SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA, JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-2, JAIPUR

ITA 1126/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2085 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: S R SHARMA; RAJNIKANT BATRA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Accommodation entries; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 143(2); 44AB; 43; 145(3); 145; 148; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,A 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 SIN GH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA PROP. M/S S.NAVEEN JEWELLERS, SONKIA BHAWAN, S.M.S. HIGHWAY, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AKHPS 7413 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJNI KANT BATRA (C.A) AND SHRI S R SHARMA (C.A) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI K C GUPTA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/02/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15/04/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 31.07.2018 FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE CIT(A) IS WRONG, UNJUST AND HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CON FIRMING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT TH E PURCHASE TO THE EXTENT OF RS 2,11,15,458/- ARE ALLEGEDLY NOT GE NUINE AND NOT VERIFIABLE. ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA VS. ITO 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS FURTHER WRONG AND HAS ERR ED IN LAW IN DIRECTING APPLICATION OF G.P. RATE OF 19.25% AS AGA INST DECLARED G.P RATE OF 14.99% RESULTING IN CONFIRMING THE TRAD ING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 21,65,807/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASE REFERRED TO IN GROUNDS NO.(1)ABOVE. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSMENT WAS ORIGINALLY COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AT AN ASSESSED LOSS OF RS 1,30,97,082/-. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING LOSS OF RS. 1,30,97,080 /-. THEREAFTER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND THE AO PROCEEDE D TO COMPLETE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHEREBY HE REJECTED THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND DISALLOWED 25% OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.52,78,865/- TO THE DECLARED LOSS AND LOSS WAS REASSESSED AT RS 78,18,215/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHOLD THE REJECTION OF BOOK S OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED G.P. RATE 19.25% RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS 21,65,807/-. AGAINST THE SAID FINDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD STARTED TRADING IN DIAMOND BESIDES DEALING IN SEMI PRECIOUS GEM STONES AND STU DDED JEWELLERY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE SALES OF ASSESSEE ARE EXPORT SALES AND THE COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED BY ASSESS EE INCLUDING QUANTITATIVE TALLY OF INVENTORY AND THE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS WERE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD S UBMITTED THAT THE SEGMENTAL RESULTS IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND AND GEM STO NES TRADING ACTIVITIES AS PER DETAILS AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA VS. ITO 3 A.Y 2009 - 10 TURNOVER GROSS PROFIT GROSS PROFIT RATE D IAMOND S 2,54,77,175/ - 25,47,717/ - 10.00% STONES & S TUDDED - JEWELLERY 2,53,28, 3 69/ - 50,66,543/ - 20.00% IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS WELL KNOWN FACT THAT IN DIAMOND TRADE, GROSS PROFIT MARGIN REMAINS VERY LOW IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER GEMS STONES AND THE ASSESSEE HAS STILL REPORTED A GP RATE 10% W HICH IS VERY HIGH IN COMPARISON TO INDUSTRY STANDARDS. FURTHER, IN RESP ECT OF STONES AND STUDDED JEWELLERY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GP RATE OF 20% WHICH IS BETTER IN COMPARISON TO PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- A.Y TURNOVER GROSS PROFIT GROSS PROFIT RATE 2006 - 07 2,97,91,069 57,34,493 19.25% 2007 - 08 1,88,60,887 35,43,957 18.79% 2008 - 09 1,88,54,584 25,33,190 18.28% IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID FACTS WERE D ULY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED U/S 143(3) DATED 17.03.2011 WHEREIN THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT TRADING RESULTS ARE PROGRESSIVE IN TERMS OF TOTAL SALES AS WELL AS DECL ARED GP. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS IN APP LYING THE ARBITRARY GP RATE OF 19.25% AS AGAINST DECLARED GP RATE AND THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESEN T REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH C ONDUCTED IN CASE OF RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP WHEREIN HE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS IN BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. IN THE REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT NON-GENUINE PURCHAS ES HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS TO REDUCE PROFITS AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA VS. ITO 4 CORRECTNESS AND COMPLETENESS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS WERE HELD NOT RELIABLE AND WERE REJECTED INVOKING PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND 25% OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES WERE DISALLOW ED AND TRADING ADDITION OF RS 52,78,865/- WAS MADE. IT WAS FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALREADY REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO R S 21,65,807/- AND NO FURTHER CAN BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDI NGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SETTLED LEGAL P ROPOSITION THAT ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED, THE AO CAN PROCEED TO REASSESS THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF RES ORTING TO MAKING THE ADDITION TO THE BOOKS RESULTS. FURTHER, FOR ESTIMAT ING THE GP RATE, THE PAST RESULTS SO DECLARED AND ACCEPTED/ATTAINED FINA LITY PROVIDES A RELIABLE BASIS FOR ESTIMATING THE GP RATE. THE SAME IS THE CONSISTENT POSITION OF THIS BENCH AS REFERRED IN DECISION IN CASE OF BHURA MAL RAJ MAL SURANA (ITA NO. 409,407,499 & 622/JP/12 DATED 15.12.2017) WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD CIT(A) WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS THEREFORE RIGH TLY HELD THAT AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE SEEN FOR ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE. AT THE S AME TIME, WE FIND THAT THE BASIS OF ESTIMATING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 19 .25% AS AGAINST DECLARED GP RATE 14.99% IS NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHERE HE HAS ONLY STATED THAT PURCHASES TO T HE TUNE OF RS 2,11,15,458/- WERE FOUND BOGUS/UNVERIFIABLE WHIC H CONSTITUTE 50% OF TOTAL PURCHASES. FURTHER, HE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CO NSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED DIAMOND TRADING BUSIN ESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEREIN HE HAS DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 10%. GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 10% IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND TRADING WHICH IS STATED TO BE PRETTY ROB UST AS PER INDUSTRY ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA VS. ITO 5 STANDARDS AND IN RESPECT OF TRADING OF SEMI PRECIOU S STONE AND STUDDED JEWELLERY, HE HAS DISCLOSED A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 20% WHICH IS BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF LAST THREE AS SESSMENT YEARS, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIN D THAT EVEN WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, THERE IS NO BASIS FOR MAKING TRADING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN T HIS REGARD, REFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE OF RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS GOTAN LIME KHANIJ UDHYOG (2002) 256 ITR 2 43 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. WE HAVE PERUSED THE STATEMENT OF CASE AND THE F INDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF OBSERVATIO NS MADE IN THE STATEMENT OF CASE AND HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL. SE CTION 145 AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, READS AS UNDER : '145. METHOD OF ACCOUNTING.(1) INCOME CHARGEABLE U NDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE : PROVIDED THAT IN ANY CASE WHERE THE ACCOUNTS ARE CO RRECT AND COMPLETE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BUT THE METHOD EMPLOYED IS SUCH THAT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE INCOME CANNOT PROPERLY BE DEDUCED THER EFROM, THEN THE COMPUTATION SHALL BE MADE UPON SUCH BASIS AND I N SUCH MANNER AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DETERMINE : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE NO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, ANY INCOME BY WAY OF INTE REST ON SECURITIES SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INTEREST IS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE : ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA VS. ITO 6 PROVIDED ALSO THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS SUB-SE CTION SHALL PRECLUDE AN ASSESSEE FROM BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-T AX IN RESPECT OF ANY INTEREST ON SECURITIES RECEIVED BY HIM IN A PREVIOUS YEAR IF SUCH INTEREST HAD NOT BEEN CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX FO R ANY EARLIER PREVIOUS YEAR. (2) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED AB OUT THE CORRECTNESS OR THE COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR WHERE NO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144.' 4. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID PROVISION GOES TO SHO W THAT THE ORDINARY MANDATE OF THE STATUTE IS THAT WHERE INCOM E CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PR OFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS RETURNED ON THE BASI S OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY EMPLOYING A METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY, SUCH INCOME IS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE METHOD REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH EFF ECT FROM 1-4- 1997, BY THE FINANCE ACT, 1995, THE POSITION HAS BE EN ALTERED BY DIRECTING THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION ( 2) IN ACCORDANCE WITH EITHER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INCOME ON THE BASIS OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME IS CONFINED TO MAINTENANCE OF AC COUNTS ON CASH BASIS OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, I.E. , TO SAY, ON ACCRUAL BASIS. NO OTHER SYSTEM, EVEN IF EMPLOYED RE GULARLY BY THE ASSESSEE, IS ACCEPTABLE FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THIS PROVISION IPSO FACTO DOES NOT ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA VS. ITO 7 MEAN THAT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF AN ASSES SEE MUST YIELD TO DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOM E AS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ACCOUNTS MADE BY HI M EMPLOYING ANY OTHER METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. 5. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE PROVISION WHICH WAS IN FO RCE IN THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QU ESTION ENVISAGED THAT WHERE THE ACCOUNTS ARE CORRECT AND C OMPLETE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE M ETHOD EMPLOYED IS SUCH THAT IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE INCOME CANNOT PROPERLY BE DEDUCED THEREFROM, THEN THE COMP UTATION SHALL BE MADE UPON SUCH BASIS AND IN SUCH MANNER AS THE A SSESSING OFFICER MAY DETERMINE. IT ALSO ENVISAGED THAT WHERE NO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IS REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, A NY INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST ON SECURITIES SHALL BE CHARGEABLE T O TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH INTEREST IS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE, THAT IS TO SAY, ON ACCRUAL BASIS. THUS, S UB-SECTION (1) DEALS WITH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY THE ASS ESSEE WITH REFERENCE TO COMPUTING INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FRO M OTHER SOURCES ON THE BASIS OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLO YED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT DOES NOT DEAL WITH CORRECTNESS OR COMP LETENESS OF ACCOUNTS, BUT WITH ANY DEFECT IN METHOD OF ACCOUNT. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUB-SECTION (2) ENVISAGED THAT W HERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORREC TNESS OR THE COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR WH ERE NO METHOD OF ACCOUNTING HAS BEEN REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, THAT IS TO SAY, AS PER BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA VS. ITO 8 BOTH THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT ENVISAGE THAT BY RESOR TING TO BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY MUST RE ACH TO A DIFFERENT FIGURE OF INCOME AND PROFIT THAN WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. BEST JUDGMENT IS ALSO TO BE BASED ON THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE, NOTWITHSTA NDING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE MATERIAL DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER MATERIAL THAT MAY BE COLLECTED BY THE IT O FORMS THE BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME. ON THAT BASIS WHAT CONCLUSION IS TO BE REACHED IS INDEPENDENT OF RESULTS SHOWN IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. SECTIO N 145 ONLY PROVIDES THE BASIS ON WHICH COMPUTATION OF INCOME I S TO BE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE AMOUNT OF TAX PA YABLE BY AN ASSESSEE. THE PROVISION BY ITSELF DOES NOT DEAL WIT H ADDITIONS OR DELETIONS IN THE INCOME. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS SOME DEFICIENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR MERELY BECAUS E OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT MUST LEAD NECESSARILY TO ADDITIONS IN THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . WHAT CHANGES IN EITHER CASE IS THE BASIS FOR COMPUTING T HE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUS INESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE RES ULT WOULD DEPEND ON THE OTHER PRINCIPLES OF COMPUTING THE INC OME. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT MERELY CHANGING THE BASIS O R METHOD OF ARRIVING AT END-RESULT OF WORKING OUT THE COMPUTATI ON OF TAXABLE INCOME UNDER THE ACT, NECESSARILY DOES NOT RESULT I N DEVISING AT PROFITS OR GAINS FROM BUSINESS OR OTHER SOURCES DIF FERENT FROM ONE RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHERE HE HAS RETURNED HIS INCOME, WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE RESULT REACHED BY THE A SSESSEE AS PER METHOD OF ACCOUNTING EMPLOYED BY HIM, BY ADOPTING D IFFERENT BASIS BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. ITA NO. 1126/JP/2018 SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA VS. ITO 9 6. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND RESPECTFUL LY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ADDITION OF RS 21,65, 807/- SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL SO TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 7. GIVEN THAT WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION ON MERIT S, OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS (BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROU ND OF APPEAL) AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) HAVE BECO ME ACADEMIC AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/04/2020. 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:- 15/04/2020. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SUNDER DAS SONKIA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD-1(2), JAIPUR. 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. 1126/JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR