SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI, Jaipur V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-4, Jaipur

MA 04/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2088 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital Gains
• Section: 54B; 254(2); 22; 131

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKWY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ MA NO.04/JP/2020 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 698/JP/2019) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-116 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI 3-NA-43, JAWAHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAJPR 3621 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 07/02/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28/04/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 698/JP/2019 DATED 04.11.2019. 2. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE H AS SUBMITTED THAT IN HIS APPEAL, HE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(A) IN DENYING HIS CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) OF THE IT ACT ON THE GROUND THAT LAND WAS NOT USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, WHILE DENYING THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM, THE M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 2 TRIBUNAL HAS MISTAKENLY GIVEN CERTAIN FINDINGS WHIC H ARE MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD AND IT WAS REQUESTED TO PASS APP ROPRIATE ORDER U/S 254 OF THE IT ACT TO RECTIFY THE SAID MISTAKES APPA RENT ON RECORD. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE IN THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE MIS C. APPLICATION SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. WE WILL TAKE EACH OF THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN HIS MISC. APPLICATION. FIRSTLY, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT I N PARA 23 & 24 OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER, IT IS STATED AS UNDER:- GIVEN THE SIZE OF PLOT OF LAND MEASURING 0.26 HECT ARES AND 1.01 HECTARES RESPECTIVELY WHICH HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY JD A ALONG WITH BUILDING CONSTRUCTED THEREON, EVEN ASSUMING TH AT THERE ARE AMLA TREES PRIOR TO DATE OF TRANSFER, MERE PRESENCE OF 50 AMLA TREES ON A PART OF LAND WOULD NOT MAKE THE WHOLE OF THE LAND AS BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AS THE LANGUAG E USED IN SECTION 10(37) IS AS UNDER: SUCH LAND, DURING THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS IMMEDIAT ELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER, WAS BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY SUCH HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OR INDIVIDU AL OR A PARENT OF HIS. THIS BEING AN ESSENTIAL AND FUNDAMENTAL CONDITION F OR AVAILING EXEMPTION U/S 10(37) HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY A ND IN THAT SENSE, THE PHRASE SUCH LAND MEANS THE WHOLE OF TH E LAND BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THE SAME CANN OT BE READ AND UNDERSTOOD AS SUCH LAND OR A PART THEREOF WHE RE EVEN A M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 3 PART OF LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES, IT MAY STILL QUALIFY FOR EXEMPTION. HAD THAT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE L EGISLATURE, THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED APPROPRIATELY. 5. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE O NLY HOLD 1.01 HECTARE OF LAND BEARING KHASRA NO.364/1 AND NOT THE LAND MEASURING 0.26 HECTARE BEARING KHASRA NO.364. FURTHER, SECTIO N 10(37) DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT EVERY INCH OF A KHASRA SHOULD BE USED FOR CULTIVATION. IF A PARTICULAR KHASRA OF LAND IS USED FOR CULTIVATION, THEN THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN SECTION 10(37) IS FULFILLED. FOR THIS PURPOSE, RELIANCE IN PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT PUNE BENCH IN CASE OF RAJENDRA BASTIMAL CHORDIYA VS ITO (2019) 56 CCH 0482 WHEREIN WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 54B, IT WAS HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54B OF THE ACT DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THE ENTIRE LAND SHOULD BE USED FOR CULTIVATION FOR CLAIMING BENEFIT. IF ANY PART OF THE LAND IS UNDER CULTIVATION FOR TWO YEARS PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER, IT WOULD BE S UFFICIENT TO CLAIM BENEFIT U/S 54B OF THE ACT. THE LANGUAGE OF SECTION 54B AND 10(37) IS SIMILAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NEITH ER RAISED BY THE BENCH IN COURSE OF HEARING NOR ARGUED BY THE LD. D/R AND THUS, THERE WAS NO OCCASION OR ANY OPPORTUNITY AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ORDER. THUS, A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS CREPT IN AS TO THE AREA OF LAND OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 10(37) OF THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PUR SUED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BENCH. REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT SECTION 10(37) DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT EVERY INCH OF A KHASRA SHOULD BE USED FOR CULTIVATION AND IF A PARTICULAR KHASRA OF LAND IS USED FOR CULTIVATION, THEN THE CONDITION PRESCRIBED IN SECTI ON 10(37) IS FULFILLED. M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 4 WE FIND THAT A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE BENCH REG ARDING THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICABILITY OF PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 10(37) WHICH WAS GERMANE TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND A VIEW SO TAKEN ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS NOT A MATT ER WHICH CAN BE RECTIFIED/MODIFIED WITHIN THE LIMITED SCOPE OF SECT ION 254(2) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NEITHER RAISED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN COURSE OF HEARING NOR ARGUED BY EITHER PARTIES, THE QUESTION IS WHEN THE MATTER COMES UP FOR INTERPRETATION OF P ARTICULAR PROVISIONS OF LAW AND IN THE PRESENT CASE, SECTION 10(37), BOT H THE PARTIES ARE FREE TO ADVANCE THEIR ARGUMENTS, HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDER ING THE SAID ARGUMENTS AS NOTED IN PARA 15 OF THE ORDER WHERE TH E LD AR HAS CONTENDED THAT IN CONTEXT OF SECTION 10(37), THE D ISPUTE IS WHETHER THE LAND WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AGRICULTURAL PURP OSES DURING THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE OF TRANSFER OR NOT, THE BENCH HAS ARRIVED AT AND ADOPTED AN INTERPRETATION OF THE SAI D PROVISION IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSESSEES FACTS AND ITS APPRECIATION OF THE SAID PROVISIONS, IT CANNOT BE EXPECTED THAT BENCH BEFORE TAKING SUCH A VIEW SHOULD CONFRONT BOTH THE PARTIES AGAIN AND IN THAT CASE, T HERE WOULD NOT BE ANY END TO SUCH A PROCESS. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE ANY D ECISION OF A HIGHER AUTHORITY HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE BENCH IN WHIC H CASE, IT CAN BE EXPECTED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES SHOULD BE GIVEN AN O PPORTUNITY. THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF RAJENDR A BASTIMAL WAS RENDERED IN CONTEXT OF SECTION 54B AND IN ANY CASE, NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND THUS , DOESNT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE ONLY HOLDS 1.01 HECTARE OF LAND BEARING KHASRA NO.364/1 AND NOT THE LAND MEASU RING 0.26 HECTARE BEARING KHASRA NO.364, WE FIND THE SAME IS A MISTAK E AND IS HEREBY RECTIFIED. HOWEVER THE FACT REMAINS THAT MERE PRES ENCE OF 50 AMLA M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 5 TREES ON LAND MEASURING 1.01 HECTARE OF LAND WILL N OT CHANGE OR HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE FINAL CONCLUSION AND FINDINGS SO ARRIVED AT BY THE BENCH. 7. NOW, COMING TO THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IN HIS MISC. APPLICATION. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO PARA 22 OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS STAT ED THAT KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR SAMVAT YEAR 2065 (2008) SHOWS THE NAM E OF JDA AND NOT THAT OF ASSESSEE WHICH DEMONSTRATES CLEARLY THAT TH E LAND STOOD TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF JDA. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE HOLDING SO, THE TRIBUNAL IGNORED THE FACT THA T ALTHOUGH THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF JDA, THE ASSESSEE WA S OWING AND USING THE LAND TILL THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT LETTER DT. 20.1 1.2009 WHEREBY THE COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ACQUISITION OF LAND. IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRE D IN THE NAME OF JDA IN THE YEAR 2008 AND NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS C ARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN CAPITAL GAIN, IF ANY, IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE AY 2009- 10 AND NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE FAC T THAT TRIBUNAL IN AY 2009-10 HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT CAPITAL GAIN, IF A NY, IS CHARGEABLE IN AY 2010-11, THE INCORPORATION OF NAME OF JDA IN REVENU E RECORD IN SAMVAT YEAR 2065 IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE. THIS HAS BEEN IGNOR ED AND THUS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD HAS CREPT IN THE ORDER. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PUR SUED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BENCH AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS OWNING AND USING THE LAND TILL THE DATE OF ALLOTMENT LETTER DT . 20.11.2009 AND THEREFORE, THERE IS THUS NO MISTAKE IN THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 6 WHERE IT HELD THAT THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF JDA IN YEAR 2008 ON THE BASIS OF KHASRA GIRDWARI WHICH REFLECTS THE NAME OF THE JDA AS THE OWNER OF THE LAND. THE BASIS OF ARRIVIN G AT FINDING BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN A.Y 2009-10 THAT THE CAPITAL GA INS IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN A.Y 2010-11 WAS ON ACCOUNT OF FACT THAT THE COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20.11.2009 AND ON THAT ACCOUNT, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CAPITAL GAINS SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX IN THE A.Y 2010-11. THE SAME CANNOT BE TAKEN AS BASIS FOR STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OWNING AND USING THE LAND TILL THE DAT E OF ALLOTMENT. 9. NOW, COMING TO THE THIRD ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN HIS MISC. APPLICATION. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR DRAWN OUR RE FERENCE TO PARA 22, PG 17 OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF COCHIN BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ITO VS. SMT. G.S. LEKHA (2019) 180 DTR 249 (TM). IN THAT CASE, THE AG RICULTURAL OFFICER HAS CERTIFIED THE LAND TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND UNLI KE IN THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THE LAND RECORDS SHOW NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATI ONS WERE CARRIED ON THE SAID LAND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER. THEREF ORE, THE SAID DECISION DOESNT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE HOL DING SO, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR SAMVAT YEAR 2065 (2008) WHICH SHOWS CULTIVATION OF 50 AMLA TREES. THUS, THE AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED ON THE LAND PRIOR TO THE DA TE OF TRANSFER. EXISTENCE OF AMLA TREES IS ITSELF A PROOF OF CULTIV ATION. FURTHER, IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT LAND IS AN AG RICULTURAL LAND. HENCE, DISTINGUISHING THE CASE LAWS RELIED BY ASSESSEE BY ASSUMING INCORRECT FACTS IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 7 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PU RSUED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BENCH AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO PARA 22 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER W HICH READS AS UNDER: 22. REGARDING CULTIVATION OF 50 AMLA TREES ON THE SAID LAND AS REFLECTED IN KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR VIKRAM SAMVAT 206 5 AND BASIS THE SAME, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT GROWING OF TREES IS A USE OF LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND RELIANCE ON DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF G.S LEKHA (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR VIKRAM SAMVAT 2065 SHOWS THE N AME OF JDA AND NOT THAT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH DEMONSTRATES CLE ARLY THAT THE LAND STOOD TRANSFERRED IN NAME OF JDA. FURTHER, IF WE LOOK AT KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR VIKRAM SAMVAT 2064, WE FIND TH AT THERE IS NO MENTION OF AMLA TREES. THEREFORE, THE AFFIDAVIT S OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE CARE TAKER LAXMAN SINGH AS WELL AS OF RAMESHWAR CHAUDHARY DOESNT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE AND ARE CLEARLY SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT IN VIEW OF CLEAR NARR ATION IN KHASRA GIRDAWARIES WHICH SHOWS THERE WERE NO AMLA TREES PR IOR TO YEAR 2008. FURTHER, REGARDING RELIANCE ON THE COORDINAT E BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF G.S LEKHA (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT UNLIKE IN THE SAID CASE WHERE A SUM OF RS 9,060 WAS DETERMINED AS VALUE OF TREES STANDING ON THE LAND, THERE IS NOTHING ON REC ORD TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS ANY COMPENSATION WHICH HAS BEEN DETER MINED AND AWARDED BY THE JDA FOR SUCH AMLA TREES AS PART OF O VERALL LAND COMPENSATION. SECONDLY, IN THAT CASE, THE AGRICULT URAL OFFICER HAS CERTIFIED THE LAND TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND UNLIKE I N THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE LAND RECORDS SHOW NO AGRICULTURAL O PERATIONS WERE CARRIED ON THE SAID LAND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER. M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 8 THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION DOESNT SUPPORT THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BEN CH IN CASE OF SMT. G.S LEKHA RENDERED IN ITS PECULIAR FACTS HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED AND DISTINGUISHED IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE INCL UDING THE FACT RELATING TO AMLA TREES. THEREFORE, WE DONOT FIND ANY MISTAK E APPARENT FROM RECORD AND THE CONTENTION SO ADVANCED IN THIS REGAR D ARE REJECTED. 12. NOW, COMING TO THE FOURTH ISSUE RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IN HIS MISC, APPLICATION. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, TH E LD AR DRAWN OUR REFERENCE TO PARA 21, PG 16 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER W HEREIN IT IS STATED THAT KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR SAMVAT YEAR 2064 (2007) C LEARLY STATES THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT ON IMPU GNED LAND AND THE LAND WAS LYING VACANT FOR 4 YEARS. THIS FINDING IS INCORRECT IN AS MUCH AS THE KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR SAMVAT YEAR 2065 SHOWS CUL TIVATION OF 50 AMLA TREES. AMLA TREES CANNOT BE GROWN IN A YEAR. IT TAK ES 3-4 YEARS. THE CARETAKER SH. LAXMAN SINGH AND RAMESHWAR CHAUDHARY IN THEIR AFFIDAVIT HAVE ALSO STATED THAT AROUND 100 AMLA TRE ES WAS GROWN IN YEAR 2005 OUT OF WHICH ONLY 50 AMLA TREES REMAINS AS ON DATE. THE HONBLE ITAT DID NOT ACCEPT THESE AFFIDAVITS BY HOLDING THA T THESE ARE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER, WHILE HOLDING SO IT WAS IGNORED THAT SH. LAXMAN SINGH AND RAMESHWAR CHAUDHARY IN THEIR STATE MENT RECORDED U/S 131 ON 07.02.2017 HAVE ALSO ADMITTED THE FACT O F CARRYING OUT THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON THE LAND. FURTHER, THE HON BLE ITAT HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE OTHER EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSE E LIKE ELECTRICITY BILLS FOR THE YEAR 2005 TO 2007 WHERE CATEGORY OF CONNECT ION IS MENTIONED AS AGRICULTURAL METER, THE ELECTRICITY BILLS PAID W HICH INDICATES THAT M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 9 AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE LAN D AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF AGRICULTURE LAND SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDING OF AY 2009-10 WHICH PROVES THAT AGRICULTURE OPERATIONS WE RE CARRIED OUT. THUS, NOT CONSIDERING THE OTHER EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PU RSUED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE BENCH AND OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO PARA 21 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER W HICH READS AS UNDER: 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TO OUR MIND, AMONG AL L THE DOCUMENTS, KHASRA GIRDAWARI STAND OUT AS A CRITICAL PIECE OF DOCUMENT, BEING PART OF THE GOVERNMENT LAND AND REV ENUE RECORDS, WHICH CAN HELP DETERMINE WHETHER THE LAND WAS BEING USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES PRECEDING THE DATE O F TRANSFER OR NOT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, UNDISPUTEDLY, KHASRA GIR DAWARI FOR VIKRAM SAMVAT 2064 (YEAR 2007) AVAILABLE ON RECORD STATES CLEARLY THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIE D OUT ON THE IMPUGNED LAND AND THE LAND WAS LYING VACANT FOR 4 Y EARS. THE SUB-TEHSILDAR, BAGRU HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, FURNISHED COPIES OF KHASRA GIRDAWARI AND ALSO SUBMI TTED A WRITTEN CONFIRMATION IN THIS REGARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. REGARDING CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SUB-TEHSILDAR, BAGRU, WE FIND THAT NO SUCH REQUEST WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS AND IN ANY CASE, WHAT SUB-TEHSILDAR, BAGRU HAS STAT ED IN HIS SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY RE CONFIRMATION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE KHASRA GIRDAWARI WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS N O PREJUDICE M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 10 WHICH IS CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF CLEAR N ARRATION IN KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR VIKRAM SAMVAT 2064 (YEAR 2007) AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT THE LAND WAS LYING VACANT FOR 4 YEAR S, WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE AS SESSEE AND THAT OF THE CARE TAKER LAXMAN SINGH AS WELL AS OF RAMESH WAR CHAUDHARY THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE LAND PRIOR TO THE DATE OF TRANSFER DOESNT INSPIRE ANY C ONFIDENCE AND ARE CLEARLY SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT AND DOESNT SUPPO RT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. WE FIND THAT THE BENCH HAS DULY CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING KHASRA GIRDAWARI A ND AFFIDAVITS OF SH. LAXMAN SINGH AND RAMESHWAR CHAUDHARY AND HAS THEREA FTER ARRIVED AT A VIEW AND FINDING THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT ON THE IMPUGNED LAND AND THE LAND WAS LYING VACANT FOR 4 Y EARS. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR IS ACCEPTED, THE SAME WOULD RESULT IN RE- APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL ON RECORD AND REVIEW OF TH E DECISION ALREADY TAKEN BY THE BENCH WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE NARROW CONFINE OF SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28/04/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28/04/2020. M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020 SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI VS. DCIT 11 SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI LILO RAMCHANDANI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-4, 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 { M.A. NO. 04/JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR.