PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB V. ITO, Kota

ITA 96/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5604 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEENA JEPH JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Valuation report; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 139(5); 143(1); 139(1); 148; 54; 263; 154; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09. SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PROP, CAP-A-PIE BEAUTY PARLOUR, SUNNY ENCLAVE, ABOVE HONEY GYM, MOHALI, PUNJAB. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFYPB 2873 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SIDDHARTH RANKA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. NEENA JEPH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16.09.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/09/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER D ATED 06.09.2016 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS), KOTA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITI ON OF RS. 30,670/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION RECEIVED WHEN NO SUCH COMMISSION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT GIVING THE B ENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR INVESTME NT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL LAND AND CONSTRUCTION DONE THEREON AND ERRED IN CALCULATING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 17,18,348/-. 2 ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY OR AMEND ANY GROUND ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 30,670 /- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION RECEIVED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. CAP-A-PIE BEAUTY PARLOUR, MOHALI (PUNJAB). THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,56,693/-. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE IT ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 06.01.2010 TO ASSESS TH E LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF PROPERTY. THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 147/148 WERE DROPPED BY THE AO ON 09.03.2010 WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED IN REP LY TO THE SAID NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED THE SALE PROCEEDS IN PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND CONSEQUENTLY CLAIMED DEDU CTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO WAS SATISFIED WITH THE SAID EXPLANA TION AND CONSEQUENTLY DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE IT ACT . WHEREAFTER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AND OBSERVED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS DROPPED BY THE AO ARE ERRONEOUS AND PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AS AFTER ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 T HE AO OUGHT TO HAVE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT INSTEAD OF DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THERE WAS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148. THUS THE LD. CIT VIDE ORDER DATED 7 TH MARCH, 2012 DIRECTED THE AO TO RE-ISSUE THE NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148 AND COMPLETE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY THE AO AGAI N INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ 3 ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. WITH SECTION 263 OF THE IT ACT. IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 THE ASSESSEE REDUCED THE I NCOME BY A SUM OF RS. 30,670/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION RECEIVED. THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08, THEREFORE, IT IS SUBJECTED TO DOUBLE TAXATION AS OFFERED TO TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION INADVERTENTLY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT TO RECTIFY THE SAID MISTAKE THE ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED THE RETURNED INCOME BY RS. 30,670/- AS THE SAID INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION WAS NEITHER ACCRUED NOR RE CEIVED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THI S ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND OFFERED THIS AM OUNT TO TAX THEN THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE REDUCED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 30,67 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION RECEIVED WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2007-08. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE INCLUDES THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 30,670/-. THE LD. COUNSEL THEN SUBMI TTED THAT INADVERTENTLY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX FOR T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHILE FILING THE RETURN UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THIS IS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE TO OFFER THE SAID INCOME TO TAX WHICH WAS N OT LIABLE TO TAX FOR THE YEAR UNDER 4 ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. CONSIDERATION. THE LD. COUNSEL THUS CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 ARE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE AND NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, WHEN THERE IS NO REAL INCOME OF RS. 30,670/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IT IS ONLY DUE TO INADVERTENT MIS TAKE OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAME WAS OFFERED TO TAX THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECTIFIED THE SAID MISTAKE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GOETZE INDIA LTD VS. CIT, 284 ITR 323 (SC) AS WELL AS DECISION IN CASE OF NTPC VS. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF TH E AO HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO BAR F OR THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ENTERTAIN THE CLAIM. THUS THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO ASSESS THE CORRECT INCOME TO TAX AND SHALL NOT T AKE THE ADVANTAGE OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN OFFERING WRONG INCOME TO TAX. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THIS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SEC TION 139 AND, THEREFORE, EXCEPT THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A LLOWED TO REDUCE THE RETURNED INCOME WHILE FILING THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOTED THAT SO FAR AS THE DOUBLE TAXAT ION OF THE SAID INCOME OF RS. 30,670/- IS CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY OFFERED THE SAID INCOME TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THIS INCOME TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1), THEN EVEN IF THERE IS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER THIS INCOME TO 5 ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. TAX, THE SAID MISTAKE CAN BE RECTIFIED EITHER BY FI LING THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME OR BY FILING A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. THE FACTS REMAIN THAT THE SAID INCOME HAS BEEN TAXED TWICE DUE TO IN ADVERTENT MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE. INSTEAD OF TAKING THE REMEDIAL ACTION UND ER SECTION 139(5) OR UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSEE ATTEMPTED T O RECTIFY THE SAID MISTAKE BY REDUCING THE RETURNED INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. LEGALLY AND TECHNICALLY THE SAID AC TION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME ARE FOR THE BE NEFIT OF REVENUE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SUN ENGINE ERING WORKS PVT. LTD., 198 ITR 297 (SC). HOWEVER, ONCE THIS FACT OF INADVERTENT M ISTAKE TO OFFER THE SAID INCOME TO TAX WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO, THE AO WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO TAKE THE NECESSARY STEPS UNDER SECTION 154 TO CORRECT THE SA ID MISTAKE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. SINC E IT IS NOT A CLAIM OF DEDUCTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, THEREFORE, IT WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO CLAI M ANY BENEFIT IN THE SAID RETURN WHICH WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT BUT IT IS ONLY A RECTIFICATION OF A BONAFIDE MISTAK E AND, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO ASSESS ONLY THE CORRECT INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND NOT TO TAKE THE ADVANTAGE OF THE MISTAKE COMMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE INCOME OF RS. 30,670/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM THE INSURANCE COMPANY WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. ACCORDINGLY TO THAT EXTENT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REQUIRED TO BE RECTIFIED UN DER SECTION 154 AND THE AMOUNT 6 ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. OF RS. 30,670/- SHALL BE DELETED FROM THE TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING REJECTING THE CLAIM OF DE DUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE IT ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AT KOT A DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND AT MOHALI (PUNJAB) FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 10,00,000/- AND STAMP DU TY OF RS. 70,000/- TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,70,000/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CL AIMED THAT SHE HAS CONSTRUCTED A HOUSE ON THE SAID LAND THROUGH A BUILDER AND INCU RRED THE EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE OF RS. 7,50,000/-. THE A O HAS DENIED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD PROVIDED UNDER SE CTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS ALSO DOUBTED THE SOURCE OF THE FUND FOR CONSTRUCTIO N OF THE HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 7. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE SALE DEED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PU RCHASED THE RESIDENTIAL PLOT OF LAND AT MOHALI AS WELL AS AN AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO WITH THE DEVELOPER WHO HAS CONSTRUCTED THE HOUSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODU CED THE VALUATION REPORT IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THE CLAIM OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE WITHIN THE PERIOD ST IPULATED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO REFERRED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT AND SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ALL THESE DETAILS OF PURCHASE OF PLOT OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THERE FORE, THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM BY THE 7 ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. AO BY DOUBTING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WITHOU T CONDUCTING ANY ENQUIRY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE BALANCE SHE ET AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN THESE INVESTMENTS AS WELL AS THE CAP ITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE SURPLUS IS SHOWN. THUS THE CLAIM OF DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS POINTED OUT THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO I NDEPENDENT DOCUMENTATION TO PROVE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF 50 DAYS. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS PROOF OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT BY THE ASSESSEE AT MOHALI VIDE SAL E DEED DATED 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2008. THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DOUBTED THE C LAIM OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID RESIDENTIAL PLOT. THE CLA IM WAS DENIED MAINLY ON TWO REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE CONST RUCTED A HOUSE WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD OF 2 MONTHS THROUGH A CONTRACTOR AND SECONDL Y THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE AO HAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 7,50,0 00/- FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE. IN THE COURSE OF ARGUMENT, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN THE CASH OF RS. 7,0 0,000/- ON 30 TH JANUARY, 2008 AND FURTHER AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,00,000/- ON 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2008. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH PUNJAB NATION AL BANK, JALANDHAR. FROM THE 8 ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE IS AN WITHDRAWAL BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 8,00,000/- ON TWO DAYS AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 8,00,000/- WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER BANK ACCOUNT CLE ARLY EXPLAINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH US THE SAID GROUND OF THE AO IS CONTRARY TO THE RECORD AND FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS DULY WITHDRAWN THE CASH FROM THE BANK TO MEET THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE. FUR THER, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION O F THE HOUSE WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF SALE. THEREFORE, EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEES HOUSE CONSTRUCTION COULD NOT BE COMPLETE D WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF TWO MONTHS AND IT TOOK MORE THAN THAT TIME, ONCE THE CO NSTRUCTION COULD HAVE BEEN COMPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SALE OF EXISTING ASSET, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE. THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY TO DISPUTE THE CLAIM OF EXISTENCE OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. ONCE THE HOUSE WAS ACTUALLY CONSTRUCTED AFTER PURCHASING OF THE PLOT OF LAND, THEN THE CONSTRUCTI ON IS POSSIBLE ONLY AFTER THE SAID PURCHASE VIDE SALE DEED DATED 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2008. HENCE ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE HOU SE WAS IN EXISTENCE AND THE PLOT OF LAND WAS PURCHASED VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEE D, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTRARY MATERIAL TO DISPROVE THE SAID FACT, THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED MERELY ON SUSPICION AND CONJECTURES. THE FU NDS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WERE ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH H ER BANK ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID OBJECTION OF THE AO IS ALSO CONTRARY TO TH E FACTS EMERGING FROM RECORD. ACCORDINGLY WHEN THERE WAS SUFFICIENT TIME WITH THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLETE THE CONSTRUCTION THEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A SHORT PERIOD CANNOT BE A REASON FOR DENIAL OF THE C LAIM UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. 9 ITA NO. 96/JP/2017 SMT. PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE QUASHED AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT IS ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/09/2 019. SD/- ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 17/09/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT.PARMINDER KAUR BEDI, PUNJAB. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 1(2), KOTA. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 96/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR