KANTA DEVI, Jaipur V. ITO, BHIWADI

ITA 417/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1999 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Gift; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 69

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 HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 417/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 KANTA DEVI, VILLAGE- THADA, POST- SHEETHAL, TEHSIL, TIJARA, DISTRICT- ALWAR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BHIWADI LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BDWPD 9059 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11/10/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 09/03/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLE EFFECTIVE GROUND, WHICH IS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A.O. IN HOLDING THAT ASSES SEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT OF RS. 61,68,910/- ON PURCHASE OF L AND AT VILLAGE- THADA, TEHSIL, TIJARA, OUT OF THE UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SAI D LAND AS GIFT FROM HER FATHER IN LAW SH. DEEPCHAND BUT IN STEAD OF GIFT DEED, SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED AND FURTHER TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SOURCE OF INCOME. ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED AN IMMO VABLE PROPERTY FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 58,80,000/- ON 25/02/20 11 AND ALSO PAID REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS. 2,88,910/-. THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO GIVE EXPLANATION ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT THERE IS NO SALE/PURCHASE OF PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, COPY OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AS A GIFT WAS FILED ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT A VASIYATNAMA (WILL) DATED 25/10/2004 WAS IN FAVOUR OF SHRI RAMBIR SINGH, WHO IS SON OF BROTHER OF THE EXEC UTANT OF THE WILL SHRI DEEP CHAND. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THIS WILL WAS E XECUTED IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT NANDRAMPURBAS, TEHSIL- RE WARI AND IT WAS NOT RELATED TO THE PROPERTY, WHICH WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURC HASED BY SMT. KANTA DEVI, W/O- SHRI RAMBIR SINGH. THE ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT THIS WAS A GI FT OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE BY BROTHER OF FATHER IN LA W. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SALE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR THIS PROPERTY. IT WAS A GIFT AND DUE TO MISTAKE IT WAS REGISTERED AS SA LE DEED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS UNDER: ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 3 5.5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS AND THE CONTENTS OF REMAND REPORT AND THE CROSS REPLY. IT IS AN OBVIOUS FACT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO AN UNDENIABLE FACT THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND IS EF FECTED THROUGH A REGISTERED DEED WHERE THE APPARENT CONSIDERATION IS MENTIONED AND THE STAMP DUTY WAS ALSO PAID BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE FACTS AND EVIDENCES, THERE I S SCOPE OF ONLY ONE CONCLUSION THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION HAS BEEN TRANS FERRED TO THE APPELLANT ON A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 58,80,000/- AND STAMP DUTY OF RS. 2,88,910/- WAS ALSO INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. A SUBSEQUENT AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE SELLER SH. DEEPCHAND FIL ED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IS ALSO OF NO CONSEQUENCE AS THE SAME WAS NOT FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOW WHE N SH. DEEPCHAND IS NO MORE ALIVE, NO CROSS VERIFICATION O F THE CLAIM IS POSSIBLE. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE A.O IS JUSTIF IED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 61,68,910/- AS UNDISCLOS ED INVESTMENT IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS SUSTAI NED. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANTS GROUND OF APPEAL ON TH IS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. WHI LE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE IS AN UNEDUCATED LADY, RESIDING AT VILLAGE THADA, TEHSIL, TI JARA, ALWAR. SHE WAS NOT HAVING ANY SOURCE OF INCOME. HER HUSBAND SHR I RAMBIR SINGH IS WORKING IN CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) AS HE AD CONSTABLE. THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEES FATHER IN LAW SHRI DEEP CH AND WAS UNMARRIED AND NOT HAVING ANY CHILD. HE HAS GIVEN ALL HIS MOVA BLE AND IMMOVABLE ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 4 PROPERTY LOCATED ANYWHERE IN INDIA TO SHRI RAMBIR SI NGH, SON OF HIS BROTHR SHEORAM AND TO HIS WIFE. SHRI RAMBIR SINGH AN D KANTA DEVI WERE TAKING CARE OF SHRI DEEP CHAND AS HE WAS AN AGED PER SON. SHRI DEEP CHAND WAS DECIDED TO TRANSFER HIS LEGAL TITLE OF AGR ICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM IN FAVOUR OF SHRI RAMBIR SINGH AND HIS WIFE S MT. KANTA DEVI. AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION, DUE TO MISTAKE, INSTEAD O F GIFT DEED, SALE DEED WAS MENTIONED AND DUE TO IGNORANCE THE DEED WRITER ME NTIONED THE SALE CONSIDERATION CALCULATED AS PER DLC RATES. THER E WAS COMPLETELY A MISTAKE IN EXECUTING THE DOCUMENT FOR GIFT TO TRANS FER AGRICULTURAL LAND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD AR ALSO SUBMITTED A WR ITTEN REPLY, THE CONTENTS OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. FROM THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, THE ONLY ISSUE IN T HE PRESENT CASE IS WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESE NT CASE, IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CONSIDERATION T O SH. DEEPCHAND AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED DT. 25.02.2011 THROUGH W HICH THE LEGAL TITLE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIM IS TRANSFERRE D TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT NO CONSIDERATION IS PAID BY THE ASSES SEE TO SH. DEEPCHAND AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED CAN REASONABLY BE INF ERRED FROM THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES:- (A) IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT SH. DEEPCHAND HAS N O CHILD AND HE WAS RESIDING WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND. THE RAT ION CARD (PB 6-7) ALSO PROVES THIS FACT. (B) SH. DEEPCHAND IN HIS WILL DT. 25.10.2004 (PB 10-13) HAS STATED THAT SH. RAMBIR, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN R ESIDING WITH HIM FROM CHILDHOOD AND WAS LOOKING AFTER HIM IN HIS OLD AGE. ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 5 THEREFORE, IN THE WILL, HE APART FROM SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING ABOUT HIS IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT VILLAGE NANDRAMPURBAS HAS ALSO STATED THAT ALL HIS MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIE S AND DEPOSIT IN BANK/POST OFFICE ANYWHERE IN INDIA AFTER HIS DEA TH WOULD DEVOLVE ON SH. RAMBIR. THEREFORE, THE OBJECTION OF THE AO THAT LAND AT VILLAGE THADA HAS NO ROLE TO PLAY IN THE WI LL IS INCORRECT APPRECIATION OF FACTS. (C) IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TO PROVE T HAT INSTEAD OF THE GIFT DEED, SALE DEED WAS WRONGLY EXECUTED, AN AFFID AVIT OF SH. DEEPCHAND DT. 03.09.2014 (PB 17) WAS PREPARED WHICH IS DULY NOTRARISED BY THE NOTARY AND ENTERED IN HIS REGISTE R. HOWEVER, SH. DEEPCHAND IN THE MEANTIME EXPIRED ON 21.09.2014 (PB 5). THEREAFTER, THIS AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED TO THE AO VIDE LETTER DT. 07.10.2014 (PB 1). AFTER FILING THE AFFIDAVIT, NO FURTHER QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE AO AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED O N 16.03.2015. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A ) THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF SH. DEEPCHAND WAS NOT FILED DURING ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS INCORRECT. (D) IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT NO CONSIDERATION PA SSED ON THE EXECUTION OF SALE DEED, THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE TWO WI TNESSES TO THE SALE DEED NAMELY SH. HEMANT AND SH. DESHRAJ IS ENCL OSED. IN THE AFFIDAVIT THEY HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT NO CONSIDER ATION WAS PASSED ON EXECUTION OF SALE DEED AS INSTEAD OF GIFT DEED, SALE DEED WAS WRONGLY EXECUTED. (E) IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS MATTER WAS ALSO INVESTIGATED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT SOMEWHERE IN T HE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2014. THE INVESTIGATING OFFICER AT THAT TIME RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND SH. R AMBIR. SH. ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 6 DEEPCHAND WAS ALSO PRODUCED AT THAT TIME BUT HIS ST ATEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED. IN THESE STATEMENTS ALSO, THE FACTS S TATED ABOVE WERE STATED. THIS FACT CAN ALSO BE VERIFIED BY CALL ING THE RECORDS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. IN THESE STATEMENT, SH. RAMBIR EXPLAINED THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.2,88,91 0/- WAS PAID BY HIM OUT OF HIS SAVINGS FROM SALARY AND AGRICULTU RAL INCOME. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS REASONABLY INFERABLE TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY RATHER SHE HAS RECEIVED THE SAME IN GIFT AND THUS, NO INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY HER. 2. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME. EVEN THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT FOUND ANY OTHER SOUR CE OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH IS INVESTED IN PURCHAS E OF LAND. STRICT RULE OF EVIDENCE DO NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PRO CEEDINGS. HUMAN CONDUCT AND PREPONDERANCE OF THE PROBABILITIES NEED S TO BE CONSIDERED BEFORE MAKING ANY ADDITION U/S 69 IN AS MUCH AS THE SECTION USES THE WORD MAY AND NOT SHALL. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, EVEN IF THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN LAND IS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY EXPLAINED, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE C ASE. THE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 0801 HAS HELD THAT SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE TEST OF HUMAN PRO BABILITIES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED/ APPLIED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME. THI S PRINCIPAL IS AGAIN APPROVED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SM T. P.K. NOORJAHAN (1999) 237 ITR 0570. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSEE WAS A MUSLIM LADY AGED 20 YEARS. SHE MADE CERTAIN INVESTMENTS IN LAND. THE EX PLANATION OF ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE PURCHASE MONEY FOR THESE INVESTMENTS WAS THAT THE SAME WERE FINANCED FROM OU T OF THE SAVINGS FROM THE INCOME OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE LEFT B Y HER MOTHERS FIRST ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 7 HUSBAND. THE SAID EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESS EE WAS REJECTED AND ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 69. THE TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER , HELD THAT EVEN THOUGH THE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE PURCHASE MONEY WAS NOT SATISFACTORY BUT IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EARN T HE AMOUNT INVESTED IN THE PROPERTIES AND THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATIO N COULD THE ASSESSEE BE CREDITED WITH HAVING EARNED THIS INCOME IN THE C OURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OR WAS EVEN IN A POSITION TO EARN I T FOR A DECADE OR MORE. THE TRIBUNAL TOOK THE VIEW THAT ALTHOUGH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED, S. 69 OF THE AC T CONFERRED ONLY A DISCRETION ON THE ITO TO DEAL WITH THE INVESTMENT A S INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT IT DID NOT MAKE IT MANDATORY ON H IS PART TO DEAL WITH THE INVESTMENT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SOON AS THE LATTERS EXPLANATION HAPPENED TO BE REJECTED. ACCORDING TO T HE HIGH COURT, THE TRIBUNAL HAD NOT COMMITTED ANY ERROR IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COMPLETE ABSENCE OF RESOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND A LSO THE FACT THAT HAVING REGARD TO HER AGE AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN W HICH SHE WAS PLACED SHE COULD NOT BE CREDITED WITH HAVING MADE A NY INCOME OF HER OWN AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIG HT IN REFUSING TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, HA S URGED THAT THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE HIGH COURT WERE IN ERROR IN THEIR INTERPRETATION OF S. 69 OF THE ACT. IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT AS UNDER:- WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE. AS POINTED OUT BY THE TRIBU NAL , IN THE CORRESPONDING CLAUSE IN THE BILL WHICH WAS INTRODUC ED IN PARLIAMENT, THE WORD 'SHALL' HAD BEEN USED BUT DURING THE COURS E OF CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL AND ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE, THE SAID WORD WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORD 'MAY'. THIS C LEARLY INDICATES THAT THE INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT IN ENACTING S. 69 WAS TO CONFER A DISCRETION ON THE ITO IN THE MATTER OF TREATING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 8 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ITO IS NOT OBLIGED T O TREAT SUCH SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS INCOME IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE EXP LANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE NOT SATISFACTORY. THE Q UESTION WHETHER THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOM E OR NOT UNDER S. 69 HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF E ACH CASE. IN OTHER WORDS, A DISCRETION HAS BEEN CONFERRED ON THE ITO U NDER S. 69 OF THE ACT TO TREAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SA TISFACTORY AND THE SAID DISCRETION HAS TO BE EXERCISED KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE. IN THE INSTAN T CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE DISCRETION HAD NOT BEEN PROPERLY EXERCISED BY THE ITO AND THE AAC IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CIRCUMSTANCE S IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS PLACED AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS FOUND THAT THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. THE HIGH COURT HAS AGREED WITH THE SAID VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL . WE ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE SAID FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBU NAL. THERE IS THUS NO MERIT IN THESE APPEALS AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION CO NFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD SR. DR HAS RELIED ON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE F OLLOWING FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED: THE ASSESSEE WAS AN UNEDUCATED LADY, RESIDING AT VIL LAGE THADA, TEHSIL, TIJARA, ALWAR. ASSESSEES HUSBAND SHRI RAMBIR SINGH WAS WORKING IN CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE (CRPF) AS HEAD CONSTABLE. ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 9 SHRI DEEP CHAND WAS BROTHER OF ASSESSEES FATHER IN LAW. DEEP CHAND WAS UNMARRIED AND HAVING NO CHILD. SHRI DEEP CHAND H AS MADE A REGISTERED WILL WHERE ENTIRE MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE P ROPERTIES LOCATED IN INDIA WERE TO BE GIVEN TO SHRI RAMBIR SINGH. SHRI RAMBIR SINGH IS HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI RAMBIR SINGH AND SMT. KANTA DEVI WERE TAKING CARE OF SHRI DEEP CHAND SINCE LONG, WHO WAS AN OLD PERSON. SHRI DEEP CHAND, SON OF SHRI TEJRAM, WHO IS SHOWN AS SELLER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE, HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THA T HE IS AN OLD MAN AND UNEDUCATED PERSON. HE WAS UNMARRED. HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY SUCCESSOR. RAMBIR SINGH AND HIS WIFE KANTA DEVI (ASS ESSEE) WERE TAKING CARE OF HIM. HE HAD GIFTED ALL HIS PROPERTY IN THE NAME OF RAMBIR SINGH AND KANTA DEVI (ASSESSEE). IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT SHRI DEEP CHAND HAS CATEGORICALLY CLEARLY STATED THAT THE LAND WAS G IVEN AS A GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE REGISTERED WILL, ALL PROPERTIE S I.E. MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE LOCATED IN INDIA ARE TO DEVOLVE IN FAVOUR OF SHRI RAMBIR SINGH HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ASKED REPORT OF A.O. ON THE VERACITY OF CONTENT OF THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY SHRI DEEP CHAND. NO INQUIRIES WERE MADE WITH REGARD TO SALE DEED EXECU TED INSTEAD OF GIFT DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER IT WAS DU E TO BONAFIDE MISTAKE WHETHER THE SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED THE REIN WAS GENUINE MENTIONED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT TO DECIDE THE ITA 417/JP/2017_ KANTA DEVI VS ITO 10 ISSUE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, FURTHER INQUIRIES WITH R EGARD TO THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT PROPERTY WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT AND NO C ONSIDERATION WAS PAID ARE REQUIRED. HENCE, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BA CK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/10/2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR HKKXPAN (KUL BHARAT) (BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. KANTA DEVI, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- BHIWADI. 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. 417/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR