ITO, Jaipur V. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., Jaipur

ITA 91/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9860 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K RAWAT
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH AGARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Tax effect
• Section: 133(6); 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, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 91/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., C-504, MAHIMA IRIS-A, SWAJ FARM, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCH 0140 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 99/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13. M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., C-504, MAHIMA IRIS-A, SWAJ FARM, NEW SANGANER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCH 0140 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. RAWAT (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19.09.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/09/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 18 TH NOVEMBER, 2016 OF LD. CIT (A)-5, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND SHARE TRADING DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 83,670/-. T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND DURING THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT 2 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ISSUED SHARES AT A PREMIUM OF RS. 390/- PER SHARE OF RS. 10/- EACH TO THREE PARTIES AS UNDER :- S.NO. NAME & ADDRESS OF THE SHAREHOLDER NO. OF SHARE RATE OF SHARE ALLOTTED AT PREMIUM TOTAL AMOUNT 01. M/S. DIAMENTION MERCANTILES PVT. LTD., 85,NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, DAL HOUSE, KOLKATA- 700001. 6250 390/ - 24,37,500/ - 02. M/S. GILTEDGE VINCOM PVT. LTD., 85, NETAJI SUBHAS ROAD, DAL HOUSE, KOLKATA-700001. 3750 390/ - 14,62,500/ - 03. M/S. NR VINCOM PVT. LTD., 08, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE, 1 ST FLOOR, CHANDANI CHOWK, KOLKATA- 700013. 2500 390/ - 9,75,000/ - TOTAL : 12500 390/ - 48,75,000/ - THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH VARIOUS DETAIL S OF THE SHARE APPLICANTS VIDE LETTER DATED 23 RD JANUARY, 2015. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SAID LETTER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF ISSUE OF SHARES AT PREMIUM ARE GENUINE AND THE ASSESSEE RECE IVED THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AGAINST WHICH THE SHA RES WERE ALLOTTED TO THESE THREE COMPANIES. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 48,75,00/- TOWARDS THE PREMIUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ALLOTMENT OF SHARES TO THESE THREE COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. C IT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PARTICULARLY THE RECEIPT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE THREE PARTIES COME TO THE CONCLUSION THA T SO FAR AS THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM TWO PARTIES, NAMELY, M/S. DIAME NTION MERCANTILES PVT. LTD. OF RS. 25 LACS AND M/S. GILTEDGE VINCOM PVT. LTD. OF R S. 15 LACS, THE ASSESSEE HAS 3 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. FURNISHED ALL THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIA TE THE CLAIM OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO PARTIES WAS DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 39 LACS BE ING THE SHARE PREMIUM RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MON EY RECEIVED FROM M/S. NR VINCOM PVT. LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSU ED UNDER SECTION 133(6) BY THE AO WAS RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS THAT THE PARTY WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE ADDRESS. HENCE BOTH THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND FILED THESE CROSS APPEALS. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS APPEALS ARE AS UNDER :- ITA NO. 91/JP/2017 (REVENUE) : (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF RS. 39,00, 000/- WITHOUT THE ASSESSEE PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHARE SUBS CRIBERS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. (II) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, WI THDRAW OR INSERT ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TI ME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 99/JP/2017 (ASSESSEE) : 1) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000.00 MADE BY LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY FROM N R VINCOM PVT LTD MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE SEN T TO SHARE APPLICANT COMPANY WAS RETURNED UNSERVED. 2) THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 10,00,000.00 MADE BY LD. AO ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY FROM N R VINCOM PVT. LTD. WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST BY LAW ON IT BY PROVING IDENTITY OF SHARE APPLICANT COMPAN Y, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS AND RELYING ON THE SAME SET OF DOCUMENTS FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF EACH SHARE APPLIC ANT COMPANY THE LD. 4 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. CIT (A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM DIAMENTION MERCANTILES PVT LTD. AND GILTGEDGE VINCOM PVT LTD. 3) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE PERMISSION TO ADD OR TO AMEND TO ANY OF GROUND OF APPEAL OR TO WITHDRAW ANY OF THEM. 2. AS FAR AS REVENUES APPEAL IS CONCERNED, THERE I S NO DISPUTE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF OF RS. 39 LACS BY DELETI NG ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT IN RESPECT OF TWO SHARE AP PLICANTS AND HENCE THE TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS NOT EXCEEDING RS. 20,00, 000/- AS PER CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3 OF 2018. 3. THE LD. D/R HAS FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EF FECT INVOLVED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS LESS THAN 20 LACS WHICH IS PRESCRIBED THR ESHOLD LIMIT IN TERMS OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11 TH JULY, 2018 ISSUED IN SUPERSESSION OF ITS EARLIER C IRCULAR NO. 21 OF 2015 DATED 10.12.2015. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE DEMAND/ TAX EFFECT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN QUESTION IS BELOW RS. 20.00 LACS . UNDER THE POWERS VESTED BY SECTION. 268A(1) OF THE I T ACT, CBDT HAS RECENTLY ISSUED CIRCULAR NO. 3/2018 DATED 11 TH JULY, 2018 (F NO. 279/MISC. 142/2007-ITJ(PT) INSTRUCTING THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE ITAT WHERE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT DOES NOT EXCEED RS. 20 LACS. THE CIRCULAR IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TO BE APPLICABLE FOR ALL PENDING APPEALS. 5. SUBJECT TO SOME EXCEPTIONS, IT IS FURTHER DIREC TED BY CBDT THAT ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS PENDING BEFORE ITAT WHERE THE DEMAND/TAX EFFECT IS NOT 5 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. EXCEEDING THAN 20 LACS SHOULD BE EITHER WITHDRAWN O R NOT PRESSED BY THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES. 6. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS NOT COVERED BY ANY EXCEPT IONS MENTIONED IN THE SAID CBDT CIRCULAR. SINCE THE TAX DEMAND IN DISPUTE IN THIS DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS BELOW THE LIMIT SET OUT BY CBDT FOR THE APPEAL, THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 3 OF 2018 DATED 11.07.2018. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PR ESSED/WITHDRAWN. 7. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN RESPEC T OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS. 10,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S. N.R. VINCOM PVT. LTD. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE AO MADE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S. N.R. VIN COM PVT. LTD. ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 9,75,000/- BEING THE PREMIUM COMPONENT, HOWE VER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ENHANCED THE SAID ADDITION BY MAKING A DISALLOWANCE OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/-. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ONL Y GROUND OF SUSTAINING THE ADDITION BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS THAT THE NOTICE ISSU ED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 133(6) WAS RETURNED BACK UNSERVED AS THE PARTY WAS NOT AVA ILABLE AT THE ADDRESS WHEREAS THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE AO AT THE INCORRE CT ADDRESS. THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO ISSUED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 133(6) TO M/S. N.R. VINCOM PVT. LTD., O-8, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE, 1 ST FLOOR, CHANDANI CHOWK, KOLKATA-700013 WHEREAS THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE SAID PARTY IS : O-8, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE, 1 ST FLOOR, SAHA COURT, KOLKATA-700013. THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 12.03.2015 AT PAGE 66 OF THE PAPER BOO K AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY BROUGHT THIS FACT TO THE KNOWLEDG E OF THE AO THAT THE NOTICE 6 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS AT THE W RONG ADDRESS AND THE CORRECT ADDRESS WAS AGAIN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH IT WAS ALREADY ON RECORD. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AO HAS ISSU ED THE NOTICE AT A WRONG ADDRESS THEN THE NON-RECEIPT OF THE SAID NOTICE CAN NOT BE A REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 7.1. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF SHAR E APPLICATION, ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AS WELL AS THE BANK RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THEN THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITOR AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. N.R. VINCOM PVT. LTD. AND SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2012 THE SAID COMPANY WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT AND ALSO THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS DULY RE FLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE SAID COMPANY. HENCE, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SHARE APPLICANT WAS NOT HAVING THE CR EDITWORTHINESS, THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY IN THE HANDS OF SHARE APPLICANT AND NO T IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON TH E FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- CIT VS. OASIS HOSPITALITIES PVT. LTD. 238 CTR 402 (DELHI HC) CIT VS. DEVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. 207 CTR 38 (DELHI HC) CIT VS. A.K.J. GRANITES PVT. LTD. 301 ITR 298 (RAJ. HC) 7 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AO HAS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE SAID PARTY BEING SHARE APPLICANT AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREF ORE, IF THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY COMES OUT WITH A PLEA THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSU ED AT INCORRECT ADDRESS THEN THERE WAS NO TIME LEFT WITH THE AO AT THAT POINT OF TIME AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS AT FAULT IN NOT FURNISHING THE CORRECT P ARTICULARS. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS IT IS APPARENT FROM THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE APPLICATIONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE THREE PARTIES THE ADDRESS OF M/S. N.R. VINCOM PVT. LTD. IS MENTIONED IN THE SAID TABLE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REPRODUCED IN THE FOREGOING PART OF THIS ORDER, THE SAID ADDRESS HAS BEEN STATE D TO BE NOT A CORRECT ADDRESS. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 12 TH MARCH, 2015 HAS FURNISHED THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF T HE SAID COMPANY AS UNDER :- M/S. N.R. VINCOM PVT. LTD., 08, GANESH CHANDRA AVENUE, 1 ST FLOOR, SAHA COURT, KOLKATTA-700013. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT THE ADDRESS WHICH IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 12 TH MARCH, 2015 WAS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE OTHER RECORD S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH INCLUDES TH E COPY OF BOARD RESOLUTION OF THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF APPLICATION FORM AND THE CERT IFICATE OF INCORPORATION OF SAID COMPANY M/S. N.R. VINCOM PVT. LTD. THOUGH THE AO H AS NOTED THIS ADDRESS BASED ON THE PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HOWEV ER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY PROVIDED THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE SA ID COMPANY THEN THE NOTICE WAS 8 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS TO VER IFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE SHARE APPLICANT. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN PARA 3 .5 AS UNDER :- 3.5. AS FAR AS THE THIRD ENTITY NAMELY M/S. N.R. VINCOM PVT. LTD. IS CONCERNED, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 133(6 ) SENT TO THE SAID ENTITY WAS RETURNED BACK UNSERVED AND THE SAID PART Y WAS NOT FOUND TO BE OPERATING FROM THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE . AS A RESULT, THE PRIMARY ONUS WAS NOT DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE SIN CE THE AO COULD NOT VERIFY THE VERACITY OF DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED IN R ESPECT OF THE SAID ENTITY IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CORRECT ADDRESS. THE AO BROUGHT THESE FACTS TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE ASKING IT TO SH OW CAUSE AS TO WHY ADDITION U/S 68 SHOULD NOT BE MADE AND ALSO REQUEST ED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE SAID COMPANY. IN RESP ONSE, THE ASSESSEE COULD STILL NOT GIVE THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE SAI D ENTITY. AS A RESULT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ON US ON IT TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF T HE CONCERNED ENTITY SINCE THE FAILURE TO GIVE THE CORRECT ADDRESS HAS R ENDERED THE ENTIRE INFORMATION SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF THAT ENTITY AS UNVERIFIABLE. IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ULTRA MODERN EXPORTS P. LTD. (2013) 40 TAXMANN.COM 458 (DELHI) HAS HELD THAT WHERE, IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN GENUINENESS OF ASSESSEES CLAIM RELATING TO RECEIPT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, AO SENT NOTICES TO SHARE APPLICANTS WHICH RETURNED UNSERVED, HOWEVER ASSESSE E STILL MANAGED TO SECURE DOCUMENTS SUCH AS THEIR IT RETURNS AS WEL L AS BANK ACCOUNT PARTICULARS, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, AO WAS JUSTIFIE D IN DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE AND ADDING AMOUNT IN QUESTION TO ASSESSEE S TAXABLE INCOME U/S 68. ACCORDINGLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM M/S. N.R. VINCOM PVT. LTD. IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS UN EXPLAINED CASH CREDIT 9 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. U/S 68. THEREFORE THE ADDITION U/S 68 IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 10,00,000/-. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE THE CORRECT ADDRESS HAS RENDERED T HE ENTIRE INFORMATION SUBMITTED AS UNVERIFIABLE. WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBSEQUENTLY BROUGHT THE CORRECT ADDRESS ON RECORD AND TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF T HE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A), THEN THE VERIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE IN THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR CONDUCTING A PROPER ENQUIRY AND VERIFICATION BY CONSIDERING THE CORRECT ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/09/20 18. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 24/09/2018. DAS/ 10 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE ITO WARD 7(2), JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD ., JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 91 & 99/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 11 ITA NOS. 91 & 99/JP/2017 M/S. HIGH RISE PROPCON PVT. LTD., JAIPUR.