RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 238/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1895 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: KRANTI MEHTA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 68; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKWY 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.238/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SH. RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, 3/21, KALA KUAN HOUSING BOARD, ALWAR (RAJ.) CUKE VS. ITO, WARD-1(1), ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACBPG7449Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 249/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 ITO, WARD1(1), ALWAR CUKE VS. SH. RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, 3/21, KALA KUAN HOUSING BOARD, ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACBPG7449Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI KRANTI MEHTA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAILENDRA SHARMA ( ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/10/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14/11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 2 THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), ALWAR, DATED 23.0 1.2017 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 WHEREIN THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE APPEA L ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 238/JP/17 (GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL):- 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ALWAR ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,10,000/- EVEN WHEN SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT WAS FUL LY EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,10,000/- DESERV ES TO BE DELETED. ITA NO. 249/JP/17 (GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL):- 1. ON FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALWAR HAS ERR ED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS. 58,02,000/- TO RS. 11,10,000/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES INC URRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), ALWAR ERRED I N DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,52,255/- MADE BY THE AO ON A CCOUNT OF ADVANCE AGAINST LAND AND CASH CREDITORS. 2. FIRSTLY, REGARDING GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED H IS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,05,850/-. SUBSEQUEN TLY, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 30.03.2015. IN THE REASONS RECORDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION IN ITS POSSESSION, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 58,77,000/- ON THE MAR RIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER MEENA AGARWAL WHICH WAS SOLEMNIZED ON 19.0 1.2008 AND REFERENCE WAS DRAWN TO THE FIR LODGED BY HIS DAUGHT ER WHEREIN SHE ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 3 HAD STATED THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 58,77,000/- WAS INCURRED BY HER FATHER SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL ON HER MARRIAGE AND O THER RELATED FUNCTIONS. THE AO WAS THEREFORE HAD A REASON TO BE LIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS 58,77,000 WHICH HAS BEEN EXPENDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MARRIAGE OF HIS DAUGHTER HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. T HE ASSESSMENT WAS ACCORDINGLY REOPENED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH SOURCE OF THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES. 3. FIRSTLY, THE AO STATED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, MEENA GOYAL ACCEPTED THAT THE FIR SO LODGED BY HER ON 18. 04.2009 WAS FILED BY HER WITH THE HELP OF HER FATHER AND ALL THE FACT S MENTIONED THEREIN ARE CORRECT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT E XPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF RS 58,77,000 HAS BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HI S SUBMISSION DATED 21.12.2015 HAS SUBMITTED THE PARTICULARS OF THE IND IVIDUAL EXPENSES WHICH WAS INCURRED BY HIM AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT FURTHER DETA ILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DETAILS AND THE D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, T HE AO HELD THAT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 23,86,000/- SHOWN TO BE MADE OUT OF MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE FORM OF KAN YADAN REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND WAS TREATED AS INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE ONLY AND CONSIDERED AS HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. SIMILARLY, REGARDING THE OTHER EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 25.91 LACS C LAIMED TO BE INCURRED IN THE FORM OF VARIOUS GIFT ITEMS LIKE GOL D BRICK, 40 GMS GOLD GINNI, 24 GMS GOLD BANGLES, 4 RINGS, 2 CHAINS, SILV ER ANKLET, NARIYAL ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 4 PATRE AND BICHHIYA ETC, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE R EMAINED UNEXPLAINED DUE TO NON SUBMISSION OF THE REQUISITE DETAIL/PROOF S AND WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED AN AM OUNT OF RS. 8.25 LACS AS EXPENSES WHICH ARE CUSTOMARY IN NATURE AND ARE E SSENTIAL FOR MARRIAGE CEREMONY AND THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. ACCORDINGLY, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 58.05 LAC WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BROUGHT TO TAX. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- 5. THE APPELLANT BELONGS TO MIDDLE CLASS FAMILY, A S SUCH THE EXPENDITURE IN MARRIAGE WAS NOT EXORBITANT OR VERY HIGH. THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE CONTRIBUTED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE A S UNDER:- RAGHU NANDAN GOYAL (SELF) ACBPG 7449Q RS. 9,00,00 0/- SMT. SUDESH BALA GOYAL (WIFE) AFGPG 7085N RS. 8,4 0,000/- DEEPMALIKA GOYAL (DAUGHTER) AEVPG 6846F RS. 95,0 00/- MEENA GOYAL (DAUGHTER) AEVPG 6845G RS. 6,00 ,000/- VIJAY GOYAL (SON) ABRPG 6751G RS. 3,00,000/- RS. 27,35,000/- CASH RECD. AS KANYADAN AND OTHER CASH RECD. FROM RELATIVES DURING DIFFERENT MARRIAGE OCCASIONS RS. 5,51,751/- RS. 32,86,751/- 6. ALL THE ABOVE FAMILY MEMBERS HAD SUBMITTED THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS AND SHOWN THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES IN THEIR CA PITAL ACCOUNTS. FATHER OF APPELLANT SHRI MUSADDI LAL JI HAD SEVEN S ONS INCLUDING THE ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 5 APPELLANT WHO IS HIS FIFTH SON AND TWO DAUGHTERS. A S SUCH THE FAMILY IS LARGE AND AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, ALL FAMILY MEMBE RS AS WELL AS LARGE FRIEND CIRCLE AND BUSINESS CONNECTIONS OF ALL BROTH ERS OF THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN ITEMS OF GOLD/SILVER/HOUSEHOLD GOODS/CASH /KANYADAN/OTHER ITEMS AS PER THE DETAILS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 7. THE INCOME TAX RETURN ACK., COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, CAPITAL A/C AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS ARE ENC LOSED AS ANNEXURE-B. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 23,86,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE CONTRIBUTION GIVEN BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS FOR MA RRIAGE AS WELL AS KANYADAN ETC. SIMPLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT GET IT VERIFIED. THE AO TOTALLY OVERLOOKED THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, BALA NCE SHEET ETC. OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AS DETAILED ABOVE. THE AO HAS CONTRADICTED HERSELF IN AS MUCH AS THAT ON THE ONE HAND SHE HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 9,00,000/- INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALAN CE SHEET WHILE ON THE OTHER HAND SHE DID NOT ACCEPT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 18, 35,000/- INCURRED BY OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS AS DETAILED ABOVE EVEN WHEN THE MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE IS DULY SHOWN IN THEIR CAPITAL ACCOUNTS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. 8. YOU WILL KINDLY APPRECIATE THAT IN HINDU SYSTEM OF MARRIAGE, THE GIVING OF KANYADAN AS WELL AS OTHER CASH AMOUNTS DU RING DIFFERENT RITUALS OF MARRIAGE CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND THERE C ANNOT BE ANY VERIFICATION OF SUCH AMOUNTS AFTER ABOUT EIGHT YEAR S OF MARRIAGE. HENCE, THE NON ACCEPTANCE OF AMOUNT OF RS. 5,51,000/- BY T HE AO IS WITHOUT ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 6 ANY COGENT BASIS AND TOTALLY OVERLOOKING THE HINDU TRADITIONS AND RITUALS. 9. THE FATHER OF THE APPELLANT HAD EXPIRED IN THE Y EAR 2002 AT THE AGE OF ABOUT 84 YEARS. HE CARRIED ON SARAFA BUSINES S UNDER THE NAME M/S MUSADDI LAL & SONS FOR OVER 50 YEARS AND IN THE YEAR 1997 WHEN HE WAS ABOUT 79 YEARS OLD, HE CLOSED THE BUSINESS AND GAVE ONE KG. GOLD BRICK, GINNI (GOLD COIN) ETC. TO MY WIFE WHO WAS LO OKING AFTER HIM DURING HIS OLD AGE. THE GOLD BRICK WAS OWNED BY LATE SHRI MUSADDI LAL ( GRANDFATHER OF MEENA AGARWAL) FOR SEVERAL YEARS EVEN PRIOR TO 1997 . IN THE YEAR 1997, THE RATE OF GOLD WAS ABOUT RS. 4500/- PER 10 GMS AN D PRIOR TO THAT IT WAS RS. 2000-2500 PER 10 GMS.. THESE ITEMS WERE GIV EN IN THE MARRIAGE TO MEENA AGARWAL. I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH LIST OF GOLD RATES DURING THOSE YEARS AS ANNEXURE-C. 10. THE AO FURTHER ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT TH AT THE FAMILY OF THE APPELLANT IS LARGE HAVING SEVEN BROTHERS, THEIR WIV ES, THEIR SONS, SONS WIVES IN CASE OF MARRIED SONS AND GIVING OF ITEMS O F GOLD/SILVER/HOUSEHOLD GOODS/CASH/OTHER ITEMS ETC. D URING DIFFERENT OCCASIONS OF MARRIAGE LIKE LAGAN, LADIES SANGEET, M EHANDI IS CUSTOMARY AND USUAL. AS SUCH, THE NON ACCEPTANCE OF RS. 25,91 ,000/- BY THE AO IS TOTALLY AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 11. SO FAR AS THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES OF RS. 8,25,000 /- AS DETAILED AT PAGE NO. 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE CON CERNED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO BASIS WITH THE ITO FOR MAKING THIS ESTIMATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE AO THAT THE MAR RIAGE WAS ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 7 PERFORMED AT GROOMS CITY AGRA IN M.D. JAIN INTER C OLLEGE, AGRA. ALMOST ALL MARRIAGE RELATED CEREMONIES WERE CONTROLLED AND SUPERVISED BY SHRI RAVI PRAKASH AGARWAL, FATHER OF THE GROOM. THE APPE LLANT HAD HANDED OVER MONEY TO HIM AND HE DID THE EXPENDITURE RELATE D TO MARRIAGE. KINGLY THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,25,0 00/-. 12. IT IS BROUGHT TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT AFTER C ONSIDERING ALL FACTS AND FIGURES, THE COURT SETTLED FULL AND FINAL SETTL EMENT OF MONEY OF RS. 11,51,000/- ONLY. THE COPY OF RAJINAMA (COMPROMISE) IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-D. THE COURT ALSO TOOK RECOGNITION OF THE FACT THAT IN THESE TYPES OF DOWRY CASES EXORBITANT AND EXCESSIVE VALUA TION OF ITEMS OF GOLD/SILVER/HOUSEHOLD GOODS/CASH/OTHER ITEMS ETC. I S DONE, THAT IS WHY THE SETTLEMENT WAS DONE ONLY AT RS. 11,51,000/- FOR EXAMPLE, IN THE FIR, THE GOLD BRICK OF 1 KG. IS SHOWN AT RS. 31,00,000/- WHILE IT COSTED NOT MORE THAN RS. 3,00, 000/- TO LATE SHRI MUSADDI LAL (GRANDFATHER OF MEENA AGARWAL) IN THE Y EAR PRIOR TO 1997. I THEREFORE, HUMBLY REQUEST YOU TO KINDLY DELETE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 58,02,000/-. 5. THE LD CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSI ON AND GAVE HIM PARTIAL RELIEF. NOW, BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE NOW REFER TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) WHI CH ARE UNDER CHALLENGE BEFORE US: 5.3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSIO N ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED ISSUES. 1. KANAYADAAN BY CLOSE RELATIVES WORTH RS. 23.86 LAKHS : ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 8 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT A TOTAL AMOUNT OF R S. 18.35 LAKHS WERE EXPENDED BY CLOSE RELATIVES LIKE WIFE, DAUGHTE R AND SON OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF KANYADAAN. ALL THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS ON THE RELE VANT DATE. ALL OF THEM ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSES. THEY HAVE ALSO GIVEN CONFIRMATIONS. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE SOURCE OF SUCH E XPENDITURES AND THE CONFIRMATIONS WERE ALSO GIVEN ALONG WITH TH E BANK STATEMENTS AND THE INCOME TAX DETAILS OF THE PERSON S WHO HAVE EXPENDED ON THE OCCASION OF KANYADAAN. THEREFORE, T HERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE AO FOR REJECTING T HE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT DISPROVING THE EVIDENCES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT A TOTAL OF RS. 5,51,751/- WERE RECEIVED AS CASH GIFTS FROM DISTANT RELATIVES AND F RIENDS, I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT IT IS CUSTOMARY THAT DISTA NT RELATIVES AND FRIENDS ALSO GIVE GIFTS TO THE BRIDE AND GROOM ON T HE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY AND IT IS DIFFICULT TO KEEP A RECORD OF SMALL GIFT ITEMS INCLUDING CASH GIFTS FROM SO MANY INVITE ES AFTER A LAPSE OF MORE THAN 7 YEARS. MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN THE YE AR 2008 AND THE CASE REOPENED IN THE YEAR 2015. CONSIDERING THE STATUS OF THE FAMILY AND THE OCCASION, IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT GIFTS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE DISTANT FAMI LY MEMBERS AND FRIENDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,51,751/- IS REASONAB LE. ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 9 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, ADDITION OF RS. 23.86 LAKHS IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HENCE, DELETED. 2. VALUE OF THE GIFTS AS PER THE CONTENT OF THE FIR WO RTH RS. 25.91 LAKHS: I HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THAT THE AO HAS REL IED ON THE CONTENT OF THE FIR TO VALUE THE GIFT ITEMS RECEIVED BY THE BRIDE AT THE TIME OF THE MARRIAGE. AMONG THE VALUABLE ITEMS WERE A GOLD BRICK WEIGHING 1 KG AND OTHER GOLD JEWELLERIES AND SILVER UTENSILS ETC. THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED THAT HIS LATE FATHER SH. MUSSADI LAL, WHO DIED IN THE YEAR 2002, AND OWNED SARAFA BU SINESS UNDER THE NAME OF M/S MUSADDI LAL & SONS HAD GIVEN 1 KG G OLD BRICK AND GINNI TO HIS WIFE DURING HIS LIFE TIME. HOWEVER , NO EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM WAS FILED EITHER DURING ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. TH EREFORE, THE VALUE OF THE GOLD BRICK OF ONE KILOGRAMS AT THE EXI STING VALUE IN 2008 WHICH WAS AROUND RS. 1110/GRAM IS VALUED AT RS . 11,10,000/- REMAIN UNVERIFIED. OTHER ITEMS SHOWN AR E SILVER UTENSILS, 40 GRAMS GINNI AND 24 GRAMS CHUDI AND ITE MS LIKE WASHING MACHINE STEEL UTENSILS ETC RECEIVED FROM VA RIOUS RELATIVES ON THE OCCASION OF KANYADAAN CEREMONY. CONSIDERING THE SOCIAL OCCASION AND FAMILY STATUS, IT IS CUSTOMARY ON THE PART OF RELATIVES TO GIVE GIFTS ON THE OCCAS ION AND THE CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE PARENT OF THE BRIDE THAT INC LUDES THE APPELLANT WHO IS THE FATHER AND OTHER CLOSE RELATIV ES LIKE BROTHER ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 10 AND SISTER OF THE BRIDE, IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT SUNDRY ITEMS LIKE FURNITURE, WASHING MACHINE ETC AND GINNI WEIGH ING 40 GMS AND CHUDI WEIGHING 24 GMS ARE WITHIN THE REASONABLE LIMIT OF THE SOURCES DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT GOLD BRICK O F ONE KG VALUED AT THE PREVALENT PRICE AT RS. 11,10,000/- RE MAIN UNEXPLAINED AS NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING APPELLATE PROC EEDING. HENCE, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,10,000/- I.E. THE VALUE OF 1 KG GOLD BRICK IN THE YEAR 2008 IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED BULLION UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. 3. EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON THE OCCASION MARRIAGE DAY O N TENTS, FOODS AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS AMOUNTING TO R S. 8.25 LAKHS I HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THE EXPENDITURE IS VA LUED BY THE AO ON ESTIMATION BASIS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE IN POSSES SION OF THE AO TO ESTIMATE THE ACTUAL COST ETC. HOWEVER, THE AO HA S MERELY ESTIMATED ON GUESS WORK ABOUT POSSIBLE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON TENT, FOODS AND OTHER RELATED ITEMS. THE AO VALUED IT AT RS. 8.25 LAKHS. HOWEVER, I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 9 LAKHS FROM HIS CAP ITAL ACCOUNT ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE. THEREFORE, IN FITN ESS OF THINGS, IT IS REASONABLE TO INFER THAT THE COST OF MARRIAGE EX PENSES WOULD HAVE BEEN MET OUT OF WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE APPELLA NT FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. TH EREFORE, ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 11 ADDITION OF RS. 8.25 LAKH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDI NGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 8.25 LAKHS IS DELETED. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR REITERA TED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM REGARDING EXPENDITURE INCURRED OUT OF KANYADHAN AND OTHER GIFTS RECEIVED FROM FAMILY AND CLOSE RELATIVES AND THE RE LIEF HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ALLOWED BY HIM. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 11,10,00 0/- WHICH RELATES TO GOLD BRICK OF 1 KG VALUED AT PREVALENT PRICE, WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE REASONS THAT NO CREDIBLE EVI DENCE HAS BEEN GIVEN EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WISHES TO SUBMIT AN AFFIDAVIT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND SINCE IT IS IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS GROUN D OF APPEAL SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT HAVE ALREA DY BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY WAY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND THE SAME IS NOW BEING FILED BY WAY OF AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 27.05.2017 ON DULY EXECUTED NON- JUDICIAL STAMP PAPER DULY NOTARIZED BY THE NOT ARY PUBLIC AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER:- KIFK I= ESA J?KQUUNU XKS;Y IQ= JH LO0 JH EQLN~NH YKY MEZ DJ HCU 64 LKY TKFR EGKTU FUOKLH 3@21 DKYK DQVKW GK0 CKSMZ] VYOJ KIFKIWOZD FUEU FYF[KR ?KKS'K.KK DJRK GWW FD%& 1- ;G GS FD ESJS FIRK LO0 JH EQLN~NH YKY TH DK 84 O 'KZ DH VK;Q ESA O'KZ 2002 ESA LOXZOKL GQVK FKKA ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 12 2- ;G GS FD OS VYOJ DS IQJKUS O IZFRF'BR O;OLK;H FK S TKS EQLN~NHYKY ,.M LUL DS UKE LS CTKTK CKTKJ VYOJ ESA LKSUS&PKANH DK O;OLK; DJRS FKSA 3- ;G GS FD MUGKSUS O'KZ 1997 ESA MDR O;OLK; CAN DJ FN;K FKK D;KSAFD ML LE; MUDH MEZ YXHKX 79 O'KZ DH FKH RFKK MUDK LOKLFK; VPNK UGHA JG RK FKKA 4- ;G GS FD ESJH IRUH MUDH O`}KOLFKK DS NKSJKU LSOK DJRH FKH RFKK MUGKSUS 1997 ESA TC DKJKSCKJ CAN FD;K FKK RC ,D FDYKS LKSUS DH BZV ,OA DQN LKSUS DH FXUUH ESJH IRUH DKS NH FKHA 5- ;G GS FD MDR LKSUS DH BZV ESJH IFRU }KJK ESJH YM +DH EHUK DS FOOKG ESA MLS NS NH FKHA 7. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND TOOK US THROUGH THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ISSUE RELATES TO DETERMINA TION OF THE SOURCE OF MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TH E MARRIAGE OF HER DAUGHTER WHICH GOT SOLOMISED ON 19.01.2008 AMOUNTIN G TO RS 58.77 LACS AND WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDE APPROPRIATE E XPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF S UCH EXPENDITURE IN TERMS OF KANYADAN RECEIVED FROM CLOSE RELATIVES AMO UNTING TO RS 23.86 LACS, VALUE OF GIFTS RECEIVED WORTH RS 25.91 LACS A ND BANK WITHDRAWALS OF RS 9 LACS FROM ASSESSEES OWN BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION AND OTHER DETAILS RECEIVED FROM CLOSE RELATIVES AND HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE PRIMARY ONUS O F EXPLANING THE SOURCE OF KANYADAN RECEIPTS OF RS 23.86 LACS FROM C LOSE RELATIVES. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) REMAIN UNCONTROVERTED BEF ORE US AND THE SAME ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 13 ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. SIMILARLY, THE FINDINGS OF T HE LD CIT(A) REGARDING VARIOUS GIFTS (EXCEPT GOLD BRICK) RECEIVED ON THE O CCASION OF MARRIAGE AND GIFTED TO HER DAUGHTER, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THE GIFTS, SOCIAL AND FAMILY STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE INVOLVED, THE SAME WA S FOUND ACCEPTABLE BY THE LD CIT(A) AND WE HEREBY CONFIRM THE SAME. R EGARDING GIFT OF GOLD BRICK WORTH RS 11.10 LACS, THE LD CIT(A) HAS S USTAINED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT NO CREDIBLE EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHE D. IN THIS REGARD, AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE US REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). IT IS CONTENDED THAT GOLD BR ICK WAS OWNED BY LATE SHRI MUSADDI LAL (GRANDFATHER OF MEENA AGARWAL) WHO WAS IN SARAFA BUSINESS AND WHO HAD GIVEN THE SAME TO ASSESSEES W IFE BEFORE HE DIED IN YEAR 2002 AND NOW, THE SAME HAS BEEN GIFTED FURT HER BY HIS WIFE TO THEIR DAUGHTER ON THE OCCASION OF HER MARRIAGE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEES DAUGHTER HAS RECEIVED BY WAY OF GIFT A G OLD BRICK WORTH RS 11.10 LACS AS PER PRESENT VALUE ON OCCASION OF HER MARRIAGE. IT IS CONTENDED THAT IT IS ASSESSEES WIFE WHO HAS GIFTED THE GOLD BRICK TO HER DAUGHTER AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT THE SOURCE OF SUCH GOLD BRICK IN THE HANDS OF HIS WIFE IS AGAI N GIFT OF SUCH GOLD BRICK RECEIVED FROM HER FATHER-IN-LAW WHO WAS IN SARAFA B USINESS. WHAT WE FIND IS THAT THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND NOT BY EITHER THE SO CALLED DONOR (WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE) O R BY THE DONEE (DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE). FURTHER, NOTHING HAS B EEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN TERMS OF WILL OR GIFT DEED BY LATE SHRI M USADDI LAL (THE ORIGINAL DONOR). IN ABSENCE OF ANY WILL OR GIFT DEED BY TH E ORIGINAL DONOR AND THE FACT THAT BOTH THE DONOR AND THE DONEE AS SO CL AIMED HAVE NOT SUBMITTED AND FILED ANY AFFIRMATIVE STATEMENT CONFI RMING SUCH TRANSACTION AS A GIFT TRANSACTION, THE ASSESSEES C ONTENTIONS REMAIN ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 14 UNSUBSTANTIATED AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN THE RESULT, WE AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND DISMISS TH E GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. REGARDING ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE OF RS 8.25 WHICH THE AO ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIA GE, THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 9 LAKHS FROM THE ASS ESSEES BANK ACCOUNT ON THE OCCASION OF THE MARRIAGE, IT IS REAS ONABLE TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED THE MARRIAGE EXPEN DITURE OUT OF SUCH WITHDRAWAL. THEREFORE, WE DONOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 8.25 LAK HS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, WE AFFIRM THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE REVENUES GROUND NO. 1 IS ALSO DISMISSED. 11. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON REVIEW OF ASSESSEES STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.03.2008, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS. 30 LACS AS ADVANCE AGAINST LAND AND RS. 4 1,52,255/- AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM 7 DIFFERENT PERSONS(CASH CREDIT ORS). IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT A COPY OF THE AGRE EMENT TO SALE, SALE DEED ETC IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE RECEIPT OF AD VANCE OF RS. 30 LACS BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH AGREEMENT TO SALE OR SALE DEED WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN ABSEN CE OF THE SAME, AN ADDITION OF RS. 30 LAKH WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 15 12. FURTHER REGARDING 7 CASH CREDITORS, THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SINCE PRIMARY EVIDENCES LIKE CONFIRMATION HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE SPECIFICALLY BEING ASKED F OR, THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION COULD N OT BE ESTABLISHED. WHEN IDENTITY IS NOT ESTABLISHED THERE REMAINS NO S COPE FOR EXAMINING CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. HENCE, THESE CASH RECEIPTS REMAIN UNPROVED AND ACCORDINGLY AN ADDITION OF RS. 41,52,2 55 WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 13. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30,00,000/- WAS REC EIVED FROM M/S ARAWALI WINES THROUGH CITY STAR HOSPITALITY PVT. LT D. BY WAY OF CHEQUE PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 10 LACS AND RS 20 LACS RES PECTIVELY AND COPY OF CONFIRMATION WAS ALSO SUBMITTED. FURTHER REGARDI NG THE CASH CREDITORS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY TWO AMOUNTS O F RS 3,50,000 AND RS 1,64,093 WERE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR AND REST ALL AMOUNT WERE CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEARS. THE RELEVA NT SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2. FURTHER THE FOLLOWING AMOUNTS IN THE BALANCE SH EET AS ON 31.3.2008 TOTALING RS. 41,52,255/- WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE AO-. S. NO. NAME AS ON 31.3.2008 AS ON 31.3.2007 1 AMAR CHAND JAIN HUF 13,50,000/- 17,50,000/- 2 RAM PRATAP KATTA & SONS 8,20,071/- 8,20,071/- ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 16 3 PRABHU DAYAL 5,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 4 BRIJMOHAN 1,80,000/- 1,80,000/- 5 SHANKAR & CO. 4,52,184/- 2,88,091/- 6 RAMESH AGARWAL 5,00,000/- 5,00,000/- 7 DEEPMALIKA 3,50,000/- TOTAL 41,52,255/- 40,38,162/- 3. AS IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, ONLY TWO AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL RS. 3,50,000/ - RECD. FROM DEEPMALIKA (CONFIRMATION ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-F) AN D RS. 1,64,093/- RECEIVED FROM SHANKAR & CO. THIS CONCERN SHANKAR & CO. IS PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT, HENCE THIS AMOUNT IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2007 A ND 31.3.2008 OF SHANKAR & CO. ENCLOSED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-G. 4. THE APPELLANTS INCOME TAX CASE FOR AY 2007-08 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24 /12/2009. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2007-08 IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE-H. 5. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 200 7-08 WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AFTER MAKING ALL ENQUIRIES OF THE ABOVE AMOUNTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THIS YEAR I S NOT ONLY AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE BUT ALSO UNDESIRABLE AND UNJUSTIFIED LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPE AL, THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNT OF RS. 41,52,255/- WAS NEVER RECEI VED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 17 14. WE NOW REFER TO THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD . CIT(A) WHICH IS CONTAINED AS UNDER:- 6.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE EMERGED : 1. THAT THE AO HAD ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME FOR THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE A MOUNT IS RECEIVED FROM M/S ARAWALI WINES THROUGH CITY STAR H OSPITALITY PVT. LTD. (PAN-AACCC 7409C) THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. THE RELEVANT CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED. 2. THAT THE AO HAS FURTHER ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 41,5 2,255/- AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TH AT OUT OF RS. 41,52,255/- AN AMOUNT OF RS. 40,38,162/- IS COMING FROM THE BALANCE SHEET OF EARLIER YEAR WHICH IS ALREADY IN T HE POSSESSION OF THE AO AND PREVIOUS YEARS CASES WERE ALSO DECIDED I N THE SCRUTINY AND THE BALANCES WERE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. THAT DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3.5 LAKH WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. DEEPMALIKA, WHO IS DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESS EE AND AN EXISTING IT ASSESSEE AND RS. 1,64,093/- RECEIVED FR OM M/S SHANKAR & CO WHICH IS PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. 6.3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS A ND FOUND THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 7 1,52,255/- AS ALL NECESSARY DETAILS ALONG WITH THE CONFIRMATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED BOTH DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE APPELLATE STAGE. ALL OF THEM ARE EXISTING INCOME TAX ASSESSES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 18 RS. 71,52,255/- IS DELETED AND THE APPELLANTS GROU ND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED. 15. THE LD. D/R IS HEARD WHO HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. REGARDING ADVANCE OF RS 30 LA CS, MERELY THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS HAPPENED THROUGH BANKING C HANNEL AND A CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO DI SCHARGE THE INITIAL ONUS CAST ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY, GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR. THE AO HAS SPEC IFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH A COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL OR SALE DEED THAT HAS BEEN EXECUTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION SO CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ADVANCE AGAINST LAND, HOWEVER, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO DEMONSTRATE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PERSON WHO HAS ADVANCED THE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE SET-ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS 30 LACS SO MA DE BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. 17. REGARDING ADDITION OF 41.52 LACS, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RETURNED A FINDING THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 40,38,162/- PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEARS AND IS BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE PREVIOUS YEARS AND THE SAME CANNOT BE ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 19 BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE RE MAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 3.5 LAKH WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. DEEPMALIKA, WHO IS DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND AN EXISTING INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AN D RS. 1,64,093/- WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S SHANKAR & CO WHICH IS PROPRIE TARY CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT HIMSELF. WE DONOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY I N THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. I N THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/11/2017. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKWY 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:- 14/11/2017. * GANESH KR VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, ALWAR 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. ITA NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA NO. 249/JP/2017 SHRI RAGHUNANDAN GOYAL, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 20 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA. NO. 238/JP/2017 & ITA. NO. 249/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR