SMT. NILAM JAIN, ALWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-1, ALWAR

ITA 903/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3736 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rejection of books of accounts; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 903/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SMT. NILAM JAIN PROP. M/S GUPTA FLOUR & OIL INDUSTRIES, H-13, NEW ANAJ MANDI, ALWAR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-2(1), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AEPPJ 3691 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. ANURADHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :05/03/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 18.05.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2014-15 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, 1961 AND THEREBY CONFIRMING THE TRADING AD DITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1.50 LACS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,80,000/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, 19 61 BY TREATING THE LOAN OF RS. 95,000/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. MANISHA JAIN AND ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 2 LOAN OF RS. 4,85,000/- RECEIVED FROM SMT. NAGEENA J AIN AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN GROUND NO. 1 BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S GUPTA FLOUR AND OIL INDUSTRI ES IN NEW ANAJ MANDI, ALWAR AND DERIVES INCOME FROM TRADING ACTIVITIES IN AGRICULTURAL COMMODITIES LIKE FOOD GRAINS, OIL SEEDS AND PULSES BESIDES DEALING IN KACHI ADHAT AND EARNING COMMISSION ON SALE. SHE FIL ED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.11.2014 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4,91,10 0/-. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT THE VARIO US COMMODITIES LIKE BAJRA, ARHAR, CHANA, GAWA, BARLEY, SARSO, TILL I, WHEAT, ETC. HAVE DIFFERENT QUALITY AND VALUE BUT THE STOCK REGISTER IS MAINTAINED ONLY QUANTITY WISE AND NOT QUALITY WISE. HE FURTHER NOTE D THAT EVEN THE STOCK CHART FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT CONTAIN THE QU ALITY WISE DETAILS. IN THE AUDIT REPORT, THE AUDITORS HAVE MENTIONED THAT VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK IS ON COST BASIS. MOREOVER, SOME PURCHASES AR E MADE IN CASH. ACCORDINGLY, AO ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT THE QUALITY OF THE COMMODITY CHANGES WITH THE WEATHER, DRYNESS OF MOISTURE CONTENTS, INSECTS IN THE GOODS, ETC. SO MA INTENANCE OF QUALITY WISE STOCK REGISTER IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IN SUCH A WAY THAT GENUINE PROFIT CAN BE EASILY DEDUCED. SHE ALSO EXPLAINED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF KACHI ADAT . THE AO HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND S TATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED QUALITY WISE STOCK REGI STER. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE MARKET RATES ALSO EFFECT THE RATES BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE COMMODITIES PURCHASED WERE OF SIMILAR QUAL ITY FOR WHICH HE ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 3 REFERRED TO DIFFERENT PURCHASE RATES ON DIFFERENT D ATES FOR COMMODITIES SUCH AS BAJRA, CHANA, ETC. THUS, HE HELD THAT THE V ALUE OF CLOSING STOCK SHOULD BE COMPUTED AS PER VARIETY AND QUALITY OF TH E RESPECTIVE COMMODITIES. HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE VALUATION OF STOCK IS NOT CORRECT BY RELYING ON THE TRANSACTION OF BARDANA WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS.7.72 PER BAG WHEREAS IT WAS PURCHASED FOR RS.15.20 PER BAG A ND THE OPENING STOCK WAS TAKEN AT RS.12 PER BAG. ACCORDINGLY, HE H ELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) ARE APPLICABLE AND REL IED ON THE DECISION OF BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LIMITED (SC) 188 ITR 44 AND MA DE LUMP SUM TRADING ADDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) STATED THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT HOWEVER, THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS ON LUMP SUM BAS IS IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. HE HELD THAT AS SOME OF CASH PURCHASES ARE NOT SUPP ORTED BY EVIDENCE AND THE VALUATION OF BARDANA IS NOT CORRECT, AN ADD ITION OF RS.1,50,000/- IS REASONABLE TO COVER THE DISCREPANCIES. AGAINST T HE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSEE IS A REGISTERED DEALER OF KRISHI UPAJ MANDI, ALWAR AND TRADES IN COMMODITIES LIKE FOOD GRAINS, OIL SEEDS, PULSES, ET C. BESIDES DEALING IN KACHI ADHAT AND EARNING COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HA S MAINTAINED DAY TO DAY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INCLUDING THE STOCK RECORD S. THESE ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEALT I N ELEVEN ITEMS I.E., ARHAR, BAJRA, BARDANA, BARLAY, CHANA, GWAR, PASHUAH AR, SARSO, SUTALI, TILLI AND WHEAT. THE COMPLETE QUANTITY TALLY OF THE SE ITEMS TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALL THE ENTRIE S IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT I.E., OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES, SALES AND C LOSING STOCK IS FULLY ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 4 SUPPORTED BY THE QUANTITY AND PURCHASE AND SALES IN VOICE. NO SPECIFIC DEFECT / DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO . 4. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REJ ECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAI NTAINED THE QUALITY WISE STOCK REGISTER. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC QUALITY OF THE ITEMS DEALT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RATES OF THE C OMMODITY FLUCTUATES ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF KARDA, M OISTURE, ETC. IN THE QUANTITY PURCHASED. NOBODY IN THIS TRADE MAINTAINS STOCK REGISTER IN THE MANNER DESIRED BY THE AO. THE AO HIMSELF HAS ACCEPT ED THAT MARKET FLUCTUATION AFFECTS THE RATES. SO FAR AS BARDANA IS CONCERNED, ASSESSE DOES NOT TRADE IN BARDANA. IT IS CONSUMED IN PACKIN G OF THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE. HOWEVER, TO KEEP A RECORD OF BARDANA, QUAN TITATIVE DETAILS ARE MAINTAINED. THE AMOUNT SHOWN UNDER THE HEADING SALE S IN BARDANA ACCOUNT IS THE SALE OF USED BARDANA AND THEREFORE, IT HAS FETCHED A RATE OF RS.7.72/- PER BAG. THE OPENING STOCK OF BARDANA WAS VALUED AT RS.12/- PER BAG WHEREAS PURCHASES MADE DURING THE Y EAR IS RS.15.20/- PER BAG. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLOSING STOCK OF BARDANA IS VALUED AT RS.15.11/-PER BAG. THUS, THE VALUATION OF BARDANA I S AT PURCHASE COST. HENCE, WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE QUANTITY RECORD, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED SO AS TO MAKE TRADING ADDITION. 5. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY BASIS HAS CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS BUT REDUCED THE TRADING ADDITION TO RS.1,50,000/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS . IN FACT, THE G.P RATE HAS INCREASED DURING THE YEAR FROM 0.64% TO 0.94%. THEREFORE, ON ACCOUNT OF THE SO CALLED DISCREPANCIES OF ANY SIGNI FICANCE, TRADING ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 5 ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- PCIT VS. BHAWANI SILICATE INDUSTRIES (2016) 236 TAX MAN 596 (RAJ.) MALANI RAMJIVAN JAGANNATH VS. ACIT (2009) 316 ITR 1 20 / 207 CTR 19 (RAJ.) 6. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WE FIND THAT THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED TO 0.94% FROM 0.64% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PR ECEDING YEAR. THE AO WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME HAS MADE A LUMP SUM TRADING ADDITION OF RS 3 LACS WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCE D TO RS 1.5 LACS BY THE LD CIT(A). ONCE THE BOOK RESULTS ARE REJECTED, THE PROFITS ARE TO BE ESTIMATED AND THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE PROV IDES A RELIABLE BASIS FOR SUCH ESTIMATION. THEREFORE, IN THE INSTANT CAS E, WHERE THE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT IS HIGHER THAN GROSS PROFIT OF THE PRE VIOUS YEAR WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR LUMP SUM A DDITION SO MADE BY THE AO. THE ISSUE RELATING TO REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS THUS BECOME ACADEMIC AND THUS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON. IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITION SO MADE AND UPHELD BY THE LD CIT(A) IS DIR ECTED TO BE DELETED. 8. IN GROUND NO. 2, BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE A RE THAT THE ASSESSEE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 95, 000/- FROM SMT. ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 6 MANISHA JAIN, SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE AND RS.4,85,00 0/- FROM SMT. NAGEENA JAIN, SISTER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSE WHICH WA S OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IN SUPPORT OF THE CREDITS, THE AS SESSEE FILED VOTER ID, CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, AND STATEMENT OF JOINT BA NK ACCOUNT OF AMAN JAIN & MANISHA JAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 19.05.2016 AN D EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS THE SAVINGS. FROM PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT, THE AO NOTED THAT TH E LOAN IS GIVEN TO BHUVESH JAIN, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS THAT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ALSO THE BANK STATEMENT REFL ECTS IMMEDIATE CASH DEPOSITS PRIOR TO GIVING LOAN AND THUS, CREDITWORTH INESS IS NOT PROVED. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED PAN, CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT OF SMT. NAGEENA JAIN VIDE LETTER DATED 19 .05.2016 AND EXPLAINED THAT THE SOURCE OF TRANSFER IS FROM THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI AMIT JAIN, BROTHER OF ASSESSEE, WHO IS WORKING IN T HAILAND. THE AO NOTED THAT ON 10.05.2013 A CREDIT APPEARED THROUGH TRANSFER. THIS AMOUNT WAS THEN TRANSFERRED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.05.2013. THUS, THE CR EDITWORTHINESS IS NOT PROVED. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE DOCUMENTS PRODUC ED, THE AO VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 19.05.2016 ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED C REDITORS. THE ASSESSEE ON 20.05.2016 REQUESTED THE AO TO ISSUE SU MMONS U/S 131. THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS ON 23.05.2016. THE ASSESSEE V IDE LETTER DATED 02.06.2016 FILED SCANNED AFFIDAVITS DATED 01.06.201 6 OF THE CREDITORS AND ALSO THE ITR FOR AY 2012-13 TO 2014-15 IN CASE OF SMT. MANISHA JAIN. THE AO HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE CREDITORS TO PROVE THEIR IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. MOREOVER, FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS IT IS SUFFICIENT TO ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 7 PROVE THAT THEY HAVE NO CREDITWORTHINESS AS THEY HA VE INSUFFICIENT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE ADDIT ION OF RS.5,80,000/- (95,000 + 4,85,000) BY TREATING THE UNSECURED LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 9. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT MERE PROVIDI NG OF ADDRESS OF LENDERS, THEIR CONFIRMATION, AND BANK DETAILS ARE N OT SUFFICIENT TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DIS CHARGE ITS ONUS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE FACT OF LOAN AMOUNTS NOT BE ING DIRECTLY CREDITED BUT HAVE BEEN RAISED FROM OTHER PERSONS, CREATES LE GITIMATE DOUBT IN THE MIND OF THE AO. THUS, HE HELD THAT IN ABSENCE O F NON-COMPLIANCE BY THE LENDERS TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131, THE AO I S JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 68 AND ACCORDI NGLY, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR HAS SU BMITTED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE MADE THE ADDITION FOR THE RE ASON THAT THE CREDITORS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND T HAT THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE IS DOUBTFUL. HOWEVER, IN DOING SO FOLLOW ING FACTS WERE NOT CONSIDERED: A) IN CASE OF SMT. MANISHA JAIN, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE VOTER ID, BANK STATEMENT, CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, AFFIDAVIT, AND RETURN OF INCOME FOR AYS 2012-13 TO 2014-15. IN THE BANK STATEMENT, THE BANKER HAS INCORRECTLY MENTIONED THE NAME OF BHUVESH JAIN AGAI NST THE AMOUNT OF RS. 95,000/- DATED 22.11.2013 WHO IS THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 8 WHEREAS, THIS AMOUNT IS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE, M/S GUPTA FLOUR AND OIL IN DUSTRIES ON THE SAME DATE. SO FAR AS CASH DEPOSIT IN HER BANK ACCOU NT IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS SUPPORTED BY THE INCOME DECLARED BY HER FOR WHICH COPY OF RETURNS IS AVAILABLE. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 131 , SMT. MANISHA JAIN HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THE AO AND ALSO THE REASO N AS TO WHY SHE CANNOT BE PERSONALLY PRESENT BEFORE THE AO. THUS, A SSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. B) IN CASE OF SMT. NAGEENA JAIN, THE ASSESSEE FILED PAN, BANK STATEMENT, CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, AND AFFIDAVIT. IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. NAGEENA JAIN, THERE IS A TRANSFER OF RS.4,8 5,000/- ON 10.05.2013 FROM THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI AMIT JAIN (BROT HER-IN-LAW OF SMT. NAGEENA) AND THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON 16.05.2013. SHRI AMIT JAIN IS A NON-RESIDENT WORKING IN THAILAN D. HE HAS AN NRO ACCOUNT IN WHICH HE HAS TRANSFERRED THE FUNDS FROM THAILAND. COPY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHERE HE TRANSFERRED RS.4,85, 000/- TO SMT. NAGEENA JAIN ON 10.05.2013. THUS, NOT ONLY THE SOUR CE BUT SOURCE OF SOURCE IS PROVED. IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131, S MT. NAGEENA JAIN HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO THE AO AND ALSO THE REASO N WHY SHE CANNOT BE PERSONALLY PRESENT BEFORE THE AO. THUS, ASSESSEE HA S PROVED THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. 11. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SATISFIED THE ONUS CAST ON HER U/S 68 AND THEREFORE, ADDITION CON FIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 9 IS UNJUSTIFIED. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- CIT VS. SHIV DHOOTI PEARLS & INVESTMENT LTD. (2016) 237 TAXMAN 104 (DEL.) CIT VS. JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL (2014) 366 ITR 217/ 101 DTR 377 (RAJ.) CIT VS. H.S. BUILDERS (P.)LTD. (2012) 78 DTR 169 (R AJ.) KANHAIALAL JANGID VS. ACIT 217 CTR 354 (RAJ.) ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS. ITO 187 TAXMAN 338 (RAJ.) 12. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE ARE TWO TRANSACTIONS OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HER TWO CLOSE RELATIVES, HER S ISTER AND SISTER-IN- LAW. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE SUBMITTED CERTAIN DOCUMENTATION IN SUPPORT OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS, AT T HE SAME TIME, GIVEN THE FACT THAT CERTAIN FURTHER ENQUIRIES WERE NECESS ITATED, THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THESE TWO PERSONS AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEY HAVE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO. IN OUR VIEW, WHERE THE TRANSACTIONS ARE WITH CLOSE RELATIVES AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE CAN OBTAIN THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION, THE AS SESSEE CAN EQUALLY ENSURE THAT THEY APPEAR BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EXPLANATION AND MERELY FILING AN AFFIDAVI T WILL NOT SUFFICE THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD AR ARE RENDERED IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THOSE CASES AND DOESNT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, WE SET-AS IDE THE MATTER TO THE ITA NO. 903/JP/2018 SMT. NILAM JAIN VS. ITO 10 FILE OF THE AO TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THESE TWO PE RSONS AND AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DOCUMENTATION SO SUBMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE, DECIDE THE MATTER AS PER LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS EQUAL LY DIRECTED TO COOPERATE AND ENSURE THAT THESE TWO PERSONS ARE PRE SENT BEFORE THE AO AND PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EXPLANATION AS SO REQUIRE D BY THE AO. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05/03/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 05/03/2019. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. NILAM JAIN, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD- 2(1), ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE { ITA NO. 903/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR