ACIT, Jaipur V. ASHOK KUMAR SANKHLA, Jaipur

ITA 608/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1946 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Valuation report
• Section: 153A; 132; 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES , JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,O JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHAR AT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1 JAIPUR CUKE VS. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SANKHLA A-3, MOTI LAL ATAL ROAD JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ACWPK9262 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.C. PARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY:SHRI VARINDER MEHTA, CIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 07/09/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 26-03-2016 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 5,31,050/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS MADE IN REAL ESTATE BUSINES S WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE WAS ACTUALLY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .5,50,000/- MADE ON ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 2 ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEE T. 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .3,56,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED IN THE PLOT AT NARAYAN VIHAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .6,70,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION W ITH REGARD TO CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY OF RS.12,49,729/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF JEWEL LERY FOUND DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .20,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION O F PROPERTY AT 1249, RANI SATI NAGAR, JAIPUR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF SURRENDERED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 2 5,00,000/- AGAINST WHICH SHOWN ONLY RS. 5,00,000/- IN THE RETURN OF IN COME. 2.1 IN GROUND NO. 1, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,31,050/- MA DE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSACTIONS MADE IN REAL ESTATE BUSINES S WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE WAS ACT UALLY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE. BBRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A FLAT AT TILAK NAGAR, JAIPUR ON 6-12-199 7 FOR RS.4,44,450/- (PB 72-85) . THIS FLAT WAS SOLD ON 19-08-2009 FOR RS.9,75,500/ - (PB 86- ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 3 95) . THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OBSERVED AT PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER THAT ASSESSEE'S TRANSACTION IN LAND WAS ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE AO HAD D RAWN A TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTIES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED SALE OF THE FLAT AS BUSINESS RECEIPT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASSESSED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 5,31,050/- AS BUSINESS INCOME (RS. 9,75,500 MIN US RS. 4,44,450) AS AGAINST INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,26,882/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 IN THE APPELLATE HEARING, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKE N A SPECIFIC GROUND AS GROUND NO.1 WHEREBY THE ACTION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THE VARIOUS IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THOS E PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR AS ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE WAS CHALLENGED. THIS GROUND WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER HIS FINDING GIVEN AT PARA 3.1.3, PG 12-14 OF THE ORDER. THEREAF TER, THE LD. CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF FLAT AT TILAK NAGAR ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GAIN ARISING OUT OF DISPOSAL OF THIS FLAT CANN OT BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ASSESS THE SAME AS LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,26,882/-. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE L D. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 4 4.1.3 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED ASSESSEES SUBMISSIO N AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CASE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN A NOTE O F FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL APPLICABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE FLAT AT TILAK NAGAR IN YEAR 1997-98 AND SINCE THEN IT WAS LET OUT , THE RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED HAS ALSO B EEN DULY DECLARED UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND DULY CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS UNDER:- AY RENT FROM FLAT AT TILAK NAGAR SHOWN IN RETURNS 2004-05 80,628/- 2005-06 87,180/- 2006-07 92,638/- 2007-08 99,582/- 2008-09 113,933/- 2009-10 103,193/- AS THE ASSESSEE HELD THIS FLAT AS INVESTMENT AND SOLD IT AFTER HOLDING FOR ABOUT 12 YEARS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD THIS FLAT AS BUSINESS STOCK OR THE IN VESTMENT MADE IN THIS FLAT IN THE YEAR 1997 WAS WITH AN INTENTION TO SALE THE SAME TO EARN PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GAIN ARISING OUT OF DISPOSAL OF THIS INVESTMENT, CA NNOT BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME BUT AS CAPITAL GAIN, ACCORDINGLY AO IS HEREB Y DIRECTED TO ASSESS THE SAME AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN (LTCG) ON AT RS. 1,2 6,882/-[975,500-8,48,618 (INDEXED COST)] ASSESSEES APPEAL IN GR NO. 2 STAND S ALLOWED. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 2.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR WHICH THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMISSION:- 1. AT THE OUTSET IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DEPARTMENT H AS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHERE HE HAS H ELD THAT THAT ASSESSEE HAS HOLD VARIOUS IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AS INVESTMENT AND THE SAME IS NEITHER AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE OR THE BUSINESS STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THIS FINDING IS NOT CHALLENGED, THE SALE OF FLAT UNDER ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 5 CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A BUSINESS TR ANSACTION AND THEREFORE THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS TO BE DISMISSED AT THE THRESHOLD. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FLAT AT TILAK NAGAR WA S PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 1997-98 AND SINCE THEN IT WAS LET OUT. RENTAL INCOME RECEIVED WAS DULY DECLARED UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY (PB 23-47) AND CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS UNDER:- ASSESSMENT YEAR RENT FROM FLAT AT TILAK NAGAR SHOWN IN RETURNS 2004-05 80,628/- 2005-06 87,180/- 2006-07 92,638/- 2007-08 99,582/- 2008-09 113,933/- 2009-10 103,193/- 3. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HELD THIS FLAT AS INVESTMENT AND SOLD IT AFTER HOLDING IT FOR ABOUT 1 2 YEARS. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THIS FLAT WAS WITH AN INTENTION TO SALE THE SAME TO EARN PROFIT. THEREFORE, SUCH INVESTMENT MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A BUSINESS TRANSACTION OR A TRANSACTION OF AN ADVENTU RE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND THE GAIN ARISING ON DISPOSAL OF THIS INVESTMENT CAN NOT BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. RELIANCE IN THIS CONNECTION IS PLACED ON VA RIOUS DECISIONS AS MENTIONED AT PG 10-12 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT. 2.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE AO TOOK THE NET PROFIT OF RS. 5,31,050/- AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND A DDED THE SAME TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSER VED THAT THE GAIN ARISING OUT OF DISPOSAL OF THIS INVESTMENT CANNOT BE ASSESS ED AS BUSINESS INCOME BUT AS CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) DI RECTED THE AO TO ASSESS ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 6 THE SAME AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 1,26,882/ - [RS. 9,75,500 MINUS RS. 8,48,618/- (INDEXED COST)]. IT IS ALSO NO TED THAT THE LD. DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON T HE ISSUE IN QUESTION. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT IN SEARCH OPERATION, THERE WAS N O INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH COULD SUGGEST T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGED IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. IN THIS VIEW OF T HE MATTER, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ). THUS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 3.1 IN GROUND NO. 2, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,50,000/- MA DE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT WITHOUT APPRECIAT ING THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. BR IEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD OUT ITS PROPERTY AT JODH PUR FOR A TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5,50,000/-. THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN MARCH 1997 FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,00 0/-. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ABOVE PROPERTY WAS NOT APPEARING IN THE BA LANCE SHEET / STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. A S SUCH IT IS EVIDENT THAT SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOUR CES OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 7 THE AO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THESE FACTS ADDED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 5,50,000/- IN THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THUS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,50,000/- U/S 69 OF THE A CT. 3.2 IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADD ITION OF RS. 5,50,000/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.1.3 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CASE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN A NOTE O F FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL APPLICABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASS ESSEE. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE SOLD THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT JODHPUR (FLAT NO. 4 JODHPUR TOWERS, AREA 65 SQ. MTR ) FOR RS. 5,50,000/-. (REFER PB 105-109) WHICH WAS EARLIER PURCHASED ON 2 6.1.1997 FOR RS. 3 LACS AND AFTER CONSIDERING REGISTRATION EXPENSES, THE CO ST OF ACQUISITION OF THIS FLAT COMES TO RS. 3,20,010/- (REFER PBP 96-104). IT IS A LSO SUBMITTED THAT ON SALE OF THIS FLAT, ASSESSEE DECLARED LONG TERM CAPITAL L OSS OF RS. 1,13,103/- IN THE RETURN (REFER PBP 48-43) WHICH IS DULY DISCLOSED IN HIS RETURN FOR THE YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADDED U/S 69 OF THE ACT. AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO T REAT IT AS A CAPITAL LOSS AT RS. 1,13,103/- CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETUR N OF INCOME. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN GR NO. 3 STANDS ALLOWED. 3.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 3.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A). 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO MADE T HE ADDITION OF RS. 5.50 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PROPERTY HAVING AREA OF 65 SQ. METER SITUATED AT FLAT NO. 4, JODHPUR TOWERS, JODHPUR. IT IS ALSO NOT ED THAT THIS FLAT WAS ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 8 PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 26-01-1977 FOR RS. 3.0 0 LACS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES THE COST OF A CQUISITION OF THIS FLAT WAS RS.3,20,010/-. ON SALE OF THIS FLAT, THE ASSESS EE DECLARED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 1,13,103/- IN THE RETURN (PB48- 53). HENCE, IT IS OBSERVED THAT ON SALE OF THIS FLAT THERE IS CAPITAL LOSS TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER INDEXATION WHICH IS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AN D SUCH SALE AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ADDED U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) THUS DIRECT ED THE AO TO TREAT IT AS A CAPITAL LOSS AT RS. 1,13,109/- CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, WE CONCUR WITH THE VIEWS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSU E IN QUESTION. THUS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4.1 IN GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,56,000/- MA DE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PLOT AT NARAYA N VIHAR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS NOT DI SCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND NOT FILED ANY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 9 ARE THAT THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE STATEMENT OF AFFA IRS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERED NOTED THAT PLOT AT NARYAN VIHAR, JAIPUR PURCHASED DURING THE A.Y. 2008-09 FOR RS.3.56 LACS WAS NOT APPEARING IN IT. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUB MITTED ANY EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. THE AO THUS ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3.56 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION. 4.2 IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADD ITION OF RS. 3,56,000/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.1.3 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CASE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO TAKE N A NOTE OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL APPLICABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON B Y THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED FOR THE YEAR, AO HAS OBSERV ED THAT AS THE PLOT OF NARAYAN VIHAR, JAIPUR IS NOT APPEARING IN THE STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME HAS TO BE ADDED U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IT IS A FACT THAT THE SAID PLOT WAS BOOKED BY GIVING ADVANCE OF RS. 3,56,000/- IN AY 20 08-09 WHICH IS APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS AT 31.3.2008 (REFER PB PG 41). AND EVEN THE AO HAD CONSIDERED THE SAME IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT PREP ARED BY HIM IN AY 2008-09 (REFER PG IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). IT IS ALSO SUBM ITTED THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE SAID BOOKING WAS CANCELLED AND THE AMOUNT WAS RECEI VED BACK VIDE CHEQUE NO. 423039 & 423040 OF RS. 178,000/- EACH ON 5.06.2009, THATS WHY IT IS NOT APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FACT IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HE AD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (REFER PB PG 49-50) WHEREIN CAPITAL GAIN ON CANCEL LATION OF BOOKING IS DECLARED AS NIL. ALL THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN IGNORED BY THE AO . AS PER SEC 69 OF THE ACT, AO CAN MAKE ADDITION WH ERE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT WHICH IS NOT DISCLOSED, WHICH IS NO T THE CASE HERE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION MADE OF RS. 356,000/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED HENCE DELETED. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN GR NO . 4 STANDS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 10 4.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 4.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR WHICH THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION. SUBMISSION:- 1. THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE PLOT AT NAR AYAN VIHAR, JAIPUR IS NOT APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE IS INCORRECT. THE PLOT WAS BOOKED BY GIVING ADVANCE OF RS. 3,56,0 00/- IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND IT IS APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS AT 3 1-3-2008 (PB 41) . EVEN THE LD. AO HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME IN THE TRADING ACCOU NT PREPARED BY HIM IN A.Y. 2008-09 AS APPEARING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER O F THAT YEAR. 2. DURING THE YEAR THE BOOKING WAS CANCELLED AND TH E AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK VIDE CHEQUE NO.423039 & 423040 OF RS. 178,000/- EACH ON 5.06.2009 AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FACT IS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (PB 49-50) WHERE IN CAPITAL GAIN ON CANCELLATION OF BOOKING IS DECLARED AS NIL. THE SAM E IS IGNORED BY THE AO. 3. AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION U/S 69. ADDITION UNDER THIS SECTION CAN BE MADE WHERE ASSESSEE MAKES AN INVESTMENT WHICH IS NO T DISCLOSED. IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE AO THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PLOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTIO N 69 IS UNCALLED FOR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT. 4.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE PLOT AT NARAYAN VIHAR,JAIPUR WAS NOT APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF THE AFFAIRS OF THE ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 11 ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS . 3.56 LACS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. IN FIRST APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3.56 LACS MADE BY THE A O U/S 69 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.1.3 AS PER SEC 69 OF THE ACT, AO CAN MAKE ADDITION WHER E ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT WHICH IS NOT DISCLOSED , WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION MADE OF RS. 356,00 0/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED HENCE DELETED. ASSESSEES A PPEAL IN GR NO. 4 STANDS ALLOWED. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE PLOT AT NARYA N VIHAR, JAIPUR WAS BOOKED BY THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING ADVANCE OF RS. 2.5 6 LACS IN A.Y. 2008- 09 AND IT IS APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS AT 31-03-2008 (PBP 41). IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE AO HAD CONSIDERED T HE SAME IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED BY HIM (PAGE 6 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ). IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE BOOKING OF THE ABOVE PLOT WAS CANCELLED AN D THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED VIDE CHEQUE NO. 423049 AND 423040 OF RS. 1 ,78,000/- EACH (I.E. RS. 3.56 LACS) ON 5-06-2009, THEREFORE, THE SAME IS NOT APPEARING IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. THIS FACT IS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM C APITAL GAIN (PBP 49- 50) WHEREIN THE CAPITAL GAIN ON CANCELLATION OF BOO KING IS DECLARED AS NIL BY THE ASSESSEE . TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 12 THE CASE, IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIF IED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3.56 LACS MADE BY THE AO. THUS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5.1 IN GROUND NO. 4, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,70,900/- MA DE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH WITHOUT APPRECIATING TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION W ITH REGARD TO THE CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 12,70,900/- FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT ON 23-07-2009 AT HIS RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. IT IS ALSO NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS MADE THE SURRENDER OF RS. 6.00 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION BEFORE HIM. THU S THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,70,900/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT AND A DDED THE SAME TO HIS TOTAL INCOME. 5.2 IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADD ITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 13 8.1.3 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSIO N AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CASE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN A NOTE OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL APPLICABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERAT ION, CASH OF RS. 12,70,900/- WAS FOUND AND INVENTORISED OUT OF WHICH RS. 12 LACS WAS SEIZED AS PER PANCHNAMA. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOT E THAT THE ASSESSEE IN SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 23 (REFER PB PG 10) HAS STATED TO BE I N POSSESSION OF CASH OF RS. 9.60 LACS. AGAIN IN REPLY TO QUESTION N O. 33, (REFER PB PG 14) ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH AS AMO UNT RECEIVED ON SALE OF FLAT AT JODHPUR RS. 7 LACS AND BALANCE RS. 2.60 LACS AS PERSONAL CASH WHICH HE GENERALLY KEEPS WITH HIM. WH ILE FILING THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR, ASSESSEE OFFERED ONLY RS. 6 LA CS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH AFTER CONSIDERING THE SALE PROCEEDS OF JODHPUR FLAT AT RS. 5.50 LACS AND REMAINING AMOUNT AS THE CASH AVAILABLE WIT H HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO OB SERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF CASH FOUND, ACCORDINGLY HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS . 6,70,900/- . NOW IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS S OLD HIS FLAT AT JODHPUR ON 30-06-2009 FOR RS. 5.50 LACS (REFER PBP PAGE 105- 109). THIS FACT WAS ALSO STATED IN STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, CASH FOUND TO THIS EXTENT IS FU LLY EXPLAINED. FOR REMAINING RS. 1,20,900/- IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IT VE RIFIABLE FROM THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AS PER THE CASH BOOK OF THE VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE CASH BALANCE REFLECTED IN THE STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS AS UNDER:- NAME OF PERSON CASH BALANCE AS ON PB PAGE NO. 31-03-2008 31-03-2009 ASHOK KUMAR SANKHLA 89,239 7,239 41 & 46 PRATIMA SANKHLA 35,874 7,180 68 & 70 AMRIT RAJ SANKHLA 76,162 76,851 57 TOTAL 2,01,275 91,270 IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS DISCUSSED ABO VE, THE BALANCE CASH OF RS. 1,20,900/- CONSIDERING THE AVAI BAILITY OF CASH IN HANDS OF ASSESSEE DAUGHTER MAHIMA SANKHLA CAN BE AC CEPTED AS A ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 14 REASONABLE POSSESSION IN THE HAND OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE ON TH IS A/C ALSO. 5.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 5.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR WHICH THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLO WING WRITTEN SUBMISSION. SUBMISSION:- 1. THE ASSESSEE IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING VID E LETTER DATED 21-12-2011 (PB 54-59) HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH OF RS.6,70,900/- AS UNDER: (A) RS.5.50 LACS ARE FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF FLAT AT JODHPUR ON 30- 6-2009. THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AND LYING W ITH HIM AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AS EXPLAINED HIM REPLY TO QUESTION N O. 33 OF STATEMENT U/S 132(4) DATED 23-7-2009. (B) THE BALANCE OF RS.1,20,900/- IS THE CASH AVAILA BLE WITH THE VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS. 2. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD H IS FLAT AT JODHPUR ON 30-6-2009 FOR RS.5.50 LACS. (PB 105-109) THE AO HAS MADE SEPARATE ADDITION FOR THE SAME. THIS FACT IS ALSO S TATED IN STATEMENT U/S 132(4). HENCE, CASH FOUND TO THIS EXTENT IS FUL LY EXPLAINED. 3. THE BALANCE CASH OF RS.1,20,900/- IS VERIFIABLE FRO M THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AS PER THE CASH BOOK OF THE VARIO US FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE CASH BALANCE REFLECTED IN THE STATE MENT OF AFFAIRS AS UNDER:- NAME OF PERSON CASH BALANCE AS ON 31-3-2008 31-3-2009 ASHOK KUMAR SANKHLA 89,239/- 7,239/- PRATIMA SANKHLA 35,874/- 7,180/- AMRIT RAJ SANKHLA 76,162/- 76,851/- TOTAL 2,01,275/- 91,270/- ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 15 THEREFORE, THE CASH OF RS.1,20,900/- CONSIDERING TH E AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HANDS OF VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS IS FULLY VERIFIABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT. 5.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,60,900/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT ABLE TO SUBMIT THE SATISFACTORILY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO WHICH IN FIRST APPEAL HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IT IS NOTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD SOLD AT JODHPUR ON 30-06-2009 FOR RS. 5.50 LACS (PBP-105-10 9). THIS FACT IS ALSO STATED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CASH FOUND TO THIS EXTENT IS VERIFIABLE. FOR REMAINING A MOUNT OF RS. 1,20,900/-, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE AS PER THE CASH BOOK OF THE VARIOUS FAMIL Y MEMBERS AND THE CASH BALANCE REFLECTED IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS IS AS UNDER:- NAME OF PERSON CASH BALANCE AS ON 31-3-2008 31-3-2009 ASHOK KUMAR SANKHLA 89,239/- 7,239/- PRATIMA SANKHLA 35,874/- 7,180/- AMRIT RAJ SANKHLA 76,162/- 76,851/- TOTAL 2,01,275/- 91,270/- ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 16 TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. THUS GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6.1 IN GROUND NO. 5, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON UN EXPLAINED JEWELLERY OF RS. 12,49,729/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF JEWELER FOUND D URING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 33,59,377/- (2366.12 GRAMS) WERE FOUND / SEIZED FROM THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF TH E ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO REQUIRED TH E ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT HIS EXPLANATION ON THE ISSUE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT THE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE AO AS UNDER:- A.1074.71 GRAMS GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI SUKH SINGH BHATI (FATHER IN LAW OF THE ASSESSEE B.232.82 GRAMS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,45,000/- PURCHASE D VIDE BILL DATED 06-06-2003SEIZED VIDE ANNEXURE A-1 PAGE NO. 33 C.154.30 GRAMS AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,07,500/- PURCHASE D THROUGH VARIOUS BILLS DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. BILLS SEIZED VIDE ANNEXURE A-1, PAGE NO. 36,39,41, 42 & 43 TOTAL: 1461.83 GRAMS ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 17 AS REGARDS THE GIFT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED A C OPY OF GIFT DEED DATED 15-12-1999 DULY EXECUTED THROUGH NOTARY WHICH HAS B EEN EXECUTED BY THE AO. AS REGARDS THE JEWELLERY MENTIONED AT B & C ABO VE, ADDITIONS HAD BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS THE REMAINING JEWELLERY OF 904.20 GRAMS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT JEWELLERY WEIGHING TO 2 05.445 GRAMS IS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE REMAINING 6 98.845 GRAMS IS REASONABLE. THE AO DID NOT FIND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SATISFACTORY AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,49,729 /- RELATING TO JEWELLERY OF 904.29 GRAMS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF 205 .445 GRAMS JEWELLERY HAS BEEN EXAMINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE R ECORD AND IT IS FOUND THAT NO SUCH JEWELLERY IS APPEARING IN ANY OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF PREVIOUS YEARS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. FURTHER FOR THE REMAIN ING 698.845 GRAMS OF JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY CO NCRETE EVIDENCE THAT SUPPORTS HIS CONTENTIONS. THEREFORE, TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE ABOVE FACTS, JEWELLERY WEIGHING 904.29 GRAMS I.E. A MOUNTING TO RS. 12,49,729/- IS HEREBY ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BEING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE VALUE OF JEWELLERY HAS BEEN TAKEN AS PER THE VALUAT ION MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 6.2 IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADD ITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 18 9.13. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CASE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN A NOTE OF FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL APPLICABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE . HERE AO HA S MADE ADDITION OF RS. 12,49,729/- IN RESPECT OF 904.24 GR MS OF JEWELLERY ITEMS U/S 69 OF THE ACT (REFER ASSTT ORDE R PG 8- 10). AGAINST THIS 904.24 GMS. ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN EX PLANATION FOR (I) 87.555 GMS. PURCHASED BY SMT. PARTIMA SANKH ALA (II) 117.89 GMS. PURCHASED ON 13-11-2001 & 5-07-2002 (II I) 699.175 GMS. RECEIVED ON DIFFERENT OCCASIONS AND AL SO COVERED BY CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 1914. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT JEWELLERY WEIGHING 87.855 GMS. PURCHASED BY ASSESSE E'S WIFE SMT. PRATIMA SANAKHLA FOR RS. 71,000/- IS DULY VERIFIABLE FROM COPY OF BILL, CHEQUE PAYMENT AND MR S. PRATIMA SANKHALAS CAPITAL A/C AS ON 31-03-2007 WHI CH AO HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE AS THE AMOUNT WAS DEBITED TO HER CAPITAL A/C. IN SUPPORT, ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED A CO PY OF THE SAME IN THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED (DETAILS ARE AVAIL ABLE AT PAGE 29 & 30 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER AS SCANNED C OPY). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, 87.855 GMS. OF JEWELLERY IS DU LY VERIFIABLE FROM PURCHASE BILL & PAYMENT DETAILS AND CAPITAL A/C OF SMT. PRATIMA SANKHLA AS ON 31-03-2007. HENCE , THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED U/S 69 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF BILLS (PB 152-155) JEWELLERY ITEMS 97.26 GMS. PURCHASED FROM M/S. TANISHQUE (ON 13-11- 2001) AND M/S. SHREE JEE (ON 5-07-2002) CANNOT BE A DDED U/S 69 AS THEY WERE PROCURED IN EARLIER YEARS WHICH FALLS OUT OF THE PRIOR PERIOD COVERED U/S 153A OF THE ACT FURTHER, ASSESSEE'S FAMILY INCLUDES HIS WIFE SMT. PRATIMA SANKHALA, A SON AND A DAUGHTER. THEREFORE, AS PER CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 (F.NO.286/63/93/IT(INV.II ) DATED 11-05-1994, KEEPING IN MIND HIS SOCIAL STATUS AND OTHER SOCIAL OCCASIONS, A REASONABLE POSSESSION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 19 ASSESSEE HIMSELF 100 GMS. SMT. PRATIMA SANKHALA (WIFE) 500 GMS. UNMARRIED DAUGHTER 200 GMS. UNMARRIED SON 100 GMS. TOTAL 950 GMS. HERE AO HAS ADDED 719.175 GMS. JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 69 OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF JE WELLERY AS MENTIONED AS PER CBDTS INSTRUCTION IS REASONABLE A ND DULY EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, NO ADDITION ON A/C OF 719.1 75 GMS. IS REQUIRED U/S 69 OF THE ACT, ACCORDINGLY DELETED. IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, ADDITION MADE OF RS. 12,49,729/-IN RESPECT OF 904.24 GMS. OF JEWELLERY ITEMS U/S 69 OF THE ACT IS HEREBY DELETED. ASSESSEE'S APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED IN GROUND NO. 7. 6.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 6.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR WHICH THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION. SUBMISSION:- 1. THE EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF 904.29 GMS OF JEWE LLERY IS AS UNDER: (I) JEWELLERY OF 87.855 GMS WAS PURCHASED BY ASSESS EES WIFE SMT PRATIMA SANKHLA FROM M/S SHREE JEE JEWELLERS ON 28. 03.2006. PAYMENT OF RS.71,000/- AGAINST PURCHASE OF THIS JEWELLERY WAS MADE BY CHEQUE. THIS ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 20 AMOUNT IS REFLECTED IN HER CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31-3-2007. COPY OF BILL AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS AT PB 67 & 151 . AO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT JEWELLERY SO PURCHASED IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET SINCE IT HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THUS THE SOURC E OF THIS JEWELLERY IS FULLY EXPLAINED. (II) JEWELLERY OF 97.26 GMS. WAS PURCHASED PRIOR TO THE PERIOD COVERED U/S 153A AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- DATE PURCHASED FROM ITEM WEIGHT (GMS.) AMOUNT (RS.) 13-11-01 TANISHQ NECKLACE 20.30 26654/- 13-11-01 TANISHQ PENDENT 1.16 3708/- 5-7-02 SHREE JEE JEWELLERS GOLD SET 21.70 11392/- 5-7-02 SHREE JEE JEWELLERS GOLD SET 54.10 28402/- TOTAL 97.26 70156/- COPY OF BILLS IS AT PB 152-155. THE BILLS OF M/S TANISHQ WERE FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE BILLS OF SHREE JEE JEWELLE RS WERE FURNISHED IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THESE JEWELLERY WE RE ACQUIRED IN EARLIER YEARS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION U/S SECTION 69 IS NOT AS PER LAW. (III) THE BALANCE JEWELLERY OF 719.175 GMS IS A REA SONABLE POSSESSION OF JEWELLERY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AN D HIS FAMILY MEMBERS COMPRISING OF ASSESSEE HIMSELF, HIS WIFE PRATIMA SA NKHLA, DAUGHTER MAHIMA SANKHLA AND SON AMRIT RAJ SANKHLA. THE MARRIAGE OF ASSESSEE TOOK PLACE ON 25-6-1982, SON WAS BORN ON 14-9-83 AND DAUGHTER WAS BORN ON 10-7-86. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE JEWELLERY OF 719.175 GMS CLAIMED AS RECEIVED ON MARRIAGE, ON BIRTH OF CHILDREN AND ON OTHER SOCIAL OCCASION IS REASONABLE AND SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. RELIANCE IN THIS CONNECTION IS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- ( I)ASHOK CHADDHA VS ITO [2012] 69 DTR 82 (DEL.) (II)CIT VS. SATYA NARAIN PATNI 366 ITR 325 (RAJ.) ( HC) (III)SMT. PATI DEVI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER & ANR. ( 1999) 240 ITR 727 (KAR) (IV)COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RATAN LAL VYAPAR ILAL JAIN (GUJ.) (HC) 339 ITR 351 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT. ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 21 6.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO MADE T HE ADDITION OF RS. 12,49,729/- ON THE UNEXPLAINED JEWELLERY WEIGHING 9 04.29 GMS. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE AO. IT IS NOT IMPERATIVE TO REPEAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE L D. CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED THE ISSUE HEREINABOVE AND WE CONCUR WITH HIS FINDINGS AS TO THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 12,49,729/- RELATING TO JEWELL ERY OF 904.24 GMS. THUS GROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 7.1 IN GROUND NO. 6, THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20.00 LACS MA DE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION O F PROPERTY AT 1249, RANI SATI NAGAR, JAIPUR WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FA CT THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF SURRENDERED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 25.00 LAC S AGAINST WHICH RS. 5.00 LACS WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 20.00 LACS IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY AT 1249, RAN I SATI NAGAR, JAIPUR WHICH IN FIRST APPEAL HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. C IT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 22 7.1.3 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED ASSESSEES SUBMISSIO N AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CASE RECORD. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN A NOTE O F FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS WELL APPLICABLE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASS ESSEE. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION CARRIED OUT U/S 132 O F THE ACT, ASSESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO SEIZED DOCUMENT AB PG 1,2 & 3 HAS ADMITTED IN SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED ON OATH U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 25,00,000/- IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY AT RA NI SATI NAGAR, JAIPUR. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE DID OFFER ONLY RS. 2,30,000/- IN AY 2009-10 AND RS. 5,00,000/- IN AY 2010-11 ON A/C OF UNDISCLOSED CONS TRUCTION COST, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT FOR THE YEARS. A CCORDINGLY, AO ADDED RS. 20,00,000/- ON A/C OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRU CTION AT PLOT-1239, RANI SATI NAGAR, BUT IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT AO HAS NOT CONDUC TED ANY FRUITFUL INVESTIGATION IN THIS REGARD NOR TAKEN ANY COGNIZANCE OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SMT. PRATIMA SANKHLA, WIFE OF THE ASSESSE E HAS PURCHASED PLOT OF LAND AT 1249, RANI SATI NAGAR, JAIPUR IN YEAR 1999 AND O N THIS PLOT, SHE STARTED CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN AUGUST 2006 WHERE TOTAL CO NSTRUCTION COST DECLARED BY HER UP TO 31.3.2010 IS RS. 36,36,114/- WHICH IS EVI DENT FROM HER STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS UNDER:- F.Y. AMOUNT (RS.) AMOUNT SHOWN PB PG 2006-07 16,61,740.00 16,61,70 66 2007-08 17,77,375.62 3439114.62 68 2008-09 1,96,999.38 36,36,114 70 RS. 36,36,114/- IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE OFFERED RS. 2,30 ,000/- IN AY 2009-10 AND RS. 5,00,000/- IN AY 2010-11 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDI SCLOSED CONSTRUCTION. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESS EE HAD EXPLAINED TO THE AO THAT THE EXPENDITURE AS PER PAGES 1,2 & 3 OF ANN EXURE A-30 REFERRED IN THE STATEMENT IS ONLY RS. 1,10,132/-. AS PER THE REGIST ERED VALUER REPORT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS RS. 41,90,825/- WHEREAS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DECLARED BY HIS WIFE SMT PRATIMA SANKHALA AND THAT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNT TO RS. 43.66 LACS (36.36 + 7.30). IT IS ALSO A FACT TH AT IN COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FOUND FR OM ASSESSEES PREMISE TO SUGGEST COST OF CONSTRUCTION INCURRED TO BE MORE TH AN RS. 43.66 LAKHS. FURTHER, AO HAS ALSO NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INVESTIGAT ION TO DISPROVE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, ADDITION MADE B Y THE SEEMS TO BE UNJUSTIFIABLE. IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE O F PULLANGONE RUBBER ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 23 PRODUCE CO LTD (SUPRA), ADDITION MADE OF RS. 20,00, 000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN GR NO. 5 STANDS ALLOWED. 7.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR SUPPOR TED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR WHICH HE HAS FILED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION. SUBMISSION:- 1. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SMT. PRATIMA SANKHLA, WIFE OF ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED PLOT OF LAND AND CONSTRUCTED OF HOUSE ON IT. TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY HER IS RS.36,36,114/- AS MENTIONED ABOV E WHICH IS REFLECTED IN HER BALANCE SHEET. BESIDES THIS ASSESS EE HAS MADE CONTRIBUTION OF RS. 7,30,000/- IN THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH HE HAS OFFERED IN THE RETURN AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THUS, THE TOTAL E XPENSES INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION IS RS.43,66,114/- (36,36,114 +730,000) . 2. IN SEARCH EXCEPT THREE PAGES AS MENTIONED ABOVE, NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO SUGGEST THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED WAS MORE THAN THAT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. AS AGAINST THIS VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER DETERMINING THE CONSTRUCTION COST OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 41,90,825/- IS FOUND IN SEARCH WHICH WAS SEIZE D AT PAGE 1 TO 34 OF AB-10 (PB 122-145) . THIS REPORT IS DATED 29-3-2008 BUT IT INCLUDES TH E COST OF ONGOING WORK ALSO. THESE ONGOING WORKS WERE COMPLETED PARTLY IN AY 2009-10 AND PARTLY IN AY 2010-11. THUS , THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE IS MO RE THAN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. 3. THE STATEMENT GIVEN U/S 132(4) IS WITHOUT REFERR ING TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE NO CR EDENCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO SUCH STATEMENTS. OTHERWISE ALSO DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE FOUND IN SEARCH HAS TO BE GIVEN CREDENCE OVER THE ORAL ST ATEMENT. THE SEIZED PAPERS CONTAIN EXPENSES ON CONSTRUCTION AT RS.1,10, 132/- WHICH IS ALSO PAID BY CHEQUE AND SHOWN IN BOOKS. AS AGAINST THIS THE VALUATION REPORT OF REGISTERED VALUER FOUND IN SEARCH SUGGEST TOTAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES AT RS.41,90,825/- WHEREAS THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE IS RS.43.66 LACS. NO MATER IAL OR EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT BY AO TO HOLD THAT THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE S INCURRED IS MORE ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 24 THAN THAT DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. FOR MA KING ADDITION U/S 69, AO MUST HAVE POSITIVE EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE HA S INCURRED EXPENDITURE WHICH IS MORE THAN THAT DECLARED IN THE RETURN. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UNJUSTIFI ED. 4. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE CBDT IN INSTRUCTION NO. F. NO. 286/2/2003-IT (INV.) DATED 10-3-2006 HAS ADVISED TH AT WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZU RE AND SURVEY OPERATION, NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO OBTAIN CONF ESSION AS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ANY ACTION ON THE CONTRARY SHAL L BE VIEWED ADVERSELY. THE AO SHOULD RELY ON THE EVIDENCES/MATE RIAL GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY OPERATION. THERE FORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT WITHOUT CORROBORATING THE SAME WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. RELIANCE IS FUR THER PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGONE RUBBER PRODUCE COMPANY LTD. V. STATE OF KERALA AND ANOTHER 91 ITR 18 HELD THAT ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANT BE SAID THAT IT IS C ONCLUSIVE. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHO MADE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THE CORRECT STATE OF AFFAIRS. (II) SURENDRA PAL VERMA VS. ACIT 89 ITD 129 (CHD)(TM): CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT MADE DURING SEARCH ARE OFTEN VENERABLE ON GROUND THAT PERSON GIVING SUCH STATEME NT REMAIN UNDER A GREAT MENTAL STRESS AND STRAIN AND IN THE ABSENCE O F AVAILABILITY OF RELEVANT DETAILS, DOCUMENTS AND BOOKS AT THE TIME O F GIVING STATEMENT, PRECISE INFORMATION AS TO UTILIZATION OF SUCH INCOM E AND YEAR OF INVESTMENT CANNOT BE CORRECTLY FURNISHED. (III) JUGAL KISHORE GARG VS. DCIT 34 TAXWORLD 201 ( JP): ADDITION TO TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE CANNOT BE M ADE SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WITHOUT COLLECTING A ND BRINING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) B Y UPHELD BY DISMISSING THE GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT. 7.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT SMT. PRATIMA SANKHLA, ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 25 WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED PLOT OF LAND AT 1249, RANI SATI NAGAR, JAIPUR IN YEAR 1999. ON THIS PLOT, SHE STARTED CON STRUCTION OF HOUSE IN AUGUST 2006. TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST DECLARED BY HE R UP TO 31-3-2010 IS RS.36,36,114/- WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM HER STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS (PB 63- 71A) . YEAR WISE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HER IS A S UNDER:- F.Y. AMOUNT (RS.) 2006-07 16,61,740.00 2007-08 17,77,375.62 2008-09 1,96,999.38 IN STATEMENT U/S 132(4) DATED 24-7-09, THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 44 (PB 19), WITH REFERENCE TO SEIZED ANNEXURE AB PAGES 1, 2 & 3 (PB 119-121) STATED THAT HE HAS MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS.25 LACS IN THE CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH HE MADE SURRENDER IN AY 2010-11.AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN, ASSESSEE OFFERED RS.2,30,000/- IN AY 2009-10 AND RS.5 LACS IN AY 2010-11 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CONSTR UCTION. IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE E XPENDITURE AS PER PAGES 1, 2 & 3 OF ANNEXURE A-30 REFERRED IN THE STA TEMENT IS ONLY RS.1,10,132/-. AS PER THE REGISTERED VALUER REPORT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS RS.41,90,825/- WHEREAS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DECLARED BY HIS WIFE AND THAT SURRENDERED BY HIM AMOUNTS TO RS.43.66 LAC S (36.36+7.30). THE AO HOWEVER OBSERVED THAT IN SEARCH ASSESSEE MADE SU RRENDER OF RS.25 ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 26 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE IN AY 2010-11 WHEREAS HE HAS OFFERED RS.5 LACS ONLY IN THE RETURN FOR AY 2010-11. HE THEREFORE MADE ADDITION OF RS.20 LACS U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 7.1.3.. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT IN COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATI ON, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FOUND FROM ASSESSEES PREMISE TO SUGGEST COST OF CONSTRUCTION INCURRED TO BE MORE THAN RS. 43.66 LAKHS. FURTHER, AO HAS ALSO NOT CARRIED OUT ANY INVESTIGATION TO DISPROVE ASSESSEES CONTENTION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, ADDITION MADE BY THE SEEMS TO BE UNJUSTIFIABLE. IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF PULLANGONE RUBBER PRODUCE CO LTD (SUPRA), ADDITION MADE OF RS. 20,00,000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN GR NO. 5 STANDS ALLOWED. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ABOVE FACTS, CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSES SEE, IT IS HELD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20.00 LACS MADE BY THE AO WHICH IS CONFIRMED. THUS GROUND NO. 6 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 608/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS SHRI ASHOK KU MAR SANKHLA 27 8.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 -10- 2017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR HKKXPUN (KUL BHARAT) ( BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 23 /10/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE1, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SANKHLA, 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.608/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR