SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITSSA 10/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3416 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA
• Keywords: Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 32; 132

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 HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITSSA NO. 08/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR/BLOCK PERIOD : 1988-89 TO 1998-99 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, H-3, TODARMAL MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO /GIR NO. AAVPA 0120 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITSSA NO. 10/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR/BLOCK PERIOD : 1988-89 TO 1998-99 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, H-3, TODARMAL MARG, BANI PARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO/GIR NO. AAVPA 0120 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19.09.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/09/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, J.M. THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS ONE BY THE REVENUE I.E. IT SSA NO. 08/JP/2011 AND OTHER BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. ITSSA NO.10/JP/2011 PERT AINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1988- 89 TO 1998-99 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR, DATED 31.03.2011. 2 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITSSA NO. 10/JP/2011 PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1988-89 TO 98-99. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 15BBD BY JT COMMISSIONER (ASSIT.)WAS VALID WHEREAS THE JT COMMISSIONER NEVER HAND JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSES SEE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN HOLDING THAT T HE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE IS A COGNISED MODE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE B UT HAS NOT DECIDED ABOUT THE VALIDITY OF SERVICE. 3. THAT THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING BY ISSUING NOT ICE U/S 158BD IS BAD IN LAW AND ILLEGAL. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WENT WRONG IN HOLDING THAT T HERE WAS NO LACK OF OPPORTUNITY. 5. THAT THE A CARVES TO EITHER MAKE ADDITIONS OR DELETION OR AMENDMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF H EARING OF APPEAL. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS AGAINST ILLEGALITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE ACT AND NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, ON LA ST DATE OF HEARING ALSO NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE NOTI CE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED UN-SERVED. UNDER THESE FACTS, APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AN D SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MERIT INTO THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD LD. D/R AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT AS UNDE R:- 3 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. A SEARCH U/S 132 OF IT ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 15.1 0.97 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL WHERE SOME IN CRIMINATING PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. NOTICED U/S 158BD WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT ON 15.11.99 BY AFFIXTURE AS THE SERVICE O F NOTICE WAS REFUSED TO BE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN FO R THE BLOCK PERIOD THOUGH IN THE LAST BUT ON PARA THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT NIL INCOME WAS SHOWN IN THE BLOCK RETURN. BEFORE THE AO THE JURISDICTION WAS C HALLENGED ON THE GROUND THAT NOTICE U/S 158 BD WAS ISSUED BY JCIT (ASST) SP ECIAL RANG-2, JAIPUR WHO HAD NO JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THUS, NOTIC E ISSUED WAS BAD IN LAW. THE AO REJECTED OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GR OUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OBJECTED BY MAKING CLAIM WITHIN THE PERIOD MENTIONED IN 158 BD NOTICE. THAT NOTICE 158 BD WAS SERVED ON 15.11.99 BUT FIRST OBJECTION WAS RAISED AS LATE AS ON 7.11.01. AS PER SECTION 143(3 ) NO PERSON SHALL BE ENTITLED TO CALL IN QUESTION THE JURISDICTION OF AN AO. THE AO HAS ALSO MENTIONED THAT ALL THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ARE APPLICABLE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS MENTIONED IN SECTION 158 BH. THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER SEARCH C ASE WAS GIVEN TO DCIT CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR, THE AO. THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 7.11.01 HAS ALSO AS KED FOR COPY OF REASONS RECORDED BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE U/S 158BD BY THE AO BUT THE SAME WAS NOT PROVIDED. THE AO REJECTED OBJECTION OF THE APPELLA NT MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT REASONS WERE INCORPORATED IN SHOW CAUSE ISSUED U/S 142(1) DATED 2.11.01. DURING THE HEARING OF APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY T HE AR THAT AS PER ORDER U/S 124, THE JURISDICTION FALL WITH CICLE-3, JAIPUR WHEREAS NOTICE U/S 158 BD WAS ISSUED BY JCIT, SPECIAL RANGE-2, JAIPUR WHO NEV ER HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE. THE APPELLANT NEVER HAD ANY INFORMAT ION FROM THE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THE CHANGE OF JURISDICTION. FROM THE ASSESSME NT ORDER NOTHING IS FOUND WHY NOTICE U/S 158 WAS ISSUED BY JCIT, SPECIAL RANG E-2, JAIPUR WHEREAS BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY DCIT CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BD IS BAD IN LAW. 4 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE U/S 158 BD DA TED 12.11.99 WAS SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT BY AFFIXTURE ON THE OUTSIDE GATE OF HER RESIDENCE. SECTION 282 PROVIDES THAT NOTICE UNDER THE IT ACT IS TO BE SERVED BY POST. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS APPARENT THAT THERE IS NOT MENTION THAT WHY NOTICE COULD NOT B SERVED ON PERSON. THERE IS NO MENTION IN THE INSPECTORS REPORT WHO HAS AFFIXED THE NOTICE? ALSO WHEN NOTICE WAS S ENT BY REGISTERED POST AND WHEN IT WAS REFUSED BY THE ASSESSEE? THERE IS NO MENTION ABOUT THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF WITNESSES WHO INDENTIFIED THE R EMISES BEFORE AFFIXTURE OF THE NOTICE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD WHIC H SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS AVOIDING SERVICE OF NOTICE AS SUBSEQUENT 131 NO TICES WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO VALID SER VICE OF NOTICE AND, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT IS TO BE QUASHED. RELIANCE W AS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. CIT VS. NAVEE4N CHANDER 323 ITR 49 (P&H) 2. CIT VS. AVI OIL INDIA (P) LTD. 323 ITR 242 (P&H) IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS R ECORDED BY THE AO OF SHRI JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL WHO WAS SEARCHED AND COMPLETED ASSES SMENT U/S 158BD. IT IS A PRE REQUISITE THAT THE AO IS TO BE SATISFIED THAT ANY U NDISCLOSED INCOME, IF BELONGS TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHO WAS SEARCHED U/S 1 32 THEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED SHALL BE HANDED OV ER TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE AO SHALL PROCEED AGA INST SUCH OTHER PERSON AS PER PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV B. RELIANCE WAS PLACED I N THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT AND ANOTHER 289 ITR 341 (SC). RELIANCE WA S ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF S.P. GOYAL VS. A CIT CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR WHEREIN FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COU RT, IT WAS HELD THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 158BD WAS ILLEGAL AND ASSESSMENT MADE U /S 158BD/158BC/144 WAS ILLEGAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO FRESH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED. NOTICE U/S 131 WAS ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT TO PRESENT HERSELF ON 12.11 .01 WHEN THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY DEPARTED FOR PILGRIMAGE. THE ASSESSMENT WA S COMPLETED ON 16.11.01 AFTER 5 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT AND E XPLAIN THE FACTS. LASTLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS MADE AD ADDITION OF RS. 50866 14/- ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 158BC/144 IN THE CASE OF SH RI JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL WAS SET ASIDE THE BY CIT U/S 164. THE ADDITION MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL DOES NOT SURVIVE AND T HEREAFTER NO ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF SHRI JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL. THE ADDITION MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED BY DELETING THE SAME FRO M HIS INDIVIDUAL HANDS. THAT PROTECTIVE ADDITION PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF SU BSTANTIVE ADDITIONS. IT FOLLOWS THAT WHEN THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION, THERE C AN BE NO PROTECTIVE EVIDENCE AS WELL. WHEN THE VERY BASE OF INCOME GOES, THE ADDIT ION IN THE APPELLANTS HAND ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WILL NOT SURVIVE. THE AMOUNT OF R S. 5086614/- INCLUDES DIFFERENCE ARISING BETWEEN THE ACTUAL COST AND THE VALUE WORKE D OUT BY DVO. WITH THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE IS NOT JUSTIFIED. CONTENTION OF THE AR IS CONCERNED. THE AO HAS REJE CTED OBJECTION OF THE APPELLANT ON JURISDICTION ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HA S OBJECTED VERY LATE ONLY ON 7/11/01 WHEREAS THE NOTICE U/S 158BD WAS SERVED ON HER ON 15/11/99. THAT THE JURISDICTION OVER SEARCH CASES WAS GIVEN TO DCIT, C IRCLE-3 JAIPUR AND THEREFORE IT IS THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3 WHO HAS PASSED THE ORDER UNDER A PPEAL. THERE IS NO PROVISION THAT THE APPELLANT SHOULD BE INFORMED ABOUT THE CHA NGE OF JURISDICTION. THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON JURISDICTION RAISED BY THE AR IS REJEC TED. REGARDING SERVICE OF NOTICE THE AO HAS OBSERVED THA T THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BD WAS MADE BY AFFIXTURE. CERTAINLY THE AO HAS NOT MENTIONED WHY NOTICE COULD NOT BE SERVED ON PERSON AND ALSO THERE IS NO MENTIO N IN THE INSPECTORS REPORT WHO HAS AFFIXED THE NOTICE. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RE CORD WHICH SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS AVOIDING SERVICE OF NOTICE AS SUBSEQU ENT NOTICES ISSUED U/S 131 WERE DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS THE NOT ICE WAS SERVED THROUGH AFFIXTURE WHICH IS A RECOGNISED MODE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND FURTHER COMPLIANCE TO THE SUBSEQUENT NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO JUSTIFIED THE A CTION OF THE AO OF PASSING ORDER U/S 158BD. THE FIRST AND SECOND GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THEREFORE DECIDED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. 6 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. 5.1 THE ABOVE FINDING OF FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED B Y THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY R EASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. GROUND S RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ITSSA NO. 08/JP/2011 7. NOW WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITSSA NO. 08/JP/2011 PERTAINING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1988-89 TO 98-99. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR IS JUSTIFIED:- 1) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,00.464/- MADE ON TH E BASIS OF THE DVOS REPORT AND UPHOLDING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 10,16,258/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 2) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,150/- AND RS. 7,83, 251/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WITH OUT ANY BASIS. 8. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT, A SEARCH ACTI ON U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEES SON. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH CERTAIN INCRIMINATING PAPERS IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WHERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ACCORDING LY, A NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQ UENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ASSESSMENT U/S 158 BD R.W.S. 158 BC/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THERE WE RE CERTAIN DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 11275 IN SYNDICATE BANK AND BANK ACCOUN T NO. 21106 IN BANK OF BARODA. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTING UNDI SCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK 7 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. PERIOD IS DETERMINED AT RS. 50,86,614/-. AGAINST, THIS THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 9. AGAINST THIS, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL. 10. APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 1 , DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,00,464/- AND UPHOLDING THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 10,16,258/ -. 10.1 LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 10.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING OF FACT AS UN DER:- DURING THE VERIFICATION OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS CERTAI N IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AS PER THE SALE DEED/ARGUMENT WERE FOUND IN THE NAME O F APPELLANT. THE PURCHASE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SAKE DEED/AGREEMENT WER E COMPARED WITH THE DVOS REPORT AND ON PROTECTIVE BASIS ADDITION OF RS . 24,31,000/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND RS. 2600464/- IN RESPECT O F VALUATION OF DVO WERE MADE TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE AO HAS STATED THAT INVESTMENT IN THESE ASSETS WERE MADE BY SH. JUGAL K ISHORE PARWAL BUT AS THE ASSETS ARE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT AND IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT SHE IS NOT HAVING ANY INC OME OR IMMOVABLE ASSETS. THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE O N PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE CASE OF SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL WHEREAS SIMILAR ADDI TION OF RS. 1,22,500/- WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF SMT. RAMA DEVI PARWAL. CONTENTION OF THE AR IS THAT IN THE TABLE GIVEN AT PAGE NO. 4 AT SR. NO. 5 THE FIGURES IN LAST TWO COLUMNS GOT INTERCHANGED. THUS THE CORRECT ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS SHOULD BE RS. 1016258/- AND NOT RS . 2431000/- AS DONE BY THE AO. THE FIGURE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DVOS VALUATION OF THE PROPERTY REMAINS AS IT IS AS RS. 2600464/-. FURTHER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DVOS VALUATION SHOUL D NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS IT IS AN ESTIMATED VALUE OF DVO AND N OT UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 8 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. THE ADDITION MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS HAS NOT BEEN DECIDED. PROTECTIVE ADDITION PRESUPPOSES THE EXISTENCE OF SUBSTANTIVE A DDITIONS AND IN VIEW OF 264 ORDER OF CIT SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION NO MORE SURVI VES. CONTENTION OF THE AR IS CONCERNED. PROTECTIVE ADDIT ION OF RS. 2431000/- IS REDUCED TO RS. 1016258/- IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY UND ER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. AS THE FACT OF SUBST ANTIVE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF SH. JUGAL KISHORE PARWAL IS STIL L UNCERTAIN, TILL SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SH. JUGAL KISHORE REACHES ITS FINALITY, TO PROTECT THE INTEREST OF REVENUE PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 1016 258/- IS HEREBY UPHELD. IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTM ENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY CAN ONLY BE UPHELD AND THEREFORE, FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 2600464/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT IS HEREBY DELETED BEING DOUBLE ADDITION. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DECIDED PARTLY IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 10.3 THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRME D. THE GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO. 2, IS AGAINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,150/- A ND RS. 7,83,251/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 11.1 LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUB MITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 11.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D/R, WE FIND LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FACT AS UNDER: 9 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR THAT THESE DEPOSITS/ IN VESTMENTS WERE MADE BY SH. JUGAL KISHORE THOUGH THE ACCOUNTS/INVESTMENTS W ERE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. IN HERE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) T HE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT SHE HAD NO INCOME /INVESTMENT. FURTHER THE SA TISFACTION NOTE FOR INITIATING 158BD PROCEEDINGS CLEARLY STATE THAT THE INVESTMENTS /DEPOSITS MADE IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT SHOULD B ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. WITH THIS IT WAS RE QUESTED THAT THESE TWO ADDITIONS MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS MAY BE DELETED. CONTENTION OF THE AR IS CONSIDERED. IN THE SATISFA CTION NOTE IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT DOES NOT HAVE ANY INDE PENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, ADDITIONS SHOULD BE MADE ON P ROTECTIVE BASIS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE AP PELLANT IS A HOUSEWIFE AND PRIMA FACIE DOES NOT HAVE ANY SOURCE OF INCOME. EVEN NO PROOF OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN COULD BE FURNISHED. THESE FAC TS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELL ANT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. AS OTHER ASSETS/INCOME HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS, THESE4 TWO ADDITION OF RS. 54150/P- AND RS./ 78325/- SHOULD ALSO BE CONSIDERED AS ADDITION OF UN DISCLOSED INCOME MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE FIRST ADDITIONAL GROUND OF A PPEAL IS THUS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. 11.3 THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRME D. THE GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASS ESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN] ( DQY HKKJR ) (BHAG CHAND ) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 21/09/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPAUR . 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITSSA NO 08 & 10/JP/2011) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 11 IT(SS)A NO. 08 & 10/JP/2011 SMT. VIMLA DEVI PARWAL, JAIPUR.