ACIT, Kota V. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI, Kota

ITA 673/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5179 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 30-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R S DANGUR
• Assessee Lawyers: C M BIRLA C A DHK
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 139(5); 68; 69; 148

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 DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. CUKE VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI, 4, NEW CLOTH MARKET, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AFFPS 0776 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT IZR;K{KSI.K @ C.O. NO. 35/JP/2014 (ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 673/JP/2014) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI, 4, NEW CLOTH MARKET, KOTA. CUKE VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA- @ PAN/GIR NO.: AFFPS 0776 M IZR;K{KSID @ OBJECTOR IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.S. DANGUR (ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI C.M. BIRLA (C.A.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/06/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/06/2016. ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 2 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/7/2014 PA SSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHEREIN THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- GROUND OF ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 REVENUES APPEAL ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,29,106/- ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH AT BANK AND CASH IN HAND U/S 68 OF THE ACT; (II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 72,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF UNDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME. GROUND OF ASSESSEES C.O. NO. 35/JP/2014 1. THAT THE LD CIT(A) WHILE ALLOWING GOA 3 OF THE APPELLANT ERRED IN IGNORING APPELLANTS SUBMISSION THAT HE HAS DISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME WHAT HE ACTUALLY RECEIVED WHICH HAS NECESSITATED HIM MORE PAYMENT OF TAX ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME RS. 8,71,000/- WHICH COUL D HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE LESS BY RS. 21,600/- BEING 30% O F RS. 72,000/-. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2005-0 6 ON 31/7/2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,28,940/-. THE ASSESS EE HAS INCOME FROM ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 3 HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES. THE LD ASSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28/4/2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 16,73,352/- IN THE STATUS OF IN DIVIDUAL. THIS RETURN WAS NON EST AND HAD NOT FILED AFTER THE TIME AVAILAB LE U/S 139(4) AND 139(5) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 22/3/20 12. THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BENAMI ACCOUNTS IN SBI, LADPURA BRANCH, KOTA , FOR WHICH NO EXPLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER DOCTRINE OF ESTOPPELS WAS APPLICABLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS HE CANNOT NOW TAKE THE PLEA OF HIS COMING FORWARD TO OFFER HIS INCOME VOLUNTARY FOR TAX. IN FACT HE WAS CONTINUING EVADER OF TAX, WHO HAD NOW FILED RETURN O F INCOME TO REGULARIZE HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREAFTER THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT ALON GWITH QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 29/11/2012. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN REVISED CAPITAL ACCOUNT, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- RENT FROM L-113, KIRTI NAGAR NEW DELHI FLAT RS. 13 2000/- RENT FROM BAL MANDIR SCHOOL ROAD, KOTA HOUSE RS. 6 12000/- BANK INTEREST RS. 164612/- INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES RS. 871000/- TOTAL RS. 1779612/- THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON INCOME DISCLOSED, SHOULD NOT BE TAXED U/S 69 OF THE ACT. TH E ASSESSEE HAD ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 4 ADMITTED THAT HE HAD CONCEALED THE INCOME WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE ADDITION OF RS. 17,79,612/-. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN RENT FROM L-113, KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELH I FLAT AT RS. 1,32,000/- FOR WHICH NO RENT AGREEMENT HAD BEEN PRO DUCED AND RENT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. IN ABSENCE OF ANY WRITTEN RENT AGR EEMENT, THE MERE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT HAS TO BE SOMETHING MORE, ACCORDINGLY, HE PROPOSED RENTAL INCOME AT RS. 17000/- PER MONTH. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO GIVEN THE REPLY AND CLAIMED TH AT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE GOT STANDARD DEDUCTION @ 30%, IF HE WOULD H AVE SHOWN HIGHER RENTAL INCOME, WHICH WAS IN HIS OWN BENEFIT. THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GETTING FIXED RENT FOR PAST MANY YEARS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED SECTION 2 3(1)(A) OF THE ACT FOR ANNUAL VALUE OF ANY PROPERTY, WHICH THE PROPERTY MIG HT REASONABLY BE EXPECTED TO LET FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THAT ONLY RS. 11,000/- THE RENT OF HIS HOUSE IN KIRTI NA GAR, DELHI, WHICH WAS SUDDENLY JUMPED UP AT RS. 21,000/- IN A.Y. 2010-11. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE ESTIMATED THE RENTAL INCOME ON THE BASIS OF RS. 17,000/- PER MONTH FOR THE PROPERTY SI TUATED AT KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI AND DIFFERENCE OF RS. 72,000/- WAS ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 5 ASSESSEE. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER REVISED BALANCE SHEET, CASH AT BANK WAS RS. 50,29,106/- AND CASH IN HAND WAS RS. 21,01,548/-. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE WERE THE BALANCES OF BENAMI ACCOUNT AND CASH IN HAND FROM HIS CASH BOOKS . THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 18/3/2013 AFFIRMING ON OAT H THAT THESE FOUR BENAMI ACCOUNTS BELONGED TO HIM. THE COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHERE BALANCES WERE SHOWN A T RS.50,29,106/-. THIS CASH BALANCE HAD BEEN CROSS VERIFIED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE CASH BOOK PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOTHING BUT UNDISCLOSE D/UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN OR BRI NG ANY EVIDENCE WHICH CAN ESTABLISH THAT THE ABOVE MONEY COULD BE ATTRIBU TABLE TO WHICH PARTICULAR OR SOURCE OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF CASH D EPOSITED IN THE BANK. THE ONLY CONTENTION BEING THESE BALANCES WERE GETTING CARRIED OVER FROM THE CASH BOOK/BANK ACCOUNT BALANCES FOR THE PREVIOU S YEARS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPO SITED IN THE BANK WERE OUT OF HOUSE RENT, BANK INTEREST AND OTHER RELA TED UNDISCLOSED SOURCES NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE LD ASSESSING OF FICER. THERE WAS NO ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 6 SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LD ASSESSING OF FICER OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HE TREATED RS. 50,29,106/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD ALL OWED THE APPEAL BY CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY THAT THE BANK BALA NCE WAS RESULT OF OPENING BALANCE + INCOME DURING THE YEAR WITHDRAWA LS DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE INCOME WAS SEPARA TELY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE OPENING BALANCE CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE CURRENT YEAR, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF CLOSIN G BALANCE OF BANK ACCOUNT CAN BE MADE. FOUR BENAMI ACCOUNTS FIRSTLY D ISCLOSED IN THE F.Y. 2011-12 AND BEFORE THAT THESE WERE NOT KNOWN TO THE D EPARTMENT, THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF THESE YEARS U/S 148 WAS NOT AV AILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THESE ACCOUNTS WERE DISCLOSED IN THE FIR ST TIME IN A.Y. 2005- 06, THE SAME WAS TAXED IN A.Y. 2005-06. AS THE ASSES SEE OWNED THESE ACCOUNTS FOR THE FIRST TIME IN A.Y. 2005-06, THE SA ME WERE TAXABLE IN A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) T HAT OUT OF FOUR BENAMI ACCOUNTS, TWO ACCOUNTS WERE IN THE NAME OF KA KA AND S.P. SAHANI, ONE BEING ASSESSEES NICK NAME AND OTHER WA S ASSESSEES SHORT ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 7 NAME. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT JUDGMENT REPORTED IN (2008) CTR 208, THE SAME CANNO T BE TAXED. ALL FOUR ACCOUNTS BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, THUS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHOULD HAVE PROCEEDED AS IF THESE ACCOUNTS WERE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS. ONCE THESE ACCOUNTS WERE TREATED AS ASSESSEES ACCOUNT, OPENING BALANCE OF THESE ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF A SSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE O F CIT VS PARMESHWAR BOHRA (2007) 208 CTR 218 (RAJ). ACCORDINGLY, HE ALLO WED THE APPEAL. SIMILARLY, HE ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD RENTAL INCOME BY HOLDING THAT IF THE RENTAL INCOME IS INCR EASED THEN UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECREASES BY RS. 72,000/- BEING TELESCOPIC I MPACT THEREBY COULD HAVE SAVED TAX ON RS. 21,600/- BEING A STANDARD DED UCTION @ 30%. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN C.O. BEFORE US. THE REVENUE IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION AND THE ASSESSEE IN C.O. AGAINST THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD CIT(A) ON UND ISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD RENTAL INCOME. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENT LY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER ARGUE D THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON EVIDENCES SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 8 PROCEEDINGS. THE BELATED RETURN WAS NOT VOLUNTARY BUT THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FIRST TIME DISCLOSED IN THE F.Y. 2011- 12 ON 18/4/2011 AND BEFORE THAT THESE WERE NOT KNOWN TO THE DEPARTMENT. A CCORDINGLY, OPENING BALANCE IS ALSO UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE AND LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD GIVEN ANY PARTICULARS OF THE TENANT WHO WAS OCCUPYING THE FLAT AT KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. THEREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHT LY ESTIMATED THE ANNUAL VALUE OF THAT FLAT, WHICH IS ALSO REASONABLE. ACCORD INGLY, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN LOW INCOME BRACKET LESS THAN RS. 2.0 0 LACS THROUGHOUT HIS LIFE. HE SUO MOTO REVISED HIS RETURN FROM A.Y. 2005-06 TO A.Y. 2010- 11 ON `18/4/2011 AND PAID TAX OF RS. 42,50,280/-. TH E ASSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSED REVISED CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND REVISED BALANC E SHEET ALONGWITH THE RETURN AND ALSO FINANCIAL STATEMENT FOR THE A.Y. 20 05-06 AND FOLLOWINGS ADDITIONAL OPENING BALANCES WERE TAKEN AS ON 01/4/20 04:- (I) KIRTI NAGAR NEW DELHI FLAT WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN F.Y. 1997-98 RS. 810000/- (II) BAL MANDIR KOTA HOUSE WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN F.Y. 2001-02 RS. 1584830/- (III) SB A/C IN NAME OF SELF AND WIFE (NICK NAME) (BAL. AS ON 01/4/2004) RS. 2000551/- ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 9 (IV) SB A/C IN NAME OF BROTHER (BAL AS ON 01/4/04) RS. 32700/- (V) SB A/C IN NAME OF SELF (BAL. AS ON 01/4/04) RS . 3317791/- RS. 7745872/- HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RENTAL I NCOME OF RS. 62,000/- PER MONTH AND NO CASH IN HAND HAD BEEN SHOWN IN THE OPENING BALANCE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AT RS. 70,79,612/-. ALL BANK ENTRIES ARE ROUTED THROUGH CASH BOOK, WHICH IS CROSS VERIFIED BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER, IF THERE WAS INSUFFICIENT FUND FOR BANK DEPOSIT, IT IS TAKEN AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. TOTAL OF SUCH INCOME DU RING THE A.Y. 2004- 05 WAS RS. 8,71,000/-. AFTER CLAIMING STANDARD DEDUC TION, ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 15,44,610/- WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VERIFIED ALL ENTRIES OF THE B ANK ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS CASH BOOK, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY HIM. THE CL OSING BALANCE IN ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE RS. 50,29,106/-. HOWEVER, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED THE SAME, WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED B Y THE LD CIT(A) AND ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS FOUND ACCEPTABLE. THE L D CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE HONBLE JUR ISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PARMESHWAR BOHRA (SUPR A). THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE HEAD RENTAL INCOME WAS ALSO DELETED B Y THE LD CIT(A), THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 10 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE AS SESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME AFTER CLAIMING OF STANDARD D EDUCTION HAD BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 15,44,410/- WHEREAS TOTAL INCOME DISCLOS ED IN THE BELATED REVISED RETURN AT RS. 16,73,352/-. THE ASSESSEE CONS IDERED THE RENTAL INCOME FROM THE KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI FLAT, BAL MA NDIR HOUSE, KOTA, INTEREST FROM BANK AND ON ACCOUNT OF INSUFFICIENT F UND AT RS. 8,71,000/-. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT FOUR BENAMI ACCOUNTS WERE UNDISCLOSED AND DISCLOSED FIRST TIME ON 18/4/2011. IT IS ALSO A FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED UNACCOUNTED CASH. IT IS ACCOUNTING PRINCI PLE THAT IN CASE OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS, IN WHICH CASH HAS BEEN D EPOSITED, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CALCULATE THE PEAK BY MERG ING ALL UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO C ALCULATE THE MAXIMUM INCOME GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION ON THE BA SIS OF CLOSING BALANCE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAIL S OF CREDIT AND DEBIT ENTRIES OF ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT CAME WITH CLEAN HANDS AFTER EVADING TAX FROM F.Y. 1997-98 BY ACQUIRING KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI FLAT. THEREAFTER BAL MANDIR HOUSE, KOTA IN A.Y. 2001-02. THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED SHORTAGE ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 11 OF CASH AS INCOME AT RS. 8,71,000/- BUT IT IS NOT C LEAR WHERE THIS AMOUNT HAS GONE, WHICH IS STATUTORY OBLIGATION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE TRUE AND FULL PARTICULARS OF INCOME AN D INVESTMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT DISCLOSED THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE TENANT WHO HAD OCCUPIED THE FLAT SITUATED AT KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI. IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE THAT WI THOUT ANY DEED, HE HAD ALLOWED THE PROPERTY ON RENT. EVEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED FULL PARTICULARS OF INCOME FROM WHERE HE EARNED THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME. THIS QUESTION WAS ASKED BY THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF HEARI NG BUT NO POSITIVE REPLY WAS GIVEN BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, IN ABSENCE OF FULL DETAILS, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DECID E THE ASSESSEES CASE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. FURTHER THE LD CIT(A) ALSO HAD NOT PASSED REASONED ORDER, SO THAT WE CAN CONCLUDE THAT HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDIN GLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENCES OF OWNERSHIP OF THE PROPERTIES ACQUIRED IN F.Y. 1997-98 , 2001-02 AND ALSO DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SO THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER CAN ASSESS THE CORRECT INCOME ON THE BASIS OF PEAK THEO RY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENU ES APPEAL IS SET ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014 ACIT VS. SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI 12 ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE APPEAL IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT WHEN CIT(A) H AS DELETED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF RENTAL ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, C .O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND ASSESSEES C.O. IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23/06/2016. SD/- SD/- DQYHKKJR VH-VKJ-EHUK (KUL BHARAT) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 23 RD JUNE, 2016 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT CIRCLE-2, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI SURENDRA PAL SINGH SAHNI, KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 673/JP/2014 & CO 35/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR