Smt. Sushila Chachan C/o- Shrawan Kumar Gupta, Advocate, 416, Surya Chamber Radio Market Nehru Bazar, jaipur, Jaipur V. ITO Ward-4(2), Jaipur, Jaipur

ITA 683/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7917 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-03-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MONISHA CHOUDHARY ACIT A
• Keywords: Business income; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 145(3); 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 BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 683/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN 45-A, COSMO COLONY, AMRAPALI CIRCLE, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR-302021. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABLPC2084J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. MONISHA CHOUDHARY (ACIT) A LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/01/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/03/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 22.03.2019 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 143(3) RWS 147 DATED 18. 11.2016 AS WELL AS THE ACTION TAKEN U/S 147 BY THE LD. AO ARE BAD IN LAW, INVALID, ILLEGAL AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BARRED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 2 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE TRADING ADDITION OF R S. 53,645/- BY ESTIMATING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 73,915/- AS A GAINST 20,270/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. AO AL SO ERRED IN MAKING THE TRADING ADDITION WITHOUT INVOKING THE PR OVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MA DE BY THE LD. AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BEING CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DEL ETED IN FULL. 3. RS. 2,27,540/-: THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 2,76,540/- ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N BY NOT ALLOWING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AND TRANSFER EXPE NSES. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 4. THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234A, B,C AND THE APP ELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IN LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTERES T. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGES, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED HER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2010 DECLARING T OTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,13,040/-. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT WAS ISSUED ON 22.03.2016 AND IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED H ER RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.07.2016 DISCLOSING THE INCOME OF RS. 12,13,04 0/- AS ORIGINALLY DECLARED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D U/S 147 R.W.S. ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 3 143(3) OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASS ESSED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT AT RS. 14,7 8,929/- AS AGAINST RS. 12,07,389/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 53,645/- WAS ALSO MADE BY ESTIMATING THE NET PR OFIT @ 8% ON THE TOTAL DECLARED SALES/TURNOVER OF RS. 9,23,932/- THE REBY ASSESSING BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 73,915/- AS AGAINST RS. 20,2 70/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSING. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS SINCE CONFIRMED THE A DDITIONS AND AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFOR E US. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR TAKEN US THROUGH THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE IS SUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER:- ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE P ROPERTY OF RS. 2475000. INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE AS SESSEE U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ASSESSEE HAS NO T FURNISHED ANY REPLY/SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6). THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TRULY AN D FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS REQUIRED FOR HER/HIS ASSESSMENT. LOOKING TO THE FACTS MENTIONED ABOVE, I HAVE THE R EASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS 2475000 /- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 14 7 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, IT IS A FIT CASE TO ISSUE NOT ICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 4 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT ON PERUSAL O F THE REASONS, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY DURING THE PREVIOUS RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DIS CLOSED BY HER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS SO RECORDED ARE FACT UALLY INCORRECT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D IN TERMS OF ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.03.201 0 WHEREIN SHE HAS CLEARLY DISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF THE IMMOV ABLE PROPERTY WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF REASONS SO RECORDED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND APPLIED HIS MI ND BEFORE RECORDING THE REASONS THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE NOTICE SO ISSUED ON THE PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION AND DUE TO NON- APPLICATION OF MIND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYE OF LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE C APITAL GAINS TRULY AND FULLY IN HER RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FILED, THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AS SO ALLEGED IN THE NOTIC ED ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCE PTED THE INCOME SO DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE WHOLE OF THE S ALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 24,75,000/- HAS BEEN TRULY DISCLOSED AND THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON THE SAID ISSUE, THEREFORE, WHERE THERE IS NO ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE MATTER IN RESPECT OF WHI CH THE REASONS HAVE RECORDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PRECLUDED FROM M AKING ANY OTHER ADDITION IN TERMS OF DISALLOWANCE OF CONSTRUCTION E XPENSES AS WELL AS ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 5 TRANSFER EXPENSES AND TRADING ADDITION SO MADE BY H IM. IN SUPPORT, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. CIT VS. SHRI RAM SINGH 306 ITR 343 (RAJ. HC) 2. CIT VS. JET AIRWAYS (I) LTD. 331 ITR 236 (BOM. HC) 3. RANBAXY LABORATORIES LTD. VS. CIT 336 ITR 136 (DEL. HC) 6. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO J USTIFIABLE BASIS FOR ACQUIRING JURISDICTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, NOTICE SO ISSUED AND CONSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 MAY BE DIRECTED TO B E DELETED. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE FIND INGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 2.3 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE PLEA TAKE N BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSEE PROCEEDIN GS AFTER RECORDING THE DUE REASONS AND DUE SATISFACTION AFTE R FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPE NED IN THE LIGHT OF INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS TO THE EXTENT WHICH WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS RELEVANT AND AFFORDS A LIVE LINK OR NEXUS TO TH E FORMATION OF THE PRIMA FACIE BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E SUFFICIELAGY AND CORRECTNESS OF MATERIAL NEED NOT B E LOOKED AT THE INITIAL STAGE AT THE TIME OF REOPENING OF THE C ASE. WHILE CONSIDERING WHETHER COMMENCEMENT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS VALID, THE COURT HAS ONLY TO SEE WH ETHER THERE ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 6 WAS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT COULD REOPEN THE CASE. THE SUFFICIENCY O R CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT ANYTHING TO BE C ONSIDERED AT THAT STAGE. THE 'REASON TO BELIEVE' WOULD MEAN CAUSE OR JUSTIFI CATION. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CAUSE OR JUSTIFICATION TO KNO W OR SUPPOSE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, HE CAN BE SAID TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT AN INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESS MENT. THE EXPRESSION CANNOT BE READ TO MEAN THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE FINALLY ASCERTAINED THE FACT BY LEGAL EVIDENCE OR CONCLUSION AND WHAT IS REQUIRED IS 'REASON TO BE LIEVE', BUT NOT THE ESTABLISHED FACT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. AT TH E STAGE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE, THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE WAS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON WHICH A REASONABLE PERSON COULD HAVE FO RMED A REQUISITE BELIEF. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FINDING I DO NOT FIND ANY LEGAL IN FIRMITY ON THE PLEA, HENCE THE REOPENING IS INVALID IS NOT ACCEPTA BLE AND HENCE DISMISSED. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASS ESSEE HAD ORIGINALLY FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.03.2010 WITH ITO W ARD 4(2), JAIPUR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 12,13,040/-. THE FACT THAT RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 31.03.2010 IS N OT IN DISPUTE AND HAS INFACT BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOS ED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS 12,07,389 ON SALE OF AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY DECLARI NG SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS 24,75,000/- AND HAS CLAIMED IND EXED COST OF ACQUISITION/IMPROVEMENT AND TRANSFER EXPENSES. THE REAFTER, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 22.03.2016 BY THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER, I.E, ITO WARD 4(2) AFTER RECORDING REASONS WHEREIN IT HAS BE EN STATED THAT ON ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 7 THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF RS. 2475 000. INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY REPLY/SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6). THEREFORE, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS REQUIRED FOR HER /HIS ASSESSMENT. WE FIND THAT THE VERY BASIS OF REOPENING IS THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVEABLE PROPERTY, SHE HAS FAILED TO RESPOND TO N OTICE U/S 133(6) AND THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE S AID TRANSACTION AND WHICH HAS THUS BEEN MADE THE BASIS FOR REOPENING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FACT THAT THERE IS A RETURN OF IN COME ALREADY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN SHE HAS DISCLOSED THE SAID TRA NSACTION HAS THUS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO WHILE RECORDING THE R EASONS. THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT HAVE RESPONDED TO NOTICE U/S 133(6 ), HOWEVER, WHERE SHE HAS ALREADY FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME AND WHER EIN THE SAID TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED, THERE CANNOT B E ANY FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULLY SUCH TR ANSACTION. THUS, THE VERY BASIS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT IS BASIS IN COMPLETE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHERE SUCH TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED AND OFFERED TO TAX WHICH SHOWS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS AND IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT TH ERE IS A NEXUS BETWEEN THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FORMAT ION OF BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF SHRI NARAIN DUTT SHARMA VS ITO (ITA NO.203/JP/2017 DATED 07.02.2018) WHEREIN IT WA S HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 8 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUS ED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, IT IS NOTED THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN EXERCISE OF P OWERS UNDER SECTION 147 HAS BEEN ISSUED ON 23.03.2014 AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE IMPUNGED A SSESSMENT YEAR I.E, AY 2007-08. IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTI ON 147 OF THE ACT, AN ACTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS CAN BE TAK EN BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RET URN OF INCOME OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL NECESSARY FACTS NEC ESSARY FOR HIS ASSESSMENT FOR THE SUBJECT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CON TENTION OF THE REVENUE AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE REASONS WA S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME FO R THE IMPUNGED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME WAS NOT REFLECTED IN T HE IT SYSTEM. PER CONTRA, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2007-08 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MANUALLY WITH ITO- WARD 6(1) JAIPUR VIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT NO. 2611000925 ON 21.05.2008. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE TH AT THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED MANUALLY IS WITH ITO WARD 6(1) W HO IS THE SAME OFFICER WHO HAS SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, REVENUE CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA THAT RETURN WAS FILED WRONGLY BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ANOTHER OFFI CER NOT HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THE RELATED CONTENT ION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE RETURN SO FILED MANUALLY NOT UPLOA DED IN THE IT SYSTEM THEREFORE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED MORE SO IN THE CONTEXT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WHERE THERE IS FAULT O N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN FILING HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 9 14. INTERESTINGLY, DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ITO IN HIS REASSESSMENT ORDER STAT ED CLEARLY IN PARA 5 THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER TH E HEAD BUSINESS, YOU HAVE DECLARED INCOME OF RS 175,510 ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS 21,93,870 U/S 44AD. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FILED IN PURSUANCE TO ISSU ANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 BUT THE SAME WAS THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139 OF THE ACT . IT IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE WHOLE FOUNDATION OF THE REVENUES RE ASONING IS CONTRADICTORY AND SELF-DEFEATING WHERE AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, IT SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE PROCE EDINGS U/S 147, IT ADMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETU RN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY UNDER SECTION 139. ON THIS GROUND ITSELF , THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND THE SUBJECT PROCEEDINGS ARE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND FOLLOWING T HE DECISION REFERRED SUPRA, WHERE THE VERY FOUNDATION FOR REOPENING THE CASE IS VITIATED GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INC OME DISCLOSING THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR THE S PECIFIED CONSIDERATION AND OFFERING THE SAME TO TAX, THERE CANNOT BE ANY R EASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE VERY SAM E TRANSACTION THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED AND THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE SE T-ASIDE. ITA NO. 683/JP/2019 SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN VS. ITO 10 10. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS, OTHER CO NTENTIONS ADVANCED BY THE LD AR INCLUDING THAT ON MERITS OF THE ADDITI ONS HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND THUS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/03/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30/03/2021. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SUSHILA CHACHAN, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-4(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 683/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR