ITO, JHUNJHUNU V. SHRI MANI RAM SAINI,

ITA 548/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 47967 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 131; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA 548-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ITA NO. 548/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, VS. SHRI MANI RAM SAINI, WARD-1, S/O MALI RAM SAINI, JHUNJHUNU. JAGUKAWALI DHANI, NAWALGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SANJAY KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.L. MOOLCHANDAN I ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 08/07/2011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY DEPARTMENT AGAINST CANCELLATI ON OF PENALTY OF RS. 3,54,632/- LEVIED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T . ACT, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS C OMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/148 OF THE ACT ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 13,20,240/- BY THE AO, AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 11,00,000/-. THE BACKGROUND OF THE SAID ADDITI ON WAS THAT IT WAS NOTICED FROM A DOCUMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED RS. 11 LAC TO ONE SHRI S.K. KHEMKA OF CALCUTTA IN CONNECTION WITH A LAND DEAL AND ON BEING INTERRO GATED ON THAT POINT, THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT HE HAD GIVEN THAT AMOUNT TO SHRI KHEM KA, BUT AS THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BACK. REG ARDING THE SOURCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LACS, THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE AM OUNT WAS COLLECTIVELY ARRANGED BY 10-15 2 PERSONS IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS THE DEAL WAS CANCELLED, HE HAD RETURNED THAT AMOUNT TO THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS THEN AND THERE. HOWEVER, IN A SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT RECORDED ON 13.12.2007, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THAT AMOUNT FO R TAXATION, WITH A VIEW TO BUY MENTAL PEACE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED BY THE AO, AFTER TAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 LAC ON THAT ACCOUNT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY OF RS. 3,5 4,632/- WAS PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON 25.06.2009 BY THE AO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE ABO VE NAMED ASSESSEE IS BASICALLY AN AGRICULTURIST AND IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON AS HE IS EDUCATED UPTO 3 RD STANDARD ONLY. LOOKING TO THE PREVALENT MARKET SENTIMENTS IN THE REAL ESTA TE, AND HAVING GOOD SOCIAL CIRCLE, THE ASSESSEE HAD VENTURED IN THE REAL ESTATE ON COMMISS ION BASIS AND HAS SHOWN COMMISSION INCOME FOR LAST TWO YEARS I.E. IN THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AT RS. 75,000/- AND RS. 1,30,000/- ON ESTIMATE BASIS WHICH WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HE HAD SWITCHED OVER TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WORKS IN JOINT VENTURE WITH SOME OTHER PERSONS AS MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND HAD SHOWN PROFIT OF RS. 1, 91,400/- ON SUCH TRADING OF CONSTRUCTED SHOPS ETC. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE PROFIT AS SHOWN FROM THE CONSTRUCTION WORKS AT RS. 1,91,400/- WAS A CCEPTED AFTER SCRUTINY OF THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND DETAILS. BESIDES, THE LEARNED A.O. AL SO PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE COMMISSION INCOME OF RS. 1 LAC ON THE BASIS OF PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD DENIED HAVING SUCH INCOME. IN ORDER TO AVOID LITIGA TIONS AND TO BUY MENTAL PEACE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE SUCH ADDITION AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE WAS 3 FURTHER ENQUIRED ABOUT AN ADVANCE RS. 11 LAC MADE T O ONE SHRI KRISHAN KHETAN OF KOLKATTA, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT IN THE SO CALLED DE AL, HE WAS ACTING AS A BROKER AND HAD MADE SUCH ADVANCE OF RS. 11 LAC MADE TO SHRI KHETAN ON BEHALF OF THIRD PARTIES. BUT THE DEAL COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED SOMEHOW AND THE ADVA NCED SO MADE WAS GOT BACK AND RETURNED TO THE THIRD PARTIES. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER EARNED ANY INCOME FROM THE SAID DEAL NOR HE HAD MADE ANY INVESTMENT OF ANY SORT SO THE DETAILS OF SUCH DEAL WERE NOT MENTIONED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR. DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS IMPRESSED UPON TO FUR NISH NECESSARY DETAILS OF THIRD PARTIES FOR WHOM SUCH ADVANCE WAS SHOWN TO SHRI KHETAN AT K OLKATTA. IN ORDER TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASES OF THI RD PARTIES, AND ALSO TO GET THE PROCEEDINGS SETTLED AMICABLY, THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT T O SURRENDER THIS AMOUNT CATEGORICALLY WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS BEING OFFERE D WITH A VIEW TO BUY MENTAL PEACE AS PER STATEMENT RECORDED ON 13.12.2007. THUS THE ASS ESSEE HAD OFFERED THIS SUM IN GOOD FAITH TO BUY MENTAL PEACE ONLY AS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE STATEMENT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PAID DUE TAXES ON SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME WELL BEFORE DUE DATES. IGNORING SUCH GESTURE OF CO-OPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF T HE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE FACT THAT SUCH ADMISSION WAS MADE TO BUY MENTAL PEACE ONLY, THE AO PROCEEDED TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN R ESPECT OF SUCH SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 11 LAC AND ALSO IMPOSED A PENALTY OF RS. 3,54,6 32/- IN UTTER DISREGARD TO THE WELL INTERPRETED PROVISIONS OF LAW ON THE POINT. APPAREN TLY THE PENALTY ORDER SO PASSED IS BAD IN LAW FOR THE DETAILED REASONS AS DISCUSSED ONE BY ONE AS UNDER :- (I) THE AO HAS INCORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE PENALT Y ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LAC AFTER DEEP IN VESTIGATION. THESE OBSERVATIONS WOULD 4 APPEAR TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT ON READING OF THE CONTENTS OF TWO STATEMENTS AS RECORDED ON 20.2.2007 AND 13.12.2007 ON THE POINT. THE RELEV ANT EXTRACTS HAVING BEARING ON THIS FACT ARE HIGHLIGHTED FOR CONVENIENCE. ON READING O F THESE EXTRACTS, IT WOULD BE NOTED THAT NO INVESTIGATION WHATSOEVER HAD EVER BEEN CARRIED O UT BY THE DEPARTMENT TO CORNER THE ASSESSEE ON THE POINT AS ALLEGED IN THE PENALTY ORD ER. IN FACT, FROM THE DAY ONE OF THE ENQUIRIES THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN VERY HONEST AND CAM E UP WITH CLEAN BREAST AND TOOK NO TIME IN INFORMING THE ACTUAL HAPPENINGS, WHICH TOO K PLACE FOR ADVANCING THE SAID SUM OF RS. 11 LAC TO SHRI KHETAN AT KOLKATTA. HE HAD INFOR MED THE AO AT FIRST INSTANCE THAT HE HAD ACCOMPANIED NUMBER OF PERSONS TO KOLKATTA AS A BROKER TO GET A LAND DEAL SETTLED WITH ONE SHRI KRISHAN KHETAN AND GAVE RS. 11 LAC AS AN A DVANCE AGAINST THE SAID LAND DEAL, BUT SOME HOW THE LAND DEAL COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED SO THE FUNDS SO ADVANCED WERE RECEIVED BACK FROM SHRI KHETAN WHICH WERE PAID BACK TO THE R ESPECTIVE PERSONS THEN AND THERE. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS ACTING AS A BROKER SO A RECEIPT WAS PREPARED IN HIS NAME BEING A BROKER, OTHERWISE HE HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUCH FU NDS. THUS IN THE VERY FIRST STATEMENT RECORDED ON 20.02.2007, THE ASSESSEE HAD INFORMED T HE FACT OF THE SO-CALLED ADVANCE IN VERY CLEAR TERMS AS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF HIS ST ATEMENT BEING SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS INCOR RECT TO SAY THAT AFTER DEEP INVESTIGATION THE ASSESSEE CAME OUT WITH THE SURRENDER. IN FACT ON SECOND TIME ON 13.12.2007 WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO FURNISH DETAILS AND OTH ER INFORMATION REGARDING THE SOURCES OF THE FUNDS OF RS. 11 LAC GIVEN AS ADVANCE TO SHRI KH ETAN, THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD TO GET SUCH AMOUNT TAXED IN HIS OWN CASE FOR THE YEAR WITH A VIEW TO BUY MENTAL PEACE AND TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THIS FACT WA S CLEARLY MADE KNOWN TO THE AO IN THE STATEMENT ITSELF WHICH IS BEING SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE. FROM THE READING 5 OF THESE EXTRACTS, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD SOUGHT TO SURRENDER THIS AMOUNT VOLUNTARILY AND IN GOOD FAITH, IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATORY MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORDS. THUS THE AO HAS INCORRECTLY ALLEGED IN THE ORDER THAT SURRENDER WAS MADE AFTER DEEP INVESTIGATION. (II) IT IS ALSO INCORRECT TO SAY THAT NO SUCH INCOM E WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REVISED RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE IS SUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REVISED RETURN AFTER HIS STATEMENT AS RECORDED ON 13.12.2007 I.E. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN CO MPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SIMPLY INFORMED THE AO TO TRE AT THE ORIGINAL RETURN AS FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD N O INCOME OR MADE ANY INVESTMENT OF HIS OWN AS REVEALED BY THE CORRESPONDENCE SHOWN TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUI RED TO APPEAR AGAIN FOR SECOND TIME ON 13.12.2007, IT WAS IMPRESSED UPON THAT IN ABSENC E OF DETAILS AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THE THINGS TO SURRENDER THIS ADVANCE AS HIS INCOME FOR THE YEAR TO GET THE PROCEEDINGS SETTLED AMICABL Y ONCE FOR ALL. ON SUCH UNDERSTANDING, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THIS SUM AS HIS INCOME TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO TO BUY MENTAL PEACE AS EVIDENT FROM THE EX TRACTS OF HIS STATEMENT REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 4. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT RELIANCE PLACED BY AO ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MOHTRAM FAR UKI, 259 ITR 132 (RAJ.) IS MISCONCEIVED AS IN THIS CASE THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS WERE EXPLAINED. RATIO OF THIS DECISION WAS ALSO EXPLAIN ED. THEREAFTER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S. ASHOK AGAR WAL, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. 6 PARIPUSHPAM, 249 ITR 550 (MAD.) AND IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. HAZI GAFFAR HAJI DADA CHINI (BOMBAY HIGH COURT). THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER C ONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD HELD THAT THIS IS N OT A CASE OF LEVY OF PENALTY AS ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LA CS. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY LEVIED BY AO WAS CANCELLED. 5. THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AO. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A). FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN PARA 2.3 AT PAGES 6 TO 8 OF HIS ORDER ARE AS UNDER :- 2.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. A/R. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE IMP UGNED PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 L AC MADE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTICED THA T THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN AN ADVANCE OF RS. 11 LAC TO SH. S.K. KHETAN OF CALCUT TA ON 28.10.2005 AND IN THAT CONNECTION, THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECORDED ON 20.2.2007 U/S 131 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THAT STATEMENT, IN REP LY TO QUESTION NO. 14 RELATING TO THE SOURCE OF THE SAID RS. 11 LAC, THE APPELLANT HAD REPLIED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAD BEEN COLLECTIVELY ARRANGED BY 1 0-15 PERSONS AND THAT SINCE THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALIZED, THE SAME WAS R ETURNED TO THOSE PERSONS, IN THE SAME PROPORTION IN WHICH IT WAS GIV EN BY THEM. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT, THEREAFTER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS AGAIN RECORDED ON 13 .12.2007, WHEREIN HE OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LAC FOR TAXATION TO BU Y PEACE OF MIND. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 LAC I N THE APPELLANTS CASE ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF THOSE 7 PERSONS, FROM WHOM HE HAD RECEIVED THAT AMOUNT, AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO SURRENDERED THAT AMOUNT FOR TAX. THE AO A LSO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. FURT HER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS IMPOSED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY, AFTER CONS IDERING THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO THE PENALTY SHOW CAUSE NO TICE, HOLDING THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS IMPOSABLE BECAUSE THE ADD ITION OF RS. 11 LAC WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND N OT ON ESTIMATION BASIS. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR HAS MAINLY ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LAC, I N QUESTION, BUT HAD SURRENDERED THE SAME, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMEN TARY EVIDENCE, TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID LITIGATION. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO POSITIVE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. A O TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT, REGARDING THE S OURCE OF THE AFORESAID RS. 11 LAC, WAS FALSE OR INCORRECT. IN ADDITION, IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. AO HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY POSITIVE MATERI AL ON RECORD INDICATING ANY CONSCIOUS CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BY THE APPELLANT. IT HAS BEEN PLEADED THAT THEREFORE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, I FIND THAT THERE IS SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. AR. IT IS OBSERV ED THAT, AS NOTED EARLIER IN THIS PARA, THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED IN HIS ST ATEMENT RECORDED ON 20.2.2007 THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LAC, IN QUESTIO N, WHICH WAS GIVEN TO SH. S.K. KHEMKA AS ADVANCE FOR A LAND DEAL, HAD BEE N ARRANGED COLLECTIVELY BY 10 -15 PERSONS AND THAT WHEN THE DE AL DID NOT MATERIALIZE, THE SAID AMOUNT HAD BEEN RETURNED TO THOSE PERSONS. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE FACTUM OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LA C GIVEN AS ADVANCE FOR THE LAND DEAL TO SHRI KHEMKA, NON-MATERIALISATION O F THE SAID DEAL, AND THE RETURN BACK OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF ADVANCE, AS STATE D BY THE APPELLANT, ARE NOT IN DISPUTED AND ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE CROSS CONFIRMATION OF THE SAME BY SHRI KHEMKA. THEREFORE, WHEN THE OTHER AVER MENTS MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY 8 THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE SOURCE OF THE AFORE MENTIONED AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LACS ALSO APPEARS TO BE BONA-FIDE. FURTHER, IT I S OBSERVED, AS PER THE RECORDS, THAT AFTER THE AFORESAID STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT, RECORDED ON 20.2.2007, NO ENQUIRY IN THAT REGARD WAS MADE AND A LSO THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL/EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO INDI CATE THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT W AS FALSE OR INCORRECT. IN ADDITION, IT IS OBSERVED THAT, SUBSEQUENTLY, THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS AGAIN RECORDED ON 13.12.2007, WHEREIN THE APPEL LANT GAVE MORE OR LESS THE SAME EXPLANATION, BUT OFFERED THE AMOUNT O F RS. 11 LAC FOR TAXATION, EXPRESSLY STATING IN HIS STATEMENT THAT H E WAS MAKING THE SAID SURRENDER WITH A VIEW TO BUY PEACE OF MIND. TH4EREF ORE, ON THESE FACTS, I FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT THE LD. AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO INDICATE ANY CONSCIO US OR DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT, THUS, CONCEALMENT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS NOT WARRANTED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. FURTHER , I FIND THAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. A/R IN THAT REGARD ALSO SUPPORT HIS CASE. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE APPE LLANTS CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUG NED PENALTY. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THESE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT (A) ARE SELF EXPLANATORY WHICH NEITHER COULD BE CONTROVERTED NOR ANY OTHER MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO EST ABLISH OTHERWISE. THEREFORE, WITHOUT GOING INTO DETAIL FURTHER, WE CONFIRM THE FINDING O F LD. CIT (A). 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMI SSED. 9. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08- 07-2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 9 JAIPUR, D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- THE ITO, WARD-1, JHUNJHUNU. SHRI MANI RAM SAINI, JAGUKAWALI DHANI, NAWALGARH. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 548/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.