SHRI MANAK CHAND MODI, JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR

ITA 1067/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3731 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income; Difference of opinion; Competent authority; Assessment record; Tax effect; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148; 263; 154

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 FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA. NO. 1067/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI MANAK CHAND MODI D-185, MANGAL MARG, BAPU NAGAR, JAIPUR-302015. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADDPM 4856 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLAN T IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. ANURADHA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25/04/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/04/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), JAIPUR DATED 03.08.2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUND S OF APPEAL:- 1.(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD . AO, IN REOPENING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER SECTION 1 47 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IS I LLEGAL, ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 2 UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING SUCH RE-ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. (B) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. AO HAS ERRED IN REOPENING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 , BEING NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IS ILLEGALLY, UN JUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING SUCH RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO , IN DISALLOWING THE SALARY EXPENSE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,5 5,750/- FOR SALARY PAID TO EMPLOYEES. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING SUCH ADDITION. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR DID NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 1(B) AND THE RELATED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL. H ENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. IN GROUND NO. 1(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS. 6,76,030/- WHICH INCLUDES INCOME FROM SALARY AND INTEREST. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 29 .10.2010 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,39,180/- WHEREIN THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THE PETROL AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES TREATING THE SAME AS PERSON AL EXPENDITURE. ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 3 SUBSEQUENTLY, A SHOW CAUSE U/S 154 OF THE ACT WAS I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S SHOWN INTEREST INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 13,90,289/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 7,39 ,180/- OUT OF WHICH RS. 2,55,750/- RELATES TO SALARY EXPENSES WHI CH IS NOT ALLOWABLE. FURTHER, IT WAS STATED THAT EXCESS CREDIT OF RS. 40 12/- WAS ALLOWED AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ORDER U/S 154 OF THE A CT WHEREIN RS. 2,55,750/- BEING THE SALARY EXPENDITURE WAS DIS ALLOWED AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE AO WAS BEY OND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 154 OF THE ACT. 6. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED TO THE A SSESSEE ON 27.03.2015 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS FOR INCOME E SCAPING ASSESSMENT AND SEEKING NECESSARY PERMISSION FROM THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY. THE REASONS SO RECORDED READS AS UNDER:- ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT IS REVEAL ED THAT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST FROM PARTIES RS. 13,90,289/- AND DEDUCTED AS EXPENSES OF RS. 7,40,000/- AND SHOWN NET INTEREST RS. 6,50,2 89/- FROM PARTIES. OUT OF EXPENSES OF RS. 7,40,000/- RS. 2,55 ,750/- RELATED TO SALARY PAID. SALARY EXPENSES ARE NOT ALLOWABLE F ROM INTEREST INCOME (OTHER SOURCES INCOME). THE OMISSION HAS RES ULTED IN UNDER COMPUTATION OF INCOME BY RS. 2,55,750/- WITH TAX EFFECT OF ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 4 RS. 1,03,525/- INCLUDING INTEREST U/S 234B. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 2,55,750/- HAS UNDER ASSESSED AND HENCE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND I AM SATISFIED THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148. 7. IN THE ABOVE FACTUAL BACKGROUND, THE LD. AR HAS CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE FALLS UNDER FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AS THE R EOPENING IS UNDERTAKEN AFTER EXPIRY OF 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) STOOD COMPLETED IN THE PRESENT CASE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 147 THE ACT, THE REOPENING WOULD BE VALID ONLY IF THERE WAS FAIL URE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY ALL MATERIAL F ACTS NECESSARY FOR ASSESSMENT. 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO, IN THE PRESENT PRO CEEDINGS, FORMED A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY C LAIMED DEDUCTION OF SALARY EXPENSE AGAINST INTEREST INCOME. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF SALARY E XPENSE WAS ON RECORD AND LD. AO APPLIED HIS MIND ON THE SAME AS H E SPECIFICALLY, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3), ENQUIRED AND ASK ED FOR THE DETAILS RELATING TO EXPENSE CLAIMED U/S 57(III) VIDE NOTE SHEET ENTRY DATED 30.07.2010. THE ASSESSE THEN FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DETAILS VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 30.08.2010. THEREAFTER, IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3), ADDITION OF RS. 6,510, BEING 20% OF PETROL AND CONVEYANCE ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 5 EXPENSES, WAS MADE AFTER EXAMINING EXPENSES CLAIMED U/S 57(III) AGAINST INTEREST INCOME AND NO ADDITION REGARDING T HE SALARY EXPENSE WAS MADE. THUS IT IS EVIDENT THAT LD. AO ACCEPTED T HE ASSESSEES CLAIM AND FORMED HIS OPINION. HAD HE NOT SATISFIED HIMSEL F, HE WOULD HAVE MADE ADDITIONS WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO SPECIFIC, RELIAB LE AND RELEVANT INFORMATION CAME TO THE POSSESSION OF LD. AO SUBSEQ UENT TO THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). THUS, THE REAS ONS WERE BASED ON THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE ALREADY ON RECORD AND, THE REFORE, LD. AO EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION BY REOPENING THE CASE OF ASSESSEE MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. 187 TAXMAN 312 (SC ). CIT VS. VAISHALI AVENUE 48 TAXMANN.COM 289 (RAJASTH AN). ACIT VS. MANGALM CEMENT LTD. 78 TAXMANN.COM 334. 9. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO FAILU RE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF SALARY EXPENSES WERE REQUISITIONED BY THE LD. AO AND WERE DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO NOT RECORDED IN THE REASONS THAT THERE WAS ANY OMIS SION OR FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A TRUE AND FULL DI SCLOSURE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF RAJBHUSHAN OMPRAKASH DIXIT VS. DCIT (WRIT PETITION NO. 3546 OF 2018) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 12. THE STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY SAVE HIM FROM THE ALLEGATION OF CHANGE OF OPINION, HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE WHEN WE ARE EXAMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE NOTICE ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 6 OF REOPENING ISSUED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE QUESTION OF LA CK OF TRUE AND FULL DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BECOME RE LEVANT. IN THIS CONTEXT, ONCE THE DEPARTMENT I.E. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD CERTAIN INFORMATION, MATERIAL, OR DOC UMENT BEFORE HIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, IRR ESPECTIVE OF THE SOURCE OF SUCH INFORMATION, MATERIAL, OR DOCUMENT, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BLAMED FOR NON-DISCLOSURE THEREOF. 13. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT, FOR SOME RE ASON, ADVERT TO SUCH MATERIAL OR DID NOT UTILIZE THE SAME, HE SU RELY CANNOT ALLEGE THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE TRULY A ND FULLY ALL MATERIAL FACTS. 10. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REOPENING BEYOND PERIOD OF 4 YEARS, AFTER ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) IS VALID ONLY IF, IN THE REASONS RECORDED, IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOSE FULLY OR TRULY ALL MATE RIAL FACTS. IF THE SAME IS NOT SPECIFICALLY POINTED, REOPENING PROCEEDINGS ARE BASELESS AND INVALID. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GUJARAT LEASE FINANCING LTD. VS. DCIT 36 TA XMANN.COM 359. 11. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH A CASE IF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THE REVENUE WAS NOT WITHOUT REMEDY. WH ERE AN ASSESSING OFFICER INCORRECTLY OR ERRONEOUSLY APPLIE S LAW OR COMES TO A WRONG CONCLUSION AND INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS E SCAPED ASSESSMENT, RESORT TO SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS AVA ILABLE AND SHOULD BE ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 7 RESORTED TO. BUT INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS WILL BE INVALID ON THE GROUND OF CHANGE OF OPINION. RELIANCE WAS PLACE D ON THE DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. [2012] 25 TAXMANN.COM 200 (DELHI) (FB). 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO SUBMITTED T HAT FROM PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NO DISCUSSION REGARDING THE CLAIM OF SALARY EXPENSES AND THEREFOR E, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THERE WAS CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEED ING U/S 154 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE D ETAILS OF THE SALARY EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS SEIZED OF THE INFORMATION BASED ON WHICH HE HAS REO PENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSUMPTIO N OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF THE ACT AFTER SEEKING APPROVAL OF THE APPROP RIATE AUTHORITY. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSMENT W AS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AND THEREAFTER, THE NOTICE U/S 147 WAS ISSUED ON 27.03.2015 WHICH IS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF PERIOD OF F OUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E, 2008-09. THEREFORE, FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 147, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FORM A REASONABLE BELIEF THAT THE INCOME HAS ESC APED ASSESSMENT. IN ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DEMONSTRA TE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT DUE TO FAILURE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE TO ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 8 DISCLOSE TRULY AND FULL ALL MATERIAL FACTS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION FOR SALARY EXPENDITURE WHILE COMPUTING ITS INTEREST INCOME UND ER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. SECTION 57(III) ALLOWS DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSI VELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME. THEREFO RE, THERE IS NO PATENT ILLEGALITY IN THE CLAIM OF THE SALARY EXPENS E U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME SO LONG AS THE ASSESSEE DEMONSTRATES THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSES OF EARNING THE INTEREST INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTED THAT DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS A/ R LETTER DATED 30.08.2010, REFERRING TO THE DISCUSSIONS DURING THE LAST HEARINGS BEFORE THE AO, SUBMITTED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS WELL AS DETAILS OF EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS 7,40,000. THE SAID EXPENSES CONSIS T OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS 4,51,696, SALARY EXPENSES OF RS 2,55 ,750 AND PETROL AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS 32,554. CONSIDERING THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U /S 143(3) WHEREIN NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST AN D SALARY EXPENSES, HOWEVER, THE PETROL EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED T O THE EXTENT OF 20%. WE THUS FIND THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOESNT CONTAIN ANY DISCUSSION REGARDING SALARY EXPENSES SO CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE MATTER RELATING TO CLAIM OF THE SALAR Y EXPENSES WAS ENQUIRED AND EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURI NG THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER, THERE IS NO FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN TERMS OF DISCLOSURE OF THE MATER IAL FACTS AS RELEVANT FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER, BASIS THE SAME MATERIAL AVAILABLE DURING THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 9 THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 154 WERE INITIATED (LATER ON DR OPPED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND NOW, THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. WE THUS FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR TH AT IT IS A CASE OF CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE TH E MATTER RELATING TO CLAIM OF SALARY EXPENSE WAS EXAMINED EARLIER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS AND B ASIS THE SAME MATERIAL AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY FRESH MATERIAL IN PO SSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAN NOT BE INITIATED U/S 147 OF THE ACT. IN LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIO NS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE WELL-SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW AS HAS BEEN LAID DOWN BY THE COURTS FROM TIME TO TIME AND HENCE, THE IMPU GNED NOTICE U/S 148 IS QUASHED AND SET-ASIDE ALONG WITH CONSEQUENT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, GROUND NO.1(A) O F THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. GROUND NO. 2 THUS BECAME ACADEM IC IN NATURE AND THE SAME IS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/04/2019. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30/04/2019. *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI MANAK CHAND MODI, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR. ITA NO. 1067/JP/2018 SHRI MANAK CHAN MODI VS. DCIT 10 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. 1067/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR