MAYA DEVI, Jaipur V. ITO, BEHROR

ITA 169/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1995 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: B P MOONDRA
• Keywords: Business income; Source of fund
• 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, JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 169/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 MAYA DEVI, W/O- SH. RAMESHWAR DAYAL DOUCHANIA, VILLAGE- KANKARDOPA, TEHSIL- BEHROR, ALWAR (RAJ) CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- BEHROR, RAJASTHAN. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BVEPD 9213 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.P. MOONDRA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 04/10/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 28/12/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN O F INCOME WAS FILED ON 28/11/2013 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,58,66 0/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSE E HAS SHOWN AGRICULTURAL LAND OF RS. 59,94,290/-, WHICH WAS PURCHASED ON 07/0 4/2011. REGARDING THE SOURCE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A LOAN OF R S. 25.00 LACS WAS ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 2 RAISED FROM SHRI SATPAL SINGH AND RS. 30.00 LACS RE CEIVED FROM SMT. PREM BAI AND THERE WAS OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE OF RS. 9.4 0 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE INVESTMENT IN THE LAND FROM UND ISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE VARIOUS ADDI TIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 25,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED L OAN FROM SHRI S.P. SINGH. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 34,94,290/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PRO PERTY U/S 69. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 10,00,000/- MADE TO MR. ANKUSH TREATING IT AS ADVANCE MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 7,80,000/- TREATING AGRICULTURE INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE D URING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 20 BIGHAS O F AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY HAVING AGRI CULTURAL INCOME AND THERE WAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. 6. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 69A OF THE ACT AS UN SECURED LOAN FROM ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 3 SHRI S.P. SINGH. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS RECEIVED RS. 25.00 LACS FROM SHRI SATPAL SINGH AS UNSECURED LOAN , WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AN D ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE LD AR HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE SUBMITTING THE REMAND REPORT ON THIS ISSUE, HA S CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT SHRI S.P. SINGH HAS FILED A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN THE CIVIL MAGISTRATE COURT, BEHROR FOR RECOVERING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25.00 LACS FROM THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, IDENTITY AND ALL OTHER INGREDIENTS ARE ESTABLISHED AND THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR DOUBTING THE SOURCE OF CREDIT OF RS. 25.00 LACS. HE PLEADED TO DELETE THE SAME. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY RELI ED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE A SSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 25.00 LACS FROM SHRI S.P. SINGH. THE AS SESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE PAN CARD OF SHRI S.P. SINGH. SHRI S.P. SINGH HA S ALSO FILED A CIVIL CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO RECOVER THE AMOUNT. THESE FA CTS ARE UNDISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT OF RS. 25.00 LACS IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHAN NELS ONLY. THE ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 4 LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF HAS RECORDED THAT THE APPELLANT I S ENJOYING THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM SHRI SATPAL SINGHY WITHOUT ANY INTENTI ON TO RETURN THE SAME. THIS FACT ITSELF SHOWS THAT THERE CANNOT BE AN ADDITION FOR THE RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT FROM SHRI S.P. SINGH. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A)S OBSERVATION THAT THIS IS ALSO COVERED BY THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 56(1)(VII)(A) OF THE ACT IS ALSO UNJUSTIFIED. THE PE NDING CIVIL SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF THE LIABILITY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ITSE LF SUGGEST THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION U/S 56(1)(VII)(A) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE I NVOKED AT THIS STAGE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION . 9. THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS RELATED TO THE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 34,94,290/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTME NT IN PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE P URCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY I.E. AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS. 5 9,94,290/-. THE SOURCE OF THE SAME AS DECLARED WAS RS. 25.00 LACS RECEIVED FROM SHRI SAT PAL SINGH AND RS. 30.00 LACS RECEIVED FROM SMT. PREM BA I AND RS. 4,94,290/- CASH IN HAND. IT IS CLAIMED THAT SMT. PREM BAI HAS RECEIVED AMOUNT FROM THE SALE AGREEMENT BY HER HUSBANDS AGRICULTURAL LA ND, SITUATED IN VILLAGE SAINTHLY, TEHSIL- ALWAR. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN TWO INSTALLMENTS I.E. RS. 15.00 LACS ON 29/03/2011 AND RS. 15.00 LACS ON 05/04/2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE CASH IN HAND OF RS. 4,94 ,290/-. THE SOURCE OF ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 5 RS. 30.00 LACS WAS OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM S MT. PREM BAI AND BALANCE OF RS. 4,94,290/- OUT OF THE CASH IN HAND. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION FROM SMT. PREM BAI. THE L EDGER ACCOUNT OF MAYA DEVI (ASSESSEE) IN THE BOOKS OF SMT. PREM DEVI WAS ALSO SUBMITTED FOR THE F.Y. 2010-11 AND 2011-12. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT DUE TO CONCESSIONAL STAMP DUTY LEVIABLE ON THE SALE TRANSA CTIONS EXECUTED IN THE NAME OF FEMALES, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND ON 11/4/2011 IN HER NAME AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN AD VANCE AGAINST THE LAND IN THE NAME OF HER HUSBAND WITH THE CONSENT OF THE HUSBAND TO ARRANGE THE FUND FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED THE ADVANCE TO THE I NTENDED PURCHASER IN THE NEXT FINANCIAL YEAR FOR THE REASON THAT THE TER MS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT REGARDING CONVERSION OF THE LAND COULD NO T BE FULFILLED. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL TH ESE RELEVANT PAPERS AND ALSO SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1961. IT WAS ALSO PLEADED THAT SMT. PREM BAI WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND SHE HAS RECEIVED COMPENSATION FOR LA ND FROM RIICO AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,25,733/- . THE CUEQUE WAS DEPOSI TED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF BARODA, NEEMRANA ON 02/03/2011. SHE HAS WITHDRAWN RS. 9,50,000/- IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2 011 AND GIVEN ADVANCE OF RS. 15.00 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE ON29/03/2 011. THE COPY OF THE ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 6 CASH BOOK FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2011 OF PREM BAI WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. SMT. PREM BAI WAS ILL DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, TH EREFORE, SHE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION IN PERSON AT THE TIME O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS INC LUDING THE AGREEMENT TO SALE AGRICULTURAL LAND, EXTRACT OF CAS H BOOK, CONFIRMATION, COPY OF BALANCE SHEET IN SUPPORT OF ADVANCE AGAINST AGRICULTURAL LAND WERE SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE REMAND REPORT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED SMT. PR EM BAI FOR EXAMINATION/VERIFICATION ON 05/02/2016 AND HER STAT EMENTS WERE RECORDED. IN HER STATEMENTS, SHE HAS ADMITTED THAT SHE HAS GIVEN AN ADVANCE OF RS. 30.00 LACS IN TWO INSTALLMENTS TO SMT . MAYA DEVI (ASSESSEE) FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUAT ED AT VILLAGE SAINTHLY (ALWAR). SHE ALSO FURNISHED COPY OF CASH BOOK FOR TH E PERIOD 01/4/2010 TO 31/3/2012 DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF RETURN AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ALL FI NANCIAL STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HER CONTENTION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY DISMISSED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY MENTIONING THAT THE C LAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT PREM BAI HAS RECEIVED BACK THE AMOUNT LOOKS HOLLOW A S THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY MONEY, WHICH WAS SUPPOSED TO BE GIVE B ACK. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF THE AMOUNT HAS BEE N GIVEN BACK THEN ALSO THE AMOUNT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED IN THE HANDS OF MAYA DEVI. LD AR ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 7 SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN OF THE AMOUNT WAS IN SUBSE QUENT YEAR. HE PLEADED TO ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. SM T. PREM BAI FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 30.00 LACS HAS CO NFIRMED THE SAME IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE REMAND PROCEED INGS. SHE HAS ALSO DISCLOSED THE SOURCE FROM WHERE THE AMOUNT SHE HAS R ECEIVED THE AMOUNT. SHE HAS ALSO DISCLOSED THE SOURCE OF THE AM OUNT BEING COMPENSATION RECEIVED FROM RIICO. SHE HAS ALSO SUBM ITTED HER INCOME TAX DETAILS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHERE IN THE AMOUNT IS DULY REFLECTED. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SIMPLY DISMISSED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 30.00 LAC S FROM PREM BAI FOR THE REASON THAT IF THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN REPAID THEN ALSO THE SOURCE REMAINS UNEXPLAINED. AS MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS AMOUNT WAS R ETURNED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR NOT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION, THEREFORE SUCH OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS UNJUSTIFIED. CONSID ERING ALL THESE RELEVANT FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON TO THE TUNE OF RS. ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 8 30.00 LACS RECEIVED FROM SMT. PREM DEVI. HENCE WE DI RECT TO DELETE THE SAME. 12. FURTHER THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 4,94,290/-, F OR WHICH HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS OUT OF THE OPENING CASH BALANC E OF RS. 5,02,500/-,. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ). ON THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVE RSE REMARK. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HAVING INC OME FROM DAIRY BUSINESS ALONGWITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 13. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE EARLIER PLEADINGS THAT THE LD. AR HAD SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ONLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME BUT WHILE EXPLAINING THE OPENING CASH BALANCE, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO HAVING DAIRY BUSINESS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE AV AILABLE ON RECORD, WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ANY OT HER INCOME THAN AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND AFT ER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DIR ECT TO ACCEPT THE SOURCE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2.00 LACS ONLY AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,94,290/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINE D, HENCE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT IS SUSTAINED. HENCE, GROUND NO. 2 OF TH E APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 9 14. GROUNDS NO. 3 AND 4 OF THE APPEAL ARE RELATED T O CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10.00, WHICH WAS ADVANCE GIVEN TO MR. ANKUSH TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND RS. 7.80 LACS TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE GIVEN TO M R. ANKUSH WAS OUT OF REGULAR CASH BALANCE. THE EXTRACT OF THE CASH BOO K FOR THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2012 WAS SUBMITTED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY AN AGRICULTURIST AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVIT Y WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE JOINT FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES ARE SOLD IN CASH, THEREFORE, THE OPENING CASH BALANCE WAS OF RS. 20,02 ,500/- OUT OF WHICH 15.00 LACS WERE RECEIVED BY SMT. PREM BAI AND THE BA LANCE OF RS. 5,02,500/- WAS THE CASH BALANCE. DURING THE YEAR, TH E ASSESSEE HAS EARNED RS. 3,58,662/- FROM DAIRY BUSINESS AND RS. 7 ,80,000/- FROM AGRICULTURE. THE LOAN OF RS. 10.00 LACS WAS GIVEN TO MR. ANKUSH ON 25/03/2012. IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEM ENT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED SOURCE OF THIS ADVANCE, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: PARTICULARS AMOUNT IN RS. SOURCE OF FUND ADVANCE FROM PREM BAI ON 29/03/2011 (THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN OPENING CASH IN HAND OF RS. 20,02,500/- ) 15,00,000 ADVANCE FROM PREM BAI ON 05/04/2011 15,00,000 LOAN FROM SH. S.P. SINGH 25,00,000 INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS DECLARED 3,58,662 AGRICULTURE INCOME 7,80,000 OPENING CASH IN HAND )OPENING 20,02,500 MINUS 15,00 ,000 CONSIDERED ABOVE) 5,02,500 ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 10 TOTAL 71,41,162 APPLICATION OF FUNDS DRAWINGS FOR HOUSE HOLD EXP. 60,000 PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND 59,94,290 ADVANCE TO ANKUSH 10,00,000 TOTAL 70,54,290 15. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE INCOME OUT OF BUSINESS OF RS . 3,58,662/- AS SOURCE TO EXPLAIN THE ADVANCE TO SHRI ANKUSH. THE AG RICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED WAS RS. 7.80 LACS, FOR WHICH THE SEPARATE AD DITION HAS BEEN ALSO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, THE ADVANCE TO SHRI ANKUSH OF RS. 10.00 LACS WHICH APPARENTLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSE E IS OUT OF THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME SO CLA IMED. IN THE EARLIER PARAGRAPH OF THE ORDER, WE HAVE ALSO DISMISSED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND ESTIMATED TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 2.00 LACS. IN THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT, IT WAS TAKEN AS RS. 7.80 LACS. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY EITHER FOR ADVANCE OF RS. 10.00 LACS OR THE INCOME SO DECLARED FROM BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE. THE FACTS REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL IN COME ARE ESTABLISHED BUT THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME APPEARS TO B E ON HIGHER SIDE. THE INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS DECLARED AT RS. 3,58,662/- IS NOT ESTABLISHED, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AND CLAIM OF ITA 169/JP/2017_ MAYA DEVI VS ITO 11 BUSINESS INCOME UNSUSTAINED AND ALSO OTHER FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 10.00 LACS ADVANCE MADE TO MR. ANKUSH WHERE SOURCE OF THE SAME IS NOT ESTABLISHED. HOWEVER, WE DI RECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 7.80 LACS AS THE SAME WAS CLAIMED AS SOURCE OF THE ADVANCE TO MR. ANK USH. HENCE, GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND GROUND OF THE NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/10/2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR HKKXPAN (KUL BHARAT) (BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. MAYA DEVI, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- BEHROR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 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. 169/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR