ITO, Sikar V. M/S G.M. ENGINEERS, Jaipur

ITA 1082/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 108223114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS NEENA JEPH
• Assessee Lawyers: R K BHALLA; RAJENDER S MEEL C A LQUOK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 145

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 VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1082/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE I.T.O. WARD 3, SIKAR CUKE VS. M/S G.M. ENGINEERS JANTA COLONY, NAWALGARH ROAD, SIKAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AADFG 4050 D VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MRS. NEENA JEPH (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI R.K. BHALLA (C.A.) & SHRI RAJENDER S. MEEL (C.A.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/01/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/03/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 16/09/2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2008-09. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- (I) THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER IN RESTR ICTING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 34.39 LAKH, SIMPLY, ON THE GROUND THAT THE G.P. RATE OF 5.08% DISCLOSED IN THE PRESENT YEAR, WAS BETTER THAN G.P. RATE OF 5.06, DISCLOSED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 2 (II) THE CIT(A) HAS CONTRADICTED HIMSELF AND PASSED A PERVERSE ORDER BY UPHOLDING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND YET MAKING THE AD HOC ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC FOR INCRIMINATING ASPECT AND LEAKAGE OF INCOME , DUE TO SHORTCOMINGS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. (III) THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED PERVERSE ORDER IN HOLDING THAT THE DEFICIENCIES POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. WERE NOT SUFFICIENT TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) . (IV) THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE FACTUM/QUANTUM OF THE EXPENSES, SUCH AS ON SALARIES WERE DOUBTFUL IN LIGHT OF THE DISCLOSED OUTSTANDING LIABILITIES ETC. (V) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, WITHDRAW OR INTEREST ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE REVO LVING AROUND REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT U/S 145(3) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) AND CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION AT RS. 1 LAC ONLY AS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 34,39,982/-. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR EXECUTING WORK ORDER AWARD ED BY BSNL AND OTHER TELECOM COMPANIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 7,81,25,010/- ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT A T RS. 1,45,93,601/- AND NET PROFIT OF RS. 39,70,558/- WHICH GIVEN N.P. RATE OF 5.08%. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST OF RS. 1,85,299/- AND RE MUNERATION TO ITS PARENT AT RS. 2 LACS. THUS, NET PROFIT BEFORE ALLOWIN G THESE PAYMENTS ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 3 WAS RS. 43,55,857/-, IT MEANS N.P. RATE WAS 5.57% ON GROSS RECEIPT. IT IS OBSERVED THAT AS PER AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE VOUCHERS FOR PETTY CASH EXPENSES. IT IS ALSO FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER AND STOCK WAS VALU ED ON ESTIMATE BASIS. EXPENSES WERE ONLY PARTLY VOUCHED, MANY OF TH E EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS LIKE THOSE FOR RENT, WATER CHARGES ETC. HAV E NO SIGNATURE OF THE RECIPIENT AND ARE SELF PREPARED. THE ASSESSEE G AVE THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND IT WAS ADMITTED BY TH E A.R. THAT IN THIS CASE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT ARE S QUARELY APPLICABLE. ACCORDINGLY, HE REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT. THE ASSESS EE WAS ALSO ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR LOW RATE OF PROFIT, WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 12/08/2010 AND STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE WORK HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT IN SLUMS AND REMOTE AR EAS WHERE COST OF MATERIAL/LOADING AND UNLOADING TRANSPORTATION CHARG ES ARE HIGHER. IT IS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEES WORK WAS OF DIF FERENT NATURE REQUIRING LOT OF DIGGING AND FILLING WORK. IT IS ARG UED THAT PURCHASE ORDER RATES WERE SAME IN EARLIER TWO YEARS BUT EXPENDITURE HAD INCREASED BUT THE SUBMISSION WAS WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE . SIMILAR MANY OF THE EXPENSES PARTICULARLY THE EXPENSES UNDER HEAD O THER DIRECT EXPENSES, WATER CHARGES, FOODING CHARGES, OFFICE REN T ETC. ARE NOT ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 4 WITHOUT PROPER VOUCHERS BUT ALSO UNREASONABLY HIGH A ND PAYMENT IS MADE MOSTLY IN CASH. AFTER CONSIDERING ABOVE DEFECT S IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED TH E N.P. RATE @ 10% AND ADDITION OF RS. 34,39,982/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT( A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL FULLY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE A.O. AND RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED A.R. WERE M ADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS CAN BE SEEN, THE CONTROVERSY INVO LVED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ONLY ABOUT THE REJECTION OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME U/S 145 OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THE G.P. IN THE CURRE NT YEAR IS SHOWN BETTER AT 5.08%, ON THE SUBSTANTIAL HIGHER TURNOVER OF RS. 7.81 CRORES, THEN THE SIMILAR TREND S OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR, I.E. 5.06% ON TOTAL SALE OF RS. 2.62 CRORES ONLY. IN THIS REGARDS, IT FELT THAT THE REASONS AND GROUNDS RELIED UPON BY THE A.O. ARE ONLY PARTIALLY RELEVANT AND SIGNIFICANT TOWARDS THE CREDIBILITY ASPECTS OF THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AS SUCH. BUT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, T HEY ALONE ARE NOT FOUND SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 145(3) OF THE ACT. AS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 5 AR THAT IN THE SIMILAR SITUATION, THE COURTS HAVE H ELD THAT SIMPLY NOT HAVING PROPER STOCK REGISTER, LACK OF HA VING PROPER EXPENSES VOUCHERS ETC. ALONE CANNOT BE MADE GROUNDS FOR APPLYING THE PROVISION OF SEC. 145. IN THIS REGARD, THE ONUS IS ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT ACCOUNTS ARE REALLY DEFECTIVE OR INCOMPLETE TO INVO KE SUCH HARSH MEASURES. THE ABOVE VIEWS ARE ALSO ECHOED IN TH E FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. UTTAM CHUNA PATHAN UDHYOG 20 TW 422 (JAIPUR BENCH) 2. PARADISE HOLIDAYS 325 ITR 20 (DELHI). IN THIS REGARD, APART FROM THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPO N BY THE LEARNED A.R., EVEN IN OTHER CASES, INCLUDING OF M/ S GOTTON LINE KHANIJ UDHYOG (256 ITR 243) (RAJ.) AND VINOD KU MAR PROMAD KUMAR (66 TTJ 722) (JODHPUR BENCH), IT IS HEL D THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY FOR WANT OF STOCK REGISTER AND IF OTHERWISE NO OTHER DEF ECTS ARE POINTED OUT IN THIS REGARD. SIMILARLY, IF THE TRADI NG RESULT OF THE CURRENT YEAR IS HIGHER THAN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE, EVEN IF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED OF U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS ALSO NOTEWORTHY THAT IN THE CURRENT YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN BETTER TRADING RESULT THEN THE PREVIOUS Y EAR. THIS CRUCIAL ASPECT HAS BEEN OVER LOOKED BY THE A.O. , WHILE DRAWING THE ADVERSE VIEW, I.R.O., RELIABILITY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, SINCE THE APPELL ANT HAS SHOWN BETTER RESULT IN THE CURRENT YEAR ON HIGHER T.O . ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 6 THEREFORE, THE OTHER RELATED MINOR SHORTCOMINGS ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BECAME INSIGNIFICANT AND REDU NDANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACT OF REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT U/S 145(3) ON THE PART OF THE A.O. IS HELD AS UNTEN ABLE AND UNWARRANTED, THUS CANCELLED ACCORDINGLY. SIMILARLY, THOUGHT, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN SUBSTANTIAL HIGHER PROFIT RA TIO (I.E. 5.08%), THEN THE PREVIOUS YEAR (5.06%), HOWEVER, AN AD HOC ADDITION OF RS. 1,00,000/- IS FOUND ESSENTIAL T O BE SUSTAINED TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THE INCRIMINATING ASP ECTS AND LEAKAGE OF INCOME, IF ANY, DUE TO THE SHORTCOMINGS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. RELATED TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDER ATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE TRADING ADDITION UP TO RS. 1,00,00 0/- MADE U/S 145(3) IS SUSTAINED AND BALANCE IS DELETED. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY UPHEL D. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNE D D.R. VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND ARGUED THAT NUMBER OF DEFICIENCIES WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK. PAYMENT THROUG H CASH, SELF MADE VOUCHERS, WHICH WERE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND DETAILED FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THESE DEFECTS ARE SUFFICIENT IN CASE OF CIVIL CONTRACTOR TO REJECT TH E BOOK RESULT. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULT U/S ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 7 145(3) OF THE ACT AND HE ALSO REASONABLE TO ESTIMAT E THE INCOME IN CASE OF CIVIL CONTRACTOR. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT, WHICH WAS DULY AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. ALL THE TRANSACTI ONS ARE FULLY VOUCHED BY BILLS/VOUCHERS/DOCUMENTS. NATURE OF WORK OF THE A SSESSEE IS SUCH THAT COMPLETE PUCCA BILL/OUTSIDE VOUCHERS ARE NEITH ER POSSIBLE NOR PRACTICABLE. HOWEVER, SUCH EXPENDITURE IS SUPPORTED BY THE INTERNAL VOUCHERS CONTAINING DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE AND SIGN ATURE OF RECIPIENTS. THE MAIN REASON FOR OUTSTANDING SALARY IS THAT ASSES SEE DID NOT RECEIVE THE PAYMENT FROM THE COMPANIES ON TIME. IT RECEIVE D PAYMENT FROM COMPANIES AT THE FAG END OF THE YEAR AND PART AMOUN T IN APRIL 2008 TO JUNE 2008 AFTER THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR. ON RECEIPT, THE AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN IN CASH AND PAYMENTS TO THE CREDITORS WERE M ADE. THE MAIN REASON FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT IN CASH IS THAT THESE PERSONS ARE ILLITERATE AND DO NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT. IN FAC T IN SUCH TYPE OF CONTRACT, GENERALLY PAYMENT TO THE CREDITORS IS MAD E ON RECEIPT OF PAYMENT FROM THE COMPANIES FOR WHOM WORK IS DONE. IN THESE FACTS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE PART AMOUNT IS OUTSTANDING, IT D OES NOT MEAN THAT ACTUAL PROFIT IS SUPPRESSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT POINTED OUT ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 8 ANY SPECIFIC PAYMENT, WHICH IS NOT VERIFIABLE OR WHIC H IS BOGUS. HENCE HUGE TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNCALLED FOR AND BE DELETED. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE POSITION OF G.P. RATE AND N.P. RATE AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND IN LAST YEAR TO THAT IS TABULATED AS UNDER:- F.Y. A.Y. TURNOVER GROSS PROFIT G.P. RATE NET PROFI T N.P. RATE 2006-07 2007-08 2,62,84,448/- 24,10,567/- 9.17% 6,3 7,917/- 2.43% 2007-08 2008-09 7,81,25,010/- 1,45,93,602/- 18.68% 39,70,558/- 5.08% FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, IT CAN BE NOTED THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE DECALRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BETTER THAN THE IMMEDIATELY PREC EDING YEAR. THE NET PROFIT HAS BEEN INCREASED FROM RS. 6,37,917/- TO RS . 39,70,558/-. GROSS RECEIPT HAS ALSO BEEN INCREASED FROM 2.62 CRORES TO RS. 7.81 CRORES. THE VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED BETTER G.P. COMPARED TO PRECEDING YEAR, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE . THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE A.R. ARE AS UNDER:- 1. ITO VS. M/S BHAGIRATH KASWAN CONTRACTOR (ITA NO. 404/JODH/2013). 2. ADDL.CIT VS. LAKHANI SHOES LIMITED 34 TAX WORLS 32 (JP) (ITA NO. 173/JP/2000). 3. J.C. SHARMA VS. ITO 33 TAX WORLD 80 (JP) (ITA NO. 258/JP/1996). ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 9 4. BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL PRADUMAN KUMAR VS. CIT (1978) 115 ITR 524 (SC). 5. CIT VS. POPULAR ELECTRIC CO. (P) LTD. (1993) 203 ITR 630 (CAL.). 6. ASHOK KUMAR & CO. VS. ITO (2004) 2 SOT 518 (ASR .) THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT POINTED OUT AN Y SPECIFIC DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS QUESTION OF FACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD FOUND TH AT THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE RESPONDENT WERE NEITHER DEFECTIVE NOR INCOMPLETE. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ANY FAULT AS SUC H WITH THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHE R RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1. J.C. SHARMA VS. ITO 33 TAX WORLD 80 (JP) (ITA NO. 183/JP/2000). 2. ITO VS. M/S BHAGIRATH KASWAN CONTRACTOR (ITA NO. 404/JODH/2013). THEREFORE, LEARNED A.R. PRAYED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS A CI VIL CONTRACTOR. AS PER AUDITORS NOTE ON ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 10 VOUCHERS FOR PETTY CASH EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT MAINTAINED CLOSING STOCK PROPERLY BUT MAINTAINED ON ESTIMATE B ASIS. THE EXPENSES WERE PARTLY VOUCHED ON WHICH NO SIGNATURE OF RECIPIEN T HAS BEEN MADE. PARTICULARLY, THE EXPENSES FOR RENT, WATER CHARGES A ND CLAIMED ON SELF MADE VOUCHERS. THE A.R. HIMSELF ADMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SECTION 145(3) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CURRENT OUTSTANDING LIABILITY AS ON 31/3/2008 AT RS. 70,83,850/-, WHICH WAS MORE THAN 30% OF EXPENDITURE U NDER THE HEAD OF SALARY AND WAGES AND ALSO PENDING FOR MORE THAN T HREE MONTHS, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE IN CONTRACTOR LINE. THE ASSESS EES CLAIMED THAT, IT DID NOT RECEIVE THE AMOUNT FROM THE BSNL, THEREFORE , WAGES WERE OUTSTANDING, WHICH WAS RECEIVED LATER ON BUT THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE PAYMENT FROM T HE BSNL LATER ON EXCEPT WRITTEN REPLY AND ALSO FURTHER SUBSEQUENT WITH DRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND REIMBURSEMENT OF THE SALARY AND WAG ES IN CASH. THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT IN HOLDING THA T DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE GROUND OF RE JECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICA TION BY THE LEARNED CIT(A IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC WITHOUT CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 11 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT T HE BOOK RESULT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER H AD ESTIMATED THE INCOME HIGHER SIDE AND HAD NOT COMPARED THE PAST HI STORY OF THE CASE AND ALSO HAD NOT MADE ANY COMPARISON WITH ANOTHER CA SE OF SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION @ 6% N ET PROFIT SUBJECT TO INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS. THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RECALCULATE THE INCOME AS PER ABOVE FIN DINGS GIVEN BY THE BENCH. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/03/2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED 27 TH MARCH, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE I.T.O., WARD 3, SIKAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- M/S G.M. ENGINEERS, SIKAR. ITA 1082/JP/2011_ ITO VS M/S GM ENGINEERS 12 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1082/JP/2011). VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR