HANWAT SINGH (HUF), Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 138/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6767 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Set aside
• Section: 69B; 13; 147

Judgement Text

1 VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S B 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. 827/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 HANWAT SINGH (HUF) D-219(B), MAHAL KHANDELA, BHASKAR MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AADHH2023M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 138 & 139/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 & 2009-10 HANWAT SINGH (HUF) D-219(B), MAHAL KHANDELA, BHASKAR MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AADHH2023M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 232/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 HANWAT SINGH (HUF) D-219(B), MAHAL KHANDELA, BHASKAR MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AADHH2023M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/02/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/02/2020 ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 2 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH THESE ARE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 18.04.2018, 16.12.201 6 & 02.02.2015 FOR A.YS 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 RESPEC TIVELY. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, ALL THESE APPEALS W ERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECTIVE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 827/JP/2018: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT (APPEALS) ERRED: 1. IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 147/14 4 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IN NOT HOLDING THE SAME TO BE UNJUST, BAD IN LAW AND NOT FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF LAW. 2. IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,90,968/- U/S 69B OF I NCOME TAX ACT, 1961, TOWARDS HOUSE CONSTRUCTION FOR A.Y 2009- 10 ARE ERRONEOUS AND NOT AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. ITA NO. 138/JP/2017: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CI T (APPEALS) ERRED: 1. IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147/144 OF IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY CONDUCT AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133A, AND OBJECTIONS CHALLENG ING THE ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 3 VALIDITY OF WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE LD. AO WHO STR AIGHTAWAY PROCEEDED TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BY COMPLETELY IGNORING THE OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE. FUR THER LD. CIT GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHI CH DESERVED TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW UNJUST AND WHICH DES ERVED TO BE ANNULLED. 2. IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT BY SOLELY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE SO-CALLED MATERIAL GATHERED AND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS BY COMPLETELY IGNORING THE WELL ESTABLISHED LAW THAT T HE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAV E NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. FURTHER, THE SO-CALLED MATERIAL GATHERED WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED BY ASSESSEE AS NO-RELIABLE AND DUM B PAPERS, THUS THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN RELYING UPON THEN DESE RVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT BE QUASHED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS, 32,90,728/- U/S 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF PAPERS FOUND AND ILLEGALLY IMPOUNDE D DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WHICH DID NOT EVEN PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,90,728/- DESERVES TO B E DELETED. 4. THAT, THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORING FACTS THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED PAPERS WERE MERELY DUMB PA PERS CONTAINING ROUGH CALCULATIONS/ENTRIES AND DID NOT I N ANY MANNER INDICATE ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUC TION OF HOTEL. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,90,728/- DESERV ES TO BE DELETED. 5. THAT, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INVESTME NT IN ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 4 CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL WHICH WAS SUBMITTED DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. AO AND THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED, HOWEVER STAND I GNORED BY THE LD. AO. THUS, THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO WITHOUT CONSIDERIN G THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, DESERVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW AND THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING L D.AO INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(10)(C ) WHICH IS ARBI TRARY. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING LD .AO'S INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271A WHICH IS ARBITRARY. ITA NO. 139/JP/2017: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CI T (APPEALS) ERRED:- 1. IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 147/144 OF INCOM E TAX ACT, 1961 SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY CONDUCT AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONDUCT IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 133A, AND OBJECTIONS CHALLENG ING THE VALIDITY OF WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE LD. AO WHO STR AIGHTAWAY PROCEEDED TO PASS THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BY COMPLETELY IGNORING THE OBJECTIONS OF ASSESSEE. FUR THER LD. CIT GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH DESERVED TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW UNJUST AND WHICH DES ERVED TO BE ANNULLED. ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 5 2. IN CONFIRMING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT BY SOLELY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE SO-CALLED MATERIAL GATHERED AND THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PRO CEEDINGS BY COMPLETELY IGNORING THE WELL ESTABLISHED LAW THA T THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAV E NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. FURTHER, THE SO-CALLED MATERIAL GATHERED WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED BY ASSESSEE AS NO-RELIABLE AND DUMB PAPERS, THUS THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN RELYING UPON T HEN DESERVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT BE QUASHED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS, 79,32,265/- U/S 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF PAPERS FOUND AND ILLEGALLY IMPOUNDE D DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WHICH DID NOT EVEN PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 79,32,265/- DES ERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT, THE LD.CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORING FACTS THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED PAPERS WERE MERELY D UMB PAPERS CONTAINING ROUGH CALCULATIONS/ENTRIES AND DI D NOT IN ANY MANNER INDICATE ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN T HE CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 79 ,32,265/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 5. THAT, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF INVESTME NT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL WHICH WAS SUBMITTED DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. AO AND THE SOU RCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED, HOWEVER ST AND IGNORED BY THE LD. AO. THUS, THE ACTION OF LD. CIT( APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED, DESERVES TO BE HELD BAD IN LAW AND THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING L D.AO INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C ) WHICH IS ARBIT RARY. ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 6 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING L D.AO'S INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271A WHICH IS ARBITRARY. ITA NO. 232/JP/2015: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED - 1. IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 148/143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IN NOT HOLDI NG THE SAME TO BE UNJUST, BAD IN LAW AND NOT FOLLOWING PRO VISIONS OF LAW. 2. IN UPHOLDING THE PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY CONDUCTED ON 28.7.2010 WHICH ARE ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND NOT FOLLO WING PROVISIONS OF LAW AND HUMBLY PRAYS THE SAME TO BE ANNULLED. 3. IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 41,25,756/- U/S 69B OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, TOWARDS HOUSE CONSTRUC TION FOR AY 2009-10 ARE ERRONEOUS AND NOT AS PER PROVISI ONS OF LAW. LD. FURTHER LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIAT ING THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. AO AND BEFORE HIMSELF RELATING TO RECEIPT OF LOAN FROM SH. SHANKAR JETHAN I AMOUNTING TO RS. 25 LACS AND DISREGARDING THE LOAN AGREEMENT AND EVIDENCES SUBMITTED. FURTHER LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCE OF CASH CREDIT AND SOURCE OF EARNING INCOME BEING DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY AND WHICH ARE PART OF ASSES SMENT RECORD AND THEREBY NOT FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF LAW. 4. IN CONFIRMING LD. AO'S DISREGARDING THE LOAN DOCUMENT OF SH. SHANKER JETHANI AMOUNTING TO RS. 25 LACS AND STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE GIVING THE AMOU NT APPEARING IN ASSESSEE'S BANK ACCOUNT TRANSFERRED BY SH. SHANKER JETHANI. FURTHER ASSESSEE OBJECTS TO FINDIN G OF LD. AO THAT INFLOW FROM OPERATION IS RS.1,66,996/- AND NOT RS.20 LACS AS SUGGESTED BY ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 7 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NO. 1 IN ITA NO. 827/JP/2018, GROUND N O. 1, 6 & 7 IN ITA NO. 138/JP/2017, GROUND NO. 1, 6 & 7 IN ITA NO. 139/JP/2017 AND GROUND NO. 1 & 2 IN ITA NO. 232/JP/2015. ALL TH ESE GROUNDS ARE THUS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN RESPECT OF OTHER GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E IN THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL T HESE GROUNDS EFFECTIVELY RELATES TO ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL PRE MISES U/S 69B OF THE ACT AND THE POSITION IN RESPECTIVE YEARS AFTER GETTING RELIEF FROM THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS A.Y. 2007-08 A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y 2009-10 A .Y. 2010-11 DATE OF ORDER 30.09.14 12.03.16 14.03.16 28.03.13 WHETHER RE- ASSESSMENT RE-OPENED RE-OPENED RE-OPENED REGULAR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS ALLEGED BY LD. AO 10,90,968 35,90,728 83,24,265 44,92,752 LESS: INVESTMENT OUT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME(ACCEPTED BY LD. AO) 2,00,000 3,00,000 3,92,000 2,00,000 ADDITION BY LD. AO 8,90,968 32,90,728 79,32,265 42,92,752 RELIEF BY LD. CIT(A) 0 0 0 1,66,906 ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) 8,90,968 32,90,728 79,32,265 41,25,846 5. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A HOTEL MAHAL KHANDELA AT A PRE-EXIST ING BUILDING ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 8 EARLIER USED FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES AND IN THE FI RST YEAR OF OPERATIONS FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010 RELEVANT T O A.Y 2010-11, IT HAS RECORDED A TURNOVER OF RS. 33,39,927/- AND PROF ITS ARISING THEREFROM HAVE BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. SUBSEQUENTLY, T HE SURVEY U/S 133(A) WAS CONDUCTED AT HOTEL PREMISES ON 28.07.201 0 WHEREIN CERTAIN LOOSE EXCEL SHEETS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES/PAYMENTS MADE DURING TH E CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL AND ALSO AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF HOTEL O PERATIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE EXCEL SHEET WERE PREPARED BY A PERSON WHO WAS NOT HAVING MUCH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCOUNTING AND TAX PROVISIONS AND THESE EXCEL SHEETS WERE ALSO CONTAIN ING SEVERAL ITEMS OF DRAWINGS, REPAYMENT OF LOAN, BANK DEPOSITS APART FROM HOTEL EXPENDITURE AND THESE ITEMS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL PREMISES. OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO AN ENTRY ON 12 TH NOV, 2008 WHEREIN RS. 48,000/- WAS SHOWN AS DEPOSITED IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A S UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS. OUR REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO VARIOUS ENT RIES RELATING TO PERSONAL DRAWINGS AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,16,245/- AND I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS. FU RTHER, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO REPAYMENT OF LOAN TAKEN FROM PNB AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,50,000/- AND IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE SAID REPAYMENT OF LOAN AGAIN CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UND ISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WER E ALSO MISTAKES IN CALCULATION OF AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS SUCH AS ADVANCED TO CONTRACTORS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED TWICE AN D BALANCE OF ONE MONTH CARRIED FORWARD TO NEXT MONTH HAS ALSO BE EN ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED TH AT IN THE LETTER ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 9 DATED 20.03.2013 ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD PROVIDED COMPLETE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS TO DDIT (INV-II), JAIPUR VIDE HIS EARLI ER LETTER DATED 18.08.2010, HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDER ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS MADE THE ADDITION AND DET AILS THEREOF ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- 3.1 SOURCE OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOTEL FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BASED ON DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE DDIT (INV.) II VIDE LETTER DATED 18-8-2010 ARE AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS F.Y. 2006-07 F.Y. 2007-08 F.Y. 2008-09 F.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2007-08 A.Y. 2008-09 A.Y. 2009-10 A.Y. 2010-11 REMAINING ALLEGED INVESTMENT (AS DISCUSSED IN PT. 3.1) 8,90,968 20,57,176 72,01,804 29,75,846 SOURCE OF INVESTMENT: RETURNED INCOME (PARA 3.4) 1,40,343 1,48,766 4,89,070 1,430 SALE OF PERSONAL EFFECT (PARA 3.5) 10,00,000 10,50,000 LOAN EARLIER GIVEN TO R.G. SARAFF RECEIVED LATER (PARA 3.6) 13,75,000 LOAN TAKEN FROM PNB & OTHERS (PARA 3.7) 13,80,000 LOAN FROM SHANKER JETHANI (PARA 3.8) 25,00,000 RECEIPTS FROM OPERATIONS (PARA 3.9) 20,00,000 SURPLUS REMAINING IN A.Y. 2007-08 UTILIZED IN A.Y. 2008-09 2,49,375 INVESTMENT OUT OF PAST SAVINGS (PARA 3.10) 0 2,84,035 42,82,734 0 ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 10 TOTAL SOURCES AVAILABLE 8,90,968 20,57,176 72,01,804 29,75,846 6. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THE NATURE OF THE VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL IT EMS SO REFLECTED IN THE LOOSE EXCEL SHEETS. FURTHER, THE SOURCE OF INVE STMENT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE DDIT (INV-II), JAIPUR HAVE NOT ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT APPROPRIATE RELIEF M AY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO E XAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMITTE D THAT EXCEPT FOR A.Y 2010-11 WHEREIN THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COM PLETED U/S 143(3), FOR OTHER 3 YEARS, THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 147 READ WITH 144 OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CARED EVEN TO REPRESENT ITS MA TTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAVE A LREADY BEEN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), EVEN AT THE APPELLA TE STAGE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO EXPENDITURE THE SOURCE OF I NVESTMENT IN THE HOTEL. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAVE ALREADY BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE HA S FAILED TO PROVIDE THE SUITABLE EXPLANATION REGARDING NATURE A ND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THE ADDITION SO MADE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE BENCH SO DESIRE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMAND BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH. ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 11 8. IN HIS REJOINDER, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SHRI HANWAT SINGH, THE KARTA OF ASSESSEE HUF WAS NOT KEEPING WELL FOR QUITE SOME TIME AND HE HAS SINCE EXPIRED ON 17.04.2014. GIVEN SUCH PERSONAL INCIDENT IN THE FAMILY AND THE FACT THAT TRANSITION TO THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE HUF TOOK SOME TIME, THERE I S NO DOUBT THERE IS DEFICIENCY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE HUF IN ATTENDING TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AT THE SAME TIME, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT GIVEN THE VARIOUS FACTUAL INACCURACIES AS HIGH LIGHTED IN THE LOOSE EXCEL SHEETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT NOT BEEN RIGHTLY APPRECIATED AND CONSIDE RED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMI NE THE MATTER AFRESH FOR ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WA S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE DILIGENT IN ATTENDING TO THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WILL ENSURE ON ITS PART IN TIMELY COMPLETION OF THE PROCEEDINGS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE AGREE WITH THE FACT THAT SU ITABLE OPPORTUNITY HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BY THE LD. CIT(A), AT THE SAME TIME, GIVEN FACT THAT THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HUF WHO WAS HANDLING THE MATTERS HAS SINCE EXPIRED ON 17.04.2014 AND BEING A FAMILY RUN BUSINESS, THE CHALLENGES IN TRANSITION OF THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS TO THE NEXT GENERATION AND IN ATTE NDING TO THE VARIOUS PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE RULED OUT. FURTHER, AS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE LD AR, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS ENTRIES I N THE LOOSE EXCEL SHEETS IN THE FORM OF CASH DEPOSITS, PARTNER DRAWIN GS, REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND ENTRIES RELATING TO DOUBLE COUNTING WHICH PRIMA FACIE ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOTEL AND ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 12 THUS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THERE ARE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE BEFORE DDIT (INV-II), JAIPUR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF SUCH INVESTMENT IN THE HOTEL WHICH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY , WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER RELATING TO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTR UCTION OF HOTEL PREMISES U/S 69B OF THE ACT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRESH AS PER LAW WITHOUT GETTING INFLUENCED BY OUR PRIMA FACIE OBSERVATIONS AS NOTED ABOVE. THE A SSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ALL THE CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AND SUBM IT NECESSARY INFORMATION/DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT THEREOF. NEEDL ESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL APPEAR BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTA TION AS SO DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/02/2020. 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:- 07/02/2020. *GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- HANWAT SINGH (HUF), JAIPUR ITA NO. 8 27/JP/2018 SHRI HANWAT SINGH, JAIP UR VS. ITO, WARD- 3 (02), JAIPUR 13 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD 3(2), 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. 827/JP/2018, 138 & 139/JP/2017, 232/JP/2015} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 14