Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6167 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
10 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
02-05-2018
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2012-2013
Appeal Filed On
05-06-2017
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 472/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 MAHAVIR PRATAP SHARMA, 15, GOVIND BARI, BRAHAMPURI, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGWPS 2804 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SRI SHANMUGA PRIYA (JT.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/02/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/05/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 07/03/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFA CTURING AND EXPORT OF WOOLEN CARPETS, PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES AND OTHER HANDICRAFTS ITEMS AND BUSINESS OF TRADING GEM AND J EWELLERY AND JOB WORK OF CARPETS IN THE PROPRIETORSHIPS CONCERNS NAME LY M/S OSCAR EXPORTS, M/S OKAY INDUSTRIES, M/S SWISHIN AND M/S DA TA RESEARCH & MARKETING. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME O N 26/3/2013 ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 2 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 10,240/- AND AGRICULT URAL INCOME OF RS. 6,00,000/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS MADE TWO ADDITIONS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ON E REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND LOCATED AT VILLAGE KHOREBARIAN, T EHSIL- SANGANER, JAIPUR AND THE ANOTHER REGARDING THE SALE OF INDUSTRIAL PL OT LOCATED AT SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, SANGANER, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS DEALT THE ISSUE REGARDING BOTH THE PLOTS AS UNDER: LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT AT KHO-REBAR IYAN SANGANER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES SOLD BY HIM WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY SOLD WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS FILED I T IS FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SAL E OF LAND SITUATED AT KHO-REBARIYAN, SANGANER FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.9 ,32,000/- AND AFTER DEDUCTING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS. 14,24, 682/- LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS WORKED OUT OF RS. 5,01,682/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME SUBMITTED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURTHER VIDE LETTER DATED 30.12.2014 WITH REGARD TO PROPERTY SOLD DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AS UNDER:- AGRICULTURE LAND SITUATED AT KHASARA NO. 89/1, VIL LAGE KHOREBARIYAN, TEHSIL SANGANER, JAIPUR FOR TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATIO N OF R S . 9,23,000/-. A S A RESULT OF SATE THERE IS A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 4,20, 140/- (COPY OF SALE DEED AND CALCULATION IN REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITH S UPPORTING DOCUMENTS ENCLOSED). ON PERUSAL OF REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME IT IS N OTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE OF LAND SITUATED AT KHO-REBARIYAN SA NGANER FOR A ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 3 CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,32,000/- AND AFTER DEDUCTING INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS. 13,43,140/-,LONG TERM CAPITAL LO SS WORKED OUT AT RS.4,20,140/-. FURTHER, HE HAS CLAIMED THE SET OFF OF LOSS OF RS.4,20,140/- FROM THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHOWN FROM SALE OF ANOTHER LAND SOLD SITUATED AT SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL PLOT, SANGANER IN THE REVISE D COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS I NSTEAD OF CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.5,01,682/- SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 02.0 3.2012 IT IS NOTICED THAT THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SOLD LAND ASSESSED BY THE S TAMP DUTY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS AT RS.21,97,663/- FOR THE P URPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY WHILE THE ASSESSEE SHOWN SALE CONSIDERAT ION OF RS.9,32,000/- IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAI N ON SALE OF LAND AT KHO- REBARIYAN. VIDE QUERY LETTER DATED 19.01.2015 THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY MARKET VALUE OF RS.21,97,663 /- OF SOLD LAND SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTED AS FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) FO R THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 27/01/2015 STATED AS UNDER:- LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR SITUATED AT KHO-REBARIYA N SANGANER IS AN AGRICULTURE LAND. VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMP UTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN CONSIDERED ON THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE RECEIVED A ND NOT ON ASSESSED VALUE OF PROPERTY BY STATE GOVERNMENT. SINCE PROPERTY IN SALE IS AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSETS AS PER DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSETS ACCORDING TO SECTION 2(14) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 CAPITAL G AIN LAWS WILL NOT APPLICABLE ON TRANSFER/SALE OF SUCH AGRICULTURE LAND .' I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY AS THE SELLER AND PURCHASER HAVE ACCEPTED THE VALUE ADOPTE D BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. THE SUBMISSION OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PROPERTY IN SALE IS ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 4 AGRICULTURE LAND IS NOT CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD AND EARLIER HE HAS SHOWN SUCH TRANSACTION IN THE CAPITAL GAIN COMPUTATION AND CLA IMED LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN HIS RETURN AND IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION O F INCOME ALSO BEING TREATED IT AS CAPITAL ASSET. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT FILED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSI ON THAT THE LAND SOLD IS AGRICULTURE LAND. THE RATE TAKEN BY THE REGISTRAR I S ITSELF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND. THE REPLY OF THE AR OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48, THE INCOME CHAR GEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T HE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, THE AMOUNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION, COST OF A NY IMPROVEMENT AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN QUES TION WITH SUCH TRANSFER. AS PER SECTION 50C, WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED O R ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDIN G OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANS FER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES O F SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY R EGARD TO PROPERTY IN SALE IS AGRICULTURE LAND EXCEPT SIMPLY STATED AFTER AFFORDING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION-50C, THE SALE CON SIDERATION OF LAND IS TAKEN AT RS. 21,97,663/- AND CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATED IS A S UNDER:- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER SECTION 50 C RS.21,97,663/- LESS:- INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS CLAIMED IN RE VISED COMPUTATION 850370/497*785 RS.13,43,140/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS.8,54,523/- ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 5 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATED AS ABOVE AT RS.8, 54,523/- IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IS ALSO INITIATED FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT A T SITAPURA, SANGANER AS PER ITS DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SOLD ANOTHER LAND SITUATED AT SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL A REA, JAIPUR VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED ON 25.01.201 2 WHILE THE SAME WAS NOT SHO WN IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 BY THE ASSES SEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES SOLD BY HIM WITH DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT INDUSTR IAL PLOT ALLOTTED BY RIICO TO HIS PROPRIETARY FIRM OSCAR EXPORTS SITUATED AT S ITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR FOR TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF R S.58,59,000/-. AS A RESULT OF SALE THERE IS CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.27,88,253/- (CO PY OF SALE DEED AND CALCULATION IN REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WITH S UPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS PER ENCLOSED). IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INC OME CAPITAL GAIN IS CALCULATED AS GIVEN BELOW:- SALE CONSIDERATION 58,59,000/- LESS- TRANSFER EXPENSES 2,68,000/- 55,91,000/- LESS-INDEXED COST F.Y. 1995-96 152000/281*785 424626 F.Y. 1996-97 154310/305*785 397159 F.Y. 1997-98 256799/331*785 609025 F.Y. 1999-00 49415/389*785 99719 F.Y. 2001-02 12104/426*785 22304 F.Y. 2002-03 54137/447*785 95073 F.Y. 2006-07 299710/519*785 450294 F.Y. 2007-08 189091/551*785 269395 F.Y. 2008-09 293154/582*785 395405 F.Y. 2009-10 32000/632*785 39747 28,02,747 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN 27,88,253 ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 6 WITH REFERENCE TO SALE OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT HE FURTHE R STATED THAT FROM TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RS.38,00,000/- WERE RECEIVED IN 2008 AND ARE BEING SHOWN CONSTANTLY AS UNSECURED LOANS IN LIABILITY SI DE OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF OSCAR EXPORTS. IN THE EVENT OF RECEIPT OF RS.20, 59,000/- FROM PARTY IN 2012 DUE TO ACCOUNTING MISTAKE THE AMOUNT WERE ADDE D IN EARLIER UNSECURED LOAN FROM THE PURCHASER PARTY AND TOTAL A MOUNT IS BEING SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOAN IN BOOKS. THEREFORE, THE SALE TRA NSACTION COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF CALCULATION OF INCOME AND FILING OF INCOME-TAX RETURN OF SAID YEAR. ON PERUSAL OF ITS DETAILS IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD INDUSTRIAL PLOT SITUATED AT SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR F OR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.58,59,000/- WHEREAS THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT ASSESSED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT IS AT RS. 1, 47,58,396/-. VIDE QUERY LETTER DATED 19.01.2015 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED AS T O WHY MARKET VALUE OF RS. 1,47,58,396/- OF SOLD LAND SHOULD NOT BE ADOPTE D AS FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C(1) FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FRO M CAPITAL GAINS. IN RESPONSE THERETO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 27/01/2015 STATED AS UNDER:- INDUSTRIAL PLOT SITUATED AT SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AR EA SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATED CONSIDERING THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE RECEIVED OF RS.58,59,000/-. HOWEVER, IT IS TRUE THAT MARKET VAL UE ASSESSED BY AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT IS VARYING THAN ITS ORIGINAL VALUE RECEIVED. THIS IS TO SAY IN THIS REGARD THAT VALUE ASSESSED B Y AUTHORITY OF STATE GOVERNMENT IS GENERAL VALUE OF THAT AREA NOT FOR PA RTICULAR PROPERTY IN CONSIDERATION. PROPERTY VALUE MAY DIFFER FROM GENER AL ASSESSED VALUE AND MAY BE HIGHER AND LOWER DEPENDING UPON THE SURROUNDING LOCATIONS, APPROACH AND CONDITION OF PROPERTY ETC. FURTHER, TO SAY THAT SINCE THE SALE AGREEMENT WAS D ONE IN 2008 AND RS.38 LACS OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IN 2 008 AND REGISTRY WAS MADE ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 7 IN 2012 HENCE GOVERNMENT ASSESSED VALUE MAY ALSO HA VE INCREASE IN THIS TIME OF 4 YEARS. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ABOVE FACTS, IT SEEMS TO FIT FOR CONSIDERATION OF ACTUAL SALE PRICE RECEIVED FOR CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, IT IS REQUESTED TO REFER THE CASE TO VALUATION OFFICER FO R VALUATION OF ASSETS IN CONSIDERATION.' ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THE MATTER WAS REFER RED TO THE DVO VALUATION CELL OF INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT BY ISSUING COMMISSION U/S 142A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER NO. 1508 DATED 28/01/2015. FURTHER VIDE LETTER DATED 18.02.2015 THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED HIS SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND SITUATED AT INDUSTRIAL AREA, SITAPURA, SANGANER, JAIPUR WHICH IS RE-PRODUC ED AS UNDER: 'THE SAID LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. MA 'AM ARTS PROP. SMT. MONA DIWAN W/O SHRI RAKESH DIWAN VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 10 TH JUNE, 2009 FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 58,59,000/-. COPY OF AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED. OUT OF THE AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.58,59,00 0/- ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED PAYMENT AS UNDER BEFORE EXECUTING THE SAID AGREEMEN T:- DATE CHEQUE NO. AMOUNT 15.11.2008 646123 4,00,000/ - 15.11.2008 646124 3,50,000/ - 15.11.2008 646125 3,50,000/ - 24.11.2008 590315 4,00,000/ - 24.11.2008 590316 3,00,000/ - 26.11.2008 590317 3,00,000/ - 01.12.2008 590413 4,50, 000/ - 05.12.2008 590414 4,50,000/ - 03.12.2008 590415 4,00,000/ - 06.12.2008 590416 4,00,000/ - TOTAL 38,00,000 NOT ONLY THE SUM OF RS.38,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED, HE HAD ALSO HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND TO THE BUYER AT THE TIM E OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT WHICH FACT IS FULLY EVIDENCED IN THE AGRE EMENT. REFERENCE MAY PLEASE BE MADE TO SECOND LAST PARA OF PAGE 3 OF THE AGREEM ENT. AFTER TAKING OVER THE POSSESSION THE SAID BUYER ALSO STARTED CONSTRUCTION ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND. THIS ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 8 FACT IS ALSO DEAR FROM PAGE 5 OF THE REGISTERED SAL E DEED DATED 25.01.2012 (COPY ENCLOSED). FROM THE ABOVE CHRONOLOGY IT IS DEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED THE SAID ; LAND ON 10TH JUNE 2009. HIS ACTION OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT, RECEIVING PART PAYMENT AND HANDING OVER THE ACTUAL VACANT PHYSICAL POSSESSION AMOUNTED TO TRANSFER OF THE SAID LAND ON 10.6.2009 ITSELF IN TE RMS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE I.T. ACT WHICH DEFINES 'TRANSFER' FOR THE PURPOSE OF I.T . ACT, 1961. THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTION W AS EXECUTED ON 25.1.2012. HOWEVER, IN TERMS OF DEFINITION OF TRANSFER CONTAIN ED IN SECTION 2(47), THE SUBSEQUENT REGISTRATION OF THE SALE DEED ON 25.1.20 12 HAS NO RELEVANCE AS THE SALE/TRANSFER WAS COMPLETED ON 10.6.2009. IN VIEW ABOVE; TAX LIABILITY WAS INCURRED IN THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 I.E. A.Y. 2010-11. NOW ASSESSEE IS WILLING TO PAY THE TAX ON THE SAID TRANSACTION ARISING IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PROVIDED THIS TRANSACTION O F SALE IS NOT AGAIN TAXED AND DEMAND RAISED IN PRESENT PROCEEDINGS IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012-13. ON YOUR CONFIRMATION, HE WILL IMMEDIATELY DEPOSIT TAX AND I NTEREST THEREON. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I MAKE A HUMBLE REQUEST NOT T O TAX THE TRANSACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. YOU ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE WH ICH HAS BEEN MADE TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER AS THE SAID REFERENC E HAS NOT RELEVANT NOW.' I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT FOUND THE SELLER AND PURCHASER HAVE ACCEPTED THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ST AMP DUTY AUTHORITY. THE RATE TAKEN BY THE REGISTRAR IS ITSELF FAIR MARKET V ALUE OF THE IMPUGNED LAND. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND KEEPING IN VIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 SALE CONSIDERATIO N OF LAND IS TAKEN AT RS. 1,47,58,396/-. THE REPLY OF THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: 1. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 48, THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER, THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE COMPUTED BY DEDUCTING FROM THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF T HE TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET, THE AMOUNT OF COST OF ACQUISITION, COST OF A NY IMPROVEMENT AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY IN QUES TION WITH SUCH TRANSFER. AS ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 9 PER SECTION 50C, WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED O R ACCRUED AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDIN G OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER, THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48, BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COPY OF AGREEMENT WHICH WAS STATED TO BE EXECUTED ON 10.06.2009. 3. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS CALCULATED LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN ON THE TRANSFER OF LAND AND SHOWN IN HIS TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2012-13 BY TAKING SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.58,59,000/-. 4. WITH REGARD TO FAIR MARKET VALUE THE ASSESSEE HA S REQUESTED TO REFER THE CASE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER ASSETS IN CONSIDERATION. N OW HE REQUESTED FOR WITHDRAW THE REFERENCE AS HAS NO RELEVANCE. 5. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.38 LACS AS ADVANCE ON SALE OF LAND DURING THE YEAR 2008-09 UP TO 06.12.2008 WHILE POSSESSION WAS HANDED OVER ON 10.6.2009 FOR WHICH NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEE N FURNISHED BY HIM. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SUM OF RS.58,59,000/- F ROM SMT. MONA DIWAN AS UNSECURED LOANS IN HIS BALANCE SHEET INSTEAD OF SHO WN CAPITAL GAIN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND SO CALLED AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT. AS PER THE EVIDENCE ACT THE AGREEMENT SO EXECUTED HAS NO VALID ITY AS IT IS NOT A REGISTERED DOCUMENT. IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT OF THE A SSESSEE. 7. IN THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME THE A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION AS TRANSFER EXPENSES OF RS.2,68,000/- OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. ON PERUSAL OF DETAILS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,68,000/- WAS PAID ON 17.11.2014 AFTER THE DATE OF REGISTRY AND NOT RELEV ANT TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT T HE POSSESSION HAS BEEN GIVEN ON 10.6.2009 IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 8. IN HIS REPLY THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE TAX L IABILITY WAS INCURRED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 I.E. A. Y.20J0-11 BUT ON PER USAL OF RETURN OF A.Y.2010- 11 IT IS FOUND THAT HE HAS NOT SHOWN THIS TRANSACTI ON AND NOT PAID TAX ON CAPITAL GAIN ARISEN ON SALE OF LAND EITHER AT THE T IME OF ORIGINAL RETURN FILED OR NOT REVISED HIS RETURN FOR THE A.Y.2010-11. 9. THE ASSES SEES SUBMISSION WITH REGARD TO PAYMEN T OF RS.38,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED IN THE YEAR 2008 AND CONSTANTLY SHOWN AS U NSECURED LOANS IN THE ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 10 BALANCE SHEET IS TOTALLY WRONG AS ON PERUSAL OF E-F ILED RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO. 96 914710300909 IT IS FOUND THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET THE ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN ZERO AMOUNT IN THE COLUMN 2(B)(II) OF PART A-BS OF ITR WHICH IS FOR UN SECURED LOAN FROM OTHERS. FURTHER IN THE E-FILED RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR '2010- 11, THE FIGURE HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THIS COLUMN OF BALANCE SHEET IS OF RS .4,00,000/- ONLY. IT MEANS THAT THE FACTS MENTIONED IN SALE-DEED FOR PAYMENT M ADE AND HANDED OVER THE POSSESSION OF THE SAID LAND TO THE BUYER AT THE TIM E OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT IS TOTALLY INCORRECT. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, THE SALE CON SIDERATION OF LAND IS TAKEN AT RS.1,47,58,396/- AND CAPITAL GAIN ARISE IN THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS CALCULATED AS UNDER :- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS PER SECTION 50 C RS. 1,47,58,396/- LESS:- INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION, AS CLAIMED IN REVISED COMPUTATION RS. 28,02,747/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN RS. 1,19,55,649/- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATED AS ABOVE AT RS. 1 ,19,55,649/- IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. ON THE ADDITION REGARDING CAPITAL GAIN OF THE LAND SITUATED AT KHASRA NO. 89/1 VILLAGE KHOREBARIYAN, TEHSIL- SANGANER, JAIPUR BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAT EMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL , WRITTEN SUBMISSION, REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER CA REFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE LAND SITUATED AT KHOREBARIYAN, SANGANER, JAIPUR DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2012-13. THE SALES CONSIDERATION AS PER THE SA LE DEED WAS RS. 9,32,000/- . THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY SOLD AT RS. 21,97,663/-. THEREF ORE THE AO, BY ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 11 INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, COMPUTED TH E CAPITAL GAIN BY ADOPTING RS. 21,97,663/- AS FULL VALUE OF THE CONSI DERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE APPE LLANT WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14). EITHER DURING, THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTAN TIATE HIS CONTENTION THAT THE LAND SOLD BY HIM WAS SITUATE D WITHIN THE DISTANCE NOT BEING MORE TH AN 8 KM FROM THE LOCA L LIMITS OF MUNICIPALITY. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS REJEC TED. THE LAND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT IS HELD TO BE CAPITAL ASSET AND THE C APITAL GAIN OF RS. 8,54,523/- COMPUTED BY THE AO BY INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 50C IS HELD TO BE VALID AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL ON THE INDUSTRIAL PLOT SITUATED AT SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STATEMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WRITTEN SUBMISSION, REMAND REPORT AND RE JOINDER CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD A LAND SITUA TED AT SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED D ATED 25.01.2012. THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y. 2012- 13. WHEN DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SOLD BY HIM, THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT HE HAD SOLD THE INDUSTRIAL PLOT SITUATED AT SITAPURA JAIPU R FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 58,59,000/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME DECLARING CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 27,88,253/- ON THIS ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 12 SALES TRANSACTION. IT WAS ALSO CLAIMED BY THE APPEL LANT BEFORE THE AO THAT DUE TO ACCOUNTING MISTAKE, THE ENTIRE SALES CO NSIDERATION OF RS. 58,59,000/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT (RS. 38,00,00 0/- IN THE YEAR 2008 AND RS. 20,59,000/- IN THE YEAR 2012) WAS SHOWN AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM THE PURCHASER PARTY. THEREFORE, THE SALES TRAN SACTION COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF IN COME. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE GOVERNME NT HAD VALUED THE INDUSTRIAL PLOT SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AT RS. 1, 47,58,396/-. THE APPELLANT ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE SAID LAND WAS TRA NSFERRED ON 10.06.2009, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISING ON SALE OF THE LAND IS TAXABLE IN THE A.Y. 2010-11 AND NOT IN THE A.Y. 2012-13. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE COPY OF THE A GREEMENT TO SALE RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE FIRST PARAGRAP H OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE, THE DATE OF AGREEMENT HAS BEEN LEFT BLANK. NEITHER THE FIRST PARTY NOR THE SECOND PARTY HAS PUT ANY DATE WITH HI S/ HER SIGNATURE. FROM THE COPY OF AGREEMENT FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOT CLEAR ON WHAT DATE THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS SIGNED AND FROM WHICH DATE THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS EFFECTIVE. FURTHER, AT PAGE 4 OF THE AGREEMENT TO SALE, IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT ;G FD IZFKEI{K US F}RH;I{K DS FGR ESA ,D EQ[R;KJUKEK VKE O ,D OLH;RUKEK VYX LS RG JHJ DJOK FN;K GS] ;FN IZFKEI{K }KJK MIJKSDR OF.KZR LELR 'KRSZ IW.KZ DJUS IJ HKH F}RH;I{K RS; FE;KNKUQLKJ 'KSK FO; EWY ;/KU VNK DJUS ESA VLEFKZ JGRK GS RKS IZFKEI{K }KJK FUIKFNR EQ[R;KJUKEK VKE O OLH;RUKEK LOR% GH FUJLR LE>S TK;SAXSA ,OA BL LWJR ESA ;G BDJKJUKEK HKH FUJLR GKS TK;SXKA VR% ;G BDJKJUKEK NKSUKSA I{KKSA US VIUS LOLFK FPRR O FLFKJ CQF} DH VOLFKK ES A 100@& :I;S DS ,D FDRK LVKEI O RHU FDRK ISIJ IJ FY[KOKDJ B LDKS HKYH IZDKJ I<+ LQU LKSP O LE>DJ VIUS GLRK{KJ LE{K F UEU ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 13 XOKGKU DS DJ FN;S GS FD IZEK.K JGS VKSJ LE; IJ DKE VKOSA BFR FNUKAD I AM OF THE VIEW THAT, IF, AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELL ANT, THE PROPERTY WAS ALREADY TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF SIGNING OF AGREEMENT TO SALE, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY NE ED OF ISSUING GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND WILL IN FAVOUR OF THE SECOND PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT BY THE APPELLANT (FIRST PARTY TO THE AGRE EMENT). THE FACT THAT THE SECOND PARTY TO AGREEMENT OBTAINED GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY AND WILL IN HER FAVOUR SHOWS THAT THE PR OPERTY MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS NOT TRANSFERRED IN FAV OUR OF THE SECOND PARTY BY THE APPELLANT (THE FIRST PARTY). FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS NOT SHOWN THE SALE OF THIS LAND IN THE A.Y. 200 9-10, RATHER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 38 LAC RECEIVED AS ADVANCE WAS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AS UNSECURED LOAN. EVEN TILL DATE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THIS LAND IN THE A.Y. 2009- 10 NOR HAS HE PAID ANY TAX IN A.Y. 2009-10 AND ANY CAPITAL GAIN.. AS PER T HE AGREEMENT TO SALE, THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WAS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED, I F THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE WERE NOT FULFILL ED BY THE SECOND PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY TOOK PLACE ONLY AFTER THE FULFILLMENT OF A LL THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT TO SALE AND ON EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED DATED 25.01.2012. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS NOT SHOW N ANY SALE OF ASSET IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 AND THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM M/S MA'AM ARTA (PROPRIETOR SMT. MONA DEEWAN) HAS BEEN SHOWN A S UNSECURED LOAN. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERE D VIEW THAT TRANSFER OF THE LAND SITUATED AT SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, J AIPUR TOOK PLACE ONLY ON EXECUTION OF THE SALE DEED DATED 25.01.2012 I.E. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2012- 13. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO TAXING THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,19,55,649/- ON SALE OF THE INDUSTRIAL ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 14 PLOT SITUATED AT SITAPURA JAIPUR BY ADOPTING THE SA LES CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1,47,58,396/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 50C, IS HELD TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,19,55,649/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY T AKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. (A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN, CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE I D. AO, IN TAXING A SUM OF RS. 8,54,523/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 8,54,5 23/-. (B) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN, CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE I D. AO, IN NOT REFERRING IT TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE OF RS. 21,97,663/- WITHOUT THE SAID REFERENCE TO TH E VALUATION OFFICER. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, U NJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEAS E BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ADDITION BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT FOL LOWING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE OF LAW. (C) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED, IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO, IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE IT ACT 1961, AND A DOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 21,97,663/- AGAINST THE DECLAR ED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,32,000. THE ACTION OF THE ID . CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY ACCEPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATI ON AT RS. 9,32,000/-, AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. (D) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN TAXING THE SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND WHICH WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET A ND GAIN THERE ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 15 FROM WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX. THE ACTION OF THE ID. C IT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID . AO IN TAXING A SUM OF RS. 1,19,55,649/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A)IS ILLEGA L, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 1,19,5 5,649/-. (B) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID . AO IN NOT REFERRING IT TO THE VALUATION OFFICER AND ADOPTING THE MARKET VALUE OF RS. 1,47,58,396/- WITHOUT THE SAID REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, U NJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEAS E BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ADDITION BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT FOL LOWING THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE OF LAW. (C) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID . AO IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE IT ACT 1961, A ND ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1,47,58,396 AGAINST THE D ECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 58,59,000/-. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY ACCEPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 58,59,000/-, AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. (D) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID . AO IN TAXING THE ALLEGED GAIN IN THE A.Y. 2012- 13 WHEREAS THE TRANS FER TOOK PLACE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS THE SAME DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE A. Y. 2012-13. ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 16 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. WE H AVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO CONSI DERED THE FACTUAL AS WELL AS LEGAL ASPECTS OF THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED IN GROUND NO.1(A) TO 1(D) THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET BUT IT WAS SIMPLY A WILD ASSERTION WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS HELD THIS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS CAPITAL ASSET AND WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL LOSS AND CLAIMED ADJUSTMENT A GAINST THE CAPITAL GAIN EARNED ON THE SALE OF OTHER LAND. FURTHER THER E IS NOT A SINGLE EVIDENCE WHICH COULD ESTABLISH THAT THIS AGRICULTURA L LAND WAS SITUATED BEYOND 8 K.M. FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. WHEN THE A SSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED REGARDING THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATIO N AT RS. 21,97,663/- AS ASSESSED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY OF THE STAT E GOVERNMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY REPLIED THAT THIS WAS NOT A CAPI TAL ASSET AND THERE IS NO OTHER EXPLANATION OFFERED REGARDING VALUATION OF THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUATION A DOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. THEY HAVE NOT CHALLENGED THE S AME. CONSIDERING THIS FACTUAL ASPECT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. THE CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATED AT RS. 8,54,523/- ON THIS SALE OF AGRICU LTURAL LAND IS UPHELD. THUS, THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS NO. 1(1) TO 1(D) O F THE APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 17 4.1 WITH REGARD TO ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS NO. 2(A) TO 2(D) OF THE APPEAL, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY SUSTA INED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,19,55,645/- ON THE SALE OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT SITUATED AT SITAPURA, JAIPUR BY ADO PTING SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,47,58,396/- BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE LAND SITUATED AT SITAPUR A INDUSTRIAL AREA ON 25/1/2012 BY A REGISTERED SALE DEED. ASSESSEE HAD N OT DISCLOSED THIS TRANSACTION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WHEN CONFRONTE D BY THE A.O. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND OFFERED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 27,88,256/ - ON THIS TRANSACTION. THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION WAS AT RS. 1,47,58,396/-. THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF RS. 58 ,59,000/- ONLY. THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND WA S TRANSFERRED ON 10/6/2009 BY AN AGREEMENT IS COMPLETELY BASELESS AN D AN AFTERTHOUGHT. FOR THE REASONS THAT THE SALE AGREEMENT ITSELF HAD MANY FLAWS AS NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THERE WAS NO SALE DEED EXECUTED DURING THAT PERIOD. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 38.00 LACS WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNSECURED LOAN. NO CAPITAL GAIN WAS OFFERED BY THE A SSESSEE AT THAT TIME. THE A.O.S WORKING AND THE LD. CIT(A)S SUSTENA NCE OF CAPITAL GAIN WAS AT RS. 1,19,55,649/- WHICH IS JUSTIFIED. CONSIDE RING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITA 472/JP/2017 MAHAVIR PD. SHARMA VS ITOT 18 GROUNDS NO. 2(A) TO 2(D) OF THE ACT HAS NOT MERIT A ND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/05/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPAN (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02 ND MAY, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI MAHAVIR PRATAP SHARMA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 5(1), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 472/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR
Mehul