Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur V. ITO, Ward-4(5), Jaipur, Ward-4(5), Jaipur

ITA 456/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2277 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA J DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Additional evidence; Tangible material
• Section: 153A; 139(1); 153C; 147; 148; 132

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH A , JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE : SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 456/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA 1-A-61, SHIV SHAKTI COLONY SHASTRI NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 4(5) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AVRPS 4770 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA , JCIT-DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 2/03/2020 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/03/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 15-02-2019 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A O U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 2 2.THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DECIDING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE FILED UNDER RULE 46A. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PLOT TO SHRI NARENDERA CHOUDHARY FOR RS. 38.50 LACS VIDE SALE AGREEMENT DA TED 25- 12-2011, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF THE SAM E BY:- (I) INCORRECTLY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SALE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED. (II) NOT DEALING WITH THE CONDITION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT REAL OWNER OF THE PLOT IS KAMAL KUMAR SAIN AND NOT THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ORDER OF COURT WAS ALSO FILED. (III) INCORRECTLY HOLDING THAT SINCE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SALE AGREEMENT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF, THERE WAS NO NEED TO ALLOW ANY CROSS EXAMINATION. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION FOR THE ALLEGED SALE AMOUNT WITHOUT REDUCING THE COST OF THE PLOT. 2.1 THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING VA LIDITY OF REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 2.2 THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 14-09-201 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,67,47 0/-. THEREAFTER, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 14 8 OF THE ACT ON ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 3 16-02-2017 BY RECORDING THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSE E VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 TRANSFERRED AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING PLOT NO. A- 425, TARA NAGAR, A, SECTOR 15, KHATIPURA ROAD, JAIP UR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 38.50 LACS AND THE SAID TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT ALLEGED AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 WAS FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SH RI NARENDRA SINGH. THUS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 147/148 CANNOT BE INVOKED WHEN THE AGREEMENT TO SEL L, WHICH IS THE BASIS OF REASSESSMENT, WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N ITA NO. 425/JP/2017 DATED 13-12-2017 IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAVRATTAN KOTH ARI VS ACIT. THUS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REASSESSME NT OF A PERSON OTHER THAN SEARCHED PERSON BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL CAN B E MADE U/S 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE INITIATION O F PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT VITIATES THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS. 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T WHEN THE AO HAS RECEIVED THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRANSACTION OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 4 IN QUESTION BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 AND THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS NOT DECLARED NOR DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THEN THE SAID INFORMATION ALONGWITH AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 CONSTITUTE THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. DR FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN THE CASE OF SHRI NARENDRA SINGH, ONLY PHOTO COPY OF THE AGREEMENT WAS FOUND. HENCE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 O F THE ACT INSTEAD OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT S TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C WERE NOT SATISFIED. THUS THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF IMMOVABLE PR OPERTY BEARING PLOT NO. A-425, TARA NAGAR, A, SECTOR 15, KHATIPURA ROAD, JA IPUR WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO HAS RECOR DED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS REPRODUCED IN PARA 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER:- 2. REASON FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT WAS AS U NDER:- ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 5 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAIBALE WITH THIS OFFI CE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAVING ADDRESS PLOT NO. A-425, T ARA NAGAR A, SECTOR-15, KHATIPURA ROAD, JAIPUR VIDE AN VALID AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF R S. 38,50,000/-. ON PERUSAL OF RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE ABOVE TRANSACTION IN THE AIR SCHEDULE OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT NO. A-425 SITUATED AT TARA NAGAR A, SECTOR 15, KHATIPURA ROAD, JAIPUR WHICH WAS SOLD THROUGH AN AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF R S. 38,50,000/- IN HIS ROI IT IS CLEAR FROM THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE AO H AS RECEIVED THE INFORMATION REGARDING SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERT Y IN QUESTION VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF R S. 38.50 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE EXECUTION OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 25- 12-2011. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS CL AIMED THAT THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED, THOUGH DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED SUBSEQUENTLY. IT IS PERTINE NT TO NOTE THAT IT IS A CASE OF MISCHIEF AND FORGERY ON THE PART OF CERTAIN PERSONS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY THE PLOT IN QUESTION WAS ORIGINALL Y ALLOTTED TO ONE SMT. MADHU BALA JAIN BY MUTUAL HOUSING COOPERATIVE SOCIE TY LTD. WAS ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 6 SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED BY ONE SHRI JABBAR SINGH R ATHORE BY EXECUTING THE SALE DEED DATED 29-10-2010 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASS ESSEE FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4.00 LACS. THIS MATTER WAS FIN ALLY REPORTED TO JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (FOR SHORT JDA) AS WELL A S THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY REGARDING THE FORGED DOCUMENTS PREPARED B Y THESE PERSONS PARTICULARLY BY SHRI JABBAR SINGH RATHORE AND THE M ATTER WAS THEN REFERRED TO THE ARBITRATOR. THE DOCUMENTS OF SALE D EED DATED 29-10-2010 AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WHEN THE AS SESSEE HAS NEITHER DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION NOR OFFERED A NY CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE SAID TRANSACTION THEN THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY T HE AO BASED ON THESE DOCUMENTS, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTY, CONSTI TUTES THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS REGARDS THE OBJECTION OF THE LD.AR O F THE ASSESSEE THAT REASSESSMENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE U/S 153C OF TH E ACT AS AGAINST U/S 147 OF THE ACT, WE FIND IN THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO NOWHERE IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS SENT BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AFTER RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION. EVEN OTHER WISE, IF THE CONDITIONS AS STIPULATED U/S 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT ARE N OT SATISFIED THEN THE AO ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 7 CAN INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT. HENCE THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI NAVRATTAN KOTHARI VS ACIT (SUPRA) CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE SAID CASE, THE AO HAS STATED IN THE REASONS RECORDED THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND FORWARDED BY TH E AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE INITIATION OF P ROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. THUS THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. 3.1 THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REG ARDING ADDITION OF RS. 38.50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FO R TRANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 3.2 THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 IN QUESTION IS NOT A LEGAL AGREEMENT AS THE SAME IS NOT ENFORCEABLE IN LAW. THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER DISPUTE AS PER JDA RECORD. THE PROPERTY STANDS IN THE NAME OF ONE SHRI KAMAL K UMAR SAIN. THE LD.AR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT MENTION ED IN THE AGREEMENT WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS A SUBSEQUENT CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT CASE OF ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 8 THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COVERED BY ANY OF THE CIRCUMSTA NCES GIVEN IN CLAUSE (A) TO (D) OF RULE 46A (1) OF INCOME TAX RULES, 196 2. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WAS READY TO PRODUCE THE WITNESSES OF THE SALE AGREEMENT AS WELL AS CANCELLATION AGREEMENT AND THE STATEMENTS OF THO SE WITNESSES WERE RECORDED BY THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS WHEREI N THE AO HAS NOT ASKED ANY QUESTION ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT I N THE AGREEMENT. THUS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE AO HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI LAXMAN YADAV DURING REMAN D PROCEEDINGS THEN THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE O UGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE ALLEGED AGREEMENT DATED 25-12- 2-2011 WAS CANCELLED SUBSEQUENTLY ON 25-01-2012 AND THERE WAS NO EXCHANGE OF SALE CONSIDERATION. 3.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 STATES THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FULL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 38.50 LACS AT THE TIME OF SIGNING OF THE SAID A GREEMENT. THEREFORE, THE SUBSEQUENT STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NOT RE CEIVED THE CONSIDERATION AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AGREEMENT WAS CA NCELLED IS NOTHING BUT A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT PREPARED TO AVOID THE T AX LIABILITY. THE LD. DR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ALLEGED CANCELLATION AGR EEMENT IS A SELF SERVING ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 9 DOCUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OTHER PARTY IN WHOSE HANDS ALSO THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT THE ALLEG ED CANCELLATION AGREEMENT WAS NEITHER FOUND DURING SEARCH AND SEIZU RE ACTION NOR WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. EVEN THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLA IMED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 WAS SUBSEQUENTL Y CANCELLED. THE LD. DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 38.50 LACS THEN IT IS IRRELEVA NT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS LEGAL OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE RE MAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE VERACIT Y OF THE DOCUMENTS PROPOSED TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE CANCELLATION AGREEMENT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT DOCUMENTS PREPARED BY THESE PARTIES. THUS THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAS REPRODUCE D THE AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGES 6 AND 7. THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS WRITTEN IN HAND BY THE ASSESSEE AND H AS BEEN SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SHRI NARENDERA SINGH. THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE EXECUTION OF THE SAID AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-201 1. THE LANGUAGE OF ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 10 THE SAID AGREEMENT IS CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS REGARDI NG THE DETAILS OF THE PROPERTY AS WELL AS CONSIDERATION OF RS. 38.50 LACS WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN THE AGRE EMENT DATED 25-12-2011 THAT ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 38.50 LACSC W AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY WAS HAN DED OVER TO BUYER. IT IS ALSO STATED IN THE AGREEMENT THAT DUE TO GOVT. H OLIDAY ON 25-12-2011 THE REGISTRATION OF THE SAID DOCUMENT COULD NOT BE DONE. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE NEVER TOOK THE STAND THAT SAID AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED DUE TO NON-PAYMENT OF THE C ONSIDERATION. ONLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO PRODU CE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF CANCELLATION AGREEMENT DAT ED 25-01-2012. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 11-09-2018. THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEM ENT OF ONE SHRI LAXMAN YADAV RECORDED ON 10-09-2018 WHEREIN HE STAT ED THAT AT THE TIME OF SIGNING THE AGREEMENT, EXCEPT THE ASSESSEE AND S HRI NARENDERA CHOUDHARY, AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, NO OTH ER PERSONS WERE PRESENT. EVEN OTHERWISE, WE FIND THAT ALLEGED CANCE LLATION AGREEMENT WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE A CTION OR EVEN NOT ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 11 REFERRED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND IT IS SURFACED FIRST TIME AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO . THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THIS IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT MANUFACT URED DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF NON-RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDE RATION. THE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND LEAVES NO SCOPE OF ANY INFERENCE OR POSSIBILITY AGAINST NO N-RECEIPT OF SALE CONSIDERATION AS THE SAID AGREEMENT STATES IN CLEAR TERMS THAT ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT AND THE POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER TO THE BUYER. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO A PARTY TO THE ILLEGAL TRANSAC TION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION THEN THE ALLEGED STAND OF T HE ASSESSEE OF SUBSEQUENT CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT DOES NOT I NSPIRE CONFIDENCE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO H AVE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY IN QUESTION VIDE SALE DEED DATED 29-10-201 0 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4.00 LACS ONLY WHEREAS THE SAID PLOT OF LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 25-12-2011 FOR A CONS IDERATION OF RS. 38.50 LACS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DEVELOPMENT DURIN G THIS INTERVENING PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE AND TI LL THE DATE OF SALE, THE APPRECIATION OF VALUE FROM RS. 4.00 LACS TO RS. 38. 50 LACS INDICATES THE ITA NO.456/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA VS ITO , WARD- 4(5) , JAIPUR 12 INVOLVEMENT OF THE PARTIES IN MISCHIEVOUS ACTS OF S HOWING THE MINIMUM AMOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN COMPARISON TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE AGREEMENT. ACC ORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY S UBSTANCE OR MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/03/202 0. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18/03/ 2020 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SURESH KUMAR SHARMA, JAIPUR 2 IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD- 4(5), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO456/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR