DEVI SINGH RAWAT, BEAWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2 BEAWAR, RAJASTHAN

ITA 318/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9882 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANURADHA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJIV JAIN
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained investment; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Application of stay; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 318/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 DEVI SINGH RAWAT, H. NO. 5, CHANDRA VILLA, NEW AGARWAL COLONY, DELWARA ROAD, BEAWAR (RAJ)-305901 CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD 2, BEAWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AASPR 3252 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SANJIV JAIN (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. ANURADHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/03/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/03/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: R.C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), AJMER DATED 07/12/2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2009- 10 IN THE MATTER ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR RE OPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND ALSO FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,66,660/-. 3. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED ON THE BASIS OF STATEMEN T OF SHRI MADAN ITA 318/JP/2018 DEVI SINGH RAWAT VS. ITO 2 MOHAN GUPTA RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH AT HIS BUSIN ESS PREMISES AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH. SO FAR AS THE REOPENING IS CONCERNED, I FOUND THAT AFTER RECORDIN G SPEAKING REASONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE INCOME HAS ESC APED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 4. IN SO FAR AS THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION IS CONCER NED, EXACTLY UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED IN THE CASE OF DHIRENDRA SINGH VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1273/JP/2018 WITH TWO OTHER APPEALS VIDE ORDER DATED 25/3/2019, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAV E DELETED THE ADDITION ON MERIT AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. NOW I COME TO THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION, I FOUN D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED AT PAGES 2 TO 15 OF THE ORDER THAT IN SEAR CH AT BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA DATED 23.05.2013, INCRIMI NATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSES SEE MADE PAYMENT OF RS.2,68,330/- AND RS.2,670/- TOWARDS BOUNDARY EXPEN SES BY RECEIPT NO. 53 DATED 07.07.2008 THROUGH CHEQUE AND RS.4,66,660/ - AS ON-MONEY. HE REFERRED TO THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE STATEMEN T OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA U/S 132(4) REPRODUCED AT PAGES 10-13 OF THE O RDER TO CONCLUDE THAT ASSESSEE MADE ON-MONEY PAYMENT AT THE RATE OF RS. 2,000 PER SQ. YARD AND THUS, MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,66,660/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE ISSUE OF OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMI NATION, IT WAS HELD THAT SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA IS NOT THIRD PARTY AS HE WAS THE OWNER OF THE PLOTS. ALL THE DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSE SSMENT WAS MADE WERE ITA 318/JP/2018 DEVI SINGH RAWAT VS. ITO 3 PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS TO THE DENIAL OF CROSS EX AMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT CARRY MUCH WEIGHT AND TH US, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 7. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES, I OBSERVE THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ALLEGED ON-MONEY OF RS.4,66,660/-. NEITHER IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM SHRI MAD AN MOHAN GUPTA NOR IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), HE ADMITT ED THAT HE RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF ON- MONEY. IN FACT, IN REPLY TO QUESTION NOS. 25 TO 27 OF HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) WITH REFERENCE TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,96,000/- AS REFERRED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HE STATED THAT HE DOES NOT REMEMBER THAT WHAT IS THIS WORKING BUT IT MAY BE WITH REFERENCE TO COMMISSION WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN PRO PERTY WHICH HE OFFERED FOR TAX. IN STATEMENT U/S 131(1) DATED 24.02.2016 A ND 29.02.2016 RECORDED BY THE AO IN COURSE OF HIS ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, HE HAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAS SOLD THE PLOTS T O THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEWA PARISHAD AT THE RATE OF RS.1,150 PER SQ. YARD ON WHICH HE EARNED PROFIT OF RS.87,20,000/- WHICH HE HAS ALREAD Y OFFERED FOR TAX AND THE REMAINING PROFIT OF RS. 1,60,96,000/- IS NOT HI S PROFIT BUT PROFIT OF THE PARISHAD BUT TO PURCHASE PEACE OF MIND, HE HAS SURR ENDERED THIS AMOUNT IN HIS HAND. THUS, FROM THE READING OF THE STATEMEN T OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA AND THE PAPERS FOUND FROM HIM, IT IS EV IDENT THAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST THAT ALLOTTEES OF THE PLOT HAVE PAID ANY ON-MONEY ON PURCHASE OF THE PLOT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY PLOT FROM SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA RATHER HE WAS ALLOTTED THE PLOT BY THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEWA PARISHAD AND THUS, THERE I S NO PRIVITY OF CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA. THEREFORE, NO QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF ALLEGED ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION. ITA 318/JP/2018 DEVI SINGH RAWAT VS. ITO 4 8. I ALSO OBSERVE THAT ANNEXURE-A-3 REFERRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER IS A REGISTER WHERE THE DETAILS OF THE PLOT A LLOTTED TO VARIOUS PERSONS IS NOTED. AS PER THIS REGISTER, THE NAME & ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE PLOTS WERE ALLOTTED, THE AREA OF THE PLOT, THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM THESE PERSONS AT THE RATE OF RS. 1,150 PER SQ. YARD , AND THE AMOUNT DUE TO THEM AFTER ADJUSTING RS.30,000/- RECEIVED FROM THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEWA PARISHAD ON ACCOUNT OF THESE PERSONS IS NOTED. THUS, THIS ANNEXURE NOWHERE SUGGESTS THAT ANY ON-MONEY HAS BEEN RECEI VED BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA FROM THE ALLOTTEES OF PLOT. AT THE TIME OF POSSESSION OF THE PLOT, THE FINAL RECEIPT IS ISSUED FOR THE ENTIRE AM OUNT RECEIVED AND THAT RECEIPT NO. IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THIS REGISTER. THU S, IN THESE PAPERS THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ANY ON-MONEY HAS BEEN PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE. FURTHER, OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA WAS NOT PROVIDED EVEN WHEN SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS NOT A THIRD PARTY IGNORING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY PLOT F ROM HIM RATHER IT IS THE RAJASTHAN TEHSILDAR SEWA PARISHAD WHO HAVE ALLO TTED THE PLOT TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE SCHEME FRAMED BY THEM. THE JODHP UR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI MEHTAB SINGH UJJAWAL V S. ITO IN ITA NO. 271/JODH/2018 VIDE ORDER DATED 18/01/2019 WHEREIN E XACTLY SIMILAR ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL AFTER OBSERVIN G AS UNDER: 5. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PER USED. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECI SION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI DEVA RAM SUTHAR IN ITA NO.342/JODH /2018 WHEREIN EXACTLY SIMILAR ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNA L AFTER OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECO RD PERUSED. I HAD ALSO DELIBERATED ON THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE IR RESPECTIVE ORDERS AS WELL AS CITED BY LEARNED AR AN D DR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US IN THE CONTE XT OF ITA 318/JP/2018 DEVI SINGH RAWAT VS. ITO 5 FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. FROM THE RECORD I FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED PLOT NO. 84 MEASURING 23 3.33 SQ.YARDS IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT 'REVENUE RESIDENCY' AT VILL AGE PEEPLA BHARATSING, (JAISINGHPURA-MUHANA ROAD), BHANKROTA, TEHSIL- SANGANEER, JAIPUR DEVELOPED BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUP TA IN F.Y.2008-09 RELEVANT TO A.Y.2009-10 FOR TOTAL PURCH ASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,68,330/- FOR PLOT AND RS.2,670/- FOR BOUNDA RY TOTAL RS.2,71,000/- (RS.1150/-PERSQ.YARD). THUS, TOTAL IN VESTMENT BY ASSESSEE IS RS.2,71,000/- OUT OF THIS AMOUNT RS. 1, 90,000/- WAS PAID THROUGH BANK BY TAKING PERSONAL LOAN AND BALANCE RS .81,000/- WAS GIVEN IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. 8. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TO THE SELLER SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA ON MONEY OF RS.4, 66,660/- FOR THE PURCHASE OF PLOT NO.84 HAVING TOTAL AREA OF 233.33 SQ.YARDS 9. IN REPLY TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDE R:- A. THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE ID.AO IS BASELESS AN D IMAGINARY AND NOT MAINTAINABLE. B. THE ID.AO HAS RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA RECORDED BY THE I.T. AUTHORITIES ON 23.05.2013 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. BUT FROM READING THE REPLY GIVEN BY SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA IN THE STATEMENT, IT IS C LEARLY CONVEYED THAT SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA SOLD THE LAND FOR RS.1150/- PER SQ.YARD. AND THE APPELLANT PAID AS PU RCHASE CONSIDERATION TO THE SELLER MADAN MOHAN GUPTA A SUM OF RS.2,71,000/-. C. THAT THE ENTIRE FABRIC BEING WOVEN AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR TREATING THE ALLEGED PAYMENT OF ON MONEY GO AROUND THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA. IT IS SUBMI TTED THAT AFTER THOUGHT STATEMENT CARRY NO WEIGHT UNDER THE L AW AND THEY ARE AGAINST THE SPIRIT OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECA USE THEY HAVE NO EVIDENCE VALUE. D. THAT EXCEPT THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN M OHAN GUPTA THERE WAS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ID.AO WHICH COULD CORROBORATE THAT ON MONEY OF RS.4,66,66 0/- WAS PAID BY THE APPELLANT TO SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA. ITA 318/JP/2018 DEVI SINGH RAWAT VS. ITO 6 E. THAT WHILE MAKING THE ALLEGATION THE LD.AO HAS RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 10. ASSESSEE ALSO ASKED BEFORE THE AO TO PROVIDE OP PORTUNITY FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON ON WHOSE STATEMENT ADDITION WAS MADE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED NEITHER BY THE AO NOR BY T HE CIT(A). THUS, WITHOUT AFFORDING CROSS EXAMINATION, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF S HRI MADAN MOHAN GUPTA U/S 69 BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND ADDED THE SAME IN ASSESSEES INCOME. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO C ORROBORATIVE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION AMOUNT TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE , A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULL AND VOID. 11. FOR THIS PURPOSE, RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTR IES 281 CTR 241 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NOT ALLOWING ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES BY ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH STATEMEN TS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE AS BASIS OF IMPUGNED ORDER, AMO UNTED IN SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MADE IMPUGNED ORDER NULLITY AS I T AMOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE PRE CISE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS AS UNDER :- 'NOT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE W ITNESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THO SE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERI OUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY INASMUCH AS IT AMOUNT ED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS BASED UPON THE STATEM ENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAID TWO WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE APPELLANT DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS AND W ANTED TO CROSS- EXAMINE, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT T HIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THA T IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HE HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED AND THE AFORESAID PLEA IS NOT EVEN DEALT WITH BY THE ADJUDI CATING AUTHORITY. APPELLANT HAD CONTESTED THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE ITA 318/JP/2018 DEVI SINGH RAWAT VS. ITO 7 STATEMENTS OF THESE TWO WITNESSES AND WANTED TO DIS CREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY FOR WHICH PURPOSE IT WANTED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. THAT APART, THE ADJUDICATING AUT HORITY SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE PRICE LIST AS MAINTAINED AT THE DEP OT TO DETERMINE THE PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF EXCISE DUTY. W HETHER THE GOODS WERE, IN FACT, SOLD TO THE SAID DEALERS/WITNESSES A T THE PRICE WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE PRICE LIST ITSELF COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT FOR THE AD JUDICATING AUTHORITY TO PRESUPPOSE AS TO WHAT COULD BE THE SUB JECT MATTER OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND MAKE THE REMARKS AS MENTI ONED ABOVE.' 12. RELIANCE CAN ALSO BE PLACED ON THE ON THE DECIS ION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ASHISH INTERNATIONAL IN 1 TA NO.4299/MURN/2009 DATED 22/02/2011, WHEREIN COURT H ELD AS UNDER:- 'THE QUESTION RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS, -WHETHER T HE TRIBUNAL JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES ALLEGEDLY MADE BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S. THAK KAR AGRO INDUSTRIAL CHEM SUPPLIES P. LTD. ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. THAKKAR AGRO INDUSTRIAL CHEM SUPPL IES P.LTD. IN HIS STATEMENT HAD STATED THAT THERE WERE NO SALES/ PURCHASES BUT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ONLY ACCOMMODATION BILLS NOT INVOLVING ANY TRANSACTIONS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED A FINDI NG OF FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE A BOVE STATEMENT AND ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPO RTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE CONCERNED DIRECTOR OF M/S. THAKKA R AGRO INDUSTRIAL CHEM SUPPLIES P. LTD. WHO HAD MADE THE ABOVE STATEMENT. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD SOUGHT REMAN D REPORT AT THAT STAGE THE GENUINENESS OF THE STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY ALLOWING CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PE RSON WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL BEING BASED ON THE FAC T, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW CAN BE SAID TO ARISE FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS ' . 13. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF H.R. MEHTA IN ITS ORDER DATED 07/07 /2016. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- ITA 318/JP/2018 DEVI SINGH RAWAT VS. ITO 8 THE ASSESSEE IS BOUND TO BE PROVIDED WITH THE MATE RIAL USED AGAINST HIM APART FROM BEING PERMITTED TO CROSS EXA MINE THE DEPONENTS. THE DENIAL OF SUCH OPPORTUNITY GOES TO R OOT OF THE MATTER AND STRIKES AT THE VERY FOUNDATION OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND RENDERS IT VULNERABLE. 14. APPLYING PROPOSITION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY HONBL E SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT FOR THE ADDITION MADE BY AO MERE LY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT, WHEN THERE IS NO CORROBORAT IVE MATERIAL WITH AO SUGGESTING THE ALLEGED ADDITION, WITHOUT ALLOWING ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON ON WHOSE STATEMENT ADDITION WAS MADE. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADD ITION SO MADE. 15. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE MATTER, I OBSERVE THAT LD. AR HAD PLACED ON RECORD ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF NAVRTATTAN KOTHARI VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.425/JP/201 7 IN WHICH PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.148 WAS QUASHED. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE ENTIRELY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF INSTANT CASE, IN SO FAR AS IN THE CASE OF NAVRATTAN KOTHARI (SUPRA) REOPENI NG OF ASSESSMENT AFTER FOUR YEARS OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.143(3)/153 WAS QUASHED, WHEREAS IN THE INSTANT CASE, NO ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) AND ONLY RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1). ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NOT GOING TO HELP THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER. 16. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. S.A.NO.07/JODH/2018 17. AS I HAVE ALREADY DISPOSED ASSESSEES APPEAL ON MERIT, THE STAY APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE AND STAY APPLICATION IS DISMI SSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ITA 318/JP/2018 DEVI SINGH RAWAT VS. ITO 9 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND C ONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 5. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SAME, RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AS STATED ABOVE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFI RMED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH MARCH, 2019 SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ ( RAMESH C SHARMA ) YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26 TH MARCH, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANTS- DEVI SINGH RAWAT, BEAWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O., WARD 2, BEAWAR. 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. 318/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR