SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 363/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6396 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 363/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR VILLAGE & POST RAMPURA DABRI, SIKAR ROAD, CHOMU, JAIPUR CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(4), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AANPJ9614L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. L. PODDAR (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM RAI (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/07/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/07/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-3, JAIPUR DATED 09.03.2018 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2014-15 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT ANY BASI S. ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 2 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- U/S 68 R.W.S 115BBE OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT/UNSEC URED LOAN. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,85,313/- U/S 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY WRONG ADOPTING THE VALUATION OF PROPERTY TAKEN BY T HE REGISTERING AUTHORITY AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1, THE RELEVANT FACTS AND F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSI ON FILED BY THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT AND CITED CASE LAWS. I FIND THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE A PPELLANT IS NOT HAVING ANY STOCK REGISTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NO T MAINTAINED THE QUANTITY WISE AND QUALITY WISE DAY TO DAY PURCHASES / SALES AND STOCK. IN THESE FACTS VERIFICATION OF THE DECLARED OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK AND RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT ARE NOT POSSIBLE. THE ELEC TRICITY AND POWER EXPENSES ARE COMPARATIVELY HIGHER SIDE AS COMPARE T O THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE TURNOVER SHOWN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS TOO LOW. T HE A/R OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED AND AUDITOR DID NOT POINT OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE AU DIT REPORT. THE A/R IS SILENT IN THE SUBMISSION ABOUT THE DEFECTS POINT ED OUT BY THE ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 3 ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFOR E I AM THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS U/S 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. H ENCE I UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTION OF THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE NEXT ISSUE IS ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE TRADING REPORT OF 3 YEAR ARE AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR TURNOVE GROSS GP 2014 - 15 7314914 1356609 18.55% 2013 - 14 13123932 1735794 13.23% 2012 - 13 9331400 1585468 16.99% I PERUSED THE RECORD I FIND THAT THE G.P. IN THIS Y EAR IS BETTER AS COMPARE TO THE EARLIER YEAR BUT THE TURNOVER IN THI S YEAR IS RS.73,14,914/- AS COMPARE TO THE LAST YEAR TURNOVER OF RS.1,31,23,932/-. HENCE THESE YEAR ARE NOT COMPARAB LE DUE TO THE INCREASE IN THE TURNOVER BUT THERE IS SUBSTANCE IN THE SUBMISSION THAT GROSS PROFIT IS BETTER. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE. I AM THE VIEW THAT TRADING ADDITION R ESTRICTED TO RS.25,000/-AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.25,000/- IS DEL ETED. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DULY AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. THE AUDITORS HAVE NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE REMARKS REGARDING THE MA INTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, ALL THESE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND NO SERIOUS DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN GROSS ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 4 PROFIT OF RS. 13,56,609/- ON TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 73,14,914/- DISCLOSING THE G.P RATE OF 18.55% AS AGAINST THE PROFITS OF RS . 17,35,794/- ON GROSS TURNOVER OF RS. 13,12,39,32/- DISCLOSING THE G.P. RATE OF 13.23% IN A.Y 2013-14. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT T HE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BETTER IN COMPARISON TO EARLIER YEARS INSPITE OF REDUCED TURNOVER AND IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITIONS TO RS. 25,000/- WITHOUT SP ECIFYING ANY REASONS FOR SUCH SUSTENANCE. 4. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE D EFECTS NOTICED BY THE AO, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTE D AND THEREAFTER, THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 50,000 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REDUCED TO RS 25,000 WHICH IS REASONABLE GIVEN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE RIG HTLY BEEN REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT FOR REASONS STATED BY THE AO AND THE LD CIT(A). HOWEVER, MERE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE COURTS FROM TIME TO TIME. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT IS B ETTER THAN LAST TWO YEARS AS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITION OF RS 25,000 IS HEREBY DELETED. 6. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- U/S 68 R.W.S 115BBE OF THE INCOME TA X ACT. THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SUBMISSI ON FILED BY THE ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 5 A/R OF THE APPELLANT AND CITED CASE LAWS. I FIND TH AT APPELLANT HAS TAKEN RS.2,50,000/-FROM SMT. SANTOSH DEVI JANGIR AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED RS.2,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH C REDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE A/R OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF CONFIRMATION, ITR AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF CASH CREDITOR SMT SANTOSH DEVI JANGIR WHO IS ALSO A SSESSED TO INCOME TAX WITH INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(3), JAIPUR AN D REGULARLY FILING INCOME TAX RETURN. COPY OF BANK PASSBOOK WAS ALSO F URNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE HAS DEPOSITED RS . 2,50,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF CASH DEPO SIT IN BANK ACCOUNT IS OUT OF DAIRY & AGRICULTURE INCOME AND CA SH SAVING. THE BIFURCATION OF CASH RECEIVED WAS AS UNDER:- OPENING CASH BALANCE RS .7,86,50/- SALE OF MILK OF APRIL-MAY-JUNE RS. 9,20,00/- RECOVERY FROM DEBTORS RS. 3,20,00/- SALE OF CROP IN APRIL RS. 4,65,00/- SALE OF CROP IN MAY RS. 1,22,00/- TOTAL 2,61,350/- FOR THIS RATIO THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON VARIOUS C ASE LAW, BUT THE CASE LAWS LAWS MENTIONED IN THE SUBMISSION ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE BECAUSE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SO CALLED CASH CREDITOR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE, THEREFORE THE CREDITWORTHINESS WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. THE OTHER FACTS ALSO PROVE THA T THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SO CALLED CREDITOR IS NOT ESTABLI SHED ON PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF SMT. SANTOSH DEVI JANGID THE OPENING BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS.1913/- ONLY AND THERE WAS NO CREDIT ENTRY FOUND PRIOR TO THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 2,50,000/- ON 07.06.2013. THEREFORE, IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT DURI NG THE NEXT TWO ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 6 MONTHS THERE WAS AVAILABILITY OF CASH OF RS.2,50,00 0/-IN HANDS OF SMT. SANTOSH DEVI JANGID DESPITE THAT FACT SHE WAS NOT HAVING REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME. FURTHER IT IS FIND THAT AS PER THE BANK ACCOUNT DET AILS OF SMT.SANTOSH DEVI JANGID, SHE IS WIFE OF THE ASSESSE E, SO IT CANNOT BE SAY THAT IT WAS BEYOND POSSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE HER FOR EXAMINATION OF HER CREDITWORTHINESS IF HE WAS WILLI NG FOR THE SAME. THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DO N OT WANT TO PRODUCE SMT.SANTOSH DEVI JANGID FOR EXAMINATION OF HER CRED ITWORTHINESS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT.SANTOSH DEVI JANGID AND THEREAFTER, HE HAD G ET IT TRANSFERRED TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT JUST TO GIVE IT THE COLOR OF UNSEC URED LOAN/CASH CREDITS. THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE ABOVE OBSERVATION I AM TH E VIEW THAT ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY TREATED RS.2,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND TREATED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 READ WITH SECTION 115BE OF THE I.T. ACT. SO I CONFI RM THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE I.T. ACT. THIS GROUND IS NOT ALLOWED. 7. THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF CON FIRMATION, ITR AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF CASH CREDITOR SMT SANTOSH DEVI JANGIR WHO IS ALSO ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX WITH INCO ME TAX OFFICER, WARD-7(3), JAIPUR AND REGULARLY FILING INC OME TAX RETURN. COPY OF BANK PASSBOOK WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 2,50,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BA NK ACCOUNT IS ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 7 OUT OF DAIRY & AGRICULTURE INCOME AND CASH SAVING. THE BIFURCATION OF CASH RECEIVED WAS AS UNDER: - (I) OPENING CASH BALANCE RS. 78650/- (II) SALE OF MILK OF APRIL-MAY-JUNE RS. 92000/- (III) RECOVERY FROM DEBTORS RS. 32000/- (IV) SALE OF CROP IN APRIL RS. 46500/- (V) SALE OF CROP IN MAY RS. 12200/- TOTAL RS. 261,350/- ALL THE PAPERS ARE ALSO ENCLOSED HEREWITH. BUT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED ALL THE PAPERS IN RIGHT PRESPECTIVE AND BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUC ED CASH CREDITOR HE ADDED RS. 2,50,000/- IN THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS REQUIRED TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF SOURCE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIB LE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE CASH CREDITOR IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND FILED HER INCOME TAX RETURN REGULARLY AND C ONFIRM THE CREDIT. THEREFORE NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE UNDER SUC H CIRCUMSTANCES. FURTHER, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION O F CIT VS. H.S. BUILDERS 78 DTR 169 (RAJ). 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED SMT. SANTOSH DEVI JANGIR FOR HER STATEMENT . THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED EACH AND EVERY DOCUMENT EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DE POSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT BY HER. WHAT ELSE WAS REQUIRED WHEN TH E CREDITOR IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. COPY OF HER INCOME TAX R ETURN ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENT WAS PRODUCED. THE SOURCE OF DEP OSIT WAS ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 8 ALSO EXPLAINED IN DETAIL. THE LOAN ADVANCES GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE BY HER WAS ALSO REFLECTED IN HER BALANCE SHEET PLAC ED ON PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 7. WHEN NOTHING IS LEFT FOR EXPLANATI ON THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR PERSONAL ATTENDANCE OF CREDITOR. THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE IS ONLY OF RS. 2,50,000/- WHICH IS A MEA GER AMOUNT LOOKING TO THE BUSINESS STATUS AND TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OTHER EVIDENCES WERE ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LEA RNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL THE LEARNED CIT(A). SO UN DER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELET ED. 9. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES AND IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION, SHE HAS RELIED ON FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- BLESSING CONSTRUCTION V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER [2013] 32 TAXMANN.COM 366 (GUJARAT) UMESH KRISHNANI V. INCOME-TAX OFFICER [2013] 35 TAX MANN.COM 598 (GUJARAT) DAYAL SINGH AND SONS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2012] 20 TAXMANN.COM 687 (PUNJAB & HARYANA) 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF CONFIRMATION, ITR AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF SMT SANTOSH DEVI JANGIR ASSESSED UNDER INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7( 3), JAIPUR. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, SHE HAS DISCLOSED DIARY INCOME OF RS 2,65,200 AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS 3,10,200 WHICH REASONABLY EXPLAINS THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OF RS 2, 50,000. IN THE RESULT, NECESSARY ONUS IN TERMS OF CREDITWORTHINESS WHICH HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IS SATISFIED IN THE INSTA NT CASE. THE ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 9 DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD DR ARE DISTINGUISHA BLE ON FACTS AS IN THOSE CASES, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WAS NOT EX PLAINED WHICH IS NOT THE CASE BEFORE US. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. REGARDING GROUND NO. 3, THE FACTS AND THE FINDI NGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 6.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL BEFOR E ME. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITION, THESE IS NO DISPUTE IN THE MATTER AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 01.11.2013 THE SU B-REGISTER AJMER JAIPUR HAS ADOPTED THE SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY F OR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AT RS. 6,85,313/- AS AGAINST THE SALE CO NSIDERATION OF RS.4,00,000/-, THEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ARE CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE ASSESS EE CASE. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE CHARGE INCOME TAX ON THE AMOUNT EXC EEDS TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS COMPARED TO THE STAMP DUTY VALUE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NO FORCE WHEN TH E APPELLANT HIMSELF ACCEPTED AND AGREE TO PAY TAX ON DIFFERENT AMOUNT BETWEEN DLC RATE AND PURCHASE COST. THEREFORE I CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 2,85,313/-. THIS GROUN D IS NOT ALLOWED. 12. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THAT THERE IS SOME DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DLC RATE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND SALE CONSIDERATION PAID BY ASSESSEE. AS PER CLAUSE (VII) OF SUB SECTIO N (2) OF SECTION 56, IF A BUYER PURCHASE A PROPERTY BELOW THE CIRCLE RATE I S MORE THAN RS. 50,000/- SUCH DIFFERENCE WOULD BE ASSUMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE PURCHASER AND WOULD BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS AMENDMENT WILL COME INTO FORCE ON 1 ST APRIL 2014 ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 10 AND THIS CASE PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 W HICH IS PRIOR TO 01.04.2014. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THI S PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LAW POSITION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) M ENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ACCEPTED AND AGREE TO PAY TAX ON D LC RATES. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED WRONGLY. THE MEANING O F SAYING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IF AS PER LAW THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY TAX, HE IS READY TO PAY TAX. THEREFORE THE CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE W AS OBTAINED BY MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPL ICABLE ONLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16, EVEN THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT EMPOWERED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO MADE SUCH ADDITION WHICH ARE NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN FORCE. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT REVENU E MUST NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE IGNORANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 13. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, AS PER THE REGI STERED SALE DEED DATED 01.11.2013, THE SUB-REGISTER HAS ADOPTED THE SALE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AT RS. 6,85, 313/- AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.4,00,000/-. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 56(2)(VII)(B)(II) ARE AMENDED, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2013 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-2014, SO AS TO PROVIDE THAT WHERE ANY IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS RECEIVED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HUF FOR A CONSIDERAT ION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY AN AMOUNT E XCEEDING RS. 50,000, THE STAMP DUTY VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY AS EX CEEDS SUCH ITA NO. 363/JP/2018 SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIP UR 11 CONSIDERATION, SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE HA NDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR THE HUF AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THIS AMEND MENT WILL TAKE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL, 2014 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT Y EARS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO A REGIS TERED SALE DEED ON 1.11.2013 WHICH EFFECTIVELY MEANS HE HAS LAWFULLY R ECEIVED THE IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY IN TERMS OF TITLE AND POSSESSIO N THOUGH FOR AN INADEQUATE CONSIDERATION ON 01.11.2013 WHICH FALLS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(VII)(B)(II) ARE THUS CLEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN THE RESULT, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AN D THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/07/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 16/07/2018 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAM RATAN JANGIR, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-7(4), 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. 363/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR