SHRI HARBANS LAL KHURANA , ALWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, ALWAR

ITA 1308/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9884 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 06-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Bogus purchase; Unexplained investment; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Application of stay; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1308/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 HARBANS LAL KHURANA, C-84, KARMCHARI COLONY, ASHOK VIHAR, ALWAR. CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD 2(1), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACQPK 2714 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. ANURADHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/03/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/03/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 25/09/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-1 0 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 147/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR TH E REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 LACS U/S 69 OF THE ACT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 2 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF ST ATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH AT HIS BUSINESS PREMISES AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. SO FAR AS THE REOPENING IS CONCERNED, I FOUND THAT AFTER RECORDING SPEAKING REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ONCLUDED THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NO T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 4. IN SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION IS CONCER NED, EXACTLY UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE CASE OF DHIRENDRA SINGH VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1273/JP/2018 WI TH TWO OTHER APPEALS VIDE ORDER DATED 25/3/2019, WHEREIN THE TRIBU NAL HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION ON MERIT AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. NOW I COME TO THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION, I FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AT PAGES 2 TO 15 OF THE ORDER THAT IN SEARCH AT BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA DATED 2 3.05.2013, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.2,68,330/- AND RS.2 ,670/- TOWARDS BOUNDARY EXPENSES BY RECEIPT NO. 53 DATED 07.07.200 8 THROUGH CHEQUE AND RS.4,66,660/- AS ON-MONEY. HE REFERRE D TO THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA U/S 132(4) REPRODUCED AT PAGES 10-13 OF THE ORDER TO CONCLUDE THAT ASSESSEE MADE ON-MONEY PAYMENT AT THE RATE OF RS.2,000 PER SQ. YARD AND ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 3 THUS, MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,66,660/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE ISSUE OF OPPORTUNITY OF C ROSS EXAMINATION, IT WAS HELD THAT SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA IS NOT THIRD P ARTY AS HE WAS THE OWNER OF THE PLOTS. ALL THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BA SIS OF WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS MADE WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE DENIAL OF CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT CARRY MUCH WEIGHT AND THUS, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES, I OBSERVE THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PL ACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ALLEGE D ON-MONEY OF RS.4,66,660/-. NEITHER IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUN D FROM SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA NOR IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), HE ADMITTED THAT HE RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM THE ASSES SEE BY WAY OF ON- MONEY. IN FACT, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NOS. 25 TO 27 OF HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) WITH REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60 ,96,000/- AS REFERRED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT REMEMBER THAT WHAT IS THIS WORKING BUT IT MAY BE WITH REFERENCE T O COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN PROPERTY WHICH HE OFFERED FOR TA X. IN STATEMENT U/S 131(1) DATED 24.02.2016 AND 29.02.2016 RECORDED BY THE AO IN COURSE OF HIS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HE HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAS SOLD THE PLOTS TO THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEWA PARISHAD AT THE RATE OF RS.1,150 PER SQ. YARD ON WHICH HE EARNED PR OFIT OF RS.87,20,000/- WHICH HE HAS ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAX AND THE REMAINING PROFIT OF RS. 1,60,96,000/- IS NOT HIS PROFIT BUT P ROFIT OF THE PARISHAD BUT TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MIND, HE HAS SURRENDERED T HIS AMOUNT IN HIS HAND. THUS, FROM THE READING OF THE STATEMENT OF SH RI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA AND THE PAPERS FOUND FROM HIM, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT ALLOTTEES OF THE PLOT HAVE PAID ANY ON-MONEY ON PURCHASE OF THE PLOT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 4 PLOT FROM SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA RATHER HE WAS ALLO TTED THE PLOT BY THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEWA PARISHAD AND T HUS, THERE IS NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI M ADAN MOHAN GUPTA. THEREFORE, NO QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF ALLEGED ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ARISES FOR C ONSIDERATION. 8. I ALSO OBSERVE THAT ANNEXURE-A-3 REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER IS A REGISTER WHERE THE DETAILS OF THE PL OT ALLOTTED TO VARIOUS PERSONS IS NOTED. AS PER THIS REGISTER, THE NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PLOTS WERE ALLOTTED, THE AREA OF THE PLOT, THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THESE PERSONS AT THE RATE OF RS. 1,150 PER SQ. YARD, AND THE AMOUNT DUE TO THEM AFTER ADJUSTING RS .30,000/- RECEIVED FROM THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEWA PARISHAD ON ACCOUNT OF THESE PERSONS IS NOTED. THUS, THIS ANNEXURE NOWHERE SUGGESTS THAT ANY ON-MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY SHRI MADAN MOHA N GUPTA FROM THE ALLOTTEES OF PLOT. AT THE TIME OF POSSESSION OF THE PLOT, THE FINAL RECEIPT IS ISSUED FOR THE ENTIRE AMOUNT RECEIVED AN D THAT RECEIPT NO. IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THIS REGISTER. THUS, IN THESE PAP ERS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY ON-MONEY HAS BEEN PAID BY THE A SSESSEE. FURTHER, OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA WAS NOT PROVIDED EVEN WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR ON THE GR OUND THAT HE IS NOT A THIRD PARTY IGNORING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHA SED ANY PLOT FROM HIM RATHER IT IS THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEWA PARIS HAD WHO HAVE ALLOTTED THE PLOT TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THEM. THE JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SH RI MEHTAB SINGH UJJAWAL VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 271/JODH/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 18/01/2019 WHEREIN EXACTLY SIMILAR ADDITION WAS DEL ETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI DEVA RAM SUTHAR IN ITA ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 5 NO.342/JODH/2018 WHEREIN EXACTLY SIMILAR ADDITION W AS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECO RD PERUSED. I HAD ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE IR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED BY LEARNED AR AN D DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IN THE CONTEXT OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. FROM THE REC ORD I FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED PLOT NO. 84 MEASURING 233.33 SQ.YARDS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 'REVENUE RESIDENCY' AT VILLAGE PEEPLA BHARATSING, (JAISINGHPURA-MUHANA ROA D), BHANKROTA, TEHSIL-SANGANEER, JAIPUR DEVELOPED BY SH RI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA IN F.Y.2008-09 RELEVANT TO A.Y.2009-10 FOR TOTAL PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,68,330/- FOR PLOT AN D RS.2,670/- FOR BOUNDARY TOTAL RS.2,71,000/- (RS.1150/-PERSQ.YA RD). THUS, TOTAL INVESTMENT BY ASSESSEE IS RS.2,71,000/- OUT O F THIS AMOUNT RS. 1,90,000/- WAS PAID THROUGH BANK BY TAKING PERS ONAL LOAN AND BALANCE RS.81,000/- WAS GIVEN IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. 8. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TO THE SELLER SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ON MONEY OF RS.4,66,660/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLOT NO.84 HAVI NG TOTAL AREA OF 233.33 SQ.YARDS 9. IN REPLY TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDE R:- A. THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE ID.AO IS BASELESS AN D IMAGINARY AND NOT MAINTAINABLE. B. THE ID.AO HAS RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA RECORDED BY THE I.T. AUTHORIT IES ON 23.05.2013 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. BUT FROM READING THE REPLY GIVEN BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA IN THE STATEMENT, IT IS CLEARLY CONVEYED THAT SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA SOLD THE LAND FOR RS.1150/- PER SQ.YARD. AND THE APPELLANT PAID AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE SEL LER MADAN MOHAN GUPTA A SUM OF RS.2,71,000/-. C. THAT THE ENTIRE FABRIC BEING WOVEN AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR TREATING THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF ON MONEY GO AROUND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA. IT IS SUBMI TTED THAT AFTER THOUGHT STATEMENT CARRY NO WEIGHT UNDER THE LAW ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 6 AND THEY ARE AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE VALUE. D. THAT EXCEPT THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN M OHAN GUPTA THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WI TH THE ID.AO WHICH COULD CORROBORATE THAT ON MONEY OF RS.4,66,660/- WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI MAD AN MOHAN GUPTA. E. THAT WHILE MAKING THE ALLEGATION THE LD.AO HAS RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 10. ASSESSEE ALSO ASKED BEFORE THE AO TO PROVIDE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON ON WHOSE STATEMENT ADDITION WAS MADE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED NEITHER BY THE AO NOR BY THE CIT(A). THUS, WITHOUT AFFORDING CROSS EXAMINATION, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA U/S 69 BEING UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ADDED THE SAME IN ASSESSEES INCOME. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NOT PR OVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION AMOUNT TO VIOLATIO N OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULL AND VOID. 11. FOR THIS PURPOSE, RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES 281 CTR 241 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NOT ALLOWING A SSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES BY ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY T HOUGH STATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE AS BASIS OF IMPUGNED ORDER, AMOUNTED IN SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MADE IMPUGNED ORDER NULLITY AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE. THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T WAS AS UNDER :- 'NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE W ITNESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY INASMUC H AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUST ICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IT I S TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS BASE D UPON ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 7 THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAID TWO WITNESSES . EVEN WHEN THE APPELLANT DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS AND WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE, THE ADJ UDICATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE APP ELLANT. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HE HAS SPECIFICALLY M ENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE APPELLAN T. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED AND THE AF ORESAID PLEA IS NOT EVEN DEALT WITH BY THE ADJUDICATING AUT HORITY. APPELLANT HAD CONTESTED THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE STA TEMENTS OF THESE TWO WITNESSES AND WANTED TO DISCREDIT THEIR T ESTIMONY FOR WHICH PURPOSE IT WANTED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNIT Y OF CROSS- EXAMINATION. THAT APART, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE PRICE LIST AS MAINTAINED AT THE DEP OT TO DETERMINE THE PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF EXCI SE DUTY. WHETHER THE GOODS WERE, IN FACT, SOLD TO THE SAID DEALERS/WITNESSES AT THE PRICE WHICH IS MENTIONED I N THE PRICE LIST ITSELF COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CROSS-EX AMINATION. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT FOR THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORIT Y TO PRESUPPOSE AS TO WHAT COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER O F THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND MAKE THE REMARKS AS MENTIONED ABOVE.' 12. RELIANCE CAN ALSO BE PLACED ON THE ON THE DECIS ION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHISH INTERNATION AL IN 1TA NO.4299/MURN/2009 DATED 22/02/2011, WHEREIN COURT H ELD AS UNDER:- 'THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS, -WHETHER T HE TRIBUNAL JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S. THAKKAR AGRO INDUSTRIAL CHEM SUPPLIES P. LTD. ACCOR DING TO THE REVENUE, THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. THAKKAR AGRO IN DUSTRIAL CHEM SUPPLIES P.LTD. IN HIS STATEMENT HAD STATED TH AT THERE WERE NO SALES/ PURCHASES BUT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS NOT INVOLVING ANY TRANSACTIO NS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ABOVE STATEMENT AND ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUN ITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE CONCERNED DIRECTOR OF M/S. THAKKA R AGRO INDUSTRIAL CHEM SUPPLIES P. LTD. WHO HAD MADE THE ABOVE STATEMENT. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD SOUGHT REMAN D REPORT ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 8 AT THAT STAGE THE GENUINENESS OF THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY ALLOWING CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PE RSON WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING B ASED ON THE FACT, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW CAN BE SAID TO ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS '. 13. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF H.R. MEHTA IN ITS ORDER DATED 07/07/2016. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE MATE RIAL USED AGAINST HIM APART FROM BEING PERMITTED TO CROSS EXA MINE THE DEPONENTS. THE DENIAL OF SUCH OPPORTUNITY GOES TO R OOT OF THE MATTER AND STRIKES AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND RENDERS IT VULNERABLE. 14. APPLYING PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBL E SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT FOR THE ADDITION MADE BY AO MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT, WHEN THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL WITH AO SUGGESTING THE ALLEG ED ADDITION, WITHOUT ALLOWING ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON ON WHOSE STATEMENT ADDITION WAS MADE. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE. 15. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER, I OBSERVE THAT LD. AR HAD PLACED ON RECORD ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF NAVRTATTAN KOTHARI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.425/JP/2017 IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.148 WAS QUASHED. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THIS CAS E ARE ENTIRELY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF INST ANT CASE, IN SO FAR AS IN THE CASE OF NAVRATTAN KOTHARI (SUPRA) REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AFTER FOUR YEARS OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.143(3)/153 WAS QUASHED, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) AND ONLY RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NOT GOING TO HELP TH E ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 9 S.A.NO.07/JODH/2018 17. AS I HAVE ALREADY DISPOSED ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERIT, THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE AND STAY APPLICATION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTE D TO DELETE THE SAME. 5. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SAME, RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS STATED ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFI RMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH MARCH, 2019 SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ ( RAMESH C SHARMA ) YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26 TH MARCH, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- HARBANS LAL KHURANA, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 2(1), ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT ITA 1308/JP/2018 HARBANS LAL KHURANA VS ITO 10 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1308/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR