SMT. VIMLA SHARMA, Jaipur V. ACIT, Alwar

ITA 872/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 87223114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 07-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: TARUN MITTAL

Judgement Text

1 ITA 872-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH SMC JAIPUR. ( BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) ITA NO. 872/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03. SMT. VIMLA SHARMA, VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE , 2649, SHYAM BHAWAN, KHEJANE WALO JAIPUR. KA RASTA, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TARUN MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2011. ORDER DATED : 22/11/2011. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/-. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AN AGREEMENT TO SAL E DATED 8.11.2001 FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT NO. 2, SARASWATI VIHAR, SIRSI ROAD, JAIPUR FOR RS. 25,000/- BY SMT. VIMLA SHARMA FROM HER MARRIED DAUGHTER WAS SEIZED AS PER ANNEXUR E A-6 ALONG WITH DOCUMENTS DATED 20.12.2001 IN WHICH SMT. VIMLA SHARMA HAS SOUGHT CE RTAIN PERMISSION FROM JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, JAIPUR. IT WAS EXPLAINED TH AT SALE AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE PARTY. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WAS NOTAR IZED BY THE NOTARY PUBLIC AND THE 2 OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE PRINTED DECLARATION FORMS OF JDA WERE SIGNED BY ASSESSEE ON 20.12.2001 FOR SEEKING PERMISSION OF CONVERSION. I T AMPLY PROVED THAT THE PLOT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE MADE AN AD DITION OF RS. 25,000/- PAID ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF PLOT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I FIND THAT THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. THE AO MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SALE AGREEMENT WHICH WAS NOT SIGNED BUT WAS NOTARIZED. IT IS SURPRISING THAT WITHOUT SIGNATURE OF THE PARTY HOW IT GOT NOTARIZED. CERTAIN OTHER D OCUMENTS WERE ALSO FOUND WHICH WERE ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN PERMISSION FROM JDA TO TRANSF ER THE PLOT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT NOTHING H AS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD EITHER BY AO OR BY ASSESSEE THAT IN FACT THIS PLOT WAS TRANSF ERRED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH, THE ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN. NEITHER THE SELLER WHO IS DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ANY INFORMATION THAT NO PLOT HAS BEEN SOLD BY SMT. KALAWATI DEVI, THE DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE FORE, IN MY VIEW, THIS MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME AFRES H. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SELLER I.E. SMT. KALAWATI DEV I WHETHER ANY PLOT HAS BEEN SOLD BY HER OR NOT AS NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON R ECORD. IF IT IS FOUND THAT NO PLOT WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN OF COURSE NO ADDITI ON IS TO BE MADE. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MENTION HERE THAT EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SHOULD BE CORROBORATED WITH OTHER EVIDENCES SUCH AS REGISTRATION OF PLOT I N THE NAME OF ASSESSEE OR CONFIRMATION FROM THE SELLER THAT IN FACT SHE HAS SOLD THE PLOT TO ASSESSEE. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, I 3 RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO WHO WILL PASS A FRESH ORDER IN VIEW OF MY ABOVE OBSERVATION. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22. 11.2011. SD/- ( R.K. GUPTA ) ` JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/ COPY FORWARDED TO :- SMT. VIMLA SHARMA, JAIPUR. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 872/JP/2011) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.