PURUSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, HUF, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

MA 129/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5712 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROSHANTA MEENA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVENDRA KUMAR
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 148; 139

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 M.A. NO. 129/JP/2016 ARISING OUT IF ITA NO.225/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL HUF THROUGH SHRI VINOD AGARWAL, D-18, SHIV MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. A ADHP 6413 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEVENDRA KUMAR (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROSHANTA MEENA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09.06.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/07/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE ASSESSEE ARIS E OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 225/JP/2015 SEEKING RECTIFICATI ON OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 31.05.2016. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AND ALSO IN THE WRITTEN S UBMISSION FILED SEPARATELY. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. (I) THAT APPLICANT-ASSESSEE HUF PURCHASED LAND WITH CONSTRUCTIONS THEREON FROM SHRI JUGAL KISHORE MEHRA AND M/S VISHWANATH JU GAL KISHORE BEARING MUNICIPAL NO. 194, KHASRA NO. 17771, GRAM PAONDA PA RGANA LONI, TEHSIL 2 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. GHAZIABAD , ON WHICH SELLER ESTABLISHED V.J. DYING & PRINTING MILLS FOR DYING & PRINTING BY REGISTERED SALE DEED. REFER ANNEXURE E PAGE NOS. 33 TO 69 IN THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY REVENUE. (II) THAT APPLICANT-ASSESSEE SOLD THE ABOVE SAID LAND BE ARING MUNICIPAL NO. 194, KHASRA NO. 1771, GRAM PAONDA PARGANA LONI, TEH SIL GHAZIABAD, DISTRICT GHAZIABAD WITH FACTORY SHED, ONE HALL, TWO W.C. AND OTHER BELONGINGS BY SALE DEED DATED 29 TH MARCH, 2006, FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,15,00,000/-. (III) THAT APPLICANT-ASSESSEE SUBMITTED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2006 VIDE RECEIPT NO. 321004823 TO INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3 (2), JAIPUR ALONG WITH COMPUTATION OF INCOME, ABOVE MENTIONED SALE DE ED OF LAND & BUILDING AND VALUATION REPORT OF SAID PROPERTY AS O N 01.04.1981.(PAGE 1 TO 50 OF PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT-ASSESSEE). IN THE POSSESSIO N LETTER (PAGE 13 OF PAPER BOOK) DESCRIPTION OF THE P ROPERTY HAS BEEN MENTIONED AS FACTORY SITUATED ON KHASRA NO. 1771 M EASURING TOTAL LAND ON ONE BIGHA PUKHTA WHICH IS 3250 SQ. YDS AND A BUI LD UP KHOTI ON THE SAID LAND & OLD STRUCTURE SITUATED AT KHASRA NO. 17 71, MUNICIPAL NO. 194 OF VILLAGE PASONDA, PARGANA LONI, TEHSIL GHAZABAD, DISTT. GHAZIABAD...... SIMILARLY ON PAGE 13 & 14 OF THE SALE DEED (PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 27 & 28 ) FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SOLD HAS BEEN GIVEN AS- FACTORY SITUATED ON KHASRA NO. 1771 MEASURING TOTAL LAND ON ONE BIGH A PUKHTA WHICH IS 3250 SQ. YDS AND A BUILDUP KHOTI ON THE SAID LAND & OLD STRUCTURE SITUATED 3 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. AT KHASRA NO. 1771, MUNICIPAL NO. 194 OF VILLAGE PA SONDA, PARGANA LONI, TEHSIL GHAZABAD, DISTT. GHAZIABAD....... (IV) THAT THE LEARNED ITO WARD 3(2) SELECTED CASE FOR SC RUTINY U/S 143(2) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. HUMBLE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS, EXPLANATION, DETAILS AND INFORMATION ON VARIOUS DAT ES AND AFTER DETAILED EXAMINATION THE LEARNED ITO, WARD 3(2) PASSED THE O RDER U/S 143(3) ON 24.12.2008 AND ACCEPTED RETURNED INCOME. IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER (PAGE 51 OF PAPER BOOK) IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON CHAN GE OF INCUMBENT OFFICER FURTHER NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 07.08.2008 ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE SEEKING SPECIFIC DETAILS. IN RESPONSE TO THE STATUTORY NOTICES, SHRI VINOD AGARWAL SON OF SHRI P URSHOTTAM DASS AGARWAL ATTENDED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FURNISHED REQUISITE INFORMATION AND DETAILS AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED WITH HIM. THE ASSESSMENT OR DER WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEE. HOWEVER INTERNAL NOTE ON THE FILE WAS NEVER COMMUNI CATED TO APPLICANT- ASSESSEE. THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEE HAS FOR THE FIRST TIME CAME TO KNOW OF THE INTERNAL NOTE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/148 R.W.S. 143(3) OF I.T.ACT, 1961. THE INTERNAL NOTE READS AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD LAND AND BUILDING WHICH IS A N INDUSTRIAL PLOT WITH A SHED CONSTRUCTED OVER IT AT G.T. ROAD, GAZIA BAD. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED IS RS. 1.15.00,000/-. THE PROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO 1981. THE VALUATION OF LAND AND BUILDING WAS MADE BY THE APPR OVED VALUER AT RS. 4 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 25,16,750/- AS ON 01.04.1981. THE INDEX COST ON THE DATE OF SALE COMES TO RS. 1,25,08,247/-. THE VALUATION OF THE PR OPERTY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY ON SALE WAS DONE BY COLLECTOR (FINANCE AND REVENUE), GAZIABAD AT A VALUE OF RS. 1,07,63,356/-. ALTHOUGH THE APPROVED VALUER HAS MENTIONED THAT CIRCLE RATE AS O N 01.04.1981 FOR THE AREA OF G.T.ROAD WAS RS. 500/- PER SQ. YD. BUT FOR VERIFICATION OF THE SALE, LETTER WAS WRITTEN TO SUB-REGISTRAR-III, GHAZABAD, UP ON 16.12.2008 FOR OBTAINING THE PREVENT CIRCLE RATES A S ON 01.04.1981. NO REPLY HAS BEEN RECEIVED TILL DATE. AS THE MATTER IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE ORDER IS BEING PASSED. IF ANY INFOR MATION IS RECEIVED IN THE NATURE THAT THE PREVALENT CIRCLE RATE AS ON 01. 04.981 FOR THAT AREA WERE LESS THAN RS. 500/- THEN SUITABLE ACTION IN TH IS CASE HAS TO BE TAKEN. (V) THAT IT APPEARS THAT ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)-II, JAIPUR BY LETTER DATED 18.03.2013 INFORMED THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER, WARD 3(2), JAIPUR- ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT REGARDING CIRCLE RA TE AS ON 01.04.1981. IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE LETTER (PAGE 2 OF PAPER B OOK SUBMITTED BY REVENUE) AS UNDER: DLC RATE LIST FOR INDUSTRIAL AREA, PASONDA, G.T. ROAD, GHAZIABAD APPLICABLE W.E.F. 13.08.1980 HAS BEEN PROCURED. AS PER THIS RATE LIST, DLC RATE OF THE ALLEGED PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 W AS RS. 50/- PER SQ. YD. ONLY. 5 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. ALONG WITH THIS LETTER THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR HAS ATTA CHED COPY OF DLC RATE LIST (PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY REVENUE. FRO M THIS LIST OF DLC RATE IT IS, APPARENT (I) IT IS, SIGNED ON 11.08.198 2. ON THE TOP OF IT EXPRESSION W.E.F. 13.08.1980. (II) ON THE TOP OF TH E LIST THE DESCRIPTION REGARDING THE PLACE TO WHICH THIS LIST RELATES HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN. ANOTHER COPY OF THIS LIST HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY REVENUE ON PAGE 75 OF PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY REVENUE. IN THE LIST OF PAGE 75 OF PAP ER BOOK IT HAS BEEN SPECIFIED THAT DLC RATE WERE NOTIFIED FOR RESIDENTI AL AND INDUSTRIAL AREA OF LONI AREA. ( YKSUH {KS= ESSA FLFKR VKOLH;@VKS/KKSFXD DKYKSUH ES A HKWFE DH ORZEKU IZLRKFOR NJSA THESE RATES WERE NOT RELATED TO PASONDA WHERE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS EXISTING. IT IS, PERTINENT TO SUBMIT THAT REVENUE HAS FILED ANNEXURE F IN THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY REV ENUE. IN THE LETTER DATED 07.03.2014 SAHAYAK MAHA NIRISHAK NIBAN DHAN, GHAZIABAD HAS INFORMED THE A.O. THAT DLC RATE FOR L AND WITHIN MUNICIPAL LIMIT OF PASONDA G.T. ROAD IS RS. 500/- P ER SQ. YD. HE HAS ALSO INFORMED THAT SINCE THE DLC RATE OF 1981 A RE NOT AVAILABLE THE MARKET RATE FOR THE YEAR 1981 MAY BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF DLC RATE OF 1982 . ALONG WITH THE DLC RATE OF DIFFERENT AREAS HAS BEEN ATTACHED. ON PAGE 74 OF THE PAPER BO OK DLC RATE FOR PASONDA (BOTH SIDES OF G.T.ROAD) WITHIN MUNICIPAL A REA HAS BEEN NOTIFIED AS RS. 500/- PER SQ. YD. 6 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. (VI) THAT FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS, APPARENT THAT RECO MMENDATION OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.)-II, JAIPUR FOR REOPEN ING THE ASSESSMENT WERE BASED ON IRRELEVANT MATERIAL I.E. RATE LIST FOR LON I AREA. (VII) THAT ON THE BASIS OF REPORT OF ASSISTANT DIRECTOR O F INCOME-TAX (INV.)-II, JAIPUR, WHICH AS SUBMITTED ABOVE WAS BASED ON IRREL EVANT MATERIAL I.E. DLC RATES OF LONI AREA AND NOT DLC RATE OF PASONDA WITHIN MUNICIPAL AREA, REOPENED THE CASE. IN THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOP ENING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 148 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (PAGE 63 OF PAPER B OOK SUBMITTED BY APPLICANT-ASSESSEE) THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT BY REASON OF FAILURE ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR NOTI CE AFTER FOUR YEARS. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH ALLEGATION IN THE REASONS RECOR DED FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT THE PROCEEDING INITIATED AN D NOTICE ISSUED AFTER FOUR YEARS IS BARRED BY LIMITATION. (VIII) THAT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS THE APPLICANT-ASSESSEE ALSO OBTAINED THE DLC RATES FROM THE AUTHORITIES OF GAZIABAD AND SUBMITTE D THE SAME TO THE A.O. (PAGE 79 TO 84 OF PAPER BOOK). THE DLC RATES ARE TH E SAME AS HAS BEEN PROCURED BY A.O. AND SUBMITTED AS ANNEXURE F(PAGE N O. 70 TO 77 OF PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY REVENUE). (IX) THAT A.O FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT CONSIDERING THE D LC RATE OF LONI INDUSTRIAL AREA. 7 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 2. THAT AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER APPLICANT-ASSESSE E SUBMITTED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT, APPEALS 1, JAIPUR. CIT APPEALS 1, J AIPUR BY ORDER DATED 19.12.2014 ACCEPTED THE APPEAL. 3. THAT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT, APPEALS 1, JAIPUR DA TED 19.12.2014 REVENUE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HONBLE TRIBU NAL BY ORDER DATED 31.05.2016 ACCEPTED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. 4. THAT APPLICANT ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER DATED 31.05.2016. FACTS AND OBSERVATIONS IN ITATS ORDER FACTS ON RECORD. PARA 4.3 APPLICANT HAS IN PARA 4.3 SUBMITTED IN THE REASONS TO BELIEF RECORDED BY THE AO. HE HAS NEITHER ALLEGED NOR HAS MENTIONED IN THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A RETURN U/S 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 OR SECTION 148 OR TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL FACTS NECESSARY FOR MAKING FACTS NECESSARY FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF SUCH ALLEGATION, REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER FOUR YEARS IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IN SUPPORT HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENTS THE QUESTION REGARDING NON MENTIONING AND ITS AFFECT ON EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION OF AO HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED. 8 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. ... (PAGE 63 & 64 OF ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK) PARA 4.9 THE RETURN INCOME AND THE VALUATION REPORT CLEARLY SUGGEST THAT THE ADDRESS OF THE PROPERTY IS 194 GT ROAD, GHAZIABAD AND NOT VILLAGE PASONDA SITUATED AT NATIONAL HIGH WAY, G.T. ROAD SIDE. AS SUBMITTED ABOVE THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED RETURN ALONG WITH SALE DEED, VALUATION REPORT ETC. IN THE SALE DEED AT PAGE 13 & 14 (PAPER BOOK PAGE 27 & 28) FULL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY SOLD HAS BEEN GIVEN AS FACTORY SITUATED ON KHASRA NO. 1771 MEASURING TOTAL LAND ON ONE BIGA PUKHTA WHICH IS 3250 SQ. YDS AND A BUILDUP KHOTI ON THE SAID LAND & OLD STRUCTURE SITUATED AT KHASRA NO. 1771, MUNICIPAL NO. 194 OF VILLAGE PASONDA, PARGANA LONI, TEHSIL GHAZIABAD. NON CONSIDERATION OF THE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND THAT IT IS SITUATED IN VILLAGE PASONDA AND IN MUNICIPAL AREA HAS MATERIALLY AFFECTED THE CONSIDERATION OF THE CASE AND DECISION OF APPEAL. PARA 4.11 THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED NECESSARY FACTS FOR ASSESSMENT. APPLICANT ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ACCOMPANIED BY SALE DEED AND VALUATION REPORT IN WHICH DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY, SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AND VALUATION AS ON 1.4.1981 WAS DISCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS THUS SUBMITTED MATERIAL PARTICULARS. 9 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. PARA 4.11 PAGE 18 TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REOPENING PROCEEDINGS HAS CHANGED ITS STAND AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED THAT THE PROPERTY IS SITUATED AT VILLAGE PASONDA, G.T. ROAD, GHAZIABAD THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED CIRCLE RATE OF 500/- AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY. THE FACTS REMAINS THE SAME FROM THE TIME OF SALE AND SUBMISSION OF RETURNS. AS SUBMITTED ABOVE THE SALE DEED WHICH WAS PART OF RETURN CLEARLY STATED THAT PROPERTY IS SITUATED IN VILLAGE PASONDA. FROM THE STAGE OF RETURN AND DURING PROCEEDINGS THE STAND OF APPLICANT ASSESSEE REMAINED THE SAME. THE VALUER HAS APPLIED THE RATE OF 500/- WHICH WAS PREVALENT RATE FOR PASONDA MUNICIPAL AREA. LETTER DATED 07.03.2014 OF ASSTT. INSPECTOR GENERAL NIBANDHAN GHAZIABAD LETTER NO. 351/ACS/14 DATED 7.3.2014 (PAGE 70 TO 77 OF REVENUE PAPER BOOK) CLEARLY MENTIONED ON PAGE 75 THAT FOR PASONDA (G.T. ROAD BOTH SIDE) IN MUNICIPAL AREA THE DLC RATE IS RS. 500/- AND PAGE 70 HAS SPECIFIED THAT FOR THE YEAR 1981 THE SAME RATE IS THE BASIS. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY INCORRECT STATEMENT. THE LETTER HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DETERMINING RATE. THUS MATERIAL AND RELEVANT EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. 10 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. PARA 5.1. PAGE 19- TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT AS TO HOW THE SALE DEEDS ARE NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE LAND IN QUESTION. APPLICANT HAS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT THE SALE DEEDS ARE NOT COMPARABLE FIRSTLY BEFORE A.O. (PARA 5 PAGE 8 & 9 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER), BEFORE CIT APPEAL (PARA 10 PAGE 5 & 6 OF APPEAL ORDER) AND BEFORE TRIBUNAL AT PAGE 6 & 7). NON CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSIONS AND DISTINCTIVE FEATURES HAS MATERIALLY AFFECTED THE ORDER. CIT APPEAL GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS WHICH PROCEEDINGS FOR REASSESSMENT WERE INITIATED WERE MANIPULATED DOCUMENTS AND THUS PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ARE BAD IN LAW. THE QUESTION WHETHER RATE LIST AT PAGE 8 OF REVENUE PAPER BOOK WAS MANIPULATED AND WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED. HUMBLE APPLICANT PRAYS THAT ORDER MAY PLEASE BE REC TIFIED/RECALLED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MAY PLEASE BE REJECTED. 2.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D/R VEHEMENTLY OPPOSE D THE SUBMISSIONS AND SUBMITTED THAT BY WAY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION, T HE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING REVIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW AND EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO N RUNS INTO 10 PAGES WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ISSUES ARE DEBATABLE WHICH IS BEYOND THE S COPE OF SECTION 254 OF THE I.T. ACT. 11 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 2.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER THE ASSESSEE FIRST MISTAKE IS THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE RE-OPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS AFTER FOUR YEARS AND T HE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY REASONS FOR REOPENING THAT THERE WAS FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRUE AND CORRECT PARTICULARS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ANOTHER MISTAKE AS PER THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY. IT IS STATED THAT THE DESC RIPTION OF THE PROPERTY REMAINED THE SAME THROUGHOUT, THERE WAS NO CHANGE INTO THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT THE QUESTION WHETHER RATE LIST AT PAGE 8 OF REVENUES PAPER BOOK WAS MANIPULATED AND WHAT WAS THE EFFECT OF THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED. THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TWO FOLD FIRSTLY, THE QUESTION OF LEGALITY IN RESPECT OF RE- OPENING OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AFTER FOUR YEARS IS NOT CONSIDERED. SECONDLY, THE IMPACT OF FACTUAL ASPECT RELATED TO LOCATION AND VA LUE OF THE PROPERTY ARE NOT ADJUDICATED IN THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED. 2.3 WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN LAW THAT THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 254 OF THE ACT IS TO RECTIFY ANY ERROR OR MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE GERMANE OF DISPUTE IS WITH REGARD TO ADOPTION OF VALUE OF P ROPERTY IN QUESTION. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DIFFERS FROM ONE PLACE TO ANOTHER, SHIFT IN PLACE MATERIALLY AFFECT THE VALUATION. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE IS THAT IT HAD DULY FURNISHED THE MATERIAL PARTICULARS BY FILING SALE DEED WHERE THE PARTICULARS OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION ARE DESCRIBED. SO FAR THE OBJECTION OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT THE LEGALITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER FOUR YEARS IS CONCERN ED, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) 12 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR. HAD NOT DECIDED THIS ISSUE SPECIFICALLY BY HOLDING THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS ARE VITIATED ON ACCOUNT OF THE AO NOT RECORDING THE REASON WITH REGARD TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE TRUE AND CORRECT PARTIC ULARS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINS T THAT ORDER. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THIS ASPECT CANNOT BE LOOKED INTO IN THE APPE AL OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THIS CANNOT BE TREATED AS MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RECALL OUR ORDER IN RESPECT OF CONSIDERATION OF LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY AND VALUATION THEREOF. FOR THIS LIMITED PURPOSE, THE O RDER IS RECALLED AND THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL IN DUE COURSE. 3. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/07/2017. 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:- 26/07/2017. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL HUF, JAIP UR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD 3(2), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE ( M.A. 129/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 13 MA 129/JP/2016 PURSHOTTAM DAS AGARWAL, JAIPUR.