SHRI PARMANAND R. VERMA, JHUNJHUNU v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 658/JPR/2018 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 25-11-2019 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 65823114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN ABIPT0675P
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 658/JPR/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant SHRI PARMANAND R. VERMA, JHUNJHUNU
Respondent INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 25-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags ram niranjan
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 25-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 16-08-2018
First Hearing Date 16-08-2018
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 14-05-2018
Judgment Text
1 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; O A 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- @ ITA NO. 637/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08. SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA LAXMI TRADING CO. FUTLA BAZAR WARD NO. 21 MODI ROAD JHUNJHUNU. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 JHUNJHUNU. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ABIPT 0675 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 657/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08. SHRI OM PRAKASH MORWAL M/S. MORWAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY JHUNJHUNU. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 JHUNJHUNU. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AARPM 0675 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 658/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08. SHRI PARMANAND R. VERMA WARD NO. 21 NEAR SBI BANK STATION ROAD JHUNJHUNU. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 1 JHUNJHUNU. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAAPV 6355 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SIDDHARTH RANKA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) 2 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15.10.2019 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/11/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH : THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE THREE CONNECTED ASSESSE ES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (A)-1 JODHPUR DAT ED 21 ST MARCH 2018 22 ND MARCH 2018 AND 22 ND MARCH 2018 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08. SINCE COMMON GROUNDS AND ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE THREE APPEALS ARISING FROM THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND TRANSACTIONS THEREFORE FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE THREE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF HEARING AND DISPOSAL AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMPOSITE ORDER. FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE CORDING THE FACTS THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 657/JP/2018 IS TAKEN AS LEAD CASE WHEREIN T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE REASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 1.1. THAT THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN DELIBERATELY NOT PASSING A SPE AKING ORDER TO THE LEGAL OBJECTIONS RAISED BEFORE HIM PRIOR TO INITIAT ING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR EVEN PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF ASSESSMEN T ORDER THUS MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ILLEGAL AND VOID. 1.2. THAT THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED I N IGNORING THE FACTS THAT THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED WITHOUT PROPE R SANCTION WITHOUT ANY REASON TO BELIEVE WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF M IND AND THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS OF REASSESSMENT DESERVED TO HAVE BEEN Q UASHED. 1.3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 IF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT SATISFYING THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 1 48 149 & 151 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 3 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. 1.4. THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES CONJECTURES SUSPICIONS AND SUFFE R FROM VARIOUS INFIRMITIES AND MALADIES THE PROCEEDINGS ARE UNWAR RANTED ILLEGAL BAD IN LAW AGAINST THE PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE A GAINST THE SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPALS AND SOUND CONSCIOUS AND DESERVE TO BE QU ASHED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 41 50 348/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT . 2.1 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN ADOPTING THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPUGNED LAND PURCHASED AT RS. 12 451 045/- AS AGAI NST PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 40 000/- DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE APPELLANT AND OTHER JOINT PURCHASERS. 2.2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN COMPARING AVERAGE SELL ING PRICE WITH AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE- DELIBERATELY IGNORING MATERIAL FACT THAT ENTIRE LAND AREA PURCHASED IS NOT SALEABLE AND NEARLY 2/3 RD AREA ITSELF HAS TO BE LEFT FOR COMMON AMENITIES FACILITIES PARKS ROAD ETC. THAT WHILE WORKING OUT THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIE S DELIBERATELY CHOSE TO IGNORE THE COST INCURRED ON DEVELOPMENT AND ONLY RE FERRED TO THE PURCHASE PRICE. 2.3 THAT THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN DELIBERATELY IGNORING SEVERAL REASONABLE PLAUSIBLE OBJECTION WHICH HAD MATERIAL B EARING ON THE IMPUGNED CASE AND IGNORING THE SAME IS UNJUSTIFIED BAD IN LAW IS IN UTTER VIOLATION OF PRINCIPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. NO-CONSIDERATION IS UNJUSTIFIED BAD IN LAW AND ENTIRE APPROACH DESERVES TO BE DEPRECATED. THE LEARNED ASS ESSING OFFICER GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE APPELLAN T THE RIGHT TO CROSS- EXAMINATION FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. 2.4 THAT THE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES GROSSLY ERRED IN SOLELY AND BLINDLY RELYING UPON DUMB DOCUMENT AND UPON THE REPORT SENT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT WHICH IN ITSELF WAS IN CONCLUSIVE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED AND RELIED U PON ASPECTS WHICH DO NOT HAVE ANY CORRELATION WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE . 2.5 THAT THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED LOWER AUTHORITIES CONFIRMS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT THAT THE ENTIR E EXERCISE HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT AT SOMEONE'S ELSE'S BEHEST WITH VIEW TO HARASS THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT. 4 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) MALAFIDELY DID NOT EVEN BOTHER TO REFER TO THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE HIM AND AL SO GROSSLY ERRED IN IGNORING THE FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE ID. CIT(A) I N THE CASE OF THE SELLERS OF THE AFORE-SAID LAND. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD ALTER MODIFY OR AMEND ANY GROUND ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 1.4 ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF INIT IATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MORAL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE TRA NSACTIONS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH SHRI R AM NIRANJAN TIBRA AND SHRI PARMANAND R. VERMA (THE OTHER ASSESSEES) JOINTLY PU RCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 1.72 HECTARE BEARING KHASRA NO. 2479 AND KHASRA NO. 2489/4083 SITUATED AT INDALI ROAD JHUNJHUNU (RAJASTHAN) VIDE SALE DEED DATED 1 ST FEBRUARY 2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 40 000/-. THE LA ND WAS VALUED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AT RS. 8 70 000/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.03.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7 31 750/-. THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE IT ACT AT THE DECLARED INCOME. THERE WAS A TAX EVASION PETITION (TEP) RECEIVED BY THE OFFICE OF THE DDIT ( INVESTIGATION)-I JAIPUR REGARDING SUPPRESSION OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESS EE ALONG WITH TWO OTHER PURCHASERS IN RESPECT OF THE LAND PURCHASED VIDE SA LE DEED DATED 1 ST FEBRUARY 2007. AS PER THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE SAID COMPLA INT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID BY THE PURCHASERS WAS STATED TO BE RS. 1 32 01 045/- AS AG AINST THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 40 000/- SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. THE DDIT INVESTIGATION JAIPUR CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY AND EXAMINED ALL THE PURCHASERS INVOLVED IN THESE TRANSACTIONS BEING 5 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. SELLERS AS WELL AS PURCHASERS. THE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE IT ACT ON 17 TH FEBRUARY 2014 HOWEVER NEITHER THE SELLERS NOR T HE PURCHASERS HAVE ACCEPTED ANY AMOUNT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAIN T RECEIVED OR PAID IN RESPECT OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF THE A GRICULTURAL LAND. THE DDIT INVESTIGATION FORWARDED THE INFORMATION TO THE AO V IDE LETTER DATED 25 TH MARCH 2014 FOR TAKING ACTION UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. BA SED ON THE SAID INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DDIT THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSM ENT VIDE NOTICE DATED 29.03.2014 ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND FILED O BJECTION AGAINST THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OFF BY THE AO VIDE O RDER DATED 25.11.2014. SUBSEQUENTLY THE AO PASSED THE REASSESSMENT ORDER ON 30 TH MARCH 2015 WHEREBY THE ADDITION OF RS. 41 50 348/- BEING 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 1 24 51 045/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF EACH OF THE ASSESSEES UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND RAISED THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE VALIDI TY OF REOPENING BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MERE PE TITION WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING THE NAME OF THE COMPLAINANT WHO HAS MADE THE PETITI ON. THE DDIT INVESTIGATION HAS CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY ON THE SAID COMPLAINT BUT NO MATERIAL OR ANY FACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE PAID ANY EXTRA AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE S ALE DEED. THE DDIT INVESTIGATION HAS DULY EXAMINED THE SELLERS WHO HAV E SPECIFICALLY DENIED TO HAVE RECEIVED ANY SUCH EXTRA CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS TH E PURCHASERS BEING THE ASSESSEES. 6 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. THUS THE REPORT OF THE DDIT INVESTIGATION IS BASED ONLY ON SUSPICION AND DOUBT WITHOUT ANY DETECTION OF FACT ABOUT THE ALLEGED UNA CCOUNTED/UNEXPLAINED MONEY CHANGED HANDS. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS FURTHER CONTEND ED THAT EVEN THE APPROVAL FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND BU T MECHANICALLY. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE SANCTION GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT AND SUBMITTE D THAT THE LD. CIT HAS JUST SIGNED THE PROFORMA AGAINST THE TYPED WORD YES. THUS IT IS ONLY A MECHANICAL APPROVAL WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND WHEN THE WORD YES WAS PRE-TYPED BY THE AO AND IT WAS NOT EVEN WRITTEN BY THE LD. CIT. HE HAS FURTHE R CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS SPECIFICALLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OBJECTIO N AGAINST THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HOWEVER THE AO WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE OBJECTI ON VIDE COMMUNICATION DATED 25.11.2014 HAS NOT DEALT WITH THIS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED T HE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE WRIT PETITION HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE WOULD WITHDRAW THE SAID WRIT PETITION AS T HIS TRIBUNAL HAS HEARD THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE OBJECTION AGAINST THE REOPE NING OF THE ASSESSMENT. IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL AT BAR TH E BENCH HAS PROCEEDED WITH THE MATTER. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEME NTS RECORDED BY THE LD. DDIT INVESTIGATION UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE SELLERS OF T HE LAND AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE FOUR SELLERS IN THEIR STATEMENTS HAVE DENIED HAVING RECEIVED ANY EXTRA OR ALLEGED AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN TH E SALE DEED. THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO AND FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON THE BORROWED SATISF ACTION AND NOT AOS OWN OPINION AND DECISION. HE HAS THUS CONTENDED THAT T HE DDIT HAS SPECIFICALLY 7 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. MENTIONED THAT THERE IS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF R S. 1 24 51 045/- MADE BY THE PURCHASERS AND ALSO SUGGESTED THE REMEDIAL ACTION U NDER SECTION 148. THEREFORE THIS IS NOT THE AOS OWN INDEPENDENT DECISION BUT I T IS A BORROWED SATISFACTION. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FO LLOWING DECISIONS :- CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICAL LTD. 64 TAXMANN.COM 313 (SC) CIT VS. S. GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICAL LTD. 56 TAXMANN.COM 390 (MP) ITO VS. DIRECT SALES P. LTD. (ITA NO. 3545/DEL/2010) HIRACHAN KANUGA VS. DCIT 56 TAXMANN.COM 199 (MUM. TRIB) AMARLAL BAJAJ VS. ACIT 37 TAXMANN.COM 7 (MUM. TRIB) BANKE BIHARI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (ITA NO. 5128/DEL/2015) PRAKASH CHANDRA BOHRA VS. ITO (ITA NO. 553/JODH/2014) THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT (A) IN CASE OF SELLERS OF THE LAND AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) VIDE OR DER DATED 16.01.2017 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERSTAT EMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE DDIT INVESTIGATION AND T AX EVASION PETITION. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE APPROVAL WAS GRANTED AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WH ICH ARE ANNEXED TO THE PROPOSAL SENT BY THE AO AND THEREFORE ONLY AFTER SATISFACT ION OF THE REASONS RECORDED THE LD. CIT HAS GRANTED THE APPROVAL. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE DETAILS GIVEN IN THE 8 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. TAX EVASION PETITION ALONG WITH THE LOOSE PAPERS AR E FOUND TO BE CORRECT TO THE EXTENT OF PARTICULARS OF LAND PARTIES DATE OF TRA NSACTION AND CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED. THEREFORE WHEN THESE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE THEN THE OTHER FACTS GIVEN IN THE SAID TAX EVASION PETITION CANNOT BE RE JECTED. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THOSE LOOSE PAPERS WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE AO HAS CONDUCTED THE REQUISITE ENQUIRY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS GIVEN THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH HIS PARTNERS HAVE INDULGED IN P REPARING THEIR TRANSACTIONS IN SUCH LOOSE PAPERS WHICH ARE RELIABLE SOURCE IN CONN ECTION WITH THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN QUESTION WHEN PART DETAILS AND CONTENTS OF THE LOOSE PAPERS REGARDING THE DESCRIPTION OF PARTICULARS OF THE LAND PARTIES AND CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED ARE ADMITTED THAN THE OTHER CONTENTS CANNOT BE DENIED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THESE ASSESSEES H AVE JOINTLY PURCHASED THE LAND IN QUESTION VIDE SALE DEED DATED 1 ST FEBRUARY 2007 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8 40 000/-. HOWEVER THE LAND WAS VALUED FOR THE P URPOSE OF STAMP DUTY AT RS. 8 70 000/-. THE ASSESSEES ARE ENGAGED IN THE REAL E STATE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SHOWING THE TR ANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALES IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREFORE T HERE IS NO ALLEGATION BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE TRANSACTION IN QUESTION WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPL AINED THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS DULY SHOWN AS PART OF THE STOCK-IN-TRADE AND EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND IS ALSO RECORDED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT. THE SALE OF THE LAND AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT WORK AND CURVING OUT THE PLOTS IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE AS 9 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. THE AO HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE PLOTS OF LAND S OLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY THE AO BY RECORDING THE REASONS AT PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER :- VFHKYS[K IJ MIYC/K LWPUKVKSA DS VUQLKJ JH VKSE IZDK K EKSJOKY US VU; NKS O;FDR JH IJEKUAN EKSJOKY O JH JKEFUJATU VHCM+K DS L KFK LA;QDR FOSRKX.K JH ';KE YKY] JH LTTU YKY JH JKEKORKJ O JH LARKS'K DQEK J LHKH IQ=X.K JH EWYPUN EKSGYYK [KVHDKU OKMZ UA-10] >AQ>UQ LS FUEU F OOJ.K DS VUQLKJ HKWFE DK ; FD;K X;K FTLDH JFTLV DK;KZY; MI&IATH;D] >QA>UQ ESA FNUKAD 01-02-2007 DKS DJOKBZ XBZ RFKK SRK O FOSRK }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`'BKSA DS LAYXUDKS FTUESA FGLKC NTZ FKK DK HKH LR;KIU@IJH{K.K DJNKRK LS DJK;K X;KA BL LR;KIU DS NKSJKU DJNKRK US ;|FI ;G LOHDKJ UGHA F D;K FD LAYXUDKSA ESA GLRFYFI VFKOK FGLKC DJNKRK DK GS YSFDU DJNKRK US ;G LOHDKJ FD;K GS FD MDR HKWFE DJNKRK }KJK NKS VU; O;FDR;KSA DS LKFK FEY DJ [KJHNH XBZ FKH O MLIJ IYKWFVAX DJ CSPH XBZ FKH O FKDK;RDRKZ }KJK FN X IYKWVKSA DK FOOJ.K O SRK DK UKE OGH GS FTUDKS DJNKRK US CSPK FKKA LANHKZ IZ-LA -10 4- DJNKRK DS MDR DFKU IJ FOOKL DJRS GQ EKUUH; MIF UNSKD VK;DJ VUOS'K.K US VIUS I= LA[;K DDIT(INV.)-/JPR/2013-14/2006 DATED 24/15.03.2014 }KJK BL DK;KZY; DKS LWFPR FD;K FD DJ OAPUK ;KFPDK ESA FN;K X;K [KJHN O FCH DK FOOJ.K PWAFD LGH GS VR% DJ OAPUK ;KFPDK ESA FN;K X;K TEHU DH [KJHN DK FOOJ.K HKH TKSFD :I;S 1]32]91] 045@& CRK;K X;K GS HKH LGH GS RFKK SRK O FOSRK IKFVZ;K LGH RF;KSA DK NQI K JGH GSA 5- DJOAPUK ;KFPDK] MLDS LKFK LAYXU I=KSA MPPKF/KDKF J;KSA LS IZKIR FJIKSVZ O DJNKRK DS C;KU LS LI'V GKSRK GS FD DJNKRK US NKS VU ; O;FDR;KSA DS LKFK FEYDJ 1]32]91]045@& HKWFE DH [KJHN ESA FUOSK FD RFKK JF TLVH DH JKFK 840000@& DS VYKOK 'KS'K JKFK 1245104513291045&840000 BL V?KK SF'KR FUOSK ESA DJNKRK DK FGLLK 4150348 GKSRK GSA VR% BL EKEYS ESA DK;ZOKGH F D;S TKUS] GSRQ FOOKL DJUS DK MI;QDR DKJ.K VFHKYS[K IJ MIYC/K GS FD DJNKRK US VIUH DJ;KSX; VK; ESA :I;S 4150348@& 'KKFEY UGHA FD GS VKSJ ;G VK; FU/KK ZJ.K O'KZ 2007&08 DS FY FU/KKZJ.K GKSUS LS OAFPR JG X;H GSA 10 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. VR% VK;DJ VF/KFU;E DH /KKJK 147 DS VARXZR BL EKEYS ESA DK;ZOKGH FD;S TKUS] GSRQ FOOKL DJUS DK MI;QDR DKJ.K VFHKYS[K IJ MIYC/K GSA THE AO HAS RECORDED IN THE REASONS THE FACT REGARDI NG THE SALE DEED THE DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY PURCHASE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN TH E SALE DEED AND STAMP DUTY VALUATION. THESE FACTS ARE OTHERWISE NOT IN DISPUT E AS ALL ARE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED ITSELF. THE AO HAS THEN DISCUSSED THE TAX EVA SION PETITION RECEIVED BY THE DDIT INVESTIGATION AND THEREAFTER THE STATEMENTS OF THE SELLERS AS WELL AS THE PURCHASERS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE IT ACT . THESE FACTS WERE ALSO NOT IN CONTROVERSY AS IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SEC TION 131 BY THE DDIT INVESTIGATION NOTHING WAS DETECTED OR DISCOVERED TO REVEAL THAT ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OR SALE CONSIDERATION AS ALLEGED IN THE CO MPLAINT HAS EXCHANGED HANDS BY THE PURCHASERS AND SELLERS OF THE LAND IN QUESTION. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT THE STATEMENTS OF THESE PARTIES CANNOT BE BELIEVED OR T RUSTED AS IT WAS STATED BY THE DDIT IN THE LETTER DATED 25 TH MARCH 2014. THUS THE REASON RECORDED BY THE AO I S NOTHING BUT REPRODUCTION OF ALL THE COMMUNICATIONS MADE BY THE DDIT VIDE LETTER DATED 25 TH MARCH 2014. FOR SAKE OF READY REFERENCE AND COMPL ETENESS THE LETTER DATED 25 TH MARCH 2014 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- F.NO. DDIT(INV)-1/JPR/2013-14/2020 25.03.2014 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX OFFICER CIRCLE JHUNJHUN JHUNJHUNU. SUB- TEP IN THE CASE OF SHRI OM PRAKASH NORWAL JH UNJHUNU-REGARDING- 11 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. PLEASE REFER TO ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT. A TEP IN T HE CASE OF SHRI OM PRAKASH MORWAL SHRI PARMAN AND R. VERMA (MORWAL) A ND SHRI RAMNIRANJAN TIBRA JHUNJHUNU WAS RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE. AMONG OTHER ALLEGATIONS COMPLAINANT HAD ALLEGED TH AT A LAND AT INDALI ROAD JHUNJHUNU WAS PURCHASED BY ABOVE THREE PURCHASERS IN RS. 1 32 91 045/- AND ON THIS THEY HAVE COLONIZED MANY PLOTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS ALLEGATION COMPLAINANT FILED COPY OF REGISTERED SALE DEED AND SO HAND WRITTEN CA LCULATION ALONGWITH THE TEP. SUMMONS U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO ALL THREE PURCHASERS I.E. SHRI OM PRAKASH MORWAL SHRI PARMANAND R. VERMA (MORWAL) AND SHRI R AMNIRANJAN TIBRA' AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED OATH. DURING PROCEEDINGS SELLERS OF THE SAID LAND I.E. SHRI SHYAM LAL SHRI SAJJAN LAL SHRI RAMAV AND SHRI SA NTOSH KUMAR WERE ALSO SUMMONED U/S 131 AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE ALSO REC ORDED OATH. ON VERIFICATION OF HAND WRITTEN PAPERS FILED WITH THE TEP IT WAS OBSE RVED THAT INDALI PROJ LAND WAS PURCHASED IN RS. 1 32 91 045/- AND REGISTRY OF SAID LAND WAS DONE IN RS. 8 40 000/- . HOWEVER ALL THE SELLERS AND PURCHASERS STATED THAT THE SAID LAND TRANSACTION WAS MADE FOR 8 40 000/-. ALTHOUGH THE PURCHASERS I.E. SHRI OM PRAKASH MORWA L SHRI PARMANAND R. VERMA (MORWAL) AND SHRI RAMNIRANJAN TIBRA AND ALL THE FOU R SELLERS DENIED HAVING ANY CONNECTION WITH - PAPERS FILED WITH THE TEP IT IS CLEAR THAT DETAILS OF PURCHASERS OF THE PLOTS AS WELL AS AREA OF LAND PURCHASED BY THEM AS MENTIONED IN TEP ARE CORRECT. THEREFORE IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ALL THE PARTIES CONCE RNED (SELLERS AND PURCHASERS) ARE HIDING TRUE PARTICULARS OF THE LAND TRANSACTIONS UN -CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THIS LAND TRANSACTION WAS INDEED RS. 1 32 91 045/-. OWING TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT UNA CCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS.1 24 51 045(RS. 1 32 91 045 RS. 8 40 000) WAS MADE BY THE ABOVE THREE PURCHASERS WITH THEIR INDIVIDUAL INVESTMENT BEING RS. 41 50 348/-. SIMILARLY TOTAL SALES CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS O F EACH SELLER COMES TO RS. 33 22 761J- (AS NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY TH EM FOR THE AN. 2007-08 SHOWING THE RESULTANT CAPITAL GAINS). 12 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. THEREFORE THE CASE OF THE PURCHASER I.E. SHRI OM P RALCASH MORWAL (PAN- AARPM0675Q) IS BEING REFERRED TO YOU FOR TAKING APP ROPRIATE ACTION AS PER I.T.ACT 1961 FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 RELATED TO A.Y. 200 7-08. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT REMEDIAL ACTION U/S 148 FOR TH E A.Y. 2007-08 IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.03.2014. COPY OF SALE DEED AND HAND WRITTEN CALCULATION OF A BOVE SAID LAND ARE ENCLOSED ALONGWITH COPY OF STATEMENTS OF ALL THE AB OVE SELLERS AND PURCHASERS. SD/- (CHANCHAL MEENA) DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.)-1 ENCL AS ABOVE- COPY TO 1. THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.) JAIPUR FOR KIN D INFORMATION. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-III JAIPUR FOR KIND INFORMATION. 3. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR IF INCOME-TAX (INV.) JAIPUR F OR KIND INFORMATION 4. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RANGE- JH UNJHUN FOR KIND INFORMATION D Y. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.)-1 JAIPUR. THUS EXCEPT TRANSLATING ENGLISH VERSION INTO HINDI VERNACULAR BY THE AO THERE IS NOTHING IN THE REASONS RECORDED TO SUGGEST THAT THE AO HAS APPLIED HIS OWN MIND ON THE INFORMATION OR MATERIAL AS FORWARDED BY THE DDI T INVESTIGATION VIDE LETTER DATED 25 TH MARCH 2014. IT IS FURTHER PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SAID COMMUNICATION IS NOT FORWARDING THE FACTS OR INFORMATION TO THE AO BUT I T IS A SORT OF OPINION AND FINDING GIVEN BY THE DDIT INVESTIGATION. THE ENTIRE NARRAT ION OF THE SAID COMMUNICATION DATED 25.03.2014 IS A FINDING AND OPINION OF THE DD IT WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THOUGH PURCHASERS AS WELL AS THE SELLERS DENIED HAV ING ANY CONNECTION WITH THE PAPERS FILED WITH TAX EVASION PETITION (TEP) IT IS CLEAR THAT THE DETAILS OF THE 13 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. PURCHASERS OF THE PLOTS AS WELL AS AREAS OF THE LAN D PURCHASED BY THEM AS MENTIONED THE TEP ARE CORRECT. THE DDIT GOES FURTHER TO SAY THAT IT IS OBVIOUS THAT ALL THE PERSONS CONCERNED (SELLERS AND PURCHASERS) ARE HIDI NG TRUE PARTICULARS OF THE LAND TRANSACTION UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THE LAND TRANSACTION WAS INDEED RS. 1 32 91 045/- AS ALLEGED IN THE TEP. TH E DDIT HAS NOT STOPPED THERE BUT ALSO GIVEN HIS OPINION THAT IT IS UNACCOUNTED INVES TMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASERS AND UNDISCLOSED SALE CONSIDERATION IN TH E HANDS OF THE SELLERS. IT IS ALSO SPECIFIED THAT THE CASE OF PURCHASER SHRI OM PRAKAS H MORWAL IS BEING REFERRED FOR TAKING APPROPRIATE ACTION. THE DDIT INVESTIGATION H AS ALSO SUGGESTED THE REMEDIAL ACTION UNDER SECTION 148 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 07-08 IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION ON 31.03.2014. THUS THIS COMMUNICATION IS NOT FORWARDING THE INFORMATION AND FACT BUT IT IS A SORT OF DIRECTION WITH THE FIN DING AND OPINION ON THE ISSUE. THE DDIT AND THE AO HAVE GIVEN MUCH EMPHASIS ON THE DET AILS OF THE SUBSEQUENT SALE OF THE PLOTS BY THE ASSESSEES. HOWEVER THERE IS NO ALLEGATION THAT THOSE DETAILS ARE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE SAME WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME F ILED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ONCE THE SELLERS AS WELL AS THE PURCHASERS H AVE DENIED THE ALLEGATION OF ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE CONSIDERATION/SALE CONSIDERATI ON PAID OR RECEIVED IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT T HEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH FACT DETECTED DURING THE INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT BY THE DDIT THE OPINION FORMED BY THE DDIT AND CONSEQUENTLY BY THE AO IS MERELY BA SED ON THE ALLEGATION MADE IN THE COMPLAINT WHICH IS ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AS ADMIT TED AND STATED BY THE DDIT INVESTIGATION VIDE LETTER DATED 09/17.03.2015 AS UN DER :- 14 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. F.NO. DDIT(INV)-1/JPR/2014-15/880 DATE 09/17.03. 2015 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU. SUB- TEP IN THE CASE OF SH. RAMNIRANJAN TIBRA AND OTHERS-REG **************** ****** PLEASE REFER TO YOUR LETTER NO. 1721 DATED 02.03. 2015 2. THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE COMPLAINANT HAVE B EEN FORWARDED TO YOU EARLIER VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER NO. 2033 DAT ED 26.03.2014. HOWEVER THIS OFFICE IS NOT HAVING THE NAME AND ADD RESS OF THE COMPLAINANT AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE PROVI DED TO YOUR OFFICE. SD/- (CHANCHAL MEENA) DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.)-1 ENCL AS ABOVE- COPY TO 1. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR IF INCOME-TAX (INV.) JAIPUR F OR KIND INFORMATION 2. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX JHUNJHUN F OR KIND INFORMATION DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (INV.)-1 JAIPUR. THUS THE DDIT INVESTIGATION AS WELL AS THE AO PROCE EDED ON THE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AND FURTHER DURING THE INVESTIGATION THE ASSESSEES WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE DETAILS AS MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS AND IT WAS FOUND THAT NONE OF THE LOOSE PAPERS AS ANNEXED TO THE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT WERE E ITHER PREPARED BY THE 15 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. ASSESSEES OR PART OF THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE FACTUAL DETAILS WHICH ARE NOT IN DISPUTE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCRIMINATING MATER IAL TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS A EXTRA MONEY OVER AND ABOVE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DE ED IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT GIVING THE DETAILS AND ALLE GATION OF TAX EVASION MAY BE RELEVANT TO SUSPECT THE TRANSACTION AND TO CONDUCT THE FURTHER INVESTIGATION FOR ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT FACTS LEADING TO THE EVASI ON OF TAX IF ANY BUT THE ALLEGATION IN THE COMPLAINT ITSELF WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A TANG IBLE MATERIAL OR A BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THERE IS AN SUPPRESSION OF PURCHASE/SALE CONSI DERATION AND EVASION OF TAX. FURTHER THE CONTENTS OF THE COMPLAINT REMAINED UNS UBSTANTIATED IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATING EVIDENCE. EVEN THE COMPLAINT WAS NOT PROVED BY THE COMPLAINANT AS THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT HAVING THE NAME AND PARTICUL ARS OF THE COMPLAINANT. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ALLEGATIONS IN THE COMPLAINT WERE REQUIRED TO BE PROVED BY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THE DDIT INVES TIGATION THOUGH CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLERS AS WELL AS THE PURCHASER ( ASSESSEE) BUT NOTHING HAS COME OUT IN THE SAID ENQUIRY TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ALLEGAT IONS MADE IN THE COMPLAINT. THE SELLERS AS WELL AS THE PURCHASERS HAVE CATEGORICALL Y DENIED IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT OF HAVING ANY PAYMENT OR RECEIPT OF ANY MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION STATED IN TH E SALE DEED. THE SALE DEED AND TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE LAND IN QUE STION WAS IN PUBLIC DOMAIN AS IT WAS A REGISTERED DEED AVAILABLE WITH THE SUB REGIST RAR THEREFORE GIVING THE PARTICULARS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE LAND AS WELL AS OF THE PARTIES IS NOT DISCLOSING ANY NEW FACTS WHICH WERE NOT EITHER DISC LOSED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT AVAILABLE IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN. FURTHER THE ASSESS EE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE SAID TRA NSACTION OF PURCHASE IS NOT 16 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY ALLEGATION I S THAT THE CORRECT OR ACTUAL CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEES WAS NOT DISCLOS ED. THE DDIT INVESTIGATION HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THAT DURING THE ENQUI RY AND INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT THE SELLERS AS WELL AS THE PURCHASERS HAVE DENIED H AVING ANY SUCH PAYMENT OR RECEIPT AS ALLEGED IN THE COMPLAINT AND THEREFORE IT WAS ONLY AN EXPRESSION OF OPINION OF THE DDIT THAT THERE WAS AN UNACCOUNTED I NVESTMENT BY THE PURCHASERS WITHOUT ANY SUCH FACT OR ANY MATERIAL REVEALING SUC H FACT DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SUCH INVESTIGATION. THEREFORE THE REOPENING IS MERELY BASED ON SUSPICION AND WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WHICH COULD BE REGARD ED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL REVEALING THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HENCE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO DO NOT LEAD TO THE FORMATION OF OPINION THAT THERE WAS AN UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN CASE OF THE SELLERS THE AO HAS MADE THE CORRESPONDING ADDITIONS BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE DDIT AND THE L D. CIT (A) VIDE A COMPOSITE ORDER DATED 16.01.2017 IN CASE OF THE FOUR SELLERS HAS DE LETED THE SAID ADDITION. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS IN PARA 5.4 AS UNDER :- 5.4 HAVING CONSIDERED ALL FACTS IT IS OBSERVED T HAT STATEMENTS OF ALL BUYERS AND SELLERS WERE RECORDED BY THE DDIT(INV.) AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ANONYMOUS TEP. IN THEIR STATEMENTS ALL THESE PE RSONS HAVE STATED THAT THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION OF THE LAND SITU ATED AT INDALI ROAD WAS AT RS. 840000/-. THE LOOSE PAPERS RECEIVED ALON GWITH THE COMPLAINT HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE BUYERS. ALL T HE BUYERS IN THEIR STATEMENT GIVEN BEFORE THE DDIT(INV.) HAVE CA TEGORICALLY DENIED THEIR CONNECTION WITH THE LOOSE PAPERS AND S TATED THAT THEY DID NOT KNOW THE PERSON WHO HAD AUTHORED THE LOOSE PAPERS. 17 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. HOWEVER THEY ADMITTED THAT THE SAID LAND WAS PURCH ASED BY THEM ON THE DATE GIVEN ON REGISTRY I.E. 01.02.2007 AND T HEY ALSO ADMITTED THAT AFTER MAKING PURCHASE THEY STARTED SELLING OF THE LAND IN SUCCEEDING YEARS AFTER DIVIDING THEM INTO PLOTS. FU RTHER IN THEIR STATEMENT WHEN THEY WERE CONFRONTED WITH THE PAPERS THE BUYERS HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE DETAILS APPEARING IN THESE L OOSE PAPERS RESEMBLES ONLY UPTO THE EXTENT OF NAME OF PARTY TH E DATES OF SALE AND THE AREA OF LAND SOLD WHEREAS THE OTHER D ETAILS MENTIONED IN THE SAME PAPERS IN RESPECT OF CHARGING OF HIGHER RATE OF LAND SOLD TOTAL AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS ETC.WER E DENIED BY THEM. THE TEP AND THE DOCUMENTS THEREIN CANNOT BE S AID TO CONSTITUTE ANY EVIDENCE OF SUPPRESSION OF SALE VALU E OF THE LAND BY THE APPELLANTS ON SEVERAL COUNTS. MOST IMPORTAN TLY THE AUTHOR THEREOF IS NOT KNOWN AND ALSO NOT EXAMINED O R CROSS- EXAMINED. SECONDLY THE SALE CONSIDERATION AND COST OF PLOT AS MENTIONED IN THE TEP IS NOT ESTABLISHED BY ANY CORR OBORATING EVIDENCE AND IS FLATLY DENIED BY THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION IN THEIR STATEMENTS. THUS THE ADOPTION OF SALE PRICE AT RS. 33 23 761 IN THE HANDS OF EACH APPELLANT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER EVIDENCE. EVEN THE FACTS THAT SUBSEQUENT SALE OF PLOTS IN THE SAME LAN D TOOK PLACE AT MUCH HIGHER RATES IS OF NO HELP TO THE AO AS IT IS SEEN THAT SUCH SUBSEQUENT SALES ARE OF 'RESIDENTIAL PLOTS' VIS-A-V IS SALE OF 'LAND' BY THE APPELLANTS. THE EVALUATED VALUE OF SUCH 'RESIDE NTIAL PLOTS' AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY ITSELF RANGES FROM RS. 40 0 TO RS. 825 SQ. YARD AS PER THE CHART AT PAGE 13 OF ASSESSMENT ORDE RS WHEREAS THE EVALUATED RATE OF LAND SOLD BY APPELLANTS IS APPROX . RS. 42 PER SQ. YARD WHICH SHOWS THAT CLEARLY SOME DEVELOPMENT OF LAND AND PLOTTING HAS BEEN DONE BY THE BUYERS BEFORE SUBSEQU ENT SALE OF LAND BY THEM EVEN THOUGH SUCH DEVELOPMENT MIGHT NOT BE LEGAL CONSIDERING THAT NO PERMISSION FOR CONVERSION THER EOF WAS TAKEN FROM THE CONCERNED AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE SUBSEQU ENT INCREASE IN 18 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. VALUE OF LAND DOES NOT IMPLY A HIGHER SALE CONSIDER ATION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANTS. FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT THE ADOPTION OF HIGHER SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 33 22 761 IS BASELESS AND CONSEQUENT COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS IS INCO RRECT. THEREFORE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE REOPE NING IS BASED ON A BORROWED SATISFACTION WHICH IS ALSO NOT BASED ON ANY TANGIBL E MATERIAL BUT MERELY ON SUSPICION AND ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT. T HE DDIT INVESTIGATION HAS STATED THIS FACT THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS ANNEXED TO T HE COMPLAINT WERE NEITHER PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR BELONGING TO THE ASSES SEE. THEREFORE SUCH LOOSE PAPERS PREPARED BY SOME ANONYMOUS PERSON WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A TANGIBLE MATERIAL OR INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO FORM THE BELI EF THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 5.1. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED THE OBJECTION AGA INST THE MECHANICAL APPROVAL BY THE LD. CIT. THERE IS NO QUARREL THAT THERE ARE BINDING PRECEDENTS ON THIS POINT THAT THE APPROVAL MUST BE GRANTED AFTER CONSIDERING THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE LD. CIT HAS GRANTED APPROV AL BY PUTTING HIS SIGNATURE AGAINST THE PARTICULAR COLUMN WHERE EVEN THE WORD YES WAS PRE-TYPED BY THE AO WHILE PUTTING THE PROPOSAL OF REOPENING. THE SAID APPROVAL GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 19 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. THUS IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD. CIT HAS JUST SIGNE D IN THE PRESCRIBED COLUMN WHICH DOES NOT EXHIBIT ANY THOUGHT PROCESS ON THE PART OF THE COMMISSIONER ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO PRIOR TO PUTTING HIS SIG NATURE. THE HONBLE MADHYA 20 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. PRADESH HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICAL LTD (SUPRA) WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF RECORDING THE SATISFACTION IN MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND FOR ACCORDING SANCTION FOR ISSU ING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAS HELD IN PARA 7 TO 9 AS UNDER :- 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND WE FI ND THAT WHILE ACCORDING SANCTION THE JOINT COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX HAS ON LY RECORDED SO 'YES I AM SATISFIED'. IN THE CASE OF ARJUN SINGH ( SUPRA ) THE SAME QUESTION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS COURT AND THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES ARE LAID DOWN: 'THE COMMISSIONER ACTED OF COURSE MECHANICALLY IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION PROPERLY IN THE MATTER OF RECORDING SANCTION AS HE MERELY WROTE ON THE FORMAT 'YES I A M SATISFIED' WHICH INDICATES AS IF HE WAS TO SIGN ONLY ON THE DOTTED L INE. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO THE EXERCISE IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN PERFORMED IN LESS THAN 24 HOURS OF TIME WHICH ALSO GOES TO INDICATE THAT THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT APPLY HIS MIND AT ALL WHILE GRANTING SANCTION. THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE WITH OBJECTIVITY ON OBJECTIVE MATERIAL.' 8. IF THE CASE IN HAND IS ANALYSED ON THE BASIS OF TH E AFORESAID PRINCIPLE THE MECHANICAL WAY OF RECORDING SATISFACTION BY THE JOI NT COMMISSIONER WHICH ACCORDS SANCTION FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 IS CLEARLY UNSUSTAINABLE AND WE FIND THAT ON SUCH CONSIDERATION BOTH THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITIES HAVE INTERFERED INTO THE MATTER. IN DOING SO NO ERROR H AS BEEN COMMITTED WARRANTING RECONSIDERATION. 9. AS FAR AS EXPLANATION TO SECTION 151 BROUGHT INTO FORCE BY FINANCE ACT 2008 IS CONCERNED THE SAME ONLY PERTAINS TO ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER OF RECORDING SATISFACTION. THA T BEING SO THE SAID AMENDED PROVISION DOES NOT HELP THE REVENUE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CI T ACTED MECHANICALLY IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION WHEN HE MERELY W ROTE ON THE FORMAT YES I AM SATISFIED. IN THE CASE IN HAND THE LD. CIT HAS EVEN NOT WRITTEN ANY AFFIRMATIVE SENTENCE OR WORD BUT HAS JUST SIGNED AGAINST THE CO LUMN WHICH WAS PRE-TYPED YES. THEREFORE APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE AS LAID DOWN BY T HE HONBLE HIGH COURT THE SANCTION ACCORDED BY THE LD. CIT FOR ISSUING THE NO TICE UNDER SECTION 148 IN THE CASE 21 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. OF THE ASSESSEE IS HYPER MECHANICAL. THE SAID DECI SION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT WAS CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BE FORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BUT THE SLP WAS DISMISSED REPORTED IN 237 TAX MAN 378 (SC). IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE TAKEN A CONSISTENT VIEW THAT M ERE SIGNING AGAINST A PARTICULAR COLUMN OF THE FORMAT IS NOTHING BUT A MECHANICAL AP PROVAL WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE WE HOLD THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT VALID AND TH E SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. SINCE WE HAVE QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT AS INVALI D THEREFORE WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INTO THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED ON THE M ERITS OF THE ADDITION. 7. IN THE OTHER TWO APPEALS THE ISSUE AND FACTS AR E IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF SHRI OM PRAKASH MORWAL THEREFORE OUR FINDING ON T HIS ISSUE OF REOPENING IS MUTATIS MUTANDIS IS APPLICABLE ON THE SAID ISSUE IN OTHER C ONNECTED APPEALS. CONSEQUENTLY THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS IN RESPECT OF TH E OTHER TWO ASSESSEES WHO ARE JOINT PURCHASERS OF THE LAND ARE ALSO QUASHED AS IN VALID. THE ISSUES RAISED ON MERITS ARE NOT TAKEN UP FOR ADJUDICATION BEING INFRUCTUOUS . 8. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 NOV. 201 9. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25/11/2019. DAS/ 22 ITA NOS. 637 657 658/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA & OTHERS JHUNJHUNU. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-SHRI RAM NIRANJAN TIBRA JHUNJHUNU S HRI OM PRAKASH MORWAL JHUNJHUNU AND SHRI PARMANAND R. VER MA JHUNJHUNU. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD-1 JHUNJHUNU. 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 {ITA NO. 637 657 & 658/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR