SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV, JAIPUR v. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR

ITA 915/JPR/2018 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2019 | Result: Partly Allowed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 91523114 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AAFPY1483L
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 915/JPR/2018
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV, JAIPUR
Respondent INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-2, JAIPUR
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags ram narain
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 01-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 01-10-2018
First Hearing Date 01-10-2018
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 30-07-2018
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH SMC JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 07-08. SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV H-5 TODERMAL MARG BANI PARK JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2) JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAFPY 1483 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUKAR GARG (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. MAHALA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27.09.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01/11/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO JM : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGA INST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-1 JAIPUR BOTH DATED 19 TH APRIL 2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 07-08 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT AND WAS H AVING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE SAI D FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AND ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO WEIGHTAGE CAN BE GIVEN TO THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AS THE DEPONENTS FAILED TO SUPPORT THEIR STATEMENTS STATED IN THESE AFFIDAVITS AND FURTHER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUST IFIED IN NOT GIVING ANY WEIGHTAGE TO THESE AFFIDAVITS AS THESE WERE ISSUED TO HELP THE APPELLANT. THE SAID FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED AND THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THIS CASE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.177 INDIRA COLONY BANI PARK JAIPUR CONSTRUCTI ON WAS DONE SOME TIME IN THE YEAR 1993 WHEREAS THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE P ROPERTY ON 16.5.1996 AND NO CONSTRUCTION WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS CL AIMED BY IT. THE SAID FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE COST OF CONSTRUCT ION WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE SAID ACTION IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 6. THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS DULY PROVED F ROM THE REGISTERED SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.177 INDIRA COLONY BANI PARK JAIPUR THAT WHEN THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IT WAS A PLOT OF LAND AND TH E CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN NOT ALLOWING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 7. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLOT NO.17 7 INDIRA COLONY BANI PARK JAIPUR WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF COST O F CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT AND THE ACTION OF THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE WORKING OF CAPITAL GAINS BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 8. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT PLOT NO.E-29-B BANI PARK JAIPUR WAS NOT PURCHASED AS A PLOT OF LAND BU T AS A HOUSE PROPERTY. THE SAID FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 9. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDI NG THAT NO CONSTRUCTION WAS GOT DONE BY THE APPELLANT AS CLAIMED BY IT IN R ESPECT OF PLOT NO.E-29- B BANI PARK JAIPUR AND CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHILE COMPUTI NG THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS THEREOF. THE SAID ACTION IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUS TIFIED. 10. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN WOR KING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF PART OF PLOT NO.E-29-B BANI PARK JA IPUR AT RS.8 04 809/- WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTIO N /IMPROVEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE WORKING OF THE CAPITAL GAINS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID ACTION IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 11. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN WORKING OUT THE TOTAL LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT RS.14 34 864/- AND THE LEARNE D CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAID WORKING. THE WORKING OF CAPI TAL GAIN IS ILLEGAL UNJUSTIFIED AND EXCESSIVE. 12. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONF IRMING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE IT ACT. THE SAID ACTION IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF INITIAT ION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE IT ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HIS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 30 TH JULY 2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 10 200/-. SUBSEQUE NTLY THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 2 1 ST MARCH 2013 TO ASSESS THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTIES BY THE ASSE SSEE. THE AO RECORDED THE 4 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. REASONS AND PROPOSED TO ASSESS THE LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 17 60 846/- WHICH HE BELIEVED HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T. THE REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2013 WHEREBY THE A O HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 14 34 864/- BEING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF TWO PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND ALSO CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING. THE LD. CIT (A) REJECTED TH E OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 3. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RE FERRED TO THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DDIT INVESTIGATION JAIPUR WHEREI N IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD TWO PROPERTIES DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. THE AO HAS STATED THAT THERE WAS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 17 60 846/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN AT NIL. THE LD. A/ R HAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 WHEN THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS INDEPENDENT MIND BUT THE ASSESS MENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BORROWED SATISFACTION. THE AO AT THE TIME OF FORMIN G THE BELIEF THAT INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS ESCAPED ASSES SMENT HAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THE BENEFIT OF INDEXATION AS WELL AS THE COST OF CO NSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED B Y DDIT INVESTIGATION JAIPUR AND SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 WERE ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE PRIOR TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS ILL AT T HAT POINT OF TIME THEREFORE HIS SON SHRI AMIT YADAV HAS APPEARED AND HAS FILED THE COMPLETE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS IN RESPEC T OF TWO PROPERTIES IN QUESTION. 5 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. HIS SON IN THE STATEMENT HAS STATED THAT THE CONSTR UCTION OF PROPERTIES SITUATED AT 177 INDIRA COLONY BANI PARK JAIPUR WAS DONE IN T HE YEAR 1998-99 AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE SECOND PROPERTY AT E-29B BANI PARK JAIPUR W AS ALSO DONE IN THE YEAR 1998-99 AND 1999-2000. THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED ALL THESE FACTS AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE REASONS AND FORMING THE BELIEF THAT INCOME ON A CCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN RESPECT OF SALE OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES HAS ESCA PED ASSESSMENT. WHEN THERE WAS NO CAPITAL GAIN BUT IT WAS A CAPITAL LOSS THEN THE RE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HE HAS RE LIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF AKSHAR BUILDER S & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT 411 ITR 602 (BOM) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO IS NOT VALID. THE LD . A/R HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. MEENAKSHI OVERSEAS PVT. LTD. 395 ITR 677 (DEL.) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT MERE REPRODUCTION OF INVESTIGATION REPORT IN THE RE ASONS RECORDED AND ABSENCE OF LINK BETWEEN TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND FORMATION OF BEL IEF IS NOT VALID FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUB MITTED THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT VALID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AO HAS RECORDED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT INCOME IN THE SHAPE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS ESCAPED ASSESSM ENT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 6 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RECO RDING THE REASONS AS UNDER :- THUS IN THE FIRST PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY T HE AO IS THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT INVESTIGATION JAIPUR VIDE LETTER DATED 20 TH MARCH 2013 WHICH IS FACTUAL 7 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. ASPECT. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT PRIOR TO TRAN SMITTING THIS INFORMATION BY THE DDIT INVESTIGATION JAIPUR AN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED IN R ESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES BEING 177 INDIRA COLONY B ANI PARK JAIPUR AND E-29B BANI PARK JAIPUR. THUS THE DDIT INVESTIGATION JAIPUR W HILE COMMUNICATING THE INFORMATION TO THE AO EXAMINED ALL THE RELEVANT FAC TS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION OF TRANSFER OF THESE PROPERTIES BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SECOND PART OF THE REASONS RECORDED IS THE INFO RMATION WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO REGARDING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30 TH JULY 2006 AND SHOWN ONLY INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION. THE AO SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN SHOWN AT NIL. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE TRAN SACTION OF SALE OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES AND COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM THE SAID TRANSFER. THEREFORE IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN AT NI L OR LOSS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE INFORMATION FORWARDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING REGARDING THE SALE OF PROPERTIES DEEMED FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION UNDER SE CTION 50C INDEXATION COST OF ACQUISITION AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON EACH OF T HE TRANSACTIONS CONSTITUTED A TANGIBLE MATERIAL FOR THE AO TO FORM THE BELIEF THA T INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AT THE TIME OF FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO GO INTO THE NITTY-GRITTY OF THE COMPUTATION OF THE CAP ITAL GAIN BY CONSIDERING EACH AND EVERY MINOR DETAILS OF INDEXATION COST AS THE SAME IS SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT AND NOT THE ESSENTIAL PART OF FORMATION OF BELIEF. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING IN PARA 3.1.2 AS UND ER :- 8 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 3.1.2 DETERMINATION: (I) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON THE BASIS O F THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DDIT(INV.)-I THAT THE APPELLANT HAS S OLD TWO PROPERTIES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON WHICH IT EARNED LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 17 60 846/- WHEREAS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME IT HAD SHOWN CAPITAL GAINS AT NIL THE AO HAD REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17 60 846/- HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. (II) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INITIATION OF PROCEE DINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT AS THERE HAD BEEN NO ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FOR WORKI NG OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS THE AO HAD TAKEN ONLY THE COST OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AND THE AO HAD NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF CONST RUCTION DONE ON THE SAID PROPERTIES AFTER PURCHASE OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES A ND IT HAS ALSO FILED DETAILS OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AO HAS RELIED SOLELY ON THE INFO RMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT DECIDING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE INFORMATION AND THE AO CANNOT REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF BOR ROWED SATISFACTION. (III) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS AN U NDISPUTED FACT THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GI VEN ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE SALE OF TWO IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. IT HAS CLAIMED COST OF CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE TWO PROP ERTIES UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT THEREOF. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF COST OF IMPROVEMENT IS TAK EN INTO ACCOUNT THEN THERE WAS ACTUALLY A LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS. SINCE THE AP PELLANT FAILED TO PROVE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT IN THE ENQUIRIES M ADE BY THE INVESTIGATION WING IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION THE AO PRIMA FACIE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT MAY BE MENTI ONED THAT THE COURTS CANNOT LOOK INTO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS REC ORDED BY THE AO FOR 9 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. RELIAN CE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON' BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYM OND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. VS ITO [1999] 236 ITR 34 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THEIR LORDSHIP THAT: 'IN THIS CASE WE DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE A FINAL DECIS ION AS TO WHETHER THERE IS SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS BY THE ASSES SEE OR NOT. WE HAVE ONLY TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT COULD REOPEN THE CASE. THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT A THING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE COURT CANNOT STRIKE DOWN THE REOPENING OF THE CASE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSU MPTION OF FACTS MADE IN THE NOTICE WAS ERRONEOUS. THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO PROVE THAT NO NEW FACTS CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCO ME-TAX OFFICER AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. WE A RE NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. T HE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW ARE LEFT OPEN TO BE INVESTIGATED AND D ECIDED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE APPELLANT WILL BE ENTITLED TO TAKE ALL THE POINTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.' (IV) FURTHER IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVER I STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC) IT WAS HELD BY THE HON' BL E APEX COURT THAT IF THE AO FOR WHATEVER REASON HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IT CONFERS JURISDICTION TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT. IT IS A FACT THAT NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE EARLIER U/S 143(3)/144 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT THEREFORE THE RATIO IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) APPLIES SQUARELY TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION. (V) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN A VERY RECENT DECIS ION DATED 05.08.2016 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF PEASS INDUSTRIAL ENGINEERS (P.) LTD. VS DCIT [2016] 72 TAXMANN.COM 302 (GUJARAT) CONSIDERED THE SIMILAR ISSUE AND HELD AS UNDER: 10 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 'BASED UPON THE MATERIAL/INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY KOLKATA THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUE D NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 FOR REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AS FROM TH E MATERIAL THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE IS A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THEREFO RE IT IS JUSTIFIED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. [PARA 7] AT THE INITIAL STAGE WHAT IS REQUIRED IS REASON TO BELIEVE BUT NOT ESTABLISHED FACT OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE AT THIS STAGE ONLY QUESTION WHETHER THERE WAS RELEVANT MATERIAL T O FORM A REASONABLE BELIEF IS TO BE SEEN. IN THE BACKGROUND OF FACTS THERE IS A SPECIFIC INFORMATION RECEIVED ABOUT 'K' AND IT HA S BEEN PRIMA FACIE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO THE BENEFICIA RY OF THE SAID 'K'. AT THIS STAGE OF THE PROCEEDING THE FACTUM OF SAID ASPECT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS BENEFICIARY OR NOT IS NOT TO BE FIN ALLY ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE COURT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO DWELL INTO IT BUT ONLY HAS TO EXAMINE WHETHER THERE IS A REASONABLE BELIEF ARRIVED AT OR NOT. FROM THE BAS IS OF AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCE PREVAILING ON RECORD IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED PRIMA FACIE IN ARRIVING AT CON CLUSION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. A LIBERTY IS ALWAYS AVAILABLE TO TH E ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY OR TO DEAL WITH THE SAME BUT THIS IS NOT T HE STAGE WHERE THE PROCESS OF REOPENING BASED UPON AFORESAID MATERIAL IS TO BE INTERCEPTED. [PARA 9] IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AND THE REASONS WE RE SUFFICIENT ENOUGH TO PERMIT HIM TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION TO RE OPEN THE ASSESSMENT. EVEN THE ORDER REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS ALSO APPEARS TO THE COURT COGENT ENOUGH AS SUPPORTED BY VALID RE ASONS. [PARA 11] 11 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. (VI) IN THE CASE OF HVK INTERNATIONAL (P.) LTD. VS DCIT [2016] 72 TAXMANN.COM 208 (GUJARAT) THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT U PHELD THE REOPENING U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE RE PORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING. THE HEAD NOTES ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'WHERE EVEN THOUGH ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED ON REPO RT OF INVESTIGATION WING THAT LABOUR CONTRACTORS WERE PAI D SIZABLE AMOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES WITHOUT SUCH LABOUR WORK H AVING BEEN DONE HE HAVING APPLIED HIS MIND TO MATERIALS ON RECORD AND FORMED HIS OWN BELIEF THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT NOTICE FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT WAS JUSTIFIED' (VII) THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION I T IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND WAS HAVING REA SON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HENCE THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS HEREBY REJECTED. THUS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DEALT WITH ALL THE OBJECTI ONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 . WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND PRIMA FACIE THERE WAS A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTIES IN QUESTION HAS RESULTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN THEN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 CANNOT BE CHALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE REASONS THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED CORRECT INDEXATIO N COST ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION AND IMPROVEMENT. SINCE THESE ARE MATT ERS OF FURTHER VERIFICATION AND INVESTIGATION BASED ON THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT 12 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. THE MATTER WHICH CAN BE ASCERTAINED FROM THE RECORD AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE REASONS HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) QUA THIS ISSUE. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 7 ARE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF IN DEXATION COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTIES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE . 6. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY BEARING NO. 177 INDIRA COLONY BANI PARK JAIPUR VIDE TWO SALE DEEDS DATED 15.07.1996 AND 22.08.1997. WHEN THE PLOT WAS PURCHA SED BY THE ASSESSEE NO CONSTRUCTION WAS EXISTING ON THE PLOT WHICH IS CLEA RLY APPARENT FROM THE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN ATTACHED WITH THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. A FTER PURCHASING THE SAID PLOT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUB-DIVIDED THE PLOT AND GOT CONSTRUCT IONS DONE OF TWO FLOORS ON THE SAID LAND. THE ASSESSEE SOLD PORTION OF THE PROPE RTY IN THE YEAR 1998 BEING FIRST AND SECOND FLOORS AND THE GROUND FLOOR OF THE SAID PORTION WAS THEREAFTER SOLD VIDE SALE DEED DATED 19 TH JANUARY 2000. THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY D ECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999- 2000 AND 2000-01. THE NORTHERN PORTION OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD VIDE SALE DEED DATED 14.06.2005 TO SHRI LAXMAN DASS T WADHWANI FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATI ON OF RS. 8 11 000/-. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE SALE DEED AND SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THIS PORTION WAS SOLD HAVING COVERED AREA OF 85.24 SQ. MTRS. ON THE GROUND FLOOR AS WELL AS COVERED AREA OF 85.24 SQ. MTRS. ON FIRST FLOOR TOT AL CONSTRUCTED AREA OF 167.17 SQ. MTRS. THE SALE DEED DULY MENTIONED ABOUT THE CONST RUCTED AREA AND THE SITE PLAN ATTACHED WITH THE REGISTERED SALE DEED ALSO SHOWS T HE SAME. THE LD. A/R HAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE VACANT PL OT OF LAND AND SOLD THE CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY VIDE SALE DEED DATED 14.06.200 5. THEREFORE THE CAPITAL GAIN IF 13 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. ANY ON SALE OF THIS PROPERTY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CO MPUTED AFTER GIVING THE BENEFIT OF INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI GOVIND RAM CHOUDHARY WH O HAS DONE THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE PLOT IN THE YEAR 1998-99 AND RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 4 25 000/-. THE AO ALSO EXAMINED SHRI GOVIND RAM CHOUDHARY ON 22.11.2013 WH EREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THE CONSTRUCTION WORK DONE ON THE PLOT OF THE ASSESSEE AND CHARGED @ RS. 450/- PER SQ. FT. HE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION AND THE SAID RATE IS INCLUSIVE OF MATERIAL. EACH AND EVERY DETAILS OF THE CONSTRUCTI ON COST WAS EXPLAINED BY SHRI GOVIND RAM CHOUDHARY. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT T HE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A VACANT PIECE OF LAND AND THEREAFTER CONSTRUCTED ON THE SAM E LAND BEFORE THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD. THEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE PLOT OF LAND WAS PRE-EXISTING AND NOTHING WAS PRODU CED TO SHOW THAT NEW CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E HAS JUST MADE A CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION TO AVOID THE TAX ON TH E CAPITAL GAIN ON TRANSFER OF THIS PROPERTY. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUBSTAN TIATED WITH A VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE WHEREAS THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED ITSELF CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION IS OLD ONE AND CARRIED OUT 12 YEARS BA CK FROM THE DATE OF SALE WHICH MEANS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE EVEN PRIOR TO THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 1996. THE LD. D/R HAS REFERRED TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CLEARLY MENTIONE D THAT AT PAGE 12 OF THE SALE DEED DATED 14.06.2005 CONSTRUCTION OF 917 SQ. FT. EACH O N GROUND FLOOR AND FIRST FLOOR WAS 14 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 12 YEARS OLD MEANING THEREBY THE CONSTRUCTION WAS D ONE SOMETIME IN THE YEAR 1993 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN 1996 ONLY. IN REBUTTAL THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AGE OF THE C ONSTRUCTION AS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IS ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY VAL UATION AND THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE ACTUAL TIME OF CONSTRUCTI ON OF THE PROPERTY. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DISPUTE IS REGARDING COST OF CONSTRUCT ION IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO. 177 INDIRA COLONY BANI PARK JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SAID PROPERTY VIDE SALE DEED DATED 15 TH JULY 1996. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID SALE DEED IT IS NOTED THAT ONLY A PLOT OF LAND WAS SOLD BY THE O WNER TO THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE SALE DEED A SITE PLAN WAS ALSO ATTACHED. THE S ITE PLAN OF THE PLOT CLEARLY EXHIBIT THAT IT WAS ONLY A PLAIN AND VACANT PLOT OF LAND WI THOUT HAVING ANY CONSTRUCTION. THUS NOTHING HAS COME OUT FROM THE SALE DEED DATED 15.07.1996 AS WELL AS SITE PLAN TO INFER THAT THERE WAS A CONSTRUCTION ON THE PLOT OF LAND IN QUESTION AT THE TIME OF ACQUISITION BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE T HAT AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THIS PLOT IT WAS CONSTRUCTED UPTO 1 ST FLOOR WHICH IS ALSO CLEAR FROM THE SITE PLAN ATTAC HED WITH THE SALE DEED DATED 14 TH JUNE 2005. THE AO HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS PRE-EXISTI NG WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY. FURTHER IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE CLAI M THE AO EXAMINED ONE SHRI GOVIND RAM CHOUDHARY WHOSE AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE REGARDING CONSTRUCTION WORK DONE. IN HIS STATEMENT SHRI GOVIND RAM CHOUDH ARY HAS CONFIRMED THE CONSTRUCTION DONE BY HIM AND CHARGED @ RS. 450/- PE R SQ. FT. HE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THIS RATE WAS INCLUSIVE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERI AL AND A SUM OF RS. 1 30 000/- WAS DEDUCTED TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL PROV IDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE 15 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 20 000/- WAS RECEIVED HIM. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID STATEMENT OF SHRI GOVIND RAM CHOUDHARY AND POINTED OUT THAT HE HAS NOT DONE ANY CONSTRUCTION WORK EXCEPT THE ALLEGED ONE. THEREFOR E HE WAS NOT CONSIDERED A RELIABLE WITNESS BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS AL SO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY REFERRING THE SALE DEED DAT ED 14 TH JUNE 2005 WHEREIN THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STATED TO BE 12 YEARS OLD. WHEN IN THE SALE DEED DATED 15.7.1996 ALONG WITH THE SITE PLAN THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANY CONSTRUCTION AND THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED ONLY A VACANT PLOT OF LAND AND AT THE TIM E OF SALE THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD AS A CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY UPTO 1 ST FLOOR THEN A MERE MENTION OF THE AGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION IN THE SALE DEED WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE OTHER FACTS AS PER THE SALE DEED DATED 15.07.1996 AND SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO THE SAID SALE DEED WOULD NOT LEAD TOA DEFINITE CONCLUSION. HENCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE BASIS OF SAID STATEMENT IN THE SALE DEED DATED 14.0 6.2005 WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE OTHER DOCUMENTS. IT IS PERTIN ENT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE SITE PLAN IS ATTACHED TO THE SALE DEED GIVING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY THEN THE SAID SITE PLAN SHOULD BE GIVEN MORE WEIGHTAGE THAN SOME INCOR RECT FACTS MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED ABOUT THE AGE OF THE CONSTRUCTION. WHAT I S MATERIAL FACT IS THE NO CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF THE PROPERT Y AS PER THE SITE PLAN AND SALE DEED AND THERE WAS A CONSTRUCTION UPTO 1 ST FLOOR AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE BY CONSIDERING THESE TWO FACTS THE CONS TRUCTION GOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISPUTED. ACCORDINGLY THE DENIAL OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS IT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS EMERGED FR OM THE RECORDS WHICH ARE THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND SITE PLAN ATTACHED TO THE SALE DEED. HENCE THE CLAIM OF INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE ALLOWED. SINCE THE AO HAS 16 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. DENIED THE CLAIM WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE COST OF CO NSTRUCTION THEREFORE THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO TO ALLOW THE B ENEFIT OF INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF THIS PROPERTY. 9. AS REGARDS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN RESPECT O F PART OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO.E-29B BANI PARK JAIPUR THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMIT TED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY THERE WAS NO CONSTRUCTION ON THIS PART OF THE LAND. THEREAFTER THE CONSTRUCTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE SAID PLOT OF LAND IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 AT APPROXIMATE COST OF R S. 6 50 000/- AND TOTAL CONSTRUCTED AREA WAS 2110 SQ. FT. SUBSEQUENTLY PART OF THE SAID PLOT HAVING CONSTRUCTED AREA OF 1265 SQ. FT WAS SOLD BY THE ASS ESSEE ON 28.01.2006 AND BALANCE PORTION OF THIS PLOT OF LAND ALONG WITH CONSTRUCTED AREA WAS SOLD IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 8.00 LACS. THE ASS ESSEE FILED DETAILS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 74 066/- AFTER CONSIDERING THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND INDEXED COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE AO WORKED OUT THE CAPITAL GAI N BY REDUCING ONLY INDEXED COST ON ACQUISITION OF LAND AND NOT GIVEN INDEXED COST O F CONSTRUCTION. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI BAL CHAND KUMAWAT WHO HAS CARRIED OUT THE CONSTRUCTION WORK. THE AO EXAM INED HIM AND RECORDED THE STATEMENT. HE HAS GIVEN ALL THE DESCRIPTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION AS WELL AS THE PAYMENT RECEIVED @ RS. 500/- PER SQ. FT WHICH INCLU DED LABOUR AND COST OF MATERIAL. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT T HERE WAS A CONSTRUCTION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE PLOT OF LAND IN THE YEAR 1998-99 BUT THE AO HAS DENIED THE CLAIM ON THE REASONING AS IN RESPECT OF THE OTH ER PROPERTY. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE DEED DATED 28.01. 2006 WAS EXECUTED BY THE 17 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. ASSESSEE AS A POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF ONE MISS PRACHI WHO PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY ON 19.06.1993. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THI S PROPERTY NOT AS A VACANT PLOT OF LAND BUT AS A HOUSE PROPERTY. THE SALE DEED DAT ED 28.01.2006 CLEARLY STATES THAT THE CONSTRUCTED PORTION WAS MORE THAN 17 YEARS OLD MEANING THEREBY THE PROPERTY WAS NOT CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEARS 19 98-99 AND 1999-2000 AS CLAIMED. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS N OT FOUND TO BE CORRECT. 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS PER THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.11.1997 THE PROPERTY WAS STATED TO BE A CONSTRUCTED HOUSE THEREFORE WHEN THE SAID PROPERT Y WAS CONSTRUCTED ONE AS STATED IN THE AGREEMENT DATED 24.11.1997 THEN THE CLAIM O F THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE CONSTRUCTED THE PROPERTY IN THE YEARS 1998-99 AND 1 999-2000 CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE FACT WHETHER AT THE TIM E OF SALE THE CONSTRUCTED PART WAS A NEW ONE OR OLD ONE. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE SITE PLAN ANNEXED TO THE SALE DEED WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY WAS DULY CONSTRUCTED. HOWEVER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXCEPT ONE AVERMENT I N THE AGREEMENT THIS FACT IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CA RRIED OUT THIS CONSTRUCTION SUBSEQUENT TO THE ACQUISITION. THIS FACT CAN BE VE RIFIED THROUGH AN EXPERT. THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY ABOUT THE TIMINGS OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY. SINCE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS VERY MUCH IN EXISTENCE A T THE TIME OF SALE BUT WHETHER THIS CONSTRUCTION WAS NEW CONSTRUCTION DONE BY THE ASSESSEE OR IT WAS AN OLD CONSTRUCTION PRE-EXISTING HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF SOME ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION. ACCORDINGLY THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR CONDUCTING A PROPER ENQUIRY TO VERIFY THE TIMING OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. 18 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 12. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HO LDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE CA SE OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT AND WAS HAVING REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ES CAPED ASSESSMENT. THE SAID FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTI FIED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS A ND ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLD ING THAT NO CONSTRUCTION WAS GOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF PROPERTY NO.E-29B BANI PARK JAIPUR AS CLAIMED BY IT. THE SAID FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLD ING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN NOT ALLOWING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHILE COMPUTING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN S. THE SAID ACTION IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN WORKING OUT THE CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF PART OF PLOT NO.E-29B BANI PARK JAIPUR AT RS. 4 08 006/- WITHOUT ALLOWING THE BENEF IT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION/IMPROVEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PRO PERTY AND THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE WORKING OF THE CAPITAL GAINS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID ACTION IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 6. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONF IRMING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE IT ACT. THE SA ID ACTION IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF INITIAT ION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE IT ACT. 19 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 13. THIS ISSUE IS COMMON AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IN VIEW OF THE FINDING ON THIS ISSUE GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 STAND DI SMISSED. GROUND NOS.3 TO 5 ARE REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF COS T OF CONSTRUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY BEARING NO. E-29-B BANI PARK JAIPUR. 14. THIS ISSUE IS COMMON TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THIS PROPERTY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN GROUND NOS. 8 & 9. SINCE THIS ISSUE IS COMMON AND BASED ON IDENTICAL FACTS THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE FINDING ON THE GROUND NOS. 8 & 9 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THIS IS SUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AND RE-ADJUDICATION ON THE SAME TERMS. 15. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01/11/20 19. SD/- ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 01/11/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 3(2) JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ITAT JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 20 ITA NOS. 915 & 916/JP/2018 SHRI RAM NARAIN YADAV JAIPUR.