Vinod Kumar Singhal, SRIGANGANAGAR V. ACIT, SRIGANGANAGAR

ITA 1/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4747 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K DAS
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHISH SIGHAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Revised return
• Section: 44AD; 54F; 142(1)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI B.P JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 01 & 02 /JODH/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 08 - 09 & 2009 - 10 VINOD KUMAR SINGHAL VS. ACIT TH. LEGAL HEIR SH. AMAN SINGHAL CIRCLE PROP. SHIV SHAKTI ENTERPRISES SRIGANGANAGAR RA - 10, RIDHI SIDHI ENCLAVE - 1, SRIGANGANAGAR PAN NO. ADUPS0895E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHISH SIGHAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. A.K. DAS DATE OF HEARING : 20/12/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/12/2016 ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , JM BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), BIKANER DT. 13/11/2014 AND 12/11/2014 RESPECTIVELY. 2. FIRST WE SHALL DEAL WITH ITA NO. 01/JODHPUR/2015 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 2 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW & IN FACTS BY SUSTAINING COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AT RS. 5756980 AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 5280410. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING BIFURCATION OF CONTRACTS RECEIPTS INTO SUPPLY CONTRACTS & CIVIL CONTRACTS THOUGH ALL CONTRACTS WERE INTEGRALLY UNDERTAKEN FROM ARMY / RAILWAYS THEREAFTER IN CONFIRMING NP RATE AT 4.05% ON SUPPLY CONTRACTS ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE RATE OF EARLIER FOUR YEARS & ADOPTION OF NP RATE AT 8% ON CIVIL CONTRACTS BY REFERRI NG TO SECTION 44AD. THAT BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INTERRELATED AND SHALL BE DEALT TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS APPEARING IN THIS CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 IN ITR - 4 ON 30/09/2 008, DECLARED INCOME THEREIN WAS RS. 52,80,410/ - . THIS INCLUDED INCOME UNDER THE HEADS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS & PROFESSION AMOUNTING TO RS.( - ) 46,715/ - AND RS. 54,42,125/ - RESPECTIVELY. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTIO N 143(1) ON 06/05/2009. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) DT. 25/09/2009 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON 29/09/2009. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DT. 05/01/2010 WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 57,56,980/ - . THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO STATED THAT TOTAL RECEIPT OF RS. 18,29,37,222/ - HAS INCLUDE RECEIPT OF RS. 27,57,150/ - FROM CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS (EXECUTION OF WMM(PAINT MIX) & BITUMEN WORK INCLUDING R OAD - SURFACE & APPLYING COAT, TRACT COURT AND LAYING OF ROAD) WHERE NP RATE OF 8% AS SPECIFIED U/S 44AD WAS APPLIED & BALANCE RECEIPT OF RS. 180180072 FOR SUPPLY CONTRACTS AVERAGE RATE OF 4.05% FOR FOUR YEARS SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION WAS APPLIED ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS. 3,61,569/ - WAS MADE. 3 4. THAT AT THE TIME OF APPELLATE HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE CONTINUED EXECUTION OF MAINLY SUPPLY CONTRACTS GIVEN BY ARMY, RAILWAYS & PARTLY CIVIL C ONTRACTS OF SMALL EXTENT FOR WHICH INCOME WAS ALWAYS ASCERTAINED BY APPLYING COMMON NP RATE ON TOTAL RECEIPTS WITHOUT BIFURCATING IN TO SUPPLY CONTRACTS & CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ON ONE HAND AO HAD PROCEEDED ON HIS PAST HISTORY AND ON OTHER HAND DEVIATED FROM PAST PRACTICE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON THOUGH NATURE & CONDITIONS OF BUSINESS, MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNT REMAINED ALMOST THE SAME. THE BOOKS WERE AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB AND SECTION 44AD HAS NO RELEVANCE IN SUCH CASE OF SUPPLY CO NTRACTS BEING MAIN BUSINESS AND CONSTRUCTION WORK BEING ON SMALL LEVEL AND FURTHER COMMON ACCOUNT - BOOKS FOR WHOLE BUSINESS WERE KEPT. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A COMPARATIVE CHART ON RECEIPTS OF GP/NP SHOWING NP IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS BETTER . THE COMPARATIVE CHART OF GP AND NP AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 2008 - 09 2007 - 08 2006 - 07 2005 - 06 2004 - 05 TOTAL RECEIPTS 182937222 105632021 103999905 82845592 41696512 NP BEFORE DEP. 7156291 4649693 3845788 2938467 1893178 RATE 3.91% 4.40% 3.70% 3.55% 4.54% DEPRECIATION 1714166 1749953 1702620 1415335 1030122 NP AFTER DEPRECIATION 5442125 2899740 2143168 1523132 863056 RATE 2.97% 2.75% 2.06% 1.84% 2.07% INCOME RETURNED 5280410 2789740 196 5840 1770580 911050 INCOME FINALLY ASSESSED 5641980 2789740 1965840 1770580 1394123 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE HELD AS UNDER : 4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. THE AO CLEARLY STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE VAR IOUS COURT HAVE HELD THA THE PAST RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THE BEST COMPARATIVE RESULTS. THE TURNOVER HAVING INCREASED APPLICATION OF AVERAGE RESULT OF THE PAST WOULD BE MOST APPROPRIATE. THE AVERAGE RATE FOR THE FOUR YEARS PRIOR TO DEPRECIATION WORKS O UT TO 4.05% THIS RATE CAN BE CONSIDERED TO BE APPLICABLE TO THE SUPPLY BUSINESS AND THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM WHICH AMOUNT TO RS. 18,01,072/ - THE INCOME AFTER APPLYING @ 4.05% WORKS OUT TO RS. 72,97,290/ - . THE PROFIT RATE APPLICABLE ON THE CONSTRUCTION BUSI NESS AS PER PROVISION OF 44AD WOULD BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE CONSIDERING THAT THE TURNOVER FROM THE SAID BUSINESS IS LESS THAN RS. 40 LAC. THE CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS ARE RS. 27,57,150/ - . THE INCOME @ 8% WORKS OUT TO RS. 2,20,570/ - , FURTHER, THE ITAT, JODHP UR IN THE CASE OF AJAY GOYAL VS. ITO(99 TTJ 164) HAD HELD THAT THE POSITION OF LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE BEST GUIDE FOR ESTIMATION OF THE TRADING RESULTS AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS IS EITHER THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER COMPARABLE CASE. THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE TAKES PREFERENCE OVER A COMPARABLE CASE. THE PAST HISTORY OF THE APPELLANT IS AVAILABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN NP OF 3.91% IN CURRENT YEAR AND 4.40% IN THE PRECEEDING YEAR. AS COMPARED TO THIS THE NP IN CURRENT YEAR WAS ONLY 3.91%, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALTHOUGH THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT HAD INCREASED. THE A/R COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AND HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN WHY ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFY. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. THE APPELLANT FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 5. THAT BEFORE US THE ASSESSE HAS NOT APPEARED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS BEEN FILED ALONGWITH THE COVERING LETTER STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE SAID WRITTEN SUBMISSION. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS CASE AND WE FIND THAT BOTH THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS HAVE BEEN WELL ARTICULATED THE FACTS AND HAVE BROUGHT OUT AN SPEAKING ORDER PROVIDING THE NECESSARY REASONING FOR THE SAME. THAT ALSO ON RECORD THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NP OF 3.91% IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS COMPARE TO 4.40% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR ALTHOUGH THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD NEITHER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) NOR BEFORE US TO CONTROVERT THESE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 5 8. THAT CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORITIES AND AS WELL AS THE FACTS ON RECORD WE ARRIVE AT OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WE DONT FIND ANY INFIRMITY WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. 9. IN THE RESULT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.01 /JODHPUR/2015 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09, IS DISMISSED. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO. 02/JODHPUR/2015 FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10, IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW & IN FACTS BY REITERATING HIS EA RLIER FINDINGS FOR SUSTENANCE OF LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAC AND INCLUSION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AFTER DENYING EXEMPTION ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 54F FOR PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ESPECIALLY OBSERVING THAT TRIBUNAL HAD SET ASIDE WITHOUT GIVING SPE CIFIC FINDINGS ON BOTH ISSUES AND IT WAS AGAINST JUDICIAL PROPRIETY. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING AD HOC ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAC DESPITE ACCORDING TO APPELLANTS OWN PAST HISTORY BETTER RESULTS HAVE BEEN DECLARED THIS YEAR. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING INCLUSION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 325000 BY DENYING EXEMPTION ELIGIBLE UNDER SECTION 54F MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS CLAIMED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME THOUGH IT WAS CLAIMED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT AP PELLANT PRAYS THAT COST MAY PLEASE BE AWARDED IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES RESULTING INTO UNNECESSARY LITIGATION WITH HARDSHIP & EXPENSE. THAT ESSENTIALLY THERE ARE TWO GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL FIRST THE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS AND SUSTAINING INCLUSION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,25,000 BY DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THAT REGARDING THE LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT DISCLOSURE OF GP OF 5.77 % BEFORE DEPRECIATION AND NP OF 4.03% AFTER DEPRECIATION WERE BETTER THAN EARLIER YEARS AS EVIDENT FROM COMPARATIVE STATEMENT FILED. EXCEPT GENERAL COMMENTS NO SPECIFIC 6 DEFICIENCY OR IRREGULARITY WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF AO'S OWN COMMENTS THAT PROFIT NEVER REMAINS CONSTANT AS IT DEPENDS ON SEVERAL FACTORS LUMP SUM ADDITION TO ENHANCE INCOME EVEN WHERE DECLARED RESULTS WERE BETTER AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASS ESSEE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GP OF 5.77% IN A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND 3.91% IN A.Y. 2008 - 09 WHICH IS BETTER THAN THE PRECEDING YEARS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT ALTHOUGH THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT HAD DECLINE SUBSTANTIALLY, THE DEFECT NOTICED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SERIOUS ENOUGH. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS. 12. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING THE ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS TO THE EF FECT. THE ORDER IS NOT AT ALL A SPEAKING ONE AND THE REASONING FOR SUCH A DECISION HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT OUT CLEARLY. THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT BOTH THE GP AND NP THIS YEAR WAS BETTER THAN E ARLIER YEARS AS EVIDENT FROM THE COMPARATIVE STATEMENT ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT DELIVERING ON THESE ISSUES HAVE SIMPLY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION. THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON RECORD WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH THE GROUND AFTER GIVING THE REASONED FINDINGS. 13. IN THE RESULT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7 14. THAT THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO SUSTAINING INCLUSION OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,25,000/ - AFTER DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO STATED THERE WAS A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,25,000/ - ON SALE OF LAND WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN THOUGH INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN PORT BLAIR WAS MADE WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. THE AO BROUGHT IMPUGNED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 3,20,000 TO TAX DENYING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F ON THE REASON THAT EXEMPTION WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE RETURN AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME. AO RELIED ON GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT 284 ITR 323(SC) STATING THAT AO HAS NO POWER TO ENTERTAIN A CLAIM MADE OTHEREWISE THAN BY WAY OF REVISED RETURN. 15. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL HEARING THE A/R FOR THE APPE LLANT SUBMITTED THROUGH HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS ULTIMATELY LEFT NO INCOME TO BE ADDED FOR CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND AFTER CONSIDERING EXEMPTION ELIGIBLE U/S 54F FOR INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE THEREFORE NEITHER CAPITAL GAIN NOR ELIGIBLE EXEMPTION U/S 54F WAS DISCLOSED. EVIDENTLY AO DID NOT DISPUTE ELIGIBILITY FOR EXEMPTION U/S 54F AS REQUISITE CONDITIONS WERE FULFILLED BUT DUE TO NON - DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN OR IN THE COMPUTATION IT WAS NOT ALLOWED. ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED TH AT DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN OR ELSEWHERE WAS LEGALLY REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 54F. REGARDING RELIANCE ON APEX COURTS DECISION ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS MISCONCEIVED IN AS MUCH AS THAT ENTERTAINMENT OF FRESH CLAIM WAS INVOLVED IN THAT CASE WHEREAS THIS WAS NOT THE POSITION IN THE 8 PRESENT CASE AS IT WAS NON DISCLOSURE OF BOTH INCOME AS WELL AS EXEMPTION BECAUSE OF ITS RESULT OF NIL INCOME. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT INCLUSION OF INCOME OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WITHOUT GIVING STATUTORY EX EMPTION U/S 54F WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY REFERRING TO FEW CASE LAWS - (2012) 2149 CTR 51 (ALL) - SMT. RAJ RANI GULATI VS. CIT; (1972) 84 ITR 502 (KERALA) - P.V. DEVASSY VS. CIT AND (1986) 58 CTR 138 (SC) - CIT VS. MAHALAXMI SUGAR MILLS CO. LTD. THAT THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(A)HELD AS UNDER : I HAVE THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE. IN THIS CASE, THE HONBLE ITAT SET ASIDE THE MATTER WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THE GROUNDS INVOLVED IN THE SAID APPEAL. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE APPEAL ON THE BASIS OF LATE FIL LING BUT THIS ISSUE IS NOT ENVOLVED. FURTHER, A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED ANY DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN THE RETURN OF INCOME (E - FILED OR COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS CORRECTLY RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (284 ITR 323). IN THIS DECISION, ON THE ISSUE WHETHER THEAPPELLANT COULD MAKE A CLAIM FOR DEDUCTION OTHER THAN BY FILLING A REVISED RETURN THE COURT HELD THAT THERE WAS NO PROVISION UNDER THE IT ACT TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHOUT REVISING THE RETURN. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT THERE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND NO REVISED RETURN WAS FILED TO MAKE THE SAID CLAIM. THE A/R COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE OMISSION OF THIS CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME OR NON SUBMISSION OF ANY REVISED RETURN MAKING SUCH CLAIM. THAT BEING SO THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A/R A RE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. HENCE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY ME IN THE APPEAL NO. 275/11 - 12 DATED 11/01/2013 IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE APPELLANT FAILS ON THIS GROUND. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, THEREFORE, FAIL S. 16. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORD AND IT IS CLEAR ON RECORD THAT THE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THERE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND NO REVISED RETURN WAS FILED TO MAKE THE SAID CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVIDE ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE OMISSION OF THIS CLAIM IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME OR IN SUBMISSION OF ANY REVISED RETURN MAKING SUCH CLAIM. THAT THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUSTAIN THE SAME. 9 17. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT , ITA NO. 01/JODHPUR/2015 IS DISMISSED AND ITA NO. 02/JODHPUR/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/ - SD/ - (B.P. JAIN) ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 22/ 1 2/2016 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR