Smt Alka Jain, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3402/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2110 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Share purchase agreement; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Right to appeal; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 133(6); 143(2); 48; 13; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SMT. ALKA JAIN, 3-C/46, NEW ROHTAK ROAD, NEW DELHI VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-33(1), NEW DELHI PAN : AADPJ8056G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI AJAY WADHWA, ADV. MS. RAGINI HANDA, CA RESPONDENT BY SHRI UMESH TAKYAR, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 24.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01.05.2020 ORDER PER O.P. KANT,A.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST OR DER DATED 31/03/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME-TAX (APPEALS)-17, NEW DELHI, [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)] FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 31.03.201 5 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE AO COMPUTING LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT RS.65,43,367/- AS AGAINST RS. 17,31,267/- COMPUTED BY THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOP TING THE HALF SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D AT 2 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 RS.78,12,100/- AS AGAINST RS.30 LAKHS ACTUALLY RECE IVED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE MOU DATED 17.10.2014. 2.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADOPTING THE SALE VALUE OF AGRICULTURA L LAND AS MENTIONED IN SPA DATED 6.4.2009 (CONVEYANCE DEED EX ECUTED ON 23.6.2010) FRAUDULENTLY GOT SIGNED FROM THE APPELLA NT BY THE BUYER OF LAND NAMELY SHRI H.P. SINGH, DIRECTOR, ANUSHNA E STATES (P) LTD. 2.3 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF LAN D AS MENTIONED IN THE SPA DATED 6.4.2009 WITHOUT REFERRING THE MATTER TO DVO AS ENVISAGED IN SEC. 50C OF THE I.T. ACT. 2.4 THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE TO THE DVO THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS ILLEGAL AND MAY BE SET ASIDE. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO IN TREA TING THE LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES AS NON-GENUINE AND THEREBY NOT ALLOW ING SET OFF AGAINST LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFYING IN GIVING DIREC TION TO THE AO FOR INITIATING WEALTH TAX PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE APPEL LANT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/03/2011, DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF 27,61,600/-, WHICH COMPRISED OF INCOME DECLARED UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, PROFIT OR GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION, CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS ISSUED AND COMPL IED WITH. IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) THE ACT ON 26/03/2013, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION UND ER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN FOR LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF 48,12,100/-AND DISALLOWANCE OF SHORT-TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF 24,50,000/-. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIE VED WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL RAISING THE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. T HE ASSESSEE 3 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 HAD ALSO FILED AN ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL AS UNDER ON 16/01/2019: (I) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE T HE FACT THAT THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE BUYER OF THE PROPERTY WAS ABOVE THE CIRCLE RATE BUT THE ASSESSEE SELLER RECEIVED A MUCH LESSER AMOUNT OF RS.30 LAKHS AS THE BROKER AND THE INTERMEDIARIES HAD MISA PPROPRIATED THE DIFFERENCE. HENCE, SECTION 50C WAS DULY COMPLIED WI TH BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN, THE AMOUNT APPRO PRIATED HAD TO BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION OUT OF THE SALES CONSIDER ATION. 4. HOWEVER, DURING HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED C OUNSEL SUBMITTED NOT TO PRESS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND MA DE ENDORSEMENT ON THE APPEAL PAPER FOR WITHDRAWING THE SAID ADDITIONAL GROUND. 5. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL BEING GENERAL IN N ATURE, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON SPECIFICALLY 6. THE GROUND NO. 2 TO 2.4 OF THE APPEAL ARE RELATE D TO THE ADDITION OF LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF 48,12,100/-. 6.1 THE FACTS QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT; (I) THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SHOWN SAL E OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT 4,30,00,000/-AND AFTER SUBTRACTING THE COST OF ACQUISITION, COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND O THER LEGAL COST, THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF 17,31,266/-HAS BEEN DECLARED. (II) DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ON BEING ASKED, THE ASSESSEE FILED A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATE D 01/04/2009. IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO SALE ITS 50% SHARE IN THE AGRICULTURE LA ND ALONG WITH REMAINING 50% OWNERS TO M/S ANUSHNA ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED FOR A TOTAL SUM OF 60,00,000 /-. ( 30 LAKHS TO THE ASSESSEE AND REMAINING 30 LAKH TO OTHER OWNERS OF THE LAND). ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS ING 4 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 OFFICER, THE SAID AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS MADE ON NON - JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER OF 50 BUT IT WAS NEITHER REGISTERED BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY NOR NOTARIZED, SO HE ASKED FOR THE SALE DEED OF THE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT SUBMIT THE SAID SALE DEED. (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF ISSUE OF NOTI CE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT DATED 18/03/2013, GATHERE D A COPY OF THE SALE DEED FROM THE OFFICE OF THE SUB- R EGISTRAR AND FOUND THAT THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED ON 23/06/2010, WHEREIN THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY EXCHANGED BETWEEN THE SELLER AND BUYER WAS RECORDED AT 1,56,24,200/-. IN THE SAID SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REPRESENTED BY HER SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SH. HP SINGH. 6.2 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED 50% SHARE OUT O F THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED, WHICH AMOU NTED TO 78,12,100/-, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED SAL E CONSIDERATION OF ONLY 30,00,000/-AND, THEREFORE, HE MADE ADDITION FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF 48,12,100/-. THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 3.3 THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EVASIVE ON THIS ISSUE SINCE BEGINNING OF T HE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT COPY OF SA LE DEED DESPITE BEING ASKED TO DO SO ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. THE ASSE SSEE DID NOT EVEN SUBMIT COPY OF THE SAID POWER OF ATTORNEY EXEC UTED BY HER IN FAVOUR OF SH. H.P. SINGH. WHAT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED IS ONLY AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH IS NOT REGISTERED NOT EVEN NOTARIZED AND LOOKS LIKE A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT. THE MODUS OPERA NDI OF ASSESSEE IS VERY CLEAR. INSTEAD OF EXECUTING CONVEYANCE DEE D DIRECTLY IN THE FAVOUR OF PURCHASER, SHE HAS GIVEN HER POWER OF AT TORNEY TO SH. H.P. SINGH FOR PURPOSE OF EXECUTING THE CONVEYANCE DEED ON HER BEHALF. IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE CONVEYANCE DEED T HAT SMT. ALKA JAIN ALONGWITH OTHERS ARE THE VENDOR OF THE PROPER TY AND THEY HAVE 5 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 SOLD THE PROPERTY TO M/S. ANUSHNA ESTATES PVT. LTD. FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,56,24,200/- WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE VENDOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO SHIELD HER SELF FROM THE GRIP OF INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND HAS ALSO AVOIDED PAYM ENT OF CAPITAL GAIN ON THE PROFIT ARISEN FROM THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE SAID LAND IS TAKEN AT RS.1,56,24,200/- AND SINCE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF HA LF SHARE OF THIS PROPERTY, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE COMES TO RS.78,12,100/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLAR ED SALE CONSIDERATION OF ONLY RS.30,00,000/-, THEREFORE ADD ITION OF RS.48,12,100/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E ON ACCOUNT OF LTCG. 6.3 ALTERNATIVELY, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE ASSES SEE WAS REQUIRED TO DECLARE THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON T HE 50% AMOUNT OF THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION OF 1,56,24,200/- I.E. THE AMOUNT AT WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE STAMP VALUATION, AND THEREFORE ALSO THIS ADDITI ON OF 48,12,100/-WAS JUSTIFIED. 6.4 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE OTHER CO-OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ORDER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER HAD CHEATED THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS P URSUED LEGAL REMEDY AGAINST ALL THOSE PERSONS IN A COURT OF LAW. IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL PROCEEDINGS, THOSE PERSONS HAVE ENTERED INTO A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE ASSESSEE, WHEREIN THEY HAVE ADMI TTED TO THEIR CRIME AND CONSIDERED THE HARM CAUSED TO THE ASSESSE E. IN NUTSHELL, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT T HE PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED THROUGH A SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATE D 06/04/2009, WHICH WAS FRAUDULENTLY GOT SIGNED FROM THE ASSESSEE . 6.4 THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 6.5 BEFORE US, THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED PAPER-BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 172 . HE REFERRED TO THE COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AVAILABLE ON PAGE 7 TO 9 OF THE P APER-BOOK, COPY OF RECEIPT OF 60 LAKHS ISSUED TO BUYERS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 10, COPY OF POSSESSION LETTER ISSUED TO BUYER OF LAND A VAILABLE ON PAGE 11, COPY OF GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 28/03/ 2009 AVAILABLE ON PAGE 12 TO 14, COPY OF A SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 28/03/2009 AVAILABLE ON PAGE15 TO 17, COPY OF AFFIDAVIT BY THE CO-OWNERS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 18 TO 19, COPY OF S PECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 06/04/2009BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF SH. H.P. SINGH AVAILABLE ON PAGE 20 TO 22. 6.6 ACCORDING TO THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD HER 50% SHARE IN THE AGRICULTURE LAND AT 30 LAKH BY WAY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL ONLY AND SHE DID N OT ISSUE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 06/04/2009 IN FAVOUR OF SH . H.P.SINGH FOR REGISTRATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY FOR A VALUE R ECORDED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL, THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 06/04/2009 WAS FRAUDULENTLY GOT SIG NED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR REGISTRATION OF THE PROPERTY FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OF 1,56,24,430/-. THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL DRAWN OUR ATTENT ION TO COPY OF THE SALE DEED AVAILABLE ON PAGE 26 TO 31 OF THE PAPER-BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT NO DESCRIPTION OF THE MODE OF RECEIP T OF 1,56,24,200/-HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SAID SALE DE ED, WHICH ALSO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO SUCH AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS RECORDED IN THE REG ISTERED SALE DEED. 6.7 ON THE ISSUE OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT S AID PROVISIONS WERE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE DURING RELEVANT PERIOD. HE 7 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C THE WORD ASSESSABLE AFTER THE WORD ASSESSED HAS BEEN INS ERTED WITH EFFECT FROM 01/10/2009. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNEDCOU NSEL, THE WORD ASSESSABLE INSERTED IN SECTION 50C WITH EFFE CT FROM 01/10/2009 IS PROSPECTIVE AND NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY WA Y OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 01/04/2009 AND THE PROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN REGISTERED NOR EVALUATED FOR THE PURPOSE OF TH E STAMP DUTY BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SAID AGREEMENT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, T HE LEARNEDCOUNSEL RELIED ON THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 5/20 10 DATED 03/06/2010. THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON THE F OLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT: I. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR-II VS.. SATYA DEV SHARMA [2017] 86 TAXMANN.COM 150 (RAJASTHAN) II. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, COIMBATORE VS. R. SUGANTHA RAVINDRAN [2013] 352 ITR 488 (MADRAS) III. KRISHNA ENTERPRISES VS. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX [2017] 88 TAXMANN.COM 849 (MUMBAI-TRIB.) IV. RAMESH VERMA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX, CIRCLE, YAMUNA NAGAR [2017] 163 ITD 421 (CHANDIGARH TRIB.) V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(L), JAIPUR VS. TARA C HAND JAIN [2015] 155 ITD 956 (JAIPUR-TRIB.) VI. SMT. SOWCAR JANAKI VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER [201 3] 27 ITR(T) 226 (CHENNAI-TRIB.) VII. RAN MAL BHANSALI VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2012] 25 TAXMANN.COM 149 (JODHPUR-TRIB.) VIII. SMT. VIJAY LAXMI DHADDHA VS. ITO [2009] 20 DT R (AT) 365 (JAIPUR) IX. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN IS RS.25,02,300/-. HOWEVER, THE LD. AO HAS WRONGLY MEN TIONED IT AS RS.27,61,600/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND COMPU TED TAX ON RS.27,61,600/- 6.8 THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 06/04/2009 AND THE REGISTERED SALE D EED, THE 8 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 PROPERTY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED AT RECORDED SALE CONS IDERATION OF 1,56,24,200/-AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE FOR LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES THE PROPERTY ON THE SALE CONSIDERATION VALUE RECORDED IN REGISTERED SALE DEE D. 6.9 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES O N THE ISSUE DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD . THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN SOLD BY WAY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 01/04/2009 FOR A SUM OF 60,000 AND SALE CONSIDERATION FOR 1/2TH SHARE OF THE PROPERTY IS 30,000 IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S RAISED DOUBT ON THE GENUINENESS OF THIS AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 01/04/2009. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AGREEMENT T O SELL IS NEITHER REGISTERED NOR NOTARIZED AND THEREFORE, IT IS A SEL F SERVING DOCUMENT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, TWO SITUATIONS ARI SES I.E. FIRST , THE AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 01/04/2009 IS NOT GENUI NE AND SECOND, THE AGREEMENT IS GENUINE. 6.10 IF WE CONSIDER, THE AGREEMENT AS NOT GENUINE T HEN THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PER THE REGIST ERED DEED, WHICH HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 23/06/2010, WHICH FALLS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN AND THUS TAXING OF CAPIT AL GAIN ON SALE OF THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 6.11 IF WE CONSIDER, THE AGREEMENT AS GENUINE, THEN TWO ISSUES ARISES. THE FIRST ISSUE ARISE AS WHAT IS THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESEE.. ACCORDI NG TO THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS RECEIVED 30 LAKH AS SALE CONSIDERATION. BUT ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED 50% SHARE OF 1.56 CRORE AS MENTIONED IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED . IN THE SAID SALE DEED, IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS HAND ED OVER AT THAT 9 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 TIME AND SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,56,24,200/- W AS PAID BY THE SELLERS TO THE BUYER, THOUGH MANNER OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN RECORDED. THE RELEVANT CLAUSES OF THE SALE DEED ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 1.THAT IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SUM OF RS.1,56,24,2 00/- (RUPEES ONE CRORES FIFTY SIX LAKH TWENTY FOUR THOUSAND AND TWO HUNDRED ONLY) WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE VENDOR FROM THE VENDEE, IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER; THE RECEIPT OF WHICH THE VEND OR HEREBY ADMITS AND ACKNOWLEDGES, IN FULL AND FINAL SETTLEMENT, THE VENDOR DOTH HEREBY SELL, CONVEY AND TRANSFER THE SAID LAND TO T HE VENDEE, WHO SHALL HEREAFTER BE THE ABSOLUTE OWNER/BHUMIDAR OF T HE SAME AND SHALL ENJOY ALL RIGHTS OF OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION, PR IVILEGES, EASEMENTS AND APPURTENANCES WHATSOEVER OF THE SAID LAND, UNTO THE VENDEE, ABSOLUTELY AND FOREVER. 2. THAT THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL VACANT POSSESSION OF TH E SAID LAND HAS BEEN DELIVERED BY THE VENDOR TO THE VENDEE, ON THE SPOT, AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF THIS SALE DEED. 6.12 SO IF WE READ, THE ENTIRE REGISTERED SALE DEED AS A WHOLE, THEN WE CANNOT IMPORT PART RELATED TO SALE CONSIDER ATION ONLY AS IN VIEW OF THE OTHER PART, SALE OF THE PROPERTY WOU LD BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, WE CANNT TAKE THE SALE VALUE SHOWN IN REGISTERED S ALE DEED AS SALE CONSIDERATION WHILE TREATING THE AGREEMENT TO SALE AS GENUINE DOCUMENT. 6.13 THE SECOND ISSUE WOULD BE THE APPLICABILITY O F SECTION 50C ON THE AGREEMENT TO SELL. REGARDING THIS SITUATION, THE RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION 50C ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN CERTAIN CASES. 50C. (1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING A S A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING L AND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSAB LE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRE D TO AS THE 'STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY') FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUT Y IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSES SABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATI ON RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER : 10 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 PROVIDED THAT WHERE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FIXING THE AM OUNT OF CONSIDERATION AND THE DATE OF REGISTRATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET ARE NOT THE SAME, THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT MAY BE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRAN SFER: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE FIRST PROVISO SHALL APPLY ONLY IN A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION, OR A PART THEREOF, HAS BEE N RECEIVED BY WAY OF AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK DRAFT OR BY USE OF ELECTRONIC CLEARING SYSTEM THROUGH A BANK ACCOUNT 59 [ OR THROUGH SUCH OTHER ELECTRONIC MODE AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED ] , ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFER: 60 [ PROVIDED ALSO THAT WHERE THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESS ABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY DOES NOT EXCEED ONE H UNDRED AND FIVE PER CENT OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESU LT OF THE TRANSFER, THE CONSIDERATION SO RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT O F THE TRANSFER SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 , BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATI ON.] (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1), WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PR OPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUT ED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY O THER AUTHORITY, COURT OR THE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E 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 SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A, SUB-SE CTION (5) OF SECTION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEAL TH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957), SHALL, WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY I N RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THAT ACT. EXPLANATION 1.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, 'V ALUATION OFFICER' SHALL HAVE THE SAME MEANING AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF T HE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957). EXPLANATION 2.FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, TH E EXPRESSION 'ASSESSABLE' MEANS THE PRICE WHICH THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WOULD HAVE, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, ADOPTED OR ASSESSED, IF IT WER E REFERRED TO SUCH AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY. (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2), WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY REFERRE D TO IN SUB-SECTION (1), THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. 11 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 6.13 WE FIND THAT THE WORD ASSESSABLE HAS BEEN IN SERTED IN SECTION 50C W.E.F. 01/10/2009. THUS, PRIOR TO 01/10 /2009, THE SECTION 50C WAS APPLICABLE OVER THE SALE OF PROPERT IES, WHICH WERE SOLD BY OF THE REGISTERED DEED WHERE THE STAMP VALU E WAS ASSESSED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES AND THE SE CTION 50C WAS NOT APPLICABLE, WHERE THE PROPERTIES WERE SOLD OTHE RWISE THAN BY REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF SATYA DEV SHARMA (SUPRA) HAS HELD INSERTION OF THE WORD ASSESSABLE BY WAY OF FINANCE ACT 2009 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/10/2009 AS HAVING PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THE FIN DING OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF TARA CH AND JAIN (SUPRA), IS ALSO REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 22. IN PAPER PRODUCTS LTD. V. CCE [2001] 247 ITR 128 (SC) ; [1999] 7 SCC 84), WHILE INTERPRETING SECTION 37B OF THE CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944, WHICH IS IN PARIMATERIA WITH SECTION 28A OF T HE TNGST ACT, THIS COURT HAD HELD THAT THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY TH E CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS ARE BINDING ON THE DEPARTMENT AN D THE DEPARTMENT IS PRE CLUDED FROM CHALLENGING THE CORRE CTNESS OF THE SAID CIRCULARS, EVEN ON THE GROUND OF THE SAME BEIN G INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISION. IT WAS FURTHER HELD T HAT THE DEPARTMENT IS PRECLUDED FROM THE RIGHT TO FILE AN APPEAL AGAIN ST THE CORRECTNESS OF THE BINDING NATURE OF THE CIRCULARS AND THE DEPA RTMENT'S ACTION HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CIRCULAR WHICH IS IN FORCE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME.' 10. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT TH E INSERTION OF THE WORDS 'OR ASSESSABLE' BY AMENDING SECTION 50C WITH EFFECT FROM OCTOBER 1, 2009, IS NEITHER A CLARIFICATION NOR AN EXPLANATION TO THE ALREADY EXISTING PROVISION AND IT IS ONLY AN INCLUS ION OF NEW CLASS OF TRANSACTIONS, NAMELY, THE TRANSFERS OF PROPERTIES W ITHOUT OR BEFORE REGISTRATION. BEFORE INTRODUCING THE SAID AMENDMENT , ONLY THE TRANSFERS OF PROPERTIES WHERE THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ITA NO. 566 & 578/JP/2012 ITO VS TARA CHAND JAIN ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WERE SUBJECTED TO SECTION 50C APPLICATION. HOWEVER, AFTER INTRODUCTION OF THE WORDS 'OR ASSESS ABLE' AFTER THE WORDS 'ADOPTED OR ASSESSED', SUCH TRANSFERS WHERE T HE VALUE ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ARE ALS O BROUGHT INTO THE AMBIT OF SECTION 50C . THUS, SUCH INTRODUCTION OF NEW SET OF CLASS OF TRANSFER WOULD CERTAINLY HAVE THE PROSPECTIVE AP PLICATION ONLY AND 12 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 NOT OTHERWISE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE'S TRANSFER ADMIT TEDLY MADE EARLIER TO SUCH AMENDMENT CANNOT BE BROUGHT UNDER S ECTION 50C .'' THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECT ION 50C IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE TRANSFER WHICH HAD ALREADY TAKEN PLACE PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRA NSFERRED THE CAPITAL ASSET FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 74,91,000/ - AND THE DOCUMENT WAS NEITHER REGISTERED NOR EVALUATED FOR T HE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY PURPOSES BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORIT Y AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SAID DOCUMENT . THEREFORE, THERE WAS N O EVALUATION OF STAMP DUTY PAYABLE ON THE DOCUMENT. THUS IN OUR VIE W THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C DO NOT COME IN TO PLAY THEREBY REPLACING THE FULL VALUATION OF CONSIDERATION OF THE DOCUMENT WIT H THE VALUE CALCULATED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY / REGIS TERING AUTHORITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADOPTION OR ASSESSMENT BY THE AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUBJECT TRANSFER ( AS THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTER ED ), THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE AO TO EITHER REFER THE MATTER TO T HE REGISTERING AUTHORITY OR TO THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR T HE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT THE VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. 6.14 IN THE INSTANT CASE, IF WE CONSIDER THE AGREEM ENT TO SALE AS GENUINE, THEN PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE NOT APP LICABLE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION A S PER THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES CANNOT BE INVOKED IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.15 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IN OUR OPINIO N, IN BOTH THE SITUATION WHETHER THE AGREEMENT TO SALE IS GENUINE OR NOT, DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION OF 1.56 CRORE CANNOT BE INVOKED AND THUS FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ISSUE IN DI SPUTE ARE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. THE GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 7. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO LOSS O N SALE OF THE SHARES HELD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS NOT GENUINE AND NOT ALLOWING SET-OFF OF THE SAME AGAINST THE LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 7.1 THE FACTS IN BRIEF QUA THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 50,000 SHARES OF M/S PSJ PRO JECTS AND INFRASTRUCTURE PRIVATE LIMITED (IN SHORT PSJ) ON 16/03/2009 AT 13 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 10 EACH WITH THE PREMIUM OF 40 EACH I.E. TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 25,00,000/- . THE ASSESSEE SOL D THOSE SHARES TO SMT ANJALI JAIN FOR A CONSIDERATION OF 50,000 I.E. RS. 1 PER SHARE ON 17/09/2009. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE THAT SHE HAD KNOWN TO SH. PANKAJ JAIN, WHO IS THE DIRECT OR OF PSJ AND THEREFORE SHE INVESTED 25 LAKHS IN THE COMPANY. SHE SUBMITTED THAT SHE SOLD THE SHARES TO SMT ANJALI JAIN, DUE TO DECLINE IN REAL ESTATE DUE TO WHICH THE SHARE PRICES OF THE ALL REA L ESTATE COMPANIES WERE CAME DOWN AND THE ASSESSEE HAD TO E XIT. ON NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTIO N 133(6) OF THE ACT, THE COMPANY PSJ CONFIRMED THE PURCHASE AND S ALE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE C OMPANY PSJ HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN UNACCOUNTED MONEY AND THE WH OLE TRANSACTION WAS SHAME AND THE LOSS BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS AND THEREFORE HE DISALLOWED THE LOSS OF 24, 50,000/-. 7.2 THE REASON FOR NOT ALLOWING THE LOSS BY THE AO ARE SUMMARISED AS UNDER: (I) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ANY JUSTIFICATION FO R SUBSCRIBING TO THE SHARES OF THE NEW COMPANY AT SUC H A HIGH PREMIUM. (II) NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION WAS SUBMITTED REGARDING SU CH SHARP DECLINE IN THE SHARE PRICES OF THE COMPANY (III) THE ASSESSEE AND HER SON WERE DIRECTORS OFPSJDURI NG RELEVANT PERIOD AND SMTANJALI JAINIS WIFE OF DIRECT OR SH PANKAJ JAIN. (IV) THE SHARES OF THE PSJWERE NOT LISTED ON ANY STOCK EXCHANGE AND THEREFORE SAME ARE NOT PRONE TO VOLATI LITY OF THE SHAREMARKET 14 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 7.3 THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS HOLDING THAT NETWORTH OF PSJ WAS NOT SUCH, WHI CH MIGHT FETCH ANY PREMIUM AND ANY PRUDENT MAN WILL NOT INVE ST IN SHARES OF SUCH A COMPANY, WHO HAS NEVER DISCLOSED ANY DIVI DEND IN THE PAST. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NOT DEMONSTRA TED HOW THE REAL ESTATE SHARE PRICES WENT UP AND FELL DOWN. 7.4 BEFORE US, THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HER ONUS BY WAY OF FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE, SALE AND ALSO DETAILS OF T HE BUYER. HE REFERRED TO COPY OF SHARE CERTIFICATE AVAILABLE ON PAGE 58 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED TO COPY OF CHEQUE USED FOR MAKING THE PARTIES, WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 69 OF THE P APERBOOK. SIMILARLY, HE REFERRED TO THE DOCUMENTS OF COPY OF SALE BILL AND COPY OF ACCOUNT FOR CHEQUE OF 50,000/- , WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGE 63 AND 70 OF THE PAPERBOOK. 7.5 THE LEARNEDCOUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ANY CONSID ERATION IN CASH FROM SMT ANJALI JAIN OVER AND ABOVE 50,000 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 7.6 THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON TH E ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7.7 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES O N THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT METAL ON RECORD . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE SHORT-TERM CAPITAL LOSS ON SALE OF THE SHARES .THE DISPUTE IN THE CASE IS REGARDING THE VALUE OF THE PURCHASE AS WELL AS VALUE OF THE SALE OF SHARES. THE PURCHASE OF SHARES HAS BEEN MAD E ON 16/03/2009, WHICH FALLS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IN THIS YEAR SALE OF THE SHARES HAS BEEN MADE. FOR THE PURPOSE O F THE 15 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 COMPUTATION OF THE CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF ASSE T, IN TERMS OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT, THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND COST OF AN IMPROVEMENT OF THE ASSET ALONG WITH ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH SUCH TRANSFER OF THE ASSET, ARE TO BE REDUCED FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACC RUED AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. THUS IN THE I NSTANT CASE, FIRST ISSUE OF DISPUTE IS REGARDING FULL VALUE OF THE CO NSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUED. 7.8 THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OF 50,000/-. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD WHE THER THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONSIDERATION MORE THAN 50,000 OR CONSIDERATION MORE THAN 50,000 WILL BE ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7.9 IN THE RELEVANT YEAR THE PROVISION OF SECTION 5 0CB OF THEACT WERE ALSO NOT IN EXISTENCE, WHICH PROVIDE FOR DEEME D SALE CONSIDERATION IN CASE OF THE SALE OF THE SHARES LES S THAN FAIR MARKET VALUE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS NO OT HER OPTION OTHER THAN THE CONSIDERING 50,000 AS THE SALE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48 OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY REGARDING COST OF THE ACQUISITION ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY ADVERSE EVIDENCE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICERTHAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT GENUINE IS NOT B ASED ON ANY EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL (SUPRA) AND DURGA PRASAD MORE (SUPRA) ARE ALSO OUT OF THE CONTEXT AS NO SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTA NCES LIKE ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS ETC. WHICH COULD JUS TIFY HUMAN PROBABILITY, HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE ADDIT ION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ON RECO RD, ACCORDINGLY WESETASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES ON THE 16 ITA NO.3402/DEL./2015 ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. THE GROUND NO.4 WAS NOT PRESSED BEFORE US AND AC CORDINGLY DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. THE GROUND NO. 3 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED AS INFECTIOUS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST MAY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (O.P. KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:1 ST MAY, 2020. RK/- (DTDS) COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI