ITO, Alwar V. RATAN SINGH, Alwar

ITA 388/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5176 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAGHUVIR SINGH DAGUR
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 50C; 147; 144

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 DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 388/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), ALWAR. CUKE VS. SHRI RATAN SINGH S/O SHRI GULAB CHAND GURJAR, 82, VILLAGE : SSHAROD, BHIWADI, TEH.TIJARA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. BURPS 2348 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 352/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. SHRI RATAN SINGH S/O SHRI GULAB CHAND GURJAR, 82, VILLAGE : SHAROD, BHIWADI, TEH.TIJARA. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. BURPS 2348 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAGHUVIR SINGH DAGUR (ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09.08.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/08/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND ASSESSE E ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), ALWAR DATED 14.03.2014 PE RTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FI RST, WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 388/JP/2014. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 2 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ALWA R HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,21,631/- MADE BY TH E AO ON A/C OF UNDISCLOSED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ALWA R HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,91,110/- MADE BY TH E AO ON A/C OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PRO PERTY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VID E ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.12.2012. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO C OMPUTED CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 29,21,631/- AND ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 19,91,110/- APART FROM ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME DISALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THUS THE AO COMPUTED INCOME AT RS. 52,78,130/- AGAINST THE DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 1,54 ,990/-. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,21,631/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS BEING REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM . THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,91,110/- AND CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,10,400/-. 3. NOW BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFO RE US. 4. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL READS AS UN DER :- 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ALWA R HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,21,631/- MADE BY TH E AO ON A/C OF UNDISCLOSED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. 4.1. THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITIO N ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PIECE OF LAND AT NORANGABA D, ALWAR WHICH WAS CONVERTED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS S OLD 1/8 TH PIECE OF THIS LAND ON TWO OCCASIONS TO SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN SON OF SHRI JU GMANDIR LAL JAIN AND SHRI CHANDRA PRAKASH JAIN SON OF SHRI JUGMANDIR LAL JAIN FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 17,00,000/- EACH FOR WHICH THE STAMP VALUATION AUTH ORITY HAD ADOPTED THE VALUE AT RS. 17,09,704/- EACH PORTION. THE AO COMPUTED THE C APITAL GAIN ON THIS TRANSACTION AT RS. 29,21,631/-. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETE D THE SAME ON THE BASIS THAT IN FACT NO TRANSFER TOOK PLACE AS THE PROPERTY REMAINE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM IN WHICH THE SELLER AND BUYER ARE THE PARTNERS . HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF SUCH FACT IN THE SALE DEED. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 4.2. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE OLD PARTNER AND NEW PARTNER CONTINUED TO CARRY ON THE B USINESS OF THE FIRM. THERE WAS NO DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM OR AT ANY RATE THERE WAS NO DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSETS ON 29.03.2010 OR ON 08.04.2010 WHEN ONE OF THE PARTNER S RETIRED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HIS SHARE WAS TAKEN UP BY THE FOUR NEW PAR TNERS. WHAT WAS GIVEN TO THE RETIRING PARTNER IS CASH REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF HIS SHARE IN THE PARTNERSHIP. NO CAPITAL ASSET WAS TRANSFERRED ON THE DATE OF RETIRE MENT UNDER THE DEED OF RETIREMENT DATED 08.04.2010. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT T HESE FACTS ARE RECORDED IN THE RETIREMENT DEED. 4 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN P ARAS 5.10 TO 5.22. BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5.10 HAVING CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THE MAIN ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE IS WHETHER THE DEED EXECUTED FOR TRANSFER OF L AND I.E. 1/8 TH SHARE + 1/8 TH SHARE IN KHASRA NO.230, VILLAGE-NAURANGABAD, TEH. ALWAR WOULD CONSTITUTE A TRANSFER BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS INDIV IDUAL CAPACITY OR AS A PARTNER OF THE FIRM M/S. SWAMI GRIT UDHYOG. CONSEQU ENTLY, THE GAINS WOULD BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR OF THE FIRM. 5.11 BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUES RAISED ABOVE, IT WO ULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14 OF THE IND IAN PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932 WHICH DEALS WITH THE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM, AND IT IS AS UNDER:- 14. THE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM- SUBJECT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE PARTNERS, THE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM INCLUDES ALL PRO PERTY AND RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN PROPERTY ORIGINALLY BROUGHT INTO T HE STOCK OF THE FIRM, OR ACQUIRED, BY PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE, BY OR FOR THE FIRM, OR FOR THE PURPOSES AND IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM, AND INCLUDES ALSO THE GOODWILL OF THE BUSINESS. 5.12 IT WOULD BE ALSO RELEVANT TO CONSIDER THE LEGA L POSITION AS PROVIDED UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT. UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932, A FIRM IS NOT RECOGNIZED AS A LEGAL ENTITY. A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS NOT A DISTINCT LEGAL ENTITY APA RT FROM THE PARTNERS CONSTITUTING IT. A FIRM AS SUCH HAS NO SEPARATE RIG HTS OF ITS OWN IN THE PARTNERSHIP ASSETS. BY FIRMS PROPERTY OR THE FIRM S ASSETS, ALL THAT IS MEANT IS PROPERTY OR ASSETS, IN WHICH ALL THE PARTN ERS HAVE A JOINT OR COMMON INTEREST. HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN ADDANKI NARAYANAPPA VS. BHASKARA KRISHNAPPA, AIR 1966 SC 13 00 THAT THE WHOLE CONCEPT OF PARTNERSHIP IS TO EMBARK UPON A JO INT VENTURE AND FOR THAT PURPOSE TO BRING IN AS CAPITAL MONEY OR EVEN P ROPERTY INCLUDING IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. ONCE THAT IS DONE, WHATEVER IS BROUGHT IN WOULD CEASE TO BE THE EXCLUSIVE PROPERTY OF THE PERSON WH O BROUGHT IT IN. IT WOULD BE THE TRADING ASSET OF THE PARTNERSHIP IN WH ICH ALL THE PARTNERS WOULD HAVE INTEREST IN PROPORTION TO THEIR SHARE. T HE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM INCLUDES ALL PROPERTY AND RIGHTS AND INTERESTS IN P ROPERTY ORIGINALLY BROUGHT INTO THE STOCK OF THE FIRM, OR ACQUIRED, BY PURCHASE OR OTHERWISE, BY OR FOR THE FIRM, OR FOR THE PURPOSES AND IN THE COURSE OF THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM, AND INCLUDES ALSO THE GOO DWILL OF THE BUSINESS. PROPERTY AND RIGHTS AND INTEREST IN PROPERTY ACQUIR ED WITH MONEY BELONGING TO THE FIRM ARE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUI RED FOR THE FIRM. WHEN A PARTNER BRINGS IN HIS PERSONAL ASSET INTO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS HIS CONTRIBUTION TO ITS CAPITAL, AN ASSET WHICH ORI GINALLY WAS SUBJECT TO 5 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. THE ENTIRE OWNERSHIP OF THE PARTNER BECOMES NOW SUB JECT TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PARTNERS IN IT. WHEN HIS PERSONAL ASSET ME RGES INTO THE CAPITAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM A CORRESPONDING CREDIT ENTR Y IS MADE IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE PARTN ERSHIP FIRM, BUT THAT ENTRY IS MADE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUSTING T HEN RIGHTS OF THE PARTNERS INTER-SE WHEN THE PARTNERSHIP IS DISSOLVE D OR THE PARTNER RETIRES. HIS RIGHT DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE PA RTNERSHIP IS TO GET HIS SHARE OF PROFITS FROM TIME TO TIME AS MAY BE AGREED UPON AMONG THE PARTNERS AND AFTER THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSH IP OR WITH HIS RETIREMENT FROM THE PARTNERSHIP, OF THE VALUE OF HI S SHARE IN THE NET PARTNERSHIP ASSETS AS ON THE DATE OF DISSOLUTION OR RETIREMENT AFTER A DEDUCTION OF LIABILITIES AND OTHER PRIOR CHARGES. 5.13 SUBSEQUENTLY, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF SUNIL SIDDHARTHBHAI VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 156 I TR 509 HAS DEALT WITH THE SAEM ISSUE AND HAS HELD THAT WHEN A PARTN ER BRINGS IN HIS PERSONAL ASSET INTO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS HIS CONTR IBUTION TO ITS CAPITAL, AN ASSET WHICH ORIGINALLY WAS SUBJECT TO THE ENTIRE OWNERSHIP OF THE PARTNER BECOMES NOW SUBJECT TO THE RIGHTS OF OTHER PARTNERS IN IT. IT IS NOT AN INTEREST WHICH CAN BE EVALUATED IMMEDIATELY. IT IS AN INTEREST WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE OPERATION OF FUTURE TRANSAC TIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP, AND IT MAY DIMINISH IN VALUE DEPENDING ON ACCUMULATING LIABILITIES AND LOSSES WITH A FALL IN THE PROSPERIT Y OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE EVALUATION OF A PARTNERS INTEREST TAKES PLACE ONLY WHEN THERE IS A DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM OR UPON HIS RETIREMENT FROM IT. IT HAS SOME TIMES BEEN SAID, AND WE THINK ERRONEOUSLY, THAT THE RIGHT OF A PARTNER TO A SHARE IN THE ASSETS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM ARISES UPON DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM OR UPON THE PARTNER RETIRING FROM THE FIRM . WE THINK IT NECESSARY TO STATE THAT WHAT IS ENVISAGED HERE IS MERELY THE RIGHT TO REALIZE THE INTEREST AND RECEIVE ITS VALUE. WHAT IS REALIZED IS THE INTEREST, WHICH THE PARTNER ENJOYS IN THE ASSETS DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM BY VIRTUE OF HIS STATUS AS A PARTNER AND IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. WHAT THE PARTNE R GETS UPON DISSOLUTION OR UPON RETIREMENT IS THE REALIZATION O F A PRE-EXISTING RIGHT OR INTEREST. IT IS NOTHING STRANGE IN THE LAW THAT A R IGHT OR INTEREST SHOULD EXIST IN PRAESENTI BUT ITS REALIZATION OR EXERCISE SHOULD BE POSTPONED. THEREFORE, WHAT WAS THE EXCLUSIVE INTEREST OF A PAR TNER IN HIS PERSONAL ASSET IS, UPON ITS INTRODUCTION INTO THE PARTNERSHI P FIRM AS HIS SHARE TO THE PARTNERSHIP CAPITAL, TRANSFORMED INTO AN INTERE ST SHARED WITH THE OTHER PARTNERS IN THATASSET. QUA THAT ASSET, THERE IS A SHARED INTEREST. DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP, THE VALU E OF THE INTEREST OF EACH PARTNER QUA THAT ASSET CANNOT BE ISOLATED OR C ARVED OUT FROM THE VALUE OF THE PARTNERS INTEREST IN THE TOTALITY OF HTE PARTNERSHIP ASSETS. AND IN REGARD TO THE LATTER, THE VALUE WILL BE REPR ESENTED BY HIS SHARE IN THE NET ASSETS ON THE DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM OR UP ON THE PARTNERS RETIREMENT. 6 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. 5.14 HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED IN THE SAID DECISION......... WHAT IS THE PROFIT OR GAIN WHICH CAN BE SAID TO ACCRUE OR ARISE TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE MAKES OVER HIS PERSON AL ASSET TO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS HIS CONTRIBUTION TO ITS CAPITAL ? THE CONSIDERATION, AS WE HAVE OBSERVED, IS THE RIGHT OF A PARTNER DURING THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP TO GET HIS SHARE OF PROFITS FROM TI ME TO TIME AND AFTER THE DISSOLUTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP OR WITH HIS RETIREME NT AFTER A DEDUCTION OF LIABILITIES AND PRIOR CHARGES. WHEN HIS PERSONAL AS SET MERGES INTO THE CAPITAL OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM A CORRESPONDING CRE DIT ENTRY IS MADE IN THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE P ARTNERSHIP FIRM, BUT THAT ENTRY IS MADE MERELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUST ING THE RIGHTS OF THE PARTNERS INTER-SE WHEN THE PARTNERSHIP IS DISSOLVED OR THE PARTNER RETIRES. IT EVIDENCES NO DEBT DUE BY THE FIRM TO TH E PARTNER. INDEED, THE CAPITAL REPRESENTED BY THE NOTIONAL ENTRY TO THE CR EDIT OF THE PARTNERS ACCOUNT MAY BE COMPLETELY WIPED OUT BY LOSSES WHICH MAY BE SUBSEQUENTLY INCURRED BY THE FIRM, EVEN IN THE VERY ACCOUNTING YEAR IN WHICH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS CREDITED. HAVING REGAR D TO THE NATURE AND QUALITY OF THE CONSIDERATION WHICH THE PARTNER MAY BE SAID TO ACQUIRE ON INTRODUCING HIS PERSONAL ASSET INTO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS HIS CONTRIBUTION TO ITS CAPITAL IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME OR GAIN ARISES OR ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE TRUE COMME RCIAL SENSE WHICH A BUSINESS MAN WOULD UNDERSTAND AS REAL INCOME OR G AIN.......... 5.15 THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR FISHE RIES CO. VS. CIT REPORTED IN 120 ITR 49 EXPLAINING THE POSITION OF A PARTNERSHIP UNDER THE PARTNERSHIP ACT AS WELL AS INCOME TAX ACT HELD AS UNDER:- A PARTNERSHIP FIRM UNDER THE INDIAN PARTNERSHIP AC T, 1932 IS NOT A DISTINCT LEGAL ENTITY APART FROM THE PARTNERS CONSTITUTING IT AND EQUALLY IN LAW THE FIRM AS SUCH HAS NO SEPARATE RIGHTS OF ITS OWN IN THE PARTNERSHIP ASSETS AND WHEN ONE TALKS OF FIRMS PROPERTY OR THE FIRMS ASSETS ALL THAT IS MEANT IS PROPERTY OR ASSETS IN WHICH ALL PARTNERS HAVE A JOINT OR COMMON INTEREST. IT CAN NOT, THEREFORE, BE SAID THAT, UPON DISSOLUTION, THE FIRMS RIGHTS IN THE PARTNERSHIP ASSETS ARE EXTINGUISHED. IT IS THE PARTNERS WHO OWN JOINTLY OR IN COMMON THE ASSETS OF THE PARTNERSHIP AND, THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENCE OF THE DISTRIBUTION, DIVISION OR ALLOTMENT OF ASSETS TO THE PARTNERS WHI CH FLOWS UPON DISSOLUTION AFTER DISCHARGE OF LIABILITIES IS NOTHI NG BUT A MUTUAL ADJUSTMENT OF RIGHTS BETWEEN PARTNERS AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE FIRMS RIGHTS IN THE P ARTNERSHIP ASSETS AMOUNTING TO A TRANSFER OF ASSETS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC.2(47) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THERE IS NO TRANSFER OF ASSETS INVOLVED EVEN IN THE SENSE OF ANY EXTINGUISHMENT OF THE FIRMS RIGHTS IN THE PARTNERSHIP ASSETS WHEN DISTRIBUTION TAKES PLACE UPON DISSOLUTION. DISSOLUTION OF A FIRM MUST, IN PO INT OF TIME, BE ANTERIOR TO THE ACTUAL DISTRIBUTION, DIVISIONS OR A LLOTMENT OF THE ASSETS THAT TAKES PLACE AFTER MAKING ACCOUNTS AND D ISCHARGING 7 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. THE DEBTS AND LIABILITIES DUE BY THE FIRM. UPON DIS SOLUTION THE FIRM CEASES TO EXIST; THEN FOLLOWS THE MAKING UP OF ACCOUNTS, THEN THE DISCHARGE OF DEBTS AND LIABILITIES AND THE REUPON DISTRIBUTION, DIVISION OR ALLOTMENT OF ASSETS TAKES PLACE INTER SE BETWEEN THE ERSTWHILE PARTNERS BY WAY OF MUTUAL ADJ USTMENT OR RIGHTS BETWEEN THEM. THE DISTRIBUTION, DIVISION, OR ALLOTMENT OF ASSETS OF THE ERSTWHILE PARTNERS, IF NOT DONE BY TH E DISSOLVED FIRM. 5.16 HOWEVER, THE INCOME TAX ACT RECOGNIZES THE FIR M AS A DISTINCT ASSESSABLE LEGAL ENTITY APART FROM ITS PARTNERS. SU B-SECTIONS (3) AND (4) OF SECTION 45 WERE INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 1987, WHICH CAME INTO EFFECT FROM 01.04.1988. IN SUB-SECTION (3) WHAT IS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED IS THE PROFITS OR GAINS ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BY A PERSON TO A FIRM OR OTHER ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS OR BODY OF INDIVIDUALS. AFTER SUCH TRANSFER, HE IS OR BECOMES A PARTNER OR MEMBER, BY WAY OF CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION OR OTHERWISE. THEN THE SAID CA PITAL CONTRIBUTION SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS HIS INCOME OF THE PRE VIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH TRANSFER TAKES PLACE AND, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, THE AMOUNT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM , ASSOCIATION OR BODY AS THE VALUE OF THE CAPITAL ASSET SHALL BE DEE MED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET. WHEN A PARTNER BRING S IN HIS PERSONAL ASSET INTO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS HIS CONTRIBUTION T O ITS CAPITAL, AN ASSET WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY EXCLUSIVELY BELONGING TO HIM, BECOMES THE TRADING ASSET OF THE FIRM, IN WHICH ALL PARTNERS ACQUIRE IN TEREST IN PROPORTION TO THEIR RESPECTIVE SHARE IN THE FIRM. HIS RIGHT DURIN G THE SUBSISTENCE OF THE PARTNERSHIP IS TO GET HIS SHARE OF PROFITS FROM TIM E TO TIME AS AGREED UPON AMONG THE PARTNERS. 5.17 SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 45 DEALS WITH A DIS TRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSETS ON THE DISSOLUTION OF A FIRM OR OTHER ASSOCI ATION OF PERSONS OR BODY OF INDIVIDUALS OR OTHERWISE. IF IN THE COURSE OF SUCH DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSET THERE IS A TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSE T BY THE FIRM IN FAVOUR OF A PERSON AND IT RESULTS IN PROFITS OR GAINS TO THE FIRM, THEN THE SAID PROFITS OR GAINS SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS INCO ME OF THE FIRM AND AGAIN FOR COMPUTING SUCH INCOME, SECTION 48 IS ATTR ACTED. IN OTHER WORDS, IN THE PROCESS OF A DISSOLUTION OF A FIRM, I F A CAPITAL ASSET IS TRANSFERRED TO A PARTNER WHICH RESULTS IN PROFITS O R GAINS, THEN THAT INCOME IS CHARGEABLE AT THE HANDS OF THE FIRM UNDER THIS PROVISION. IN ORDER TO ATTRACT SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 45, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT IS, (1) THERE SHOULD BE A DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSET S OF FIRM; (2) SUCH DISTRIBUTION SHOULD RESULT IN TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET BY FIRM IN FAVOUR OF THE PARTNER; AND (3) ON ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSFER THERE SHOULD BE A PR OFIT OR GAIN DERIVED BY THE FIRM. 8 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. (4) SUCH DISTRIBUTION SHOULD BE ON DISSOLUTION OF T HE FIRM OR OTHERWISE. 5.18 IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD REGISTE RED/EXECUTED THE SALE DEED IN HIS NAME ON 11.06.2008 AT THE TIME OF RETIREMENT OF AN EARLIER PARTNER OF THE FIRM M/S SWAMI GRIT UDHYOG ( IN WHOSE NAME THE PROPERTY DEED WAS REGISTERED). THE PROPERTY CONTINU ED TO EXIST IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM, ITRS FILED BY THE FIRM, THE DEPR ECIATION CLAIMED ON THE BUILDING OVER ALL THESE YEARS CONFIRM THIS FACT. AO HAS STATED THAT THIS ASSET HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE ITRS FILED AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM ARE AUD ITED BUT ONLY FROM A.Y. 2009-10 ONWARDS. HOWEVER, AO HAS OBJECTED TO T HE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE PARTNER FOR PART TRANSFER OF LAND R IGHTS IN THE NAMES OF INCOMING PARTNERS IN THE RATIO OF THEIR PROFITS/LOS SES IN THE FIRM AND HAS ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED TO TREAT THE SAME AS TRANSFER BY THE APPELLANT GAINS TO BE TAXED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT ONCE THIS FACT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE A SSET CONTINUES TO EXIST IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM AND THERE WAS NO DIS SOLUTION OF THE FIRM, THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF IMPOSING CAPITAL GAINS O N TRANSFER OF PART SHARE IN THE ASSETS IN THE NAME OF NEW PARTNERS DOE S NOT ARISE. 5.19 THE OLD PARTNER (WHICH IS THE APPELLANT HIMSEL F) AND THE NEW PARTNERS CONTINUED TO CARRY ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM. THERE WAS NO DISSOLUTION OF THE FIRM OR AT ANY RATE THERE WAS NO DISTRIBUTION OF CAPITAL ASSETS ON 29.03.2010 OR ON 08.04.2010 WHEN ONE OF THE PARTNERS RETIRED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HIS SHARE WAS TAKEN UP BY THE FOUR NEW PARTNERS. WHAT WAS GIVEN TO THE RET IRING PARTNER IS CASH REPRESENTING THE VALUE OF HIS SHARE IN THE PARTNERS HIP. NO CAPITAL ASSET WAS TRANSFERRED ON THE DATE OF RETIREMENT UNDER THE DEED OF RETIREMENT DATED 08.04.2010. AT THE TIME OF ADMISSION OF NEW P ARTNERS IN THE FIRM, SH. RATAN SINGH EXECUTED A SALE DEED ON 29.03.2010 FOR PART TRANSFER OF LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IN THE NA MES OF THE NEW PARTNERS IN PROPORTION TO THEIR INTEREST IN THE PRO FITS/LOSSES OF THE FIRM. HOWEVER, THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CONTINUED TO BE THE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM AND HAS REMAINED UNDIVIDED AND THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM IS CONTINUING AS ON DATE. THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED W AS DONE TO SECURE AND SAFE GUARD THE RIGHTS OF THE FIRM SO THAT AT AN Y POINT OF TIME THE RETIRING PARTNER MAY NOT MAKE ANY CLAIM OVER THE SA ID PROPERTY. 5.20 I FIND THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE AT THIS ST AGE TO CONSIDER WHAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS UPHELD, THE APPLICATION O F DOCTRINE OF SUBSTANCE OVER FORMIN THE CASE OF VODAFONE INTERN ATIONAL HOLDINGS VS. UOI 341 ITR 1 (SC) SO AS TO DETERMINE THE TRUE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS EXECUTED IN THIS REGARD BEFORE CONSIDE RING THE ISSUE OF THEIR TAXABILITY. THUS, AO IS REQUIRED TO EXAMINE W HETHER ON RETIREMENT OF A PARTNER, THERE IS A DISSOLUTION OF FIRM OR NOT . FURTHER, WHETHER THERE HAS BEEN A DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS AMONGST THE PARTN ERS OR NOT. IF THE 9 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. ANSWER TO THESE QUESTIONS IS YES, THAN THE LIABILIT Y TO PAY TAX ON CAPITAL GAINS ARISES IN THE HANDS OF A FIRM UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 45(4) OF THE IT ACT. IN THIS REGARD, IT WOULD BE PERTINEN T TO NOTE THAT HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF A.L.A. FIRM R EPORTED IN 189 ITR 285 THAT MARKET VALUE OF ASSETS HAS TO BE ADOPTED F OR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS ARISING IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. HOWEVER, THIS ISSUE HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO CONCERNED (HAVIN G JURISDICTION OVER THE CASE OF THE FIRM.) 5.21 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED IN THE COUNTER COMMEN TS FILED THAT ON RETIREMENT OF THE PARTNER, THE INCOMING PARTNERS HA VE PAID THEIR CONTRIBUTION BY CHEQUE. THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WAS CREDITED WITH THE MONEY CONTRIBUTED BY THE INCOMING PARTNERS. AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF THE ACCOUNTS, CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE INCOMING PARTNERS WAS CREDITED WITH THE AMOUNT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CO NTRIBUTIONS MADE TO THE FIRM. THUS, THERE HAS BEEN NO DISTRIBUTION OF A SSETS AMONGST THE PARTNERS ON RETIREMENT OF THE PARTNER. THE RETIRING PARTNER HAS RECEIVED HIS SHARE OF MONEY STANDING TO THE CREDIT OF CAPITA L ACCOUNT IN THE FIRM AT THE TIME OF HIS RETIREMENT AND THE ASSET HAS REM AINED WITH THE FIRM. THESE FACTS WERE VERIFIED IN THE COURSE OF REMAND P ROCEEDINGS AND COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENTS WERE ALSO FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO. THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED WAS CREDITED TO THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE FIRM AND THE A CCOUNT OF THE RETIRING PARTNER WAS SETTLED BY MAKING PAYMENT DUE TO HIM AS PER THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. 5.22 THEREFORE, I FIND NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTI ON OF THE AO IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE IT AC T FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVY OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX IN THE BANDS OF THE APPEL LANT, WHEREAS THE FACT THAT THE ASSET WAS STILL BEING SHOWN BY THE FIRM IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE FIRM AND IN THE RETURNS FILED HAS R EMAINED UN- CONTROVERTED AND IS NOT DENIED. AFTER CONSIDERING T HE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AND THE LEGAL POSITION ARISING OUT OF THE SE FACTS, I HOLD THAT THERE WOULD BE NO LIABILITY TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND ACCORDINGLY, DELETE THE ADDITION OF R S.29,21,631/- MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT. ON THE ABOVE FINDING, IT IS EVIDENT THAT LD. CIT (A ) HAS VERIFIED THE FACT THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET REMAINED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF T HE FIRM. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE CAPITAL ASSET WAS INTRODUCED INTO THE FIRM BY THE P ARTNERS. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REND ERED IN THE CASE OF SUNIL 10 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. SIDDHARTHBHAI VS. CIT, 156 ITR 509 (SC). THE REVEN UE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY CONTRARY BINDING PRECEDENT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), WHICH IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THE GROUND R AISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 5. GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 19,91,110/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 5.1. THE LD. D/R VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HA S OBSERVED THAT AS PER DULY REGISTERED SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 12.05.2009, THE AS SESSEE HAS PURCHASED 62 AIR LAND CONVERTED FOR INDUSTRIAL USE FROM THE AFORESAI D TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS 10,00,000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE AMO UNT AND RS. 9,91,110/- AS THE STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION EXPENSES. THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO, NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN WITH REGARD TO SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT. 5.2. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NO AMOUNT WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AS TH E PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF AS GPA HOLDER OF THE EARLIER PARTNER SHRI KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THIS WAS DONE TO SECURE THE LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM. ACCORDINGLY NO CONSIDERATION WAS PAID FOR THIS DEED. IN RESPECT OF RS. 9,91,110/-, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT T HESE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 71.50 LACS ON 06.07.2008 FROM BANK ACCOUNT, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WAS DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND AF TER EXAMINING THE SAME, HE HAS ACCEPTED THAT CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 11 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. 5.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FI NDING OF FACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 6.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND REP ORT AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR AND FIND THAT AN ADDITIO N OF RS.19,91,110 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT NO EXPLA NATION WAS OFFERED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WIT H REGARD TO THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT MADE FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROP ERTY BY THE APPELLANT. 6.6 IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT IS S UBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT NO AMOUNT WAS PAID ON ACCOUNT OF PUR CHASE CONSIDERATION AS THE PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED BY TH E APPELLANT HIMSELF AS GPA HOLDER OF THE EARLIER PARTNER SH. KUNDAN LAL BADSHAH, IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. THIS WAS DONE TO SECURE THE LEGAL RIGHTS IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF THE FIRM. ACCORDINGLY, NO CON SIDERATION WAS PAID FOR THIS DEED. FURTHER, THE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF IN HIS NAME. THEREFORE, NO CONSIDERATION CO ULD HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO HIMSELF. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS TH E ADDITION OF RS.9,91,110 WHICH WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATI ON EXPENSES, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT SH OWING CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE AND WHICH HAS BEEN USED FOR MEETIN G THESE EXPENSES. 6.7 AO HAS ACCEPTED THE POSITION AS REGARDS THE PUR CHASE CONSIDERATION IS CONCERNED AND NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE IN THE REMAND REPORT. CONSIDERING THE SU BMISSIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD, THE DISCUSSION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE GR OUND NO.2 ABOVE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ADDITION OF RS.10,00, 000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IS DELETED. FURTHER, AS REGARDS THE SOURCES OF PAYMENT OF RS.9,91,110/- FOR REGISTRATION EXPENSES, IT IS STATED THAT THERE IS ENOUGH CASH BA LANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE OUT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF CASH BOOK AND BANK STATEMENT ETC. 6.8 CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I T IS FOUND THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IN THE HANDS OF TH E APPELLANT TO MEET THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION. T HEREFORE, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.9,91,110/- MADE BY THE AO ON THI S ACCOUNT. 12 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THERE WAS AN WITHDRAWAL OF AMOUNT OF RS. 71.50 LACS ON 6 TH JULY, 2008. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN FINDING OF FACT TH AT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO MEET THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON REGISTRATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDING OF FACT, WHICH IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD , WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. NOW WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE SOLITARY GROUND AS UNDE R :- THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY MAKING AN AD DITION OF RS. 2,10,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME. 7. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS 2,10,400/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AGRICULTU RAL INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND COPY OF JAMABANDI WAS GIVEN TO DEMONSTRATE THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND. 7.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D/R OPPOSED THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT BOTH TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO DUCE THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION THAT IT HAS EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY REJECT ED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 13 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI. 7.2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN RESPECT OF PROVING THE EARNING OF AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY FILED EV IDENCE OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND BUT HE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE EVIDE NCE WITH REGARD TO EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AS SESSEE MADE THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT BURDEN OF PROVING THE SAME IS ON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DISCHARGE THE BURDEN OF PROVING BY PLACIN G ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE C ONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE REJECT THIS GROUND OF THE AS SESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/08/2016 . SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO ( DQY HKKJR ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 11/08/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR. 2. THE RESPONDENT SHRI RATAN SINGH, BHIWADI. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 14 ITA NO. 388(2)/JP/2014 SHRI RATAN SINGH,BHIWADI.