ITO, Jaipur V. BHAWANI SINGH JADON, Jaipur

ITA 1021/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99340 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 54B; 54F; 54

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. BHAWANI SINGH JADON, 49, ARUN VIHAR, SUBHAM APARTMENT, NIWARU ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AEHPJ 2159 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (DATE WAS NOTED) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/09/2015. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09/10/2015. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 30/10/2013 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-1, JAIPUR FOR A. Y. 2009-10. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING APPEAL WHEN ASSESSEE 2 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON WAS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY AND SUBSTANTIATE THE ENTIRE DELAY WITH REASONABLE CAUSE AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS. 37,07,560/- U/S 54 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. (III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54 IS ALLOWABLE EVEN IF THE INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY WAS NOT MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE. (IV) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54 IS ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF ENTIRE INVESTMENT MADE IN SIX FLATS. THIS PROVISION ALLOWS THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY ONLY. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAIN ST CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) BELATED BY ABOUT 3 MONTHS AND 17 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT HE IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON . THERE WAS A FAMILY DISTURBANCE. THE AR HAD NOT INFORMED ABOUT ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOT HAVING THE KNOWLEDGE O F THE IT LAW AND ALSO MADE CONSULTATION ABOUT THE APPEAL FILED OR NO T FILED. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY AND RELYING UPON THE HON'BLE 3 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR, LA ND ACQUISITION VS. MST. KATIJI & ORS. (167 ITR 471) TO CONDONE THE DELA Y. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THIS CONDONATION AND SU BMITTED THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A) ARE NOT SUFFICIEN T TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BUT WE HAVE CONSIDERED TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES CASE IS DESERVED TO BE CONDONED THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVE NUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 3. THE GROUNDS NO. 2 TO 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AR E INTERLINKED ON DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) ON CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 37,07,560/-. THE I NVESTMENT WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF ANOTHER PERSON AND CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT ON SIX FLATS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM DAIRY BUSINESS. HE FILED HIS RETURN ON 31/3/2010 AT RS. 1,48,570/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF TH E ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT AIR INFORMATION AND FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOR RS. 50,13,550/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TO FURNIS H THE DETAILS OF 4 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON PARTICULARS OF PROPERTY SOLD ALONGWITH COPY OF THE S ALE DEED, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE SALE D EED, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT A-28/4 (NEW NO. 28/14) FOR A SALE CONSID ERATION OF RS. 91,00,000/-, HOWEVER, HE HAD NOT DISCLOSED ANY CAPIT AL GAIN IN HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31/3/2010. FURTH ER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETT ER ON 12/07/2011 THEREIN HE HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54 AT RS. 37,0 7,560/- FOR INVESTING MONEY TO PURCHASE OF 6 FLATS AT 49, ARUN VIHAR, NIWA RU ROAD, JAIPUR IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE NAMELY SMT. MEERA DEVI. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AGAIN GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD O N THE ISSUE NOT ALLOTTING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54 ON CAPITAL GAIN OF R S. 37,07,560/- AS INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE NOT IN THE N AME OF ASSESSEE HIMSELF. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS BEEN REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. IN RESPONSE TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, ASSESSEE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 31/10/2011. THE ASSESSEES REPLY HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED ON PAG E 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HA D NOT OFFERED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF ABOVE SAID PROPER TY. HOWEVER, HE HAD 5 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT AT RS. 37,07,56 0/- ON THE CAPITAL GAIN RAISED ON SALE OF PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T MADE INVESTMENT IN HIS OWN NAME BUT MADE IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. FU RTHER NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS. 91,000/-. THEREFORE, HE ASSESSED THE ASSESSEES LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN AT RS. 79,35,233/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED T HE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 ON THE GROUND THAT THE AP PELLANT HAD NOT INVESTED THE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING DUE TO S ALE OF HIS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN HIS OWN NAME. SINCE THE PROCEEDS WERE INVESTED IN RESIDENTIAL HOUS E PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT. MEERA DEVI, T HE A.O. HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY RELIEF U/S 54. 6.1 IT IS, HOWEVER, NOTED THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN ANOTHER RES IDENTIAL HOUSE. EVEN THE A.O. HAS NOT DISPUTED THIS FACT. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE A.O. IS THAT THE HOUSE WAS PURCHASE D IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANTS WIFE AND NOT IN HIS OWN NAME. ON 6 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON THIS GROUND THE A.O. HAS DECLINED TO GIVE THE BENEF IT U/S 54. THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O. DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE VAL ID INASMUCH AS THE ONLY REQUIREMENT FOR AVAILING BENEF IT U/S 54 IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PURCHASED A RES IDENTIAL HOUSE WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE NEW HOUSE HAS BE EN PURCHASED FROM THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE PROPERTY OL D HOUSE, ALBEIT IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE WHO CANNOT BE PAID TO BE A STRANGER. THUS, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE FACTUAL POSITION REGARDING INVESTMENT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE OLD HOUSE IN THE NEW HOUSE. THI S FACT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED EVEN BY THE A.O. THE ONLY OBJE CTION OF THE A.O. IS THAT THE HOUSE HAS BEEN PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE. IN VIEW OF THE LANGUAGE OF SEC. 54, IT DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE A VALID OBJECTION. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KAMAL WAHAL (SUPRA) HAS H ELD AS UNDER: IT IS MOREOVER TO BE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN TH E PRESENT CASE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE NEW HOUSE IN THE NAME OF A STRANGER OR SOMEBODY WHO IS CONNECTED WIT H HIM. HE HAS PURCHASED IT ONLY IN THE NAME OF HIS WI FE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HAS COME OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS AND THAT THERE WAS NO CONTRIBUTION FROM THE ASSESSEES WIFE. 6.2 THE SAID DECISION WAS IN RESPECT OF SEC. 54F WHICH IS IN PARI MATERIAL WITH SEC. 54. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS, TH US, CLARIFIED THE LEGAL POSITION IN THIS REGARD. IT REA CHED THIS CONCLUSION AFTER GOING THROUGH A NUMBER OF DECISION S, 7 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON INCLUDING THOSE OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT (173 TAXMAN 311 ), AND THE DELHI HIGH COURT (203 TAXMAN 289). APART FRO M THIS, AS HELD BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA (SUPRA), INVESTMENT O F THE CAPITAL GAIN BY THE APPELLANT IN 6 FLATS IN THE SAM E BUILDING WOULD ALSO NOT AFFECT THIS CLAIM. IN THIS CASE (SMT. K.G. RUKMINIAMMA), THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD OBSERVED A S UNDER:- ALL THE FOUR FLATS ARE SITUATE IN A RESIDENTIAL BU ILDING. THESE FOUR RESIDENTIAL FLATS CONSTITUTE A RESIDENT IAL HOUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54. PROFIT ON SAL E OF PROPERTY IS USED FOR RESIDENCE. THE FOUR RESIDENTIA L FLATS CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS FOUR RESIDENTIAL HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 54. IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED ONLY AS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT ACCORDINGLY. IN VIEW OF THE CLEAR LEGAL POSITION ON THIS ISSUE, AS EXPOUNDED BY THE HONBLE DELHI AND KARNATAKA HIGH C OURTS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM U/S 54 DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE JUSTIFIED. THE DISALLOWANCE IS, ACCORDINGLY, DELETED. 5. NOW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR ARGU ED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 31/3/2010 . THE DUE DATE OF RETURN WAS 31/7/2009. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HOUSE PRO PERTY FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 91 LACS. THIS SALE CONSIDERATIO N HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT INFORMATION WAS GOT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER AIR. THEREAFTER CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. WHEN THE 8 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON LD ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE FOR SCRUTINY, HE CLAIMED THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN HAD BEEN INVESTED U/S 54 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF WIFE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF INVE STMENT MADE AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF PROP ERTY SOLD AS WELL AS PROPERTY PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE HAS NOT BE EN FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE ASS ESSEES SUBMISSION WITHOUT REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN 54 DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN THE NAME OF WIFE. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THESE PROPERTIES DURING THE YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERATION OR BEFORE OR AFTER SALE OF THE IMPUGNED IMMOVABLE PROP ERTY. AS PER SECTION 54, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEPOSIT THE CAPITAL GAIN IN CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME WITH NATIONALIZED BANK. THEREFORE, THESE ASPECTS HAD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD CIT(A) BEFORE ALLOWING THE APPEA L. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KALYA VS. CIT (2012) 251 CTR 174 (RAJ) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT TRANSFER OF LAND USED FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND WHE THER WORD ASSESSEE USED IN INCOME TAX ACT NEEDS TO BE GIVEN A LEGAL INT ERPRETATION AND NOT A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION AND CONSEQUENTLY, AN ASSES SEE WOULD NOT BE 9 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON ENTITLED TO GET EXEMPTION U/S 54B FOR LAND PURCHASE D BY HIM IN THE NAME OF HIS SON AND DAUGHTER IN LAW. HE FURTHER RELI ED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKAS H VS. ITO & ORS. (2009) 312 ITR 40 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF 54 AND HELD THAT THE PURCHASE OF NEW PROPE RTY IN THE NAME OF SON, THEREFORE, HE IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. NONE WAS ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF HEARING AFTER DATE WAS NOTED BY THE LD AR. SHRI P.C. PARWAL B EING AMICUS CURIE INFORMED THE BENCH THAT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL 214 TAXMAN 287/86 DTR 37 (DEL) HAS HE LD THAT DEDUCTION U/S 54F ALLOWED IN THE NAME OF WIFE. FURTHE R THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIT VS. MRS. J ENNIFER BHIDE 75 DTR 402 (KAR.) HAS HELD THAT FOR AVAILING EXEMPTION U/S 54 AND 54EC, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT PURCHASE OF PROPERTY OR INVESTME NT IN SPECIFIED BOND SHOULD BE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE ONLY. IN THIS CAS E THE INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND SPECIFIED BOND WAS MADE IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS HUSBAND, WHICH IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE COURT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAVIND ER KUMAR ARORA 75 10 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON DTR 406 (DEL.) WHEREIN DEDUCTION U/S 54 WAS ALLOWED EVE N PURCHASE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THE JOINT NAME OF ASSESSEE AND SPOUSE. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. SURESH VERMA 135 ITD 102/72 DTR 82 (DEL)(TRIB), THE HONBLE ITAT ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 54 IN CASE OF PRO PERTY PURCHASED JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WITH HIS WIFE. IT IS ARGUED THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY FOLLOWI NG THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS DECISIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE WHEN TWO OPINIONS HAS BEEN FORMED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THE ASSESSEES FAVOURABLE OPINION IS TO BE APPLIED BY T HE COURT BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD CIT( A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS NO DETA ILS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BEF ORE US ALSO NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PLACED. THE ASSESSEES RETURN IS B ELATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUPPOSED TO ENTERTAIN THE DEDUCTION U/S 54F BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF GOETZE (INDIA) LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [2006] 284 ITR 323 11 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON (SC) WHEREIN THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT ALLOW DEDUCTION CLAIMED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT CAN BE CLAIMED ONLY IN REVISED RETU RN FILED BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEES RETURN WAS BELATED, WHICH CANNOT BE REV ISED UNDER THE LAW. THEREFORE, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO GIVE REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND CONSIDER THE ABOVE OBSERVATION MADE BY THIS BENCH. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09/10/2015. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 09 TH OCTOBER, 2015 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI BHAWANI SINGH JADON, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 12 ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013 ITO VS BHAANI SINGH JADON 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1021/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR