RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 378/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6137 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 16-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR; ISHA KANUNGO S
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Corroborative evidences; Validity of assessment; Retraction
• Section: 143(3); 132

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; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN D-23-25, PREM BHAWAN, LAL BAHADUR NAGAR, JLN MARG, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AATPJ 5294 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR & MS. ISHA KANUNGO (ADVOCATES) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 11.04.2018 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/04.2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.04.2017 OF LD. CIT (A)-4, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 4-15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LEARN ED ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3)/153B(1)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WHICH IS VOID AB-INITIO DESERV ES TO BE QUASHED. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,6 0,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES MADE TO SHRI HANUMAN AND RADHES HYAM JI OF RS. 75 LACS AND RS. 85 LACS RESPECTIVELY WITHOUT CONSIDERING 2 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME WAS AD VANCED OUT OF ADVANCES RECEIVED BACK GIVEN IN EARLIER YEAR AND SURRENDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING IN THE DECISION OF RAVI MA TUR & OTHERS OF 2000 INSTEAD OF PULLANGUEGODE RUBBER & PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KERALA 91 ITR 18 (SUPREME COURT). 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES YOUR INDULGENCE TO ADD AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153B(1)(B) OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSES SEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 1 AND THE SAME M AY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. D/R HAS RAISED NO OBJECTION IF TH E GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, G ROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 ARE REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1,6 0,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND DISCLOSED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT BUT WAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX. 3. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER S ECTION 132 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP ON 23 RD MAY, 2013. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH IS ANNEXURE-AS AND EXHIBIT-2. AS PER THE SEIZED MATERIAL, WHICH IS A DIARY CONTAINING THE ENTRIES OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS AGAINST THE NAMES OF VARIOUS PERSON S. SINCE THESE ENTRIES PERTAIN TO TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 AND 14-15, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE 3 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 11,25,00,000/- COMP RISING OF AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- SURRENDERED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 013-14 AND BALANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 I.E. THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 8,05,00,000/- AND , THEREFORE, A SUM OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- WAS SHORT IN COMPARISON TO THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE AO P ROPOSED TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- A GAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE A SUM OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- WAS SURRENDERED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO TWO PERSONS, NAMELY, SHRI HANUMAN AND SHRI RADHEYSHYAM WHICH WAS RECEIVED BAC K BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE TOTAL ADVANCE OF RS. 9,65,00,000/- G IVEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS INCLUDING THE SAID SUM OF RS. 1,60 ,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING SOURCE OF THE ADVANCE GIVEN DURING THE YEAR. THUS THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECEIVE D A SUM OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- AND TO THE EXTENT OF THAT AMOUNT NO ADDITION IS CAL LED FOR ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVEN DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVI TS OF THESE TWO PERSONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00,00 0/- WAS REFUNDED BY THESE PERSONS AS THE DEAL OF PURCHASE OF LAND DID NOT MAT ERIALIZE. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE AND AVAILABILITY OF THAT AMOUN T OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AND IN THE STATEMENT R ECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, THEN THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NO THING BUT IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT TO AVOID DUE TAX ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DULY ADMITT ED DURING THE SEARCH AND 4 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. SEIZURE ACTION. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND REITERATED HIS CONTENTION AS RAISED BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF REFUND OF T HE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00,000/-. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETRACTION LETTER IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED SO ONLY IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E FILED AFTER LAPSE OF ONE YEAR. THUS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE AO. 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION WAS CONTINUED FOR 2 DAYS AND UNTIL A ND UNLESS THE SEARCH PARTY OBTAINED THE SURRENDER FROM THE PARTY OF A SUM OF R S. 11,25,00,000/- THE SEARCH OPERATION CONTINUED. THE LD. A/R HAS THUS SUBMITTE D THAT IN THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO STATE EACH AND EVERY FACT REGARDING THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE DIARY WHICH IS SEIZED MATERIAL. HOWEVER, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS REALIZED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL ADVANCE S OF RS. 11,25,00,000/- THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 1,60,00, 000/- WHICH WAS OFFERED TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THEREFORE, THE ASS ESSEE HAS OFFERED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 8,05,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT SO FAR AS THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ARE CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADM ITTED THE TRANSACTION AS ADVANCE GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ADVANCE OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- GIVEN TO SHRI HANUMAN AND SHRI RADHEY SHYAM COMPRISING OF RS. 75,00,000/- AND RS. 85,00,000/- EACH WAS RECEIVED B ACK BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS AVAILABLE FOR RE-ADVANCING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, THE 5 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00 ,000/- FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALREADY SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEA R 2013-14. HENCE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AVAILABLE AS SOUR CE FOR ADVANCING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE SURRENDER IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) WAS OBTAINED IN VIOLATION OF C BDT CIRCULAR DATED 10 TH MARCH, 2003 AS WELL AS DATED 18.12.2014 WHEREIN THE BOARD HAS CLEARLY INSTRUCTED THE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE SHOULD BE FOCUS AND CONCENTRA TION ON COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE OF INCOME AND NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO OBTAIN C ONFESSION AS TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CO NFESSION OBTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES IS AGAINST THE CIRCULARS OF CBDT WHICH ARE BINDING ON THEM. HENCE, SURRENDER OBTAINED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITION M ADE ON THE BASIS OF SURRENDER IS UNLAWFUL AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. HE HAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO TO SHOW THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2013, THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLA IN ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS DUE TO THE PRESSURE EXERTED BY THE SEARCH PARTY AND PROLON G SEARCH PROCEEDINGS LASTED TILL THE SURRENDER WAS OBTAINED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER TREMENDOUS PRESSURE AND SHOCK AND COULD NOT EXPLAIN ALL THE FA CTS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THE CORRECT FACTS BY FILING THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE PERSO NS CONCERNED TO WHOM THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE AMOUNTS WERE REFUND ED BY THESE TWO PERSONS TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAID EVI DENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 6 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. WITHOUT CONDUCTING FURTHER ENQUIRY BY THE AO TO CON TROVERT THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIF IED. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO CAN VERY WELL DOUBT THE EVIDENCE TENDER ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON AFFIDAVIT BUT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FINDING OR MATER IAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, REJECTING THE SAID EVIDENCE IS NOT LEGAL AND PROPER AND, THER EFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITHOUT GIVING A FINDING THAT THE AFFIDAVITS AND FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD ARE INCORRECT, THE ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINAB LE. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAVI MATHU R & OTHERS IN DBIT APPEAL NO. 63, 65, 66, 69, 70, 74, 77 AND 133 OF 2002. WHEREAS THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS O NLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT GIVEN AS ADVANCE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO C ONSIDERATION THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER, 91 ITR 18 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT AN ADMISSION IS AN IM PORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE. IT IS OPEN T O THE PERSON WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT. THUS WHEN T HE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY FILED THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT WHAT IS ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) IS NOT CORRECT AS A PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AVAILABLE FOR RE-ADVANCE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION AND HENCE TO THE EXTENT OF SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- THE SAID ADMISS ION IS INCORRECT. THE LD. A/R HAS THEN RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF MUMBAI BENCH OF TH E TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS. 2250 AND 7 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. 2251/MUM/2013 IN THE CASE OF M/S. TRIBHOVANDAS BHIM JI ZAVERI (DELHI) PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN A SIMILAR S ITUATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 6,00,00,000/- AT THE TIME OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FOUND TO BE A SURRENDER OBTAINED BY THE AUTHORITIES DUE TO PRESSURE EXERTED BY THE SEARCH PARTY, THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THE FA CT THAT THE SEARCH CONTINUED FOR DAYS TOGETHER AND AS MANY AS 43 QUESTIONS WERE POSE D TO THE ASSESSEE. THE SEARCH WAS CONCLUDED ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED TH E ADDITIONAL INCOME UNDER THE PRESSURE OF CONTINUES GRILLING FOR 4 DAYS. THEREFO RE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THE DISCLOSURE WAS VOLUNTA RY. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE SEARCH OPERATION CONTINUED FOR TW O DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER MENTAL STRESS AND PRESSURE AND COULD NOT EXPL AIN THE CORRECT FACTS WHILE SURRENDERING THIS INCOME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4), THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS N OT SUSTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER ALLEGED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 1 32(4) WAS MADE UNDER DURESS OR COERCION BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE SAID STATEMENT WAS MADE VOLUNTARY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED IN TH E STATEMENT THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN AS AN ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND N EITHER THE DEAL WAS COMPLETED NOR THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT BY EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RE CEIVE BACK THE AMOUNT TILL THE DATE WHEN THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 23 RD MAY, 2013. HENCE THE SUBSEQUENT STAND OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED BACK THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- ON 20 TH APRIL, 2013 IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTER-THOUGHT TO AVO ID THE DUE TAX. THE LD. D/R 8 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) ON 23 RD MAY, 2013 NEVER RETRACTED THE SAID ADMISSION AND SURRENDERED TILL THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A GAP OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR BE TWEEN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND THE RETRACTION OF THE ADMI SSION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED UN DER SECTION 132(4) ON 23 RD MAY, 2013 HAS ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 11,25,0 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES GIVEN TO VARIOUS PERSONS FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS QUESTION NO. 21 WHICH IS GERMANE TO THE CONTROVERSY REGARDING THE SURRENDER OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 AND RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. THE SAID STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) BEING QUESTION NO. 21 AS UNDER :- IZ'U-21 VKIUS MIJKSDR IZ'U LA-20 DS TOKC ESA CRK;K FD I`B LA[;K 7 IJ VKIDS }KJK HKWFE [KJHNUS GSRQ NKS O;FDR; KSA JH GUQEKU TH ,OA JK/KS';KE TH DKS :I;S 75]00]000@& ,OA :I;S 85]00]00 0@& E'K% ,MOKAL DS CRKSJ FN, GSA D`I;K CRK,WA FD FTU O;FDR;K SA DKS VKIUS ,MOKAL FN;K GS MUDK IFJP; ,OA IW.KZ FOOJ.K NSOSAA L KFK GH ;G HKH CRK,WA FD TKS ISLK VKIUS HKWFE [KJHNUS GSRQ ADVANCE FN;K GS] D;K ;G LKSNK IW.KZ GKS X;K GS ,OA D;K ;G ISLK VKIDH YS[KK IQFLRDKVKSA ESA NTZ GS\ LIV DJSAA MRRJ% EGKSN;] BL HKWFE [KJHNUS DK DKJKSCKJ NYKYKSA DS EKQZR DJRS GS ,OA GESA FTL ,FJ;K ESA HKWFE [KJHNUH GKSRH GS GE ML ,FJ;K DS NYKY LS LAIDZ DJDS [KJHNRS GSA ESUSA ;G ISLK ,D YKS DY NYKY DS EKQZR FN;K GS BLFY, JH GUQEKU TH ,OA JK/KS';K ETH D S CKJS ESA TKUDKJH UGHA NS IKAXKA ;G TKUDKJH ESA ESJS YKSDY N YKY LS IZKIR 9 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. DJDS VKIDKS CRK NWWAXKA ;G LELR JKF'K :I;S 1]60]00] 000@& ESJS O;OLK; LS VFTZR V?KKSFKR VK; GS FTLS ESA FOR OKZ 2012&13 DH V?KKSFKR VFRFJDR VK; EKURS GQ, DJKJKSI.K GSRQ LEFI ZR DJRK GWWAA THE STATEMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F THE ENTRIES FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AT PAGE NO. 7 OF ANNEXURE-AS EX HIBIT-1. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 1,60,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES GIVEN TO SHRI HANUMAN OF RS. 75,00,000/- AND SHRI R ADHEYSHYAM OF RS. 85,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY. THE SAID INCOME OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- WAS DULY OFFERED TO TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. APART FROM THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60,00,000/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DISCLOSED A SUM OF RS. 9,65,00,00 0/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCES GIVEN TO VARIOUS PERSONS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 13.9.2014 THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ONLY RS. 8,05,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS AGAINST RS. 9,65,00,000/- DISCLOSED AND SURRENDERED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4). THEREFORE, THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AN D THE INCOME OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE TOOK A STAND THA T AN ADVANCE OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- GIVEN DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012- 13 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WAS RECEIVED BACK AS THE TRANSACTION O F PURCHASE OF LAND COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID SUM OF RS. 1,6 0,00,000/- WAS AVAILABLE FOR RE- ADVANCING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE FILED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THESE TWO PERSONS, NAMELY, SHRI HANUMAN AND SHRI RADHYSHYAM WHEREIN THEY HAVE STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS REPAID TO THE ASSESSEE ON 20 TH APRIL, 2013 AS THE DEAL OF LAND COULD NOT MATERIAL IZE FOR THE REASONS AS 10 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. EXPLAINED IN THESE AFFIDAVITS. THE REPLY OF THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE THE AO HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 5.1 AND 5.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AS UNDER :- 5.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSES SEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SURRENDERED OF RS. 11.25 CRORE HAD BEEN HONOURED BY HIM IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAM E, THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER : SURRENDER OF RS. 11.25 CRORE :- THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH AND STATEMENTS U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE HAS A DMITTED TO SURRENDERING AN INCOME OF RS. 11.25 CRORE, THESE SU RRENDER WAS MADE ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1. CASH SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE 1.70 CRORE 2. ADVANCE GIVEN AS PER PAGE NO. 7 OF ANNEXURE AS-1 EXHIBIT -1 AS ON 31.03.2013 1.60 CRORE 3. ADVANCE GIVEN TO VARIOUS PERSONS AS PER ANNEXURE AS 1 EXHIBIT-2(6.45 CRORE 1.60 CRORE) 4.85 CRORE 4. AMOUNT SURRENDERED AS PER UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE 1.50 CRORE TOTAL 9.65 CRORE OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 11.25 CRORE SURRENDE RED BY THE ASSESSEE THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN POINT NO. 2 OF THE TABLE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE OF RS. 1.60 CRORES TO ONE MR. HANUMAN (75 LACS) AND MR. RADHEYSHYAM (85 LACS) THESE ADVANCES ARE GIVEN BEFORE 31.03.2013 AS STATED IN PAGE NO. 7 OF THE AS-1, EXH IBIT-1, AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23.05.2013, IN-BETWEEN THESE TWO DATES THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BACK THESE AMOUNTS FROM MR. HANUMAN JI AND MR. RADH EYSHYAM JI AND THIS AMOUNT REFLECTED AGAIN IN ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXHIBIT-2 AND CASH FOUND ON THE PREMISES OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF STATEMENTS HAS INCLUDED THE SAME AMOUNT TWICE, BUT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN THE ASSE SSEE HAS RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE AND PAID TAX ON NET AMOUNT ONLY, THIS WILL MAKE THE NET UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS 9.65 CRORES. YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND OBLIGE. 5.3. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER :- 11 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1.6 CRORE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. REGARDING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 1.6 CRORE OUR SUBMISSION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCE O F RS. 1.60 CRORES TO ONE MR. HANUMAN (75 LACS) AND MR. RADHEYSHYAM (8 5 LACS) THESE ADVANCES ARE GIVEN BEFORE 31.03.2013 AS STATED IN P AGE NO. 7 OF THE AS-1, EXHIBIT-1 AND THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23.05.2013, IN-BETWEEN THESE TWO DATES THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED BACK THESE AMOUNTS FROM M R. HANUMAN JI AND MR. RADHYESHYAM JI AND THIS AMOUNT REFLECTED AG AIN IN ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN EXHIBIT-2 AND CASH FOUND O N THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF STATEMENT S HAS INCLUDED THE SAME AMOUNT TWICE, BUT AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RET URN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECTIFIED THE MISTAKE AND PAID TAX ON NET AMOUNT ON LY, THIS WILL MAKE THE NET UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS 9.65 CRORES. WE ARE ENCLOSING HEREWITH FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT O F OUR CONTENTION :- (I) AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARY (II) AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI HANUMAN (III) AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN (IV) LAND HOLDING DOCUMENTS OF SHRI RADHESHYAM CHOUDHARY AND HANUMAN. THEREFORE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SURREND ERED THE AMOUNT OF 1.6 CRORE IN CONFUSION AND THERE IS NO NEW ADVANCES FOR LAND DURING THE YEAR. ONLY IT WAS THE REINVESTMENT OF EARLIER A DVANCES GIVEN IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THUS THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE AFFIDAVITS OF SHRI R ADHEYSHYAM AND SHRI HANUMAN AS WELL AS AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS AVAILABLE FOR RE-ADVANCING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE LAND HOLDING DOCUMENTS OF SHR I RADHEYSHYAM AND SHRI HANUMAN. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ARE FOUND TO BE ON 2 ND MARCH, 2013 IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE OF RS. 75,00,000 /- GIVEN TO SHRI HANUMAN AND 8 TH MARCH, 2013 REGARDING ADVANCE OF RS. 85,00,000/- G IVEN TO SHRI 12 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. RADHYSHAYM. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTIO N 132(4), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN AS ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FROM THESE TWO PERSONS. THIS FACT OF GIVING THE ADVANCE S FOR PURCHASE OF LAND IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND FROM T HESE TWO PERSONS COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED AND THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND FROM THESE TWO PERSONS WAS FINALLY NOT FRUC TIFIED AND, THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENT EFFECT WOULD BE RETURN OF THESE AMOUNTS BY THESE TWO PERSONS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE REFUND OF THE AMOUNT IN ANY CASE IS A NECESSARY COROLLARY WHEN THE LAND DEAL WAS NOT SUCCESSFUL. THE ONLY FACT WHICH CAN BE DOUBTED BY THE AO IS THE TIME OF REFUND OF THE SAID AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE PRO DUCED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THESE TWO PERSONS IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THESE AMOUN TS WERE REPAID BY THESE TWO PERSONS ON 20 TH APRIL, 2013. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE TH E AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THESE PERSONS AS UNDER :- 'KIFK I= ESA JK/KS';KE PKS/KJH IQ= JH UKJK;.K YKY PKS/KJH M EZ YXHKX 51 OKZ FUOKLH ,Q- 16] VKWVKSCKMH LSUVJ DS LKEUS] >KSVOKM+K JKSM] T;IQ J 'KIFK IWOZD C;KU DJRK GWWA FD& 1- ;G FD ESUSA JH JKTSUNZ DQEKJ TSU IQ= JH HKWOJ YKY T SU FUOKLH YKY CGKNWJ UXJ] T;IQJ LS FNUAKD 08-03-2013 DKS :I;S 85] 00]000@& UDN ESJS HKKSFE;K UXJ IYKV UA-30 DS ISVS ,MOKUL FY;S FKSA 2- ;G FD MIJKSDR :I;S FNUAKD 20-04-2013 DKS ESUSA JH J KTSUNZ DQEKJ TH DKS OKFIL NS FN;S FKS D;KSAFD ESJS IFJOKJ DS LNL; MIJKS DR IYKV DKS CSPUS DS FY;S LGE UGH FKSA GLRK{KJ 'KIFKXZFGRK 13 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. LR;KIU ESA JK/KS';KE PKS/KJH IQ= JH UKJK;.K YKY PKS/KJH ; G LR;KFIR DJRK GWWA FD MIJKSDR OF.KZR ENSA 1 YXK;R 2 ESJH FUTH TKUDKJH ESA IW.KZR;K LGH ,OA LR; GSA BLESA DKSBZ HKH RF; FNIK;K X;K UGHA GSA BZ'OJ ESJH ENN DJ SA GLRK{KJ 'KIFKXZFGRK FNUKAD 29-03-2016 LFKKU% T;IQJ ATTESTED SD/- NOTARY PUBLIC 'KIFK I= ESA GUQEKU IQ= JH HKKSYKJKE MEZ YXHKX 40 OKZ FUOK LH XZKE EULKJKEIQJK] IVOKJ GYDK FUOK: RGLHY O FTYK T;IQJ 'KIFK IWOZD C;KU DJRK GWWA FD& 1- ;G FD ESUSA JH JKTSUNZ DQEKJ TSU IQ= JH HKWOJ YKY T SU FUOKLH YKY CGKNWJ UXJ] T;IQJ LS FNUAKD 02-03-2013 DKS :I;S 75] 00]000@& UDN ESJS FGLLS DH D`FK HKWFE TKS FD EULKJKEIQJK XZKE FUOK: FTYK T;IQJ ESA FLFKR GS FTLDK [KLJK UA-20@2 GS] DS ISVS ,MOKUL FY;S FKSA 2- ;G FD MIJKSDR :I;S FNUAKD 20-04-2013 DKS ESUSA JH J KTSUNZ DQEKJ TH DKS OKFIL NS FN;S FKS D;KSAFD ESJS VU; FGLLSNKJ MIJKSDR D`FK HKWFE DKS CSPUS DS FY;S LGER UGH GQ;S FKSA U GH TEHU DK RDKLEK DJKUS D S FY;S RS;KJ FKSA GLRK{KJ 'KIFKXZFGRK LR;KIU ESA GUQEKU IQ= JH HKKSYK JKE ;G LR;KFIR DJRK GWWA FD MIJKSDR OF.KZR ENSA 1 YXK;R 2 ESJH FUTH TKUDKJH ESA IW.KZR;K LGH ,OA LR; GSA BLESA DKSBZ HKH RF; FNIK;K X;K UGHA GSA BZ'OJ ESJH ENN DJSA GLRK{KJ 'KIFKXZFGRK FNUKAD 29-03-2016 LFKKU% T;IQJ ATTESTED SD/- NOTARY PUBLIC 14 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. AS REGARDS THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NE VER DISPUTED THE ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL THAT THE AMOUNTS FOUND AGAIN ST EACH ENTRY REPRESENTS THE ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE TWO PERSONS TOTAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,60,00,000/- OUT OF THE ADVANCE O F RS. 11,25,00,000/-. THE SEIZED MATERIAL ENTRIES ARE REPRESENTING ONLY THE A DVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASS ESSEE WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS CONTRARY TO THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL W HICH REPRESENTS ONLY THE TRANSACTION OF ADVANCES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NCE, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD THIS FACT THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,60, 00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20 TH APRIL, 2013 THOUGH THE SAID FACT COULD NOT BE EXPL AINED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) DUE TO PECU LIAR CIRCUMSTANCES AND MENTAL STRESS AND PRESSURE OF THE SEARCH PARTY TO SURRENDE R THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE SUBSEQUENT FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE OVER-LOOKED. THE AO HAS EVERY RIGHT TO CONTROVERT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE BUT BY GIVING A CONTRARY FINDING BASED ON THE MATERIAL. THEREFORE, IF THE A O WAS NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN NECESSARY ENQUIRY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE INSTEAD OF RELYING ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT AND IGNORING THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,60 ,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE AND WAS AVAILABLE FOR GIVING ADVANCE D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS REGARDS THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF 15 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. CIT VS. SHRI RAVI MATHUR (SUPRA), WE NOTE THAT IN T HE SAID DECISION THE CONTROVERSY WAS REGARDING THE FIGURES FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEI ZED MATERIAL WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) AS I N LACS. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE TOOK A STAND THAT THESE AMOUNTS FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ARE NOT IN LACS BUT IN THOUSANDS. THEREFORE, THE SU BSEQUENT STAND OF THE ASSESSEE DISPUTING THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH WERE DULY ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND THAT TO O WITHOUT ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT. T HEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT FO UND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS IN THOUSANDS AND NOT IN LACS, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HAS REJECTED THE RETRACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE IN HA ND, THE ASSESSEE NEVER DISPUTED THE AMOUNTS OR ENTRIES RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATER IAL BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPLAINED AND BROUGHT ON RECORD THE FA CT THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 11,25,00,000/-, A SUM OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- G IVEN AS AN ADVANCE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2013-14 WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE ON 20 TH APRIL, 2013 AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS AV AILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR GIVING ADVANCES DURING THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THIS STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISPUT ING THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE EVI DENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS AND ONLY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY OTHER EVI DENCE IN THE SHAPE OF ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EXCEPT THE PERSONS CONCERNED WHO HAVE DULY MADE THE STATEMENTS ON OATH AS THE AFFIDAVITS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. 16 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) ALONE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A CONCLUSIVE PIECE OF EVIDENCE BY IGNORING THE OTHER FACTS AND EVIDENCE WHICH MAY ESTABLISH THE CORRECT FACTS REGARDING THE TRANSACTI ONS IN DISPUTE. HENCE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPOR T OF THE CLAIM THAT A SUM OF RS. 1,60,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WA S AVAILABLE FOR ADVANCE GIVEN DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THEN IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO TO CONTROVERT THE FACTS AND TO DISPUTE T HE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD . CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. HENCE WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/04/ 2018. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 27/04/2018. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIP UR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 378/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 17 ITA NO. 378/JP/2017 SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN, JAIPUR.