NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 785/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5671 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA JHA DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 785/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA 90-A, SULTAN NAGAR, GUJAR KI THADI JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD 3(3), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: BGCPK 6211 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MUKESH KHANDELWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SHRI RAJENDRA JHA, ADDL.CIT-DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 30/12/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9 /01/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I , JAIPUR DATED 27-06-2016 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08 RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED SERIOUSLY ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVITS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE APP ELLANT HAD TAKEN LOANS FOR MAKING PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. ITA NO.785/JP/2016 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 3(3) JAIPU R 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FATS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,02,550/- U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 22,155/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE, TH E FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 3.1.2 DETERMINATION (I) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PLOT IN SANGA NER, JAIPUR FOR A SUM OF RS. 3,02,550/- ON 21-07-2006. A S PER COPY OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL DATED 21-07-2006, THE SELLER SHRI RAJESH SAINI RECEIVED THE ENTIRE SA LE CONSIDERATION IN CASH AND THE ORIGINAL PAPERS AND POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED OVER TO THE APPELLANT ON THE SAID DATE ITSELF. DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE ABOVE RESIDENTIAL P LOT AND IT WAS STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED A LOAN OF RS. 3,75,000/- FROM UTI BANK. HOWEVER, THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT REVEALED THAT THE SAID LOAN WAS SANCTIONED AND DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT ON 20-11-2006 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, TH E APPELLANT MADE CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 3,10,000/- ON 22-11-2006. (II) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCREPANCIES, THE AO REQUIRED THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE SAME AND I T WAS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT WAS HAVING VERY GOOD RELATIONS WITH THE SELLER, SHRI RAJESH SAINI A ND THE CONSIDERATION WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED WHEREAS ACTUALLY THE AMOUNT WAS PAID ONLY AFTER OBTAINING LOAN FROM THE BANK. THE AO REQUIRED THE ITA NO.785/JP/2016 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 3(3) JAIPU R 3 APPELLANT TO PRODUCE SHRI RAJESH SAINI FOR HIS EXAMINATION AND TO PROVIDE HIS CONTACT NUMBER BUT T HE APPELLANT HAS EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY BY STATING TH AT HE HAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT SHRI RAJESH SAINI AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,02,550/ - U/S 69 OF THE ACT. (III) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 3,02,50/- WITHOUT GOING INTO THE DETAIL OF T HE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN PLOT AS THE APPELLANT HAS PROVIDED AFFIDAVITS OF THE PERSONS FOR WHOM LOANS WERE TAKEN FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPIES OF NUMBER OF AFFIDAVITS WHICH WERE STATED TO BE FILED BEFORE THE AO. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE A O ON 13-11-2014 WHEREAS THE LETTER ENCLOSING THE UNDATED AFFIDAVITS ADDRESSED TO THE AO WAS OF THE D ATE 18-11-2014 I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF ASSESSMEN T ORDER. THUS, THESE CONSTITUTE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS THESE WERE NOT BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIE OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS NEITHER STATED ANYWHERE IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THESE ARE T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOR MADE ANY PRAYER FOR THEIR ADMITTANCE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS CHANGED ITS STAND AS IT WAS STATED EARLIER BEFORE THE AO THAT T HE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID TO SHRI RAJESH SAINI AFTER OBTAINING A LOAN FROM THE BANK WHEREAS A NEW STORY HAS NOW BEEN CONCOCTED BY STATING THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID TO SHRI RAJESH SAINI AFTER OBTAINING CASH LOANS FROM 15 PERSONS AND EACH LOAN IS LESS THAN RS. 20,000/-. THEREFORE, LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE GIVEN AN Y COGNIZANCE AS THESE ARE NOT ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. FURTHER LOOKING TO THE CONTRADIC TIONS REGARDING SOURCE OF PAYMENT TO SHRI RAJESH SAINI AN D ALSO LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT SHRI RAJESH SAINI WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO, IT IS HELD ITA NO.785/JP/2016 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 3(3) JAIPU R 4 THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED MISERABLY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 3,02,550/- FOR ACQUISITION OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT AND THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,02, 550/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 2.2 APROPOS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 3.2.2.DETERMINATION (I) THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS. 22,155/- IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE H EAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAD SHOWN ONLY 50% OF SUCH INCOME IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 22,155/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES FOR THE REMAINING 50% OF SUCH INCOME WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. (II) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAD ALREADY DECL ARED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS. 22,155/- IN ITS RE TURN OF INCOME AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,15/- DESERVES T O BE DELETED. (III) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT IS OBSERV ED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THE FINDING S OF THE AO AS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ONLY 50% OF THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WAS DECLARE D IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,155/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 2.3 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS. THE LD. AR FURTHER ITA NO.785/JP/2016 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 3(3) JAIPU R 5 PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE FRESH EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) RELATING TO CONFIRMATION OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE FROM 15 PERSONS FOR PAYMENT TO SELLER BUT THEY WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONS IDERATION LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE IS EMPLOYED AT CLERICAL POST IN GOVT. OF R AJSTHAN AT SMS HOSPITAL, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX LAWS AND THUS COULD NOT PROPERLY EXPLAIN THE SO URCE OF INCOME RELATING TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,155/- MADE BY THE AO. CO NCLUSIVELY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ISSUES RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION. THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SION ARE AS UNDER- GROUND NO. 1 : NON ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCES : THE LD. CIT (A) DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE FRESH EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLAN T BEFORE HIM CONSISTING OF CONFIRMATIONS OF 15 KNOWN PERSONS WHO ADVANCED LOAN TO THE APPELLANT FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO THE SELLER OF THE LAND ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT NO APPLICATION/PR AYER WAS FILED FOR SUCH ADMISSION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE LD. AO WORKI NG IN A JUDICIOUS OFFICE WAS SUPPOSED TO ADMIT THESE EVIDENCES AS THE SAME WERE VERY IMPO RTANT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL AND FOR GRANTING JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT. IT WAS ONLY DUE TO IGNORANCE OF THE APPELLANT AND INCOMPETENCE OF THE COUNSEL THAT NO PRAYER WAS SUBM ITTED FOR SUCH ADMISSION FOR WHICH AN HONEST TAX PAYER MUST NOT BE PENALIZED. IT IS ALSO NOT OUT OF PLACE TO STATE THAT THE APPELLANT IS ON A CLERICAL POST EMPLOYED WITH GOVT. OF RAJASTHAN AND IS NOT AWARE ABOUT STRICT PROVISIONS OF LAW. HE HAD PURCHASED THE LAND DURING PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07 AND HE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE SOURCES DURING 2014-15 I.E. AFTER 8 YEARS HE COULD NOT RECOLLECT THE REAL SCENE AND HE REPLIED THAT THE SAME WAS PAID OUT OF FINANCE TAKEN. WHEN H IS ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE VARIATION BETWEEN THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AND THE DATE OF DISBU RSAL OF THE LOAN HE RECOLLECTED AND CAME OUT WITH AN EXPLANATION THAT THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID ON 22.11.2006 AND NOT ON 21.07.2006. WHEN HE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SELLER HE CAME ON THE REAL FACT OF AVAILING LOANS FROM KNOWN PERSONS AND HE GOT CONFIRMATION FROM 15 PERSONS AN D FILED THE SAME TO THE LD. AO BUT SINCE THE ORDER HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED NO CONSIDERATION COULD BE GIVEN BY THE LD. AO ON SUCH CONFIRMATIONS AND SINCE NOTHING CAME ON RECORDS NO WHISPERING OF SUCH FACT OF SUBMISSION OF CONFIRMATION WAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE SAID CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHICH WERE NOT ADM ITTED BY HIM AS PER HIS VERSION. IT IS ITA NO.785/JP/2016 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 3(3) JAIPU R 6 THEREFORE SINCERELY REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY K INDLY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO OR THE LD. CIT (A) FOR PASSING A FRESH ORDER BY CONSID ERING SUCH VITAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE. GROUND NO. 2 : ADDITION OF RS. 3,02,550 : WITHOUT P REJUDICE TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR GROUND NO. 1 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO CO NSIDERED THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF SUCH INVESTMENT AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. H E HAS NOT ALLOWED ANY CREDIT FOR ACCUMULATED AMOUNT WITH THE APPELLANT. EVEN FROM TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE WHETHER ANY SUCH CLAIM WAS MADE BY THE COUNSEL OF T HE APPELLANT OR NOT. THEREFORE THE MATTER MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO O R LD. CIT (A) FOR CONSIDERING THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT OF THE MATTER, SO THAT JUSTICE MAY BE GRANTE D TO AN INNOCENT ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 3 : ADDITION OF RS. 22,155 : IT SEEMS T HAT THE COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SATISFACTORY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH INCOME TO THE LD. AO AND THE LD. CIT (A) AND DUE TO IMPROPER REPRESENTATION AN OPINI ON WAS FORMED THAT ONLY 50% OF THE INCOME WAS DECLARED AND HENCE ADDITION OF MATCHING AMOUNT OF RS. 22,155 WAS MADE BY THE LD. AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A). IT IS T HEREFORE HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THIS ISSUE MAY ALSO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR REEXAMINATION. I HAD ASKED THE APPELLANT ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR MATTER FROM THE APPELLANT AND THE APPELLANT WAS ABSOLUTELY BLANK ABOUT THE MATTER AND HENCE IT SEEMS THAT DUE TO LACK OF C OMPETENCE OF THE COUNSEL THE HONEST APPELLANT IS SUFFERING. APPROPRIATE DIRECTIONS MAY KINDLY BE GIVEN. 2.4 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 2.5 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED FROM THE RECORDS T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE DRAWING SALARY FROM SMS HOSPITA L (GOVT. OF RAJSTHAN) . DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY CONSISTING OF A RESIDENTIAL PLOT IN SANGAN ER, JAIPUR FOR RS. 3,02,505/- IN CASH. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S SELECTED FOR REASSESSMENT AS TO THE INVESTMENT OF THE AMOUNT IN PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT HE HAD OBTAINED A LOAN OF RS. 3.75 LACS FROM UTI BANK AND PRODUCED A COPY OF SANCTION LETTER FRO M THE BANK. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH SBBJ, SMS HOSPITAL BRANCH, JAIPUR ON 2 0-11-206 AND CASH ITA NO.785/JP/2016 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 3(3) JAIPU R 7 WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 3.10 LACS WAS THEREAFTER MADE ON 22-11-2006, OUT OF WHICH THE CONSIDERATION WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAI D. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SALE AGREEMENT OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY THAT THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,02,550/- HAD BEEN OBTAINED IN CASH ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E. 21-07-206 AND NO FURT HER AMOUNT WAS DUE AND THE ORIGINAL PAPER TOGETHER WITH THE ACTUAL POS SESSION HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WHEN CONFRONTE D THE ASSESSEE WITH THIS CONTRADICTORY FACT OF PAYMENTS, THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT HE HAD VERY GOOD RELATIONS WITH SHRI RAJESH SAINI (THE SEL LER) AND THUS ONLY THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE AND THE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID O NLY AFTER RECEIPT OF LOAN AMOUNT FROM THE BANK. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSE E TO PRODUCE SHRI RAJESH SAINI FOR EXAMINATION OF THE ISSUE IN QUESTI ON BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SHRI RAJESH SAINI BEFORE THE AO A S TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY. THE AO THUS TR EATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,02,550/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE IMP UGNED PROPERTY AND ADDED THE SAME TO HIS TOTAL INCOME U/S 69 OF THE A CT. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN MISCELLANEOUS INCOME OF RS. 22,155/- IN HIS RETURN. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE A BOUT SOURCE OF THIS INCOME FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT THIS INC OME PERTAINED FROM SERVICING AND MINOR CARRIED OUT BY HIS WIFES CONCE RN FOR WHICH HE HAS NO ITA NO.785/JP/2016 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 3(3) JAIPU R 8 RECORD. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMI TTED THAT ONLY HALF OF SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN SHOWN. ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSE E'S OWN ADMISSION, THE REMAINING HALF I.E. 22,155/- NOT DISCLOSED BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS ADDED BY THE AO IN HIS TOTAL INCOME. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION PRAYING THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GIVEN ONE CHANCE TO CONTEST HIS CASE PROPERLY AS TH E ASSESSEE IS A GOVT. SERVANT AND HE IS EMPLOYED SMS HOSPITAL, JAIPUR. T HE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE FRESH EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE IS SUE OF INVESTMENT OF AMOUNT IN THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION AND THE DETAILS OF THE LOAN TAKEN FROM 15 PERSONS BUT THE SAME WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). FURTHER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROPERLY REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,155/- MADE BY THE AO. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE TO RESTORE THE ISSU E IN QUESTION TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE IT DE NOVO BY PROVIDING ADEQUATE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTE D TO PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS/ DETAILS BEFORE THE AO AND COOPE RATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.785/JP/2016 SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA VS. ITO, WARD- 3(3) JAIPU R 9 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09 /01 /2017. SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 09 /01/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI NAWAL KISHORE SHARMA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, 3(3), 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. 785/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR