SMT. SITA BAL KHETAN, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 826/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5107 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAGHUVIR SINGH DAGUR CIT DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 143(3); 50C

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN, D-65, SAWAI MADHO SINGH ROAD, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AOTPK 3322 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAGHUVIR SINGH DAGUR (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20.07.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/07/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 30.08.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O IN COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 2,43,18,412/- AGA INST THE DECLARED LONG TERM GAIN OF RS. 1,53,56,462/-. THE A CTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAI NST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY ASSESSING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 1,53,56,462/- ONLY AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE IT ACT 1961 AND AD OPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 6,12,70,120/- AGAINST THE ACTU AL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,00,00,000/-. THE ACTION OF T HE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERAT ION AT RS. 6,00,00,000/- FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. 2 ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O IN NOT ALLOWING INDEXATION ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13.97,120/- PAID FO R ACQUIRING POSSESSION OF STRIP OF LAND FOR COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFI ED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY ALLOWING APPROPRIATE INDEXATION OF RS. 13,97,120/- FOR COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. A O IN NOT TAKING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 1.4.1981 AS CO ST OF ACQUISITION U/S 55(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE PURPOSE O F COMPUTING THE LON TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ACTION OF THE LD. C IT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY TAKING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE O F THE ASSET AS ON 1.4.1981 AS COST OF ACQUISITION FOR COMPUTING TH E LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.07.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,61,66,94 0/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AC T) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2013. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. HE COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2,51,28,890/-. THE ASSESSEE AG GRIEVED BY THIS ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. ALL THESE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE RELA TED TO COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN BY THE AO. 4. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH REGARD TO ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS 6,12,70,120/- AGAINST THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RRS. 6,00,00,000/- ADOPTED BY 3 ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AS P ER REGISTERED SALE DEED AS AGAINST THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AU THORITY WAS RS. 12,70,120/- I.E. 2.11%. SINCE THE DIFFERENCE WAS WITHIN THE TOLERAB LE LIMITS, WHICH IS 15% OF VARIATION, AS RECOGNIZED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COU RT IN THE CASE OF C.B. GAUTAM VS. UNION OF INDIA (1993) 199 ITR 530, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE. THIS DECISION HAS BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CA SE OF RAHUL CONSTRUCTION VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 1543/PN/2007 (2010) 38 DTR (PUNE TR IB.). 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D/R OPPOSED THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE. 4.2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NO. 1543/PN/2007 IN THE CASE OF RAHUL CONSTRUCTION VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HAS HEL D AS UNDER :- WE FIND THAT THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF ASSTT. CIT VS. HARPREET HOTELS (P) LTD. VIDE ITA NOS. 1156-116 0/PN/2000 AND RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE H AD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE WHERE THE CIT (A) HAD D ELETED THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FIGURE OF THE DVO IS HARDLY 10 PER CENT. SIMILARLY, WE FIND T HAT THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. KAADDU JAYGH OSH APPASAHEB, VIDE ITA NO. 441/PN/2004 FOR THE ASST. YR. 1992-93 AND RELIED ON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE J&K HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HONEST GROUP OF HOTELS (P ) LTD. VS. CIT (2002) 177 CTR (J&K) 232 HAD HELD THAT WHEN THE MAR GIN BETWEEN THE VALUE AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUER WAS LESS THAN 10 PER CENT, THE DIFFERENCE IS LIABLE TO BE IG NORED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE SUCH DIFFERENCE IS LESS T HAN 10 PER CENT AND CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT VALUATION IS ALWAYS A MAT TER OF ESTIMATION WHERE SOME DEGREE OF DIFFERENCE IS BOUND TO OCCUR, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AO IN THE INSTANT CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUBSTITUTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 20,55,00 0/- AS AGAINST THE 4 ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 19,00,000 DISCLOSE D BY THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) A ND DIRECT THE AO TO TAKE RS. 19,00,000/- ONLY AS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VAL UATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY AND DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN 10%. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE COORDINATE BENCH, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE AO TO ADOPT THE VALUE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5. GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN NOT ALLOWING INDEXATION ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,97,120/- PAID FO R ACQUIRING POSSESSION OF STRIP OF LAND FOR COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 5.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THA T THE STRIP OF LAND MEASURING 83.35 SQ. YARD WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE SI NCE PURCHASE OF THE PLOT OF LAND. THE AFOREMENTIONED STRIP OF LAND WAS REGULARIZED BY JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM WHEN ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR SUB-DIVISION OF THE PLOT IN JA NUARY, 2008. AS THE STRIP OF LAND WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ENTIRE PE RIOD AND NO CLAIM OF WHATSOEVER NATURE WAS MADE ON THE SAID STRIP OF LAND, EVEN BY THE THEORY OF ADVERSE POSSESSION, THE ASSESSEE WAS THE REAL OWNER OF THE PIECE OF LAND SINCE BEGINNING I.E. WHEN THE ORIGINAL LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSE E. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF VS. GOVT. OF INDIA (2004 ) 10 SCC 779. SINCE DURING THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF POSSESSION OF THE STRIP OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO INTRUSION/CLAIM OF WHATSOEVER NATURE, THE ASSESSEE WAS THE OWNER OF THE STRIP WITHOUT DOUBT. IN VIEW OF THIS, WHEN THE STRIP OF LAND WAS IN THE OWNERSHIP OF THE 5 ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO ASSESSEE SINCE BEGINNING, THEREFORE COST HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE SINCE ASSET WAS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.2. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D/R OPPOSED THE SUBMI SSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PIECE OF LAND WAS ALLOTTED IN THE YEAR 2008 SO THE OWNERSHIP RELATED TO THE LAND SHOULD BE RECKONED FROM THAT DATE AND NOT THE DATE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE STRIP OF LAND BEFORE THE SAME WAS REGULARIZED BY NAGAR NIGAM OR BY ANY COURT OF LAW. UNDER THESE FACTS, T HE GROUND RAISED IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 5.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE A SSESSEE IS CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND EVEN PRIOR TO THE ALLOTMENT MADE BY THE CONCERNED AUTHORITY, THUS THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING INDEXATION SINCE 01..04.19 81. ON A POINTED QUERY, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE PRIOR T O THE DATE WHEN THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IN RESPECT OF THE TH EORY OF ADVERSE POSSESSION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DECLARED OWNER BY VIRTUE OF THEORY OF ADVERSE POSSESSION. I N OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, FOR CLAIMING TO BE THE OWNER OF THE LAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PRODUCE NECESSARY EVIDENCES. IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE, W HEN CONTRARY EVIDENCES ARE ON RECORD, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES AP PEAL IS DISMISSED. 6 ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO 6. GROUND NO. 4 IN RESPECT OF NOT TAKING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET AS ON 01.04.1981 AS COST OF ACQUISITION U/S 55(2) OF T HE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 6.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY AR GUED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GRANTING THE RELIEF. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT TO CORRECT T HE WORKINGS FILED FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAINS. IN THE RETURN FILED, FAIR MARKE T VALUE AS ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 IN TERMS OF SECTION 55(2) WAS NOT CONSIDERED. DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LETTER DATED 07.02.2013 WAS FILED CONVEYING THE FAI R MARKET VALUE ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 @ RS. 110/- PER YARD. FOR EVIDENCING THE SAME, A C OPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED OF THE NEARBY AREA WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. HE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AO WAS DUTY BOUND TO CONSIDER THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS THE OPTION WAS EX ERCISED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THE WORKING WITH REGARD TO ADOPTION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BY SIMPLY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COUSLD NOT ESTABLISH THE VALUE OF THE PLOT AS ON 01 .04.1981 AND THAT THE COST OF ACQUISITION ADOPTED BY THE AO WAS SHOWN BY THE APPE LLANT HERSELF. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS MISDIRECTED HIMS ELF IN APPRECIATING THE LEGAL PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 55(2) WHEREIN FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE REPLACED AS ON 01.04.1981. THIS FAIR MARKET VALU E HAS TO BE DETERMINED WITH REFERENCE TO COMPARABLE CONTEMPORARY INSTANCES OF N EARBY LOCATION. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR REJECTING THE COMPARAB LE INSTANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, LETTER DATED 1 ST APRIL, 1981 CONVEYING THE RATE OF RS. 110/- PER SQ. YARD WAS SUBMITTED. HE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT 7 ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO THE INCOME LIABLE TO BE TAXED HAS TO BE WORKED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AS IN FORCE. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION, RELIANCE IS P LACED ON THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RUPAM IMP EX IN ITA NO. 472/RJT/2014. 6.2. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HERSELF HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE AND SHE CANNOT BLOW HOT AND COLD AT THE S AME TIME. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FACT, WHICH IS NOT REBUTTED BY T HE ASSESSEE BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 6.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE AT INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS. 4,31,940/- AND IN RESPECT OF THE STRIP OF LAND, ADOPTED THE INDEXATION COST OF ACQUI SITION AT RS. 13,97,120/-. SO FAR AS THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION WITH REGARD TO THE STRIP OF LAND IS CONCERNED, IN GROUND NO. 3, WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE MATTER AG AINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDING O F LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 6.4 WITH REGARD TO THE OTHER PORTION OF LAND, IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OUGHT TO HAVE ADOPTED @ RS. 1 10/- PER SQ. YARD. THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF FAIR MARKET VAL UE AT PARA 3.2 OF HIS SUBMISSION ARE AS UNDER :- 3.2. BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, LETTER DULY CO NVEYING THE FMV ON 1 ST APRIL, 1981 @ RS. 110/- PER SQ. YARD WAS SUBMITTED (PB 17). FOR EVIDENCING THE SAME, A COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED OF THE SAID AREA WAS ALSO SUBMITTED (PB 18-25). FOLLOWING FACTS CLEA RLY EMERGED OUT OF THE REGISTERED SALE DEED : 8 ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO DATE OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED 31 OCT 81 PB : 18 AREA IN WHICH PROPERTY WAS LOCATED BANI PARK PB : 18 AREA OF THE PLOT 370.99 SQ. MTR PB : 18 SALE VALUE OF THE PLOT RS. 48,940 PB : 25 CALCULATION FOR ARRIVING AT THE FMV OF RS. 110 PE R SQ. YARD IS AS UNDER : AREA (A) SALE CONSIDERATION (B) VALUE (B/A) 370.99 SQ. MTR. RS. 48,940 RS. 131.92 PER SQ. MTR 443.33 SQ. MTR. RS 48,940 RS. 110.39 PER SQ. MTR. 1. SQ. MTR. IS EQUAL TO 1.19599 SQ. YARDS WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS TO BE ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY DIRECT THE AO TO RE-COMPUTE TH E COST OF ACQUISITION ON THE BASIS AFTER ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF T HE PROPERTY WITH REFERENCE TO 01.04.1981 EXCLUDING THE STRIP OF LAND WHICH WAS PU RCHASED IN THE YEAR 2008. THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/07/201 6. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO ( DQY HKKJR ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 27/07/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR. 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 826/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 9 ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 SMT. SITA BAI KHETAN VS. ITO