SHRI CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR V. ITO, WAR-6(3), JAIPUR

ITA 1357/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9379 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 2(14); 133(6); 251; 13; 145(3); 131; 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES 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 VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI 13, MAHESH NAGAR VISTAR BARKAT NAGAR, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AFAPJ6028C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. SHRAWAN KUMAR GUPTA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 30/07/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/08/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)- 2, JAIPUR DATED 31.10.2019 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 28.02.2014 IS BAD IN LAW, INVALID, ILLEGAL AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION, BARRED BY LIMITATION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE T HE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2.1 RS. 1,31,984/- : THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERR ED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN PARTLY SUSTAINING THE T RADING ADDITION OF RS. 1,31,984/- BY TAKING THE TURNOVER OF RS. 12,00,000/ - AND N.P. RATE OF 15.00% AS AGAINST TURNOVER OF RS. 15,00,000/- AND A S AGAINST THE ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 2 ACTUAL TURNOVER OF RS. 9,85,568/- AND N.P. RATE OF 14.23%, WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO FURTHER ERRED IN REJECT ING OR INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SEC. 145(3) WITHOUT ISSUING ANY SHOW C AUSE U/S 251 OF THE IT ACT. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND PA RTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3.1 RS. 25,00,000/- : THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ER RED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 25,00,000/- MADE BY THE LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF CA SH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED AGAINST SALE A GREEMENT OF LAND AT SUJANGARH, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN RETURNED TO THE B UYER THROUGH CHEQUE AFTER SOME TIME DUE TO CANCELLATION OF AGREE MENT. HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE SAME MAY KIND LY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3.2 ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IF IT IS DEEMED OR HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE AGRICULTURE LAND THAN THE GAIN RECEIVED FROM THAT IS EXEMPT BEING TH E AGRICULTURE LAND U/S 2(14) (III) AND THE AO MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED T O CALCULATE CAPITAL GAIN AS PER LAW AND ALLOW THE EXEMPTION. 3. THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS O N THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234 A.B.C AND THE APP ELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGED, ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 3 BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. GROUND NO. 1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOESNT RE QUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 3. IN GROUND NO. 2, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ACTION OF THE LD CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS 39, 722/-. 4. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN REJECTED U/ S 145(3) AND THEREAFTER, NET PROFIT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED @ 15% AS AGAINST 14.2 3% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE I N TERMS OF PRIOR SETTLED HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE OR COMPARATIVE THIRD PARTY DATA. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE THEREFORE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 5. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MA INTAINED WITH SBI, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. 6. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TH ERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 25,00,000/- ON 25.01.2011 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SBI AND COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT WAS OBTA INED FROM THE BANK U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE WAS A SKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE, A ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 4 DETAILED SHOW CAUSE DATED 07.02.2014 WAS ISSUED AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF READ AS UNDER:- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, YOU W ERE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF RS. 25 LACS DEPOSITED IN CASH IN YOUR BANK A/C NO.30401351621 MAINTAINED WITH SBI. IN REPLY, YOU STATED THAT THIS AMOUNT REPRESENTS AM OUNT RECEIVED IN CASH FROM SH. RAJARAM GUJAR AND DEVESH KUMAR GUJ AR, TARUCHAYA NAGAR, JAIPUR WITH WHOM A TRANSACTION FOR SALE OF LAND AT SUJANGARH WAS ENTERED INTO AS PER PHOTO COPY OF AGREMENT DATED 25/1/2011. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF YOUR CLAIM, YOU WERE REQUIRED TO PRODUCE THEM, BUT YOU EXPRESSE D YOUR INABILITY TO PRODUCE THEM FOR PERSONAL EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, THESE PERSONS WERE REQUIRED TO ATTEND THE OFFICE BY ISSUANCE OF SUMMONS U/S 131 FOR VERIFICATION OF THE FACTS STATE D IN THE SALE AGREEMENT, PARTICULARLY WHY THESE PERSONS AGREED TO PURCHASE A LAND OF 17 BIGHA SITUATED IN A REMOTE VILLAGE TILAP SITUATED IN SUJANGARH TEHSIL OF CHURU FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS. 25,00,000/ -, WHICH WAS MUCH MUCH HIGHER THAN THE RATE OF THE LAN D IN THAT AREA (YOU YOURSELF HAD SOLD 16 BIGHAS OF LAND FOR R S.8,22,000/- ONLY IN 28/1/2011 TO SMT. JHOOMADEVI W/O MOHAN RAM OF LADNUN). FURTHER, THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE AGREEME NT THAT IF THE LAND IS NOT REGISTERED WITHIN MONTH OF THE AGREEMEN T, I.E. 25/2/2011, THE TRANSACTION WILL BE TREATED AS CANCE LLED AND THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO YOU WILL BE RETURNED TO THESE PERSO NS. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25 LA CS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY YOU IN CASH HAS BEEN RETURNED TO T HE AFORESAID PERSONS AND IF SO, THE EXPLAIN THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT. SINCE YOU HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE IMMEDIA TE SOURCE OF INCOME, I REQUIRE YOU TO SHOW-CAUSE AS TO WHY THE A MOUNT SHOULD NOT ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 5 BE ADDED TO YOUR TOTAL INCOME IN TERMS OF PROVISION S OF SEC. 69 OF IT ACT, 1961. YOUR REPLY SHOULD BE FILED ON 14/02/2014 , TO WHICH DATE THE CASE IS FINALLY POSTED FOR HEARING. IN CASE OF NON- COMPLIANCE, THE CASE WILL BE DECIDED ON MERITS WITHOUT FURTHER REFERENCE TO YOU. ENSURE COMPLIANCE. 7. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 14.0 2.2014 SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS SINCE BEEN RETURNED BACK TO MR. RAJA RAM GURJAR AND MR. DEVESH KUMAR GURGAR AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAIL S: DATE AMOUNT RETURNED REMARKS 18/03/2011 10,00,000/- 8,00,000/- BY CHEQUE NO. 827 715 SBI BANK (PHOTOCOPY OF PASS BOOK ATTACHED) 2,00,000/- CASH WITHDRAW FROM SBI BANK ON 01/02/2011 BY CHEQUE NO. 834385. 13/09/2011 10,00,000/- CHEQUE NO. 625784 OF SBI BAN K RECEIVED FROM KINJAL. (PHOTOCOPY OF PASSBOOK ATTACHED) 18/01/2014 4,00,000/- WITHDRAWN FROM PNB PENSION A/ C (CASH) PHOTOCOPY OF PASS BOOK ATTACHED. 8. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REASONS G IVEN AT PAGES 7 TO 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAI LED TO PRODUCE ALLEGED PURCHASERS FOR PERSONAL EXAMINATION IN ORDER TO VER IFY THE FACTS STATED IN THE SO-CALLED IKRARNAMA AND ALLEGED PURCHASERS ALSO FAI LED TO ATTEND HIS OFFICE FOR VERIFICATION IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 ISSUED TO THEM. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THE C ASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 25,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT SATISFAC TORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,00,000/- WAS ADDE D TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 6 9. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S 46A WITH TH E REQUEST TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT OF SH. RAJARAM GURJAR DATED 1 ST MARCH, 2014 REGARDING REFUND OF RS 25 LACS AS WELL AS AFFIDAVITS OF THE WITNESSES TO THE AGREEMENT WITH SH. RAJARAM GURJAR. IN THE SAID APPLICATION, IT IS AGAIN NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE REFERE NCE TO THE LETTER DATED 14.02.2014 MENTIONING THE DETAILS OF REPAYMENT TO S H. RAJARAM GURJAR AND DEVESH KUMAR GURJAR. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMA ND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE RELEVANT CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT READ AS UNDER: FURTHER, EVEN DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED BEFORE YOUR GOOD-SELF TO PRODUCE BOTH T HE PURCHASER PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION BUT HAS FURNISHED THE SAID MANIPULATED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO HIDE HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THESE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES ARE PREPARED AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED A COPY OF AFFIDAVIT DATED 01.03.2014 O F SHRI RAJARAM GURJAR ONLY WHEREAS LKRARNAMA DATED 25.01.2 011 WAS MADE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAJARAM GURJAR & SHRI DEVESH KUMAR. SHRI RAJARAM GURJAR IN THE SAID AFFID AVIT HAS STATED THAT THE LKRARNAMA WAS CANCELLED AND HE HAS RECEIVE D BACK RS. 25 LACS BETWEEN 18.03.2011 TO 20.02.2014. HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO VIDE SHOW CAUSE DATED 07.02.2014 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAI N THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT RETURNED TO THE SAID PURCHASERS AS NO SUCH BALANCE WAS AVAILABLE IN HIS BANK ACCOUN TS. BUT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF SUCH REPAYMENT. THE OTHER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE ARE THE AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESSES NAMELY CHANDRA KUNWAR & SHR I VARUN ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 7 SINGH WHICH ARE ALSO PREPARED ON 09.02.2016 WHEREIN WITNESSES ARE TRYING TO JUSTIFY THE SAID TRANSACTION BUT INCO RRECT DETAILS OF THE SAID TRANSACTION ARE MENTIONED IN THESE AFFIDAV ITS. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 9.50 LACS IS MENTIONED BY B OTH PARTIES TO BE GIVEN AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION WHEREAS AS PER LKRARNAMA DATED 25.01.2011 WITNESSED BY THEM BALANCE AMOUNT O F RS. 10,34,000/-WAS TO BE PAID AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATI ON. THEY HAVE NOT MENTIONED ABOUT THE CANCELLATION OF THIS TRANSA CTION IN THEIR AFFIDAVITS. HENCE, THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS PROVED TO BE AN ANOTHER AFTER THOUGHT ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESEE TO HID E HIS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABL ISH THE GENUINENESS OF HIS CLAIM OF IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF CAS H DEPOSITS OF RS. 25 LACS MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COMPLETELY FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SO CALLED PURCHASE RS DESPITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT AND THE SO CALLED PURCHASERS A LSO FAILED TO TURN UP FOR VERIFICATION DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS AND NOW BY FILING AFFIDAVIT AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF ONE PARTY DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS. ALL THESE FACTS INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COME CLEAN ON THE ISSUE OF IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 25 LACS AS WELL AS IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF REPAYMENT MADE TO SO CALLED PURCHASERS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 10. THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND REJOINDE R FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO AND HER FINDINGS REA D AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 8 4.3.2 ON PERUSAL OF OVERALL FACTS, IT IS SEEN THAT DURING ENTIRE ASSESSMENT AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT OF CASH FROM THESE TWO PERSONS. THEIR AFFID AVITS ARE SELF- SERVICING EVIDENCES IN ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVI DENCES. AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESS ARE STEREO TYPED WHERE EVEN THE AMOUNT OF A GREED SALE CONSIDERATION WAS WRONGLY STATED AT RS. 34,50,000/- AS AGAINST AGREEMENT AT RS. 35,34,000/-. NOWHERE, IT IS STATED THAT THE DEAL WAS CANCELLED AND AMOUNT REFUNDED BACK. THE AFFIDAV ITS ARE INCOMPLETE NOT HAVING AGE, NATURE OF WORK OF DEPONE NTS. IT SEEMS THEY ARE GIVEN TO JUSTIFY THE STORY OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOTH BUYERS, RAJA RA M GURJAR AND DEVESH KUMAR, FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT AND REMAND PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH, THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IS ALSO IN DOUBT. THUS, THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THESE PARTIES COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. IT IS THE ONUS OF ASSESSEE TO PROVE AL L 3 CONDITIONS THAT IS IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS. THUS THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF CASH ADVANCE OF RS. 25,00,000/- IS REJECTED. IN PARA 8 AND 9 OF HIS ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE RATE OF LAND ACCORDING TO WHICH IT WAS PROPOSED TO BE SOLD WAS EXORBITANTLY HIGH. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT TW O RESIDENTS FROM JAIPUR AGREED TO PURCHASE THE LAND AT CHURU FO R SUCH A HIGH PRICE. THUS I AM OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSING OF FICER RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION WHICH DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. IN ALTERNATE GROUND NO. 3.2, ASSESSEE TRIED TO CONT END THAT IF EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IS NOT ACCEPTED AND DEEMED AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURA L LAND, THE SAME WOULD BE EXEMPT. ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 9 THIS PLEA IS NOT TENABLE AS ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD FI LED THE AGREEMENTS AND FILED RAJARAM GURJAR'S AFFIDAVIT DAT ED 01.03.2014 STATING THAT THE SALE WAS NOT EXECUTED A ND TRANSACTIONS WERE CANCELLED AND PART PAYMENT WAS RE CEIVED BACK IN FORM OF 2 CHEQUES OF RS. 8,00,000/- AND RS. 10,0 0,000/- RESPECTIVELY. BESIDES, RS. 7,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED IN CASH ON VARIOUS DATES IN CASH. THEREFORE, ALTERNATIVE GROUN D OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 11. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE APPELLANT- ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED PERSON FROM INDIAN AIR FORCE. DURING THE YEAR, HE HAS MADE AN AGREEMENT TO SALE ON 25.01.2011 OF HIS AGRI CULTURE LAND WITH SH. RAJARAM GURJAR AND DEVESH GURJAR BOTH ARE BROTHER A ND DEALING IN PROPERTY BUSINESS, FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 35,34,000/- OU T OF THAT, SALE CONSIDERATION RS. 25.00 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN C ASH AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THIS CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 28.01.20 11 FOR SAFETY. ADMITTEDLY IN THE SAID AGREEMENT, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IF THE REGISTRATION IS NOT EXECUTED WITHIN ONE MONTH, THE TRANSACTION SHALL BE TREATED AS CANCELLED VIDE SALE AGREEMENT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO IN VESTED RS.11.00 LACS IN THE BOOKING OF NEW PLOT WITH M/S KINZAL COLONIZERS ON 02.02.2011 OUT OF THE ABOVE PAYMENT AND PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH RTGS FRO M THE VERY SAME BANK A/C. THE PURCHASER FOUND THAT THE RATE OF THAT LAND COSTLY OR BY ONE AND OTHER REASONS AND HENCE HE HAS CANCELLED THE AGREEM ENT. AND THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED THE MONEY TO HIM AS UNDER: RS. 8.00 LCAS BY CHEQUE NO. 827715 ON 18.03.2011 RS. 10.00 LACS BY CHEQUE NO. 625784 O N 13.09.2011 RS. 2.00 LACS BY CASH ON 01.02.2011 RS. 4.00 LACS BY CASH ON 18.01.2014 RS. 1.00 LACS BY CASH ON 20.0 2.2014 ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 10 THE ABOVE DETAIL ARE SUPPORTED BY THE BANK STATEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PURCHASER DT.01.03.201 4 WHICH COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE LD. AO DUE TO THE REASONS THAT THE ASSES SMENT ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN PASSED BEFORE FILLING THE AFFIDAVIT. HOWEVER W E HAVE FILED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED THE AFFIDAVITS OF SH. NANDAN SINGH AND SMT. CHANDRA KUN WAR WHO WERE THE WITNESSES IN THAT AGREEMENT WITH SH. RAJARAM. THUS THESE FACTS AND INFORMATION ARE DULY SUPPORTED WITH ONE ANOTHER AND ARE BEING CORRELATED. THESE AFFIDAVITS HAVE BEEN FILLED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO SENT THE SAME TO THE LD. AO FOR HIS COMMENTS. THESE VITAL EVIDENCES AND DETAILS CANNOT BE IGNORED WHERE THERE IS NO ANY MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES TO REBUT THE SAME. AND THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES HAVE NOT REBUTTED THE SAME BY ANY OF MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES. 12. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THE RE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SAID RS. 25.00 LACS CASH FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE THAN TO THIS SALE CONSIDERATION OR ANY OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN RAJARAM AND DEVESH AND ALSO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID RS.18. LAC THROUGH CHEQUE AND R S.7.00 IN CASH TO SH. RAJARAM GURJAR FOR OTHER THAN TO AGAINST TO THIS CA NCELLATION OF SALE AGREEMENT. 13. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HIMS ELF ADMITTED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 131 HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THEM. THE REASO NS OF NON-APPEARING BY THE PURCHASER MAY BE THAT THE PURCHASER HAS NOT REC EIVED FULL AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSEE AND HE DOES NOT WANT TO COME BEFORE IN COME TAX DEPARTMENT OR TO SAVE HIMSELF FROM TO BE EXPOSED AND THERE MAY BE VARIOUS OTHER REASONS WHICH ARE NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ANY STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED O F SH. RAJARAM AND HE ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 11 DENIED OR HAS STATED THAT HE HAS NOT DONE ANY TRANS ACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT ON THE DATE HE HAS NOT APP EARED, THE TRUE TRANSACTION SUPPORTED WITH THE VITAL EVIDENCES CANN OT BE DENIED IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCES. 14. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION M ADE IN THE LETTER OF AFFIDAVIT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS TRUTH UNLESS REBUTT ED. BECAUSE THESE AFFIDAVITS HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY LOWER AUTHORIT Y BY BRING ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE OR WITHOUT EXAMINING. IT IS VERY SETTLED L EGAL POSITION THAT IN THE CASES WHERE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED YET THE CONTEN TS THEREOF HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE AO/AUTHORITY, THE FACTS MENTIONED T HEREIN HAVE TO BE READ AS THE FACTS BINDING UPON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE IN SUPPORT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE AFFIDAVIT OF PUR CHASER AND WITNESS AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE S AME HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS AND THE LD. AO HAS NOT REBU TTED THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT NOR EXAMINED IT MEAN EITHER HE WAS SATISF IED OR HE HAS NO MATERIAL TO DISPROVE THE SAME. IF THE AO HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY COMMENTS THEREON, THEN IN-ABSENCE OF THE SAME HOW THE LD. CIT(A) CAN COMMENT ON THE SAME WITHOUT ASKING ANY QUESTION FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR CLARIFICATIONS IF ANY IN THE AMOUNT. AN AFFIDAVIT IS THE IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVID ENCE, SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN LIGHTLY AND IF THERE IS ANY WRONG AFFIDAVIT IS GIV EN BY ANY OF THE PARTY OR PERSON THE SAME IS OFFENCE AND MAY BE PUNISHED UNDE R THE LAW. IN ABSENCE OF THE SAME THE SAME CANNOT BE DISCARDED BUT IS THE EVIDENCE OF THE ACCEPTANCE. HENCE IN ROUTINE MANNER TO SAY THAT THE AFFIDAVITS ARE SELF- SERVING EVIDENCE OR STEREO-TYPE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE U NTIL AND UNLESS NOT DISPROVED BY THE AUTHORITY WHO ALLEGING THE SAME. 15. REGARDING THE ALLEGATION OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES ABOUT THE RATE OF SALE OR COST OF AGRICULTURE LAND SOLD TO SH. RAJARAM AND JHUMA DEVI W/O MOHAN RAM FOR RS. 8,22,000/- ON 28.01.2011. IN THIS REGAR D IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 12 AGRICULTURE LAND SOLD TO SH. RAJARAM AND JHUMA DEVI W/O MOHAN RAM WAS UN-IRRIGATED SITUATED ON 10 FEET WIDE WAY/RASTA AND ALSO OF DHORAI.EBALUMEETI DUE TO THAT, THE RATE OF SAID LAN D WAS ON LOWER SIDE. WHILE THE AGRICULTURE LAND FOR WHICH SALE AGREEMENT WAS E XECUTED WITH SH. RAJARAM GURJAR WAS IRRIGATED, SITUATED ON 300FEET R OAD AND PLANE IN LEVEL THAT IS WHY THE RATE OF SAID LAND WAS HIGHER THAN T O EARLIER LAND AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO CONSIDER AND DID N OT TRY TO GO IN THE REASON BUT PROCEEDS ON THEIR OWN GUESS WORK, ASSUMPTION, P RESUMPTION AND SUSPICION, WHICH IS AGAINST THE LAW. 16. REGARDING THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD. AO AND CIT( A) THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL SALE AGREEMENT AND T HE SO CALLED PURCHASERS FOR EXAMINATION. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS KEPT BY THE PURCHASERS WHO HAS PAID THE MONEY A ND DESPITE OUR REQUEST HE HAS NOT GIVEN TO US AND WE WERE UNDER IMPRESSION THAT THE SAME MAY STANDS DESTROYED BY HIM (PURCHASER), WHEN THE DEALS HAS BEEN CANCELLED, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY, THE PHOTO COPY OF AGREEMENT WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY DULY NOTARIZ ED ON THE SAME DATE BY SAME NOTARY PUBLIC AND IS ALSO BEING PRODUCE BEFORE YOUR HONOR. HOWEVER JUST SOME DAYS BEFORE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SECURE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT FROM THE PURCHASER AFTER MAKING REPEATED REQUEST AND VISITS TO PURCHASER AND THE SAME IS BEING SHOWN OR PRODUCED B EFORE YOUR HONOR FOR YOUR KIND VERIFICATION, THUS NOW THE ISSUE OF NON-P RODUCTION OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DOES NOT SURVIVE AND ASSESSEE DESERVE TO SUCCEED THE MATTER. 17. REGARDING THE ALLEGATION THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT THAT HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS PAID BY SH. RAJA RAM AND HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS PAID BY SH. DEVESH KUMAR AND HOW MUCH AM OUNT WAS PAID TO SH. RAJARAM AND SH. DEVESH KUMAR BY THE ASSESSEE IF THE AGREEMENT IS CANCELLED. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSE HAS SUBMITTED ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 13 THE FULL DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND CASH TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, HENCE THE ALLEGATION ARE WRONG AND LIA BLE TO BE QUASH. 18. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S BOOKED A PLOT WITH KINZAL COLONIZERS AND MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 11,00,000 /- BY RTGS ON 02.02.2011. SINCE SH. RAJARAM HAS DISAGREED TO PURC HASE THE LAND IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEE HAD BEEN FORCED TO CANCEL T HE PLOT BOOKING AND THAT IS WHY M/S KINJAL COLONIZERS HAS MADE REPAYMENT OF RS. 11,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10.09.2011 AND SAME AMOUNT WAS PAID TO DEVESH OR RAJARAM BY CHEQUE NO. 625784/83 SBI BANK ON 13.09.2011. TH E ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE UTILIZATION AND TRANSACTIONS DATE WISE W ITH THE BANK STATEMENT AND THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO DISPROVE T HE SAME AND NOT SPOKE A SINGLE WORD ON THE SAME. THE LD. AO HAS NOWHERE PR OVED THAT FOR WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT TO SH. RAJARAM OR DEVESH THROUGH CHEQUE. THE LD. AO HAS NOT PROVIDED OR PROVED THE SOURCE AND UTILIZATION OF CASH DEPOSITS OTHER THAN STATED BY THE ASSESSE AND ALSO NOT PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO HAVING OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXC EPT PENSION AND BUSINESS. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) BE DELETED. 19. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER WAS HAVING SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 25,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SBI. T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AND IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT FROM SH. RAJAR AM GURJAR AND DEVESH KUMAR GURJAR IN TERMS OF SALE AGREEMENT OF AGRICULT URE LAND SITUATED AT SUJANGARH AND PHOTOCOPY OF IKRARNAMA DATED 25.01.20 11 WAS FILED. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE VERACITY OF THE CLAIM MADE, THE ASSES SEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE SO-CALLED PURCHASERS FOR PERSONAL EXAMINATION. THEREAFTER, SUMMONS ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 14 WERE ALSO ISSUED U/S 131 WHICH REMANDED UNCOMPLIED WITH AND AFTER ISSUING SHOW CAUSE DATED 07.02.2014, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETAIL REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT I N HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME WAS ACCORDINGLY BROUGHT TO TAX. FURTHER, OUR SPECIFIC REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE PER BIGHA RATE OF THE LAND SITUATED AT THE SAME VILLAGE WHICH ASSESSEE HAS SEPARATELY SOLD AND THE PER BIGHA RATE OF LAND IN SO-CALLED SALE AGREEMENT WHICH IS HIGHER BY 400%. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CARRY OUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION IN TERMS OF SEEKING THE P ERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE ALLEGED PURCHASERS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ALLEGED PURCHASERS AND THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 ALSO REMA INED UNCOMPLIED WITH. REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT SUBSEQUE NTLY MONEY HAS BEEN REFUNDED TO THE PURCHASERS DUE TO CANCELLATION OF T HE SALE, OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REPAYMENT AND THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE WITNESSES TO THE SO-CALLED AGREEMENT ARE NOT RELIABLE AND SELF-SERVICING EVIDE NCES IN ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITT ED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME M AY BE CONFIRMED. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE FOR CONSIDE RATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE NATURE AN D SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS 25 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SBI. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SOURCE OF SUC H DEPOSIT IS ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE BUYERS OF THE PLOT OF LAND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO SELL VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 25.01.2011 AND TO SUBS TANTIATE THE SAME, COPY OF SUCH AGREEMENT WAS FILED DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 15 ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID AGREEMENT, THE AO HAD RAISED CERTAIN APPREHENSION IN TERMS OF RATE AT WHICH THE LAND WAS AGREED TO BE SO LD, HOW THE PARTIES HAVE MET AND HOW THE MONEY WAS EXCHANGED AND WHETHER THE LAND WAS FINALLY SOLD OR CANCELLED AND WHETHER THE MONEY WAS REPAID OR NOT AND THE SOURCE OF SUCH REPAYMENT. THEREFORE, HE WANTED TO EXAMINE THE PURCHASERS AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS AND ALS O ISSUED SUMMONS TO THEM WHICH REMAIN UNCOMPLIED WITH AND THEREAFTER, N OT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE PROCEEDED TO MAKE T HE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSI TS. HOWEVER, THE QUESTION THAT ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS THAT IN S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHAT THE AO COULD HAVE DONE OR HAVE DONE DIFFERENTLY. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FAULT IN THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE AO IN VERIFYING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT EXCEPT THAT THE AO MISSED VERIFYING FEW IMPORTANT FACTUAL MATTERS. FIRSTLY, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE SAID PLOT OF LAND OR NOT WHICH HE PROPOSES TO SELL TO THE BUYERS AND IN WHOSE NAME THE PROPERT Y STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT IN TIME. SECONDLY, THE FINANCIAL CAPABILITY OF THE BUYERS TO ENTER INTO SUCH A TRANSACTION. THIRDLY, THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE AGREEMENT HIMSELF NOTICED THAT THE AGREEMENT TALKS ABOUT CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT WHERE THE REGISTRATION IS NOT EXECUTED. HOWEVER, IT WAS NOT VERIFIED WHETHER REGISTRATION WAS FINALLY DONE OR NOT AND WHETHER TH E MONEY WAS REFUNDED TO THE BUYERS OR NOT. AS WE HAVE NOTED IN PARA 7 ABOV E, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DA TED 14.02.2014 SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS SINCE BEEN RETURNED B ACK TO MR. RAJARAM GURJAR AND MR. DEVESH KUMAR GURGAR THROUGH CHEQUE A MOUNTING TO RS 18 LACS AND REMAINING IN CASH. THIS CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE OF RETURNING OF THE AMOUNT ORIGINALLY RECEIVED FROM THE BUYERS PRES UPPOSES THE PREVIOUS UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES AT THE TIME OF EN TERING INTO THE AGREEMENT AND THE TERMS OF SUCH UNDERSTANDING WHICH THEREFORE CANNOT BE IGNORED. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF RETURNING TH E AMOUNT THROUGH CHEQUE ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 16 CAN BE EASILY VERIFIED FROM THE ASSESSEES BANK STA TEMENT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE MANIPULATED, HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS NOT BE EN VERIFIED EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR DURING THE APPELLATE STAGE . THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE BUYER EVEN THOUGH EXECUTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE CLOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER, WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE RE FLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, THE SAME CANNOT BE MANIPULATED SUBSEQ UENTLY AND CAN BE EASILY VERIFIABLE DIRECTLY FROM THE BANK. DURING T HE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN AB LE TO OBTAIN THE ORIGINAL SALE AGREEMENT WHICH COULD NOT BE PRODUCED EARLIER AS THE SAME WAS WITH THE BUYERS AND HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THE SOURCE OF REP AYMENTS WHICH ALSO REQUIRE PROPER VERIFICATION. WE THEREFORE BELIEVE THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES FRESH EXAMINATION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AFO RESAID ASPECTS AND THE MATTER IS ACCORDINGLY SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME A FRESH AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/08/2020. 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:- 17/08/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT ITA NO. 1357/JP/2019 SH. CHANDRA RAM JYANI, JAIPUR VS. ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 17 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. 1357/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR