SMT. PUSHPA DEVI JAMAD, Jaipur V. ITO, Kishangarh

ITA 463/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 46323114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: MAHENDRA GARGIYEA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 234B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ( BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA AND SHRI N.K. SAINI ) ITA NO. 463/JP/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 PAN: AELPJ 0180 K SMT. PUSHPA DEVI JAMAD VS. THE ITO JAMAD SADAN, OSWALI MOHALLA KISHANGARH MADANGANJ, KISHANGARH (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIYEA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.C. SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 21.01.2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.03..2014 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A), ALWAR, DATED 20-03-2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2008 -09. 2.1 FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE I N THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 23.12.2010 ARE BAD IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER RE ASONS AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED. 2 2.1 RS.10,72,500/-: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE COMPUTATION AND TAXA TION OF THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.10,72,500/-. THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN SO COMPUTED AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HEN CE, THE ADDITION KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ADOPTING THE FUL L VALUE OF CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY AT RS.22,00,000/- AS AGAI NST RS.14,00,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BY APPLYING DLC RATE U/S 5 0C OF THE ACT, IGNORING THE SPECIFIC REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO GE T THE MATTER REFERRED TO THE DVO. THE ADDITION SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IN VIOLATION OF SPECIFIC PROVISION OF SEC.50C(2) OF TH E ACT, IS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON T HE RECORD AND HENCE, THE ADDITION KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL 3. THE LD. AO AS ALSO THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW A S WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RECORDING A WRONG FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN FURNISHING ANY EXPLA NATION WHICH IS AN INCORRECT FINDING OF FACT AND BEING CONTRARY TO THE FACTS ON THE RECORD HENCE, THE SAME BE QUASHED AND IGNORED. 4. THE LD A.O. FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON T HE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234BA, 234AB, 234D OF THE ACT AND AS ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WITHDRAWING INTEREST U/S 244A O F THE ACT. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES ITS LIABILITY OF CHARGING AND WITHDRAWAL OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST SO CHARGED/ WITHDRAWN, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF LAW AND FACTS, KINDLY BE DELETED I N FULL 3.1 THE GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR A T THE TIME OF HEARING HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3 4.1 BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LA ND BEARING KHASRA NO. 673 MEASURING 5 BIGHAS AND 10 BISWA AT VILLAGE TABIJI D ATED ON 07.06.2007 FOR RS.14,00,000/- AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AS SALE CONS IDERATION IS SHOWN AS EXEMPT U/S 10 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. HOWEVER, ON THE EN QUIRY MADE BY THE AO, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KMS FROM THE LIMITS OF NAGAR PARISHAD OF AJMER CITY AND HENCE, THE RESULTANT INC OME WAS NOT EXEMPT. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT THE STATE AUTHORITY HAS CONSI DERED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.22,00,000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP VALUATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE SAID LAND ON 11.01.2007 FOR RS.11,27,500/-. THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE LETTER DATED ON 12.11.2010 W HEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS TO WHY THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 2 2,00,000/- , BEING THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STATE AUTHORITIY, BE NOT CONSI DERED FOR COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ON 19.11.2010 THOUGH AR AT TENDED BUT NO EXPLANATION TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ONE MONTHS TIME ON 1.09.2010 SO THAT ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PRODUCE INFORMATION THAT AMOUNT SO RECEIVED, IS IN FACT, TH E CORRECT VALUE OF THE PLOT. ACCORDINGLY, ONE MONTHS TIME WAS PROVIDED HOWEVER, NO REPLY WAS FILED. THUS, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN TERESTED IN FURNISHING ANY REPLY AND HAS NOT CLAIMED THAT THE VALUE ADOPTE D U/S 50C(1) EXCEEDED 4 FAIR MARKET VALUE. THE AO THEREFORE, COMPUTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF LAND AT RS.10,72,500/- AFTER REDUCING T HE COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS.11,27,500/- FROM THE VALUE ADOPTED AT RS.22,00,0 00/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN CHAL LENGED THE LD. CIT(A) DISTINGUISHED THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BEFORE HI M BY THE LD. AR STATING THAT IN ALL THOSE CASES THE ASSESSEE EITHER FURNISH ED VALUATION REPORT OR HAD CLAIMED THAT THE VALUE ASSESSED BY THE SUB REGISTR AR WAS HIGHER, HOWEVER, NOTHING OF THIS SORT WAS DONE IN THIS CASE. HE ALSO REPRODUCED THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWN AS NOT INTERESTED TO FURNISH ANY REPLY AGAINST THE HIGHER VALUATION ADOPTED U/S 50C. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT SPECIFIC REQUEST WA S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR FURTHER REFERENCE T O THE DVO BUT HOWEVER, IT SEEMS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT DEAL WITH SUCH A REQUEST. FINALLY, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED INVOCATION OF SEC.50C BY CONSIDERI NG THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.22,00,000/- AS JUSTIFIED AND TH E RESULTANT SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.10,72,500/- WAS ALSO CONFIRMED. 4.2 FEELING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE T HE US ON THE GROUNDS REPRODUCED EARLIER. 4.3 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING SUBMIS SIONS ON THE DIFFERENT GROUNDS TAKEN, DREW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS AN APPLIC ATION FILED ON 19.08.2013 5 BY THE ASSESSEE U/R 29 OF THE ITAT RULE, 1963 REQUE STING ADMISSION OF CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLACED AT PAGE 7 TO 23 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE WHOLE YEAR AND AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ASSESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW - SHRI BHERON SINGH JI JAMAD REMAINED UNDER TREATMENT AND WAS ALSO HOSPITALIZED WHO, ULTI MATELY EXPIRED IN JULY, 2011. THE LD. COUNSEL MADE THE REQUIREMENTS TO FILE EVIDENCES SOMETIME IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER TO NOVEMBER, 2010. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE ABOVE REASON, THE ENTIRE FAMILY WAS PERTURBED AND WAS NOT ABLE TO COLLECT DETAILS, MORE PARTICULARLY, WHEN SUCH DETAILS WERE TO BE COL LECTED FROM STRANGERS WHO WERE RELUCTANT TO PROVIDE, BECAUSE THE SAME WERE GO ING TO BE FILED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH OPEN TO THE ASPECT THAT THE DLC WAS MUCH HIGHE R THAN THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE AND THAT IS THE REASON THE ASSESSEE REQ UESTED THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 01.09.2010 PRAYING FOR ONE MONTHS TIME TO RA ISE OBJECTION. SINCE THEN, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN SEARCH OF THE RELEVANT/SU PPORTIVE EVIDENCES I.E. THE COPIES OF THE REGISTRY OF COMPARABLE CASES, SOME OT HER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ETC. THE OTHER PERSONS HOWEVER, WERE NOT COOPERATIN G AND THEREFORE, A SUBSTANTIAL TIME STOOD LAPSED. WHILE THE ASSESSEE W AS IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTION OF THE EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE PASSED ON DATED 23.12.2010. HENCE, BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE 6 THESE PAPERS. HOWEVER, LATER ON WHILE PREPARING APP EAL BEFORE THE ITAT, SHE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO MAKE EFFORTS. FORTUNATELY, SOME OF THE PERSONS COOPERATED AND AGREED TO PROVIDE COPIES OF THEIR RE GISTERED SALE DEEDS. UNDER THIS BACKGROUND, ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THESE EVID ENCES EARLIER. IN SUPPORT, A DETAILED AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO FILED. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH WAS VERY MUCH WILLING, BUT DID NOT HAVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE IN THE SHAPE OF COPIES OF THE REGISTE RED SALE DEEDS OF THE NEARBY AREA AND NEAR TO THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME WHEN THE SUBJECTED LAND WAS SOLD TO BRING HOME THE POINT THAT THE SALE CONS IDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NEAR TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARE D IN OTHER COMPARABLE CASES ALSO AND HENCE, THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION, WAS IN ANY CASE EXCESSIVE AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED BY THE AO WITHOUT MAKING A REFERENCE TO THE DVO. . THUS, BEING VITAL PIECE OF EVIDENCES GOI NG TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE IS A MUST FOR A JUST DECISION OVER THE DISPUTE INVO LVED. HE RELIED UPON THE CASE OF CIT V/S KUMARI SATYA SETIA (1983) 143 ITR 4 86 (MP) IT WAS PRAYED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF NATURE JUSTICE AND FAIR PLA Y, THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BE ADMITTED & CONSIDERED. . HE FURTHER STATED THAT FILING OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THE SPECIFIC GROUND S TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUNDS NO.2.2 & 2.3. WITH REGARD TO THESE GRO UNDS, THE LD. AR MADE 7 MORE OR LESS THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN T HE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IN ANY CASE, EVE N ASSUMING NO SUCH OBJECTION COULD BE FILED BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSE E AGAIN DID MAKE EFFORT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A)IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSESSEE MAD E SPECIFIC REQUEST TO GET THE MATTER REFERRED TO THE DVO. THE LD. AR DREW OVE R POINTED ATTENTION TOWARDS PAGE 4 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER, WHERE BEFORE PARA 4.2, THIS REQUEST APPEARS AS UNDER:- THUS FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE VALUE ADO PTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITIES SHOULD NOT BE ISPO FACT O TAKEN AS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. IN THIS CASE , THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER T O THE VALUATION OFFICER FOR THE CORRECT VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY. SINCE HE HAD NOT REFERRED THE MATTER TO VALUATION O FFICER, THE VALUATION ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF DLC RATES SHOULD BE CANCELLED. IT IS THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE VALUATION OF PRO PERTY ON THE BASIS OF DLC RATES MAY KINDLY BE CANCELLED OR THE M ATTER MAY BE REMANDED FOR REDETERMINATION OF THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER, FOR WHICH WE SH ALL BE HIGHLY OBLIGED BY YOUR KIND HONOR. HE SUBMITTED THAT HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS COMPL ETELY SILENT ON THIS ASPECT. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS NAM ELY ITO V/S GITA ROY 17 ITR (TRIB) 431 (KOL), MEGHRAJ BAID V/S ITO 114 TTJ 841 (JD), ITO V/S MANJU RANI JAIN 24 SOT 24 (DEL) AND MRS. TRISHLA JA IN V/S ITO 11 ITR 579 8 (DEL) AND CIT V/S CHANDNI BHUCHAR (2010) 229 CTR 19 0 (P&H). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THE CIT(A) WAS SUPPOSED TO HAVE REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DVO THROUGH AO U/S 50C(2) BECAUSE THE POWER OF THE FIRS T APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS VERY WIDE AND COTERMINOUS WITH THOSE OF THE AO. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN DO WHAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD D O AND CAN ALSO DIRECT THE LATER TO DO WHAT THE LATER HAS TAILED TO DO. IN TH E CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA V/S CIT (1991) 187 ITR 688 AND IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S NIRBHERAM DALURAM (1997) 224 ITR 610 THE SC HAS HELD THAT THE POWERS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OVER AN ASSESSMENT, ARE ALL PLE NARY AND THEY ARE NOT CONFINED TO THE MATTERS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE ARE MANY JUDGMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC.250(4), THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS DUTY BOUND TO MAKE AN ENQUIR Y EVEN IF SUCH ENQUIRY WAS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WARRANT SUCH AN ENQUIRY TO BE MADE. HE ALSO RE LIED UPON KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE 53 ITR 225, 229 (SC). HE THUS, PRAYED THA T, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMMITTED AN ILLEGALITY WHICH CANNOT BE CURED AND C ONSEQUENTLY IMPUGNED ADDITION BE DELETED IN FULL OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE T HE ISSUE HE RESTORED TO THE AO TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE E VIDENCES, WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILES WITH HIS OBJECTIONS. 9 4.4 PER CONTRA, LD. DR HAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICE AND OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN FILING ANY REPLY. SE C.50C IS MANDATORY HENCE, THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE STAMP DU TY VALUATION OF RS.22,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE DECLARED SALE CONSIDE RATION. 4.5 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES WITH THE CASE LAWS CITED AFTER DULY CONSIDE RING THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. HOWEVER, BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE INDIVIDUAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WE SHALL FIRST DECIDE THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 7 TO 23 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WERE GOING ON SOMETIMES IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER 2010, THE AR SHRI ATUAL AGARWAL ATTENDED BEFORE THE AO. IT IS NOTED THAT TH AT FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER TREATMENT AND WAS HOSPITALIZED B UT ULTIMATELY EXPIRED IN JUNE, 2011, AS PER THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDA VITS. THEREFORE, IT WAS WITHIN THE PREPONDERANCE OF THE HUMAN PROBABILITY T HAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS MUST HAVE BEEN PERTURBED AND COULD N OT HAVE COLLECTED THE DESIRED EVIDENCES. IT CANNOT BE IGNORED THAT WITH A VIEW TO OBJECT THAT VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE CONCERNED STATE AUTHORITY WAS EXCESSIVE, THE COMPARABLE CASES SUPPORTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE 10 WAS, CERTAINLY A SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE AND IT IS ALSO FACT THAT THE STRANGERS COULD NOT HAVE EASILY COOPERATED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND SPECIALLY WHEN THE SUCH EVIDENCES WERE GOING TO BE FILED BEFORE THE DE PARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE SERIOUS IN OBJECTING TO THE HIGHER VA LUATION IN AS MUCH AS BEFORE THE AO HIMSELF ONE MONTHS TIME FOR FILING T HE EVIDENCES WAS SOUGHT BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED BECAUSE OF THE FACT OF THE TREATMENT OF HER FATHER-IN- LAW. AT THE TIME OF PREPARING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHEN SHE WAS ADVISED AND REQUIRED, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN MADE EFFOR TS AND IT IS UNDER THIS BACKGROUND SOME OF THE SALE DEEDS WHICH THE ASSESSE E COULD GATHER, HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES. THERE IS NO COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE REVENUE REBUTTING THE AVERME NTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S KUM. SATYA SETIA (SUPRA) IT WAS HELD THAT THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IS THE FINA L FACT- FINDING BODY UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE IT ACT. POWERS, THEREFORE, HAVE N ECESSARILY TO BE EXERCISED BY IT FOR DECIDING THE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND WHILE EXERCISING ITS POWERS, IF THE TRIBUNAL IS OF OPINION THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MATERIAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE FOR DECIDING THE PARTICULAR ISSUE, ITS DISC RETION CANNOT BE INTERFERED WITH UNLESS IT HAS BEEN EXERCISED ON NON-EXISTING O R IMAGINARY GROUNDS. IN THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT CAN BE S AFELY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID OBJECT TO THE VALUATION ADOPTED/ BEING ADOPTED. IN ANY CASE, IT CANNOT BE 11 DENIED THAT THE EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE ADMITTED NOW , GO TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE AND ARE ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED FOR A JUST DECIS ION OVER THE ISSUE INVOLVED. WE ARE THEREFORE, ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S WHICH ARE IN THE SHAPE OF COPIES OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS PLACED AT PA GES 7 TO 23 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE AO FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. WE ALS O DIRECT THAT THE AO, TO DECIDE THE ENTIRE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQ UATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE OBJECTION U/S 5 0C(2) AND OTHER SUPPORTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. HE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO AND TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EN TIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY T HE ASSESSEE WILL COOPERATE WITH THE AO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5.1 WE ARE NOT DECIDING GROUND NO. 2.1 WHEREBY THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 10,72,500 /- HAS BEEN CHALLENGED AS WE HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED THE AO TO DECIDE THE ENTIR E ISSUE AFRESH. 6.1 IN GROUND NO. 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS AGITATED THE C HARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234BA, 234B & 234D OF THE ACT AND ALSO WITHDRAWAL O F THE INTEREST U/S 244A. SUCH CHARGING AND WITHDRAWAL OF INTEREST IS C ONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE AND HAS TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AO ACCORDINGLY. 12 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11- 03-2014. SD/- SD/- ( N.K. SAINI ) (HARI OM MARATHA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. SMT. PUSHPA DEVI JAMAD, KISHANGARH 2. THE ITO, KISHANGARH 3. THE LD.CIT(A) 3. THE LD CIT 4. THE D/R 5. GUARD FILE (ITA NO.463/JP/2012) BY ORDER, AR ITAT, JAIPUR 13 14 15