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. 167/JP/2016 ARISING OUT IF ITA NO. 59/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI LAL SINGH NADERIA, 770, BARKAT NAGAR, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AGMPN 6218 K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MUKESH AGARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 12.05.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/06/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION BY THE REVENUE ARISE OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 59/JP/2013 SEEKING RECALLING OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 30.01.2014. ON THE GROUND THAT JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE PUNJAB AND HARIYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RAJA MALWINDER SINGH, 334 ITR 48: (2011) 56 DTR 366 HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE OF VALUATION OF COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY WHERE THE VALUE IS CLAIM TO BE NIL. 2. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 59/JP/2013 HAD APPLIED JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.C. SRIINIVASA SETTY (1981) 21CTR (SC)138: (19 81) 128 ITR 294 (SC) . HE CONTENDED THAT THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS NOW DECIDED THE ISSUE WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.C. SRIINIVASA SETTY (SUPRA). IT IS SUBMI TTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE 2 MA NO. 167/JP/2016. SHRI LAL SINGH NADERIA, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COU RT THE ORDER DATED 31/1/2014 MAY BE RECALLED. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE OP POSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. D/R AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN T HE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJA MALWINDER SINGH HAS HELD THAT EVEN WHERE COST ACQUISITION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET CANNOT BE ASCERTAINED BUT THE ASSET HAS A MARKET VA LUE, CAPITAL GAIN WILL BE ATTRACTED BY TAKING THE COST OF ACQUISITION TO BE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1/1/1954, OR ON DATE OF STATUTORILY SPECIFIED OR AT THE OPTION BY THE AS SESSEE, THE MARKET VALUE ON THE DATE OF ACQUISITION. 4.1 THIS DECISION WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE PUNJA B AND HARYANA HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF THAKUR DWARA SHRI KRISHANJI MAHARAJ HANDIYAYA VS. C IT IN ITA NO. 3 OF 2014 DATED 18/03/2014. 4.2 IN THE LIGHT OF THESE JUDGMENTS, WE HEREBY RECA LL THE ORDER DATED 30/01/2014 AND THE CORRIGENDUM ORDER PASSED ON 31/1/2014. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEAL OF HEARING AFRESH IN THE DUE COURSE. APPLIC ATION OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 5. IN THE RESULT, MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, T HE 29 TH DAY OF JUNE 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:- 29 /06/2017. POOJA/ 3 MA NO. 167/JP/2016. SHRI LAL SINGH NADERIA, JAIPUR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(3 ), JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT- SHRI LAL SINGH NADERIA, 770, BA RKAT NAGAR, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE ( M.A. NO. 167/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR