SH. BABU LAL MEENA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JAIPUR

ITA 469/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1241 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SAHAI; ASHISH SHARMA DH
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Borrowed satisfaction; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 2(14); 142(1); 143(2); 13; 147; 148; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH B , 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. 469/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA PLOT NO.717, GOVIND VATIKA NEAR KHOLE KE HANUMAN JI LAXMAN DOONGRI, DELHI BYE PASS ROAD, , JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 5(4) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ P AN/GIR NO .: AZGPM 4052 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SAHAI & SHRI ASHISH SHARMA,ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA, CIT- DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/11/2019 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 /12/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 22-01-2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE ORDER OF THE A.O. I.E. ITO WARD 5(4) U/S 143(3)/147 DATED 31.03.2015 IS AB INITIO VOID AS HE HAS NEITHER RECO RDED THE REASONS NOR ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148, WHICH WERE IN FACT DONE BY N ON-JURISDICTIONAL ITO, WARD 6(1), JAIPUR AND THUS THE ACTION CONDUCTE D BY HIM ON BORROWED SATISFACTION WAS BAD IN LAW. ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 2 2. THE RECORDING OF REASONS AND ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147/148 BY ITO WARD 6(1) WAS IN EXCESS OF JURISDICTION AND CONSEQUENTIA L ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. 3. THE RECORDED REASONS ON 28.03.2014 BY ITO WARD 6 (1) WHICH CONSEQUENTIALLY LED TO THE ASSESSMENT ON 31.03.2015 WERE INHERENTLY BAD IN LAW AS THEY DON'T LEAD TO FORMATION OF BELIEF BU T ONLY SPEAK OF TRANSACTION OF LAND IN VILLAGE KUKAS, TEHSIL AMER, BEING NOT VERIFIABLE AND IN STATING THAT LAND WAS A CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2( 14) OF THE ACT, EVEN THOUGH THIS ASSERTION OF LAND BEING A CAPITAL ASSET , WAS NEITHER APPARENT NOR ESTABLISHED THEN, AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF R EASONS. 4. THE A.O. ERRED IN FACT AND IN LAW BY TREATING TH E LAND AS CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14)(III)(B) EVEN WHEN IT WAS LOCATED MORE THAN 8 KM FROM BOUNDARY OF JAIPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL (JMC), AS PER CBDT NOTIFIC ATION NO. 9447 DATED 06.01.1994. 5. THE A.O. ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT TRANSAC TION IN THIS LAND WAS NOT COVERED BY SECTION 50(C) OF THE ACT AND THEREBY IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF 3,20,48,000/-. 6. THE A.O. ERRED IN ARBITRARILY REJECTING THE REPO RT OF THE PATWARI DATED 28.02.2015 ABOUT LOCATION OF THE TRANSACTED LAND AN D IN COAXING A REPORT TEHSILDAR ON FROM 31.03.2015 ON E-MAIL, WHICH WAS N OT ONLY QUALIFIED BUT ALSO BASED ON INVALID PRESUMPTION AND WAS NEVER CON FRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE AO ERRED IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC 50C I N RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION IN LAND ON 27/09/06, WHEN THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN CONSIDERATION DISCLOSED AND ADOPTED FOR PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AND MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 7,84,000/-. 8. THE AO ERRED IN ARBITRARILY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RS THIRTY LAKH FROM COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE LAND. 9. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ARBITRARILY IGNORING THE DET AILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REJOINDERS, FILED IN RESPONSE T O THE REMAND REPORTS OF THE AO, DATED 11/01/2017, 27/01/2017,16/ 06/2017,AND 25/08/2017, EVEN WHILE REPRODUCING THESE IN THE APP ELLATE ORDER, AND IN PASSING A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. 10. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ARBITRARILY, REJECTING THE EVIDENTIARY LETTER OF THE DY COMMISSIONER OF JAIPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL DATED 26/0 2/2016 AND INSTEAD BY RELYING ON THE QUALIFIED, PRESUMPTION LADEN AND UNC ONFRONTED LETTER OF THE TEHSILDAR DATED 31/03/2005. 2.1 THE GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE REGARDING VALIDITY O F ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF TH E ACT FOR WANT OF ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 3 JURISDICTION OF THE AO WHO HAS INITIATED THE PROCE EDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS FOR WANT OF SATISFACTION OF THE AO W HO HAS FINALLY PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2.2 THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E REASONS WERE RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY THE ITO , WARD- 6(1), JAIPUR ON 28-03-2018. ACCORDINGLY, THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED BY THE ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR OF THE ACT ON 29-03-2014. THEREA FTER THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO ITO, WARD-5(4), JAIPUR VIDE LETTER D ATED 7-8-2014 WHO HAD FINALLY PASSED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31- 03-2015. THUS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE REASONS RE CORDED ON 29-03- 2014 WAS BY NON-JURISDICTION ITO WARD- 6(1), JAIPUR WHO HAD UNDULY RETAINED THE ASSESSMENT RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A LONG PERIOD WHEREAS THE JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT WAS WITH I TO WARD- 5(4), JAIPUR BUT HE HAD NOT RECORDED THE REASONS. THEREFO RE, THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT AND FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT ARE BAD IN L AW. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KROWN AGRO FOODS PVT.LTD. VS ACIT 375 ITR 4 60. THEREFORE, THE LD.AR OF THE SUBMITTED THAT REASSESSMENT IS VOI D AB-INITIO FOR WANT OF ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 4 JURISDICTION OF THE AO WHO HAD INITIATED THE PROCEE DINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT AS SESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION OF JURISDICTION EITHER BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE REFORE, THIS ISSUE IS NOT CONSIDERED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND ALSO NOT ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING THE PERM ISSION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ONCE NO SUCH OBJEC TION OR GROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THEN WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE REASONS AND SEEKING THE PERMISSION F ROM THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED SUCH AN ADDITIONAL GROUN D. THUS, HE CONTENDED THAT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE SH OULD NOT BE ADMITTED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. ARCHANA PANDEY VS IT O, (2013) 34 TAXMANN.COM 88/144 ITD 218. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT EVEN AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124 OF THE ACT, THE ASSES SEE CANNOT RAISE AN OBJECTION OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO AFTER ONE M ONTH FROM THE DATE OF NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 148, 143(2) OR 142(1) O F THE ACT. THEREFORE, ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 5 THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE CHALLENGED AFT ER EXPIRY OF THE SAID PERIOD AS PROVIDED U/S 124 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT O F HIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABHISHEK JAIN VS ITO, WARD- 55, NEW DELHI, (2018) 9 4 TAXMANN.COM 355. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING J UDGEMENTS. 1. BAL CHAND JAIN & SONS VS DCIT (2014) 41 TAXMANN.COM 524 (ALL) 2. VAISHALI BUILDERS & COLONIZERS VS ADDL. CIT (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 464 (JODHPUR) 3. SUBHASH CHANDER VS CIT (2018) 166 TAXMAN 307 (P&H) THUS THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CHALLENGE TH E JURISDICTION WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH OF THE NOTICE DATED 29-03-2014 ISSUED U/S 148 OR BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT WHICHEVER IS EA RLIER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 124(3) OF THE ACT THEN THE SA ID GROUND CANNOT BE RAISED AT THIS STAGE. 2.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS AN IN DIVIDUAL AND HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 OF THE ACT. AS P ER THE INFORMATION ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 6 RECEIVED BY THE AO, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PIECE OF LAND ON 16-11-2006 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.10 CRORES. THE SAID LAND WAS VALUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AT RS. 3,81,64,000/-. THE AO I.E. ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPUR ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 29-03-2014. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE NO TICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT BY ITO, WARD- 6(1) IS BASED ON THE PAN DATA BASE. THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO CANNOT BE DISPUTED BY THE AS SESSEE WHEN THE SAID ITO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE PAN OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE CASE WAS DUE TO TRANSFER OF PAN OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND T HEIR OCCUPATION/ PROFESSION. THUS ONCE THE ASSESSEE'S PAN WAS WITH T HE JURISDICTION OF THE ITO, WARD- 6(1) OF THE ACT AT THE TIME OF ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT THEN HE WAS HAVING PROPER JURISDICTION TO I NITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DETAILS OF TH E ASSESSEE CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AO WHO PROPOSED TO TRANSFER THE PA N OF THE ASSESSEE TO ITO,WARD- 5(4), JAIPUR. THUS IT IS NOT A CASE OF HAVING NO JURISDICTION BY THE ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPUR AT THE TIME OF ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER FILED THE RET URN OF INCOME AND THE PAN WAS LYING WITH THE SAID ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPUR THEN SUBSEQUENT ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 7 PROPOSAL OF THE ITO TO THE LD. CIT CONCERNED FOR T RANSFER OF THE PAN OF THE ASSESSEE TO ITO, WARD- 5(4) WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO TRANSFER OF THE CASE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) EXCEPT SOME OBJECTIONS WERE RAISED IN THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE SAID OBJECTIONS NOT RAISED IN THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE NOT ADJUDICATED BY THE LD. CIT( A). NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION OF ITO, WARD- 6 (1), JAIPUR. SINCE THIS OBJECTION WAS RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS NEITHER CONSIDERED NOR ADJUDICATED UPON BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FURTHER THIS REQUIRES A VERIFICATION OF THE CONCERNED RECORDS REGARDING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT FOR TRANSFERRING THE PAN OR THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPUR TO ITO , WARD- 5(4), JAIPUR. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICAT ION OF THE GROUND AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE JURISDICTION O F THE ITO, WARD- 6(1) FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT A ND CONSEQUENTLY REASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED BY THE ITO WARD- 5(4), JA IPUR. ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 8 3.1 THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING V ALIDITY OF REOPENING ON THE GROUND OF BORROWED SATISFACTION. 3.2 THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE SPECIFICALLY ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THE ITO WARD- 6(1),JAIPUR STATED THAT TRANSACTION IS NOT VERIFIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF NO T FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE LD.AR THUS CONTENDED THAT MERE FAILURE TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME CANNOT BE A REASON TO BELIEVE THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. FURTHER THE ITO HAD NOT QUANTIFIED THAT THE INCOME HAS ESC APED ASSESSMENT AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE REASONS. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMENT REOPENED BY ITO BASED ON BORROWED S ATISFACTION IS NOT VALID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 3.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS OBJECTION EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME THEN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS IN EXPLANATION 2 TO SECTION 1 47 OF THE ACT WHICH PROVIDES THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED AN Y RETURN OF INCOME THEN IT WILL BE DEEMED THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 3.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 9 ANY GROUND CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENIN G THE ASSESSMENT EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). EVEN BEFORE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THIS GROUND AS AN ADDITIONA L GROUND. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER AND ADJUDICATE THE SAME ALONGWITH GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 AS SET ASIDE BY US. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING OF APPE AL BEFORE PASSING THE FRESH ORDER. THUS THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4.1 THE GROUND NOS. 4 TO 10 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RE GARDING THE TREATING THE LAND IN QUESTION AS CAPITAL ASSET AND CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS IN TERMS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AS WELL AS DISALLOWING THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT AS CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 4.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDE RED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE REPO RT OF TEHSILDAR TO HOLD THAT THE LAND IS WITHIN 8KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS WHEREAS THE LD.AR HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE RECORD IN SUPPORT OF T HE CLAIM THAT DISTANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT TO LAND IS BEYOND 8KM. IT IS P ERTINENT TO NOTE THAT AS PER SIMPLE AND PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 2(14)(I II)(B), THE DISTANCE ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 10 FROM MUNICIPAL LIMIT TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE LAND IS SITUATED HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND NOT THE DISTANCE FROM MUNICIPAL LIMI T TO THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE LANGUAGE OF THE PROVISION IS PLAIN AN D UNAMBIGUOUS AND THEREFORE, THE ISSUE REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFICATION OF THIS FACT OF DISTANCE FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE L AND IS SITUATED. FURTHER, WHERE THE LAND IS SOLD FOR NON-AGRICULTURA L PURPOSES THEN IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 6-11-20 18 IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SUNIL BANSAL RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IT WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET U/S 2(14) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ALL THESE ASPECTS OF THE MAT TER REQUIRES TO BE VERIFIED AND EXAMINED BEFORE ADJUDICATION OF THE IS SUE ON MERITS REGARDING THE ASSESSMENT OF CAPITALS IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT, IF IT IS SUPPORTED BY SOME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR SALE DEED ITSELF MANIFEST S OME IMPROVEMENT BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND THEN T HE COST OF SAID IMPROVEMENT HAS TO BE ALLOWED. IT IS PERTINENT TO N OTE THAT THERE ARE SALE DEEDS BEING THE DEEDS OF PURCHASE BY THE ASSESSEE A ND ANOTHER IS DEED OF SALE WHEREBY ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE LAND AND FROM CO MPARISON OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE LAND IN THESE TWO DOCUMENTS, IT CAN BE ASCERTAINED ITA NO.469/JP/2018 SHRI BABU LAL MEENA VS ITO, WARD- 5(4), JAI PUR 11 WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE ANY IMPROVEMENT WOR K ON THE LAND IN QUESTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO T HE RECORD OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN THE LIGHT OF TH E ABOVE OBSERVATION AND VERIFICATION OF NECESSARY FACTS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13 /12/201 9. 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:- 13 /12/ 2019 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI BABU LAL MEENA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 5(4), 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 NO.469/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR