SURENDRA SHARMA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 606/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5341 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEENA JEPH JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: O P AGARWAL; TARUN MITTAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 54F; 54

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 VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09. SURENDRA SHARMA, 73, INCOME TAX COLONY, JAGATPURA, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AHUPS 8615 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI O.P. AGARWAL & SHRI TARUN MITTAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. NEENA JEPH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/02/2016 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/03/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/04/2013 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,33,831/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 2 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SUBMISSION MADE AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED, THEREFORE ADDITION SUSTAINED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 1.2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN OBSERVI NG THAT INVESTMENT IN ANOTHER PROPERTY FLAT NO. 208, BALAJI TOWER, JAGATPURA HAS NO WHERE BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHILE OBSERVING SO THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FULLY IGNORED THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLAR ED THE INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND SUBMITTED THE NECESSARY DETAILS DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THUS OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE IGNORED AND EXCLUDED. 1.3 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE BI NDING DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT GIVEN IN C ASE OF CIT VS. D ANANDA BASAPPA REPORTED IN 309 ITR 329 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54 IS AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF TWO FLATS AND THE EXPRESSION A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE UNDERSTO OD IN A SENSE THAT THE BUILDING SHOULD BE OF RESIDENTI AL IN NATURE AND A SHOULD NOT BE UNDERSTOOD TO INDICATE A SINGULAR NUMBER, THEREFORE, ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE DESERVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW. 1.4 ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT DISCUSSING THE LATE ST ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, NEW DELHI, DATED 21.07.02013 FILED ON 25.03.2013 WHICH SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AMOUNTING TO ? 1,07,907/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE 3 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT S AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE ADDITION SUSTAINED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM SALARY AND HOUSE PROPERTY. HE FILED RETURN FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 28 /7/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,29,920/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U /S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE LD ASSES SING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD OUT IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY VALUED AT RS. 30 LACS OR MORE. INFORMATION WAS GATHERED FROM R EGISTRAR, JAIPUR AND IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY THE A SSESSEE ON 20/12/2007, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD O UT A PLOT OF LAND MEASURING 836.10 SQ. MTRS SITUATED AT 123-GREEN PAR K SCHEME BADCHELA JAGATPURA, SANGANER, JAIPUR TO ONE SHRI AMIT DUBE F OR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 50 LACS. THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE PURCHASED THIS HOUSE ON 02/3/2003 F OR RS. 6,26,000/-, WHICH WAS PAID THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE PAID CONVERSION CHARGES OF RS. 55,000/- ON 01/10/2004 TO JDA AND AL SO CLAIMED COST OF DEVELOPMENT AT RS. 94,000/- ON THE BASIS OF SELF SE RVING PAPER SIGNED BY ONE SHRI ANIL SHUKLA CLAIMING HIM AS CIVIL ENGINEER . THERE IS NO IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF THE PERSON MAKING CALCULATION OF RS. 94,325/- AS 4 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO DEVELOPMENT CHARGES OF BOUNDARY WALL OVER THE SAID PLOT. THIS PAPER/CALCULATION SHEET DOES NOT BEAR THE DATE OF WO RK CARRIED OUT AND THE DATE ON WHICH THE CALCULATION HAD BEEN MADE. NO SUPPORTING BILLS OF EXPENSES BORNE FOR THE ABOVE DEVELOPMENT WORK HAD BE EN PRODUCED. IN THE SALE DEED, THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION ABOUT ANY BO UNDARY WALL, THEREFORE, HE FOUND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES NOT ALLOWAB LE. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT BY SUBMITTI NG A COPY OF PURCHASE DEED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY BOUGHT FROM M/ S SHREE SALASAR BALAJI COLONISERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR I.E. FLAT NO. 5 14, FIFTH FLOOR, BALAJI TOWER-III, PLOT NO. 4, JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAGATPURA, BYE- PASS ROAD, JAIPUR, WHICH WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 22,07,707/- INCLUDING REG ISTRATION CHARGES OF RS. 1,34,750/-. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT COST OF IMPROVING ON THE FLAT OF RS. 19,66,500/- ON SELF SERVING DOCU MENT. THE PAPER HAS NOT SIGNED BY SHRI ANIL SHUKLA CLAIMING HIM AS CIVI L ENGINEER, ON WHICH NO IDENTIFICATION AND ADDRESS HAS BEEN GIVEN. THE AS SESSEE AGAIN FILED REPLY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FOR SAKE FOR CO NVENIENCE, SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- AS REGARD DETAILS OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT IN FLAT N O. 514 FOR RS. 19,66,500/- IT MAY BE SUBMITTED THAT THIS WA S ONLY AN ESTIMATE PROVIDED BY THE ARCHITECT AND ONLY A PA RT WORK 5 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO WAS GOT DONE UPTO 31/3/2008 AS SUCH NO FURTHER DETAI LS ARE AVAILABLE AND THE CONTRACTOR WHO DID THE PART WORK I S PRESENTLY ON RELIGIOUS YATRA. IN THIS CONTEXT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GAIN FILED A LET TER SUSTAIN AS UNDER:- IN THE AFORESAID CONTEXT, IT MAY BE SUBMITTED THA T THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES OF RS. 19,66,500/- WAS ACTUALLY AN ESTIMATE FURNISHED BY THE ARCHITECT IN RESPECT OF T HE ENTIRE WORK TO BE EXECUTED. INADVERTENTLY, THE SAME WAS ATTA CHED WITH THE OTHER PAPERS SUBMITTED THE SAME DESERVES TO BE IGNORED. THE ASSESSEE FILED CONTRADICTORY REPLY BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE VARIOUS PAYMENTS IN TOTAL RS. 39,24,251/- TO M/S SHREE SALASAR BALAJI COLONISERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR, WHICH WAS CLAIME D TO BE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF FLAT BUT PURCHASE DEED OF FLAT REVEALED CONSIDERATION OF ONLY RS. 20,72,957/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID EXCESS AMOUNT OF RS. 18,51,294/- TO M/S SHREE SALASAR BALA JI COLONISERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/ S 136(6) OF THE ACT TO M/S SHREE SALASAR BALAJI COLONISERS PVT. LTD., JAIP UR TO VERIFY THE 6 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENT. IT IS SUBMITTED BY M/S SHREE SALASAR BALAJI COLONISERS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES I.E. FLAT NO. 514, FIFTH FLOOR, BALAJI TO WER-III, FOR RS. 20,72,957/- AND FLAT NO. 208, SECOND FLOOR, BALAJI TOWER-III FOR RS. 19,61,294 AND TOTAL PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY IT AT RS. 40,34,251/-. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ASKED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT WHOLE AMOUNT IS DEDUCTIBLE U/S 54 OF THE ACT FOR WHICH HE RELIED ON THE TWO DECISIONS I.E. CIT VS. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA (ITA NO. 783 /2008), HC, KARNATAKA AND CIT VS SARDARMAL KOTHARI 302 ITR 286 HC , MADRAS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 54, THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON ONE RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 72, I NCOME TAX COLONY, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR FROM WHICH HE IS ENJOYING RENT AL INCOME, WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, H E ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE CT ON FLAT NO. 514, FIFTH FLOOR, BALA JI TOWER-III, JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR FOR RS. 22,07,707/-. ACCORDINGLY, HE CALCULATED CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 19,33,831/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WH O HAD ALLOWED THE 7 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO APPEAL PARTLY BY OBSERVING THAT THE BENEFIT U/S 54 OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE TO THE EXTENT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. MOREOVER TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY WAS HAVING A HOUSE PROPERTY SITUATED AT 72, INCOME TAX COLONY, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR. ANOTHER PROPERTY PURCHASED I .E. FLAT NO. 208, SECOND FLOOR, BALAJI TOWER-III IN SAME BUILDING HAS N OT BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DETECTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER AFTER COLLECTING INFORMATION FROM THE DEVELOPERS U/S 133( 6) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) ARE NOT SQUARE LY APPLICABLE. REGARDING INDEXED COST, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE A SSESSEES CLAIM MADE ON SIMPLE PAPER, THERE IS NO ADDRESS OF SHRI ANIL S HUKLA, CIVIL ENGINEER. THEREFORE, HE NOT ALLOWED INDEXED COST AGAINST THE CA PITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT SOLD UPON A PLOT O F LAND FOR RS. 50 LACS AND PURCHASED TWO FLATS I.E. FLATS NO. 514 AND 208 I N BALAJI TOWER-III, JAWAHAR CIRCLE, JAIPUR AND CALCULATED CAPITAL GAIN NIL. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON ONE HOUSE ONLY BUT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE USED IN THIS SECTION DOES NOT MEAN ONE HOUSE BUT INTENTION OF LAW 8 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO IS TO INVEST THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN IN A PROPER TY USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES FOR WHICH HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS D.ANANDA BASAPPA 309 ITR 329, WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY THE SAME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.G . RUKMINIAMMA 331 ITR 211. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT ALSO CONSI DERED THIS ISSUE IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GITA DUGGAL ORDER DATED 21/2/2013 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CAN BE SEVERAL UNITS AS PER NEED OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSTRUCTE D THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN A PARTICULAR MANNER. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT I S THAT IT SHOULD BE FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSE NOT FOR COMMERCIAL USE. HE FU RTHER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:_ (I) 16 ITD 195 K.G. VYAS VS ITO (BOM). (II) 110 TTJ 440 R.V. PREM PRAKASH BHUTANI VS. ACIT (DEL). (III) 108 ITR 104 SHIV NARAIN CHOUDHARI VS. CWT (ALH D) (IV) 102 ITD 281 ACIT VS LEELA P. NANDA (MUM). (V) TAXMANN.COM 440 CIT VS SMT. JYOTHI K. MEHTA (KAR .). 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND FURTHER ARGUED THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS ALLOWABLE ONLY ON ONE HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON SECOND HOUSE ALSO, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SECON D FLAT PURCHASED IN 9 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHE R WHATEVER EVIDENCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON SIMPLE PAPER FOR COST OF BOUNDARY/IMPROVEMENT, WHICH ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. THER EFORE, ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) MAY PLEASE BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. AS PE R ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER THE CASS. THE TOTA L CAPITAL GAIN AS PER WORKING OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE RS. 40,33,631/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO FLATS IN BALAJI TOWER-III I.E. FLAT NO. 514 ON FIFTH FLOOR OF THE BUILDING FO R RS. 20,72,957 AND PAID STAMP DUTY ON IT AT RS. 1,31,180 AND SECOND FLAT I. E. FLAT NO. 208 ON 2 ND FLOOR OF THE BUILDING FOR RS. 19,61,294 AND STAMP D UTY PAID ON IT AT RS. 1,27,490/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE INVESTED MORE THAN CA PITAL INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF FLATS. THE LD. CIT(A) DISALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON THE BASIS OF A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CO NSIDERED BY THE VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURTS PARTICULARLY A RECENT D ECISION PASSED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GIT A DUGGAL ORDER DATED 21/2/2013 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT A RESIDENTIA L HOUSE CONCEPT INTRODUCED BY SECTION 54 IS APPLIED SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED A 10 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO BUILDING, WHICH MAY BE CONSTRUCTED, FOR SAKE FOR CON VENIENCE, IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO CONSIST OF SEVERAL UNITS WHICH CAN, IF THE NEED ARISES, BE CONVENIENTLY AND INDEPENDENTLY USED AS AN INDEPENDE NT RESIDENCE, THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION SHOULD BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN SATISFIED. THERE IS NOTHING IN THESE SECTIONS, WHICH REQUIRE THE RESI DENTIAL HOUSE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER. THE ONLY REQUIRE MENT IS THAT IT SHOULD BE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USE AND NOT FOR COMMERCIAL U SE. IT IS FURTHER HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT THAT WE ARE, THEREFORE, UNABLE TO SEE HOW OR WHY THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURING OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL H OUSE, WHETHER IT IS LATERAL OR VERTICAL, SHOULD COME IN THE WAY OF CONSI DERING THE BUILDING AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WE DO NOT THINK THAT THE FACT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE CONSISTS OF SEVERAL INDEPENDENT UNITS CAN BE PERMITTED TO ACT AS AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE ALLOWANCE OF THE DEDUCTION UNDE R SECTION 54/54F. IT IS NEITHER EXPRESSLY NOR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATIO N PROHIBITED. BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND ALLOW DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED U/S 54 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSEE ON TWO FLATS EVEN ON DIFFERE NT STOREY. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGA INST NOT ALLOWING THE INDEXED COST OF IMPROVEMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 1, 07,907/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENSES AGAINST THE PROPERTY SOLD BY INDEXING AT RS. 1,07,907/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS COST OF BOUNDARY MADE ON THE PROPE RTY SOLD I.E. PLOT FOR RS. 94,000/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED EVIDENCE BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS SIMPLE RECEIPTS GIVEN BY SHRI ANIL SHUKLA, CIVIL ENGINEER ALONGWITH SIGNATURE OF ONE OF THE MISTRI, R AM LAL DATED 28/3/2005, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRE D EXPENDITURE ON BOUNDARY WALL. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO NOT ALLOWED THE EXPEN SES CLAIMED AGAINST THE COST OF ACQUISITION FROM THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION ON THE GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELIABLE BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR THE LD CIT(A) HAS VERIFIED THE EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BURDEN HAS BEEN SHIFTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE REVENUE ON THE BASIS OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE PARTICULARS OF CIVIL ENGINEER AS WELL AS NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE LA BOURER HAVE BEEN GIVEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ISSUED ANY QUER Y LETTER TO CONFIRM THE EXPENSES AS GENUINE. HE SIMPLY DISCARDED THE EV IDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW. EVEN THIS INDEXED COST ON BOUNDARY WALL IS NOT ALLOWED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITI ES THEN THE 12 ITA NO. 606/JP/2013 SURENDRA SHARMA VS ITO INVESTMENT IN TWO FLATS IS ABOUT RS. 42,92,921/-. THE ASSESSEE INVESTED MUCH MORE THAN THE CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION IS NOT CALLED FOR. ACCORDI NGLY, ON THIS GROUND ALSO, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/03/2016. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 TH MARCH, 2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SURENDRA SHARMA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 6(3), 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. 606/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR