SHRI PAWAN KUMAR, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2-2, ALWAR

ITA 982/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3780 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I
• Keywords: Rectification of order; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order
• Section: 13; 147; 148; 144; 154

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES A 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 VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 982/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 PAWAN KUMAR S/O SHRI NAIN SINGH VILL - RAMPURA- BHIWADI- DISTT- ALWAR CUKE VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BMIPK5471Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. K. L. MOOLCHANDANI JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25/02/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03/03/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-22, ALWAR DATED 13.12.2018 WHEREIN THE SOLE GROUND OF A PPEAL RELATES TO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPEAL HAS B EEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 139 DAYS. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION APPLICATION ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT STATING AS UNDER: 2. IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CASE, THE APPEAL ORDER W AS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A), ALWAR, ON 13.12.2018. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED APP EAL ORDER, THE APPELLANT HAD MOVED AN APPLICATION U/S 154 OF THE ACT VIDE AP PLICATION DATED 11.1.2019 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON 30.4.2 019 REFUSING THEREIN TO ITA NO. 982-JP-2020 SH. PA WAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR RECTIFY THE SO CALLED MISTAKE AS POINTED OUT BY TH E APPELLANT. COPY OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER IS SUBMITTED HEREWITH FOR READY REFERENCE. THE SAID RECTIFICATION ORDER AS PASSED BY TH LD. CIT (A) WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT SOME-WHERE IN MAY, 2019. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH RECTIFI CATION ORDER ONLY, THE APPELLANT HAD FILED SECOND APPEAL U/S 253 OF THE AC T IN FORM NO. 36 ON 23.7.2019 UNDER THE BONA-FIDE BELIEF THAT THE SECO ND APPEAL COULD BE FILED WITHIN TWO CALENDAR MONTHS FROM THE RECEIPT OF THE RECTIFICATION ORDER BY THE APPELLANT. 2. AS THE APPELLANT COMES FROM RAMPURA VILLAGE OF BHIW ADI TOWN AND IS FULLY DEPENDENT ON HIS AR TO TAKE CARE OF THE LE GAL OBLIGATIONS ETC. IN FILING THE SECOND APPEAL ETC. IN TIME. HIS AR SHRI MAHESH CHAND AGARWAL ALSO COMES FROM BHIWADI TOWN AND HAS A VERY LITTLE EXPERIENCE IN FILING THE SECOND APPEAL IN THE ITAT, BENCH AND WAS NOT FULLY CONVERSANT ABOUT THE EXACT TIME LIMIT OF 60 D AYS TO FILE THE SECOND APPEAL IN SUCH CASES. THUS DUE TO SUCH BONA- FIDE IGNORANCE OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING PROCEDURE OF FILING OF THE SECOND APPEAL AND EXACT TIME LIMIT ETC, THE SECOND APPEAL COULD NOT B E FILED IN TIME. 4. AS THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAU SE DUE TO HIS BONA-FIDE IGNORANCE ON THE SUBJECT, THE APPEAL COUL D NOT BE FILED IN TIME. IN THE INTEREST OF EQUITY AND NATURAL JUST ICE YOUR HONORS ARE REQUESTED TO KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS. 3. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS OBJECTED TO THE CONDO NATION APPLICATION AS THERE IS AN INORDINATE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PURSUING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE, AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A), HAS MOVED AN ITA NO. 982-JP-2020 SH. PA WAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR APPLICATION U/S 154 ON 11.01.2019 AS ADVISED BY HIS COUNSEL. THE ORDER DISPOSING OFF THE APPLICATION U/S 154 DATED 30.4.20 19 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MONTH OF MAY, 2019 AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED THE PRESENT APPEAL ON 23.07.2019. THEREFORE, THE TIME T AKEN BETWEEN THE FILING AND DISPOSAL OF APPLICATION U/S 154 CAN REASONABLY BE E XCLUDED WHILE COMPUTING THE LIMITATION PERIOD. THEREFORE, THE CONSIDERING THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUS TICE, THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITT ED FOR ADJUDICATION 5. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A S PER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CAS H AMOUNTING TO RS. 9,00,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME, NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON 30.0 3.2017 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COM PLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILE D PURSUANCE TO ISSUANCE OF INCOME U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE AO PROCEEDED U/S 144 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT TREATING THE WHOLE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 9,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSMENT W AS ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED U/S 147 READ WITH 144 OF THE ACT. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 9 ,00,000/- ON 02.03.2010 WAS OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER DURING THE YEAR ON 16.04.2009 AND 08.06.2009. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE CASH OF RS. 15,20,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 16.04.2009. HOWEVE R, SINCE THE CASH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITED ON 02.03.2010, THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS KEPT THE CASH WITH HIM FOR AS LONG AS 10 MONTHS WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS C ONFIRMED. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 982-JP-2020 SH. PA WAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A SMALL TIMER, DOING JOB WORK OF LAND PLOUGH ON CASUA L BASIS WITH THE HELP OF A HIRED JCB. THUS HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY REGULAR SOU RCE OF INCOME AND HIS INCOME HAD ALWAYS BEEN BELOW TAXABLE LIMITS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS EVER FILED BY HIM. HOWEVER, AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD D EPOSITED RS. 9 LAC IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE I NITIATED U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT ON 30.3.2017 TO BRING THIS CASH DEPOSIT IN TAX-NET. THE APPELLANT BEING A LAYMAN KNEW NOTHING WHAT TO DO AND NOT TO D O WITH SUCH NOTICE. UNDER SUCH SHEER AND BONA-FIDE IGNORANCE, HE SLEPT OVER THE MATTER WITH THE HOPE THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD PASS OVER AUTOM ATICALLY AS HE HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME OF ANY NATURE. HOWEVER, IN DUE COURS E OF THE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AO HAD CONCLUDED THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS EX-PARTE U/S 144/147 OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE ENTIRE CASH DEPOSI T OF RS.9 LAC AS 'UN- EXPLAINED INCOME' VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7.11. 2017. ON RECEIPT OF SUCH EX-PARTE ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE OF RS.6,40,24 7/-,HE SENSED THE GRAVITY OF THE MATTER AND HAD APPROACHED A LOCAL TA X PRACTITIONER, SHRI MAHESH CHAND AGARWAL WHO WAS ALSO A NEW ENTRANT IN THE FIELD AND KNEW NOTHING MUCH ABOUT THE REMEDIAL PROCEEDINGS TO BE T AKEN TO DEFEND SUCH EX-PARTE PROCEEDINGS. INSTEAD OF FILING APPEAL AGAI NST THE SAID EX-PARTE ORDER, THE AR HAD OPTED TO SEND A LETTER DATED 7.11 .2017 TO THE LD. A.O, SUBMITTING THEREWITH THE COPY OF ITR, COPY OF THE B ANK STATEMENT ETC, AND INFORMING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS 32 YRS OLD, HAVING NO TAXABLE INCOME. ON BEING ADVISED BY THE LD. AO FOR TAKING SUITABLE REM EDIAL ACTION, THE AR HAD FILED A BELATED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). HAVI NG CONSIDERED THE IGNORANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS AR, THE CIT (A) WAS PLEASED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND HAD DISPOSED OFF THE APPEA L BY DISMISSING THE SAME VIDE APPEAL ORDER DATED 13.12.2018 (WHICH IS U NDER APPEAL BEFORE ITA NO. 982-JP-2020 SH. PA WAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR THE HONORABLE BENCH). FROM THIS LETTER, IT IS EVID ENT THAT THE APPELLANT AND HIS AR WERE TOTALLY AT SEA KNOWING NOTHING WHAT TO DO AND NOT TO DO. IN THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE AR HAD BARELY STATED T HE FACT REGARDING BANK WITHDRAWALS OF RS.15,20,000/- ON 16.4.2009 FOR MAKI NG SUCH CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 9 LAC ON 2.3.2010 I.E. AFTER 10 MONTHS . THE LD. C IT (A) HOWEVER DID NOT FEEL SATISFIED WITH SUCH EXPLANATION AND HAD DISMISSED T HE APPEAL. 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT DID NO T APPRECIATE THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND HAD HEAVILY RELIE D UPON THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF BHAWANI SINGH V S ITO BHIWADI (ITA NO. 407/JP/2017 DATED 13.9.2018) WITHOUT NOTING THE FACT THAT THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF BHAWANI SINGH WERE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THAN THOSE OF THE PRESENT CASE. EVEN THE JAIPUR BENCH ITSELF HAS DIFFERENTIATED THE ABOV E FACTS ARTICULATELY IN THE CASE OF SMT. MANISHA GABA VS ITO WARD 1(5) ALWAR (IN ITA NO. 741/JP/2019) OBSERVING THEREIN AS UNDER:- BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ISSUE IT IS TO BE NOTED TH AT THE DECISION IN CASE OF BHAWANI SINGH VS ITO DATED 13.9.2018 IN ITA NO. 407 /JP/2017 AS RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEN IN THE SAID CASE THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASING OF THE LAND AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT ONLY PART AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAND AND BALANCE WAS WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID CASE THE TRIBUNAL N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE UTILIZATION OF THE WITHDRAWALS AMOU NT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN THE TITLE DOCU MENT AND NOT ACTUAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AND FURTHER THERE WAS A TIME GAP OF 2-3 YEARS BETWEEN THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND A ND SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE THE SAID DECISION CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 982-JP-2020 SH. PA WAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR 9. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS A SMALL TIMER DOING NO BUSINESS AND HAS NO REGULAR SOURCE OF INCOME. IN TH E CIRCUMSTANCES, HE COULD NOT ACQUIRE ANY MOVEABLE OR IMMOVEABLE ASSETS SO FA R IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE APPELLANT WAS HOWEVER OWNING 5/8 SHAR E IN THE ANCESTRAL LAND JOINTLY WITH HIS BROTHERS AND MOTHER WHICH HAD BEEN ACQUIRED BY LOCAL RIICO AUTHORITIES. IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. IN 2008, TH E APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED COMPENSATION AMOUNT OF RS.16,14,382/-FROM RIICO, BH IWADI (ALWAR) BEING 5/8 SHARE IN THE ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY RIICO AS PER CERTIFICATE ENCLOSED. THE FUNDS SO RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WERE DULY INVESTED IN THE FDR AND ON MATURITY, THESE FUNDS WE RE LYING DEPOSITED IN THE BANK A/C. ON 16.4.2009, THE APPELLANT HAD WITHDRAWN RS.15,20,000/- IN CASH FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT TO BE INVESTED IN RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD. SOME- HOW, DUE TO TECHNICAL AND PROCEDURAL IGNORANCE AND PRACTICAL HICCUPS, THE FUNDS SO WITHDRAWN COULD NOT BE INVESTED IN RAJASTH AN HOUSING BOARD TILL 2.3.2010. AS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK A/C, THE APPELLA NT HAD FINALLY MADE INVESTMENT OF RS.17,28,453/- IN RAJASTHAN HOUSING B OARD ON 2.3.2010 THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS ONLY AND FOR THE PURPOSE, HE HAD DEPOSITED RS.9,00,000/- IN THE BANK A/C OUT OF THE BANK WITHD RAWALS OF RS.15,20,000/-. AS THE APPELLANT DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTMENT OUT OF THE FUNDS SO WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK AND THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT DISPUTE TH IS FACT BY BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW ANY INVESTMENT OF ANY SO RT MADE BY THE APPELLANT AT THE GIVEN POINT OF TIME SO THE VIEW OF CHANDIGAR H TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BALJIT SINGH V. ITO (2019) 108 TAXMAN.COM 123 HAS D IRECT BEARING ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER: TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH INSTANCE, REF ERENCE, ARGUMENT OR EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE FUNDS WERE NOT AVAILAB LE WITH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO BRING OUT SOME EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, SUSPICIO N OR ALLEGATION ON RECORD. ITA NO. 982-JP-2020 SH. PA WAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, ALWAR ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO LAW THAT FUNDS WITHDRAWN FR OM THE BANKS CANNOT BE HELD /RETAINED IN CASH BY THE PARTIES. THERE CAN AL SO BE NO BLANKET PERIOD WHICH CAN BE JUDICIALLY CONSIDERED TO BE A REASONAB LE TIME. THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A GAP OF ABOUT FOUR MONTHS BY ITSELF COU LD NOT LEAD TO ANY CONCLUSION WHICH WOULD DETRACT FROM THE MERITS OF THE CLAIMS MADE. SINCE NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY THE AO TO SUPPORT THE POSSIBLY UNARTICULATED SUSPICION THAT THE FUNDS HAD BEEN UTILIZED ELSEWHERE AND CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, THE GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED.' 10. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE DISCUSSIONS AND ALSO IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT TO SUGGEST THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INVEST ED THE WITHDRAWN FUNDS OF RS.15,20,000/- ELSEWHERE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. C IT (A) DO NOT HOLD GOOD. MORE-OVER, THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIP UR IN THE CASE OF BHAWANI SINGH BHIWADI AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT (A) WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE, STANDS DISTINGUISHE D BY THE JAIPUR BENCH ITSELF IN THE CASE OF SMT. MANISH GABA AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE FACTUALLY AND LEGA LLY INCORRECT AND DO NOT HOLD GOOD AND THE ADDITION OF RS.9,00,000/- CONFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH INCORRECT AND ILLOGICAL FINDINGS DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 11. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISP UTE THAT THE CASH OF RS. 15,20,000/- WAS WITHDRAWN ON 16.04.2009. HOWEVE R, SINCE THE CASH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSITED ONLY ON 02.03.2010, THE EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS KEPT THE CASH WITH HIM FOR AS LONG AS 10 MON THS WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AND ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS C ONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). IT ITA NO. 982/JP/2019 PAWAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR 8 WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE SAME SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LIMITED ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED REASONABLE EXPLANATION IN SUPPORT OF EXPL AINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS 9 LACS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS WITHDRAWN RS 15.2 LACS ON 16.04.2009 AND THEREAFTER , ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS 1.25 LACS ON 8.06.2009 FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND FROM SU CH WITHDRAWALS, HE HAS MADE THE DEPOSIT OF RS 9 LACS ON 2.03.2010. FURTHER, TH E ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT WITHDRAWAL OF RS 15.2 LACS WAS MADE OUT OF MATURITY OF FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPT OF RS 14.67 LACS WHICH WAS CREDITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT O N 16.04.2009 AND OPENING BALANCE OF RS 91,667 IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSE SSEE HAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT FIXED DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF COMPENSATION AMO UNT OF RS.16,14,382/- RECEIVED FROM RIICO, BHIWADI (ALWAR) BEING 5/8 SHAR E IN THE ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH WAS ACQUIRED BY RIICO IN TH E PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 2008-09. THESE ARE UNDISPUTED FACTS WHICH ARE EMERGING FROM RECORDS AND WE THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASON ABLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH IS THE AM OUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND. WHERE T HE COMPENSATION ON SALE OF AGRICULTURE LAND IS NOT DISPUTED, THE AMOUNT DEPOSI TED OUT OF SUCH COMPENSATION CANNOT BE DISPUTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS F URTHER EXPLAINED THAT IT HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT FINALLY WITH RHB. THEREFO RE, WHERE THE SOURCE AND EVEN SUBSEQUENT DEPOSIT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED IN T HE INSTANT CASE, MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF FACT THAT THERE WAS CERTAIN TIME GAP BET WEEN WITHDRAWAL AND DEPOSIT CANNOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THU S, WE DO NOT SEE ANY JUSTIFIABLE BASIS FOR HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT SO DE POSITED REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. IN THE RESULT, THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 982/JP/2019 PAWAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR 9 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/03/2020. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADA V) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 03/03/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- PAWAN KUMAR, ALWAR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-2(2), 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. 982/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR ITA NO. 982/JP/2019 PAWAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR 10 ITA NO. 982/JP/2019 PAWAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR 11 ITA NO. 982/JP/2019 PAWAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR 12 ITA NO. 982/JP/2019 PAWAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR 13 ITA NO. 982/JP/2019 PAWAN KUMAR, ALWAR VS. ITO, WARD 2(2), ALWAR 14