ITO, Ward 1(4), Nashik, Nashik V. Shri Baburao Gangaram Jadhav, Nashik

ITA 418/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 41824514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 54F; 142(1); 54; 6; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.418/PN/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (4), NASHIK . APPELLANT VS. SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV, 374, SHRI GANESH, GANGAPUR ROAD, JADHAV MALA, ANANDVALI, NASHIK . RESPONDENT PAN: ADFPJ8246F APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 04-03-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-03-2015 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A)-I, NASHIK, DATED 21.01.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHA LF OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO APPEAR ON THE EARLIER DATES OF HEARING ALSO AND THE NOTICE OF HEA RING FOR THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 04.03.2015 WAS ISSUED THROUGH LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, WHO IN TURN INFORME D THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE. ITA NO.418/PN/2011 SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV 2 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 01 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE WHICH WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO THE A.O. AND THEREBY VIOLATIN G THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES 1962. 02. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO IS N OT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. 03. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT VALUE OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND AT RS.16,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS.65,32,4 00/-. 04. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING TO ALLOW DEDUC TION U/S.54F OF RS.6,50,000/- WITHOUT VERIFYING WHETHER THE CONDITI ON LAID DOWN U/S.54F HAVE BEEN FULFILLED OR NOT. 05. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESS EE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL RUNNING MILK DIARY AND HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM DIA RY BUSINESS AT RS.95,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TER M CAPITAL GAIN AFTER AVAILING THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AT RS.3, 77,340/-. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD SOLD A PLOT OF LAND IN S.NO.14/1A/4 ALONG WITH PLOT IN S.NO.14/1A/3, FOR WHICH DEVELOPMENT AG REEMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF TH E ACT IN THE CASE OF BHAVIK DEVELOPERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE THAT NEITHER HE NOR SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH TO WHOM THE PLOT OF LAND IN S.NO.14/1A/4 HAD BEEN SOLD WERE FURNISHING THE DOCUMENTS FOR TRANSFER OF LAND FOR WHICH, SUM OF RS.16- 17 LAKHS HAD BEEN ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION SHOWN WAS FU RNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO ADOPT THE CONSIDE RATION ACCRUING ON THE BASIS OF STAMP VALUATION AS PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR PLOT IN S.NO.14/1A/3 BY SMT. VIMAL B. JADHAV UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE AC T. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT A T RS.6,50,000/-, AGAINST WHICH NO PROOF WAS FILED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO.418/PN/2011 SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV 3 PROPOSED THAT THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE DISALLOWED. T HE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, BUT NO DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE FOR RECEIPT OF RS.16,50,000/- ADMITTED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WAS F URNISHED. IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE NOT FURNISHING ANY EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF THE LAND AND ALSO BECAUSE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET, SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE AD JACENT LAND IN THE NAME OF SMT. VIMAL B. JADHAV ON 18.04.2006 FOR CONSIDERATIO N OF RS.36,00,000/-, THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION OF WHICH WAS RS.70,00,000/- FO R 15R LAND. THE LAND IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE IN THE SAME SURVEY NUMBER WAS ADME ASURING 14R. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE FOR TRANSFER OF LAND IN S.NO.14/1A/4, RATE OF CONSIDERATION WAS ADOPTED @ R S.4,666/- PER SQ. MTR. AND THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION WAS ADOPTED AT RS.6 5,32,400/-. IN THE CASE OF SMT. VIMALA B. JADHAV, THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS @ RS.100/- PER SQ. MTR. AND IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THE SAID VALUE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.1,40,000/- AND AFTER APPLYING COST INFLATIONING INDEX, THE VALUE CAME TO RS.7,26,600/-. THUS, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS I N THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WERE WORKED OUT AT RS.58,05,800/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AD FAILED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE OF PURCHASING OR CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTI AL HOUSE, THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT WAS DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER SATHEKHAT AGREEMENT DATED 06.03.1995, IRREVOCABLE GPA DATED 0 6.03.1995 AND POSSESSION RECEIPT DATED 06.03.1995, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT THE T RANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 06.03.1995. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEAR NED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BEING LESS EDUCATED AND DUE TO INCORRECT GUIDANCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS O N SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OF RS.16,50,000/- DURING LAST MANY YEARS F ROM TIME TO TIME, IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ITA NO.418/PN/2011 SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV 4 6. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 6.1 NOTED THAT THE APPELLAN T HAD NOT DECLARED ANY CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF LAND IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 1995-96. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.16,50,000/- UP TO 31.03.2007 AND HAS ON HIS OWN HAD DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF LAND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN TAXING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF LAND IN MARCH, 1995, WAS DISMISSED BY T HE CIT(A). 7. COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E VIS--VIS APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ONLY CONSIDERATION OF RS.16,50,000/- I N RESPECT OF THE SALE OF LAND AND DOCUMENTS FOR TRANSFERRING THE LAND WERE DATED 06.03.1995. FURTHER, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO REGISTER ED AGREEMENT DURING THE YEAR IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF LAND AND THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD ESTIMATED THE VALUE OF LAND FOR STAMP PURPOSES AT RS.65,32,400/- ON THE BASIS OF OTHER LAND AT S.NO.14/1A/3. THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WERE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WERE TO BE APP LIED ONLY IN CASES WHERE THE DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PROPE RTY WERE SUBMITTED TO THE SUB-REGISTRAR AND ASSESSED TO STAMP DUTY VALUATION BY THE SAID AUTHORITY, THIS WAS THE PROPOSITION OF LAW UP TO 01.10.2009. THE F INANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 HAD AMENDED SECTION 50C OF THE ACT TO PROVIDE THAT EVEN IF THE DOCUMENT WAS NOT REGISTERED, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ASSESSABLE FO R STAMP DUTY PURPOSES WAS TO BE DEEMED TO BE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION. R ELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE RATIOS LAID DOWN BY LUCKNOW BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CARLTON HOTEL (P) LTD. VS. ACIT 122 TTJ 515 AND BY JAIPUR BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL IN SMT. VIJAYLAXMI DHADDHA VS. ITO 20 DTR 365 (JAIPUR). TH E CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7.2 HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE RE WAS NO REGISTERED DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSFER OF LAND OF ASSESSEE AT S.NO .14/1A/4 AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED THE VALUE OF LAND AT RS.65,32,4 00/- ON THE BASIS OF OTHER LAND ITA NO.418/PN/2011 SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV 5 TRANSFERRED BY A PERSON OTHER THAN THE ASSESSEE. T HE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009 AND IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT EVEN IF THE DOCUMENT IS NOT REGISTERED, THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ASSESSABLE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES IS TO B E DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION. THE SAID AMENDMENT IS APPLICABLE FROM 1/10/2009 AND HENCE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C IN THE CASE OF T HE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO ADOPT VALUE OF THE SALE CONSI DERATION OF THE LAND AT RS.16,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS.65,32,400/- ADOPTED BY THE A.O. GROUND NO.2 IS THUS ALLOWED. 8. IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 5 4 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED A CERTIFICATE OF ARCHITECT DATED 25.0 9.2006 SHOWING DETAILED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED BY THE A SSESSEE ALONG WITH COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF OLD SMALL HOUSE AND THE NEWLY CONSTR UCTED HOUSE AND ALSO FILED COPY OF THE MUNICIPAL RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE SAI D PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE SAID DOCUM ENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A), IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1961 (IN SHORT RULES), ADMITTED THE SA ID DOCUMENT AS THE SAID EVIDENCES WERE NECESSARY FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AT HAND. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AT RS.6,50,000/-. 9. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CI T(A). 10. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINS T THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THERE WAS VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER R ULE 46A OF THE RULES. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS TH AT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE ITA NO.418/PN/2011 SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV 6 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE REVENUE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 HAS OBJECTED TO THE ADOPTION OF VALUE OF SALE CONSI DERATION OF THE LAND AT RS.S16,50,000/- AS AGAINST RS.65,32,400/- APPLIED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE REVENUE ALSO AGITATED BY THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AT RS.6,50,000/- WITHOUT VERIFYING W HETHER THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN FULFILLED OR NOT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT THE PREMISES OF BHA VIK DEVELOPERS, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS FOUND FOR PLOT OF LAND IN S.NO.14/1A/4 ALONG WITH PLOT IN S.NO.14/1A/3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON REC EIPT OF THE SAID INFORMATION, HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT T O THE ASSESSEE TO REQUIRE THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME AS THE ASS ESSEE TILL DATE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THERE WAS NO COMPL IANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESS EE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED AGAINST HIM UNDE R SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. IN REPLY THERETO, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME, IN WHICH IT DECLARED INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.3,77,340/ -. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THOUGH THERE WAS ATTENDANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THERE WAS TOTAL NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE ASSESSEE VIS--VIS FURNISHING OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SALE AGRE EMENT OF THE PROPERTY, ANY EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE NEW PROPERTY AGAINST WHICH, IT CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE THAT IN CASE, THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE NOT FU RNISHED FOR THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ACCRUING TO HIM, THEN THE CAPITAL GAI NS WOULD BE WORKED OUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STAMP VALUE AS ADOPTED IN TH E HANDS OF SMT. VIMAL B. JADHAV IN WHOSE CASE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH. THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE WITH SH RI BHUPENDRA SHAH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A LETTER DATED 16.12.2009 TO SHRI BHUPENDRA SHAH, BUT ITA NO.418/PN/2011 SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV 7 HE ALSO DID NOT FURNISH ANY REPLY TO THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF LAND IN THE NAME OF VIMAL B. JADHAV ON 18.04.2006 FOR CO NSIDERATION OF RS.36,00,000/- THE STAMP VALUE OF WHICH IS RS.70,00 ,000/- FOR 15R LAND. THE LAND IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE SAME SUR VEY NO ADMEASURING 14R. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT TO DETERMINE THE DEEMED FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERA TION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.65,32,400/-. THE CIT(A) AGAINST THE SAME, OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO REGISTERED DOCUMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSF ER OF LAND OF ASSESSEE AT S.NO.14/1A/4. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 7.1 AT PAGES 3.4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME REFLECTS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ERRED IN ADOPTING THE VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO DOCUMENT HAD BEEN REGISTE RED WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. FURTHER, RELIANCE WA S MADE ON THE LEGAL PROPOSITION AS TO WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED. IT IS THE CASE OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE COPY OF AGREEMENT EVIDENCING THE SALE CONSIDERATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT( A), EXCEPT FOR THE REPRODUCTION OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT THERE WAS NO DOCUMENT REGISTERED WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR, WE DO NOT FIND A NY MENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE OF TRANSFER OF THE PR OPERTY IN WHICH THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS MENTIONED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO COMPUTE THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ANOTHER POINT TO BE NOTED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH A DJACENT PLOT OF LAND HAD ENTERED INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH ONE BUILD ER. REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WHICH WAS REPRODUCED UNDER PARA 3 AT PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER, IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD POINTED OUT THAT IT APPEARS THAT YOU HAVE SOLD THE PLOT OF LAND IN ITA NO.418/PN/2011 SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV 8 S.NO.14/1A/4 ALONG WITH THE PLOT IN SURVEY NO.14/1A /3 FOR WHICH DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF ACTION U/S .132 IN THE CASE OF BHAVIK DEVELOPERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXECUTED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER LAND OF WHICH, HE WAS NOT THE OWNER. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE OWNER OF ADJACENT LAND WERE HOLDING SIMILAR PIE CE OF LAND, AGAINST WHICH, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO. ALL THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) BEFORE DELETING THE ADDITI ON IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WHERE THE ASSESSEE THOU GH HAVE BEEN FAILED TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENT EVIDENCING THE SALE / DEVELOPM ENT AGREEMENT OF THE LAND IN QUESTION, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) I N DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE FINDING OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CI T(A) TO CONDUCT FRESH INVESTIGATION INTO THE FACTS AND AFTER VERIFYING TH E DOCUMENTS EVIDENCING THE SALE, TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. 12. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE WAS AGAI NST THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AT RS.6,50,0 00/-. THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN VIEW OF ARCHITECTS CE RTIFICATE SHOWING DETAILED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE PROPERTY, WHICH W AS FILED ALONG WITH COPIES OF PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE SAID HOUSE. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENC E OF CONSTRUCTING THE PROPERTY I.E. PERMISSION FROM THE LOCAL AUTHORITIES OR THE SOURCES OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY I.E. THE MONEY UTIL IZED, HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE CIT(A) AND MERELY RELYING ON ARCHITECTS CERTIF ICATE WHICH REFLECTS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPERTY FOR WHICH, NO EVIDENCE W AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WE FIN D NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS REVERSED. HOWEVER, IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM FIT IT TO RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE CIT(A) TO ADJUD ICATE THE SAME AFTER VERIFYING THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES AND AFTER AFFORDING REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.418/PN/2011 SHRI BABURAO GANGARAM JADHAV 9 13. THE REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED BY THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. IN THE FIR ST INSTANCE, THE CIT(A) TALKS OF REMAND REPORT RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT IN VIEW OF OUR SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A), THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL BECOMES ACADEMIC. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVE NUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2015 GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: - 1) THE DEPARTMENT; 2) THE ASSESSEE; 3) THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-I, NASHIK; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE