ITO, Mathura V. Shri Bijjan Singh, Mathura

ITA 451/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 45120314 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: A K SEHGAL
• Section: 142(1); 69; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.438/AGR/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), VS. SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH , MATHURA. GRAM RAHIMPUR, P.O. FARAH, MATHURA. (PAN : BZSPS 6795 N). ITA NO.439/AGR/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), VS. SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH , MATHURA. GRAM RAHIMPUR, P.O. FARAH, MATHURA. (PAN : BZSPS 6795 N). ITA NO.448/AGR/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), VS. SHRI BIJJAN SINGH, MATHURA. VILLAGE RAHIMPUR, P.O. FARAH, MATHURA. (PAN : BZSPS 6794 P). ITA NO.451/AGR/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1), VS. SHRI BIJJAN SINGH, MATHURA. VILLAGE RAHIMPUR, P.O. FARAH, MATHURA. (PAN : BZSPS 6794 P). 2 ITA NO.449/AGR/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(2), VS. SHRI GAJJAN SINGH, MATHURA. VILLAGE RAHIMPUR, P.O. FARAH, MATHURA. (PAN : BZSPS 6793 L). ITA NO.450/AGR/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(2), VS. SHRI GAJJAN SINGH, MATHURA. VILLAGE RAHIMPUR, P.O. FARAH, MATHURA. (PAN : BZSPS 6793 L). (APPELLANTS) (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. RESPONDENTS BY : SHRI A.K. SEHGAL, ADVOCATE ORDER PER BENCH : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE AFORESAID APPEALS AGAINST THE DIFFERENT IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA IN QUANTUM AS WELL AS PENALTY APPEALS. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE ALMOST SIMILAR AND INTER-CONNECT ED, EXCEPT FOR AMOUNTS IN DISPUTE, THEREFORE, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 3. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE AFORESA ID APPEALS READ AS UNDER :- GROUNDS IN ITA NO.438/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITION U/S 69 STOOD DELETED IN ASSESSEES CAS E; 1(A) BY DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS NOT AP PRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADDUCE COGENT EVID ENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS CONCEALED INCOME AND LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C); 2. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE DEPARTMENT AND SECOND APPEAL STANDS FILED BEFORE TH E HONBLE ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA; 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA IS ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O . BE RESTORED; 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER OR MODIFY ANY GROUND DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.439/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 13,52,000/- MADE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; 1(A) BY DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO P ROVE THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 13,52,000/- REPRESENT HIS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES; 4 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA IS ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O . BE RESTORED; 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER OR MODIFY ANY GROUND DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.448/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 12,82,000/- MADE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; 1(A) BY DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO P ROVE THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 12,82,000/- REPRESENT HIS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES; 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA IS ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O . BE RESTORED; 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER OR MODIFY ANY GROUND DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.451/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITION U/S 69 STOOD DELETED IN ASSESSEES CAS E; 1(A) BY DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS NOT AP PRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADDUCE COGENT EVID ENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS CONCEALED INCOME AND LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C); 5 2. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE DEPARTMENT AND SECOND APPEAL STANDS FILED BEFORE TH E HONBLE ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA; 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA IS ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O . BE RESTORED; 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER OR MODIFY ANY GROUND DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.449/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CANCELLING THE PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITION U/S 69 STOOD DELETED IN ASSESSEES CAS E; 1(A) BY DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS NOT AP PRECIATED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ADDUCE COGENT EVID ENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK AND AS SUCH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS CONCEALED INCOME AND LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C); 2. THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED B Y THE DEPARTMENT AND SECOND APPEAL STANDS FILED BEFORE TH E HONBLE ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA; 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA IS ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O . BE RESTORED; 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER OR MODIFY ANY GROUND DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.450/AGR/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 :- 1. THAT THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 13,41,000/- MADE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; 6 1(A) BY DOING SO, THE LD. CIT(A)-1, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS TO P ROVE THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 13,41,000/- REPRESENT HIS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES; 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-1, AGRA IS ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O . BE RESTORED; 3. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER OR MODIFY ANY GROUND DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 4. THE FACTS OF ALL THE AFORESAID APPEALS ARE ALMOS T SIMILAR AND, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO NARRATE THE SAME IN EACH AND EVERY CASE. B UT, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE NARRATING THE BRIEF FACTS IN QUANTUM APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.439/AGR/2009 AS WELL AS PENALTY APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.438/AGR/2009 IN THE CASE OF ITO 3(3), MATHURA VS. SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 5. THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, KANPUR RECEIVED ONE INFORMATION REGARDING DEPOSIT OF ` 13,52,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF SYNDICATE BANK. ON THIS INFORMATION, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) ON 10.09.2007 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE HIS RETUR N OF INCOME. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 17.10.2007 STATING THAT HE HAS INCOME ONLY FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND OTHER INCOME DOES NOT E XCEED THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF TAXABLE INCOME AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 06.11.2007 FOR 15.11.2007 CALLING FOR THE PASS BOOK OF SYNDICATE BANK AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN REGARDING THE DEPOSIT OF ` 13,52,000/- AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT BE NOT TREATED AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE SAID NOTICE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AND TRE ATED ` 13,52,000/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2 007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY ISSUING A SEPARATE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.20 07, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO , VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.07.2009, ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. SIMILARLY, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS AL SO DELETED THE PENALTY IN DISPUTE VIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.08.2009. AGGRIEVE D BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL. 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8 8. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE HAS ALSO FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGE NOS.1 TO 47 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHE D THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, DETAILS OF SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO.19500, SYNDICATE BANK, FARAH, MATHURA WITH PHOTOCOPY OF BANK STATEMENT, DETAILED SUMMARY OF AG RICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 01.04.2004, COPIES OF KHATAUNIS, CER TIFICATE OF GRAM PANCHAYAT PRADHAN, COPY OF AFFIDAVIT, DETAILS OF FAMILY OF AS SESSEE, SALE DEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD AND DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS PURCHAS ED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER 01.04.2004 WITH PHOTOCOPIES OF SALE DEEDS. FINALLY , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY MAY BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEP ARTMENT. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES AND WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUE D NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 10.09.2007 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FIL E HIS RETURN BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS REPLY ON 17.10.2007 STATING THAT HE HAS O NLY AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED IN THE LETTER DATED 17.10.2007 THAT HIS INCOME DOES TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM LIMIT OF TAXABLE INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO FI LE HIS RETURN OF INCOME. BUT, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED NON-COOPERATIVE BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND 9 HE DID NOT BOTHER TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE ISSUED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE SAME. UNDER THE COMPELLING CIRCUMST ANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE BY TREATING THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. AFTER GO ING THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 18.03.2009 STATING AS UNDER :- BOTH OF THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATE TO THE ADDI TION OF ` 13,52,000/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.69 OF TH E I.T. ACT BY PASSING EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURIST HAVING ABOUT 25 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURE LAND AT VILLAGE RAHIMPUR AND ITS ADJACENT VILLAGES AT FA RAH, MATHURA. THESE VILLAGES ARE ABOUT 20 KM. FROM MATHURA. HIS FOREFATHER WERE AGRICULTURIST AND HE HIMSELF IS AN AGRICULTURIST SI NCE HIS BIRTH AND IS SOLELY ENJOYING THE AGRICULTURE INCOME APART FROM S AVING BANK ACCOUNT INTT. HE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME APA RT FROM AGRICULTURE INCOME AT HOME, MOST OF WHICH WERE TO B E USED FOR PURCHASE OF FERTILIZERS, SEEDS AND AGRICULTURAL IMP LEMENTS ETC. DUE TO THREAT OF ROBBERY IN VILLAGES IN THE RECENT TIME, S OME ONE SUGGESTED HIM TO OPEN THE ACCOUNT IN THE BANK AND KEEP HIS SA VINGS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN IT. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION HE ACTED UPON THIS ADVISE AND OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT IN SYN DICATE BANK, FARAH, MATHURA AND PUT HIS ALL ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OF PAST FROM AGRICULTURE INCOME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS TREATED ALL HIS SAVINGS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME (W HICH ARE; THE ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OF LAST SO MANY YEARS) AS UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 AND IMPOSED TAX ON IT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IS AGRICULTURE. THE RE IS NOTHING ON RECORD BY WHICH IT COULD EVEN IMAGINE THAT THE DEPO SITS IN BANK ACCOUNT ARE FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. HENCE THE DEPOS ITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE FULLY EXPLAINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE A GRICULTURE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS NET ABOUT 2.5 LACS PER ANN UM. 10 IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS THE ADDITION OF ` 13,52,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ARBITRARY WRONG, UNJUSTIFI ED AND IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 10. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED SOME DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH INCLUDE : - COMPLETE DETAILS AND NARRATION OF DEBIT AND CREDI T ENTRIES IN SAVINGS ACCOUNT NO.19500 WITH SYNDICATE BANK, FARAH . - BANK CERTIFICATE REGARDING CREDIT OF INTEREST OF ` 7,451/- ON 01.12.2005. - COPIES OF KHATONIS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE APPELLANT. - PHOTOCOPY OF SALE DEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEA SURING 1.806 HECTARE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT FROM SHRI KRISHA N KUMAR AND SHRI PARAMHANS KUMAR S/O. SHRI RAJ BAHADUR AND SMT. NIRANJANA W/O. LATE SHRI RAM KUMAR FOR ` 7 LAC. - CERTIFICATE OF GRAM PRADHAN DATED 04.11.2008 THAT VILLAGE RAHIMPUR (GAM PANCHAYAT DAULATPUR) IS SITUATED APPROXIMATELY 25 KM. AWAY FROM MATHURA AND POPULATI ON OF THE SAID VILLAGE IS APPROXIMATELY 800. 11. NO DOUBT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS FORWARDED THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS . HE HAS ALSO COMMENTED UPON THE SAME, BUT IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT THOROUGHLY EXAMINED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUC ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 11 12. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE AS WELL AS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE WITHOUT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INVESTIGATE AND EXAMINE THOROUGHLY THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IN THE INTERE ST OF JUSTICE, WE FEEL THAT THOROUGH EXAMINATION IS REQUIRED AT THE LEVEL OF AS SESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER LAW, AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH SHALL BE EXAMINED UNDER LAW BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.439/AGR/2009 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED OF STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. SINCE WE HAVE SET SIDE THE QUANTUM APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.439/AGR/2009 TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE PENALTY APPEAL I.E. ITA NO.4 38/AGR/2009 IS ALSO SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 438/AGR/2009 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALSO ALLOWED OF STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12 14. SINCE THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL OTHER APPEALS ARE SIMILAR, WE ACCORDINGLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION TAKEN IN ITA NOS .439 & 438/AGR/2009, SET ASIDE THE APPEAL NOS.448, 451, 449 & 450/AGR/2009 T O THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES. IN THE RESULT, ITA NOS.448 & 451/AGR/20 09 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- 06 IN THE CASE OF ITO 3(1), MATHURA VS. SHRI BIJJ AN SINGH AND ITA NOS.449 & 450/AGR/2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THE CAS E OF ITO 3(2), MATHURA VS. SHRI GAJJAN SINGH ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.08.2 011). SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 5 TH AUGUST, 2011 PBN/* 13 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY