Shri Abdulsattar Aaraf, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Surat

ITA 1258/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6215 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALBINUS TIRKEY
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries
• Section: 131; 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CAMP AT SURAT BEFORE: SHR I RAJPAL YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ABDULSTTAR AARAF, AT. HATHODA TA. MANGROL, MANGROL, SURAT PAN: ADLPA3201H (APPELLANT) VS THE IT O , WARD - 6 (1) , SURAT (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : MR. ALBINUS TIRKEY , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: MR. RAS ESH SHAH A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 09 - 03 - 2 017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 - 04 - 2 017 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR I SE S FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I, SURAT DATED 25 - 02 - 2014 IN APPEAL NO. CAS - I/TFR/6.111B / 318/ 2012 - 13 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 1258 / A HD/20 14 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T.A NO. 1258 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. ABDULSTTAR AARAF VS. IT O 2 2. THE ASSES SEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN M AKING ADDITION OF RS. 28,86,000/ - OUT OF RS. 30,26,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S 69 OF THE IT AC T, 1961. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 , 03 , 630/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 10 , 50 , 227/ - ON 16 TH APRIL, 2009. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SEL ECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 26 TH AUGUST, 2010. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D ISSUED NOTI CE S TO THE ASSESSE FOR ATTENDING AND FURNISHING INFORMATION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE COMPLIANCE AS A RESULT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT EX - PARTE U/S. 144 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE MAINTAINED B ANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK . O N THE VERIFICATION OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT , IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS. 30 , 26 , 000/ - INCLUDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 19 ,1 5 , 000/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTIC ED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THIS BANK A/C IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AS WELL AS NATURE OF SUCH D EPOSIT APPEARING IN THE BANK A/C. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH AN Y EVIDENCE OR DETAIL TO EXPLAIN /PROVE THE CREDIT SHOWN IN THE BANK A/C , I.T.A NO. 1258 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. ABDULSTTAR AARAF VS. IT O 3 THEREFORE, THE SOURCE OF THE CREDIT AS WELL AS CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE AFORESAID BANK A/C REMAINED UNEXPLAINED WHIC H WAS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PROVIDED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,40,000/ - AND SUSTAINED THE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 28 , 86 , 000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, REMAND REPORT OF AO AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. FROM T HE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF BAN K ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY APPELLANT IN HDFC BANK, IT TRANSPIRES THAT HE HAS MADE FOLLOWING DEPOSITS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. DATE MODE OF PAYMENT AMOUNT (RS. ) 03.04.2007 CASH 14,50,000/ - 18.05.2007 CASH 3,25,000/ - 09.06 .2007 CHEQUE 7,11,000/ - 17 .0 8 .2007 CHEQUE 4,00,000/ - 29.10 .2007 CASH 25,000/ - 27.02 .2007 CASH 70,000/ - 12.03 .200 8 CASH 45,000/ - TOTAL 30,26,000/ - TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AGGREG ATING TO RS. 19,15,000/ - , APPELLANT H AS CLAIMED T HAT HE SOLD PLOT OF LAND FOR RS. 14,61,058/ - BY EXEC UTING 'SATAKHAT' AND DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF SUCH EARNEST MONEY R ECEIVED ON SALE OF LAND IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED, THAT SALE DEED COULD NOT BE EXECUTED FINALLY AS THE DEAL WAS CANCELLED DUE TO NOR, PAYMENTS OF REMAINING SALE PRICE ON TIME BY THE BUYERS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM , COPIES OF'SATAKHAT' HAVE BEEN FILED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS WEL L AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF APPE LLANT WAS EXAMINED BY AO DURIN G REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND FOUND THAT OUT OF FOUR PER SONS NAMELY SHRI AFZALKHAN HABIBKHAN PATHA N, SHRI SHARIF MUBARAK ASH RAF, SHRI NAJIR MUBARAK MALIK AND SHRI MAGDUM USHMANN MASTER TO WHOM THE I.T.A NO. 1258 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. ABDULSTTAR AARAF VS. IT O 4 ALLEGE D SALES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY APPELLANT, ONLY TWO PERSONS NAME LY SHRI SHARIF MUBARAK ASHR AF, SHRI NAJIR MUBARAK MALIK APPEARED BEFORE AO IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUE U/S. 131 OF THE ACT. THESE TWO PERSONS ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE PAYMENTS IN THE STATEMENTS BUT FAILED TO PROVIDE SINGLE DOCUMENT IN SUPPORT OF THEIR CLAIM. AS PER AO, BOTH OF THEM FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE - WHATSOEVER WITH REGARD TO THE DETAILS OF PROPERTY, DETAILS OF SAVINGS AND EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT MADE TO APPELLANT. THEY AL SO FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY THEY HAVE NOT PAID THE REMAINING AMOUNT EVEN AFTER SEVEN YEARS OF THE ALLEGED SALE OF LAND. IN MY OPINION, IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION ON THE PART OF APPELLANT AND ALLEGED PURCHASERS, AO HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE - APPELLANT HA S TRIED TO OBTAIN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS BY WAY OF SHOWING EARNEST MONEY RECEIVED FROM FOUR PERSONS. ONLY ADMISSION BEFORE AO THAT CASH MONEY WAS PAID TO APPELLANT BY AFORESAID TWO PERSONS, CANNOT B E HELD AS CONCLUSIVE PROOF UNLESS IT IS SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THE SE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, IN CASH AND NOT ROUTED THROUGH BANKING TRANSACTIONS OR ANY GOVERNMENT RECORDS, THEREFORE, GENUI NENESS OF TRANSACTIONS IS DOUBTFUL. DESPITE OF GIVING T IME BY AO TO THOSE PERSONS TO FILE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION OF THEIR SUBMISSIONS BEFORE HIM, THEY DID NOT TURN UP TO COMPLY THE SAME. AS IT W AS HELD BY HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI KRISHNA V/ S. CIT REPORTED IN 142 ITR 618, STATEMENTS MADE OR AFFIDAVIT FILED BY ANY PERSON CANNOT BE RELIED UNLESS IT IS SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE E. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, THOUGH THE AFORESAID TWO PERSONS STATED TO HAVE ADV ANCED MONEY IN CASH TO APPELLANT BUT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THOSE T TRANSACTIONS WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ALL THESE FACTS PROVE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TR IED TO MANIPULATE THE FACTS AND CREATE THE EVIDENCE BY TAKING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS. 14,61,0 58/ - TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 14,50,000/ - AS ON 03.04.2007 IN THE BANK STATEMENTS. 6. 1 THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS OF BANK .ACCOUNT BY CLAIMING THAT HE WAS HAVING AGRICULTURA L INCOME OF RS. 10, 50,227/ - DURING THE YEAR. IN SUPPOR T, HE HAS FILED THE COPIES OF 7/ 12. DOCUMENTS AND ALSO STATED THAT HE IS HAVING LARGE NUMBER OF TREES OF DIFFERENT VERITIES AND ON SALE OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, NET INCOME OF RS. 10,50,227/ - WAS EARNED. THE AO HA S OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT BY STATING THAT HE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF AGRICULTU RAL I.T.A NO. 1258 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. ABDULSTTAR AARAF VS. IT O 5 INCOME EITHER IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS FURTHER STAT ED THAT THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE H AD AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT THE QUANTUM OF SUCH INCOME IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY HIM. HOWEVER, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, APPELLANT COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EXCEPT SUBMITTING THAT \ HE HAS LARGE NUMBER OF T REES FROM WHICH HE HAS EARNED NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 10,50,227/ - . HE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH A SINGLE EVID ENCE IN HIS SUPPORT EXCEPT THE COPIES OF 7/12 EXTRACTS. HE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENT/DETAILS WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED WITH REAL TIME EVI DENCE. HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE EVEN THE COPIES OF SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH ARE NORMALLY MAINTAINED BY THE PERSONS SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME, LEAVE APART THE DETAILS/EVIDENCES OF GROSS RECEI PTS AND VARIOUS EXPENSES SUCH AS PURCHASE OF SEEDS, LABOUR CHARGES, WATER CHARGES, CONSUMPTION OF CONSUMPTION OF FERTILIZ ERS, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, STORAGE EXPENSES ETC. FURTHER, AS PER R ECORDS, ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS ACCOUNT THE MONEY SPENT TOWARDS ' H OUSEHOLD EXPENSES DURING THE YEA R. THE OTHER EXPENSES INCURRED ON SOCIAL OCCASIONS OR INVESTMENTS MADE IN MOVABLE/IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. ALL THESE EXPENSES/INVESTMENTS ARE TO BE REDUCED FOR ARRIVING AT THE NET FIGURE OF INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL SOURCES. MOREOV ER, THE QUANTUM OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY APPELLANT TO BE SHOWN AT THE END OF FINANCIAL YEAR WHEREAS MOST OF THE CASH, DEPOSITS REFLECTED IN BANK ACCOUNT PERTAIN TO EARLIER PART OF THE YEAR. IT IS FACT THAT APPELLANT IS HAVING AGRICUL TURAL LAND AND HE MUST HAVE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALSO, BUT THE QUANTUM OF INCOME CLAIMED B Y HIM IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND I F AT ALL THE SET OFF OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS TO BE GIVEN AGAINST THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY HIM IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT HAS TO BE GIVEN AGAINST, THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE LATER PART OF FINANCIAL YEAR FOR THE REASON THAT THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE TAKES ENOUGH TIME IN GETTING READY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SALE IN MARKET. 6. 2 DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, APPELLANT TOOK ONE MORE ARGUME NT TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS THAT HE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE YEAR FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4,50,000/ - WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THI S GROUND WAS NOT TAKEN BY HIM DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR REMAND PROCEED INGS BEFORE AO. IN SUPPORT: OF HIS CLAIM, APPELLANT HAS FILED THE COPY OF SALE AGREEMENT ALSO. THE PERUSAL OF AGREEMENT REVEALS THAT APPELLANT HAS AGAIN TRIED TO CREATE THE EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF FABRICATED DOCUMENTS. THE SAID AGREEMENT IS MADE ON 05.09. 2007 I.T.A NO. 1258 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. ABDULSTTAR AARAF VS. IT O 6 (5 TH SEPTEMBER, 2007) BUT THE STAMP PAPERS OF RS. 27,000/ - FOR AGREEMENT HAVE BEEN PURCHASED ON 04.10.2007 (4 T H OCTOBER, 2007). THE DOCUMENT ITSELF REVEALS THAT THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO HAS BEEN M ANIPULATED OTHERWIS E HOW IT IS POSSIBLE THAT STAMP P APERS ON WHICH AGREEMENT IS EXECUTED ARE PURCHASED ON A LATER DATE AND AGREEMENT IS MADE ON EARLIER DATE. THIS IS APPARENTLY FABRICAT ED DOCUMENT. THUS, THIS STAND TAKEN BY APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IS REJECTED. 6. 3 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, I HOLD THAT ALL THE ARRANGEMENTS H AVE BEEN MADE BY APPELLANT JUST TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS REFLECTED IN BANK STATEMENT, WHICH, IN MY OPINION, HE HAS FAILED TO DO. THE OBSERVATIONS OF AO AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MAKE THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT UNBELIEVABLE. AT THIS JUNCTURE, THE DECISION RENDERED BY HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT REPORTED IN 214 ITR 801 IS VERY MUCH RELEVANT. I HAVE THEREFORE NO HESITATION T O SUPPORT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY AO. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY APPELLANT AND THE AFORESAID SALE AGREEMENT ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT, IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED PARTLY RELATED TO THE LATER PART OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS: 14,50,000/ - AND RS. 3,25,000/ - HAVE BEEN MADE ON 03.04.2007 AND 18.05.2007, RESPECTIVELY. THE ALLEGED SALE AGREEMENT HAS BEEN MADE AFTER THESE DAT ES AND, IN MY OPINION, THE MAJ OR PART OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHATSOEVER MUST HAVE BEEN EARNED BY APPELLANT IN THE LAST 8 - 9 MONTHS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THUS, EVEN IF THE SET OFF OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY APPELLANT HAS TO BE GIVEN AGAINST CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT C AN BE GIVEN FOR THE CASH D EPOSITS OF RS. 25,000/ - , 70,000/ - AND 45,000/ - MADE ON 29.10.2007, 27.02.2008 AND 12.03.2008 RESPECTIVELY. THUS, AT THE MOST, APPELLANT CAN BE GI VEN THE BENEFIT OF RS. 1,40,000/ - (25,000/ - + 70,000/ - + 45,000/ - ) CONSIDERING IT EXP LAINED AGAINST THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY HIM. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 17,50,000/ - (18,90,000 - 1,40,000) IS TREATED UNEXPLAINED U/S. 69 OF THE ACT AS HELD BY AO. 6.4 IN RESPECT OF CHEQUE AMOUNT S OF RS. 7,11,000/ - AND 4,00,000/ - DEPOSITED ON 09.06.2007 AND 17.08.2007, AO ASKED THE APPELLANT DURING REM AND PROCEEDINGS TO SUBMIT THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS WHO POSITED THE SAID CHEQUES IN HIS ACCOUNTS. BUT , THE APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNI SH ANY DETAIL IN THIS REGAR D. HOWEVER, DURI NG APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT APPELLANT HAS TAKEN LOAN OF RS. 11,00,000/ - FROM I.T.A NO. 1258 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. ABDULSTTAR AARAF VS. IT O 7 BANK OF BARODA BY MORTGAGING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND CHEQUES ISSUED BY BANK AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT. HERE ALSO, APPELLANT H AS NOT SUPPORTED HIS CONTENTION WITH ANY OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE HAS NOT EVEN INDICATED THAT WHICH PART OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, HAS BEEN MORTGAGED WITH BANK FOR OBTAINING LOAN. IT IS ALSO NOT INDICATED THAT FOR WHAT PURP OSE LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN. NO DETAIL OF ANY COMMUNICATION WITH THE BANK FOR OBTAINING THE LOAN HAS BEEN FILED. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM, ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION CA NNOT BE ACCEPTED. I, THEREFORE, SUSTAIN THE FI NDINGS GIVEN BY AO TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS, 11,11,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED. 6.5 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I HOLD THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPO SITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 30,26,000/ - , RS. 1,40,000/ - IS EXPLAINED BEING DEPOSITS MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND BALANCE AMO UNT OF RS. 28,86,000/ - IS UNEXPLAINED U/S. 59 OF THE ACT AS CONCLUDED BY AO. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED PAPER BOOK CONTAIN ING DETAIL OF SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), BANK STAT EMENT, A CKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME , DETAIL OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ETC. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTICED THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT FOR HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 10,50,227/ - DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPIES OF 7/12 AND HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE A SSESSEE MAY HAVE HAD AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT THE QUANTUM OF SUCH INCOME WAS NOT S UBSTANTIATED BY HIM AS H E HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENT/DETAILS WHICH C OULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED WITH REAL TIME EVIDENCE. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THE OBSERVATION OF T HE ASSESSING THAT IT WAS FACT THAT A SSESSEE T WAS HAVING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HE MUST I.T.A NO. 1258 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. ABDULSTTAR AARAF VS. IT O 8 HAVE EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALSO, BUT THE QUANTUM OF INCOME CLAIMED BY HIM WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS TAKEN LOAN OF RS. 11,00,0 00/ - FROM BANK OF BARODA BY MORTGAGING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM . WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE BANK BOOK PERTAINING TO HDFC BANK A/C DE TAIL AT PAGE 33 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS CONNECTION THE LD. COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT PARTICULARS OF TRANSACTIONS REFLECT ED DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE WERE A NUMBER OF TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT WITH CHEQUE S WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN VERIFIED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATION/ANALYSIS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS STATED ABOVE IN THIS ORDER IT IS APPARENT THAT THE COMPLETE EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION OF TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT FOR WANT OF PROPER EVIDENCES. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AT OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL AND THE INFORMATION /DOCUMENTS CONTAINED IN THE PAPER BOOK REQUIRE VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ARRIVE AT THE FINAL INFERENCE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, W E RESTORE THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE IT DE NOVO AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO MAKE FULL COMPLIANCE REGARDING ATTENDING HEARING AND MAKING SUBMISSION OF INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY FAILURE. I.T.A NO. 1258 /AHD/20 14 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. ABDULSTTAR AARAF VS. IT O 9 7. IN THE RESULT , THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OU RT ON 12 - 04 - 201 7 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 12 /04 /2017 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNE D CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,