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. 462JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. SHRI SO HAN LAL TUNWAL, PROP. M/S. BAJRANG METAL WORKS, MALI MOHALLA, BAJRANG COLONY, FOYSAGAR ROAD, AJMER. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAXPT 1353 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUBHASH PORWAL, C.A. JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/10/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), AJMER DATED 30.04.2014. THE SOLE GROUND TAKEN IN THE APPEAL IS AS UNDER :- THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT (A) AJMER HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED OF RS. 1,90,000.00 ON 06.06.2008 AND RS. 9,50,000.00 ON 16.09.2008 IN BAN K OF BARODA SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED. THOUGH THE AMOUNT IS A CTUALLY PAST SAVINGS AND INCOME FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF PROPERTY OF THE AS SESSEE.. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET A PPLIED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND CONTENDS THAT AT THE RELEVANT TIME THE ASSESSEES SON WAS SUFFERING FROM SERIOUS ILLNESS AT A VERY YOUNG AGE AND ULTIMATELY EXPIRED. THE ASSESSEE WAS MENTALLY HIGHLY DISTURBED AND AT THAT STAGE THE ASSESSEES R EPLY WAS FOUND TO BE NOT CORRECT BY 2 ITA NO. 462/JP/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 SOHAN LAL TUNWAL VS. ITO AJMER. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACTUALLY, THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT WAS OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF A PIECE OF LAND SITUATED AT MALI MOHALLA (BAJRAN G COLONY), FOY SAGAR ROAD, AJMER MEASURING 233.33 SQ. YARD FOR RS. 6,21,000/- RECEIV ED IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE SALE DEED AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT IS PLEA DED THAT DUE TO THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEE WAS IN A STATE OF CONFUSION GAVE A REPLY W HICH COULD NOT BE CORROBORATED. SINCE THE ASSESSEES PLEA IS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED AN D PROPER RELIEF MAY BE GIVEN. 3. THE LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 4. I HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. LOOKING TO THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE TERMINAL ILLNESS AND DEATH OF YOUNG SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN QUESTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, IS NECESSARY FOR DECIDING TH E ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADM ITTED UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/11/201 5. SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (R.P.TOLANI) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13/11/ 2015 DAS/ 3 ITA NO. 462/JP/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 SOHAN LAL TUNWAL VS. ITO AJMER. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SOHAN LAL TUNWAL, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO WARD 1(1), AJMER. 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.462/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR