ITO, Jaipur V. SMT MEENA GHIYA, Jaipur

ITA 767/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99554 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S GOGRA ADV SHRI S K GOGRA
• Keywords: Gift; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 234B

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 VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ITO WARD- 4 (1) JAIPUR CUKE VS. MEENA GHIYA, W/O SHRI GOVIND GHIYA 1541, JAT KE KUE KA RASTA CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACIPG 4304 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT C.O. NO.69/JP/2012 (ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 767/JP/2012) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 MEENA GHIYA W/O SHRI GOVIND GHIYA 1541, JAT KE KUE KA RASTA CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 4 (1) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACIPG 4304 M IZR;K{KSID @ OBJECTOR IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA JCIT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.S. GOGRA (ADV)& SHRI S.K. GOGRA, (CA) ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 2 LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE ARISE FROM THE ORDER DATED 11/06/2012 OF LD. CIT (A)-II, J AIPUR FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJE CTION ARE AS UNDER:- GROUND OF ITA NO. 767JP/2012 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS . 22,19,963/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . GROUNDS OF C.O. 69/JP/2012 1. THAT THE LD ITO ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST OF RS. 1,71,538/- U/S 234B, RS. 104725/- U/S 234A AND RS. 857/- U/S 234C. THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRE D IN NOT CANCELLING THE ABOVE LEVY OF INTEREST. 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE A BOVE INTEREST WHEREAS THERE WAS NO MENTION OF CHARGING OF INTEREST IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. THE LEVY OF INTEREST WAS NOT AUTOMATIC AND WAS NOT LEVIED WITH REASONS AND THE REASONS LACKING IN THIS CASE. 3. THAT THE LD CIT(A0 HAS ERRED IN MAINTAIN THE SAI D INTEREST. THE LEVY OF TAX HAS BEEN DELETED, THEREFOR E, ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 3 THERE DID NOT REMAIN ANY LIABILITY OF INTEREST AND MAINTAINING OF INTEREST BY THE CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SOLD ONE HALF UNDIVIDED PORTION OF PLOT NO.136A, BAPU NAGAR, JAIP UR ON 9-01-2007. THE AO GAVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND ASKED AS TO WHY CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD NOT BE MADE ON SALE OF THE ASSETS . THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY BEFORE THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE GIFT OF PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO HER HUSBAND ON 20-11-1991 AND 30-10 -2003 BUT WHATEVER THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO WA S NOT FOUND GENUINE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE AFFIDAVIT BE FORE THE AO. AS PER THE AO, ANY GIFT MADE ON IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS NOT COMP LETE IN ABSENCE OF REGISTRATION. IN THE SAKE DEED DATED 9-01-2007, TH E ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN HERSELF AS CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND THERE IS NO MENTION AT ALL THAT ANY POINT OF TIME THE ASSESSEE HAD PASSED ON THE OWNERSH IP OR POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO HER HUSBAND. THUS THE FACTS AS STAT ED IN THE LEGAL DOCUMENTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TH E ACTUAL OWNER OF PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF SALE AND SO CALLED GIFT DEED WERE DESIGNED TO AVOID THE PAYMENT TO TAX ON HER INCOME AND THEY HAD NO LEGAL SANCTITY. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED A R EPLY ON 10-12-2009 BEFORE THE AO. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 4 09-01-2007 BETWEEN SHRI GOVIND GHIYA AND SMT. MEENA GHIYA W/O SHRI GOVIND GHIYA (SELLERS) AND SIGNATURE THROUGH PROP. SHRI AJAY YADAV S/O SHRI RAM YADAV (BUYER) WHICH HAD BEEN REGISTERED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR , JAIPUR ON 10-01-2007 WAS A LEGAL DOCUMENT. IT HAD BE EN MENTIONED AT PAGE 5 OF THIS LEGAL DOCUMENT IN UNAMBIGUOUS WORDS T HAT THE ASSESSEE AND HER HUSBAND ARE CO-OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY AND THIS P ROPERTY HAD NOT BEEN TRANSFERRED TO ANYBODY IN ANY MANNER AND THEY HAD F ULL LEGAL RIGHTS TO SELL THIS PROPERTY. THERE IS NO MENTION AT ALL IN THIS LE GAL DOCUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIFTED HER PORTION OF THIS PROPERTY TO ANYBODY AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THEREFORE, THE AO HAD FOUND THIS ARRANGEMEN T AS NON-GENUINE AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 22,19,963/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSE SSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THIS GRO UND BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.1 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT TH E AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF ONE HA LF UNDIVIDED PORTION OF PLOT NO. 136A, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR WAS E XIGIBLE TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HELD THAT GIFTS OF ONE FOURTH OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ON 20.11.199 1 AND 30.10.2003 RESPECTIVELY WERE MANAGED AFFAIRS AS THE GIFT ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 5 DEEDS WERE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR. FU RTHER IN THE SALE AGREEMENT DATED 9.1.2007, THE ASSESSEE HA D DECLARED HERSELF AS CO-OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND IT WAS NOT MENTIONED THAT THE ALLEGED PROPERTY HAD BEEN GIFTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HER HUSBAND SH GOVIND GHYA. SINCE THIS DOCUMENT (SALE AGREEMENT) HAD BEEN REGISTERED WITH THE SUB-R EGISTRAR, IT WAS A VALID DOCUMENT IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE AO T HEREFORE BROUGHT TO TAX CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 22,19,963/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF FACTS, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. FRO M THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THAT SHE HAD PURCHASED ON FOURTH UNDIVIDED PORTION OF PLOT NO. 136A, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR ON 20.11.1991. THE SAID SHARE IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS GIFTED TO HER HUSBAND ON 13.5 .2001. THE SAME IS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE RETURN OF INCOME FO R AY 2002-03 FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 4.10.2002 WHEREIN IT WS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE NOTES TO THE COMPUTA TION OF INCOME THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIFTED HER UNDIVIDED ONE FURTHER SHARE IN PLOT NO. 136A, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR TO HER HUSBAND SH GOVIND GHIYA VIDE GIFT DEED DATED 13.5.2001. SIMIL ARLY THE OTHER ONE FOURTH PORTION IN THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PU RCHASED BY THE APPELLANT ON 30.10.2003. IT WAS GIFTED TO HER HUSBAND ON 5.11.2003. THE SAME IS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE RETU RN OF INCOME FOR AY 2004-05 FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 28. 7.2005 WHEREIN IT WAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE NOTES T O THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIFTED HER UNDIVIDED ONE FOURTH SHARE IN PLOT NO. 136A, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR TO HER HUSBAND SH GOVIND GHIYA VIDE GIFT DEE D DATED 5.11.2003. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THESE RETURNS OF INCOME WELL IN TIME AND MUCH BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COMPLETI ON OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 11.12.2009 WHEREIN THE AO HAD ALLEGED THAT THESE GIFT DEEDS WERE MANAGED AFFAIRS. HOWEVER THERE IS ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 6 NO MATERIAL ON THE RECORD TO SUPPORT THE SAID ALLEG ATION OF THE AO. ON THE CONTRARY, THE GIFT DEED DATED 13.5.2001 WAS MADE ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS 50/- PURCHASED ON 11.5.2001 AND THERE WAS NOTHINGS TO INDICATE THAT THE ALLEGED GIFT DEED HAD BEEN BACK DATED. SIMILARLY THE GIFT DEED DATED 5.1 1.2003 WAS MADE ON A STAMP PAPER OF RS. 50/- PURCHASED ON 5.1 1.2003 AND THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE ALLEGED G IFT DEED HAD BEEN BACK DATED. MOREOVER THE COUNSEL OF THE A PPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSE E AS O 31.3.2004 AND THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION DID NOT APPE AR IN THE LIST OF ASSETS THEREBY IMPLYING THAT IT HAD BEEN GI FTED TO HER HUSBAND SH GOVIND GHIYA. AT THE TIME OF SALE OF PR OPERTY BY M/S SHRI GURUKRIPA CONSTRUCTIONS, THE SIGNATURE OF THE APPELLANT WERE PUT THEREIN AS THE BUYER HAD INSISTED ON THE SAME AS IT DID NOT WANT TO FACE ANY HASSLES FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND SEMI GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS SUCH AS JDA, JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM. IF THE APPELLANT HAD ANY INTE REST IN THIS PROPERTY THEN THE BUYER WOULD HAVE GIVEN CHEQUES IN HER NAME AND SAME WOULD HAVE FOUND CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE APPELLANT DID NOT OWN ANY PROPERTY ON THE DATE OF SALE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CHARGING ANY CAPITAL GAINS IN HER HANDS. THE DONEE WAS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY GIFTED BY HIS WIFE AND HE HAD EXERCISED HIS RIGHTS AS AN OWNER. THE HUSBAND OF T HE APPELLANT WAS PARTNER IN THE FIRM NAMELY M/S SHRI GU RUKRIPA CONSTRUCTIONS. HE HAD CONTRIBUTED THIS LAND TO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE SAID FIRM, THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF THE SAID PLOT WAS SHOWN AT NIL ON ACC OUNT OF GIFT FROM WIFE. M/S SHRI GURKRIPA CONSTRUCTIONS HAD ALSO OFFERED CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 7,05,284/- ON THE SALE OF PLOT ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE THE ACTION OF AO TO AGA IN TAX CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE TANTAMOUNTED TO DOUBLE ADDITION WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE. ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 7 3.2 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE FINDING, THE AO HAD ALSO ERRED IN TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS 75,11,000/- WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. AS PER THE TRI-PARTE AGREEMENT, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS OF RS.72,11,000/- WHICH WAS PAID TO M/S SHRI GURUKRIPA CONSTRUCTIONS, THROUGH ITS PARTNER SHRI GOVIND GHI YA BY THE PIONEER COLONIZER & DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. AND IN TUR N M/S PIONEER COLONIZER & DEVELOPER PVT LTD HAD EXECUTED ITS TRANSACTION OF SALE OF THIS PLOT FOR A SUM OF RS. 75,11,000/- WITH M/S SIGNATURE CONSORTIUM (PROP. MR. AJAY YADAV) . THE SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACC OUNT OF M/S GURUKRIPA CONSTRUCTIONS STOOD RS 72 LAKHS. H OWEVER THE AO WITHOUT ANY VALID REASON HAD ENHANCED THE SAME TO RS 75,11,000/- FOR COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HAND S OF THE APPELLANT. EVEN IN THE TRI-PARTE AGREEMENT DATED 9 .1.2007, THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF M/S SHRI GUR UKRIPA CONSTRUCTION WAS STATED TO BE RS 72,11,000/-. IN TH E BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S SHRI GURUKRIPA CONSTRUCTION, CHEQUE OF RS 65,00,000/- WERE CREDITED AND CASH OF RS 7,11,000/- HAD BEEN DEPOSITED. HENCE THE ACTION OF THE AO TO TAKE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS 75,11,000/- WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIF IED. 3.3 THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTION OF GIFT WERE NOT GENUINE SINCE THE GIFT DEEDS WRE NOT REGISTERED WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR. HOWEVER IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IF THE PROPERTY GIFTED WAS NOT REGISTERED THEN IN SUCH AN EVENTUALIT Y THE TRANSACTIONS OF GIFT SHOULD BE HELD AS INGENUINE. IT WAS HELD IN THE CASE OF T V KALYANSUNDARAM PILLAI VS KARUPPA MOOPPANAR & OTHERS (AIR 1927 PRIVY COUNCIL 42) T HAT THERE IS NOTHING IN SECTION 123 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERT Y ACT WHICH REQUIRES THE DONOR TO HAVE THE DEED REGISTERED. AL L THAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT HE SHOULD HAVE EXECUTED THE DEED. ONCE SUCH ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 8 AN INSTRUMENT IS DULY EXECUTED THEN THE REGISTRATIO N ACT ALLOWS IT TO BE REGISTERED. EVEN THOUGH THE DONOR M AY NOT AGREE TO ITS REGISTRATION HOWEVER THE GIFT TAKES EFF ECT FROM THE DATE OF EXECUTION. FURTHER WHERE THE DONOR OF THE I MMOVABLE PROPERTY HAS HANDED OVER THE SAME TO THE DONE AND T HE INSTRUMENT OF GIFT HAS BEEN DULY EXECUTED AND ATTES TED AND THE GIFT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DONE, THE DONOR HAS NO POWER TO REVOKE THE GIFT PRIOR TO REGISTRATION OF GI FT. IN OTHER WORDS IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT GIFT IS NOT COMPLETE UN TIL THE GIFT DEED HAS BEEN REGISTERED. FURTHER THE HONBLE DELH I ITAT IN THE CASE OF RAMA YADAV VS ACIT (ITA NO. 3558 TO 3563/DEL/2011) FOR AY 1996-97 TO AY 2001-02 HELD AS UNDER:- COMING TO THE ISSUE ABOUT GENUINENESS OF THE WILL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS COUNTERED THE OBSERVAT ION OF AO AS MENTIONED ABOVE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE CONTEN TION OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANCE IN A S MUCH AS INDIAN LAW DOES NOT PRESCRIBE REGISTRATION OF THE W ILL, IT SHOULD BE WRITING, ATTESTED BY TWO WITNESS; THERE IS NO R EQUIREMENT OF ANY REGISTRATION OR NOTARIZATION THEREOF. IN THIS CASE THE WILL IS IN WRITING AND DULY ATTESTED BY TWO WITNESSES, THEREFO RE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THE ASPECT THAT W ITNESS DID NOT ADVICE FOR REGISTRATION OF THE SAME. IN OUR CO NSIDERED OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL EXISTING ON RECO RD IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT WILL WAS FAKE OR AN AFTER THOUGHT. AOS A DVERSE INFERENCE IS NOT BASED ON ANY COGENT EVIDENCE BUT O N ASSUMPTIONS AND PROBABILITIES. IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW WHEN THE DIRECT EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE THE ISSUE CANNOT BE DE CIDED ON ASSUMPTION WITHOUT CONTRADICTING THE STATEMENTS ON RECORD. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT RAISED OUT OF THE WILL ARE DELETED. ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 9 IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAD GIFTED HER ONE HALF SHARE IN THE PROPERTY TO HER HUSBAND. SINCE THE DO NOR AND DONE WERE WIFE AND HUSBAND, IT WAS MUTUALLY DECIDED NO T TO REGISTER THE GIFT DEEDS SO AS TO SAVE THE REGISTRAT ION EXPENSES. HOWEVER THE GIFT DEEDS WERE DULY ATTESTED BY THE NOTA RY PUBLIC AND IT WAS SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF LAW. I THE REFORE HOLD THAT NO CAPITAL GAIN COULD BE CHARGED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT ON THE SALE OF PLOT IN QUESTION. I ACCOR DINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 22,19,963/- MA DE BY HIM. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED . 4. NOW REVENUE IS BEFORE US WHEREIN THE LD. DR SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT T HE DONOR AND DONEE WERE WIFE AND HUSBAND AND IT WAS MUTUALLY DECIDED NOT TO REGISTER THE GIFT DEEDS IN ORDER TO SAVE THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES. H OWEVER, THE GIFT DEEDS WERE DULY ATTESTED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC AND IT WAS SU FFICIENT COMPLIANCE OF LAW. THUS IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE FIND NO INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED ON THIS SOLITARY GROUN D OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 10 7. THE SOLITARY GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS C.O. I S REGARDING CHARGING OF INTEREST OF RS. 1,71,38/- U/S 234B, RS. 1,04,725 /- U/S 234A AND RS. 857/- U/S 234C OF THE ACT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHEN THERE IS NO ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THEN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL. THUS THE SOLITA RY GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/11/2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD 4(1) JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SMT. MEENA GHIYA, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT ITA NO. 767/JP/2012 & CO 69/JP/2012 ITO VSMEENA GHIYA. . 11 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. 767/JP/2012 & C.O. 69/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR