ITO, Ajmer V. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI THR. L/H, Ajmer

ITA 40/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5554 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PB D VIHYKFKHZ IZRFKHZ
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset
• Section: 80C; 50C; 142(1); 148; 154; 2

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 VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.40/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. LATED SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MS. NEHA BHATI, NASIRABAD ROAD, AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ABYPB 9085 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI KAILASH MANGAL (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI AJAY SOMANI (C.A.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11 .01.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/01/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OR LD. CIT (A) AJMER DATED 18.11.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND :- 1) DIRECTING THE AO TO RECOMPUTED THE PENALTY U/S 2 71(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AS PER SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 27 LACS AND N OT AS PER DLC RATE OF RS. 1,08,91,151/- APPLIED BY THE REGISTRAR AND ADOP TED BY THE AO U/S 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT S OF THE CASE. 2 ITA NO.40/JP/2014 A.Y. 2006-07. ITO VS. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, AJMER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 1,40,938/- AFTER CLAIMING D EDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C AT RS.38,666/- FILED ON 30.10.2006. A NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 03.07.2008 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE AND IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 24.07.2008 HAS STATED THAT THE RE TURN FILED ON 30.10.2006 MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO ABOVE SAID NOTICE . THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 142(1) ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 12.10.2009. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE INFORMATION AND SUBMITTED THE DOC UMENTS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD OUT A PROPERTY KNOWN AS NANKI BHAWAN SITUATED AT AMC NO. 30/1486-1487 (OLD) 19/1319/1320 (NEW) PRAKASH R OAD, NAGRA, AJMER AT A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 27,00,000/- SHOWN IN THE REGIS TERED SALE DEED. HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY, THE PROPERTY WAS VALUED AT R S. 1,08,91,151/- BY THE SUB REGISTRAR, AJMER. THE AO AFTER DISCUSSING THE ENTIR E GAMUT OF THE ARGUMENTS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E IS THE SOLE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND HAS RECEIVED THE FULL CONSIDERATION OF THE PROP ERTY, AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS CAPITAL GAIN UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE IT ACT TAK ING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,08,91,151/- AND THEREBY CALCULATED THE LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN TO THE TUNE OF RS.70,69,482/- VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2009. 3 ITA NO.40/JP/2014 A.Y. 2006-07. ITO VS. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, AJMER. 3. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 28.03.2011 HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO TAKE THE SALE VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 27,00,00/- IN PLACE OF RS. 1,08,91,151/- AND HAS PASSED THE FO LLOWING DIRECTION :- 3.7. IN VIEW OF ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER OF THE COLL ECTOR STAMPS, AJMER, AO IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THE SALE VALUE OF THIS PROPE RTY AT RS. 27,00,000/- IN PLACE OF RS. 1,08,91,151/-. SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE VAL UE IS REVISED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION, AO SHALL AMEND THE ORDER IN VIE W OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 155(15) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WHICH READS A S FOLLOWS :- WHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR, A CAPITAL G AIN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUIL DING OR BOTH, IS COMPUTED BY TAKING THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERAT ION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER TO BE THE VALU E ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SEC TION (1) OF SECTION 50C, AND SUBSEQUENTLY SUCH VALUE IS REVISED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB SECTION (2) OF THAT SECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AMEND THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SO AS TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN BY TAK ING THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION TO BE THE VALUE AS SO RE VISED IN SUCH APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE; AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY THERETO, AND THE PERI OD OF FOUR YEARS SHALL BE RECKONED FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER REVISING THE VALUE WAS PASSED IN THAT APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE. PURSUANT THERETO, THE AO, IN VIEW OF THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AND AFTER RECEIVING THE RESPONSE FROM THE IG (STAMPS), HAS PA SSED AN ORDER UNDER SEC. 155(15) OF THE IT ACT AND THEREBY HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.1,08,91,151/- AND THEREBY RE-AFFIRMED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 70,69,482/-. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 55(15) OF THE IT ACT IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW :- 4 ITA NO.40/JP/2014 A.Y. 2006-07. ITO VS. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, AJMER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND ALSO AS PER DIRECTIONS O F THE LD. CIT (A) ORDER NO. 186/2009-10 DATED 28.03.2011, IT IS REQUIRED TH AT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/148/251 DATED 18.07.2011 SHOULD BE RECTI FIED BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 155(15) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . ACCORDINGLY A NOTICE U/S 154/155 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.05.2012 PROPOSING THE MISTAKE WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 07.06.2012. ON THIS D ATE THE ASSESSEE APPEARED HIMSELF AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE CASE ADJOURNED TO 19.06.2012. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER ASKED FOR ADJOURN MENT ON 19.06.2012 AND 29.06.2012. THE CASE FINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.07.2012. ON THIS DATE NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN REPLY HAS BEEN FILED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/148/251 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 DATED 18.07.2011 IS RECTIFIED U/S 155(15) OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 WHICH SPEAKS AS UNDER - WHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR ANY YEAR, A CAPITAL GA IN ARISING FROM THE TRANSFER OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUIL DING OR BOTH, IS COMPUTED BY TAKING THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERAT ION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER TO BE THE VALU E ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH SUB-SEC TION (1) OF SECTION 50C, AND SUBSEQUENTLY SUCH VALUE IS REVISED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF THAT SECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL AMEND THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT SO AS TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN BY TAK ING THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION TO BE THE VALUE AS SO RE VISED IN SUCH APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE; AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 154 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY THERETO, AND THE PER IOD OF FOUR YEARS SHALL BE RECKONED FROM THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER REVISING THE VALUE WAS PASSED IN THAT APPEAL OR REVISION OR REFERENCE. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS C ONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 155(15) VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2013 TO THE FOLLOWING EFFECT :- 5 ITA NO.40/JP/2014 A.Y. 2006-07. ITO VS. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, AJMER. 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APP ELLANT AS WELL AS ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THIS CASE, ORI GINAL ELABORATE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29.12.2009 U/S 143(3 ) R.W.S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE AO ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,08,91,151/- AS DETERMINED BY THE SUB REGISTRAR. THE ASSESSEE RAISE D THE VARIOUS ISSUES REGARDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 70,69,482/- IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A), AJMER . THE LD. CIT (A) VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.2011 IN APPEAL NO. 186/2009-2010 DECIDED THE ISSUE WITH THE DIRECTIONS AS REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE PRESENT ORDER. FURTHER, LD. CIT (A) HAD ALSO PASSED THE ORDER U/S 154 ON 17 .10.2011 IN RESPECT OF ORDER DATED 28.03.2011. IN IS APPARENT THAT THE VARIOUS ISSUES INVOLVED REG ARDING THE QUANTUM HAVE ALREADY BEEN DEALT AND DECIDED BY MY PREDECESS OR. THE SAME ISSUES CAN NOT BE REVIEWED OR REAGITATED AT THE CIT (A) ST AGE. SO, THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AO REGARDING QUANTUM ADDITI ON CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE AS IT WILL AMOUNT TO REVIE W OF THE EARLIER APPELLATE ORDER WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THE ONLY POINT OF GRIEVANCE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDE R OF THE AO DATED 12.10.2012 IS THAT AO SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED TH E VALUATION BEFORE FINALIZATION BY HIGHER FORM. THE ASSESSEE HAS POINT ED OUT THAT THE ISSUE AGAINST VALUATION OF PROPERTY IS PENDING BEFORE RAJ ASTHAN TAX BOARD AJMER. HOWEVER, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF TH E AO THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE REFERENCE BEFORE THE IG STAMPS WHO HAD DETERMINED THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 1,08,91,151/-. ON THE RECEIPT OF SAID INFORMATION, THE AO HAS FOLLOWED THE DIRECTIONS AS CONTAINED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 28.03.2011. IT CAN NOT BE CLAI MED THAT AFTER THE FINALIZATION OF THE REFERENCE BEFORE IG STAMPS, NO ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY THE AO AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) DATED 28.03.2011. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, BOTH THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 4.1. THEREAFTER THE AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE FOR IMPOSI TION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AND HAS IMPOSED THE PENALTY OF RS. 15,86,809/-. 6 ITA NO.40/JP/2014 A.Y. 2006-07. ITO VS. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, AJMER. 5. AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO FOR IMPOSITIO N OF PENALTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2013 HAS RESTRICTED THE AMOUNT OF PENALTY, THE REASONING GIV EN BY LD. CIT (A) IN THE ORDER IS MENTIONED IN PARA 3.3 OF HIS ORDER :- 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPE LLANT AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE NANKI BHAWAN, AJMER FOR A SUM OF RS. 27 LACS WHILE THE RE GISTRAR OF THE PROPERTIES REGISTERED IT AT RS. 1,08,91,151/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS RS 27 LACS ONLY AND NOT RS. 1,08,91,151/- AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP V ALUATION AUTHORITIES WHICH IS PROVED BY THE SALE DEED OF THE SAID PROPER TY. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY DUE TO DEEMING PROVISION I.E. SEC. 5 0C OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF DECISIO NS IN CASE OF CIT VS. MADAN THEATRES LTD. ITAT NO. 62 OF 2013 DATED 14.05 .2013, LATE SH. PRATAP CHAND JAIN ITA NO. 1074/JP/2010, RENU HINGOR ANI VS. ACIT ITA NO 2210/MUM/2010, V.H. GUPTA, MUMBAI VS. ASSESSEE ITA NO. 5950/MUM/2009, JAGDISH DASWSANI, MUMBAI VS. ASSESSE SSEE ITA NO. 4181/MUM/2011, C. VIJAYAKUMAR, KARUR VS. ASSESSEE I TA NO 997/MDS/2012 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. IN SUCH CONTEXT, ISSUE REGARDING LEVY OF THE PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN DECIDED BY HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI IN ITA NO 2210/ MUMBAI/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 IN THE CASE OF RENU HINGORANI VS ACIT, RANG E 19 (3) AS UNDER :- 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND RE LEVANT RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS . 9,00,824/- BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE AGREEMENT AND THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP VALUA TION AUTHORITY. THUS, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IT IS EVI DENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ADDI TION IS MADE PURELY ON THE BASIS OF DEEMING PROVISIONS OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT THE ACT UAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS MORE THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION A DMITTED AND MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT. THUS IT DOES NOT A MOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 7 ITA NO.40/JP/2014 A.Y. 2006-07. ITO VS. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, AJMER. FAILED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT RECORD AS CALLED BY THE AO TO DISCLOSE THE PRIMARY FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL T HE RELEVANT FACTS, DOCUMENTS/MATERIAL INCLUDING THE SALE AGREEMENT AND THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS AND VALIDITY OF THE DOC UMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED CORRECT PARTICU LARS OF INCOME. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WOU LD NOT BE A CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THIS AGREEMENT WAS INCORRECT AND WRONG. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION B ECAUSE OF THE DEEMING PROVISIONS DOES NOT IPSO FACTO ATTRACT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). HENCE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD (SUPRA), THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE . THE SAME IS DELETED. ABOVE VIEW IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON BLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT KOL-IV VS. MADAN THEATRES LTD. IN GA NO. 684 OF 2013, ITT NO. 62 OF 2013 WHERE DECISION OF ITAT DEL ETING THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS UPH ELD. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE PENALTY IS NOT LEV IABLE ON THE BASIS OF VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITY FOR THE REGISTRATION PURPOSES. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS 24 LACS ONLY IN THE RETURN FILED ON 30.10.2006. EVEN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 D ATED 04.07.2008, ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT RETURN FILED ON 30.10.2006 MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, IT IS APPARENT THAT AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED, THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS. 27 LACS WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 24 LACS ONLY FOR TAXATION . SO, THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,00,000/- (RS. 27,00, 000 RS. 24,00,000) BEING THE SALE CONSIDERATION NOT SHOWN BY THE APPEL LANT IS CONFIRMED. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE THE PENALTY ACCORDINGLY. 6. NOW THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 8 ITA NO.40/JP/2014 A.Y. 2006-07. ITO VS. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, AJMER. 6.1. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS IN THE MATTER OF RENU HINGORANI VS. A CIT IN ITA NO. 2210/MUM/2010 AND OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER O F CIT VS. MADAN THEATRES LTD. ON PERUSAL OF THE CASE LAW MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF L D. CIT (A), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INCOME HAS BEEN CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF DEEMING PROVISI ON BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, THE SAID INCOME AS CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VALUATION IS SUBJECTED TO DEBATE/CORRECTION IN CASE THE ASSESSEE DISPUTES THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. SINCE THE MATTER IS PENDING ADJUDICATION BEFORE THE TAX TRIBUNAL WHEREBY THE VALUATION CALCULATED BY THE STAMP VALUE R IS UNDER CHALLENGE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY AS THERE I S NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME FURNISHED IN THE R ETURN. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/01/2 016. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK YFYR DQEKJ (T.R. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 29/01/2016 DAS/ 9 ITA NO.40/JP/2014 A.Y. 2006-07. ITO VS. LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, AJMER. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-THE ITOP WARD 2(2), AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- LATE SHRI DHAN SINGH BHATI, 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. 40/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR