Shri Rakesh Ambalal Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(9), Ahmedabad

ITA 465/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1814 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-06-2020
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: L P JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

, SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD ( CONVENED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT ) BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 465/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11) RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL PROP: RED SUN DYE CHEM 7, VAINKUNTH BUNGALOWS, OPP: RASPAN PARTY PLOT, NIKOL, AHMEDABAD / VS. ITO WARD 3(3)(9), AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AGWPP0714E ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI L. P. JAIN, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING 13/01/2021 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/02/2021 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, AHMEDABAD, (CIT(A) IN SHORT), DATED 13.10.2015 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 17.03.2015 PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) CONCERNING AY 2010-11. ITA NO. 465/AHD/16 [RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 2 - 2. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HEREI N HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS.5,17,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN S UNDER-REPORTED HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF T HE ACT. 3. GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: (1) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT U /S 147 OF THE ACT IS VALID. (2) THAT ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD, IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN HELD THAT IT IS A CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND HENCE THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORD ER IS INVALID AND VOID AB-INITIO. (3) THAT ON FACTS, AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) H AS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON MERITS REGARDIN G THE WORKING OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 4. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, THE LEAR NED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY VOICED OBJECTION ON LEGAL GRO UND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION AVAILABLE UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT. 5. AS REGARDS LACK OF JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE AL LEGED DEEMED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS (STCG) UNDER S.50C OF THE ACT IN CURRENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT, THE LEARNED AR ADVERTED TO PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF SCRUTINY IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTS CALLED FOR IN CONNE CTION WITH STCG ARISING ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. TO PROP UP THIS CASE, THE ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO NOTICE OF THE AO UNDER S.1 42(1) OF THE ACT DATED 24.12.2012 AS ISSUED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2010-11 IN QUESTION. A REFERENCE WAS MADE T O POINT NOS. 11 & 15 OF THE AFORESAID NOTICE ISSUED IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS ITA NO. 465/AHD/16 [RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 3 - WHEREBY FOLLOWING QUERIES CONCERNING CAPITAL GAINS ON TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WERE RAISED: 11. PL. FURNISH THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVABL E PROPERTY I.E. HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.1,57,813/- & LAND OF RS.3 0,000/- WITH COPY OF PURCHASE DEED. ALSO FURNISH THE DOCUM ENTS OF ASSETS SOLD OF RS.10,68,764/- DURING THE YEAR AND E XPLAIN WHETHER YOU HAVE SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN THEREON OR NOT. 15. PLEASE FURNISH THE COPY OF SALE DEED OF PROPERT Y SOLD AND EXPLAIN CAPITAL GAIN. ALSO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF SHARE INVESTMENT SOURCE THEREOF AND COPY OF DEMAT ACCOUNT . 6. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACT OF SALE OF H OUSE PROPERTY ON 21.08.2009 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.8 LAKHS AS PER SALE DEED WAS VERY MUCH PRESENT TO THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THEREFORE INVOKING S.147 OF THE ACT FOR SUBSTITUTIO N OF DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,17,000/- IN PLACE OF RS.8 L AKHS FOR THE PURPOSES OF DETERMINATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WITH REF ERENCE TO SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT THE AFORESAID ACT OF THE AO IS MERELY A CHANGE OF OPIN ION IN AN EXISTING FACT ON A COMPLETED ASSESSMENT WHICH IS NO T PERMISSIBLE IN LAW HAVING REGARD TO THE PLETHORA OF JUDICIAL PRECE DENTS INCLUDING CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2002) 256 ITR 1 ( DEL)(FB). IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE SCHEMATIC INTERPRETATION TO THE EXPRESSION REASON TO BELIEVE USED IN SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT IS ARBITRARY. IT WAS ASSERTED THAT HAVING REGARD T O THE QUERY RAISED IN THE CONTEXT OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING TO THE ASSE SSEE IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS AS NOTED ABOVE, A PRESUMPTION IS RAISE D THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER APPLICATION OF MI ND ON THE SUBJECT MATTER. A REFERENCE WAS THEREAFTER MADE TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PR.CIT VS. M/S. INARCO LIMITED INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 102 OF 2016 JUDGMENT DATED 23 RD JULY 2018 TO CONTEND THAT WHERE THE COPY OF SALE DEED WAS THE VERY MUCH PART ITA NO. 465/AHD/16 [RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 4 - OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE AO AND ISSUE OF COMPUTATIO N OF CAPITAL GAINS WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF ENQUIRY DURING REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A SUBSEQUENT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.148(2) OF THE ACT TO REVISIT THE ISSUE BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINIO N IS BAD IN LAW. THE LEARNED AR THUS URGED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UN DER S.148 OF THE ACT DATED 21.01.2014 REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED ON THIS SCORE. ON MERITS, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DI SCLOSED THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS ACTUALLY RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS WHICH OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN REPLA CED BY DEEMED SALE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION, MORE SO WHEN INDEPENDE NT VALUATION OF PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT. 7. THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAN D, RELIED UPON THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO IN RE-ASSESSME NT ORDER AS WELL AS ON THE APPELLATE ORDER RENDERED BY THE CIT( A). IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT CERTAIN DETAILS TOWARDS AC CRUAL OF CAPITAL GAINS WERE ROUTINELY ASKED AND DETAILS AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE KEPT ON RECORD BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL PROCE EDINGS. THE APPARENT SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS PER SALE DEED WAS SUMMARILY ACCEPTED WITH OUT NECESSARY ENQUIRY AS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TOWARDS AN INTRINSIC VALUE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAVING REGARD TO STAMP DUTY VALU ATION. THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION FOR DETERMINATION OF CAPI TAL GAINS WITH REFERENCE TO STATUTORY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT WAS TOTALLY OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED. IT WAS POINTED O UT THAT THERE ARE CONCURRENT OBSERVATIONS OF BOTH THE AO IN ITS REASS ESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS CIT(A) THEREON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MA DE ANY DISCLOSURE TOWARDS DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY VALUE BEING DIFFERENT TO THE AO IN THE O RIGINAL PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE NO OPINION PER SE COULD BE SAID TO BE FORMED BY THE AO FOR NON-APPLICABILITY OF FICTION C REATED BY SECTION ITA NO. 465/AHD/16 [RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 5 - 50C OF THE ACT DESPITE VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN APPA RENT CONSIDERATION REFERRED TO IN THE SALE DEED QUA ADOPTABLE SALE CONSIDERATION. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED THAT IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY CONSCIOUS OPINION DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORD ON TH E APPLICABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE QUESTION OF ALLEGED CHANGE OF OPINION THEREON DOE S NOT ARISE AT THE FIRST PLACE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS IN THE REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS EVEN BEFORE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE AO AS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL AT THIS BELATED STAGE. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. WE SHALL STRAIGHTAWAY ADDRESS OURSELVES TO THE VALIDITY OF A SSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT IN THE INSTANT CASE. AS ENLIGHTENED BY THE FACTS NOTED IN EARLIER PARAS, TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE ACT ALLEGING UNDER-REPORTING OF CAPITAL GAINS ARISING T O ASSESSEE ON SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE REASONS RECORDED UNDER S.148(2 ) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AY 2010-11 AS DULY COMMUNICATED TO THE A SSESSEE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR EASY REFERENCE: IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S. 14 2(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 15/03/2013 DETERMININ G TOTAL INCOME OF RS.17,32,690/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED IN COME OF RS.16,81,894/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.50,798/- . IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A HOUSE O F SHAHIBAG, AHMEDABAD ON 21/08/2009 FOR RS.8,00,000/-. ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN THE SAME AMOUNT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 12 /08/2010 WHILE THE DY. COLLECTOR (VOP)-2, AHMEDABAD HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS.13,17,000/- AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PAY SHORT STAMP DUTY OF RS.25,333/- AND THE SAME WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE SHOWN THE VALUE OF HOUSE AT RS.13,17,000 /- INSTEAD OF RS.8,00,000/-. THERE IS UNDER ASSESSMENT OF RS.5,1 7,000/-. ITA NO. 465/AHD/16 [RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 6 - IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE REOPENE D U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 8.1 WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD AN D REFERRED TO IN TERMS OF RULE 18(6) OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TR IBUNAL) RULES, 1963. ON PERUSAL, WE OBSERVE THAT AT THE TIME OF O RIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHAT WAS AT THE COMMAND OF THE AO WAS A SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE SELLER ASSESSEE SHOWING A N AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.8LAKHS ACCRUING TO ASSESSEE ON SALE OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IT IS CLAIMED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESS EE THAT RECEIPT ISSUED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY SHOWING REGISTR ABLE VALUE AT RS.13,19,000/- WAS PART OF THE RECORD AND HENCE, BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION, IT MEANS THAT THE AO HAD APPLIED ITS M IND TO THE AFORESAID FACT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S WHILE ADMITTING THE CAPITAL GAINS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION. THE AFORESAID PLEA OF TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT DETAIN US TO THINK DIFFERENTLY. MERELY BECAUSE SOME FIGURES ARE WRITTEN SOMEWHERE IN A BUNDLE OF VOLUMINOUS PAPERS/ DOCUMENT PLACED BEFORE THE AO, IT CANNOT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT THE AO HAS UNDERSTOOD THE P URPORT OF WHOLE GAMUT OF FACTS AND FIGURES. THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER SOLEMN DUTY TO CORRECTLY APPLY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND IN CA SE OF A DIFFERENT STAND TAKEN ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE, IT IS FURTHER DU TY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROPERLY DISCLOSE THE RELEVANT FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SHOW THAT THE ADOPTABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IN SALE UN DER S.50C OF THE ACT WAS PUT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO AND REASONS WER E CITED FOR DEPARTURE THEREFROM. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DE EMED FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ACCRUING TO THE ASSESSEE AS A RESU LT OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND THE APPARENT SALE CONSIDERATION AS REC ORDED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT IS NOT FOUND TO BE CONSIDERED BY AO. NO EXPLANATION FOR VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION QUA ADOPTABLE VALUE IS ITA NO. 465/AHD/16 [RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 7 - DISCERNIBLE FROM THE RECORD. HENCE, THE AO WAS IN NO POSITION TO ACCEPT OR REJECT THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAINS. PERTINENTLY, NO ENQUIRY WAS SHOWN TO BE MADE BY THE AO FROM THE PER SPECTIVE OF APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT OR OTHERWIS E ON THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IN THE ORIGINAL PROCEE DINGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO RECORD A FINDING OF FACT THAT A LEGITIMATE OPINION ON APPLICABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT HAS BEEN TESTED ON FACTS BY THE AO IN THE O RIGINAL PROCEEDINGS. AGREEABLY, SECTION 147 DOES NOT POSTU LATE CONFERMENT OF THE POWER UPON THE AO TO INITIATE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UPON A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION ON A GIVEN ISSUE. HOWEVER, WHERE IT IS FOUND ON FACT THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED TH E ISSUE ENJOINED BY THE APPLICABLE LAW I.E. 50C OF THE ACT, IT WOULD BE AXIOMATIC TO SAY THAT THE AO HAS NOT FORMED ANY OPINION PREVIOUS LY ON THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER DISCLOSED RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS REGARD NOR HAS THE AO OPINED AS TO H OW A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DEEMED FULL VALUE OF CONSIDE RATION AND APPARENT SALE CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE BROUGHT WITHI N THE AMBIT OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. 8.2 THE DOCTRINE OF CHANGE OF OPINION CAN PLAUSIB LY COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY WHEN THE AO HAS TAKEN O NE OF THE PERMISSIBLE VIEWS AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDIN GS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING LAW THEREON CANNOT BE EQUA TED WITH A VALID FORMATION OF OPINION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS A CASE OF OMISSION TO CONSIDER THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION AND TO FORM A BONAFIDE OPINION ON SUBSTITUTION THEREOF BY APPARENT SALE CO NSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENTS OF CAPITAL GAINS IN ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM A VE STED RIGHT ITA NO. 465/AHD/16 [RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 8 - ARISING FROM A PALPABLY ERRONEOUS CONCLUSION OWING TO NON- CONSIDERATION OF SIGNIFICANT FACT HAVING DIRECT BEA RING ON ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IF A RELEVANT FACT NOT EXAMI NED IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE SOUGHT TO BE INITIATED AND CAME TO THE LIGHT OF THE AO SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE DOCTRINE OF CHANGE OF OPINION PROPOUNDED BY JUDICIAL FIAT CANNOT ACT AS EMBARGO F OR EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT. THE JUDGMENT RELIED UPON IN THE CASE OF INARCO LTED. (SUPRA) IS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS RECORDED ON FACTS BY TRIBUNAL THAT THE ISSUE OF COMPUTATION WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF ENQUIRY. HOWEVER, IN THE INS TANT CASE, IT IS FOUND THAT WHILE DETERMINING THE CAPITAL GAINS THE DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION RELEVANT TO PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN SEEN AT ALL. MERE PRODUCTION BEFORE AO OF SALE DEED ALONGWITH RECEIPT OF REGISTERING AUTHORITY WHICH EN COMPASSES SOME FIGURES REPRESENTING VALUE ON WHICH STAMP DUTY IS P AYABLE WILL NOT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANYTHING MORE, NECESSARILY AMOUNT TO DISCLOSURE FOR THE PURPOSE PRESUMING FORMATION OF OPINION. 8.3 WE THUS CONCUR WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A ) AND HOLD THAT WHERE THE RELEVANT FACTS HAVE BEEN OVERLOOKED AND HAS NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF, RESULTING IN ESCAPEMENT OF CHA RGEABLE INCOME, SUCH OMISSION WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE CHANGE OF OPINI ON. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER CONTENTION, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE TOWARDS WRONGFUL USURPATION OF JURISDIC TION UNDER S.147 OF THE ACT. 8.4 WE THUS DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). NO ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED EITHER BEFORE THE CIT( A) OR BEFORE US ON MERITS AS TO WHY DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION IS NO T REQUIRED TO BE ITA NO. 465/AHD/16 [RAKESH AMBALAL PATEL VS. ITO] A.Y. 2010-11 - 9 - ADOPTED IN THIS INSTANT CASE. WE THUS ARE IN NO PO SITION TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE ON MERITS AT THIS BELATED STAGE. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMAR K EDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 19/02/2021 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 19/02/20 21