The ITO, Ward-2(1) (5), RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. Shri Rajkot Jilla Co-operative Marketing Union Ltd., RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 420/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5508 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 14-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A D YYAS
• Keywords: Depreciation; Bonafide mistake; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 274; 54EC; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH EGKOHJ EGKOHJ EGKOHJ EGKOHJ IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U; IZLKN] U;KF KFKF KF;D LNL; , ;D LNL; , ;D LNL; , ;D LNL; ,OA OAOA OA OLHE OLHE OLHE OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA VGEN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.420/RJT/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1)(5), RAJKOT. / VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO- OPERATIVE MARKETING UNION LTD., SAHAKAR TRIVENI, 30-KARAN PARA, RAJKOT. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAAR 4310 H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. D. YYAS, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRAVEEN VERMA, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 12/09/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 01/11/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, RAJKOT, VID E APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-I/RJT/0211/13-14 DATED. 26.06.2015 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. 2. REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL: 1. THE LD CIT(A), RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS.21,81,540/- LEVIED U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - 2. THE LD CIT(A), RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE RELEVANT MISTAKE WAS REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HENCE, IT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. 3. THE LD CIT(A) RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT N OTHING WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THIS WAS NOT AN UNIN TENTIONAL MISTAKE. 4. THE LD CIT(A), RAJKOT HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INV ESTMENT OF RS.50 LACS IN BONDS ISSUED BY NHAI, ELIGIBLE FOR DE DUCTION U/S 54EC OF THE ACT ON 18.02.2009 I.E. EVEN PRIOR TO EN D OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. STILL THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER BALANCE OF TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX. THUS THIS FACT INDICAT ES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FULLY AWARE ABOUT ITS LIABILITY FOR CA PITAL GAIN TAX, EVEN PRIOR TO FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE , NON DISCLOSURE OF NET TAXABLE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME IS A DELIBERATE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A), RAJKOT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME DELIBERATELY. HENCE, FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITS INCOME DELIBERATELY IS ESTABLISHED. 6. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A)-I, RAJKOT MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED BACK. 7. THAT THE REVENUE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALT ER OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEALS. 3. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE I N THIS APPEAL IS THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR RS. 21,81,540/-. 4. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE IS A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,97,30,430/-. THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA HAS DECLARED THE LONG TERM ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) ON SALE OF LAND AMOUNTING TO RS . 1,55,72,880/- ONLY. THE NECESSARY DETAIL OF THE LTCG STANDS AS UN DER: 1. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AND ROAD S; LAND PURCHASE ON 16.04.2005 COST RS. 82 ,56,321 COTTON & COTTON BAIL GROUND CEMENT CONTRITE EXP. & ROAD DEVELOPMENT AT COST 90,43,321 1,72,99,460 LAND SOLD ON 25-08-2008 TO SHRINATH COTTON INDUSTRI ES RS. 4,08,31,000 INDEX COST 1,72,99,460 * 582 497 2,02,58,120 PROFIT 2,05,72,880 LESS: DEDUCTION U/S. 54 EC. BONDS 50,00, 000 LONG TERM PROFIT 1,55,72,880 4.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AM OUNTING TO RS. 90,43,321/- WHILE WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX LIABILITY. HOWEVER, THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CAPITALIZED THE DEVELOPMENT CO ST AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,43,321/- IN THE COST OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. T HE DEVELOPMENT COST WAS CAPITALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE F.Y. 2005-20 06 WHICH IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON SUCH BUILD ING CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR CLAIMING THE DEVELOPMENT COST AGAINST THE L.T.C.G. DECLARED ON THE SALE OF LAND. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ADDED INDEX COST OF RS . 90,43,321/- ( ACTUAL COST RS. 90,43,321.00 AND INDEXED RS. 1,05,89,965.0 0) TO THE LTCG DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER FR AMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE DATED 23.11.2011. ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - 4.2 THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INITIATED THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4.3 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S 274 R. W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 29.10.2013 FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE EXCESS LTCG DETERMINED WAS AT RS.1,05,8 9,965/- ONLY. 4.4 THE ASSESSEE IN COMPLIANCE THERETO REQUESTED TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY S TATING THAT THE HONBLE ITAT HAS ACCEPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAN D AND BUILDING AS CLAIMED BY IT IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE AND LEVIED THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS LTCG DETERMINED AT RS. 1,05,89,965/- WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS. 21,81,540/- BEING 100% OF TH E AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 5. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD. C IT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT IT HA S CLAIMED LAND DEVELOPMENT COST OF RS. 90,43,321/- AGAINST THE LTC G INCOME INADVERTENTLY. THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E WAS DULY ACCEPTED ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 5.1 THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS 322 ITR 158. 5.2 THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS NOT FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME THEREFORE NO PENALTY CAN BE I MPOSED ON IT. 5.3 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE WA S SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COST AGAI NST THE LTCG INCOME UNDER THE BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THESE EXPENS ES WERE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF LAND. 5.4 THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT ALL THE NECESSAR Y DETAILS WERE FURNISHED TO THE INCOME TAX CONSULTANT WHO HAS MISU NDERSTOOD THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE DEVELOPMENT COST WHICH IND EED WAS CAPITALIZED UNDER THE HEAD BUILDING CONSTRUCTION AND ACCORDINGL Y DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED ON BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. HOWEVER, THE CONS ULTANT INADVERTENTLY HAS SHOWN THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COST OF RS. 90,43,32 1/- AGAINST THE LTCG INCOME. ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - 5.5 THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: DECISION: 6. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A PPELLANT AND ALSO GONE THROUGH DISCUSSION MADE IN THE PENALTY ORDER. 6.1 THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE MISTAKE IN FURNISHI NG OF PARTICULARS HAPPENED WHILE FILING THE RETURN. BUT WHETHER THE M ISTAKE IS MALAFIDE OR BONAFIDE, THAT ISSUE REQUIRED TO BE DEALT IN. IN MY VIEW THE MISTAKE APPEARS TO BE BONAFIDE BECAUSE OF FOLLOWING REASONS :- (1) THE ALLEGED TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY D OING SO IS VERY LESS COMPARED TO TOTAL INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION. (2) WHEN THE MISTAKE WAS REALIZED DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. (3) THE MISTAKE MADE BY ACCOUNTANT AS SUBMITT ED, APPEARS TO BE GENUINE ONE. (4) NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW T HAT THIS IS NOT AN UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE. THE VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS QUOTED ALSO ARE RELEVANT IN DECIDING THIS MATTER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS & POSITION OF LA W I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE MISTAKE HAS HAPPENED AND HAS NOT BEEN DONE WITH ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION. HENCE, THE PENALTY LEVIED IS HEREBY DELE TED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE LD. DR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CAPITALIZED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COST AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,43,321/- IN THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNI SHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY CLAIMING THE LAND DEVELOPM ENT COST AGAINST THE LTCG INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALE OF L AND. AS SUCH, THE ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING DOUBLE DEDUCTION FIRSTLY; BY WAY OF DEPRECIATION AND SECONDLY; CLAIMING THE DEDUCTION AGAINST THE LT CG INCOME. THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. AR BEFORE US FILED A PA PER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1-118 AND SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS NOT FURN ISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREFORE THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE IMPO SED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COST AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,43,321/- AGAINST THE LTCG INCOME EARNED ON THE SALE OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY CAPITALIZED LAN D DEVELOPMENT COST IN THE VALUE OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTION IN THE F.Y. 2005 -06. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON SUCH BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COST AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND ADDED TO TH E LTCG INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO LEVIED THE PENALT Y U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR RS. 21,81,540/- ONLY. ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER CONCEALED I TS PARTICULARS OF INCOME NOR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. 8.1 NOW THE CONTROVERSY FOR ADJUDICATION ARISES SO AS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY/ WITH MALA-FIDE INTENTION HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION OF LAND DEVELOPMENT COST AGAINST THE LTCG INCOME. IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT H AS SHOWN THE VALUE OF LAND AT RS. 82,56,139/- ONLY WHICH IS THE ACTUAL PU RCHASE COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PURCHASE OF LAND DATED 16.04.20 05. THUS, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CAPITALIZED THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COST BY ADDING IN THE VALUE OF LAN D COST. RATHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CAPITALIZED LAND DEVELOPMENT COST IN T HE VALUE OF THE BUILDING CONSTRUCTION. IN THIS REGARD, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS GIVEN VERY CLEAR CUT FINDING T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEMENT VALUE OF LAND AT R S. 82,56,139/-. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE FINDING OF AO IS REPRODUCED UNDER: 'SIR, SUB:- SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT - A.Y. 2009-10 - REGARDING - PLEASE REFER TO THE HEARING ATTENDED BY YOUR AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE, SHRI C.P, MANDAVIA, ITP, FROM P.T, MAKADIA & CO., C.AS, AND DETAILS FILED BY THEM VIDE LETTER DATED 2 2.9.2011. 2. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY YOU AND YOU ARE REQUESTED TO FURNISH THE FOLLOWING DETAILS / SHOW C AUSE:- ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - I) YOU HAVE DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SAL E OF LAND AT RS. 1,55,72,880/-. YOU HAVE ADOPTED THE COST OF LAND AT RS.1,72,99,460/- AS AGAINST RS. 82,56,139/- SHOWN I N YOU ANNUAL ACCOUNTS, AUDITED ACCOUNTS AND YOUR RETURN OF INCOM E. YOU HAVE CLAIMED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE S AND ROAD DEVELOPMENT AT COST OF RS. 90,43,321/-. NOWHERE IN YOUR ACCOUNTS, THIS AMOUNT IS REFLECTRED AND EVEN OTHERW ISE YOU HAVE BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION COST AT WRITTEN DOWN VALU E OF RS.3,10,64,284/-. HENCE, THE COST OF THE LAND IS PR OPOSED TO BE ADOPTED AT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS AT RS. 82,56,139/- AN D THE LONG TERM CAPITA! SHALL BE COMPUTED ACCORDINGLY. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER INTENDED TO CLAIM THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COST AGAINST THE LTCG INCOME O N THE SALE OF LAND. THUS, THE MISTAKE HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSE E DUE TO OVERSIGHT. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE COURTS HAVE NOT LEVIED PEN ALTY ON THE ASSESSEE IF INADVERTENT MISTAKE WAS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE INCOME TAX RETURN. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANC E FROM THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS CIT REPORTED IN 25 TAXMANN.COM 400 WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUGGEST THAT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING ITS INCOME. THERE IS ALS O NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IT APPEARS THAT ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING IT S RETURN, FAILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THI S CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. TH E CALIBER AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH THE INADVERTENT ERROR. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAREFUL C ANNOT BE DOUBTED, BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHI NG INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THE IMPOSITI ON OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITT ED AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE ERROR AND HAD NOT INTENDED TO OR ATTE MPTED TO EITHER CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULAR S 8.2 IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DI SCLOSED THE VALUE OF THE LAND AT RS.82,56,139/- IN ITS FINANCIAL STATEME NT. THIS FACT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THUS, WE CONCLUDE THAT THERE WAS NO MALA-FIDE INTEN TION OR DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION FOR THE LAND DEVELOPMENT COST WHICH WAS ADDED TO THE BUILDING CO NSTRUCTION VALUE. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01 / 1 1 /201 8 SD/- SD/- EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN EGKOHJ IZLKN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN L; L; L; L; (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/11/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.420/RJT/ 2015 ITO VS. SHRI RAJKOT JILLA CO-OPERATIVE MARKETING UN ION LTD ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 11 - !'#$ %$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-1, RAJKOT. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. & ' / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// (/') * ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , ) / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 12/09/2018 (DICTATION PAGES 6 ) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 26/10/2018 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 30/10/2018 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER