LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI, Jaipur v. ITO, Dausa

ITA 357/JPR/2011 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 35723114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ADOPT9698Q
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 357/JPR/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI, Jaipur
Respondent ITO, Dausa
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 04-01-2012
Next Hearing Date 04-01-2012
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 20-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL: JAIPUR BENCH JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B. C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO. 357/JP/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04) LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI (ALIAS SMT. KAMLA DEVI) TH. L/H SHRI R. C. TYAGI PRINCIPAL JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDHYALAYA KHERLI PO BHANDAREH DISTT: DAUSA APP ELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD DAUSA RESPONDENT & ITA.NO.336/JP/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD DAUSA APPELLANT VS. LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI (ALIAS SMT. KAMLA DEVI) TH. L/H SHRI R. C. TYAGI PRINCIPAL JAWAHAR NAVODAYA VIDHYALAYA KHERLI PO BHANDAREH DISTT: DAUSA RESPONDENT I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 2 PAN: ADOPT9698Q / BY REVENUE :SHRI RAJESH OJHA D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI MANISH AGRAWAL A.R. /DATE OF HEARING :25.11.2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :28 .11.2014 ORDER PER BENCH THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE ARISING OUT FORM THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALWAR DATED 15.02.2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04. SO THEY ARE BEING DIS POSED OF BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER FOR SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ITA NO. 357/JP/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 ASSESSE E HAS FILED APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 148 WHICH ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD ALONG WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE AO AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL WOULD BE FOUND UNCALLED FOR THUS THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED NOTICE DESERVES TO BE HOLD ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY PRAYED TO BE DIRECTED TO BE ANNULLED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE VALU E I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 3 ADOPTED AS THE SALES CONSIDERATION AT RS.66.50 LACS U/S 50C IN PLACE OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIV ED FOR TRANSFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.50 LACS AND HAS FURTHER ERRED IN IGNORING THE OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSIONS BROUGHT ON RECORD. THUS THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAKEN AT RS.50.00 LACS INSTEAD OF RS.66.50 LACS FOR COMPUTING THE LONG TER M CAPITAL GAINS. 2.1 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN SUSTA INING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY REFERENCE MADE TO THE DVO BY THE LD. AO AS ENVISAGED U/S 50 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WHEN ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED THE SAME AND FILED THE VALUATION REPORT OF APPROVED VALUER THUS THE SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS.50 LACS AS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. 2.2 THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN DISCA RDING THE VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO T HE EXTENT THAT THE SALES CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN ADOPTE D AS PER SECTION 50C AND THE AO HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT PAR WITH THE VALUATION OFFICER AND THE ASSUMPTIO N AND PRESUMPTION OF THE AO HAS BEEN ACCEPTED INSPITE OF THE VALUATION REPORT WHICH OBSERVATION DESERVES TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE STATUTORY DEDUCTION U/S 54 AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSE E OUT OF THE CAPITAL GAINS UPHOLD WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDIT ION OF RS.27 00 000/- MADE BY THE AO BY HOLDING THE BANK ENTRIES TO BE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE LEGITIMATE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED EVIDENCES ADDUCED AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE CONCLUSION SO REACHED BEING UNLAWFUL AND ARBITRARY THE SAME DESERVES TO BE HOLD ILLEGAL AND THE RESULTANT ADDITIONS AS MADE DESERV ES TO BE DELETED IN TOTO. I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 4 3. IN ITA NO. 336/JP/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITIO N FROM RS.2715506/- TO RS.1272859/- AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.535000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.3235000/- AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED RETURN ON 27/08/2004 AT TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 36 780 /-. THE RETURN WAS FOUND DEFECTIVE THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFI CER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.139(9) OF ACT ON 02.03.2005 AND ASKED TO FILE DOCUMENTS BY 17.03.2005. SHE FURTHER GRANTED TIME UP TO 14.07.2005 WHEN ASSESSEE HAD NOT RESPONDED AGAINST THE NOTICE. SHE TREATED THE RETURN FILED AS INVALID RE TURN. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HA D SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY SITUATED AT MEERUT FOR A SALE CO NSIDERATION OF RS.50 LACS WHEREAS THE STAMP DUTY PAID FOR A VAL UE OF RS.66.50LACS TO THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY. AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO ASSESS CAPITAL GAIN BY CONSIDERING SALE VALUE ADOPTED BY REGISTERING AUTHO RITY. ACCORDINGLY ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE REASONS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS OBJECTED BY AS SESSEE. 4.1 IN APPEAL CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THIS ACTION OF ASS ESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRE ATED RETURN I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 5 FILED AS INVALID RETURN AS REQUIRED INFORMATION WER E NOT GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IN GIVEN TIME. WHEN RETURN WAS FOUND I NVALID IT WOULD BE NO RETURN IN THE EYES OF LAW. ASSESSING O FFICER RECORDED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE CASE U/S. 14 7 OF THE ACT. SHE ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 AS PER LAW AS SHE H AD INFORMATION OF REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME ESCAPE D TO ASSESS U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. CIT(A) RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ORD ER OF REOPENING BECAUSE INCOME HAS ESCAPED TO ACCESS AS D ISCUSSED ABOVE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 4.2 REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY IN QUESTION AT RS.66.50 LACS IN PLACE OF RETURNED CONSIDERATION RS .50 LACS. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT STAMP VALUING AUTHO RITY HAD TAKEN STAMP VALUE ON RS.66.50 LACS WHEREAS SALE CON SIDERATION WAS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE AT RS.50 LACS. ASSESSING OFF ICER COMPARED DETAILS OF VALUATION AND COMPUTATION OF CA PITAL GAIN AS PER INCOME TAX RETURN AS PER VALUATION REPORT A ND AS PER SALE DEED ON PAGE-6 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. SHE HAD T AKEN TOTAL VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 AT RS.8 20 200/- AS PER VALUATION REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.60 000/- AS PER RETURN OF INCOME . FINALLY THE INDEXED THE COST OF ACQUISITION WAS TAKEN AT RS.39 34 494/- IN PLACE OF RS.53 77 141/- CLAIMED B Y ASSESSEE. LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS CALCULATED AT RS.27 15 506/-. 4.3 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY WHEREIN REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED. THE COPY OF REMA ND REPORT I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 6 WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE WHO HAS ALSO FILED THE REPLY ON 20.02.2008. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT REFER THE VA LUATION OF THE PROPERTY TO VALUATION DEPARTMENT BECAUSE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST VALUATION PROPERTY BEFORE CONCER N AUTHORITY OR JUDICIAL FORUM. ASSESSEE MADE VARIOUS CONTENTIO NS IN THIS REGARD AND ALTERNATIVELY CLAIMED THAT RESIDENTIAL H OUSE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM JDA OF RS. 7 60 908/- WAS T O BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. 4.4 CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED VALUATION REPORT DATED 21.08.2006 FOR PUR POSE OF VALUATION AS ON 01.04.1981. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESE NTATIVE FILED VALUATION REPORT DATED 06.02.2003 BEFORE CIT( A) FOR FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.02.2003 WHICH WAS NOT FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDING IN WHICH FAIR MARKET VALUE HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT RS.45 LACS. AS PER SECTION 50C ASSESSEE HAS TO CLAIM BEFORE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATION A UTHORITY U/S. 1 OF SECTION 50C EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY AS ON DATE OF TRANSFER THEN ASSESSING OFFICER MAY R EFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSET TO VALUATION OFFICER. A SSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED ALL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE H ER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. SHE DID NOT REFER THIS P ROPERTY FOR VALUATION TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. ASSESSEE HAD A LSO NOT DISPUTED THE SAME IN APPEAL FOR REVISION BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTHORITY OR JUDICIAL FORUM WITH REGARDS TO VALUE A DOPTED OR ASSESSED BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. ASSESSEE IS SIMPLY I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 7 ARGUED CASE WITHOUT FILING VALUATION REPORT FROM TH E GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER AS ON DATE OF SALE OF PR OPERTY. ASSESSEE CAN EITHER USE VALUATION WHICH HAS BEEN FI NALLY DECIDED INCLUDING APPEAL U/S. 47A OF THE INDIAN ST AMP ACT 1899 OR VALUATION WHICH HAS BEEN ASCERTAINED BY TH E DEPARTMENTAL VALUER U/S. 50C OF THE ACT. IN THIS C ASE ASSESSEE MADE A REQUEST TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THE MA TTER TO VALUATION OFFICER FOR DETERMINING MARKET VALUE OF P ROPERTY BUT IN THIS CASE NO REQUEST WAS MADE BY ASSESSEE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. TH EREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY TAKEN SALE CONSIDERAT ION AT RS.66.5 LACS. 5. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TAKEN INDEXED VALUE AT RS.39 34 494/- ON DIFFERENT BASIS AS MENTIONED IN C HART OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF PAGE-6. SHE HAD POINTED OUT VA RIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN VALUATION REPORT DATED 21.08.2006 F OR FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. VARIOUS DEFECTS WER E THERE IN THE VALUATION REPORT BUT ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE VALUATION REPORT IN ABSENCE OF ANY VA LUATION REPORT AS ON 01.04.1981 FROM VALUATION OFFICER OF T HE DEPARTMENT. ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO M AKE STATEMENT ON TECHNICAL MATTER FOR WHICH THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD. WHATEVER DEFICIENCIES FOUND IN VALUATION R EPORT OF GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER ASSESSING OFFICER WAS T O REQUIRE TO TAKE FURTHER EVIDENCE WHICH IS ONLY WAY TO REFER THIS ISSUE TO DEPARTMENT VALUATION OFFICER WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DON E BY HER. I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 8 ASSESSEES INDEXED VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AS PER VA LUATION REPORT AT RS.53 77 141/- IN PLACE OF RS.39 34 494/- TAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.12 72 859/-. THUS ASSESSEE R IGHTLY GOT RELIEF OF RS.14 42 647/- AS GRANTED BY CIT(A) IS UP HELD BY US. 5.1 REGARDING ALTERNATIVE GROUND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE WHICH IS LEGAL ONE WHEREBY ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM JDA OF RS. 7 60 908/- WAS T O BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE RAISED BEFORE CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED BY CI T(A) WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. UNDER FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES F INDING FORCE IN THE LEGAL SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE ON THIS ISSUE WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO CIT(A) WITH DI RECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. 6. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARDS TO ADDITION ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT. ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.32 35 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D DEPOSIT IN BANK. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD BANK ACCOUNT NO. 14518 WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA MEERUT IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN DEPOSIT OF RS.82.35 LAC WHICH DI D NOT TALLY WITH THE RECEIPTS STATED TO BE RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SALE OF PROPERTY. THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS.32 35 000/- WHICH HAD BEEN ADDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 9 6.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY WHEREIN REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR WHICH WAS CON FRONTED TO ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME CIT(A) OBSE RVED THAT THERE WAS CROSS ENTRY OF RS.5 25 000/- ON 07.10.200 2 WHICH WAS VERIFIED FROM BANK ACCOUNT AND FOUND CORRECT. THE REMAINING DEPOSIT BALANCE OF RS.77 00 000/- INCLUDE D RS.50 LACS OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF PROPERTY. ASSESSEE H AD TO EXPLAIN RS. 27 LACS WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVED AS AD VANCES ON NEGOTIATION OF SALE TRANSACTION WITH EARLIER BUYERS . IT WAS EXPLAINED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE THAT RS.50 000/- RE CEIVED ON 20.05.2002 BY CASH AND RS.3 50 000/- ON 18.06.2002 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 619328 DATED 15.06.2002 FROM SHRI SUREND RA KUMAR SIROHI SAME WAS RETURNED BACK ON 01.11.2002 V IDE CHEQUE NO. 533241 DATED 25.10.2002. THE CONFIRMATI ON FILED BEFORE CIT(A) DID NOT HAVE ANY DATE OF CONFIRMATION AND PAN. THEREFORE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY CASH AND CHEQUE FOR R S.4 LAC WAS NOT FOUND EXPLAINED. ON 20.09.2002 ASSESSEE R ECEIVED RS.5 LAC AND ON 03.10.2002 RECEIVED RS. 5 LACS FROM SHRI AMAN SINGH THROUGH CHEQUE NO. 258638 AND 258639 OF PNB MEERUT. THIS AMOUNT WAS RETURNED BACK ON 22.02.2003 VIDE CH EQUE NO. 533245 TO SHRI AMAN SINGH. ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF CHEQUE NO. 258639 DATED 25.09.2002 COPY OF PAY IN SLIP OF CHE QUE NO. 258638 BUT NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FILED BY ASSESS EE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A). THEREFORE THIS AMOU NT WAS ALSO NOT FOUND EXPLAINED IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONFIRMATION. RS.5 25 000/- WERE RECEIVED FROM VIKRAM SINGH ON 17 .10.2002 VIDE CHEQUE NO. 949806 DATED 25.09.2002 DRAWN ON AL LAHABAD I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 10 BANK DELHI CHUNGI ROAD MEERUT. SAME AMOUNT HAD B EEN RETURNED BACK TO SHRI VIKARAM SINGH VIDE CHEQUE NO. 533244 DATED 22.02.2003 WHICH WAS CLEARED IN BANK ON 25.02 .2003. ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF CHEQUE NO. 533244 DATED 22.0 2.2003 BUT NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION FROM CASH CREDITORS. TH EREFORE THIS AMOUNT ALSO WAS NOT FOUND EXPLAINED. ASSESSEE RECE IVED ADVANCE OF RS.3 75 000/- FROM M/S. OMWATI VIDE CHEQ UE NO. 538291 DATED 25.09.2002 CLEARED ON 03.10.2002 AND S AME WAS RETURNED BACK VIDE CHEQUE NO. 533246 DATED 22.0 2.2003 WHICH WAS CLEARED ON 24.02.2003. ASSESSEE FILED PH OTOCOPY OF CHEQUE NO.538291 PNB MEERUT OF OMWATI FOR RS.3 75 000/- BUT NO CONFIRMATION FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AS WELL AS BEFORE CIT(A). THEREFORE THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO NOT FOUND EXPLAINED. THERE WAS CASH ENTRY FOR RS.4 LACS DATE D 22.10.2001. ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN THIS AMOUNT B EFORE CIT(A) AND SAME WAS FOUND UNEXPLAINED. ASSESSEE HA D PROVIDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE NATU RE AND SOURCE OF INCOME BY ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE HA D NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION CREDITWO RTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND IDENTITY OF PERSONS. THUS TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.27 00 000/- WAS CONFIRMED. THE ABOVE TRANSACTIO NS CLAIMED TO BE BY BANK CHANNEL AND FURTHER CLAIMED T O BE RETURN BY ASSESSEE NEED DEEP PROBE INTO MATTER TO A SCERTAIN GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. SO IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIR ECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE I.T.A. NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 (LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI VS. ITO) PAGE 11 OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS RELI EF GRANTED BY CIT(A) OF RS. 5 35 000/- IS UPHELD. 7. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- (B. C. MEENA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- LATE SMT. URMILA TYAGI 2. THE RESPONDENT- ITO WARD DAUSA 3. THE CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. THE DR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NOS. 357 & 336/JP/2011) BY ORDER A.R. JAIPUR.