ARUN KUMAR RANKA, Jaipur v. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 799/JPR/2014 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 79923114 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AALPR1472J
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 799/JPR/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant ARUN KUMAR RANKA, Jaipur
Respondent ACIT, Jaipur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 07-10-2016
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 26-11-2014
Judgment 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 HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA 25 939-940 SBBJ STREET CHOURA RASTA JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AALPR 1472 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL (C.A) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14.09.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/10/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT JM. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) CENTRAL JAIPUR DATED 07.10.2014 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 45 83 7 00/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND IN VILLAGE SHIVDASPURA IN F.Y. 2 009-10 FROM SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO OF ASS ESSING THE PROFIT FROM SALE OF LAND AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 3 12 14 434/- AS AGAINST THE DECLARED AND CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 3 07 31 705/-. 2 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMING THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO IS ARBITRARY WHIMSICAL CAPRICIOUS PERVERSE AND A GAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IN THIS REGAR D DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO DESERVES TO BE DELE TED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2013. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO C OMPUTED THE INCOME AT RS. 3 52 12 980/- AGAINST THE INCOME DECLARED AT RS. 2 95 18 020/-. THE AO COMPUTED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 3 12 14 434/- AGAINS T THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DECLARED AT RS. 3 07 31 705/-. WHILE ADOPTING THE INDEX COST AT RS. 51 83 576/- IN WHICH COST OF LAND WAS SHOWN AT RS. 28 90 183/- PUR CHASED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 45 83 7 00/- AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS FURTHER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 45 83 700/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND. 4.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS AS MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE FARMERS HAVE SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND TO SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA IN FY 1999-2000. SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA IS NAME LENDER OF THE ASSESSEE T HEREFORE THE LAND SHOULD BE HELD AS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FY 1999-2000. IN THE EVENT SHRI BHANWAR LAL 3 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. MEENA IS NOT HELD AS NAME LENDER OF THE ASSESSEE T HEN THE CAPITGAL GAIN CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE REGISTER ED SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED BY SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA IN FAVOUR OF M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOCIETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOR RS. 3 59 15 281/-. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT REQUISITE SALE DEED DATED 24.09.2009 BETWEEN SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA AND SHRI ARUNB KUMAR RANKA IS REL IABLE EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THAT THIS LAND WAS TRANSFERRED BY SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA TO THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2010-11. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SAID SALE DEE D THE ASSESSEE IS NOT THE BUYER BUT SELLER OF THE LAND AND SHRI BHANWARL LAL MEENA IS T HE BUYER. THEREFORE THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS NOT TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE BY SHR I BHANWAR LAL MEENA. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ACTING UNDER THE POW ER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY THE FARMERS TRANSFERRED THE LEGAL TITLES OF THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA ON BEHALF OF THE FARMERS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FA CTUAL POSITION IS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL ON 02.02.2010 THE ASSESSEE SOLD P ART OF HIS LAND SITUATED AT SHIVDASPURA WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SHR I BHANWAR LAL MEENA. THE LAND WAS SOLD TO M/S. MAHATMA GANDHI CHARITABLE SOC IETY FOR EDUCATION AND RESEARCH FOR RS. 3 59 15 281/-. IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT THE LAND TOTALING TO 7.73 HECTARE WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FY 1999-20 00 IN THE NAME OF SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA FOR RS. 45 83 700/-. HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RECEIPTS OBTAINED FROM THE FARMERS WHICH ARE ENCLOSED AT PAP ER BOOK PAGES 62-103. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN LAND WAS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE BUT THE DOCUMENTS WERE PREPARED IN THE NAME OF SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA WHO WAS A TRUSTED MAN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LAND WAS PURCHASED THROUGH UNREG ISTERED AGREEMENT TO SALE. 4 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. AFTER REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED IN FAVOUR OF SHRI B HANWAR LAL MEENA THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OF SALE EXECUTED IN FY 1999-2000 WAS NOT RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS REGISTERED SALE DEED THE MOD E AND DATE OF PAYMENT IS DULY MENTIONED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AN ORAL AGREEMENT TO SALE IS A VALID AGREEMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE AD DITION ON WHIMS AND FANCIES WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. 4.2. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. D/R OPPOSED THE SUBMI SSIONS AND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD. D/R SUBMI TTED THAT ADMITTEDLY THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. D/R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE TRANSFER O F LAND IN QUESTION WAS FOUND OR DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE FACTS THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS JUSTIFIED. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT EMERGE FROM THE RECO RDS ARE THAT A SALE DEED DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009 WAS EXECUTED BY THE ORIGINAL OWNERS OF THE LAND IN FAVOUR OF SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA THROUGH THE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THIS SALE DEED THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS HAVE STATED THAT A SUM OF RS. 45 83 700/- WAS PAID TO TH EM ON 18.12.1999 BY SHRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD RECEIPTS GIVEN BY THE LAND OWNERS ACKNOWLEDGING RECEIPT OF MONEY IN THE Y EAR 1999. THE RECEIPTS ARE DULY NOTARIZED AND PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD A 5 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. REGISTERED POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE NARRATING THEREIN THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE LAND OWNERS IN THE YEAR 1999. THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 45 83 700/- AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND DURING THE FY 2009-10 RELEVANT T O ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- THUS NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND OF TRANSFER OF THIS L AND BY THE AGRICULTURISTS TO THE APPELLANT IN AY 2000-01 EITH ER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN 2006 OR DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 29.9.2010. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NEVER PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT BEF ORE THE DEPARTMENT EVEN THROUGH THIS IS THE ONLY RELIABLE E VIDENCE REQUIRED IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS. (VI) AS FOR THE STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT HIS BR OTHER AND SH. BHANWAR LAL MEENA IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS INHERENT INCONSISTE NCY IN THEM. SH. BHANWAR LAL MEENA WAS NOT SURE WHICH LAND WAS BEING REFERRED TO. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 5 HE HAS STATED THAT LAND WAS PURCHASED INJAGATPURA. HE REITERATED THE INFORMATION IN RESPO NSE TO QUESTION NO. 6. SUBSEQUENTLY HE STATES THAT THIS LAND IS IN SH IVDASPURA CLEARLY HIS STATEMENT IS NOT RELIABLE EVIDENCE BECAUSE HE HAS N OT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC INFORMATION SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. SIMILARLY THE STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS BROTHER ARE HELD TO BE UNRELIABLE EVIDENCE. SINCE NO SURRENDER WAS MADE AS PER ADMISSION IN THESE STATEMENTS WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCO ME. THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS DATED 9.9.2014 THAT ORAL STATEMENT CANNOT SUPERSEDE THE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE FINDING O F THE HON. APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA (1973) 19 ITR 18 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ADMISSION THOUGH AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CONCLUSIVE. I AGREE WITH THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. THE HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ASHOK KU MAR SONI 291 ITR 172 THAT ADMISSION MADE IN THE STATEMENT IS NOT CON CLUSIVE PROOF AND CAN ALWAYS BE REBUTTED AND EXPLAINED. AS PER THE DE TAILED DISCUSSION ABOVE IT IS SEEN THAT AT NO STAGE HAS THE APPELLANT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LAND IN SHIVDASPURA W AS TRANSFERRED BY THE AGRICULTURISTS TO THE APPELLANT IN 1999-2000 FY . 6 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. (VI) FURTHERMORE IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT SHOWN THE DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND IN A.Y. 2000-10 NO R HAS THIS LAND BEEN SHOWN AS PART OF HIS STOCK IN A.Y. 2000-01. TH US IN ABSENCE OF ANY DIRECT EVIDENCE BY WAY OF IT RETURNS OF THE COM PANY OR THE INDIVIDUALS OF THIS GROUP OR THE REVENUE RECORDS O F THE STATE GOVT. OR THE REVENUE RECORDS OF THE PATWARI TO SHOW THAT TH IS LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN A.Y. 2000-01 HIS SUBM ISSION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT IS A SETTLED JUDICIAL PRINCIPLE THAT A DDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE ON CONJECTURES OR SURMISES. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAM E PRINCIPLE IT IS HELD THAT RELIEF CANNOT BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE ON CO NJECTURES AND SURMISES IN ABSENCE OF DIRECT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCE . THEREFORE IT IS HELD THAT THIS LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN A.Y. 2010-11 FROM SH. BHANWAR LAL MEENA FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 45 83 700/-. NO EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW THE SO URCE OF PAYMENT FOR THIS LAND FROM THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE APPELLANT THEREFORE THE INVESTMENT IN THIS LAND BY THE APPELL ANT OF RS. 45 83 700/- IS TO BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME U/S 69. THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ASCERTAINED BY THE AO A T RS. 3 12 14 434/- IS CONFIRMED. NOW THE ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE INVESTME NT RELATES TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL OR DURING THE FY 1999-2000. THERE IS NO DIS PUTE WITH REGARD TO THE SALE DEED DATED 24 TH SEPTEMBER 2009. AS PER THIS SALE DEED THE OWNER S OF THE LAND HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED THE MONEY DURIN G THE F.Y. 1999-2000. THE AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS IN RESPEC T OF THE RECEIPTS GIVEN BY THEM. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT THE DOCUMENT I S TO BE READ AS A WHOLE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND FOR TRANSFER OF THIS LAND BY THE LAND OWNERS TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2000-01. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NEVER PRESENTED BY THE APPELLANT BEF ORE THE DEPARTMENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW NON DISCLOSURE OF THE INVESTMENT B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO MAKE THE INVEST MENT AS THE UNEXPLAINED 7 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR WHEN THE SALE DEED WAS EXECU TED. THE ISSUE IS WHAT SHOULD BE THE YEAR OF INVESTMENT - THE YEAR WHEN THE SALE DEED IS EXECUTED OR THE YEAR WHEN THE ACTUAL MONEY WAS PAID. THE ASSESSEE IN SU PPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE YEAR 1999-2000 THROUGH S HRI BHANWAR LAL MEENA AND OWNED THESE INVESTMENTS AS UNDISCLOSED BENAMI TRANS ACTION SUBMITTED THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY ORIGINAL LAND OWNERS. IT IS TRUE THAT ON US IS ON THE CLAIMANT TO PROVE THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING A PARTICULAR YEAR. TO D ISCHARGE THAT ONUS ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD REGISTERED SALE DEED WHICH NAR RATES THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT AND ALSO THE RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE LAND OWNERS. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED BY THE LAND OWNERS THROUGH THE ASSESSEE AS A POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. THE ASSESSEE HAS OWNED THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE R ECORDED BUYER OF THE LAND NAMELY SHRI B.L. MEENA. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THIS EXTENT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL EITHER IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OF THE LAND OWNERS OR IN THE FORM OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELATED TO THE LAN D IN QUESTION DEMONSTRATING THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS WRONG. IN THE ABS ENCE OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE REBUTTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE DURING THE FY 1999- 2000 CANNOT BE REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPIC ION. UNDER THESE FACTS IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE INVESTMENT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS BASIS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. 5. APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING TH E ACQUISITION OF LAND IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE SALE DEED WAS 8 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. EXECUTED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL WOULD NOT MAK E THE YEAR OF TRANSFER THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO TO TREAT THE SURPLUS ARISING OUT O F THE TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 5.1. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5.2. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AO IN PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE LAND WAS PURCHASED IN THE FY 1999-2000 AND THE EXERCISE OF D OCUMENTATION HAS BEEN DONE TO AVOID HIGHER INCIDENCE OF TAX IN THE FORM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND TO SHOW THAT THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT WAS MADE BEYOND A PERIOD FOR WHICH NO ACTION IS POSSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT. THE LD. C IT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS FINDING OF THE AO AND COMPUTED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 3 12 14 434/-. THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT IN RESPECT TO BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS I.E. SALE AND PURCHASE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. HOWEVER THE AO WHILE COMPUTING THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION OF LAND HAS TAKEN THE COST OF THE ACQUISITION MONEY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FY 1999- 2000. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING A QUERY WAS RAIS ED TO LD. D/R HOW THERE WOULD BE SUCH A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF ACQUISITI ON AND SALE CONSIDERATION WHEN BOTH TRANSACTIONS ARE TREATED TO BE EXECUTED IN THE SAME YEAR. LD. D/R COULD NOT GIVE SATISFACTORY REPLY. WHEN THE AO PROCEEDED TO C OMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN ON THE BASIS OF THE STAMP VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP V ALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN T HE AO OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN THE MARKET VALUE FOR COST OF ACQUISITION AS WELL. AT N O STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THERE CAN 9 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. BE SO MUCH INCREASE IN THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WI THIN ONE YEAR. HAD THE AO ADOPTED THE COST OF THE PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF TH E PREVAILING RATE IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IN THAT EVENT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN A S COMPUTED BY THE AO WOULD HAVE BECOME NIL. THE AO HAS NOT TREATED THE NOTIONAL CO ST AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IT CAN BE INFERRED THAT T HE AO WAS NOT SURE WITH THE FACT THAT THE TRANSFER ACTUALLY TOOK PLACE IN THE YEAR U NDER APPEAL. UNDER THESE FACTS WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE FINDING OF BOTH LD. CIT ( A) AND AO. WHEN THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE DURING TH E YEAR UNDER APPEAL THEN WHAT SHOULD BE THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF SUCH LAND DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THIS ASPECT IS NOT EVEN EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT (A). AD MITTEDLY THE REVENUE HAS NOT COME IN APPEAL. THEREFORE AFTER CONSIDERING THE FA CTS OF THE CASE WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS COMPUTED BY THE AO AT RS. 3 12 14 434/-. 5.3. SO FAR CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ACT UAL TRANSFER TOOK PLACE DURING THE FY 1999-2000 AS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN MONEY TO THE CONCERNED LAND OWNERS DURING THE FY 1999-2000 IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE LAND OWNERS DURING THE FY 1 999-2000 BY PLACING RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE LAND OWNERS. NEITHER THE AO NOR THE L D. CIT (A) HAS REBUTTED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BY EXAMINING THE CONCERNED EX ECUTORS AND IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT SOME OF THE RECEIPTS ARE DULY NOTARIZ ED BY THE NOTARY. THE AO DID NOT EXAMINE THE NOTARY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH. AS PER S ECTION 2(47) IF THE TRANSFER TAKES PLACE IN THE MANNER AS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 53A OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT IN THAT EVENT THE TRANSFER WOULD RELATE TO THE YEAR WHEN THE PART PERFORMANCE IS MADE BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSEE BUT NOT IN THE YEAR WHEN THE SALE DEED IS 10 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. EXECUTED BY THE TRANSFEROR. AS PER THE ASSESSEE T HE POSSESSION WAS ACTUALLY TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LAND OWNERS. HOWEVER THE LAND CONTINUED TO REMAIN IN THE NAME OF THE LAND OWNERS IN THE REVENUE RECORD. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT VERIFIED THIS FACT. THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE CLAIM AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DULY NARRAT ED IN THE SALE DEED ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE TRANSACTION IS SUBJECTED TO COMPUTATIO N OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAI NED. THE AO HAS IN A MECHANICAL MANNER PROCEEDED AS IF THE FACTS NARRATE D IN THE SALE DEED WERE NOT CORRECT TO THE EXTENT OF PAYMENT OF THE SALE CONSID ERATION IN THE FY 1999-2000 AND REST OF THE CONTENTS WERE ACCEPTED. FOR REJECTING T HE CLAIM THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE BROUGHT ON RECORD POSITIVE MATERIAL SUGGESTING THAT WHAT IS STATED IN THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF MONEY IS NOT TRUE. HENCE THE APPROACH OF THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THIS GROUND OF T HE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/10/ 2016. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 07/10/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 JAIP UR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER 5. THE DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 799/JP/2014) LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 11 ITA NO. 799/JP/2014 SHRI ARUN KUMAR RANKA JAIPUR.