SMT SARDA DEVI JALAN, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 408/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5453 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP CIT DR DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: TANUJ AGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 54

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 VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. SARDA DEVI JALAN 109, SHIV SAKTI PARADISE CENTRAL SPINE, VIDYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 4(2) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ACBPJ 6024 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TANUJ AGARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SHRI PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP, ADDL. CIT-D R LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 10/02/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 /02/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 11-03-2013 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN SU STAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,45,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED U NEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN SU STAINING AN ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 2 ADDITION OF RS.54,680.75 ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS FROM SHARES 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 2 WHICH IS DISMISSED BEING NOT P RESSED. 3.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND EARNS INCOME FROM INTEREST FIL ED HER RETURN OF INCOME IN ITR-2 ON 10-09-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 1,42,300/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY U/S CASS ON THE BASIS OF DATA/ AIR INFORMATION AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISS UED ON 23-08-2010 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF MORE THAN RS. 10.00 LACS IN HER BANK ACCO UNT WITH THE STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. ASSESSEE FILED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT REFLECTING A CASH RECEIPT OF RS. 7,45,500/- ON 18-12-2007 AS AD VANCE AGAINST SALE OF LAND ON THE BASIS OF COPY OF AN AGREEMENT. THE AO O N EXAMINATION OF THE COPY OF THE SALE AGREEMENT OBSERVED THAT STAMP PAPE R FOR AGREEMENT WAS PURCHASED ON 07-01-2006 WHEREAS THE AGREEMENT WAS E XECUTED AFTER ABOUT 22 MONTHS ON 18-12-2007. ASSESSEE DIDNT PROD UCE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT OR AUTHENTICATED COPY THEREOF, IT WAS FUR THER CLAIMED THAT THE ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 3 REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED HAS NOT BEEN DONE AND POS SESSION REMAINED WITH THE VENDEE A CLOSE RELATIVE SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN R/ O GAUHATI. AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS BURDEN IN TERM S OF SEC 68. THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BY DRAWING ADV ERSE INFERENCE THAT: I. THE STAMP PAPER PURCHASED ON 7-01-2006 WAS VALI D UPTO SIX MONTH FROM THE DATE OF PURCHASE AND THUS THE AGREE MENT EXECUTED AFTER ABOUT 22 MONTHS ON THIS EXPIRED STAMP PAPER B ETWEEN THE PARTIES CANNOT BE A RELIABLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. II. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT THE ORIGINAL DOCU MENTS I.E. AGREEMENT DATED 17-12-2007 OR AN AUTHENTICATED COPY , MERELY A PHOTOCOPY CANNOT BE HELD AS GENUINE WITHOUT CORROBO RATION. III. THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PURCHASE R WAS NOT PROVED AND SUCH A HUGE TRANSACTION BEING IN CASH AND IN TH E ABSENCE OF AUTHENTIC DOCUMENTS, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT ASSESSE E HAS DISCHARGED ITS LEGAL ONUS. THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT IT WAS UNEXPLAINED INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE SUM OF RS.7,45,500/- TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 4 3.2 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS GROUND BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.. THE PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE SHOWED DEPOSITS OF MORE THAN 10.00 LACS. WHEN THE A O ASKED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS TO BE PROVED, THE ASSE SSEE FURNISHED A CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH SHOWED RECEIP T OF RS. 7,45,500/- ON 17-12-2007 ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE SAL E OF LAND. WHEN ASKED TO PROVE, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL AGRICULTURAL LAND (SITUATED AT VI LLAGE TATIWAS, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR ). THE AO HAS STATED TH AT DATE OF AGREEMENT WAS NOT MENTIONED ON THE AGREEMENT. THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE STAMP PAPER WAS PUR CHASED ON 7-01-2006 WHEREAS THE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 18- 12-2007. THAT THE AGREEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXECUT ED WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF THE ST AMP PAPER. THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE ORIGINAL AGRE EMENT THOUGH REQUIRED. THUS ACCORDING TO THE AO THE AGREE MENT OF SALE WAS NOT VALID BECAUSE THE STAMP PAPER WAS NOT EXECUTABLE 5. THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSION IT WAS STATED THAT AS PER STAMP PAPER ACT, 1989, THERE IS NO EXPIRY DATE PRES CRIBED FOR USE OF STAMP PAPER. IT IS HOWEVER THAT WITHIN 6 MON THS REFUND OF THE VALUE OF UNUSED STAMP PAPER TO THE CO LLECTOR. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THIRUVENDGADA PILLAI VS. NAVACETHAMAL & ANR [AIR (2008) 1541] SC WAS CIT ED IN SUPPORT. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PURCHASER SHRI MANGILAL JALAN SON OF SHRI RAMESHWAR LAL JALANI, RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 608, MHEMANTO MARKET, A.T. ROAD, GAUHATI, ASSAM IS THERE ON THE AGREEMENT AND BOTH THE PURCHASER AND SELLER HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADVANCE. 6. COPY OF THE IMPUGNED AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED AS ANNEXURE -1 OF THIS ORDER. THE OBSERVATION OF THE A O THAT DATE OF AGREEMENT IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT IS ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 5 FACTUALLY CORRECT. THE DATE IS GIVEN AS 17-12-2007 BELOW THE SIGNATURES OF THE SO CALLED PURCHASER OF LAND. IF T HE AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 17-12-2007 AS PER THE APPELLANTS VERSION THEN HOW COME RECEIPT OF RS. 7, 45,500/- IS SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AS DATED 18-12- 2007. SECONDLY THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE COPY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT BEEN PRODUCED OR SUBMITTED EVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THIRDLY LAST PARAGRAPH OF THIS AGREEMENT MENTIONS ABOUT THE REGISTRY OF THE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS TO BE DONE SHORTLY AS PER THIS AGREEMENT BUT PROPER REGISTERED DOCUMENT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED THOUGH MORE THAN FIVE YEARS HAVE PASSED SINCE THIS AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS SIGNED BY T HE APPELLANT WITH THE PURCHASER. IN VIEW OF THE AFOREM ENTIONED FACTS, THE GENUINENESS OF THE XEROX COPY OF THE AGR EEMENT TO SELL FURNISHED IS NOT PROVED BY THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,45,500/- IS UPHELD. 3.3 AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL. 3.4 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 7,45,500/- BY FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS. 1. STAMP PAPER DOES NOT HAVE AN EXPIRY DATE AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF THIRUVENGADA PILLAI VS. NAVANEETHAMMAL & ANR. REPORTED AT AIR (2008) 1541 SC. IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED ON 17.12.2007 WAS INVALID AS THE STAMP PAPER WAS PURCH ASED BEFORE SIX MONTHS ON 07.01.2006. ATTENTION OF THE HONBLE BENCH IS INVITED TOWARDS THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF THIRUVENGADA PILLAI VS. NAVANEETHAMMAL & ANR. REPOR TED AT AIR (2008) 1541 SC (PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 3 TO 10 ), WHEREIN THE ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 6 HONBLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT UNDER THE STAMP ACT, 1899, THERE IS NO EXPIRY DATE FOR USE OF STAMP PAPER AND SECTIO N 54 DOES NOT REQUIRE PURCHASER OF STAMP PAPER TO USE IT WITHIN S IX MONTHS. THE LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS IS FOR SEEKING REFUND OF UNUSED STAMP PAPER BY WAY OF ITS SURRENDER. HENCE, THE AGREEMENT TO SELL IS VALID IN VIEW OF TH E AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND WAS WRONG LY TREATED AS INVALID ON THIS GROUND BY THE LD. A.O. THE CIT(A ) ALSO ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THIS PLEA AND JUDGMENT WHILE ADJUDI CATING THE MATTER. 2. SECONDLY, THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONTENDED THAT WHEN AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 17.12.2007 THEN HOW COME THE RECEIPT OF RS.7,45,500/- IS SHOWN IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMEN T ON 18.12.2007. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS CONTENTION IS NOT VALID TO INVITE AN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE APPELLANTS CLAIM BEC AUSE THE RECEIPT IS SHOWN JUST A DAY AFTERWARDS AND NOT BEFORE THE E XECUTION OF AGREEMENT. IT IS POSSIBLE DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS VI Z. RECEIPT OF CASH AND EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT IN LATE HOURS OR OVERSIG HT. 3. THIRDLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WA S NOT PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT . IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS ARE ALWAYS K EPT BY THE PURCHASING PARTY AND ARE NOT HANDED OVER TO THE SEL LING PARTY, NOT EVEN FOR INCOME-TAX ASSESSMENT PURPOSES OF THE SELL ING PARTY. FURTHER, BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FAILED IN MAKIN G DIRECT ENQUIRIES FROM THE PURCHASER SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN, THE DETAILS OF WHOM WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO THE NON COOPERA TIVE ATTITUDE OF SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN DUE TO UNFORTUNATE DEVELOPMENT OF TENSED RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN APPELLANTS HUSBAND SHR I SUMER MAL JALAN AND HIS COUSIN BROTHER SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN, HIS AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTION COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME-TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963, DATED 05.02.2016, WITH A HUMBLE REQUEST TO ADMIT IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE (AS IT RELATES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER UNDER CONS IDERATION), ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 7 AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN OBTAINED LATER ON , CONFIRMING THE CASH ADVANCE AND AGREEMENT TO SELL. HE ALSO STATED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS DESTROYED IN FIRE I N HIS PREMISES ON 08.09.2008 AND NEWSPAPER COPY OF PURVANCHAL PRAHRI DESH PARDESH, GAWHATI, ASSAM EDITION DATED 09.09.2008 C ONTAINING NEWS OF FIRE AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI MANGI LAL JALA N HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED ALONGWITH THE RULE 29 APPLICATION ALONGWI TH AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ESTAB LISHED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOUNT BEYOND D OUBT. MOREOVER, THE IDENTITY OF PURCHASER SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN SON OF LATE RAMESHWAR LAL JALAN RESIDENT OF PLOT NO. 608, SHRIMONTO MARKET, A.T. ROAD, GAWHATI, ASSAM (PAN : ABWPJ7034L , DIRECTORS IDENTIFICATION NO. ALLOTTED BY MINISTRY O F CORPORATE AFFAIRS : 00281673) STOOD ALREADY PROVED. IN NO SIT UATION, A PRUDENT PURCHASER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WILL HAND O VER BACK THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY PAPERS TO THE SELLER. BOTH THE LO WER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT USED THEIR POWERS TO MAKE DIRECT ENQUIRIES FROM THE PURCHASER SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN AND TO ASCERTAIN HIS CREDITWORTHINESS WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL AND PO WERS OF THE POOR ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS MOST RESPECTFULLY REQUESTED THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 3.5 LD. COUNSEL CONTENDS THERE IS NO EXPIRY DATE FO R USE OF STAMP PAPER AND SECTION 54 DOES NOT REQUIRE PURCHASER OF STAMP PAPER TO USE IT WITHIN SIX MONTHS. THE LIMIT OF SIX MONTHS IS FOR SEEKING REFUND OF UNUSED STAMP PAPER BY WAY OF ITS SURRENDER. RELIANCE IS PLACED O N THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF THIRUVENGADA PILLAI VS. NAVANEETHAMMAL & AN R. (SUPRA). THE DOCUMENTS ARE KEPT BY THE PURCHASER AND NOT BY THE SELLER. XEROX COPY ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 8 WAS FURNISHED FOR EXECUTION OF SALE AGREEMENT. ORIG INAL COPY BEING WITH THE PURCHASER I.E. SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN COULD NOT B E PRODUCED. LD. AO DID NOT GET VERIFIED FROM SHRI MANGI LAL JALAN ON P ER THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH PAN ABWPJ 7034 L. AS SESSEE HAVING DISCHARGED HER BURDEN THE ADDITION SHOULD BE DELETE D. 3.6 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3.7 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SO FAR NO AUTHENTIC OR CORROBO RATIVE EVIDENCE HAS COME ON RECORD FROM THE ASSESSEE SIDE TO SUPPORT TH E EXPLANATION. IT IS INCUMBENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT ITS EXPLANATIO N BASED ON PROPER EVIDENCE. ONLY A PHOTOCOPY OF AGREEMENT CANNOT BE H ELD AS SUFFICIENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOR THE EXPLANATION. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LD. COUNSEL ON QUERIES CONTENDED THAT THE POSSESSIO N OF PLOT WAS GIVEN AT THE TIME OF AGREEMENT AFTER RECEIVING THE CASH FROM MANGILAL JALAN OF GAUHATI. THOUGH SALE TRANSACTION WAS COMPLETED CAPI TAL GAINS WERE NOT OFFERED IN THE RETURN AS ASSESSEE ASSUMED THAT SALE WAS NOT LIABLE FOR CAPITAL GAINS. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE HAS LOST TRACK OF CLOSE RELATIVE WHO HAS NEVER LEGALLY DEMANDED REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. S INCE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED SALE AMOUNT OF PLOT NO FURTHER EFFORTS OR CARE WAS TAKEN. IT IS ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 9 CONTENDED THAT EXCEPT COPY OF AGREEMENT HERE IS NO OTHER CORRESPONDENCE, EVIDENCE OR EXCHANGE OF ANY LETTERS BETWEEN RELATIV ES FOR SALE DEED REGISTRATION OR MUTATION OF TITLE. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS BEREFT OF ANY CREDIBLE CORROBORATION OF EVIDENCE, SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, HUMAN CONDUCT AND PREPON DERANCE OF PROBABILITIES WHICH ARE SINE QUA NON OF THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801. THE EXPLANATION CANVASSED BY ASSESSEE DEFIES L OGIC AND FAILS TO INVOKE ANY CONFIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING I H AVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE BURDEN CAST BY I T ACT IN THIS BEHALF. 3.8 APROPOS ASSSESSEES PLEA ABOUT STAMP PAPER VALI DITY AFTER 6 MONTHS, THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE ISSUE AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THIS CASE OF THIRUVENGADA PILLAI (SUPRA) W HICH HELD IT IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADVERSE INFERENCE DRAWN IN THIS B EHALF IS NOT CORRECT. HOWEVER THIS HAS NO RELEVANCE AS EVEN ORAL AGREEMEN TS ARE VALID. CONSEQUENTLY THIS PROPOSITION DOESNT HELP ASSESSEE S CAUSE AS THE MOOT POINT IS OF DISCHARGE OF BURDEN. WHEN THE PHOTO COP Y CANNOT BE RELIED FOR WANT OF AUTHENTICITY THE PROPOSITION LOSES ITS RELE VANCE. ADMITTEDLY BOTH PARTIES BEING CLOSE RELATIVES SUCH A STOIC SILENCE OF VERIFICATION OF TRANSACTION MAKES THE TRANSACTION HIGH QUESTIONABLE AND READ TOGETHER ITA NO. 408/JP/2013 SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN VS. ITO WARD-4 (2), JAIPUR . 10 WITH ADVERSE FACTS OF NON CORROBORATION OF EXPLANAT ION, SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, HUMAN CONDUCT AND PREPONDERANCE OF P ROBABILITIES THE ADDITION IN QUESTION HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MADE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 /02/2 016. SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22 /02 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SHARDA DEVI JALAN, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 4 (2), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 408/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR