SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA,JAIPUR vs. ITO WARD-6(1), JAIPUR, JAIPUR

fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@AssessmentYear : 2015-16 Smt. Saroj Devi Haldiya cuke The ITO Vs. E-65, Siddarth Nagar, Malviya Nagar Ward -6 (1) Jaipur – 302 017 Jaipur LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkjla-@PAN/GIR No.: AACPH 6564Q vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri S.B. Natani, CA jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Mrs.Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 23/09/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 13/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 24.04.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed the learned CIT (A) confirming the order of the learned AO is not in accordance with law.

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO, which has been passed by the learned AO without considering the facts of the case in correct perspective.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice and ab initio void 4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- illegally made by the learned AQ under section 56(2)(ix) of the income tax Act 1961.

5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO that the assessee accepted Rs. 75,00,000/- as an advance from M/s Jagdish health care P Limited in relation to transfer of a capital asset which was not returned.

6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that assessee accepted Rs, 75,00,000/- as an advance in relation of transfer of capital assets.

7. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO indisallowing the right full claim of the assessee of Rs. 34,647/- under section 57 of the income Tax out of income disclosed under the head income from other sources.

8. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO in disallowing the right full claim of the assessee of Rs. 83,453/- (income from Capital gain) 9. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO determining the total income at Rs, 88,72,047/- against the returned income of Rs. 13,37,400/- 10. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act 1961.’’ 2.1 Apropos grounds of appeal

of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order by dismissing the appeal in the case of the assessee for the reason that the assessee had not furnished any substantial written submission or documents evidence in support of her SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD

6. (1), JAIPUR grounds of appeal challenging the addition. The narration so made by the ld. CIT(A) in his order at para 5.1 to 6 are produced as under:- ‘’5.1 Decision: I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record, in respect of this ground of appeal, as brought out in the assessment order. During the assessment proceedings the assessing officer had reasons to believe that the assessee had falsely claimed deduction u/s 57 of Rs. 34,647/- in the head income from other sources, the assessee was involved in a transaction of sale of immovable property during the year and the same resulted in short term loss of Rs. 1,46,543/- the difference of the cost of purchase and the sale consideration was Rs. 63,000/- so the short term loss was restricted to Rs. 63,000/-. Hence, 83,453/- was disallowed The assessee also accepted Rs. 75,00,000 as an advance in relation of transfer of capital asset. The assessee failed to give a satisfactory reply and provide any required details. Hence, the A.O. completed the assessment and passed order u/s 147/1448 of the Income- tax Act dated 13.12.2019 Assessing total Income at Rs 90,97,047/-. 5.2. It is further noted and as detailed in preceding para above that during the appellate proceedings, the appellant has not furnished any substantial written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal challenging the addition. The onus lies on the appellant to support any claim by bringing in cogent documentary evidence. In absence of any substantial written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal, I have no basis to take a contrary view in the appellate proceedings as I have no reason to interfere with the assessment order. As such, I do not find any infirmity in the order of Assessing Officer. Therefore, Addition of Rs. 83,453/-, Rs. 34,647/- and Rs. 75,00,000/- is hereby sustained on merits.

6. In the result, the appeal is Dismissed.

2.2 During the course of hearing, the ld.AR of the submitted that lower authorities were not justified in confirming the above additions for which the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the following written submission. ‘’Brief Facts of the case The assessee in an Individual and has filed his return of income under section 139 for the A Y 2015-2016 on 31.03.2016 declaring total income at Rs 13,37,400/-. During the year under consideration the assessee derives SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR income, from income from house property, income from capital Gain and income from other sources. A copy of the return of income filed by the assessee is available on paper book page No…1. Subsequently enquiries were conducted in the case of assessee by DDIT (Inv) wing-2 Jaipur. In the matter detailed statements of husband of the assessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya were recorded on 16.05.2017. A copy of the statement recorded by the investigation wing is available on paper book page No… 2 to 8. The facts regarding the issue involved are enumerated hereunder chronologically.

1. Medical Design India Pvt. limited was allotted a Plot F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur on 16.09.1987.

2. The above allotment by RIICO of Plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur to Medical Design India Pvt. limited was cancelled on 10.03.2006. M/s Medical Design India Pvt. limited went before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court against the cancellation of plot. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court directed M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited to appeal before the RIICO. M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited accordingly filed appeal before RIICO which was pending when assessee started negotiations.

3. It so happened that Dr Anil Tambi approached the assessee for getting the above plot at F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur from M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited as he was confident of getting the hurdles removed regarding allotment/cancellation of plot to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited, and subsequently getting the same to himself from RIICO.

4. In such a situation the assessee approached M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Director Smt. Saroj Dhawan and executed an agreement on 10.12.2014. The assessee paid Rs. 75,00,000/- as under to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for agreeing to purchase the plot for a total sum of Rs, 3,94,38,675/-. A copy of agreement dated 10.12.2014 SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR executed between assessee Smt. Saroj Haldiya and Smt. Saroj Dhawan of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited is available on paper book page No… 9 to 14. S No Date Cheque Drawn on Amount No. 1 18.10.2014 047309 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 2 25.10.2014 047310 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 3 30.10.2014 047311 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- Total 75,00,000/- A copy of relevant bank account of the assessee reflecting the above payment is available on paper book page No. 15 to 16. It is relevant to add that as on this date of agreement on 10.12.2014 M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited was also not owning the aforesaid plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur, as the same stood cancelled/de-alloted on 10.03.2006 by RIICO and the issue of appeal was pending before the RIICO.

5. Keeping in tandem the aforesaid affairs, a Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi by M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Shri Saroj Dhawan so that he (Dr. Anil Tambi) could pursue the matter with concerned authorities of RICCO for removing the hurdles and getting the plot allotted again to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited so that it could be purchased for Dr Anil Tambi .

6. However the fortunes did not favour, as mentioned in the agreement executed by the assessee with M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited on 10.12.2014 the time limit for getting clearance and removing the hurdles was only of three months failing which the advance of Rs, 75,00,000/- was to be forfeited and ultimately the same stood forfeited.

i. Rs. 22,00,000/- vide cheque No. 144015 dated 16.12.2014 from the account of Tanushri Tambi ii. Rs. 23,00,000/- vide cheque No. 566002 dated 24.12.2014 from the account of Dr. Anil Tambi S No Date Ch No. Name of payer Amount 1 16.12.2014 144015 From Tanu shri Tambi 22,00,000/- 2 24.12.2014 566002 From Dr. Anil Tambi 23,00,000/- Total 45,00,000/- Later on Dr Anil Tambi changed his mind to purchase the property in the name of M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited his company, instead of in individual name(s). Hence the amount received from Tanu Shri Tambi and Dr Anil Tambi was returned on 16.02.2015 through banking channel as under – S No Date Ch No. Beneficiary Name Amount 1 16.02.2015 63026 Dr. Anil TAmbi 23,00,000/- 2 24.12.2014 63030 Tanu shri Tambi 22,00,222/- Total 45,00,000/- Further Dr. Anil Tambi/ Jagdish Health care Pvt. Limited paid Rs. 75,00,000/- on 24.02.2015 vide cheque No. 447451 for purchase of this plot situated at F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur for his company Jagdish Health care Pvt. Limited. Thus the facts indicate that inthe account of this property the assessee did not earn anything at all. This amount was paid as reimbursement of amount of Rs, 75,00,000/-

8. From the aforesaid afore said scenario of the case it is crystal clear that entire matter of money paid to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited and in the last money received from M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited has taken place within a short period of time from 10.12.2014 to 24.02.2015 i. e. three months .

9. It is submitted that at no stage of time the assessee was owning plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur and secondly she was acting on behalf of Dr Anil Tambi. These facts are evidenced and corroborated by (i) in the statements of the assessee recorded by investigation wind on 16.05.2017. (ii) by the agreement executed by the assessee on 10.12.2014 with Medical design India p limited through Smt,. Saroj Dhawan (iii) by power of Attorney executed by Medical Design India P limited in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi. (Copies of all these documents are available on paper book page No. cited supra and copy of Power of attorney in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi is available on paper book page No.17 to 19.

10. The facts indicate that in the case assessee was not a beneficiary even for a single rupee. The beneficiary in this case is M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited who did not return the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the assessee and assessee had to forfeit the same. If any action at all is required w r to section 56(2)(ix) the same is required to be considered in the case of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. The learned AO was wrong in training the guns against the asseseee instead of at M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. In the facts and circumstances of the case there was no case with the learned AO for proposing action under section 148. Similarly the learned JCIT also erred in granting approval for issuing notice under section 148 which was issued on 23.04.2019. In view of this the very basis and origin of assessment proceedings is not in accordance with law.

11. The learned AO completed assessment under section 147/144B on 14.09.2021 determining total income at Rs, 88,72,047/-, Inter-alia making SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR major addition of Rs, 75,00,000/- under section 56(2)(ix) of the income Tax Act. The addition made by the learned AO is patently wrong because the assessee was never owing the plot, the assessee never received advance and further the action of the assessee was that of a middle man for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited and in the last the facts stated above indicate that assessee was not a beneficiary in any manner Aggrieved with the order of the learned AO the assessee went in Appeal before the learned CIT(A). The appeal of the assessee was also dismissed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC vide order dated 24.04.2025. The learned CIT (A) also erred in giving a finding that assessee accepted Rs. 75,00,000/- as advance in relation to transfer of capital asset. Aggrieved with the order of the learned CIT (A) the assessee is in appeal before the Hon’ble Tribunal and the individual grounds of appeal

are discussed asunder:- Ground No.

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed the learned CIT(A) confirming the order of the learned AO is not in accordance with law. In this case the learned AO has completed assessment under section 147/144B on 14.09.2021. The same is not in accordance with law as under – A. `There were no reasons for initiating proceeding under section 148. In the above regard, it is submitted that on the request of the assessee the learned AO was kind enough in providing the copy of reasons recorded which is scanned below- The perusal of the aforesaid reasons reveals that the learned AO was mislead by the report of the DDIT inv unit – 2 jaipur received under letter No. 1953 dated 28.12.2017 wrongly informed that assessee received advance of Rs. 75,00,000/- from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited for sale of land situated at F-28 Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur. The learned AO has followed the report of the investigation wing as SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR a thumb rule without application of mind. Before recording reasons the learned AO did not make any enquiry worth the name so as to have his satisfaction of recording reasons that there was escapement of Income. It is submitted that report received from the investigation wing may be a starting point of reason to doubt, but it cannot be the basis for reason to believe. No action should have been taken by the learned AO simply on the basis of report of DDIT investigation wing. In point No. 4 of the reasons recorded, the learned AO has admitted that since enquiry been made by the investigation wing no further enquiry were made. Thus the action of the learned AO is based on borrowed satisfaction which is unlawful. It is submitted that from this note in the reasons recorded by the learned AO it is crystal clear that the proceedings under section 148 was initiated without framing reasons to believe. The provisions of section 147 as on the date of issue of notice under section 148 are as under - [Income escaping assessment. 88147. If the 89[Assessing] Officer 90[has reason to believe91] that any income chargeable to has escaped assessment91 for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess91 such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings91 under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year92, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure92 on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts92 necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: [Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year:] 94[Provided 95[also] that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment.] Explanation 1.—Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material96 evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily96 amount to disclosure within the meaning of the foregoing proviso.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR Explanation 2.—For the purposes of this section, the following shall also be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, namely :— (a) where no return of income has been furnished by the assessee although his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax ; (b) where a return of income has been furnished by the assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee has understated the income or has claimed excessive loss, deduction, allowance or relief in the return ; 97[(ba) where the assessee has failed to furnish a report in respect of any international transaction which he was so required under section 92E;] (c) where an assessment has been made, but— (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed;] 98[(d) where a person is found to have any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India.] 99[Explanation 3.—For the purpose of assessment or reassessment1 under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-section (2) of section 148.] 2 [Explanation 4.—For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the provisions of this section, as amended by the Finance Act, 2012, shall also be applicable for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2012.] The perusal of the above section reveals that the section starts with the word “If the [Assessing] Officer has reason to believe. Therefore the learned AO before initiating proceeding under section 147/148 must have reasons to believe that there is escapement of income. It is submitted that the issue of notice under section 148 being based on borrowed satisfaction is unlawful, illegal and unjust. The following case laws are quoted in support.

I. CIT Vs SFIL Stock broking limited 2010 41 DTR 98 (Del) ii. Pr. CIT Vs G & G Pharma India Ltd (Delhi High Court) dated 08.10.2015 iii. Signature Hotels P limited Vs ITO 2011 60 DTR 30 (Del) v. Ganga saran & sons P. Ltd. V. ITO (1981) 130 ITR 1 (SC) vi. Charanjiv Agarwal vs. Income Tax Officer. I. T. A. No. 598/Asr/2015 Section 147 & 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 — Reassessment — Reassessment proceedings were invalid and bad in law as the reasons recorded were undated which itself proved that the AO had not applied his mind and nothing appeared in the reasons recorded suggested that the AO had made any positive enquiry before coming to the conclusion that the Income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and the AO has reopened the case on the basis of borrowed satisfaction vii. ACIT Vs Dinesh kumar (ITAT Delhi) dated 31.10.2014 viii. Unique Metal Industries Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi) dated 28.10.2015 The ratio of the afore said decisions is fully applicable to the facts of the case. Thus the notice issued under section 148 deserves to be quashed b. Approval under section 151 was granted mechanically by the Sanctioning authority. It is further submitted that not only the learned AO acted mechanically in following the information from DDIT inv wing unit-2 Jaipur as directions, even the sanctioning authority namely JCIT also erred in granting approval without appreciating the facts of the case which have been discussed above and are repeated again. The facts regarding the issue involved are enumerated hereunder chronologically.

2. The above allotment by RIICO of Plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur to Medical Design India Pvt. limited was cancelled on 10.03.2006. M/s Medical Design India Pvt. limited went before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court against the cancellation of plot. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court directed M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited to appeal before the RIICO. M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited accordingly filed appeal before RIICO which was pending when assessee started negotiations.

3. It so happened that Dr Anil Tambi approached the assessee for getting the above plot at F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur from M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited as he was confident of getting the hurdles removed regarding allotment/cancellation of plot to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited, and subsequently getting the same to himself from RIICO.

4. In such a situation the assessee approached M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Director Smt. Saroj Dhawan and executed an agreement on 10.12.2014. The assessee paid Rs. 75,00,000/- as under to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for agreeing to purchase the plot for a total sum of Rs, 3,94,38,675/-. A copy of agreement dated 10.12.2014 executed between assessee Smt. Saroj Haldiya& Smt. Saroj Dhawan of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited is available on paper book page No cited supra. S No Date Cheque Drawn on Amount No. 1 18.10.2014 047309 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 2 25.10.2014 047310 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 3 30.10.2014 047311 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/-

A copy of relevant bank account of the assessee reflecting the above payment is available on paper book page No. cited supra. It is relevant to add that as on this date of agreement on 10.12.2014 M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited was also not owning the aforesaid plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur, as the same stood cancelled/de-alloted on 10.03.2006 by RIICO and the issue of appeal was pending before the RIICO.

5. Keeping in tandem the aforesaid affairs, a Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi by M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Shri Saroj Dhawan so that he (Dr. Anil Tambi) could pursue the matter with concerned authorities of RICCO for removing the hurdles and getting the plot allotted again to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited so that it could be purchased for Dr Anil Tambi .

6. However the fortunes did not favour, as mentioned in the agreement executed by the assessee with M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited on 10.12.2014 the time limit for getting clearance and removing the hurdles was only of three months failing which the advance of Rs, 75,00,000/- was to be forfeited and ultimately the same stood forfeited.

7. Meanwhile the assessee also received payment from Dr Anil Tambi as under i. Rs. 22,00,000/- vide cheque No. 144015 dated 16.12.2014 from the account of Tanushri Tambi ii. Rs. 23,00,000/- vide cheque No. 566002 dated 24.12.2014 from the account of Dr. Anil Tambi S No Date Ch No. Name of payer Amount Later on Dr Anil Tambi changed his mind to purchase the property in the name of M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited his company, instead of in individual name(s). Hence the amount received from Tanu Shri Tambi and Dr Anil Tambi was returned on 16.02.2015 through banking channel as under – S Date Ch No. Beneficiary Amount No Name 1 16.02.2015 63026 Dr. Anil 23,00,000/- TAmbi 2 24.12.2014 63030 Tanu Shri 22,00,222/- Tambi Total 45,00,000/- Further Dr. Anil Tambi/ Jagdish Health care Pvt. Limited paid Rs. 75,00,000/- on 24.02.2015 vide cheque No. 447451 for purchase of this plot situated at F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur for his company Jagdish Health care Pvt. Limited. Thus the facts indicate that inthe account of this property the assessee did not earn anything at all. This amount was paid as reimbursement of amount of Rs, 75,00,000/- paid by the assessee to medical design India P limited as detailed in the forgoing para No. 4

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 9. It is submitted that at no stage of time the assessee was owning plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur and secondly she was acting on behalf of Dr Anil Tambi. These facts are evidenced and corroborated by (i) in the statements of the assessee recorded by investigation wind on 16.05.2017. (ii) by the agreement executed by the assesseee on 10.12.2014 with Medical design India p limited through Smt,. Saroj Dhawan (iii) by power of Attorney executed by Medical Design India P limited in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi. (copies of all these documents are available on paper book page No. cited supra and copy of Power of attorney in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi is available on paper book page No. cited supra.

10. The facts indicate that in the case assessee was not a beneficiary even for a single rupee. The beneficiary in this case is M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited who did not return the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the assessee and assessee had to forfeit the same. If any action at all is required w r to section 56(2)(ix) the same is required to be considered in the case of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. The learned AO was wrong in training the guns against the asseseee instead of at M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. In the facts and circumstances of the case there was no case with the learned AO for proposing action under section 148. Similarly the learned JCIT also erred in granting approval for issuing notice under section 148 which was issued on 23.04.2019. In view of this the very basis and origin of assessment proceedings is not in accordance with law.

11. The learned AO completed assessment under section 147/144B on 14.09.2021 determining total income at Rs, 88,72,047/-, Inter-alia making major addition of Rs, 75,00,000/- under section 56(2)(ix) of the income Tax Act. The addition made by the learned AO is patently wrong because the assessee was never owing the plot, the assessee never received advance and further the action of the assessee was that of a middle man for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited and in the last the facts stated above indicate that assessee was not a beneficiary in any manner In view of the aforesaid facts the learned JCIT should have considered that a. The assessee at no point of time was owing/holding plot No F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur as such there could not be any occasion for putting the same to sale or getting advance for the sale of the same.

b. The assessee was acting as a middle man and plot No. F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur was being bargained with M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited only and only for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. These facts have been very clearly stated in his statement recorded before the investigation wing on 16.05.2017. The relevant part of the statement Question No. 9 &10 and answer thereof A copy of complete statement is also available on paper book page No cited supra. In the above statements the husband of the assessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya has very specifically deposed that the plot No. F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur was being bargained for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited and in this regard Rs. 75,00,000/- were paid to Smt. Saroj Dawan/M/s Medical design India Pvt. limited. The same amount was later on received from M/s Jagdish Health care Pvt Limited. The learned JCIT also did not appreciate the fact that although an agreement was executed with Smt. Saroj Dhawan/ M/s medical Design India Pvt. Limited on 10.12.2014 but even on that date M/s medical Design India Pvt. Limited were neither in the possession of the plot F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur or owing the same. An appeal was pending before RIICO in this regard. These facts were also not considered by the learned JCIT before granting Approval. The fact that the property was being bargained for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited is also apparent and is also supported by the fact of Power of Attorney in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. All these facts combined together establish beyond doubt that assessee did not receive any amount in advance nor the assesssee was SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR owning any plot at that point of time so the provision of section 56(2)(ix) were not all applicable. The learned JCIT unlawfully granted sanction for issue of notice under section 148. Therefore the issuance of notice under section is unlawful, illegal and unjust. The Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quash the very issuance of notice under section 148/order of the learned CIT (A) confirming the assessment order of the learned AO. c. Objection to issuance of notice under section 148 Not settled. It is submitted that against the issuance of notice under section the assesseee raised various objections under letter dated 05.12.2019. A copy of this letter raising objection is available on paper book page No…20 to 30.. The objection raised by the assessee are briefly summarized as under i. The learned AO should not have followed the information received from DDIT wing as direction of DDIT Investigation wing. ii. The learned AO failed to make any independent enquiry after receipt of information from DDIT inv unit -2 Jaipur, so as to independently apply his mind for reaching to a conclusion that there were reasons to believe for escapement of income. iii. There is no material brought on record by the learned AO for application of section 56(2)(ix) in as much as that advance was not received and there was no property for sale. iv. The learned AO failed to appreciate that the amount paid by Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited was not an advance to the assessee but was reimbursement of the amount paid by assessee to Smt. Saroj Dhawan/Medical design India P limited. v. That the assessee was not a beneficiary in any manner.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR vi. That beneficiary in this case was M/s medical Design India Pvt. Limited who confiscated the amount of Rs, 75,00,000/-. All these objection have not been settled by the learned AO in the spirit of Hon’ble Supreme court decision in the case of GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC). Vide his order dated 17.12.2020 the learned AO has summarily dismissed and rejected the objections raised by the assessee against issuance of notice under section 148. The learned AO has been blind to the major facts of the case which were stated by the husband of the assessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Haldiya during his statement under section 131 before the investigation wing on 16.05.2017. In his statement Shri Haldiya, divulged the basic facts that the plot in question was being bargained for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. The assessee paid Rs. 75,00,000/- to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for purchase of the plot for Dr Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited, who later on reimbursed the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- . The assessed never owned any plot so the question of receiving any advance from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited did not arise. The assessee received payment of Rs. 75,00,000/- from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited against the equal amount of Rs, 75,00,000/- paid earlier by the assessee to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for purchase of plot for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. It means the asseseee had already passed the amount to M/s Medical design Pvt. limited on 18.10.2014 to 30.10.2014 .which was subsequently received from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited on.24.02.2015. These facts have not been dealt and appreciated in the order passed on 17.12.2020 wherein the learned AO has dealt the issue on surface level without going into deep. Thus the objection have not been settled in the spirit of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the Case iofGKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) The following case laws also quoted in support i. GKN Driveshaft (India) Ltd. (2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC) AO has to dispose of the objection by passing a speaking order before proceeding with the assessment. ii. CIT Vs Pentafour software Employees welfare foundation (Mad) (2019) 418 ITR 0427 iii. Kirti P Chidambaram (2018) 402 ITR 488 (Mad) iv. Jayanti Natrajan Vs ACIT (2018) 161 DTR 281 (Mad), 300 CTR 225 v. Cenveo Publisher services India Ltd. v. UOI ( 2019) 180 DTR 244(Bom) S. 147 : Reassessment –Delay in filing objections- -If the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd v. Dy. CIT ( 2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 weeks- A writ petition to challenge the reopening is not entertained [S.148 ] The Petitioner has raised the objections before the Assessing Officer to the notice of reopening of the assessment on 14.12.2018. Objections were disposed of by the Assessing Officer on 28.12.2018. Since the last date for framing the assessment was fast approaching and the assessment would get time barred on 31stDecember, 2018, the Assessing Officer passed the order of assessment on 28.12.2018. The Petitionerhas approached the Court challenging very notice of reopening of the assessment and also including the challenge to the order of reassessment as consequential to the main challenge to reopening of the assessment. Dismissing the petition the Court held that reasons for reopening of the assessment by the Assessing Officer was supplied to the assesee on 14.9.2018. Without filing the objection the assessee approached the Court by filing the Writ Petition in November, 2018 After withdrawing the petition on 13 -11-2018 the objection was filed on 14-12-2018 .Dismissing the petition , considering the facts of the case the Court held that ; if the assessee delays filing objections to the reasons and leaves the AO with little time to dispose of the objections and pass the assessment order before it gets time barred, it destroys the formula provided in Asian Paints Ltd v. Dy. CIT ( 2008) 296 ITR 90 (Bom) that the AO should not pass the assessment order for 4 SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR weeks. Accordingly the writ petition was not entertained . ( WP No. 284 of 2019, dt. 01.02.2019)(AY.2011-12) In view of the aforesaid facts having not settled the objection in the right spirit the assessment proceedings stand vitiated.

(d) Principles of Natural justice violated It is submitted that the learned AO issued show cause notice on 03.09.02021 seeking compliance by 08.09.2021. Copy of show cause notice dated 03.09.2021 is available on paper book page No. 31 to 36 Although the show cause notice runs into 5 pages involving issues running into several lacs. Further 04th September and 5th September happened to be Saturday and Sunday. Thus only and virtually two days time was given which being too short violates the principles of natural justice. The working of two days time is as under- The days granted for compliance work out as under S No Date Day Remarks 1 03.09.2021 Friday To be excluded being date of notice 2 04.09.2021 Saturday To be excluded being non working day 3 05.09.2021 Sunday To be excluded being non working day 4 06.09.2021 Monday Day allowed No. 2 5 07.09.2021 Tuesday Day allowed No. 3 6 08.09.2021 Wednesday To be excluded being date of compliance It is submitted that in the office manual procedure issued by the CBDT, the CBDT has issued guidelines of granting of minimum of 7 days time. The courts have also held that in a show cause notice minimum time should be of 7 days excluding holidays, the day of issue of the notice and the date on which the rely is sought. In these circumstances the learned AO has acted against the Principles of Natural Justice. This has vitiated the assessment SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR proceedings. The Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quash the assessment order on this ground alone. The following caselaws are quoted in Support.

1. Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT [2004] 141 Taxman 559 (Mad.), time of just one day was given to the assessee to furnish reply. This was held as denial of opportunity. Denial of opportunity may make an order void. Limitation of time cannot stand in the way of not giving adequate opportunity. The principle is inviolable.

2. Tinbox Company Vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) The principle of natural justice is so fundamental that failure to observe the principle of natural justice cannot be made good in appeal. Lack of opportunity before the A O cannot be rectified by the appellate authority by giving such opportunity.

3. CCE Vs ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38 (SC) Before an assessee is made liable for higher or enhanced tax he must to told on what ground he is sought to be made liable for additional tax and must be given an opportunity of meeting those grounds. This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice.

4. C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and others (1993) 1 SCC78 (SC)

5. Shri ram Durga Prasad Vs settlement commission (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC)

6. S L Kapoor Vs Jagmohan AIR 1981 SC 136, 145

7. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597

8. A K Kraipak Vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150

9. C Vasanntlal& Co. Vs CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206

10. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) 11. Swedeshi cotton Mills Limited Vs. Union of India 51 Comp Das 210 (SC)

15. Kellog India P Limited Vs Union of India (2006) 193 ELT 385

16. Nedunchezhian (Dr K) Vs DCIT (2005) 274 ITR 37 (Mad) Opportunity should be a reasonable one , reasonable time should be given to the assessee to furnish his reply.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 18. Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Superintendent of Taxes (1990) 78 STC 593 (Gau) Opportunity must be real and effective : 19. Jawala Prasad vs. State AIR 1977 (Raj) 187 etc. 20. CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi [1970] 78 ITR 728 (Cal.). The opportunity of being heard should be real, reasonable and effective. The same should not be for name sake. It should not be a paper opportunity. This was so held in

Ground No 2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the order passed by the learned AO and confirmed by the CIT (A) is against the principles of natural justice and ab initio void It is submitted that the learned AO issued show cause notice on 03.09.02021 seeking compliance by 08.09.2021. Copy of show cause notice dated 03.09.2021 is available on paper book page No. cited supra Although the show cause notice runs into 5 pages involving issues running into several lacs. Further 04th September and 5th September happen to be Saturday and Sunday. Thus only and virtually two days time was given which being too short and violates the principles of natural justice. The working of two days time is as under- The days granted for compliance work out as under S No Date Day Remarks 1 03.09.2021 Friday To be excluded being date of notice 2 04.09.2021 Saturday To be excluded being non working day SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 3 05.09.2021 Sunday To be excluded being non working day 4 06.09.2021 Monday Day allowed No. 1 5 07.09.2021 Tuesday Day allowed No. 2 6 08.09.2021 Wednesday To be excluded being date of compliance It is submitted that in the office manual procedure issued by the CBDT, the CBDT has issued guidelines of granting of mining of 7 days time. The courts have also held that in a show cause notice minimum time should be of 7 days excluding holidays, the day of issue of the notice and the date on which the rely is sought. In these circumstances the learned AO has acted against the Principles of Natural Justice. This has vitiated the assessment proceedings. The Hon’ble ITAT is requested to quash the assessment order on this ground alone. The following case laws are quoted in Support.

2. Tinbox Company Vs CIT (2001) 249 ITR 216 (SC) The principle of natural justice is so fundamental that failure to observe the principle of natural justice cannot be made good in appeal. Lack of opportunity before the A O cannot be rectified by the appellate authority by giving such opportunity.

3. CCE Vs ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38 (SC) Before an assessee is made liable for higher or enhanced tax he must to told on what ground he is sought to be made liable for additional tax and must be given an opportunity of meeting those grounds. This is the minimum requirement of the principles of natural justice.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 4. C.B. Gautam v. Union of India and others (1993) 1 SCC78 (SC) Hon’ble Supreme Court in this case also invoked the same principle and held that even though it was not statutorily required, yet the authority was liable to give notice to the affected parties while purchasing their properties under Section 269-UD of the Income Tax Act, namely, the compulsory purchase of the property. It was observed that though the time frame within which an order for compulsory purchase has to be made is fairly tightone but urgency is not such that it would preclude a reasonable opportunity of being heard. A presumption of an attempt to evade tax may be raised in case of significant under- valuation of the property but it would be rebuttable presumption, which necessarily implies that a party must have an opportunity to show cause and rebut the presumption.

5. Shri ram Durga Prasad Vs settlement commission (1989) 176 ITR 169 (SC) House of Lords : The order made in violation of principle of natural justice is void and a nullity

6. S L Kapoor Vs Jagmohan AIR 1981 SC 136, 145 The requirements of natural justice are met only if opportunity to represent is given in view of proposed action. The demand of natural justice are not met even if the veryproceeded against as furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual way. The person proceeded against must know that he being required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him. If that is made known the requirements are met It is opened to an income tax authority to collect material to facilitate assessments even by private enquiry, But if he desired to use the materials so collected, the assessee must be informed of the materials collected and must be given an adequate opportunity of explaining it.

7. Maneka Gandhi Vs Union of India AIR 1978 SC 597 A quasi Judicial order made in violation of principles of natural justice is null and void

8. A K Kraipak Vs. Union of India AIR 1970 SC 150

9. C Vasanntlal& Co. Vs CIT (1962) 45 ITR 206

11. Swedeshi cotton Mills Limited Vs. Union of India 51 Comp Das 210 (SC)

12. Sutherland Global Services (P) Ltd Vs union of India (Mad) (2016) 143 DTR 0179 Whenever the provisions of an opportunity isactually turned into an empty formality by the officer withholding necessary information or by the officer refusing to consider certain things on the specious plea that there was lack of time or resources, the opportunity provided by the show cause notice become meaningless opportunities SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 13. Vodafone India Limited Vs Union of India & Other (Bom) (2014) 97 DTR 0441 No order can be sustained passed in breach of principle of natural justice

17. Dwijendra Kumar Bhattacharjee Vs Superintendent of Taxes (1990) 78 STC 593 (Gau) Opportunity must be real and effective : The opportunity given to the assessee to be heard must be real and reasonable. If an assessee, who is asked to furnish certain particular or submit explanations within a specified time, prays for further time stating his difficulties and/or reasons, his prayer should be considered judiciously. Sometime, proceedings for assessment for a number of years are taken up together and the asessee asked to appear and produce evidence in support of his returns,. It might not be possible for the assessee ot submit such evidence instantaneously or at short notice, SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR and may pray for further time to do so. Such prayers cannot be summarily rejected without considering the ground given by the assessee merely because the assessing officer is hear –pressed for time and has to complete the assessment by a specified date or for administrative expediency. Such a rejection would amount to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and vitiate the assessment.

3. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO, which has been passed by the learned AO without considering the facts of the case in correct perspective.

4. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 75,00,000/- illegally made by the learned AO under section 56(2)(ix) of the income tax Act 1961.

5. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the learned AO that the assessee accepted Rs. 75,00,000/- as an advance from M/s Jagdish health care P Limited in relation to transfer of a capital asset which was not returned. AND SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 6. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) has erred in holding that assessee accepted Rs, 75,00,000/- as an advance in relation of transfer of capital assets. The facts regarding the issue are enumerated as under -

1. Medical Design India Pvt. limited was allotted a Plot F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur on 16.09.1987.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR S No Date Cheque No. Drawn on Amount 1 18.10.2014 047309 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 2 25.10.2014 047310 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 3 30.10.2014 047311 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- Total 75,00,000/-

A copy of relevant bank account of the assessee reflecting the above payment is available on paper book page No. cited supra. It is relevant to add that as on this date of agreement on 10.12.2014 M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited was also not owning the aforesaid plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur, as the same stood cancelled/de-alloted on 10.03.2006 by RIICO and the issue of appeal was pending before the RIICO.

5. Keeping in tandem the aforesaid affairs, a Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi by M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Shri Saroj Dhawan so that he (Dr. Anil Tambi) could pursue the matter with concerned authorities of RICCO for removing the hurdles and getting the plot allotted again to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited so that it could be purchased for Dr Anil Tambi .

10. The facts indicate that in the case assessee was not a beneficiary even for a single rupee. The beneficiary in this case is M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited who did not return the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the assessee and assessee had to forfeit the same. If any action at all is required w r to section 56(2)(ix) the same is required to be considered in the case of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. The learned AO was wrong in training the guns against the assesee instead of at M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. In the facts and circumstances of the case there was no case with the learned AO for proposing action under section 148. Similarly the learned JCIT also erred in granting approval for issuing notice under section 148 which was issued on 23.04.2019. In view of this the very basis and origin of assessment proceedings is not in accordance with law.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR The amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- was received on 24.02.2015 by the assessee from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited in lieu of such payment made earlier by the assessee for bargain of plot for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limitedfrom 18.10.2014 to 30.10.2014. Thus it cannot be termed as advance. In fact it is recovery of the amount earlier paid on and for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited toM/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited, Thus no advance was received. The first stipulation of section 56(2)(ix) is not fulfilled. Further it is submitted that the assessee was not owning any capital asset for transfer to Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. The fact rather indicates that the assessee was in the course of negotiation for purchase of plot from Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. Obviously the assessee was not having any capital asset for transfer to Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited. Thus this stipulation of section 56(2)(ix ) is also not fulfilled. Further, the assessee is not beneficiary in any manner. There is no case of money received by the assessee being forfeited. The assessee had received money Rs. 75,00,000/- from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited against payment already made to Medical Design India private Limited. The amount paid to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited stood forfeited because Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited failed in getting the plot re-allotted to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited by RIICO, where appeal of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited was pending against cancellation of plot on 10.03.2006 which originally was allotted on 16.09.1987. The entire facts in this case indicate that although Dr Anil Tambi was granted a Power of Attorney by Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for removing the hurdles and getting the appeal (Pending before the RICCO) decided in favour of Medical Design India Pvt. Limited, which he failed to perform. It is because of this failure that money was lost to M/s Medical design India P limited. The facts stated above indicate that the learned AO was not justified in holding as under “Para 6.3.7 It is clear from the above that the amount accepted Rs. 75 Lakhs as an advance from M/s Jagdish Health care Pvt. Ltd vide cheque 447451 dated 24.02.2015 has been in relation of a transfer of an capital asset. Further the SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR amount also has not been returned back even as on date by the assessee and a fact agreed by the assessee Similarly the learned CT (A) also erred in holding that “the assessee also accepted Rs, 75,00,000/- as an advance in relation of transfer of capital assets” (para 5.1 of the appellate order) Considering the afore said facts and the discussion, the Honourable ITAT is humbly requested to delete the addition.

Ground No.7

1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO in disallowing the right full claim of the assessee of Rs. 34,647/- under section 57 of the income Tax out of income disclosed under the head income from other sources. The assessee has disclosed interest income of Rs. 2,71,511/- as per computation of Total income. a copy of the computation of total income is available on paper book page No. 37 to 53. The computation of income discloses receipt of bank interest on SB account of Rs. 50,215/- from FDR Rs. 83,582/- and from Recurring deposit Rs. 5,508/- .Thus the assessee was enjoying income from bank through interest on SB account FDR and RD. Therefore the assessee was fully justified to claim transaction charges levied by bank for Rs, 10,945/-, etc. The assessee had submitted a detailed reply under letter dated 06.09.2021 stipulating the complete details of expenses. A copy of letter dated 06.09.2021 furnished before the learned AO during assessment proceeding is available on paper book page No…54 to 67 The same have not been property appreciated by the learned AO and by the learned CIT (A) . The expenses claimed deserved to be allowed. The Hon’ble ITAT is requested to allow the claim of the assessee.

Ground NO.8 SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the learned AO in disallowing the right full claim of the assessee of Rs. 83,453/- (income from Capital gain ) It is submitted that under provisions of income tax Capital gain shall be calculated as under – Capital Gain = Net Sale Value – Cost of Acquisition: Cost of acquisition - The cost of acquisition in relation to the transfer of capital assets refers to the expenses made by an assessee to acquire an asset. It includes the asset’s purchase price and other costs incurred to get the asset ready to use. It is submitted that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold a immovable property for Rs, 20,50,000/- . The cost of the acquisition of that property was Rs, 21,96,453/-. The cost of acquisition of that immovable property is calculated as under S Particulars Amount No 1. Purchase consideration 20,00,000.00 2 Stamp duty paid on transfer 75000.00 3 Registration charges paid on transfer 33,300.00 4 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan Housing Board for Transfer 15,000.00 of Name 5 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan Housing Board for one time 4,680.00 house tax 6 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan housing board against 22.473.00 demand raised 7 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan housing board for brokerage 46,000.00 Total 21,96,453.00 Therefore It is submitted that the capital gain is shown by the assessee as under - Sales price Rs, 20,50,000.00 Cost price as calculated above Rs. 21,96,453.00 ============= Capital loss Rs. 1,46,453.00 SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR ============= ` Since in the case of the assessee, cost of acquisition is more than the sale value, the assessee has shown a capital loss of Rs, 1,46,453/- in the computation of total income. However the learned AO without assigning any reasons in the entire assessment order restricted the cost of acquisition of property at Rs, 21,13,000/- . Even the learned AO did not seem it necessary to mention in the assessment order which amount is included in the cost, and why the otherare excluded. It is submitted that as per the learned AO cost of acquisition has been taken as under- Purchase price +stamp duty + registration charges + transfer fee, which are in the case of assessee as under - Purchase price 20,00,000.00 Stamp duty paid 75,000.00 Registration fee 33,300.00 Name transfer charges 15,000.00 =========== Total comes to 21,23,300.00 =========== Whereas the learned AO has taken the cost of acquisition at Rs, 21,13,000/- only which is wrong and there appears to be a totaling mistake. The amount has been taken less by Rs, 10,000/- Further the learned AO, in the entire assessment order, did not specify the reasons for not including the remaining amount in the cost of acquisition. It is submitted that amount paid to (i) Rajasthan Housing Board of Rs, 4,680/- on account of One time House tax, (ii) amount paid towards demand by Rajasthan housing board of Rs, 22,473/- and (iii) brokerage paid on purchases of immovable property of Rs, 46,000/- all are of capital expenditure and are part of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Surprisingly the learned AO without mentioning the details and reasons for not accepting the right full claim of the assessee has taken the cost of acquisition at Rs, 21,,13,000/- only. The action of the learned AO is SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR unlawful, illegal and unjust. The learned CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the action of the learned AO without even going into the merits of the case. The Hon.ble ITAT is humbly requested to allow the cost of acquisition at Rs, 21,96,453/- consequently capital loss of Rs, 1,46,453/-.

Ground NO. 9

2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO determining the total income at Rs, 88,72,047/- against the returned income of Rs. 1337,400/-. As discussed above Ground No. 10 That in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT (A) has erred in confirming the order of the learned AO for initiating penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the income Tax Act 1961. It is submitted that the all the addition made by the learned AO are unlawful illegal and unjust and the initiation of penalty proceeding is bad in law. ‘’ To support his submission, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed following paper book. S.N. Particulars Paper Book Page No(s) 1. Copy of the return of income filed u/s 139(1) 1 2. Copy of the statement recorded by the Investigation 2-8 under section 131 on 16-05-2017 of husband of assessee Shri Mahendra Kumar Halidya 3. Copy of agreement dated 10-12-2014 executed 9-14 between assessee and Smt. Saroj Dhawan/M/s. Medical Design India Pvt. Ltd. 4. Copy of relevant bank account of the assessee 15-16 SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR reflecting the payment made by assessee to Medical Design India Pvt Ltd.

2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and filed following written submission. ‘’Written submission on behalf of the Revenue 1. The assessee has submitted various documents before this Hon’ble Bench in the form of a Paper Book. In the certificate attached with the Paper Book, it has been stated that all the pages contained therein were already filed before the Learned Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. The revenue respectfully submits rejoinder as under-

2. Incorrect Claim of regarding Filing of Return under Section 139 The assessee has claimed in its submissions that the return of income was duly filed under Section 139 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.The Revenue respectfully submits that this claim is factually incorrect. For the Assessment Year 2015-16, the statutory due date for filing of return of income under Section 139(1) was 31st July 2015. Subsequently, by CBDT Notification, the due date was extended only up to 31st August 2015.The return filed by assessee falls beyond the above statutory extended due date and therefore cannot be said to be a valid return filed within the meaning of Section 139(1).In view of this, the Revenue respectfully prays that the Hon’ble Bench may kindly take this factual position on record, and consider that the assessee’s assessee contention of filing return under Section 139 is untenable in law and fact.

The assessee, Smt. Saroj Haldia, has placed reliance on a statement recorded by the Investigation Wing under Section 131 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 16th May 2017, of her husband, Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia.It is respectfully submitted that the said statement was duly recorded by the department and has been placed by the assessee herself before this Hon’ble Bench as evidence. In the said statement, Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia categorically stated that he has complete knowledge of the transactions carried out by the assessee and that he was competent to explain the same before the authorities.Onpage no. 5 of the statement, at Question No. 8, the Investigating Officer referred to a document pertaining to the bank account of the assessee, wherein an amount of ₹75 lakh was received from Jagdish ltd. The officer specifically asked Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia whether he himself would answer the question or whether his wife (the assessee) would respond. To this, Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia unambiguously stated that he has complete knowledge of this entry, and therefore he would give the reply.It is important to note that: a. There has been no retraction of this statement at any subsequent stage by Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia. b. The assessee, Smt. Saroj Haldia, has also never objected to or contradicted the contents of the statement given by her husband.During the course of statement recorded under Section 131, the husband of the assessee, Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia, explained the background of the transaction relating to the receipt of ₹75 lakhs in the bank account of the assessee, Smt. Saroj Haldia.Shri Haldia stated that the amount relates to a property situated at 28, Malviya Nagar Industrial Area, Jaipur, which was to be purchased from M/s. Medical Design India Pvt. Ltd. through Smt. Saroj Dhawan. For this purpose, an Ikraar Nama dated 10th December 2014 was executed, under which a sum of ₹75 lakhs was paid to Smt. Saroj Dhawan as advance consideration.According to Shri Haldia, the ultimate beneficiary of the transaction was Shri Anil Tambi, resident of Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, whose company is M/s. Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. He categorically stated that this property was in fact being purchased on behalf of Shri Tambi.Shri Haldia further clarified that:A payment of ₹75 lakhs was made by Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. to Smt. Saroj SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR Haldia.This was against the proposed purchase transaction with M/s. Medical Design India Pvt.Ltd.According to him, the amount received by his wife, the assessee, was nothing but advance money routed through Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. in connection with the said property transaction.In continuation of his statement recorded under Section 131, the Investigation Officer further asked Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia at Question No. 10 (page no. 6 of the paper book) whether there exists any Ikraar Nama between Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and the assessee, or whether any other documentation was prepared in this regard.In reply, Shri Haldia stated that:  An Ikraar Nama dated 10th December 2014 was executed between his wife, Smt. Saroj Haldia, and M/s. Medical Design India Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Smt. Saroj Dhawan.  Thereafter, in February 2015, his wife, Smt. Saroj Haldia, and M/s. Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. also entered into an agreement.  However, he admitted that he was not in possession of a copy of this Ikraar Nama, and he assured the department that the same would be submitted. 3.2Two important aspects arise from this admission:

 Firstly, as per Shri Haldia’s own statement, the initial Ikraar Nama was between Saroj Haldia and Saroj Dhawan of Medical Design India Pvt. Ltd. on 10th December 2014, and the alleged subsequent agreement with Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. was only in February 2015.  Secondly, despite his categorical assurance, no copy of the Ikraar Nama or subsequent agreement has ever been produced by the assessee either at the stage of assessment, before the Learned CIT(A), or even before this Hon’ble Bench. 3.3 In absence of this crucial documentary evidence, the assessee’s contention that the transaction was merely on behalf of Shri Anil Tambi of Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. and that she was only acting as a broker is factually unsubstantiated. The burden to produce this evidence squarely rested upon the assessee, and her failure to do so despite repeated opportunities renders the claim unreliable.Thus, the plea that the assessee was only a SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR facilitator/broker in the transaction for Shri Anil Tambi has no evidentiary support, and the reliance on an unproduced Ikraar Nama cannot be accepted. 3.4. In continuation of the query on the alleged Ikraar Nama, the Investigation Officer, at Question No. 11, specifically asked Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia, husband of the assessee, to clarify who were the witnesses at the time of execution of the Ikraar Namaentered into between Smt. Saroj Haldia and M/s. Medical Design India Pvt. Ltd. through its Director, Smt. Saroj Dhawan. In response, Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia stated that he was unable to provide the names of any witnesses, as he did not have the memory of who signed as witnesses on the said document. This response further demonstrates that:  The assessee has failed to substantiate the genuineness and authenticity of the Ikraar Nama, since even the basic detail of witnesses could not be produced by her or her husband.  No supporting evidence has been placed on record to corroborate the existence of such an Ikraar Nama apart from bare assertions.  Despite claiming reliance on the document, the assessee has not produced the Ikraar Nama itself, nor has she explained why it has not been filed before any authority. 3.4 Accordingly, the Revenue submits that the assessee’s explanation lacks credibility and remains unsupported by verifiable documentary evidence. The Hon’ble Bench is requested to draw an adverse inference from the failure of the assessee to substantiate the execution of the Ikraar Nama or to even identify its witnesses.As the Revenue was not satisfied with the earlier replies of Shri Mahindra Kumar Haldia, husband of the assessee (Smt. Saroj Haldia), further questions were put to him by the Investigation Wing. These questions and answers are recorded at pages 7 to 9 of the paper book filed by the assessee.In reply to a direct question by the department as to whether the property transaction had been completed or not, Shri Haldia clearly admitted that the property transaction was not completed, as there was a dispute in respect of the said property.The Revenue further asked him to explain why the advance of ₹75 lakhs had not been taken back, if the transaction was never completed. In response, Shri Haldia stated that the money was still lying with Smt. Saroj Dhawan of M/s. Medical Design India Pvt. Ltd., and that the same had not been SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR returned either to him or to his wife, the assessee.This admission is crucial because it shows that:  The assessee has not been able to establish that the receipt of ₹75 lakhs had any genuine nexus with Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. or Shri Anil Tambi.  The explanation offered is contradictory, as the assessee claims to have acted merely as a facilitator/broker, yet her husband admits that the advance money continues to remain with the vendor (Saroj Dhawan), and no recovery of the same has been effected.  No supporting evidence has been placed on record to demonstrate steps taken by the assessee or her husband for recovery of this substantial amount.The sequence of replies from Q.8 to pages 7–9 shows a progressive weakening of the assessee’sdefence:  Admission of knowledge of the ₹75 lakh receipt.  Assertion of an Ikraar Nama never produced.  Failure to identify even witnesses.  Admission that the property deal was never completed and money remains unpaid without recovery action. 3.6 In these circumstances, the Revenue respectfully submits that the alleged explanation of the assessee is not supported by credible evidence and only attempts to cover up the unexplained receipt of funds.

4 Legal Position and Judicial Precedents  CIT v. Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540, SC): The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that taxing authorities are entitled to look into the surrounding circumstances and apply the test of human probabilities. A mere self-serving explanation cannot be accepted without corroborative evidence.  CIT v. P. Mohanakala (291 ITR 278, SC): The Court upheld additions under Section 68 where the assessee’s explanation lacked credibility and supporting evidence, observing that the initial onus lies on the assessee to establish genuineness.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR  Sumati Dayal v. CIT (214 ITR 801, SC): The principle of human probabilities was reiterated, holding that improbable explanations unsupported by evidence cannot be accepted.  Chuharmal v. CIT (172 ITR 250, SC): It was held that evidentiary value can be attached to statements and material seized, and adverse inference can be drawn when the assessee fails to explain satisfactorily. In light of these facts and binding judicial precedents, the assessee’s explanation is contradictory, unsubstantiated, and improbable. The amount of ₹75 lakhs remains unexplained and is rightly taxable in the assessee’s hands. 5 From pages 9 to 14 of the paper book, the assessee (Smt. Saroj Haldia) has filed a copy of the agreement dated 10th December 2014 described as an Ikraar Nama. This document was executed between the assessee and Smt. Saroj Dhawan, Director of M/s. Medical Designs India Pvt.Ltd.It is respectfully pointed out that this Ikraar Nama is only between the assessee and Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. It is not an agreement between the assessee and M/s. Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. The assessee’s explanation that the transaction was undertaken on behalf of Shri Anil Tambi/Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. therefore has no documentary foundation. On page 11 of the paper book, the Ikraar Nama clearly records:

 The total purchase consideration of ₹3,94,38,675.  The agreed rate of ₹22,500 per square meter.  Property details showing that the land in question wasalready disputed since 10th March 2006 and subject to defective title. 5.1These facts demonstrate that:

 The assessee entered into a property transaction in her own name, not on behalf of Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.  She agreed to purchase a property that was already under litigation and without clear title.  Her subsequent explanation that the transaction was for or on behalf of Shri Anil Tambi is factually false and unsupported.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 5.2 Thus, the assessee’s reliance on the Ikraar Nama not only fails to support her case, but on the contrary, shows that she entered into an agreement in her own name, for a disputed property, without any evidence of Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.’s involvement.Accordingly, the plea that the amount of ₹75 lakhs received in her account represents money advanced by Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. on behalf of Shri Anil Tambi stands discredited. The explanation before the authorities is therefore false, self-serving, and devoid of evidential value. 6 Conclusion The sequence of replies and documents shows:

 Admission of ₹75 lakh receipt in assessee’s name.  Reliance on an Ikraar Nama never produced (with Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.).  Failure to recall even witnesses.  Admission that the property transaction was never completed and money not recovered.  Production of an Ikraar Nama only with Medical Designs India Pvt. Ltd., proving the assessee was acting in her own name.  Clause 2 showing assessee’s responsibility for disputed property and risk of forfeiture.  In light of these facts and binding judicial precedents, the assessee’s plea that she was merely acting as a broker on behalf of Shri Anil Tambi is false, contradictory, and without evidential value. The amount of ₹75 lakhs remains unexplained in her hands and is rightly liable to be taxed.

7 The assessee, Smt. Saroj Haldia, has filed in her paper book (page no. 16) a copy of her ICICI Bank account statement. On perusal, the following facts are evident: o A credit entry of ₹75 lakhs has been recorded, shown as received from Shri Jagdish Tambi. o On the very same date, two large debit entries appear:  ₹22 lakhs transferred to Smt. Tanushi Tambi, and  ₹23 lakhs transferred to Shri Anil Kumar Tambi.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 7.2 The Revenue had specifically pointed this out during oral arguments, questioning why almost ₹45 lakhs out of the ₹75 lakhs received was immediately transferred back to close relatives of the Dr Tambi.The assessee, however, has failed to provide any explanation regarding the nature, purpose, or business justification of these transfers. No supporting documentation, agreement, or clarification has been placed on record. It is relevant to note that both Tanushi Tambi and Anil Kumar Tambi are close family members of the Dr Tambi. This fact raises strong doubts about the genuineness of the claim that the ₹75 lakhs was received in connection with any independent property transaction. In absence of a credible explanation, the transaction reflects a clear case of circular movement of funds within family members, undermining the assessee’s plea that the amount represented a genuine advance from Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd. for purchase of property. 7.3 Conclusion: The ICICI bank account entry itself disproves the assessee’s version. The receipt of ₹75 lakhs from Shri Jagdish Tambi followed by immediate transfer of a major portion to her own family members remains unexplained and without justification, thereby attracting addition in the assessee’s hands. 8 Rebuttal to Assessee’s Plea The assessee’s claim that she was merely a facilitator/broker on behalf of Shri Anil Tambi is contradicted by the documentary record (Ikraar Nama in her own name, responsibility clause, no agreement with Jagdish Healthcare Pvt. Ltd.). The non-production of vital documents and witnesses (Ikraar Nama with Jagdish Healthcare, Saroj Dhawan, Dr. Anil Tambi) warrants an adverse inference against the assessee. Judicial precedents (Durga Prasad More, Sumati Dayal, P. Mohanakala) establish that improbable, self-serving explanations without corroboration cannot be accepted. 9 Prayer In view of the above facts, circumstances, and settled legal position, the Revenue most respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Bench may be pleased to:

 Reject the assessee’s explanation regarding the receipt of ₹75 lakhs.  Hold that the amount remains unexplained in the hands of the assessee under the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961.  Uphold the addition made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A).’’ 2.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record.The facts in brief as emerges from the assessment order is that the assessee is an individual. The assesee filed ITR for A.Y. 2015-2016 on 31-03-2016 declaring total income of Rs. 13,37,400/-. During the assessment proceedings the AO had reasons to believe that the assessee had claimed deduction u/s 57 of Rs. 34,647/- under thehead ‘’Income from other Sources’’. The AO also noted that the assessee was involved in a transaction of sale of immovable property during the year and the same resulted in short term loss of Rs. 1,46,543/-. The difference of the cost of purchase and the sale consideration was Rs. 63,000/- and thus the short term loss was restricted to Rs. 63,000/-. Hence, Rs. 83,453/- was disallowed by the AO. The AO noted that the assessee also accepted Rs. 75,00,000 as an advance from M/s. Jagdish Health Care Pvt Ltd. vide cheque no. 447451 dated 24-02-2015 in relation of transfer of capital asset. Subsequently, A notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax act, 1961 dated SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR 23.04.2019 was issued along with various other notices. The assessee failed to give a satisfactory reply and notprovide any required details. Hence, the A.O, completed the assessment and passed order u/s. 147/144B of the Income-tax Act dated 13.12.2019 Assessing total Income at Rs. 90,97,047/-. It is note worthy to mention that the AO made additions whose narrations are as under:-.

1. Disallowance as per para 6.2.4 Rs.83,453/- ‘’6.2.4 The difference of the cost of purchase and sale consideration isRs.63,000/-only and hence in the light of the same the Short Term Los is restricted to Rs.63,000/- and will be allowed to be set off as per law. The disallowance as per this order is Rs.83,453/- and penalty u/s 271(1)© is initiated in view of the inaccurate particulars filed in respect of the same.’’ 2. Disallowance as per para 6.14 Rs. 34,647/- ‘’6.1.4 Consequently in lieu of no direct nexus and the no evidence whatsoever filed by the assessee in respect of these expenses. This amount of Rs.34,647/- cannot be allowed as an expenses and it being an inaccurate submission of particulars of income and penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© is initiated in respect of the same.’’ 3. Disallowance as per para 6.3.8 R.75,00,000/- ‘’6.3.8 Accordingly, this amount of Rs.75,00,000/- is considered as the income of the assessee u/s 56(2)(ix) of the Income Tax Act. Since it is a case of concealment of income, penalty u/s 271(1)© is initiated against the same’’ SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A)has confirmed the action of the AO by holding that the assessee has not furnished any substantial written submission or documentary evidence in support of its grounds of appeal challenging the additions (supra).During the course of hearing, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT with regard to the following additions.

(1) Addition of Rs.75.00 lacs (2) Addition of Rs.34.647/- u/s 57 of the Act (3) Addition of Rs.83,453/- as Short Term Loss.

2.4.1 First of all, we take up the issue of addition of Rs.75.00 lacs wherein the facts as emerges are that Medical Design India PrivateLimited was allotted a Plot F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur on 16.09.1987. Subsequently the above allotment by RIICO of Plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur to Medical Design India Pvt. limited was cancelled on 10.03.2006. In this regard, M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited went in appeal before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court against the cancellation of plot. The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court directed M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited to appeal before the RIICO. As per direction of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, M/s Medical Design India Pvt. SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR Limited accordingly filed appeal before RIICO which was pending when assessee started negotiations. It is noted from the record that Dr.Anil Tambi approached the assessee for getting the above plot at F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur from M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited as he was confident of getting the hurdles removed regarding allotment/cancellation of plot to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited, and subsequently getting the same to himself from RIICO.In such a situation the assessee approached M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Director Smt. Saroj Dhawan and executed an agreement on 10.12.2014. The assessee paid Rs. 75,00,000/- as under to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited for agreeing to purchase the plot for a total sum of Rs, 3,94,38,675/-. A copy of agreement dated 10.12.2014 executed between assessee Smt. Saroj Haldiya& Smt. Saroj Dhawan of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited is available on paper book page No 9 to 14. The details of the amount paid by the assessee Smt. Saroj Devi to the first party is as under:-

S No Date Cheque Drawn on Amount No. 1 18.10.2014 047309 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 2 25.10.2014 047310 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- 3 30.10.2014 047311 ICICI Bank 25,00,000/- Total 75,00,000/- SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR A copy of relevant bank account of the assessee reflecting the above payment is available on paper book page No. 16 & 17. It is relevant to note that as on this date of agreement on 10.12.2014 M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited was also not owning the aforesaid plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICO Industrial area, Jaipur, as the same stood cancelled/de-alloted on 10.03.2006 by RIICO and the issue of appeal was pending before the RIICO.Keeping in tandem the aforesaid affairs, a Power of Attorney was also executed in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi by M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited through Shri Saroj Dhawan (PB Page 17 to 19) so that he (Dr. Anil Tambi) could pursue the matter with concerned authorities of RICCO for removing the hurdles and getting the plot allotted again to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited so that it could be purchased for Dr Anil Tambi . However the fortunes did not favour, as mentioned in the agreement executed by the assessee with M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited on 10.12.2014 as the time limit for getting clearance and removing the hurdles was only of three months failing which the advance of Rs, 75,00,000/- was to be forfeited and ultimately the same stood forfeited. In the meanwhile, the assessee also received payment from Dr Anil Tambi as under :-

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR S No Date Ch No. Name of payer Amount 1 16.12.2014 144015 From Tanu shri Tambi 22,00,000/- 2 24.12.2014 566002 From Dr. Anil Tambi 23,00,000/- Total 45,00,000/- Later on Dr Anil Tambi changed his mind to purchase the property in the name of M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited his company, instead of in individual name(s). Hence the amount received by the assessee from Tanu Shri Tambi and Dr Anil Tambi was returned on 16.02.2015 through banking channel as under: – S Date Ch No. Beneficiary Name Amount No 1 16.02.2015 63026 Dr. Anil TAmbi 23,00,000/- 2 24.12.2014 63030 Tanu Shri Tambi 22,00,222/- Total 45,00,000/- It is further noted that Dr. Anil Tambi/ Jagdish Health care Pvt. Limited paid Rs. 75,00,000/- on 24.02.2015 vide cheque No. 447451 for purchase of this plot situated at F-28, Malviya Nagar RIICO industrial Area, Jaipur for his company M/s. Jagdish Health care Pvt. Limited. Thus,the fact indicates that inthe account of this property the assessee did not earn anything at all. This amount was paid as reimbursement of amount of Rs, 75,00,000/- paid by the assessee to Medical Design India (P) Limited as discussed SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR hereinabove. Hence, from the aforesaid scenario of the case, it is clear that entire matter of money paid to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited and in the last money received from M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited has taken place within a short period of time from 10.12.2014 to 24.02.2015 i. e. three months . The record reveals that at no stage of time the assessee was owning plot No. F 28, Malviya RIICo Industrial area, Jaipur and secondly she was acting on behalf of Dr Anil Tambi. These facts are evidenced and corroborated by (i) in the statements of the assessee recorded by investigation wind on 16.05.2017 (PB Pages 2 to 8). (ii) by the agreement executed by the assesseee on 10.12.2014 with Medical design India (P)Limited through Smt,. Saroj Dhawan (PB Page 9 to 14) and (iii) by power of Attorney executed by Medical Design India P. Ltd., in favour of Dr. Anil Tambi. Hence, these facts indicate that in the case assessee was not a beneficiary even for a single rupee. The beneficiary in this case is M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited who did not return the amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- to the assessee and assessee had to forfeit the same. If any action at all is required with respect to section 56(2)(ix) the same is required to be considered in the case of M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited in accordance with law. Thus the AO is not justified in taking action against the asseseee instead of at M/s Medical Design India Pvt.

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR Limited and thus in the facts and circumstances of the case there was no case with the AO for proposing action under section 148 of the Act. The Bench noted that the assessee did not receive amount as advance from M/s. Jagdish Health Care (P) Ltd. / Dr Anil Tambi. The amount of Rs. 75,00,000/- was received on 24.02.2015 by the assessee from Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited in lieu of such payment made earlier by the assessee for bargain of plot for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited to M/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limitedfrom 18.10.2014 to 30.10.2014. Thus it cannot be termed as advance. In fact it is recovery of the amount earlier paid on and for Dr. Anil Tambi/M/s Jagdish Health Care Pvt. Limited toM/s Medical Design India Pvt. Limited. Thusno advance was received. The first stipulation of section 56(2)(ix) is not fulfilled in the case of the assessee. Hence, in view of the above facts and peculiar circumstances of the case, we do not concur with the orders of the lower authorities. Thus, the issue relating to addition of Rs.75,00,000/- made by the AO in the hands of the assessee u/s 56(2)(ix) of the Act is directed to be deleted. 3.0 As regards the disallowance of claim of the assessee amounting to Rs.34,647/- u/s 57 of the Act by the AO, the Bench after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record noted that the SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR assessee had disclosed interest income of Rs.2,71,511/- as per computation of total income (PB Pages 37 to 53).The computation of income discloses receipt of bank interest on S/B Account of Rs.50,215/- from FDR Rs.83,582/- and from recurring deposit Rs.5,508/-. Thus the assessee was enjoying income from Bank through interest on S/B account FDR and RD and thus the assessee is fully justified to claim transaction charges levied by the bank for Rs. 10,945/-. It is also noted that the assessee vide his letter dated 06-09-2021 (PB Pages 54 to 67) submitted the details before the AO during assessment proceedings. The submissions as prayed by the ld. AR of the assessee on the issue of claim of Rs.34,647/- has merit and the same deserves to be allowed. 4.0 As regards the disallowance of claim of the assessee amounting to Rs.83,453/- (income from capital gain), the Bench after hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record noted that during the year under consideration the assessee has sold a immovable property for Rs, 20,50,000/. The cost of the acquisition of that property was Rs.21,96,453/-. The cost of acquisition of that immovable property is calculated as under :-

SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR S Particulars Amount No 1. Purchase consideration 20,00,000.00 2 Stamp duty paid on transfer 75000.00 3 Registration charges paid on transfer 33,300.00 4 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan Housing Board for Transfer 15,000.00 of Name 5 4,680.00 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan Housing Board for one time house tax 6 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan housing board against 22.473.00 demand raised 7 DD issued in favour of Rajasthan housing board for brokerage 46,000.00 Total 21,96,453.00 It is noted that the capital gain is shown by the assessee asunder:- - Sales price Rs, 20,50,000.00 Cost price as calculated above Rs. 21,96,453.00 ============= Capital loss Rs. 1,46,453.00 ============= Since in the case of the assessee, cost of acquisition is more than the sale value, the assessee has shown a capital loss of Rs, 1,46,453/- in the computation of total income.Howeverthe AO without assigning any reasons in the entire assessment order restricted the cost of acquisition of property at Rs, 21,13,000/-. Even the AO did not mention in the assessment order which amount is included in the cost, and why the otherare excluded. It is noted that as per AO, the cost of acquisition has been taken as under- Purchase price +stamp duty + registration charges + transfer fee, which are in the case of assessee as under - SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR Purchase price 20,00,000.00 Stamp duty paid 75,000.00 Registration fee 33,300.00 Name transfer charges 15,000.00 =========== Total comes to 21,23,300.00 =========== Whereas the AO has taken the cost of acquisition at Rs, 21,13,000/- only which appears to be a totaling mistake. The amount has been taken less by Rs, 10,000/- It is also noted that the AO in the entire assessment order, did not specify the reasons for not including the remaining amount in the cost of acquisition. It is noted that amount paid to (i) Rajasthan Housing Board of Rs, 4,680/- on account of One time House tax, (ii) amount paid towards demand by Rajasthan housing board of Rs, 22,473/- and (iii) brokerage paid on purchases of immovable property of Rs, 46,000/- all are of capital expenditure and are part of cost of acquisition of capital asset. Thus theAO without mentioning the details and reasons for not accepting the right full claim of the assessee has taken the cost of acquisition at Rs, 21,13,000/- only. Hence, the action of AO is not justified and the ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the action of the learned AO without even going into the merits of the case. Hence in view of the above facts of the case, the Bench allows the cost of acquisition at Rs, 21,96,453/- SAROJ DEVI HALDIYA VS ITO, WARD 6 (1), JAIPUR consequently capital loss of Rs, 1,46,453/-.Thus, this issue of the assessee relating to disallowance of addition of Rs.83,453/- by the AO is allowed. 5.0 Conclusively, the additions (supra) made by the AO and sustained by the ld. CIT(A) are allowed in favour of the assessee. 6.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 /10/2025.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼jkBksM deys'kt;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼MkWa-,l-lhrky{eh½ (RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI) (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) ys[kk lnL; @Accountant Member U;kf;dlnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 13 / 10/2025 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपिअग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू The Appellant- Smt.Saroj Devi Haldiya, Jaipur 1. 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward -6(1), Jaipur 3. vk;djvk;qDr@ Theld CIT 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZQkbZy@ Guard File ( By order,

सहायकपंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत