ITO, Kota V. SMT. SHANKUNTALA SHARMA, Kota

ITA 823/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 82323114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH CHANDRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) I.T.A. NO. 823/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR- 2005-06 PAN NO. ANPPS1202G THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SMT. SHAKUNTALA SHARMA WARD 1-(2), KOTA. VRS. PROP. M/S CHANCHAL ZEROX STD PCO, 2/28, GANESH TALAB, BASANT VIHAR, KOTA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 79/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR- 2005-06 SMT. SHAKUNTALA SHARMA THE INCOME TAX OFFICE R, PROP. M/S CHANCHAL ZEROX VRS. WARD 1-(2), KOTA. STD PCO, 2/28, GANESH TALAB, BASANT VIHAR, KOTA. (OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA. ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI SIDDHARTH RANKA DATE OF HEARING : 10/06/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/06/2014 PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESS EE ARISE FROM THE ORDER DATED 29/07/2011 OF LD. CIT (A), KOTA, BY RAI SING FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- GROUNDS IN REVENUE APPEAL. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (I) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 11,12,900/- O UT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 15,24,590/-. 2 (A) ADDITION OF RS. 11,09,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED INTO THE B ANK ACCOUNT; (B) ADDITION OF RS. 1,86,590/- MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHOP; (C) ADDITION OF RS. 2,29,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVEST IN FDRS. (II) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITIO N GROUND AND TO MODIFY/AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. GROUNDS IN CROSS OBJECTION 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERR ED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,11,960/- (RUPEES FO UR LACS ELEVEN THOUSANDS SIX HUNDRED NINETY ONLY) WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED, BAD IN LAW, WITHOUT EVIDENCE, WITHOUT MAT ERIAL, CONTRARY TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 1.1 THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 4 6A BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED 11 AFFIDAVITS FROM DEB TORS FOR CONSIDERATION AS SHE WAS PREVENTED BY GOOD, SUFF ICIENT, REASONABLE AND PLAUSIBLE REASONS IN NOT PLACING THE SAME ON RECORD BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 1.2 THAT THE IMPUGNED AFFIDAVITS COULD NOT BE SUBMI TTED SINCE THE APPELLANT BEING NOT AWARE OF THE TECHNICALITIES AND NICETIES OF LAW, SHE BEING LESS LITERATE LADY, NON-A CCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE M ATTER IS UNJUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHO OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SAME, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) IS UNJUSTIFIED IN COMING TO HIS OWN CONCLUSION IN NO T ACCEPTING THE SAME. 1.3 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE PAST HISTORY PLA CED ON RECORD, IN NOT APPRECIATING THE PAST SAVINGS, ACCUM ULATIONS, COLLECTIONS, EARNINGS OVER THE YEARS, SOME FUNDS H AVING BEEN PROVIDED BY HER HUSBAND AND SOME FROM HINDU 3 UNDIVIDED FAMILY OF THE APPELLANT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED I N SUSTAINING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 4,11,690/-. 1.4 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT PROPERLY WORKING OUT PEAK CREDI TS, IN COMING TO HIS OWN CONCLUSION WHEN COMPLETE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE WAS LED BEFORE HIM. THE PEAK WORKED OUT IS IMPROPER AND ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE , CASH FLOW CHART THERE WAS NO SHORTFALL AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUSTAINING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,11,690/-. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) IS RIGHT IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F:- (A) RS. 11,09,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED INTO THE B ANK ACCOUNT. (B) RS. 1,86,590/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE SHOP. (C) RS. 2,29,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN FDRS. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITI ONAL GROUND, CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND MODIFY ANY OF THE GR OUNDS IN THE CROSS APPEAL/OBJECTIONS ON OR BEFORE THE DATE O F HEARING. 2. ALL GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUNDS OF C .O.ARE INTERCONNECTED, THEREFORE, WE ARE GIVING COMMON FINDING. THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A PCO AND ALSO HAVING OTHER INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE WAS AIR INFORMATION WITH ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, N OTICE U/S 143(2)OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE AC T) WAS ISSUED AND THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 13,14,000/- IN THE BANK A CCOUNT NO. 1951 MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF RAJASTHAN LTD., AKLANK PUBLI C SCHOOL, KOTA BRANCH. 4 THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS IN JOINT NAME WITH ASSESSEES HU SBAND SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U /S 131 OF THE ACT AND STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 11/12/2007 IN PRESENCE OF ASSESSEES HUSBAND NAMELY SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA AND ADVOCATE SHRI M.M. SHARMA. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON 27/3/2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,05,000/-, WHICH INCLUDES HOUSE PROPERTY INCOM E OF RS. 42,000/- AND INCOME FROM BANK INTEREST OF RS. 9,200/-. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE VIDE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 20/8/2007. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED REPLY V IDE LETTER DATED 28/9/2007 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER CONSI DERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, IT WAS HELD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT HAVE ANY CASH AVAILABLE WITH HER ON PARTICULARS DATES AS MENTIONED ON PAGE NOS. 5 AND 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,09,000/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 3. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHA SED A SHOP NO. 5 AT KESHAVPURA, BASANT VIHAR SCHEME, KOTA FROM SHRI RAJ ENDRA KUMAR SONI AND SHRI GOPAL LAL SONI IN PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE MADE THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 50,000/- AS A N ADVANCE AND BALANCE OF RS. 1,21,000/- ON 21/3/2005 AT THE TIME OF REGIS TRY. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT WITHDRAWN ANY AMOUNT FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON 21/3/20 05 OR EARLIER. HOWEVER, SHE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 87,500/- ON 17/3/2005 AND 87,500/- ON 18/3/2005. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FI ND RS. 1,86,590/- 5 EXPLAINED INVESTMENT FROM THE KNOWN SOURCE OF THE AS SESSEE. THUS, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,86,590/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED TWO FDRS OF RS. 40,000/- EACH ON 24/3/2004 AND 28/3/2004 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED INTEREST IN COME OF RS. 9,280/- ONLY. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF FFD ACCOUNT NO. 33 OF TH E ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE OPENING BALANCE OF FFD ACCOUNT WAS NIL ON 0 7/5/2004 AND CLOSING BALANCE OF RS. 2,29,000/- ON 31/3/2005. THESE AMOUNT S HAD ALSO BEEN INVESTED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05. THE INVESTME NT IN FDRS WERE ALSO NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS, HE MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,29,000/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). AFTER CONS IDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER:- I) ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY CASH BALANCE OUT OF H ER DISCLOSED INCOME AS ON 01/4/2004 IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING:- (A) ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED COPIES OF RETURN FOR LAST SIX YEARS DESPITE BEING ASKED. (B) IN THE YEAR 1999-2000, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN I NCOME OF RS. 9,800/-. IT CAN BE REASONABLY PRESUMED THAT BEF ORE 1999-00 WHATEVER INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSUMED BY HER. (C) EVEN IF, ASSESSEES VERSION IS BELIEVED THE OPE NING CAPITAL COMES TO RS. 2,54,231/- AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 4.62 P OINT NO. 18(II) AS AGAINST THIS THE INVESTMENT BY ASSESSEE WA S RS. 3,11,167/-. II) THE ASSESSEE NEVER INTENDED TO DISCLOSE- 6 (A) BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1951 BANK OF RAJASTHAN, BRANCH AKLANK PUBLIC SCHOOL, BASANT VIHAR, KOTA. (B) FFD ACCOUNT NO. 33 BANK OF RAJASTHAN, BRANCH AK LANK PUBLIC SCHOOL, KOTA. III) THE TRANSACTIONS IN THESE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT TAK EN INTO ACCOUNT TO COMPUTE THE INCOME DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT. IV) IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL CONTRARY TO THE FAC T BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ASSESSING OFFICER, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN BY ASSESSEE WAS AVAILABLE WITH HER FOR REVENUE-DEPOSITING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT/INVESTMENT. V) TO COMPUTE THE CORRECT INCOME OF ASSESSEE IN SUC H CIRCUMSTANCES PEAK METHOD HAS TO BE USED, PEAK HAS TO BE COMPUT ED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT CURRENT INCOME, CURRENT EXPENDITURE, INVESTMENT, RE CEIPT ON MATURITY OF FD ETC. VI) FOR COMPUTING PEAK THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 1,2 0,000/- FOR PURCHASING SHOP AND REGISTRY EXPENSES OF RS. 16,590 /- WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. RS. 50,000/- PAID BY CHEQUE WAS COVERED BY THE PEAK AS SAME WAS PAID FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDE RED THE DEPOSITS IN THIS ACCOUNT FOR WORKING OUT PEAK. VII) NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS CONSIDERED NECESSARY FOR INVESTMENT IN FDR AS THE SAME WAS COVERED BY THE PEAK (THE FDR BE ING MADE FROM THE ACCOUNT UNDER CONSIDERATION). VIII) BENEFIT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM ASSESSEES O THER ACCOUNT NO. 101103 WAS ALLOWED CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THIS MON EY WAS AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSEE FOR DEPOSITING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 195 1. IX) IT IS HELD THAT NO MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESS EE FROM ANY DEBTORS. THIS IS SO HELD BECAUSE:- (A) I HAVE ALREADY REJECTED THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. (B) THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS GIVEN SOM E MONEY ON LOAN CAN BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE OR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IF WE PRESUME THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN IN EARLIER YEARS AND RECEIVED BACK IN THIS YEAR THE IT GOES IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IF WE PRESUME THAT ASSES SEE HAS GIVEN LOAN DURING THE YEAR THEN THE TOTAL UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT/MONEY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE INCREASES , WHICH GOES AGAINST ASSESSEE. 7 (C) NO MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY ASSESSING O FFICER OR FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT. (D) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THIS ASPECT HAS NO EFFECT ON THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. (E) ASSESSEE NOW BEFORE ME OFFERED INTEREST INCOME F ROM DEBTORS, THE SAME IS CONSIDERED AS AN AFTER THOUGHT . X) IT IS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY M ONEY FROM HER HUSBAND OR HIS HUF FOR THE REASONS GIVEN AS UNDER:- (A) DESPITE SPECIFICALLY BEING ASKED BY ASSESSING O FFICER AND BY ME, COMPLETE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SH ARMA WAS NOT FURNISHED. (B) ON BEING ASKED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI JAGDI SH PRASAD SHARMA WAS NOT FILING INCOME TAX RETURN, HAVING NO T AXABLE INCOME. (C) ON PERUSAL OF THE PARTIAL BANK ACCOUNT FILED, I T WAS SEEN THAT SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA WAS RECEIVING SALARY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,785/- (FOR NOVEMBER, 2004) AND WAS WITHDRAWING ALMOST RS. 5,000/- PER MONTH. THE SAME WAS TREATED AS WITHDRAWN FOR HOUSE HOLD EXPENDITURE, RES T OF THE MONEY WAS LYING IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT AS ON 14/05/2005, THE BALANCE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS. 1,07,408/-. SO IT CAN BE REASONABLY PRESUMED THAT HE HAS NO SURPLUS MONEY TO GIVE TO TH E ASSESSEE. (D) THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT SHE HAS RECEIVED MONEY FROM SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SHARMA HUF IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE AS NO DETAILS WITH RESPECT TO OWNERSHIP OF AGRICULTURAL LAN D, ITS LOCATION, PERIOD OF CULTIVATION, KHASRA NUMBER OF L AND, AREA OF LAND, RENT, DETAILS OF CROP, QUANTITY, MARKET WHE RE SOLD, SALE BILL, TO WHOM SOLD ETC. WAS PRODUCED DESPITE BEI NG SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBJ ECTING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, VIDE LETTER D ATED 17/03/2009 ( A COPY OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEES A/R VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 09/10/2009). 8 THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD ALSO DRAWN PEAK OF THE CASH A VAILABLE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON PAGE NOS. 20 AND 21 WHEREIN THE MAXIMUM P EAK AMOUNT WAS RS. 4,53,519/- ON 21/3/2005. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO ANA LYSED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ON PAGE NO. 15 OF HIS ORD ER AND FINALLY, CASH AVAILABLE WAS CALCULATED AT RS. 41,900/-. AFTER ALLO WING BENEFIT OF RS. 41,900/-, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 ,11,690/-. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 196 2 (IN SHORT THE RULES), ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN SUFFICIENT TIME TO HIM, NOT SUBMITTED THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT, DETAILS WERE ASKED TO FILE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO SPECIFIC REQUEST UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES. THUS, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS NOT ENTERTAINED BY HIM. HE ALSO RELIED UPON IN CASE OF 119 ITR 867 ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE. 7. NOW THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE BEFORE US. THE L EARNED CIT D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND EVEN SUFFICIENT TIME HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER RELIED I N CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC). FOR CROSS OBJECTION, THE LEARNE D CIT D.R ALSO ARGUED THAT THE CASE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO ENQUIRE AND DECIDE 9 THE CASE ON MERIT AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS EVI DENCES SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 8. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. ARGUED THAT THE STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE ACT WAS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A QUESTION TO ANSWER NO. 1 THAT SHE HAS INCOME FROM ZEROX, FAX, STD PCO, LAMINATION, COMPUTER ETC. BESIDE THIS, SHE HAD RENTAL INCOME APPROXIMATELY RS. 5,000/- PER MONTH AND AGRICULTURA L INCOME RANGING RS. 15,000/- TO 20,000/- ANNUALLY. SHE HAD EXPLAINED TH E SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS PARTLY PAST SAVINGS AS WELL A S CURRENT INCOME FROM EITHER DEBTORS OR OTHER SOURCES. THE LEARNED A.R. D RAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE NO. 16 AND ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD 11 DEB TORS FROM WHERE SHE RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME IN PRECEDING YEARS. THE ASS ESSEE FILED THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE VARIOUS PERSONS FROM PAGE NOS. 18 TO 28 AND CLAIMED THAT SHE HAD ADVANCED MONEY TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS HER HUSBAND ALSO FILED AFFIDAVITS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND EX PLAINED THE SOURCE OF INCOME BUT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT ENTERTAINING THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES ON VARIOUS REASONS. BUT T HESE EVIDENCES ARE CRUCIAL TO DECIDE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED TO PRODUCE THESE EVIDENCES AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS SHORT TIME AVAILABLE WITH ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL PERSON TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY 31/12/2007 HAVING VERY LOW INCOME AND RESIDING IN SMALL TOWN NAMELY KOTA. SHE IS LESS EDUCATED. THE LEARNED A.R. FURTHE R DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON 10 REMAND REPORT DATED 04/02/2009 SUBMITTED BY THE LEA RNED ITO, KOTA TO LEARNED CIT(A), KOTA FOR ADDITION OF RS. 2,29,000/- WHEREIN HE CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 2,29,000/- IS DOUBLE TAXATION. THUS, HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO R ECONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE PRODU CED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND TRIED TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AS WELL AS OTHER BANK TRANSACTIONS MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION UP TO PEAK AT RS. 4,11,690/-. HOWEVER, THE PEAK CALCULATED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD NOT CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COUR SE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE FILED 11 AFFIDAVITS OF DEBTORS UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES AND ALSO EXPLAINED THE SOURCE FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED SUFFICIENT TIME TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH F.D. AND INVESTMENT. AGRICULTURA L INCOME CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER D ATED 28/09/2007, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTED THE ASSESSEES INCOME AFTER PROVIDING RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND CONSIDERING ALL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE CASE IS SET ASIDE DE-NOVO. 11 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSES SEES CROSS OBJECTION ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/06/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 13 TH JUNE, 2014 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ITO, WARD 1-(2), KOTA 2. SMT. SHAKUNTALA SHARMA, KOTA 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 823/JP/2011 & .C.O. NO. 79/JP /2011) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.