SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV, JAIPUR V. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

ITA 1174/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4653 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAFI MOHAMMAD
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Cost of acquisition; Borrowed satisfaction; Capital Gains
• Section: 64; 147; 68; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1174/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV D-365, MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABAPY 0804 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDEN T FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHAFI MOHAMMAD (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MISS CHANCHAL MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 10/02/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/02/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 24.07.2019 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT PROCEEDING INITIATED U/S 147/148 IS ILLEGA L AND AGAINST THE LAW AND THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN S USTAINING THE PROCEEDING U/S 147/148. ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS GROSSLY ERRED IN NO T ALLOWING THE BENEFIT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND BROKERAGE PAID W HILE CALCULATING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 220000/- U/S 68. 2. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AGAINST WHOM THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WERE INITIATED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 18.03.2016 PURSUANT TO WHICH T HE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,97,810/-. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE IT ACT WHEREIN THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 13,33,000/- WHEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT TO TAX LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN A ND UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS. 3,90,000/-. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER, T HE ASSESSEE MOVED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF COST OF ACQ UISITION OF THE PROPERTY FOR CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAINS AND HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REWORK THE CAPITAL GAINS AT RS. 2,42,809 /- BY DEDUCTING RS. 6,62,191/- BEING THE COST OF ACQUISITION FROM SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,05,000/- HOWEVER, THE COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF RS. 65,000/- AND TRANSFER EXPENSES OF RS. 18,000/- CLAIMED BY THE AS SESSEE WERE NOT ALLOWED. FURTHER OUT OF TOTAL ADDITIONS OF RS. 3,90 ,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF OF RS. 1,70,000/- AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS. 2 ,20,000/- HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 3 3. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON ACCOUNT OF ESCAPEMENT OF I NCOME ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AIR I NFORMATION CAN BE A BASIS TO INITIATE THE ENQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HOWEVER, THE SAME CANNOT BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148, THE SATISFACTION MUST O F THE AO HIMSELF AND THE BORROWED SATISFACTION CANNOT BE TREATED AS SATI SFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SHREE RAJAS THAN SYNTEX LTD. 313 ITR 231. FURTHER DRAWING OUR REFERENCE TO REASO NS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THE REASONS STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROP ERTY FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 6,70,360/- WHICH HAS BEEN VALU ED AT RS 905000 FOR PURPOSES OF CHARGING OF STAMP DUTY. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT FOR THE REASONS THAT THE S ALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY IS RS. 9,05,000/- WHICH WAS VALUED AT RS. 6,70,360/- BY THE STAMP AUTHORITIES. IT WAS THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THA T ONLY BASIS FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ON WRONG FACTS. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MISGUIDED THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES BY MENTIONING THE WRONG FACTS AND GOT THE APPROVAL FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES H AVE ALSO NOT BOTHERED TO VERIFY THE FACTS FROM THE RECORDS AND G IVEN THE SANCTION IN MECHANICAL MANNER BY PUTTING THE WORDS YES AND TH E AFFIXING THEIR SIGNATURE WITHOUT APPLYING THEIR MIND. IT WAS ACCOR DINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 4 THE APPROVAL SO GIVEN BY THE LD. ADD. CIT AS WELL A S BY THE PR. CIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT PROPER AND IT IS PURELY A MECHANICAL APPROVAL WHICH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE EYE OF LA W AS HELD IN CASE OF CIT, JABALPUR VS. S GOYANKA LIME & CHEMICAL LTD. 64 TAXMAN.COM 313 WHEREIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS DISMISSED THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE MP H IGH COURT. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PROPER SATIS FACTION WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ITS CASE OF BORROWED SATISFACTION BASED ON THE AIR INFORMATION, THE AO H AS MENTIONED WRONG FACTS WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS AND EVEN SOUGHT A PPROVAL FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES IN A MECHANICAL MANNER. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT PROCEEDING INITIATED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT SHOULD BE QUASHED AND SET-ASIDE. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMITTE D THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY A ND HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE SAME TO THE TAX AUTHORITIES AS THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS THEREFORE, CLEARLY A CASE OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AND THEREFOR E, THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ISSUED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER AFTER SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES. REGA RDING THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED WRONG FACTS WHILE RECORDING THE REASONS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MERELY INTER- CHANGE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND VALUE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSES OF S TAMP DUTY HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE MATTER IS THAT THERE IS CLEARLY TR ANSFER OF AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED TO TAX THEREFO RE, MERELY BECAUSE ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 5 THERE IS CHANGE OF THE TWO FIGURES, IT CANNOT BE SA ID THAT THERE IS ANY INFIRMITY IN THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESS EE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY AND THE SAID SALE TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED A NY RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, WHERE THE AO IS IN POSSESSION OF INFORMA TION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN REPORTED IN THE RETURN OF INC OME, IT IS CLEARLY A CASE OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN TERMS OF CAPITAL GA INS WHICH WILL ARISE ON SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY. BASIS SUCH TANGIBLE PIEC E OF INFORMATION EVEN WHERE RECEIVED THROUGH AIR, WHERE THE AO FORMS A PR IMA FACIE OPINION THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND HAS RECO RDED THE REASONS AND SOUGHT THE PERMISSION FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITI ES BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 147 OF THE ACT, WE DONOT SEE ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN ACQUIRING JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IS CAPITAL GAINS A RISING ON THE SALE TRANSACTION OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT THAT SALE CONSI DERATION IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, THEREFOR E, MERE INTER- CHANGE OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND VALUE ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSES OF STAMP DUTY IN THE REASONS SO RECORDED CANNOT BE TRE ATED AS FATAL WHICH CAN DENY THE ACQUISITION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO. FURTHER, BASIS THIS TANGIBLE PIECE OF INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE AO WHICH SHOWS THAT CAPITAL GAINS HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, WHERE THE APP ROVAL HAS BEEN ACCORDED BY THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES, WE DONOT SEE AN Y INFIRMITY THEREIN. IN THE RESULT, GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 6 6. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF EXPENSE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT OF THE H OUSE PROPERTY AND THE TRANSFER EXPENSES. 7. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED RS. 65000/- ON ACCOUNT OF COLOUR PAINT , FLOORING AND OTHER REPAIR WORKS AFTER PURCHASE OF THIS PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE EXPENSES SO INCURRED IS VERY PETTY AMOUNT AND THIS MUCH AMOUNT CAN BE EASILY BE EXPENDED ON THESE TYPES OF WORKS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BECAUSE HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAINTAIN, HENCE THE REQUIREMENT OF MAINTAINING BILL S AND VOUCHERS OF THIS SMALL EXPENSE IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION OF THIS AMOUNT OUT OF THE CA PITAL GAIN. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF GENERAL I MPROVEMENT INCURRED FOR THIS HOUSE ONLY. IT IS A GENERAL HUMAN TENDENCY THAT BEFORE ENTERING INTO A NEW HOUSE THE NEW COLOR PAINT AND G ENERAL REPAIRS WORK HAS TO TAKE PLACE AND ONLY AFTER THAT THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE USED, HENCE THE EXPENSE SO INCURRED ARE HAVING THE NATURE OF ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S NOT ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF TRANSFER EXPENSES LIKE BROKERAGE PAID TO THE PROPERTY BROKER WHO HELPED THE ASSESSEE TO SALE OUT THIS PROPERTY. THIS IS A SETTLED MARKED CONDITIONS THAT AMOUNT 2% OF THE SALE PROCEE DS IS REQUIRED TO BE PAID TO THE PROPERTY BROKER, IN CASE THE SALE TR ANSACTION TAKES PLACE THROUGH THE PROPERTY BROKER. HERE IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE PAID RS. 18000/- AS 2% OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9050 00/- TO THE PROPERTY ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 7 BROKER WHO SETTLED THE SALE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSE OF BROKERAGE IS RELATED TO THIS PROPERTY. HENCE THIS A LSO AN ALLOWABLE EXPENSE WHILE CALCULATING THE CAPITAL GAIN. 9. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT REGARDING T HE COST OF IMPROVEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVI DENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF THE IMPROVEMENT, THEREFORE, IN THE A BSENCE OF THE SAME THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, REGARDING THE COMMISSION EXPENSES, NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME, CLAIM HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DENIED BY THE AO. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSE E HAS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ON 29.04.2008 AND HAS SOLD THE SAME IN LES S THAN A MONTH ON 19.05.2008, THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TO BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED CERTAIN EXPENDITURE BEFORE MOVING INTO THE SAID HOUSE DOESNT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE IN OUR MIND. AT THE SAME TI ME, WHERE CERTAIN EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED BEFORE SELLING THE PR OPERTY, THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM THE SAME PROVIDED HE IS ABLE TO SUBSTANTI ATE THE SAME THROUGH ANY VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH REMOTELY SUPPORT THE CONTENTION SO ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN TERMS OF ANY PHYSICAL ATTRIBUTES OF THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE AND AT THE TIME OF SALE OF THE SAID PROPERTY OR ANY THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE WHICH CORROBORATES THE ACT OF INCURRENCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE AS SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. SIMILAR LY, FOR CLAIMING ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 8 BROKERAGE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SUBMIT SOME EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE BROKERAGE HAS BEEN PAID AND HIS INVOLVEMENT IN THE SALE TRANSACTION, HOWEVER, THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD AND THEREFORE, WE DONOT SEE A NY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF COST OF IMPROVEMENT AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS 220000/- U/S 68 BY THE LD CIT(A). 12. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS HE IS NOT OBLIGED TO MAINTAIN THE SAME. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ARE APPLICAB LE ONLY IN CASE WHERE ANY AMOUNT CREDITED INTO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D THE EXPLANATION OFFERED ARE NOT UPTO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IN THIS CASE, THERE ARE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SO MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE THE ADDITION U/S 68 CANNOT BE MADE. HENCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 390000/-MADE U/S 68 AS WELL AS THE ACT OF LD CIT(A) ABOUT SUSTAINING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 220000/- ARE NOT IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW THEREFORE LIABLE TO DECLARED AS ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE LAW. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS THE REGU LAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ANY ASSESSEE. 13. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE AFFIDAVITS OF ALL THE PERSONS FROM WH OM THE AMOUNT WAS TAKEN AND IN THE AFFIDAVITS, ALL THE PERSONS HAVE A CCEPTED THE FACT THAT ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 9 THEY HAVE GIVEN RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS MENTIONED IN THE AFFIDAVITS TO THE ASSESSEE. BY SUBMISSION OF THE AFFIDAVITS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS BURDEN OF PROVE THE SOURCE OF RECEIP T. THE AFFIDAVITS ITSELF ARE SELF SPEAKING EVIDENCE IN THE EYE OF LAW . IN ABSENCE OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE DEPONENTS, THE CONTENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVIT SHOULD BE TREATED AS CORRECT AND THE ADDITION SO MA DE MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 14. PER CONTRA, THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ALLOWED NECESSARY RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BASIS THE EXAMINAT ION OF THE AFFIDAVITS SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE REMAINING, SHE HAS GIVEN HER FINDINGS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEE N SUSTAINED. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE SAME SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED NECESSARY AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF GIFT OF MONEY RE CEIVED FROM HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AND CLOSE RELATIVES. THE AFFIDAVITS CONTAI N THE NECESSARY PARTICULARS ABOUT THE DONOR, THEIR ADDRESS, PAN AND AADHAAR NUMBER AS WELL AS THEIR CURRENT OCCUPATION AND SOURCE OF MONE Y SO GIFTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD DIS PUTING THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INI TIAL ONUS CAST ON THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SATISFIED AND THE ADDITION SO SUS TAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS HEREBY DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUN D OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019 SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV VS. ITO 10 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/02/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18/02/2020. * SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI BRIJ RAJ YADAV, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-6(1) JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 1174/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR.