Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Shri Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur vs Ito, War-6(3), Jaipur on 17 August, 2020
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES 'A' JAIPUR
Jh fot; iky jko] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe 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. 1357/JP/2019
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2011-12
Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani cuke ITO,
13, Mahesh Nagar Vistar Vs. Ward 6(3),
Barkat Nagar, Tonk Road, Jaipur Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AFAPJ6028C
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta (Adv.)
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Ms. Chanchal Meena (Addl.CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 30/07/2020
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 17/08/2020
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A)- 2, Jaipur dated 31.10.2019 wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-
"1. The impugned order u/s 143(3) dated 28.02.2014 is bad in law, invalid, illegal and on facts of the case, for want of jurisdiction, barred by limitation and various other reasons and hence the same may kindly be quashed.
2.1 Rs. 1,31,984/- : the ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in partly sustaining the trading addition of Rs. 1,31,984/- by taking the turnover of Rs. 12,00,000/- and N.P. rate of 15.00% as against turnover of Rs. 15,00,000/- and as against the ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur actual turnover of Rs. 9,85,568/- and N.P. rate of 14.23%, without rejecting the books of account.
And the ld. CIT(A) has also further erred in rejecting or invoking the provision of Sec. 145(3) without issuing any show cause u/s 251 of the IT Act. Hence the addition so made by the AO and partly confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) and invoking the provisions of Sec. 145(3) is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.
3.1 Rs. 25,00,000/- : The ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in confirming the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the ld. AO on account of cash deposits in the bank account which has been received against sale agreement of land at Sujangarh, which has also been returned to the buyer through cheque after some time due to cancellation of Agreement. Hence the addition so made by the AO and confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) treating the same as unexplained is being totally contrary to the provisions of law and facts on the record and hence same may kindly be deleted in full.
3.2 Alternatively and without prejudice to above it is submitted that if it is deemed or held that the assessee has sold the agriculture land than the gain received from that is exempt being the agriculture land u/s 2(14) (iii) and the AO may kindly be directed to calculate capital gain as per law and allow the exemption.
3. The ld. AO has grossly erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest u/s 234 A.B.C and the appellant totally denies it liability of charging of any such interest. The interest, so charged, 2 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur being contrary to the provisions of law and facts, may kindly be deleted in full."
2. Ground no. 1 is general in nature and doesn't require any separate adjudication.
3. In ground no. 2, the assessee has challenged the action of the ld CIT(A) in sustaining the trading addition of Rs 39,722/-.
4. Heard both the parties and purused the material available on record. The books of accounts have rightly been rejected u/s 145(3) and thereafter, net profit has been estimated @ 15% as against 14.23% declared by the assessee. Nothing has been brought to our notice in terms of prior settled history of the assessee or comparative third party data. In the facts and circumstances of the case, we therefore upheld the order of the ld CIT(A) and the ground of appeal is hereby dismissed.
5. In Ground No. 3, the assessee has challenged the action of ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition of Rs. 25,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash deposited in the bank account maintained with SBI, Tonk Road, Jaipur.
6. Briefly, the facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer observed that there is a cash deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- on 25.01.2011 in the bank account maintained by the assessee with SBI and copy of bank account was obtained from the bank u/s 133(6) of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposit and considering the submissions of the assessee, a 3 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur detailed show cause dated 07.02.2014 was issued and the contents thereof read as under:-
"During the course of assessment proceedings, you were required to explain the immediate source of Rs. 25 lacs deposited in cash in your bank a/c No.30401351621 maintained with SBI. In reply, you stated that this amount represents amount received in cash from Sh. Rajaram Gujar and Devesh Kumar Gujar, Taruchaya Nagar, Jaipur with whom a transaction for sale of land at Sujangarh was entered into as per photo copy of agrement dated 25/1/2011. In order to verify the veracity of your claim, you were required to produce them, but you expressed your inability to produce them for personal examination. Therefore, these persons were required to attend the office by issuance of summons u/s 131 for verification of the facts stated in the sale agreement, particularly why these persons agreed to purchase a land of 17 bigha situated in a remote village Tilap situated in Sujangarh Tehsil of Churu for consideration of Rs. 25,00,000/ -, which was much much higher than the rate of the land in that area (you yourself had sold 16 bighas of land for Rs.8,22,000/- only in 28/1/2011 to Smt. Jhoomadevi W/o Mohan Ram of Ladnun). Further, there was a clause in the agreement that if the land is not registered within month of the agreement, i.e. 25/2/2011, the transaction will be treated as cancelled and the amount given to you will be returned to these persons. You are required to explain whether the amount of Rs. 25 lacs stated to have been received by you in cash has been returned to the aforesaid persons and if so, the explain the immediate source of this amount. Since you have not been able to explain the immediate source of income, I require you to show-cause as to why the amount should not 4 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur be added to your total income in terms of provisions of Sec. 69 of IT Act, 1961. Your reply should be filed on 14/02/2014, to which date the case is finally posted for hearing. In case of non-compliance, the case will be decided on merits without further reference to you. Ensure compliance."
7. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 14.02.2014 submitted that the amount has since been returned back to Mr. Rajaram Gurjar and Mr. Devesh Kumar Gurgar as per the following details:
Date Amount Returned Remarks
18/03/2011 10,00,000/- 8,00,000/- by cheque No. 827715
SBI Bank (photocopy of pass book
attached) 2,00,000/- cash withdraw
from SBI bank on 01/02/2011 by
cheque No. 834385.
13/09/2011 10,00,000/- Cheque No. 625784 of SBI Bank
received from Kinjal.
(Photocopy of passbook attached)
18/01/2014 4,00,000/- Withdrawn from PNB pension A/c
(cash) Photocopy of pass book
attached.
8. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer for reasons given at pages 7 to 11 of the assessment order held that the assessee has failed to produce alleged purchasers for personal examination in order to verify the facts stated in the so-called Ikrarnama and alleged purchasers also failed to attend his office for verification in response to summons u/s 131 issued to them. It was accordingly held that the immediate source of the cash deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- in the bank account is not satisfactorily explained by the assessee and the amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- was added to the assessee's total income.
5 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur
9. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A) and moved an application u/s 46A with the request to admit the additional evidence in the form of affidavit of Sh. Rajaram Gurjar dated 1st March, 2014 regarding refund of Rs 25 lacs as well as affidavits of the witnesses to the agreement with Sh. Rajaram Gurjar. In the said application, it is again noted that the assessee has made reference to the letter dated 14.02.2014 mentioning the details of repayment to Sh. Rajaram Gurjar and Devesh Kumar Gurjar. The ld. CIT(A) called for remand report from the Assessing Officer and the relevant contents of the remand report read as under:
"Further, even during the appellate proceedings, the assessee has not claimed before your good-self to produce both the purchaser parties for verification but has furnished the said manipulated additional evidences to hide his undisclosed income which was deposited in his bank account. These additional evidences are prepared after completion of assessment by the AO. The assessee had produced a copy of affidavit dated 01.03.2014 of Shri Rajaram Gurjar only whereas lkrarnama dated 25.01.2011 was made between the assessee and Shri Rajaram Gurjar & Shri Devesh Kumar. Shri Rajaram Gurjar in the said affidavit has stated that the lkrarnama was cancelled and he has received back Rs. 25 lacs between 18.03.2011 to 20.02.2014.
However, during the assessment proceedings, the AO vide show cause dated 07.02.2014 asked the assessee to explain the immediate source of the amount returned to the said purchasers as no such balance was available in his bank accounts. But, the assessee also failed to explain the sources of such repayment. The other additional evidence produced by the assessee are the affidavits of witnesses namely Chandra Kunwar & Shri Varun 6 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur Singh which are also prepared on 09.02.2016 wherein witnesses are trying to justify the said transaction but incorrect details of the said transaction are mentioned in these affidavits. The remaining amount of Rs. 9.50 lacs is mentioned by both parties to be given at the time of registration whereas as per lkrarnama dated 25.01.2011 witnessed by them balance amount of Rs. 10,34,000/-was to be paid at the time of registration. They have not mentioned about the cancellation of this transaction in their affidavits. Hence, the said additional evidence is proved to be an another after thought attempt by the assesee to hide his unexplained cash deposits.
In this connection, it is submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the AO required the assessee to establish the genuineness of his claim of immediate source of cash deposits of Rs. 25 lacs made in his bank account. However, the assessee completely failed to produce the so called purchasers despite specific requirement and the so called purchasers also failed to turn up for verification during assessment proceedings and now by filing affidavit after completion of assessment of one party does not establish the genuineness of the claim of assessee for immediate source of cash deposits. All these facts indicates that the assessee has not come clean on the issue of immediate source of cash deposits of Rs. 25 lacs as well as immediate source of repayment made to so called purchasers during the assessment proceedings as well as in appellate proceedings."
10. Thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) considering the submission of the assessee as well as the remand report of the AO and rejoinder filed by the assessee, confirmed the action of the AO and her findings read as under:-
7 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur "4.3.2 On perusal of overall facts, it is seen that during entire assessment and remand proceedings, assessee failed to justify the receipt of cash from these two persons. Their affidavits are self-
servicing evidences in absence of corroborative evidences. Affidavits of witness are stereo typed where even the amount of agreed sale consideration was wrongly stated at Rs. 34,50,000/- as against agreement at Rs. 35,34,000/-. Nowhere, it is stated that the deal was cancelled and amount refunded back. The affidavits are incomplete not having age, nature of work of deponents. It seems they are given to justify the story of the assessee.
The assessee failed to produce both buyers, Raja Ram Gurjar and Devesh Kumar, for examination before Assessing Officer in assessment and remand proceedings. Since the amount was received in cash, the genuineness of transaction is also in doubt. Thus, the credit worthiness of these parties could not be established. It is the onus of assessee to prove all 3 conditions that is identity creditworthiness and genuineness. Thus the claim of receipt of cash advance of Rs. 25,00,000/- is rejected. In para 8 and 9 of his order, the Assessing Officer observed that the rate of land according to which it was proposed to be sold was exorbitantly high. It is not acceptable that two residents from Jaipur agreed to purchase the land at Churu for such a high price. Thus I am of the view that Assessing Officer rightly made addition which deserves to be upheld.
In alternate ground no. 3.2, assessee tried to contend that if explanation regarding source of cash deposit is not accepted and deemed as part of sale consideration of agricultural land, the same would be exempt.
8 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur This plea is not tenable as assessee himself had filed the agreements and filed Rajaram Gurjar's affidavit dated 01.03.2014 stating that the sale was not executed and transactions were cancelled and part payment was received back in form of 2 cheques of Rs. 8,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- respectively. Besides, Rs. 7,00,000/- was received in cash on various dates in cash. Therefore, alternative ground of appeal is dismissed. Thus grounds of appeal are dismissed."
11. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the appellant- assessee is a retired person from Indian Air Force. During the year, he has made an agreement to sale on 25.01.2011 of his agriculture land with Sh. Rajaram Gurjar and Devesh Gurjar both are brother and dealing in property business, for a consideration of Rs. 35,34,000/- out of that, sale consideration Rs. 25.00 lacs has been received in cash and the assessee has deposited this cash in his bank account on 28.01.2011 for safety. Admittedly in the said agreement, it was mentioned that if the registration is not executed within one month, the transaction shall be treated as cancelled vide sale agreement. Thereafter the assessee has also invested Rs.11.00 lacs in the booking of new plot with M/s Kinzal Colonizers on 02.02.2011 out of the above payment and payment was made through RTGS from the very same bank A/c. The purchaser found that the rate of that land costly or by one and other reasons and hence he has cancelled the agreement. And the assessee has returned the money to him as under:
Rs. 8.00 Lcas by cheque no. 827715 on 18.03.2011 Rs. 10.00 Lacs by cheque no. 625784 on 13.09.2011 Rs. 2.00 Lacs by cash on 01.02.2011 Rs. 4.00 Lacs by cash on 18.01.2014 Rs. 1.00 Lacs by cash on 20.02.2014 9 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019
Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur The above detail are supported by the bank statement of the assessee and also by the affidavit of the purchaser dt.01.03.2014 which could not be filed before the ld. AO due to the reasons that the assessment order has already been passed before filling the affidavit. However we have filed the same before the ld. CIT(A) and further the assessee has also received the affidavits of Sh. Nandan Singh and Smt. Chandra Kunwar who were the witnesses in that agreement with Sh. Rajaram. Thus these facts and information are duly supported with one another and are being correlated. These affidavits have been filled in the appellate proceedings and the ld. CIT(A) has also sent the same to the ld. AO for his comments. These vital evidences and details cannot be ignored where there is no any material and evidences to rebut the same. And the lower authorities have not rebutted the same by any of material and evidences.
12. It was further submitted by the ld AR that there is no evidence on record that the assessee has received the said Rs. 25.00 lacs cash from any other source than to this sale consideration or any other person other than Rajaram and Devesh and also there is no evidence on record that the assessee has repaid Rs.18. Lac through cheque and Rs.7.00 in cash to Sh. Rajaram Gurjar for other than to against to this cancellation of sale agreement.
13. It was further submitted that the ld. AO himself admitted that the notice u/s 131 has been served upon them. The reasons of non-appearing by the purchaser may be that the purchaser has not received full amount from the assessee and he does not want to come before income tax department or to save himself from to be exposed and there may be various other reasons which are not in the hands of the assessee. It is not case of the department that any statements have been recorded of Sh. Rajaram and he 10 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur denied or has stated that he has not done any transaction with the assessee. Only for the reason that on the date he has not appeared, the true transaction supported with the vital evidences cannot be denied in absence of any contrary evidences.
14. It was further submitted that the contention made in the letter of affidavit should be accepted as truth unless rebutted. Because these affidavits have not been rebutted by lower authority by bring any contrary evidence or without examining. It is very settled legal position that in the cases where affidavit has been filed yet the contents thereof have not been rebutted by the AO/authority, the facts mentioned therein have to be read as the facts binding upon the Income Tax authorities. In the present case in support the assessee had filed the affidavit of purchaser and witness as an additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A) and the same have been sent to the AO for his comments and the ld. AO has not rebutted the contents of the affidavit nor examined it mean either he was satisfied or he has no material to disprove the same. If the AO has failed to give any comments thereon, then in-absence of the same how the ld. CIT(A) can comment on the same without asking any question from the assessee for clarifications if any in the amount. An affidavit is the important piece of evidence, should not be taken lightly and if there is any wrong affidavit is given by any of the party or person the same is offence and may be punished under the law. In absence of the same the same cannot be discarded but is the evidence of the acceptance. Hence in routine manner to say that the affidavits are self- serving evidence or stereo-type is not acceptable until and unless not disproved by the authority who alleging the same.
15. Regarding the allegation of the lower authorities about the rate of sale or cost of Agriculture land sold to Sh. Rajaram and Jhuma Devi W/o Mohan Ram for Rs. 8,22,000/- on 28.01.2011. In this regard it is submitted that 11 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur Agriculture land sold to Sh. Rajaram and Jhuma Devi W/o Mohan Ram was un-irrigated situated on 10 feet wide way/rasta and also of Dhorai.eBaluMeeti due to that, the rate of said land was on lower side. While the agriculture land for which sale agreement was executed with Sh. Rajaram Gurjar was irrigated, situated on 300feet road and plane in level that is why the rate of said land was higher than to earlier land and the lower authorities have failed to consider and did not try to go in the reason but proceeds on their own guess work, assumption, presumption and suspicion, which is against the law.
16. Regarding the allegation of the ld. AO and CIT(A) that the assessee failed to produce the original sale agreement and the so called purchasers for examination. In this regard, it is submitted that the original agreement was kept by the purchasers who has paid the money and despite our request he has not given to us and we were under impression that the same may stands destroyed by him (purchaser), when the deals has been cancelled, however the assessee had produced before the lower authority, the photo copy of agreement which was originally duly notarized on the same date by same notary public and is also being produce before your honor. However just some days before the assessee has been able to secure the original agreement from the purchaser after making repeated request and visits to purchaser and the same is being shown or produced before your honor for your kind verification, thus now the issue of non-production of original agreement does not survive and assessee deserve to succeed the matter.
17. Regarding the allegation that nothing has been mentioned in the sale agreement that how much amount was paid by Sh. Rajaram and how much amount was paid by Sh. Devesh Kumar and how much amount was paid to Sh. Rajaram and Sh. Devesh Kumar by the assessee if the agreement is cancelled. In this regard, it was submitted that the assesse has submitted 12 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur the full details of payment made through cheque and cash to the lower authorities, hence the allegation are wrong and liable to be quash.
18. It was further submitted that the assessee has booked a plot with Kinzal Colonizers and made payment of Rs. 11,00,000/- by RTGS on 02.02.2011. Since Sh. Rajaram has disagreed to purchase the land in that circumstances, assessee had been forced to cancel the plot booking and that is why M/s Kinjal Colonizers has made repayment of Rs. 11,00,000/- to the assessee on 10.09.2011 and same amount was paid to Devesh or Rajaram by cheque No. 625784/83 SBI Bank on 13.09.2011. The assessee has proved the utilization and transactions date wise with the bank statement and the lower authorities have failed to disprove the same and not spoke a single word on the same. The ld. AO has nowhere proved that for what the assessee has made payment to Sh. Rajaram or Devesh through cheque. The ld. AO has not provided or proved the source and utilization of cash deposits other than stated by the assesse and also not proved that the assessee has also having other source of income except pension and business. It was accordingly submitted that the addition made by the AO and sustained by the ld CIT(A) be deleted.
19. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that the Assessing Officer was having specific information regarding the cash deposit of Rs. 25,00,000/- by the assessee in his bank account maintained with SBI. The assessee was asked to explain source of cash deposit and in response, the assessee submitted that he has received the said amount from Sh. Rajaram Gurjar and Devesh Kumar Gurjar in terms of sale agreement of agriculture Land situated at Sujangarh and photocopy of ikrarnama dated 25.01.2011 was filed. In order to verify the veracity of the claim made, the assessee was asked to produce the so-called purchasers for personal examination. Thereafter, summons 13 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur were also issued u/s 131 which remanded uncomplied with and after issuing show cause dated 07.02.2014, the Assessing Officer for detail reasons given in the assessment order, the AO has held that the assessee has failed to satisfactorily explain the source of cash deposit in his bank account and the same was accordingly brought to tax. Further, our specific reference was drawn to the per bigha rate of the land situated at the same village which assessee has separately sold and the per bigha rate of land in so-called sale agreement which is higher by 400%. It was submitted that in such circumstances, it was incumbent on the part of the Assessing Officer to carry out further investigation in terms of seeking the personal appearance of the alleged purchasers. However, the assessee failed to produce the alleged purchasers and the summons issued u/s 131 also remained uncomplied with. Regarding the contention of the ld AR that subsequently money has been refunded to the purchasers due to cancellation of the sale, our reference was drawn to the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer before the ld. CIT(A) and it was submitted that even the assessee failed to explain the repayment and the affidavits filed by the witnesses to the so-called agreement are not reliable and self-servicing evidences in absence of corroborative evidences. It was accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of ld. CIT(A) and the same may be confirmed.
20. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. The limited issue for consideration is whether the assessee has satisfactorily explained the nature and source of cash deposit of Rs 25 lacs in his bank account maintained with SBI. The explanation furnished by the assessee is that the source of such deposit is advance received from the buyers of the plot of land where the assessee has agreed to sell vide agreement dated 25.01.2011 and to substantiate the same, copy of such agreement was filed during the course of assessment proceedings.
14 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur On perusal of the said agreement, the AO had raised certain apprehension in terms of rate at which the land was agreed to be sold, how the parties have met and how the money was exchanged and whether the land was finally sold or cancelled and whether the money was repaid or not and the source of such repayment. Therefore, he wanted to examine the purchasers and asked the assessee to produce these persons and also issued summons to them which remain uncomplied with and thereafter, not satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, he proceeded to make the addition in the hands of the assessee in terms of unexplained cash deposits. However, the question that arises for consideration is that in such circumstances, what the AO could have done or have done differently. We donot find any fault in the approach adopted by the AO in verifying the source of cash deposit except that the AO missed verifying few important factual matters. Firstly, whether the assessee is the owner of the said plot of land or not which he proposes to sell to the buyers and in whose name the property stood at the relevant point in time. Secondly, the financial capability of the buyers to enter into such a transaction. Thirdly, the AO on perusal of the agreement himself noticed that the agreement talks about cancellation of the agreement where the registration is not executed. However, it was not verified whether registration was finally done or not and whether the money was refunded to the buyers or not. As we have noted in para 7 above, during the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated 14.02.2014 submitted that the amount has since been returned back to Mr. Rajaram Gurjar and Mr. Devesh Kumar Gurgar through cheque amounting to Rs 18 lacs and remaining in cash. This claim of the assessee of returning of the amount originally received from the buyers presupposes the previous understanding between the parties at the time of entering into the agreement and the terms of such understanding which therefore cannot be ignored. The claim of the assessee of returning the amount through cheque 15 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur can be easily verified from the assessee's bank statement and the same cannot be manipulated, however, the same has not been verified either during the assessment or during the appellate stage. The affidavit of the buyer even though executed subsequent to the close of the assessment proceedings, however, where the transactions are reflected in the assessee's bank account, the same cannot be manipulated subsequently and can be easily verifiable directly from the Bank. During the course of hearing, the ld AR has also submitted that the assessee has been able to obtain the original sale agreement which could not be produced earlier as the same was with the buyers and has also submitted the source of repayments which also require proper verification. We therefore believe that the matter requires fresh examination taking into consideration the aforesaid aspects and the matter is accordingly set-aside to the file of the AO to examine the same a fresh after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee. In the result, the ground is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 17/08/2020.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur
fnukad@Dated:- 17/08/2020
*Ganesh Kr.
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 16 ITA No. 1357/JP/2019 Sh. Chandra Ram Jyani, Jaipur Vs. ITO, Ward 6(3), Jaipur
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. 1357/JP/2019} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar 17