Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5414 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
12-04-2016
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
16-05-2014
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 VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 RADHEY RAM GODARA, 361, JAMBESHWAR NAGAR, QUEENS ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O. WARD 3(1), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ASJPG 1986 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHRAVAN KR. GUPTA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MALLIK (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/03/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/04/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27/03/2014 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-I, JAIPUR FOR A. Y. 2009-10. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 23.12.2011 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2. RS.13,41,674/- : THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN SUSTAINING 2 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS . 13,41,674/- AS AGAINST OF RS. 33,75,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RS. 11,49,995/- ASSESSED BY THE AO BY TREATING THE REST AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 13,41,674/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. HENCE THE TREATMENT SO GIVEN BY THE AO AND ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND PARTLY CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE AO MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO TREAT ALL THE INCOME AS AGRICULTURE INC OME AS NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AND RESULTANT ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3. RS.46,60,000/- : THE ID. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 46,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THREE PERSONS(I.E RS. 26,60,000/- OF SH. K.K. JAKHA R, RS. 5,00,000/- OF SH. BADRI RAM JAKHAR AND RS. 15,00,000/- OF SH. JAGDISH YADAV). HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IS BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS O F LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 3.2 FURTHER THE ID. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION, WHEN THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT UNDER WHAT PROVISIONS HE HAD MADE ADDITIONS. 4. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IF THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME IS SUSTAINED THEN THE SET OFF OF THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE GIVEN AGAINST THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IF ANY SUSTAINED AND ALSO TO GIVE THE SETOFF OF AGRICULTUR E TO 3 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO THE EXTENT IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ID A.O. AND CIT(A) AND BY YOUR HONOUR BECAUSE THE REVENUE NOWHERE PROVED THE UTILIZATION OF THIS AGRICULTURE INCOME EXCEPT DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. 5 THE ID. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING AF INTEREST U/S 234A&B. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING O F ANY SUCH INTEREST. HENCE THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE S AME IS NOT PRESSED BY THE AR. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 3. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS. 13,41,67 4/-. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME. RETURN FOR YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED ON 26/10/2009 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 11,790/- ALONGWITH AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 38,75,000/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF RS. 38,75,000/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN HUGE AGRICULTURE INCOME AND FILED BOTH THE RETURNS FOR A .Y. 2008-09 AND 2009- 4 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO 10 ON SAME DATE. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED QU ESTIONNAIRE LETTER DATED 12/01/2011, APART FROM OTHER DETAILS, THE ASS ESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE COPY OF KHASRA GIRDAWARI AND JAMABANDI IN SUPP ORT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME AND COPY OF SALE BILLS OF AGRICULTURE PRODUC E AND DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED THEREUPON. THE ASSESSEE ONLY FILED COPY OF JAMABANDI AND COPIES OF KHASRA GIRDAWARI OF LAND SITUATED AT V ILLAGE-38 P.B.N., TEHSIL-SURATGARG, DISTRICT- SRIGANGANAGAR. IT WAS NOT ICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LAND WAS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT EITHER MOST OF THE LAND WAS REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF OTHER MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY OR ORIGINAL OWNERS FROM WHOM THE LAND WAS PURCHASED BY TH E ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS FOR LAND HOLDING IN H IS OWN NAME AND MODE OF ACQUISITION AND SHARE IN PARTICULAR KHASRA NUMBE R OF ANCESTRAL LAND. FURTHER HE HAS NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS IN SU PPORT OF AGRICULTURE CULTIVATION AND BASIS OF AGRICULTURE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT PRODUCED COPY OF S ALE BILLS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF EXPENSES VIZ. SEEDS, PESTICIDES, FE RTILIZERS, ELECTRICITY BILLS, TRANSPORTATION BILLS, WAGES ETC. INCURRED FOR CULTIVATION ON HIS OWN LAND. HE SIMPLY SAID THAT AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WERE S OLD IN OPEN MARKET, WHICH WAS NOT FOUND SUFFICIENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ESPECIALLY WHEN HUGE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURE INCOME HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. 5 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO THEREFORE, WHATEVER AGRICULTURAL ICOME DISCLOSED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT HE HAD CONTINUED OF JOINT AGRICULTURAL OPERATION WITH SHRI SURENDRA SINGH AND SMT. NIRMALA AS PER AGREEMENT EXECUTED WITH SHRI SURENDRA SINGH AND SMT. NIRMALA R ESIDENT OF GILLAN- KHEDA, TEHSIL AND DISTRICT FATEHABAD (HARYANA). IT WA S CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 28/06/20 07 FOR AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES AT THE FARM OF OTHER PARTY. HOWEVER, ON P ERUSAL OF DETAILS IT WAS OBSERVED THAT NO ANY AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS WERE FURNIS HED ABOUT THIS AGREEMENT FROM WHICH IT COULD BE VERIFIED THAT THIS AGREEMENT IS AUTHENTIC AND GENUINE DOCUMENT. FURTHER THERE WAS S PECIFIC COLUMN IN THE KHASRA GIRDAWARI FOR FURNISHING DETAILS OF ACTUA L AGRICULTURIST WHO HAS CULTIVATED CROPS ON SUCH LAND DURING THE PERIOD UND ER CONSIDERATION AND NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED ABOUT THE ASSESSEE FOR CUL TIVATING CROPS ON SHARE BASIS IN THE REVENUE RECORD. IT IS FURTHER OB SERVED THAT MERELY FURNISHING OF AGREEMENT IS NOT SUFFICIENT PROOF OF EXPLAIN THAT THE CULTIVATION ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT. WHEN VARIOU S DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE GAVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VIDE LETTER DATED 19/10/2011 TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN REP RODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE NO. 4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER AND 6 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN SUP PORT OF HIS OWN LAND HOLDING ALONGWITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURA L PRODUCE AND EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE, NO BODY ATTENDED. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER A GAIN ISSUED NOTICE U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO SHRI SURENDRA SINGH (LAND OWNE R) TO ATTEND ALONGWITH THE IDENTITY PROOF AND EVIDENCE OF THEIR L AND HOLDING AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCED AND EXP ENSES INCURRED FOR THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE SUMMON WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS THAT THE PERSON NOT AVAILABLE ON GIVEN ADDRESS. THEREAFTER THE LD ASSE SSING OFFICER GAVE ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ON 15/11/2011 T O SUBMIT THE REQUIRED DETAILS TO PROVE THAT HE HAD CARRIED OUT A GRICULTURAL ACTIVITY AND ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE SHRI SURENDRA SINGH FOR VE RIFICATION AS HE WAS NOT AVAILABLE ON GIVEN ADDRESS. ON 28/11/2011, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH LETTER HAS SHOWN INABILITY TO PRODUCE ANY OTHER DOC UMENTS IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND BANKING ACCOUNT TRANSACTION . THEREAFTER ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 05/12/2011. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLA RED EXCESSIVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO REGULARIZE HUGE UNACCOUNTED MONEY EARNED BY 7 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO HIM FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SOME ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL IN HIS OWN NAME A ND IT CAN BE PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SOME AGRICUL TURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF ANCESTRAL LAND AND SHARE IN IT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY REQUIRED DETAILS, THE ASSESSEES AGR ICULTURAL INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 5.00 LACS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REMAINING INCOME OF RS. 33,75,000/- WAS TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WH O HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.38,75,000 /- FROM AGRICULTURE. IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME, THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THE NECESSARY DOCUM ENTS IN THE FORM KHASRA GIRDAWARI AND RELEVANT AGREEMENT. THE AO, HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF EXPENSES SUCH AS SEED S, PESTICIDES, FERTILIZERS, ELECTRICITY BILLS ETC. THE APPELLANT ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE SHRI SURENDRA SINGH AND SMT. NIRM ALA WITH WHOM AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED. THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO SHRI SURENDRA SINGH WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL 8 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO AUTHORITIES. THE AO. THEREFORE, CONSIDERED THE AGRI CULTURAL INCOME ONLY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,00,000/- AND ADDED THE REST OF THE AMOUNT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4.1 IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE STATEM ENTS OF SHRI SURENDRA SINGH WERE RECORDED. THE STATEMENT OF H IS SISTER SMT. NIRMALA COULD NOT BE RECORDED AS SHE WAS NO MORE. IN THE STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO SHRI SURENDRA SINGH HAS ADMITTED TO HAVING GIVEN HIS AND HIS SISTERS L AND ADMEASURING 57 ACRES TO THE APPELLANT THROUGH LEASE DEED EXECUTED ON 28/06/2007. THE AO ALSO REFERRED THE MAT TER TO THE TERRITORIAL ITO U/S 131(L)(D). SINCE THE APP ELLANT HAD FAILED TO GIVE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED ON SEED S, FERTILIZERS ETC. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS ESTIMAT ED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF GENERAL PRACTICE THAT 30% OF THE REALIZATION FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE N ORMALLY GOES AS EXPENDITURE. ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT OF ITO, FATEHABAD AND CONSIDERING THAT GENERALLY THE RATIO IS 1/2 OF THE YIELD OF VARIOUS CROPS AND EXPENSES BETWEEN LAND LORD AND THE TENANT, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HAND S OF THE APPELLANT WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.11,49,995/-. 4.2 IN HIS RESPONSE, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED T HIS CALCULATION AND HAS STATED THAT THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT BASED ON FACTS. IT IS ARGUED THAT AS PER THE INSPECTORS REPORT ITSELF THE NET INCOME FROM GUAVA COMES TO RS.27,20,000/-. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE FACT TH AT THE 9 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO APPELLANT HAD EARNED INCOME FROM SALE OF GUAVAS AS WELL AS SALE OF WHEAT/PADDY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AS PER THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR/ITO, FATEHABAD. IT IS ALSO SUBMI TTED THAT THERE IS NO MENTION OF INCOME FROM SALE OF GRE EN FODDER RAISED ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. MOREOVER, T HE AGRICULTURAL DEPARTMENT OF FATEHABAD HAD ALSO GIVEN ITS ASSESSMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH SUPPORTS THE APPELLANTS CLAIM REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE NCE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE VIEW OF THE SPECIALIST I.E., AGRI CULTURAL DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AND NOT THAT OF THE ITO/INSPECTOR WERE NOT EXPERTS IN THE FIELD OF AGRICU LTURE. 4.3 IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE SO FAR AS THE FACT OF LAND HOLDING AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES CARRIED OU T ON THE LAND IS CONCERNED. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS ABOUT THE EST IMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL OPERAT IONS. IT IS NOTED FROM THE AOS REPORT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD I NDEED EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM PRODUCTION OF WHEAT, RICE AND GUAVAS. THE REPORT OF THE AO IS SILENT ON THE IN COME EARNED FROM GREEN FODDER. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THESE PRODUCE COMES TO RS. 11,49,995/- ONLY AS AGAINST RS.33,75,000/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS, ADMITTEDLY, NOT KEPT A NY DETAILS/PAPERS TO PROVE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE RELATED EXPENSES. ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ACC OUNTING SYSTEM PRESCRIBED IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME , PART IV OF THE FIRST SCHEDULE OF THE FINANCE ACT CLEARLY PR OVIDES 10 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO THAT CERTAIN SECTIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WOULD APP LY FOR DETERMINING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS MEANS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS OBLIGED TO KEEP SOME SORT OF ACCOUNTS WHICH COULD HELP IN DETERMINING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY PROOF WHICH COUL D SUPPORT THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY HIM. 4.4 THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM WHEAT, PADD Y AND GUAVAS AT RS.22,99,990/-. THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIM ATED ON THE BASIS OF FIELD ENQUIRIES DONE BY THE JURISDI CTIONAL ITO, FATEHABAD. THERE IS NO REASON TO DISPUTE THIS ESTIMATION DONE BY THE AO WITH THE HELP OF ITO, FATEHABAD. THE CALCULATION DONE BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF PADDY AND WHEAT IS BASED ON IDEAL CONDITI ONS WHILE THE BASIS OF THE CALCULATION OF INCOME FROM GU AVA IS NOT CLEAR. HENCE, IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADOPT THE CA LCULATION DONE BY THE AO. THE AO HAS ATTRIBUTED ONLY RS.L 1,49 ,995/- TO THE SHARE OF THE APPELLANT BEING 50% OF THE TOTA L AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE LAND HOLDERS. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT THE APPELLA NT WAS TO RECEIVE 2/3 RD SHARE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. HENCE, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO CONSIDER 2/3 RD SHARE I.E., RS.L 5,33,326/-IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 4.5 AS FAR AS THE INCOME FROM GREEN FODDER IS CONCE RNED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN HIGHLY EXCESSIVE I NCOME 11 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO FROM SALE OF FODDER. THE SALE OF FODDER HAS BEEN SHO WN TO BE ALMOST EQUAL TO THE INCOME FROM SALE OF WHEAT. HE NCE, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE, THE INCO ME FROM FODDER IS ESTIMATED TO BE RS.5,00,000/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ESTIMATED AT RS.20,33,326/-. THE REST O F THE INCOME SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S AND TAXED AS SUCH. THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND IS, ACCORDI NGLY, PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT (A). IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOT REMAINED ANY DISPUTE REGARDING TH E LAND HOLDING BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS LAND TAKEN ON LEASE AND AGRICULT URE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE LANDS AS WAS IN THE ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE ID. AO HIMSELF ADMITTED AFTER TH E INQUIRY AND STATEMENT OF PERSONS RECORDED BY HIM FROM WHOM LAND HAS BEEN TAKEN ON LEASE AND LAND HOLDING BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS LAND TAKEN ON LEASE AND AGRICULTURE ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ON THESE LANDS. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ID. AO HAS ONLY DISCUSSED AND EST IMATED THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE LAND TAKEN ON LEASE. HOWEV ER HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENT ON AGRICULTURE INCOME ARISES FROM HIS O WN LAND OF 41.85 BHIGAS, WHICH WAS ESTIMATED BY HIM AT RS.5,00,000/-. BUT IN A.Y. 2011- 12 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO 12, IT HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A T RS.10,25,000/- U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. STATEMENT OF SHRI SURENDRA SING H HAD RECORDED BY THE AO HIMSELF AND AS PER THE LD AO AND LD. CIT(A), THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO RS. 30,58,326/-. THUS, FACTS H AD NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HE HAS FURTHER AR GUED THAT REMAINING DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD CIT(A) IS ALSO A MERE ALL EGATION, UNLESS PROVED. SUSPICION CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF THE REALITY, WHICH IS SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW. FURTHER, HE RELIED VARIOUS DECISIO NS OF HONBLE ITAT JODHPUR BENCH I.E. KAMAL KISHORE CHANDAK VS. ITO 1 03 TTJ 843 (JD) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE AVERMENT OF THE AF FIDAVIT FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME REMAINED UNCONTRO VERTED AND THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITI ON UNDER THE HEAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN ABSENCE OF SALE BILL. IT IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS HE WAS NOT RUNNING ANY BUSINESS, FOR WHICH HE RELIED ON THE DECISION I N THE CASE OF S.V. HARIPRASAD VS. ITO 120 TTJ 1105 (BANG.) THE PARTICULAR S OF LAND WERE GIVEN BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY ON THAT BASIS NO A DDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. THE ONLY DISPUTE IS THE ESTIMATION OF AGRIC ULTURAL YIELD, RATE AND INCOME. TWO REPORTS ON THIS ISSUE ARE AVAILABLE ONE B Y THE ITO, FATEHBAD, WHICH WAS BASED ON THE INSPECTORS REPORT, WHO IS ALSO NOT 13 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO TECHNICAL PERSON. THE SECOND REPORT BY THE AGRICULTU RAL DEPARTMENT AND MARKET WHO ARE THE TECHNICAL PERSON AND AUTHENTIC. A FTER CONSIDERING BOTH THE REPORTS, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT ON THAT BAS IS, THE ACTUAL INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME COMES MUCH MORE THAN D ISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE LAND IS FE RTILE, THE WATER IN FULL FOR IRRIGATION, THE IRRIGATION IS DONE BY CANAL AND TUB E WELL BOTH, CROP OF WHEAT IS IN VERY GOOD POSITION, THERE IS ALSO THE GA RDEN OF GUAVAS WHERE THE FRUIT ARE IN VERY GOOD QUANTITY AS THE INSPECTO R HIMSELF STATED IN THE REPORT. THE TYPES OF CROP AS WHEAT, PADDY, GUAVA ETC . HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND CONFIRMED. NO CREDIT WAS GIVEN IN THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF GREEN FODDER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD CIT( A) HAD GIVEN THE CREDIT OF GREEN FODDER OF RS. 5.00 LACS. FURTHER HE ARGUED THAT PER HECTARE PRODUCTION OF RICE, GUAVA AND GREEN FODDER IS MUCH MORE THAN TO OTHER AREAS. HE COMPARED BOTH THE ESTIMATION MADE B Y THE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT AND AS PER STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, IT IS REQUESTED BY THE LD AR THAT DETAILS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN TRUE PERSPECTIVE AND PRAYED TO DELETE THE ADDITION CONFI RMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 6. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 14 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE FI NDINGS GIVEN BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE CONTRADICTORY EVEN THE ASSESSE ES SUBMISSION IS ALSO CONTRADICTORY. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT OWNERSHIP AS WELL AS AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES DONE ON OWN LAND AND ON LEASED LAND ARE N OT IN DISPUTE. ONLY THE MATER REMAINED TO BE ADJUDICATED THAT THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE PART ADDITION OUT OF ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) AT RS. 10 LACS IN PACE OF RS. 13,41,674/-. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED ON THIS GROUND. 9. THE 3 RD GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 40,60,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT HUGE TRANSACTION WITH OTH ER PARTY FOR GIVING AND ACCEPTING PAYMENT AND DEPOSITING CASH DURING TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FOUND. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED EXCESSIVE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E. HE GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS NOT ICED BY THE ASSESSING 15 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 51.25 LACS F ROM THESE PERSONS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HE WAS UNABL E TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS. THEREFORE, HE MADE THE ADD ITION OF RS. 51.25 LACS IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WH O HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS NOTED TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED RS.51,25,000/- FROM SIX DIFF ERENT PERSONS. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IN-SPITE OF G IVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO HIM. HE COULD NOT FURNISH THE CONFIRMATION OR INCOME TAX DETAILS OF THESE PERSONS . IN THE REMAND/RULE 46A PROCEEDINGS THE AO AGAIN GAVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE CREDITO RS. IN THE REPORT THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ABOUT THE ADMISSIBILITY OF FRESH EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF AFF IDAVITS OF SMT. V.D. GODARA, SHRI ANSHUL GODARA AND SHRI RADHE Y RAM GODARA. HENCE, THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE AFFIDAVITS AS THE CREDITOR S WERE NOT READILY AVAILABLE AND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT A TTEND THE TAX MATTERS AS HIS MOTHER WAS SUFFERING FROM PARALYS IS. IN 16 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO RESPECT OF THESE AFFIDAVITS FROM SHRI K.K. JAKHAR A ND SHRI RAMJEEVAN CHOUDHARY (IN RESPECT OF SHRI BADRI JAKHA R), IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE AO THAT THESE ARE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS AND THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. HE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE CREDITORS FO R VERIFICATION AND EXAMINATION ON OATH. HENCE, THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED. 6.1 NOW, COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT IS NOTE D THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED THREE CREDITORS NAMELY, SMT. V.D. GODARA, SHRI ANSHUL GODARA AND SHRI S.N. BAIRWA WHOSE STATEMENTS ON OATH WERE RECORDED BY THE AO. ALL THES E PERSONS HAVE ADMITTED TO HAVING GIVEN AMOUNT OF RS.4,65,000/- IN ALL TO THE APPELLANT. HENCE, THE A DDITION TO THIS EXTENT IS DELETED. 6.2 SO FAR AS THE CASE OF THE CREDITOR SHRI K.K. J AKHAR IS CONCERNED, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT IT WAS NOT A CREDIT BUT ADVANCE IN THE COURSE OF NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTION RELATING TO A PROPERTY. THERE IS, HOWEVER , NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A PROPERTY DEALER. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN MEAGRE INCO ME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INTEREST AND HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF RS. 11,790/- ONLY. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT TH E APPELLANT WAS INVOLVED IN PROPERTY DEALING. MERELY F ILE OF 17 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO AFFIDAVIT WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A SELF SERVICE DOCUM ENT, DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS WHICH LIES ON THE APPELLANT TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IT IS NOT ED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCE IN HI S SUPPORT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE SHRI JAKHAR EVEN AFTER SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TIES WERE GIVEN TO HIM IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDING S. 6.3 SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAGDISH YADAV, I T IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHANGED HIS STAND AND NOW CLAIMS T HAT NAME OF THE CREDITOR WAS WRONGLY MENTIONED. THIS FACT ITSELF CASTS DOUBT ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN THE FACTS, THE AO HAD ASKED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE CREDITOR. THE APPELLANT HAS, HOWEVER, FAILED TO DO SO IN-SPITE OF OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO HIM. 6.4 AS REGARDS SHRI BADRI JAKHAR, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHANGED HIS STAND IN RESPECT OF THIS CREDITOR A LSO. THE APPELLANT NOW CLAIMS THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT RECEIVED FROM SHRI BADRI JAKHAR BUT FROM A FIRM WHERE SON OF THE CREDITOR WAS A PARTNER. SHRI BADRI JAKHAR WAS ALSO NO T PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. 6.5 IT IS OBVIOUS FROM THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE T HAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATI ON REGARDING DEPOSITS FROM THESE THREE PERSONS. IT IS ALSO 18 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN SHIFTING ITS STAN D IN RESPECT OF THESE PERSONS. HE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE CREDITORS BEFORE THE AO IN-SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTU NITIES GRANTED TO HIM. THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARG E THE ONUS WHICH LAY ON HIM TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CREDITS SHOWN BY HIM WERE GENUINE. THE CREDITORS WERE APPELLANTS WITNESSES AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY HIM IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE MERE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY CHEQUE DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT, A S HELD BY THE HONBLE GUWAHATI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF N .C. KOTHARI (264 ITR 254). 6.6 SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE U/S 68 IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT TH E AO HAS NOT MENTIONED ANY SECTION WHILE MAKING THE IMPU GNED ADDITION. IT, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT TH E ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE U/S 68. IT IS NOTED THAT THE SE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS, ADMITTED LY, NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN SUCH A SITUATI ON, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE U/S 68. SINCE THE AMOUNT HA S BEEN FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS THE ADDITION HAS TO BE MAD E U/S 69 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 19 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE ADDITION IN THE NAMES OF S/SHRI K.K. JAKHAR, B.R. CHOUDHARY AND JAGDISH Y ADAV AMOUNTING TO RS.26,60,000/-, RS.5,00,000/- AND RS. 15,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY IS CONFIRMED. 11. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD A R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE PROCEED AGRICULTURAL INCOME, FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTY OF OTHER PERSONS BEING THE ASSESSEE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER, ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AND ONE UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI K.K. JHAKAR HAD GIVEN RS. 26.60 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURCHASE/INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. HOWEVER, TR ANSACTION COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED, THEREFORE, IT IS A LIABILITY OF TH E ASSESSEE WHICH HAS TO BE PAID BACK BUT ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN ATTA CHED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH CAN ALSO NOT BE REFUNDED BACK IN CA SH. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI K.K. JHAKAR, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED RS. 6,65,000 /- IN JULY 07, 2008, RS. 20 LACS ON JULY THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 115514 AND 1 15515. THE LD AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH SRI K.K. JHAKAR ON 22 ND DECEMBER, 2008 TO SALE THE PLOT NO. 31-33 OF HANUM AN VATIKA II, TAGORE NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR FOR RS. 36.60 LACS. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 5.00 LACS VIDE CHEQUE NO. 115511 ON 30 /06/2008. THUS, 20 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SHRI K.K. JHAKAR IS EXPL AINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED UPON VARIOUS CASE LAWS FOR THIS PURPOSE. R S. 15.00 LACS RECEIVED FROM SHRI JAGDISH YADAV, WHICH IS WRONGLY MENTIONED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ACTUAL PARTY NAME WAS S/SHRI KALI CH ARAN YADAV AND KALYAN SAHAI YADAV. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 7. 50 LACS EACH FROM S/SHRI KALI CHARAN YADAV AND KALYAN SAHAI YADAV ON ACCOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY OF SHRI MAHAVEER PRASAD M EENA AND HIS WIFE SMT. POONAM BEING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF TH ESE PERSONS. THE LD AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE NO. 53 TO 64 O F THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS REGISTERED DEED MADE BY THE ASSESSEE (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ON PLOT NO. 333, GURU JAMBESHWAR NAGAR-A, VAISHALI N AGAR, JAIPUR OF SMT. POONAM PRASAD, W/O- SHRI MAHAVEER PRASAD) WITH SHRI KALYAN SAHAY YADAV. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 7.5 LACS VID E CHEQUE NO. 14482 ON 05/11/2008. VIDE REGISTERED SALE AGREEMENT DATED 05/11/2008 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SHRI KALI CHARAN YADAV (POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ON PLOT NO. 332, GURU JAMBESHWAR NAGAR-A, VAISHALI N AGAR, JAIPUR), THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 7.50 LACS VIDE CHEQUE NO. 107 49 DATED 05/11/2008, WHICH HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, CHITRAKUT NA GAR, JAIPUR ON 07/11/2008, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO PROVE 21 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUN T. HE HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT RS. 5 LACS WERE RECEIVED FROM SHRI BADRI JHAKHAR, WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S CHOUDHARY FREIGHT CARRIER WHEREIN SHRI RAM JEEVAN CHOUDHARY, SON OF SHRI BADRI JHAKAR (CHOUDHARY) IS A PARTNER. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THIS LOAN THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 985325 DATED 04/10/2008 FROM THIS FIRM, WHICH IS REGULAR IT ASSES SEE AND ITS PAN NO. AABFC 0104 E. THE AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAM JEEVAN CHOU DHARY HAD ALREADY BEEN FILED. THE LD AR HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE NO. 85-86 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE AN Y INQUIRY AND NOT ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT TO THE DEPOSITOR FOR VERIFICATION, WHICH WAS CREDITED ON 06 TH OCTOBER, 2008 IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE. THE ASSESS EE HAS PRODUCED FOUR PERSONS AND REMAINING CAN BE PRODUCED LATER ON BUT NO TIME WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD AR HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE IDENTITY OF A PER SONS, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFIDAVITS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH H AS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED. THEREFORE FACTS MENTIONED THEREIN FOR H AVE TO BE READ AS THE FACT BINDING UPON THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION 22 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PAREEK & CO. 30 ITR 181 (SC), ITO VS DR. TEJGOPAL BHATNAGAR 20 TW 368 (JP), PARAS COTTON COMPANY VS. CIT (2003) 30 TW 168 (JD), CIT VS LUNARD DIMOND LTD. 281 ITR 1 (DEL) A ND CIT VS BHAWANI OIL MILLS (P) LTD. 239 CTR 445. HE FURTHER RE LIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) SOHAN LAL SAHU 29 TW 9(JP) (II) CIT VS BHAI CHAND H. GANDHI 141 ITR 67 (BOM). (III) MS. MAYAWATI VS DCIT 113 TTJ 178 (DEL). (IV) CIT VS P. MOHANAKALA (2007) 161 TAXMAN 169. (V) CIT VS REAL TIME MARKETING (P) LTD. 306 ITYR 35 (DEL). (VI) CIT VS S.D. INVESTMENT & TRADING CO. 306 ITR 31 (BOM) (VII) CIT VS LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. 216 CTR 195 (SC ) (VIII) STELLER INVESTMENT LTD. 192 ITR 287. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO DELETE THE ADDITION CONFIRME D BY THE LD CIT(A). 12. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE AS SESSEE FILED REQUISITE EVIDENCES/AFFIDAVITS BEFORE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICE R AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE AL SO FILED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), ON WHICH HE HAS TAKEN REMAND REPORT FROM T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED IDENTITY OF THE DEP OSITOR, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CRED ITOR. ALL THE CREDITS IN 23 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE OUT OF DEPOSITS MADE WITH THES E PARTIES. THERE ARE COPIES OF THE REGISTERED DEEDS, WHICH CANNOT BE DOUBTED AND PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKI NG CHANNEL. WHEN THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRING THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TH ROUGH THESE AGREEMENTS, THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT ON THE AMOU NT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD C IT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 14. THE 4 TH GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDIC ATED AS WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION IN GROUND NO. 3, THEREF ORE, NO ALTERNATE BENEFIT IS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN. 15. GROUND NO. 5 IS CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE ABOVE FIND ING, THEREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE THE I NTEREST AS PER LAW. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/04/2016. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 12 TH APRIL, 2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RADHEY RAM GODARA, JAIPUR. 24 ITA NO. 379/JP/2014 RADHEY RAM GODARA VS ITO 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE I.T.O. WARD 3(1), JAIPUR 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. 379/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
1:1 Consultation on Salary Structuring
₹1
Consultation on Entity Formation
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
Declaration of Gift
Mehul₹500
Assignment of Registered Trademark
Mehul₹500
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026