEAL ORDER COMING FORTH, THE COMPANY DECIDING TO FILE A BELATED APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH WITH AN APPROP RIATE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING SUCH APPEAL. 2.23. BOTH SUB PARA 3.4. OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 5 (PAGE 25 OF PAPER BOOK) AS ALSO THE 1 ST SUB PARA TO PARA 4.3. OF THE CIT(A)- AJMER ORDER AT ITS PAGE 10 (PAGE 59 OF THE PAPER BOOK) R EFER TO SEC.50C OF ITA AS ALSO TO THE VALUE DETERMINED FOR PURPOSE OF STAM P DUTY AND WHILE FACTUALLY SUCH VALUE SO DETERMINED AND REMAINING SO TILL THIS DATE TO BE AT RS. 76,00,000/- AS PER PAGE 60 AND PAGE 67 OF PAPER BOOK, SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY CONCLUDED TO BE CONSIDERED AT RS. 90,1 9,200/- MERELY BASED ON AN UNCONCLUDED ALLEGED REFERENCE, OF WHICH NEITH ER ANY DETAILS SHARED EITHER BY SUCH AUTHORITIES OR BY THE AO ALSO NOR SA ME GETTING CONCLUDED BY THE SUPERIOR AUTHORITIES IN THE STAMP DEPT. ITSELF AND FURTHER IN RESPECT TO WHICH THERE IS A EVEN SPECIFIC DENIAL BY SUCH ALLEG ED SUPERIOR AUTHORITY AS TO THERE BEING ANY SUCH REFERENCE FOR REVISION BEIN G PENDING AND/ OR HAVING BEEN CONCLUDED IN THE PAST. ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 20 2.24 FURTHER, NEITHER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C OF ITA OR SEC.48 FOR INCOME CALCULATION PROVIDE FOR OR PERMIT ANY SUCH REASSESSMENT OR REVISION OF STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AND TH US THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE QUASHED HOLDING THE SAME TO B E NULL AND VOID AND OUT OF JURISDICTION OF THE AO. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS HAVING SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT THE VALUE DETERMIN ED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY WAS RS. 90,19,200/- AS AGAINST DECLARED S ALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 76,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF IN COME. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT MATERIAL TO FORM AN OPINION T HAT INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,19,200/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED AS SESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT OF THE A.Y 2009-10 U/S 147 AND ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6), THE STAMP DUTY AUTHO RITY VIDE LETTER NO. 1223 DATED 15.11.2016 HAS INFORMED THE AO THAT THE VALUE OF PROPERTY HAS BEEN REVISED AFTER ON-SPOT VERIFICATION AND VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN ENHANCED FROM RS. 76,00,000/- TO RS. 90,19,200 /- AND AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AND GIVING THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE AC T BY TAKING THE VALUE OF RS. 90,19,200/- FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) AND THE ORDER SO PASSED BY THE CIT(A) MAY THEREFORE BE CONF IRMED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSIT ION THAT REASSESSMENT ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 21 PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED BASIS THE INFORMATION AND MATERIAL IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHERE ON RE VIEW AND EXAMINATION THEREOF, WHERE HE FORMS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT TH E INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND PURSUANT THERETO, HE RECORDS HIS REA SONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT, SEEK APPROPRIATE APPROVALS FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND THEREAFTER, ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. I N THE INSTANT CASE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH CAN DEMO NSTRATE THAT THE AO WAS IN RECEIPT OF ANY INFORMATION OR HAVING ANY MAT ERIAL IN POSSESSION PRIOR TO RECORDING OF THE REASONS AND ISSUANCE OF N OTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IT IS ONLY ON RECEIPT OF OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE AO HAS SOUGHT INF ORMATION FROM THE SUB-REGISTRAR WHEREIN THE LATTER HAS STATED VIDE LE TTER DATED 15.11. 2016 THAT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS REVISED AFTER SPOT V ERIFICATION AND ENHANCED FROM RS 76,00,000/- TO RS 90,19,200/- AS EVIDENT FR OM PARA 3.4 OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: 3.4 CONSIDERING ASSESSEES OBJECTION VIDE THIS OFF ICE LETTER NO. 1569 DATED 15.11.2016, INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR U/S 13 3(6) FROM THE SUB- REGISTRAR TO PROVIDE VALUATION/REVALUATION REPORT O F THE SAID SOLD PROPERTY. THE SUB-REGISTRAR VIDE HIS OFFICE LETTER NO. 1223 D ATED 15.11.2016 INFORMED THAT VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS REVISED AFT ER SPOT VERIFICATION AND VALUE OF PROPERTY WAS ENHANCED FROM RS. 76,00,000/- TO RS. 90,19,200/-. THEREFORE, VIDE SHOW CAUSE LETTER DATED 16.11.2016, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 14 ,19,200/- (RS.90,19,200 RS. 76,00,000/-) BE NOT ADDED BACK IN ITS TOTAL I NCOME. COPY OF LETTER NO. 1223 DATED 15.11.2016 RECEIVED FROM THE SUB-REGISTR AR WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT VERY FOUNDATION IN TERMS OF MATERIAL AND INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE AO, PRIOR TO RECOR DING OF THE REASONS AND ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 22 ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, FOR FORMATION OF REASON ABLE BELIEF THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT IN THE INSTANT CASE. IT IS NO T A QUESTION OF SUFFICIENCY OR MATERIALITY OF INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE AO RATHER IT IS A CASE OF COMPLETE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION OR MATERIAL PRI OR TO RECORDING OF REASONS AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AND IN LIGHT OF THE SAME, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS DESERVE TO BE QUASHED AND SET-ASIDE. 9. ON MERITS, THE AO HAS RELIED UPON COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM OFFICE OF SUB-REGISTRAR DATED 15.11.2016 AND 29.11. 2016 TO HOLD THAT THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN REVISED AT RS 90,19, 200/- AS AGAINST VALUE OF RS 76,00,000/- DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF EXECUTI ON OF REGISTRY AND HAS CONSIDERED THE REVISED VALUE OF RS 90,19,200/- IN T ERMS OF SECTION 50C FOR DETERMINATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 10. IN HIS SUBMISSIONS, THE LD AR HAS STATED THAT T HE SUB-REGISTRAR HAS REFERRED TO REVALUATION OF PROPERTY AND REFERENCE O F WHICH WAS MADE TO SUPERIOR AUTHORITY VIDE LETTER DATED 21.01.2009 AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO NOTICE FOR REVALUATION TO EITHER THE P URCHASER OR THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY, NO ORDER FOR SUCH REVALUATION IS MADE TILL DATE OR AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND EVEN NO STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN DEMANDED AND /OR PAID BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REGA RDING SO CALLED REFERENCE TO SUPERIOR AUTHORITY VIDE LETTER DATED 21.01.2009, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ITS ADVOCATE INSPECTED THE RECORDS OF THE STAMPS DU TY AUTHORITY AND BASIS SUCH EXAMINATION, THE ADVOCATE HAS ISSUED A CONFIRM ATION CERTIFICATE THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH REFERENCE OR REVISION IN THE VALU ATION OF THE PROPERTY AFTER ITS REGISTRATION ON THE RECORDS OF THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF STAM PS VIDE REPLY DATED 5.02.2018 IN RESPONSE TO RTI APPLICATION DATED 11.1 2.2017 HAS ALSO ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 23 CONFIRMED THAT NO SUCH REFERENCE FROM SUB-REGISTRAR 4 JAIPUR VIDE LETTER NO. 57 DATED 21.01.2009 WAS RECEIVED BY THE SAID OF FICE AND NO SUCH ORDER PASSED IN ANY SUCH REFERENCE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS CONFIRMATION IN RESPONSE TO RTI APPLICATION BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND IS THEREFORE PART OF RECORD AND W HICH IS MISTAKENLY NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD CIT(A). 11. WE FIND THAT THE SOLE BASIS FOR ADOPTING THE EN HANCED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS A COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE SUB-R EGISTRAR REGARDING REVALUATION OF THE PROPERTY AND REFERENCE MADE TO T HIS EFFECT TO THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES DATED 21.09.2009. HOWEVER, SUCH A COMM UNICATION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY REVALUATION ORDER AND EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, NO SUCH REVALUATION ORDER IS E ITHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE OR PLACED ON RECORD. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF STAMPS VIDE REPLY DATED 5.02.2018 IN RESPONSE TO AS SESSEES RTI APPLICATION HAS CONFIRMED THAT NO SUCH REFERENCE WA S EITHER RECEIVED FROM SUB-REGISTRAR 4 JAIPUR VIDE LETTER NO. 57 DATED 21. 01.2009 OR NO SUCH ORDER PASSED IN ANY SUCH REFERENCE AS EVIDENT FROM CONTENTS THEREOF WHICH READS AS UNDER: MIJKSDR FO'K; ,OA IZKLAFXD I= DS LANHKZ ESA YS[K GS FD VKI }KJK MI IATH;D PRQFKZ T;IQJ }KJK I= EKAD 57 FNUKAD 21-01-2009 DS }KJK NKKZ;S X;S JSQJ SUL ESA NKKZ;S X;S I= EKAD BL DK;KZY; DKS IZKIR UGHA GQVK GSA UK GH DKSBZ VKNSK IKFJR GQVK G SA RFKK MI IATH;D T;IQJ PRQFKZ }KJK DKSBZ JSQJSUL GSRQ IZKIR UGHA GQVK GSA WE THEREFORE FIND THAT EVEN ON MERITS, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE HAS NO LEGS TO STAND IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ANY REVALUATION/ENHANCEMENT IN VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AND THE ADDITION SO MADE IS HEREBY DIRECT ED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ITA NO. 243/JP/2020 M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR VS. ACIT, JAIPUR 24 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/06/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 15/06/2021 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S DHOOT STONO CRAFTS PVT. LTD., JA IPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, CIRCLE-06, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 243/JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR