NARENDRA SINGH, Jaipur V. ACIT, Ajmer

ITA 331/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1886 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P R MEENA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Fair market value; Valuation report
• Section: 50C; 234B; 147; 148; 37; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 331/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 NARENDRA SINGH, RAJ BHAWAN, 11, SHASTRI NAGAR, AJMER-305001. CUKE VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGUPS 2302 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 325/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, AJMER. CUKE VS. NARENDRA SINGH, RAJ BHAWAN, 11, SHASTRI NAGAR, AJMER-305001. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGUPS 2302 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.R. MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/11/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE THE CROSS APPEALS, ONE BY T HE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- AJMER DATED 29/01/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A LAND ADMEASURING 13068 SQ.FT. BEARING KHASRA NO. 1834 SI TUATED AT THOK TELIYA, AJMER ON 06/01/2010. THE DECLARED CONSIDERATI ON WAS RS. 8.00 LACS. THE SUB-REGISTRAR-CUM-STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY ADO PTED THE VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 52,40,700/-. THE DIG (STAMPS) ENHANCED T HE VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 1,56,95,100/-. THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ISSUED ON 25/02/2013 AFTER RE CORDING THE REASONS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/ 3/2013 SHOWING INCOME FROM VARIOUS HEADS INCLUDING THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF LAND ADMEASURING 13068 SQ.FT. BEARING K HASRA NO. 1834 AT AJMER. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS AD OPTED THE VALUE OF TRANSFER AT RS. 52,40,700/- AND WORKED OUT THE CAPIT AL GAIN OF RS. 46,25,457/- AFTER TAKING BENEFIT OF INDEXATION AND ALSO FOR LAND IMPROVEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WORKED OUT THE LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS RS. 1,56,95,100/- AS VALUED BY TH E DIG(STAMPS). ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE GROUN DS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS U NDER: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD ASSISTANT COMM ISSIONER HAS WRONGLY TAKEN THE SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,56,95,100/- AS AGAINST RS. 52,40,700/-. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER IS ER RONEOUS BOTH IN POINT OF LAW AND ON FACTS. ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 3 3. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR BEING PERMITTED TO R AISE FRESH GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR TO ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEAR ING. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE I NCOME TAX OFFICER BE MODIFIED ACCORDINGLY AND THE INCOME OF T HE APPELLANT BE REDUCED. THE ABOVE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADOPT ING THE VALUE AT RS. 1,56,95,100/- AS AGAINST RS. 52,40,700/- DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S 148 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISPUTED THE ENHANCEMENT OF V ALUE FROM RS. 52,40,700/- TO RS. 1,56,95,100/-. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEALS B EFORE THE ITAT BY TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL: (I) THE VERY ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 R/W 148 IS BAD IN LAW WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND BEING VOID- AB-INITIO, THE SAME KI NDLY BE QUASHED. CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 144 /147 DATED 02.02.2015 ALSO KINDLY BE QUASHED. (II) RS.16,00,000/-: THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN NOT CONSIDERING THE ESTIMATED MARKET VALUE OF THE SUBJECTED PROPERTY AT RS.24,18,000/- OR RS.29,83,50 0/- ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFF ICER (DVO) RESPECTIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SEC.45 R/W SEC.50C SO AS TO COMPUTE THE LEGALLY CORRECT AMOUNT OF THE SALE CONS IDERATION AND CONSEQUENTLY TO COMPUTE THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF THE R ESULTANT CAPITAL GAIN THERE FROM. THE DECISION OF THE ID. CI T(A) TO CONSIDER THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.52,42,700/- FOR THE PURPOSE ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 4 OF SEC.45 R/W SEC.50C AND THEREBY CONSEQUENTLY CONF IRMING THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN HIGHER BY THE AMOUNT OF RS.1 6 LACS APPROX., BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD, THE SALE CONSIDERATION ESTIMATED AT THE LOWEST BY THE REGISTERED VALUER BE DIRECTED TO BE TAKEN. (III) RS.16,00,000/-: THE ID. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN REJECTING THE CLAIM MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE OF ADOPTING THE LOWEST ESTIMATION OF THE SALE CONSI DERATION AT RS.24,18,000/- MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER MERELY BECAUSE THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAD ACCEPTED THE DEEMED SALE CONSI DERATION AT RS.52,42,700/- IN AS MUCH AS THERE IS NO ESTOPPEL AGAINST THE STATUTE. IT WAS THE DUTY ON THE PART OF THE ID. CIT (A) TO ASSESS THE TRUE AND CORRECT INCOME ONLY BASED ON THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS AGAINST CONFIRMING HYPOTHETI CAL INCOME. THE ID. CIT(A) EVEN IGNORED / FAILED TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE REPORT OF THE ID. DVO WHO ESTIMATED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.29,83,500/- ONLY AS AGAINST RS.52,42,700/-. THE ORDER OF ID. CIT(A) THEREFORE, SUFFERS FROM SERIOUS LEGAL AND FA CTUAL INFIRMITIES AND HENCE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES KINDLY BE DIRECT TO ADOPT THE LOWEST SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES SEC.45 R /W SEC.50C OF THE ACT. (IV) THE ID. AO FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. TH E APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES ITS LIABILITY OF CHARGING. THE INTER EST SO CHARGED/WITHDRAWN, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. (V) THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOURS INDULGENCE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL: IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER HAS ERRED IN: 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,04,54,400/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, WITHOUT APPRECIA TING THE FACTS ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 5 THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE COLLECTOR (STAMPS) WA S RIGHTLY CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN VIEW OF DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961; 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DELET E OR MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS. 4. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS NOT PRES SED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THEREFORE, THE SAME STANDS DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. 5. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT R EQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS REGARDI NG CHARGING OF THE INTEREST U/S 23B & 23C OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGA RD, WE HOLD THAT THE CHARGING THE INTEREST IS MANDATORY, HENCE THIS GROU ND OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APP EAL, THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IS CHALLENGING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED MODIFIED GROUND WHEREIN THE FIGURE OF RS. 16.00 LACS APPEARING IN GROUNDS NO. 2 AND 3 IS REQU ESTED TO BE REPLACED BY THE FIGURES OF RS. 28,22,700/-. BEING T HIS IS A FACTUAL ERROR, THE BENCH ALLOW TO MODIFY THE GROUND TO THAT EXTENT. IN REVENUES ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 6 APPEAL GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 1,04,54,400/-. 8. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY ALLOWING PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLA NT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, VALUATION REPORT, COMMENTS OF THE AO THEREON AND COMMENTS OF THE VALUATION OFFICER VIDE LETTER D ATED 27.01.2015. IT IS SEEN THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND MEASURIN G 1368 SQ. FT. BEARING KHASRA NO. 1834 ON 06.01.2010 FOR RS. 8 LAC S TO SHRI RAJKUMAR KULSHRESTH. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS VALUED A T RS. 52,40,700/- BY SUB-REGISTRAR AJMER FOR STAMP DUTY P URPOSES. LATER ON, COLLECTOR (STAMPS) ENHANCED THE VALUE OF THE SA ID PROPERTY AT RS. 1,56,95,100/- AND PURCHASING PARTY PAID THE STAMP D UTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAID PROPERTY WA S SOLD FOR RS. 8 LACS ONLY AS THIS WAS UNDER UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION OF SHRI RAJKUMAR KULSHRESTH AND VARIOUS OTHER CONSTRAINTS I .E. SAID PROPERTY WAS ON A HILLOCK HAVING NO DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE M AIN ROAD, LAND USE OF THE LAND IN THE MASTER PLAN WAS FOR SOCIAL C ULTURAL ACTIVITIES ONLY AND NO RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WAS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE ON THE ABOVE PROPERTY. THE APPROVED VAL UER HAS VALUED THIS PROPERTY AT RS. 24,18,000/- ONLY WHILE THE STA MP VALUATION AUTHORITIES HAS INITIALLY ADOPTED THE VALUE AT RS. 52,40,700/- WHICH WAS LATER ON ENHANCED TO RS. 1,56,95,100/- HOLDING THE SAME AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WHILE IT WAS SOLD AS AGRICULTUR AL LAND. IT IS SEEN THAT THE SEC. 50C(2) AND SEC. 50C(3) AR E AS UNDER: ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 7 (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SEC TION (1), WHERE- (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DAT E OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP V ALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF T HE CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS M ADE, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSE (I) OF SUBSECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SU B-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THA T ACT. EXPLANATION. : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, ' VALUATION OFFICER' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SEC TION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRED TO IN SUB -SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE T AKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. AS SUCH, WHERE THE ASSESSEE DISPUTES THE VALUE ADO PTED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND NO APPEAL, REVISIONS OR REF ERENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY, C OURT OR HIGH COURT, THE AO MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF THE CAPITA L ASSET TO THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINING FAIR MARKET VALUE AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 50C(2) & 50C(3) ARE APPLICABLE I N THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OF FICER HAS DETERMINED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 29,83,500/- ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 8 AND HAS MENTIONED THAT THE COLLECTOR (STAMPS) HAS C ONSIDERED THE PROPERTY AS COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND ADOPTED THE VAL UE OF RS. 1,56,95,100/-. THE SAID PROPERTY CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED AS COMMERCIAL LAND IN VIEW OF FOLLOWING POINTS: A. SHRI SARDAR NARENDRA SINGH SOLD A LAND MEASURING 13068 SFT. BEARING KHASRA NO. 1834 FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. EIGHT LACS TO SHRI SHIV RAJ KUMAR KULSHETRA, WHO WAS HAVING THE UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSI ON THEREON. B. THIS PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT HILLOCK HAVING NO A XIS FROM THE MAIN ROAD. FOR THIS PECULIAR TYPE OF LAND ON REVENUE RECORDS A COP Y OF LETTER DATED 23.1.2015 OF CONCERNED PATWARI IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNEX-III). C. AS PER MASTER PLAN OF AJMER FOR LAND USE PLAN 20 23 OF THE TOWN PLANNING DEPARTMENT RAJASTHAN (COPY ENCLOSED AS ANNEX-LV) TH IS EVALUATED LAND IS FOR SOCIAL OR CULTURAL ACTIVITY. D. THIS PROPERTY IS SITUATED TO THE ARCHEOLOGICAL A REA FROM NORTH SIDE THEREFORE NO CONSTRUCTION CAN BE DONE WITHIN 100 ME TERS AS PER THE DIRECTIVES OF THE CENTRAL GOVT. VIDE GAZETTE NOTIFI CATION DATED 30.03.2010 (COPY ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-V). IN ABOVE CASE, THOUGH THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION O FFICER HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS. 29,83,500/-, THE SALE CO NSIDERATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IN THE RETURN OF IN COME FILED IN RESPONSE TO SEC. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT (THE PROCEEDIN GS WHICH ARE FOR BENEFIT FOR REVENUE ONLY TO TAX ESCAPED INCOME) IS AT RS. 52,42,700/- . THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SA LE CONSIDERATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDI NGLY THE SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS I.E. RS. 52,42,700/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE, PERU SED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOU S CASE LAWS RELIED ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 9 UPON BY BOTH SIDES AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ADOPTED THE VALUE AT RS. 52,40,700/- AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTI CE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED THE VALUE AT RS. 1,56, 95,100/- AS ADOPTED BY THE DIG (STAMPS). THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY C HALLENGED THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE A.O. AT RS. 1,56,95,100/- BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL. NOW WHAT IS CLAIMED IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A JUSTIFIED CLAIMED. HE HIMSELF HAS ADOPTED THE VAL UE FOR WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 52,40,700/-. ONLY ENHANCEME NT WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AT THE STAGE OF CIT(A), THE M ATTER WAS REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER, WHO HA S VALUED IT AROUND RS. 29,83,500/-. NOW THE ASSESSEES AR CLAIMS THAT THIS VALUE SHOULD BE SUBSTITUTED FOR THE VALUE DECLARED BY HIM IN HIS RE TURN OF INCOME. ON THIS ISSUE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF HAS OFFERED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERING OFFICE R AT RS. 52,40,700/- AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND PAID THE TAXES. THEN THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR REDUCTION. HE HAS ALSO NOT AGITATED THIS VALUATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN ANY OF HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ONLY PLE A WAS TO ADOPT THE VALUE AT RS. 52,40,700/- IN PLACE OF RS. 1,56,95,10 0/-, THEREFORE, WE ITA 331 & 325/JP/2015_ NARENDRA SINGH VS ACIT 10 FIND NO MERIT IN THIS PLEA OF THE LD AR OF THE ASSE SSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE MATTER, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS I.E. APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/11/2017. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPAN HKKXPAN HKKXPAN HKKXPAN (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER. 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. 331 & 325/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR