THE ACIT, 2(1), Ujjain V. SHRI RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARI, Shajapur

ITA 759/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5755 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESH
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 1 , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .../ I.T.A. NO. 759/IND/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 2(1) UJJAIN :: / APPELLANT VS SHRI RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY SHAJAPUR PAN ABOPC 9127H :: / RESPONDENT ! ' # $ / REVENUE BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED - DR %& ' # $ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE ' ( ' &) DATE OF HEARING 2 3.3 .2017 *+,- ' &) DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 8 . 3 .2017 / O R D E R PER SHRI C.M. GARG, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), UJJAIN DATED 28.4.2016 IN FI RST APPEAL NO. U- 103/2015-16 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 2 2. BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 1 THE ASSESSEE AGITATES THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A ) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,39,814/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS. 3. IN NUTSHELL, THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THIS CASE AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN L AND, POTATOES, RENTAL INCOME FROM WAREHOUSE AND JOB CHARGES ON GRA DING OF GRAINS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME AT RS.25,20,940/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SEL ECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED. NOTICES U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO ISS UED IN THIS CASE FROM TIME TO TIME, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED VARIOUS DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS.16, 39,814/- AS TRADE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS, THEREFORE, ASKED TO SUBMIT THE CONFIRMATION AND DETAILS OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO S HOW REASONS AS TO WHY THE CREDITORS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED BOGUS AN D THE AMOUNT OF RS.16,39,814/- BE NOT ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 3 UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. IN ITS TURN, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- THE ACCOUNT IS IN THE NATURE OF UNSECURED LOAN WHIC H IS WRONGLY CLASSIFIED IN THE HEAD OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ASSESSEE STARTED HOSPITAL IN THE YEAR 2009-10. DUE TO LOSSES , ASSESSEE CLOSED THE HOSPITAL AFTER SOME TIME. AT THE TIME OF CLOSURE OF HOSPITAL, SOME CREDITORS WERE OUTSTANDING FOR PAYME NT. THE HOSPITAL WAS HAVING MEDICAL INSTRUMENTS PURCHASED A T THE TIME OF OPENING OF HOSPITAL. THESE INSTRUMENTS WERE GIVE N TO VARIOUS CREDITORS AND THE ACCOUNTS OF CREDITORS WERE SETTLE D. THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THESE CREDITORS IS BEING ENCLOSED . FOLLOWING TWO CREDITORS WERE WRONGLY SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD TR ADE CREDITORS. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IN HIS TAX AUDIT REPORT, THE AUDITOR HAS CERTIFIED THAT THESE ACCOUNTS ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE CREDITORS BUT THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE SAME CREDITORS IN HIS TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE W AS RUNNING A HOSPITAL. HE FURTHER OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2012-13 THE SAME CREDITORS ARE SHOWN AS THE PARTIES WHO HAVE GI VEN LOANS FOR ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 4 STARTING THE HOSPITAL WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN TH IS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,39,814/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. HAVING BEEN DIS-SATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE WAKE OF THE FACTS OBTAINING IN THIS CASE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- GROUND NO. 3 :- THROUGH THIS GROUND OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OFRS.16,39,81 4/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS. THE A.O . MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE TAX AUD IT REPORT OF A.Y. 2011-12 THE APPELLANT- HAS SHOWN THE M AS CREDITORS PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OF RUNNING HOS PITAL AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION THE S AME HAS BEEN SHOWN AS TRADE CREDITORS. THE APPELLANT CONSTRUCTED THE HOSPITAL AND PURCHASED THE EQUIPMEN TS ACCORDINGLY. THE APPELLANT WAS RUNNING A HOSPITAL I N THE A.Y. 2011-12 AND THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN SHOWN ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 5 ACCORDINGLY. SUBSEQUENTLY, DUE TO THE LOSS IN THE R UNNING OF THE HOSPITAL THE SAME HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO TH E HOTEL. THE CREDITORS WERE FOR THE PURCHASES MADE FOR THE HOSPITAL WHICH HAS BEEN SQUARED UP SUBSEQUENTLY EIT HER BY RETURNING THE GOODS PURCHASED FROM THEM OR BY MA KING THE PAYMENT. THE A.O. FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY THING WHICH SUGGESTS THAT THE CREDITORS WERE BOGUS. THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING THE BILL IN RESPECT OF THE PUR CHASES MADE THE CREDITORS WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALAN CE SHEETS PREPARED AS ON 01.04.2010 AND 01.04.2011. WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY, THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN MAKING THE ADDITION MERELY BECAUSE THE CREDITORS WE RE PERTAINING TO THE HOSPITAL BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS.16,39,814 /- IS DELETED. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 6. NOW THE REVENUE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 7. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.16,39,814/- ON ACCOUNT OF ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 6 UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY CREDITORS BY OBSERVING THAT IN T HE TAX AUDIT REPORT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE VERY SAME CREDITORS PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OF R UNNING THE HOSPITAL AND DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNDER CONS IDERATION, THE SAME CREDITORS HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS TRADE CREDITORS A ND AS SUCH THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED HOSPITAL IN THE YEAR 2009-10 BUT AFTER SOMETIME, DUE TO LOSSES, THE HOSPITAL HAD TO BE CLOSED. HE SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF CLOSURE OF HOSPITAL, SOME CREDITORS WERE OUTSTANDING FOR PAYMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HA D NO FUNDS TO PAY-OFF THE CREDITORS, THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE INSTRU MENTS OF THE HOSPITAL TO VARIOUS CREDITORS IN LIEU OF THE CREDIT S AND IN THIS WAY THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS WERE SETTLED. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY OR BRI NGING ANYTHING ON RECORD AND EVEN WITHOUT DISCARDING THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PR AYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINE D. ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 7 9. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS O F THE PARTIES IN THE WAKE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OP INION THAT THE CREDITORS WERE FOR THE PURCHASES MADE FOR THE HOSPI TAL WHICH HAVE BEEN SQUARED UP SUBSEQUENTLY EITHER BY GIVING THEM THE EQUIPMENTS OF THE HOSPITAL OR BY MAKING THE PAYMENT . THE A.O. HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANYTHING WHICH SU GGESTS THAT THE CREDITORS WERE BOGUS. THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING BILL S IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE CREDITORS WHICH WERE DU LY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEETS PREPARED AS ON 01.04.2010 AND 01 .04.2011. WITHOUT MAKING ANY ENQUIRY, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIF IED IN MAKING THE ADDITION MERELY BECAUSE THE CREDITORS WERE PERT AINING TO THE HOSPITAL BUSINESS. WE, THEREFORE, HAVE NO HESITATIO N IN HOLDING THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRME D. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 10. BY WAY OF GROUND NO. 2 THE REVENUE CHALLENGES T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEREBY ADDITION OF RS. 25 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS DELETED. (CORRECT AMOUNT DELETED WAS RS.20 LACS). ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 8 11. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOU ND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2 5 LACS FOR WHICH TOTAL CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 30 LACS FROM SALE OF GRA IN, POTATO, ONION, GARLIC AND EUCALYPTUS TREE WAS SHOWN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 6.2.2015 AS KED THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHO ULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS INCOME AND THE CASH RECEIPTS SHOUL D NOT BE ADDED BACK U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE PRO DUCED BILLS OF SALE OF AGRICULTURE CROPS, POTATO AND VEGETABLES BUT COU LD NOT SUBMIT THE PROOF OF PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITY ON TH E SAME AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE , OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE BILLS OF MANDI TAX AND RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN THE CASH RECEIPTS FOR SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES BUT HE D ID NOT SUBMIT THE EFFORTS AND DOCUMENTARY PROOF OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM FOR GROWING EUCALYPTUS TREES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TH EREFORE, OPINED THAT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE INCOME SHOWN BY ASSESSEE FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES IS NOTHING BUT BOGUS INCO ME OF THE ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 9 ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED RS. 5 LACS AS AGRICULTURE EXPENSES WITHOUT SUBMITTING BILLS/VOUCHERS OF PURCHASES OF AGRICULTURE SEED, AG RICULTURE IMPLEMENTS AND OTHER EXPENSES LIKE WAGES, ETC. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ROUTING HIS OWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY USING A COLOURABLE DEVICE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME THROUGH CASH CREDITS IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED RS. 25 LACS CLAIMED AS AGRICULTURAL INCO ME BY THE ASSESSEE. 12. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A), KEEPING IN VIEW THE LAND HOLDINGS AND SALE OF EUCALYPTUS TREES, RESTRICTED T HE ADDITION TO RS.5 LACS BY GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 20 LACS. AGAINST THIS RELIEF OF RS.20 LACS BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT SINCE TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS/VOUCHERS OF AGRICULTURE SEEDS, AG RICULTURE EQUIPMENTS AND OTHER EXPENSES, THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.20 LACS WITHOUT ANY BASIS ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 10 THEREFOR. HE, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL BILLS AND VOUCHERS PERTAINING TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS SUCH THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE CONTRAR Y IS NOT CORRECT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PR AYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINE D. 14. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS OF THE PARTIES, IN OUR OPINION, SINCE IT IS THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BILLS/VOUCHER S IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS CONTRARY, IT WOUL D BE JUST AND PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER ALL THE BILL S/VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. I N CASE ALL THE BILLS/VOUCHERS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND REFRAME THE ASSESSM ENT ACCORDINGLY, AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT THE RECORD OF CRO P IS KEPT BY THE ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 11 PATWARI AND ENTRY TO THIS EFFECT IS ALSO MADE IN TH E REVENUE LAND RECORD. THUS, IF ANY CROP OR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY HAS BEEN UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE THEN IT CAN ALSO BE DSTA BLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUCING COPIES OF LAND RECORD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF FOUND NECESSARY, CAN ALSO CALL THE COPI ES OF LAND RECORD TO VERIFY THE FACTUM OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES DONE B Y THE ASSESSEE DURING THE F.Y. 2011-12 AND F.Y. 2012-13. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ALL THE MATERIAL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 15. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,46,306 /- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED INCOME F ROM SALE OF LAND. 16. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE SALE OF LAND AT RS. 6,03,18,870/-. THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE BI GGER PIECE OF LAND AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE. SMALL PIECE OF LAND ADMEASURING 540 SQ. FT. WHICH WAS FACING MAIN ROAD HAS BEEN SOL D AT HIGHER PRICE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT DETAILS THEREOF WHICH WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON PE RUSAL OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE DID NOT ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 12 FURNISH ALL THE REGISTERED DEEDS OF LAND SOLD DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT ALL THE LANDS HAVE BEEN SOLD AT THE PRICE OF RS. 538.88 PER SQ.FT. AS PEAK CONSIDERATION OF EACH PLOT SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT PREVAILING ON-MONEY SYSTEM DURING T HE SALE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 16,46,306/- AS DIFFERENCE I N VALUATION OF COST OF LAND AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVING THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS SOLD THE PLOTS AT LESS THAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE, AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. AGAINST THIS FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 18. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE IT IS A CASE OF SALE OF DIFFERENT PLOTS AT DIFFERENT RATES AND DIFFERENT PLACES AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT PRODUCED S UFFICIENT MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THEIR RESPECTIVE CLAIMS, IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 13 OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO MAKE A FRESH INQUIRY IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PLOTS OF DIFFERENT SIZES AT DIFFERENT RATES AND DIFFERENT PLACES AND THEN TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER PROVIDIN G THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSE E MAY ALSO SUBMIT COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS SHOWING DISTINCTION IN THE LOCATIONAL VALUE AND OTHER RATES AS WITHOUT SUCH COPIES, IT WO ULD NOT BE PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE TO MAKE DISTINCTION ABOUT THE VALUE BETWEEN THE PLOTS SOLD ON DIFFERENT RATES DURING THE PERIOD UND ER CONSIDERATION AT DIFFERENT PRICES LOCATED AT SAME AREA AND THE AS SESSING OFFICER, IF FINDS IT NECESSARY, MAY ALSO CALL THE SAME FOR PROP ER ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. IT NEEDS MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28 TH MARCH, 2017. SD SD $) ! ! (O.P.MEENA) (C.M. GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MARCH 28, 2017 ACIT VS.RAMESHWAR CHOUDHARY ITA NO. 759/IND/2016 14 DN/