MAHADEV YADAV,JAIPUR vs. ITO, WARD 7-2, JAIPUR`

PER SHRI KUL BHART, JM.

These three Appeals filed by the different Assessee is directed against the

order of Ld. CIT (Appeals)-3, Jaipur dated 27.02.2015 pertaining to Assessment Year

2 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.

2007-08. Since the common grounds are involved in these appeals. All these

appeals are taken up together and disposed of by consolidated order.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the facts are

identical in all these cases. Therefore, He submitted that ITA No. 348/JP/2015 may

be taken up as a lead case.

ITA No. 348/JP/2015.

Therefore, first we take up ITA No. 348/JP/2015.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :-

“1. That the Authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs. 52,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the petitioner as discussed in para 4(3) of the CIT(A) order. 2. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as unexplained investment as discussed in para 5(3) of the CIT(A) order. 3. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 90,000/- as income from undisclosed sources as discussed in para 6(3) of the CIT(A) order. 4. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,47,400/- as alleged unexplained expenditure in registration charges as discussed in para 7(3) of the CIT(A) order. 5. That the addition so make by the authority is bad in law as well as on facts. 6. That the petitioner craves to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

disposed of.

assessment under section 143(3) read with section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) was framed vide order dated 19th March, 2013.

While framing the assessment the Assessing Officer observed that the assessee

3 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.

along with other two brothers namely Sh. Hanuman and Sh. Gopal, purchased land

for Rs. 1,87,20,000/- on 24/05/2006. The land was jointly purchased. The

assessee was asked to furnish the source of investment vide order dated

25/02/2013. The assessee stated that the investment was made out of own funds

of the assessee and his brothers and loans from 19 other persons. It was stated

that assessee and his two brothers out of own source invested Rs. 40 lakhs and a

sum of Rs. 1,47,20,000/- was invested out of the loan fund. It was stated that the

assessee’s sale in investment came to Rs. 62.40 lacs excluding the registration

authorities. It is observed by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had taken loan

of Rs. 52.40 lacs. The assessee was asked to furnish the source of such investment

and after considering the material available record the Assessing Officer assessed

total income of Rs. 65,27,930/- and made addition on account of unexplained

registration of Rs. 3,74,400/- and unexplained income of Rs. 8 lacs inflated

agricultural income of Rs. 90,000/-.

after considering the submission dismissed the appeal. Now, the assessee is in

further appeal before this Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that in course of Assessment proceedings,

the assessee had furnished confirmation of all 19 persons in respect of the loan

given by them and drew our attention to Paper Book Page No. 7-25. The

assessee produced all these persons before the AO except Sh. Mangilala who had

expired but the AO recorded the statements of only 4 persons and did not recocrd

the statements of other persons for the reasons best known to them. He submitted

4 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.

before Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed an evidence of their agricultural income by

filing their Girdawari report. From the same it can be noted that these persons have

substantial agricultural landholding and agricultural income which proves their

creditworthiness. Therefore, without any material prove otherwise, addition made

by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A) is unjustified.

submissions and submitted that these evidences were not furnished before the

authorities below.

and gone through the order of the authorities below. We find that the assessee had

placed on record Girdawari report PB L-1 to L19 of the people who had claimed to

have given loan to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, during the

course of hearing stated that these evidences would prove the creditworthiness of

the persons who have given loan to the assessee. It is contended that matter may

be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh; on this Ld. D/R

has no objections. Therefore, considering the totality of the fact, we set aside the

assessment order and direct the Assessing Officer to frame denovo assessment,

after verifying the claim of the assessee. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for

statistical purpose.

No. 349/JP/2015 pertaining to the AY 2007-08.

Both the appeals’ grounds are reproduced as under:-

ITA No. 347/JP/2015

5 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:_

“1. That the Authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs. 42,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the petitioner as discussed in para 4(3) of the CIT(A) order. 2. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 18,00,000/- as unexplained investment as discussed in para 5(3) of the CIT(A) order. 3. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 40,000/- as income from undisclosed sources as discussed in para 6(3) of the CIT(A) order. 4. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,74,400/- as alleged unexplained expenditure in registration charges as discussed in para 7(3) of the CIT(A) order. 5. That the addition so make by the authority is bad in law as well as on facts. 6. That the petitioner craves to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

ITA No. 349/JP/2015

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:-

“1. That the Authorities below erred in making the addition of Rs. 52,40,000/- as unexplained cash credit and added to the total income of the petitioner as discussed in para 4(3) of the CIT(A) order. 2. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- as unexplained investment as discussed in para 5(3) of the CIT(A) order. 3. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 40,000/- as income from undisclosed sources as discussed in para 6(3) of the CIT(A) order. 4. That the Authorities below further erred in making an addition of Rs. 3,74,400/- as alleged unexplained expenditure in registration charges as discussed in para 7(3) of the CIT(A) order. 5. That the addition so make by the authority is bad in law as well as on facts. 6. That the petitioner craves to add, alter or amend all or any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing.”

348/JP/2015. The parties have adopted the same arguments. In this case also

6 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.

we set aside the order and directed the Assessing Officer for framing denovo

assessment. Both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes.

349/JP/2015 are allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on Monday, the 29th day of May 2017.

Sd/- Sd/- ( dqy Hkkjr) ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 29 /05/2017. Pooja/ आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेषित@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Mahadev Yadav, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur. 2. The Respondent- The Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(2), Jaipur. 3. The CIT(A) 4. The CIT, 5. The DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349/JP/2015) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@ Aेेपेजंदज. त्महपेजतंत

7 ITA Nos. 347, 348 & 349 /JP/2015. Shri Gopal Yadav, Shri Madadev, Shri Hanuman Yadav, Begus Jaipur.