M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD., UDAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER

ITA 1043/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4207 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 20-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROONI PAL ACIT A
• Assessee Lawyers: O P BATHEJA ITP
• Keywords: Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 147; 148; 144; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1043/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VILLAGE- BEEKAKHERS, NEAR FATEHNAGAR, UDAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCILE, AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACB 8404 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA (ITP) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROONI PAL (ACIT) A LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/10/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/10/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, UDAIPUR DATED 17.06.2019 PERTAINING TO A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND I N LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT ON THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (1) THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN COMPLETI NG THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148/143(3) OF THE ACT, WITHOUT CONSI DERING THE ITA NO. 1043JP/2019 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 2 RETURN FILED AND ISSUANCE AND SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN THE SPECIFIED PERIOD AS MENTIONED IN PROVISION TO S EC. 143(2) (2) THE LD. AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BAS IS OF CHANGE OF OPINION WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED IN LAW. THEREFORE THE SAME DESERVES TO BE QUASHED BEING BAD IN LAW. ADDITIONAL GROUND: 2. THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147/148 ARE BAD IN LAW AND AB INITIO VOID, HAVING BEEN INITIATED WITHOUT FULFILLI NG THE REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND WITHOUT ANY NEW TANGIBLE MA TERIAL. THIS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IS FOR ELABORATION OF GROUN D NO.-2 TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), AS MENTIONED ABOVE. TH E SAME MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED FOR THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF NTPC LTD. V. CIT, (1998) 229 ITR 383(SC). 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NO. 1 (2) AND ADDITIONAL GROUN D OF APPEAL NO. 2 HENCE, THESE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.10.2013 CLAIMING LOSS OF RS. 1,88,72,993/-AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 13.01.20 16 ASSESSING TOTAL LOSS AT RS. 1,87,60,143/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, PROC EEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUE D ON 14.06.2017 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ON 16 .06.2017. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUE D ON 11.12.2018 AS ITA NO. 1043JP/2019 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 3 TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED U/S 1 44 AS NO RETURN WAS FILED BY THE COMPANY IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/ S 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 142(1), THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.12.2018 IN COM PLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT SINCE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED MUCH BEYOND THE STATUTORY TIME PER IOD OF 30 DAYS OF HAVING RECEIVED THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON 16.06. 2017, THE SAME CANNOT BE GIVEN ANY COGNIZANCE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO PASS THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 143(3)/ 147 ALLOWING ONLY THE CURRENT YEAR LOSS OF RS. 1,87,60,143/-, AS ORIG INALLY ASSESSED U/S 143(3), WHICH WAS ALLOWED TO BE CARRY FORWARD TO TH E SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER AND FINDINGS OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) RETURNED THE FINDING THAT NO SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE ARISE TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ONLY FIN DING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT ONLY LOSS PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2013-2 014 AND NOT OF ANY EARLIER YEARS CAN BE CARRY FORWARD WHICH IS VERY PO SITION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 148 ON 12.12.2018 AND ACCORDINGLY TECHNICAL OBJECTIONS TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WERE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISM ISSED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.12.2018 HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. ITA NO. 1043JP/2019 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 4 147/143(3) ON 28.12.2018. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, IT IS MANDATORY T O ISSUE AND SERVE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN 6 MONTHS FROM T HE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SINCE NO NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT, THE REASSESSMENT SO C OMPLETED WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, INVALID AND BAD IN LAW AND DE SERVES TO BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT- III VS. KA MLA DEVI SHARMA (DB APPEAL NO. 197/2018 DATED 10.07.2018). 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONS E TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN STIPULATED PERIOD OF TIME, THE SAME WAS NOT GIVEN ANY COGNIZANCE AND THE REASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE A CT. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE RETURN OF INCO ME HAS NOT BEEN FILED AND THE BEST JUDGMENT ORDER HAS BEEN U/S 144 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO LEGAL NECESSITY TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF TH E ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY ACADEMIC IN NATURE AS NO SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE ARISES TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 6 .2 OF HER ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 6.2 THE ABOVE GROUNDS ARISE VARIOUS TECHNICAL OBJE CTIONS TO THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 PURSUANT TO WHICH THE IMPUG NED ORDER U/S 148 DT. 28.12.2018 HAS BEEN PASSED. HOWEVER ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NOTED IN PARA 4. ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 DT. 14.0 6.2017, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.12.2018 ; IN THIS RETURN FILED ON 12.12.2018, LOSS FOR THE RELEVANT Y EAR, AY ITA NO. 1043JP/2019 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 5 2013-14, WAS SHOWN AT RS. 1,88,72,993/-, FURTHER IN SCHEDULE 'CFL' OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, I.E 'DETAIL S OF LOSSES TO BE CARRIED FORWARD TO FUTURE YEARS' (COPY ENCLOSED AS ANNEX TO THIS ORDER). THE ASSESSEE ONLY CLAIMED CARRY FORWARD OF THE LOSS OF RS. 1,88, 72,993/- FOR THE A .Y 2013- 14 I.E, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CLAIM ANY LOSSES OF EA RLIER YEARS FOR CARRY FORWARD IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE T O NOTICE U/S 148. SINCE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 148, THE ONLY FINDING OF THE A.O IS THAT ONLY LOSS FOR A.Y 2013-14, AND N OT OF ANY EARLIER YEARS, CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD, WHICH IS THE VERY POSITION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN U/S 14 8 FILED ON 12.12.2018, NO SUBSTANTIVE GRIEVANCE ARISES TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL. THE TECHNICAL OBJECTIO N TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148, ARE THEREFORE RENDERED INFRUCTUOUS. ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS 1 AND 2 OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTU OUS. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148, NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN INITIALLY FIL ED AND THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 142(1), THE RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN FILED ON 12.12.2018 IS MUCH BEYOND THE STATUTORY TI ME PERIOD OF 30 DAYS OF HAVING RECEIVED THE NOTICE U/S 148 AND THE RETURN SO FILED CANNOT BE GIVEN ANY COGNIZANCE AND HE THEREFORE PRO CEEDED TO PASS THE BEST JUDGMENT ORDER U/S 144 WITHOUT TAKING COGNIZAN CE OF THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD DR, IN S UCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN COGNI ZANCE OF AND THE BEST JUDGMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO LEGAL NECESSITY TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE A CT. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER CONTENDED THAT NO PREJUDICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEE BY NON- ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AS IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER U/S 148, THE ONLY FINDING OF THE A.O IS THAT ONLY LOSSES FOR A.Y 2013-14, AND NOT OF ITA NO. 1043JP/2019 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 6 ANY EARLIER YEARS, CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD, WHICH IS THE VERY POSITION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN SO CLAIMED TO B E FILED U/S 148 ON 12.12.2018. HOWEVER, AS PER THE LD AR, IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.12.2018 HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND PROC EEDED TO COMPLETE REASSESSMENT U/S 144 R.W.S. 147/143(3) ON 28.12.201 8 AND IN ABSENCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2), THE REASSESSMENT ORDER SO PAS SED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVE TO BE QUASH ED. 8. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THA T WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT SHALL APPLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WAS A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. IN THE INS TANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF THE R ETURN OF INCOME SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12.12.2018 STATING THAT SU CH A RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED BEYOND THE STIPULATED TIME FR AME OF THIRTY DAYS AS SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE U/S 148 FOR FILING SUCH RETURN OF INCOME. IN OUR VIEW, SUCH A RETURN OF INCOME EVEN THOUGH FILED BEL ATEDLY WOULD STILL QUALIFY AS RETURN FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 OF TH E ACT AND SHOULD THEREFORE BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. EVEN WHERE IT IS HELD THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE RETURN OF INCOME SO FILED ON 12.12.2018 SH ALL BE TAKEN AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 11.12.2018 AND THEREFORE, IN EITHER CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS TO BE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHERE THE R ETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED U/S 139 OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 142 (1), WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN MATT ERS WHICH REQUIRE ITA NO. 1043JP/2019 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 7 EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN IN SUCH CASES, HE HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WHICH R EADS AS UNDER: 2) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139, OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTI ON 142, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTHORITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF, CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIV E LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDER-PAID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER, SHALL SERVE ON TH E ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIRING HIM, ON A DATE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, E ITHER TO ATTEND THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR TO PRODUCE, OR C AUSE TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN. 9. AS PER THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS, THE LEGAL NECES SITY TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ARISES WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSI DERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIENT TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDER STATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDER -PAID THE TAX IN ANY MANNER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED AND UNDISPUTED POSITION THAT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS CLAIMED LOSSES OF RS 1,88,72,993/- PERTAINING TO A.Y 2013-14 ONLY AND HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY LOSSES OF RS 1,77,38,920 PERTAINING TO A.Y 2005 -06 TO BE CARRY FORWARD. THE REASON FOR INITIATING THE REASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 WAS PRECISELY THE SAID WRONG AND INCORRECT CLAI M OF CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES FOR A.Y 2005-06 WHILE FILING THE ORIGINAL RE TURN OF INCOME ON 22.10.2013 WHICH WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) DATED 13.0 1.2016. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE BY FILING THE RETURN OF INC OME AND NOT CLAIMING THE CARRY FORWARD OF LOSSES PERTAINING TO A.Y 2005- 06 HAS ADMITTED TO ITA NO. 1043JP/2019 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 8 THE WRONG CLAIM MADE AND ASSESSED EARLIER. THEREAFT ER, THE REASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 147 WHERE THE O NLY FINDING OF THE A.O IS THAT ONLY LOSSES FOR A.Y 2013-14, AND NOT OF ANY EARLIER YEARS, CAN BE CARRIED FORWARD ACCEPTING THE VERY POSITION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN SO FILED ON 12.12.2018. THER EFORE, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND THE REASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 147 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME AND THERE IS NO VARIA TION OR ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE RETURNED INCOM E, WE DONOT SEE ANY NECESSITY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CALL FOR THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE PURPOSES, ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. 10. IN CASE OF KAMLA DEVI SHARMA (SUPRA), RELIED UP ON BY THE LD AR, THE FACTS OF THE CASE WERE THAT IN COMPLIANCE TO NO TICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INC OME OF RS 139,300/- AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 R/W 143(3) MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS 1,01,20,000/- BY TREATING THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND AS UNEXPLAINED. IN THAT CASE, WE THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NECESSARY THA T BEFORE MAKING SUCH AN ADDITION, HE SHOULD HAVE ISSUED A NOTICE U/ S 143(2) AND HAVING FAILED TO ISSUE SUCH A NOTICE, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAD QUASHED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WHICH WAS LATER AFFIRM ED BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THE FA CTS IN THE SAID CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND THEREFORE, DONT SUPPORT TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 1043JP/2019 M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD. VS. ACIT 9 11. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE ENTIRE TY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHERE THE REASSESSMENT O RDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 147 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME, WE DO NT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER SO PASSED IN ABSENCE OF NOTI CE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT AS THERE IS NO LEGAL NECESSITY AS SO ENVISAGED AS APPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE SAME IS HEREBY AF FIRMED. IN THE RESULT, SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/10/2020. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28/10/2020. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S BHAVAL SYNTHETICS (INDIA) LTD., UDAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 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. 1043/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR