VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 497/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 SMT. USHA JAIN W/O SHRI GYAN CHAND JAIN, 7, SHASTRI NAGAR, TONK CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABJPJ 9996 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 499/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 SMT. ANITA JAIN W/O SHRI TRILOK CHAND JAIN, P/O M/S RAJESH PRODUCT, TONK CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABPPJ 3560 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 500/JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010 - 11 SHRI ASHOK KUMAR JAIN S/O SHRI DALEL JAIN P/O M/S RAJESH PRODUCT, TONK CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABKPJ 0051 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 497, 499 & 500/JP/15 SMT. USHA JAIN, SMT. ANITA JAIN & SHRI ASHOK JAIN, TONK VS. ITO, TONK 2 FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L.MOOLCHANNDANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.S. DAGUR (ADDL.. CIT ) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25.08.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : /08/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE THREE APPEALS HAVING A TYPICAL FACTS THE SAME ARE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLI DATED ORDER. THE GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 ARE THE SAME IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND IN G ROUND NO.3 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE LEGALLY AND FACTUALLY ERRED IN MAKING AN D CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 84,00,000/- IN ITA NO. 497/JP/15, RS.55,50,000/ - IN ITA NO. 499/JP/15 AND RS. 39,00,000/- IN ITA NO. 500/JP/15 RESPECTIVELY M ADE U/S 69 OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS OF THE CASE IN PERSPECTI VE. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN EACH OF THE THREE CASES THE ASSESSEE HAS RA ISED SPECIFIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL CHALLENGING HE IMPUGNED EXPARTE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NON-PRODUCTION OF BOOKS OF AC COUNTS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPOSED OFF THE SA ID GROUND. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE ADMITTED AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE IN PRODUCING THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOUR APPEALS HAVING IDENTICA L FACTS WERE FILED VIDE APPEALS NO. 497, 498, 499 & 500/JP/2015. OUT OF T HESE FOUR APPEALS. ONE APPEAL NO. 498/JP/15 IN THE CASE OF SMT. SUNITA JAI N W/O SHRI RAJESH KUMAR JAIN TONK (APPEAL NO. 498/JP/15) COULD BE TAKEN UP ON THE SAID DATE AND WAS DECIDED BY THE HONOURABLE BENCH VIDE ORDER PRONOUNC ED ON 17.5.2016. THE ITA NOS. 497, 499 & 500/JP/15 SMT. USHA JAIN, SMT. ANITA JAIN & SHRI ASHOK JAIN, TONK VS. ITO, TONK 3 HONBLE MEMBERS WERE PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ASSES SMENT AND RESTORE BACK THE SAME TO THE LD. AO TO DECIDE IT AFRESH. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL AND RECORD. AS THE F ACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL, SO IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUSTICE, IF THIS ASSESSMENT IS ALSO SET-ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO T HE AO TO DECIDE IT AFRESH. 2.1 THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 2.2 IT IS NOTED THAT CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF S MT. SUNITA JAIN ITA NO. 498/JP/15 DATED 17.05.2016 HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESS MENT AND RESTORED IT BACK TO THE AO ON IDENTICAL FACTS. THE RELEVANT FINDING S ARE AS UNDER: I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW THE ASSESSMENT BE ING EX-PARTE WITH HIGH PITCHED ADDITIONS WAS A RESULT OF NON-PRODUCTI ON OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ASSESSEE ON FINDING THEM APPLIED FOR AD MISSION THEREOF AS ADDITION EVIDENCE WHICH HAS BEEN REJECTED ONLY ON A PRESUMPTIVE CONSIDERATION AS TO WHY ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE FIR. ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A PLAUSIBLE REPLY AND IN MY VIEW SHE HAS PREVENTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED AN D THE ASSESSMENT IS SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO LD. AO TO DECIDE IT AFRESH BY GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 2.3 IN LIGHT OF ABOVE GIVEN THAT THE IDENTICAL FAC TS INVOLVED RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHS DECISION (SUPRA) THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED AND THE ASSESSMENT IS SET-ASIDE TO THE FI LE OF THE AO TO DECIDE IT AFRESH BY GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 497, 499 & 500/JP/15 SMT. USHA JAIN, SMT. ANITA JAIN & SHRI ASHOK JAIN, TONK VS. ITO, TONK 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON /08/ 2016. (KUL BHARAT ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- / 08/2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. USHA JAIN, SMT. ANITA JAIN AND SHRI ASHOK JAIN 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, TONK 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT III, JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 497, 499 & 500/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR