VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1137/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD., GOLCHA TRADE CENTRE, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACCG 6614 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI A.B. DANGYACH (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.R. MEENA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15/11/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 28/10/2016 FOR THE A. Y. 2012-13. 2. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION WAS FILED ON 26/09/2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 5,99,790/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) ON 26/03/2015 AT AN INCOME OF RS.51, 83,310/-. ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY TAKING FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) GROUND NO.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ASSESSMENT OF LEASING C HARGES OF MACHINERY, UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. (II) GROUND NO.2 ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ASSESSMENT OF LEASE RENT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 62,92,739/- AS AGAINST RS.60,00,000/- RECEIVED BY A PPELLANT COMPANY ON THE BASIS OF TDS CERTIFICATE. LEASE RENT OF RS. 2,92,739/- WAS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE FOR SUCCEEDING ACCOUNTING YEAR. (III) GROUND NO.3 ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF FOLLOWING E XPENSES:- (I) DEAD RENT RS.4,16,449/- (II) ENVIRONMENT EXPENSES RS.2,00,640/- (II) SALARY & WAGES PAID RS.36,50,617/- THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ARE BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR SUBMISSION THAT THE DISAL LOWANCE OF EXPENSES IS BAD IN LAW, ALTERNATIVELY THE LOSS INCURRED BY A PPELLANT CO. UNDER THE ABOVE HEADS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FROM THE INCOM E ASSESSED. 4. IN THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL, THE IS SUE INVOLVED IS SUSTAINING THE ASSESSMENT OF LEASING CHARGES OF MAC HINERY AND ALSO ENHANCING IT FROM 60.00 LACS TO 62,92,739/- AS INCO ME FROM OTHER ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 3 SOURCES INSTEAD OF CLAIMING THE INCOME FROM BUSINES S. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3.1.2 DETERMINATION : (I) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT COMPANY HAS NOT CARRIED OUT ANY BUSIN ESS ACTIVITIES AND IT HAS GIVEN ITS MACHINERY ON LEASE TO ITS GROUP CO NCERN M/S UDAIPUR DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE PVT. LTD. (UMDSPL) AND HAS DE CLARED INCOME FROM LEASE RENT AT RS 60 LAC AND TREATED THE SAME A S BUSINESS INCOME AND CLAIMED HUGE EXPENSES AGAINST THE SAID LEASE IN COME. THE AO TREATED THE LEASE RENT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS THE APPELLANT COMPANY BY HOLDING THA T SINCE, NO BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLA NT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE INCOME FROM LETTING OFF OF MACHINERY CANNOT BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THE AO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. NARENDRA [2000] 246 ITR 579 (DEL.). (II) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS STATE D BY THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAS BEEN ENGAGED IN MINING AND MANUFACTURING BUSINE SS SINCE 1982-83 WHEN MINING LEASES WERE GRANTED TO IT BY THE GOVT. OF RAJASTHAN AND IT HAS BEEN DOING MINING BUSINESS THEREAFTER. UNDER TH E PROVISIONS OF MINING CONSERVATION RULES, 1988 AND ENVIRONMENT PRO TECTION RULES, EVERY LESSEE OF MINING LEASE, HAVE TO GET APPROVED THEIR MINING PLANS IN BLOCK OF EVERY 5 YEARS AND ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE HA S TO BE OBTAINED BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF MINING OPERATION IN MINING L EASE AREA. THEREFORE, ALTHOUGH BUSINESS WAS COMMENCED BY APPEL LANT COMPANY AFTER GRANT OF MINING LEASE IN YEAR 1983-84 BUT DUR ING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, MINING OPERATION COULD NOT BE CONTINUED FOR WANT OF STATUT ORY AND CONTRACTUAL ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 4 REQUIREMENT J OF APPROVAL OF MINING PLAN AND ENVIRONMENT CLEARAN CE AND THEREFORE, THE BUSINESS OF APPELLANT COMPANY WA S TEMPORARILY DISCONTINUED DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (III) IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT APPLIED FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE BUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE COULD NOT BE OBTAINED FROM THE REGULATORY AUTHORITY AND THEREFORE, THE MINING OPERATION IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 COULD NOT BE COMMENCED. SINC E THE AFORESAID APPROVAL WERE TAKING MUCH TIME, THEREFORE, PULVERIZ ERS WERE GIVEN ON LEASE TO M/S UMDSPL, A SISTER CONCERN OF THE GOLCHA GROUP AND IT RECEIVED LEASE RENT OF RS 60 LAC. THE A.O. REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT SUCH LEASE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND HELD THAT SUCH LEASE INCOME IS A SSESSABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND AGAI NST THE DECLARED LEASE RENT OF RS. 60 LAC, THE AO ASSESSED IT AT 62, 92,739/-. (IV) IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT LEASE INCOME IS T O BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME, THE AR RELIED ON CLAUSE 7 OF THE OBJECT CLA USE OF THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, ACCORDING TO WHICH IT CAN LEASE OUT WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE UND ERTAKING OF THE COMPANY OR ANY LANDS, BUSINESS, PROPERTY, RIGHTS OR ASSETS OF ANY KIND OF THE COMPANY OR ANY SHARE OR INTEREST THEREIN RES PECTIVELY IN SUCH MANNER AND FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AS THE COMPANY MA Y THINK FIT AND IN PARTICULAR FOR SHARE, DEBENTURE, SECURITIES OF ANY OTHER CORPORATION HAVING OBJECTS ALTOGETHER OR IN PART SIMILAR TO THO SE OF THE COMPANY. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE AO HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE AFORESAID CLAUSE 7 OF MAIN OBJECT CLAUS E IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SUCH INCOME IS RIGHTLY ASSESSABLE AS INCOME FROM BUSINES S AT RS. 60 LAC AS ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 5 AGAINST RS. 62,92,739/- DETERMINED BY THE AO AS DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT HAS RECEIVED RS. 60 LAC AS LEASE RENT AND RS. 2,92,739/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS ADVANCE LEASE RENT TO BE ADJUSTED IN SUCCEEDING YEARS. (V) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A PPELLANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS A MA TTER OF FACT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO MINING ACTI VITIES WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY AT ITS MINES AT KISHAN GARH, BAGAWASA, CHAINPURA AND KAKROLIA AS EITHER IT COULD NOT GET T HE LEASE OF THE MINES RENEWED OR COULD NOT OBTAIN THE ENVIRONMENT CLEARAN CE FOR MINING. IT IS NOTED FROM THE TWO LEASE AGREEMENTS DATED 01.04.200 8 EXECUTED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND M/S UMDSPL, A GRO UP CONCERN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN GRINDING MACHINERY NAM ELY PULVERIZERS P-L, P-2 AND P-3 ON A MONTHLY RENT OF RS. 5 LAC AND THE PERIOD OF LEASE WAS FROM 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2014 I.E. LEASE WAS GIVEN FOR A PERIOD OF 6 YEARS. IT SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT INTENDED TO RESUME ITS MINING OPERATIONS IN THE YEAR 2008-09 ITSELF WHEN T HESE LEASE AGREEMENTS WERE EXECUTED. (VI) THE APPELLANT RELIED HEAVILY ON CLAUSE-7 AS ST ATED IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE M EMORANDUM SPECIFIES THE ACTIVITIES WHICH A COMPANY CAN UNDERT AKE AND SPECIFYING A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY IN THE MEMORANDUM DOES NOT LE AD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IT IS DOING BUSINESS IN THAT PARTIC ULAR LINE AND SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE TO BE SEEN WHILE DEC IDING WHETHER A COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OR NO T. (VII) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, THERE IS NO MAIN OBJECT AND IT P ROVIDED ONLY PAGE 1 ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 6 OF THE MOA. IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE HERE THE OBJECTS AS STATED IN THE MOA AS UNDER: 1. TO PURCHASE, TAKE ON LEASE, OR OTHERWISE ACQUI RE ANY MINES, MINING RIGHTS, AND METALLIFEROUS LAND IN RAJASTHAN OR ELSE WHERE, AND ANY INTEREST THEREIN, AND TO EXPLORE, WORK, EXERCISE, D EVELOP, AND TURN TO ACCOUNT THE SAME. 2. TO CRUSH, WIN, GET, QUARRY SMELT, CALCINE, REFI NE, DRESS, AMALGAMATE, MANIPULATE, AND PREPARE FOR MARKET, ORE, METAL AND MINERAL SUBSTANCES OF ALL KINDS, AND TO CARRY ON ANY OTHER METALLURGIC AL OPERATIONS WHICH MAY SEEM CONDUCTIVE TO ANY OF THE OBJECTS OF THE CO MPANY. 3. TO BUY SELL, MANUFACTURE AND DEAL IN MINERALS, P LANTS, MACHINERY, IMPLEMENTS, CONVENIENCES, PROVISIONS, AND THINGS CA PABLE OF BEING USED IN CONNECTION WITH METALLURGICAL OPERATIONS, OR REQ UIRED BY WORKMEN AND OTHERS EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY. 4. TO CONSTRUCT, CARRY OUT, MAINTAIN, IMPROVE, MANA GE, WORK, CONTROL AND SUPERINTEND ANY ROADWAYS, TRAMWAYS, RAILWAYS, BRIDG ES, RESERVOIRS, WATER-COURSES, AQUEDUCTS, WHARVES, FURNACES, MILLS, CRUSHING WORKS, FACTORIES, WAREHOUSES, SHOPS, AND OTHER WORKS AND C ONVENIENCES WHICH MAY SEEN DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY CONDUCIVE TO ANY OF THE OBJECTS OF THE COMPANY AND TO CONTRIBUTE TO SUBSIDISE, OR OTHERWIS E AID OR TAKE PART IN ANY SUCH OPERATIONS. 5. TO SEARCH FOR GET, WORK, RAISE, MAKE MERCHANTABL E, SELL AND DEAL IN SOAPSTONE (TALC, STEATITE), DOLOMITE AND OTHER MINE RALS AND SUBSTANCES AND TO MANUFACTURE AND SELL FUEL AND OTHER PRODUCTS . 6. TO TAKE ON LEASE, HIRE, PURCHASE OR ACQUIRE BY LICENSE OR OTHERWISE ANY LANDS, PLANTATIONS, RIGHTS OVER OR CONNECTED WITH L ANDS, PLANTATIONS, RIGHTS OVER OR CONNECTED WITH LANDS, MILLS FACTORIE S, PLANT, BUILDINGS, WORKS, VESSELS, BOATS, BARGES, LAUNCHES, LORRIES, C ARTS, WAGON, MILLS, MACHINERY, APPARATUS, STOCK-IN-TRADE, PATENTS, INVE NTIONS, TRADEMARKS, RIGHTS, PRIVILEGES, AND MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE PROPER TY OF ANY DESCRIPTION WHICH MAY BE DEEMED NECESSARY OR CONVEN IENT FOR ANY BUSINESS WHICH THE COMPANY IS AUTHORIZED TO CARRY O N. 7. TO LEASE, LET OUT ON HIRE, MORTGAGE, PLEDGE, SEL L OR OTHERWISE DISPOSE OF THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF THE UNDERTAKING OF THE COM PANY OR ANY LANDS, BUSINESS, PROPERTY, RIGHTS OR ASSETS OF ANY KIND OF THE COMPANY OR ANY SHARE OR INTEREST THEREIN RESPECTIVELY IN SUCH MANN ER AND FOR SUCH CONSIDERATION AS THE COMPANY MAY THINK FIT AND IN P ARTICULAR FOR SHARE, DEBENTURE, SECURITIES OF ANY OTHER CORPORATION HAVI NG OBJECTS ALTOGETHER OR IN PART SIMILAR TO THOSE OF THE COMPA NY. ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 7 THUS, IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THE MAIN O BJECT AS PER ITS MOA ARE RELATING TO MINING ACTIVITIES ONLY. (VIII) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN A RECENT DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF CHENNAI PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS LTD. VS CIT[2015] 56 TAXMA NN.COM 456 (SC), THE HONBLE APEX COURT CONSIDERED THE MAIN OBJECTS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY AND HELD THAT WHERE IN TERMS OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION, MAIN OBJECT OF ASSESSEE- COMPANY WAS T O ACQUIRE PROPERTIES AND EARN INCOME BY LETTING OUT SAME, SAI D INCOME WAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE HONBLE APEX COURT ALSO REFERRED TO C ONSTITUTION BENCH DECISION OF SULTAN BROTHERS (P.) LTD. V. CIT [1964] 51 ITR 353 (SC) AND NOTED AS UNDER: 10. NO DOUBT IN SULTAN BROTHERS (P.) LTD.'S CASE (SUPRA), CONSTITUTION BENCH JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT HAS CLARIFIED THAT MER ELY AN ENTRY IN THE OBJECT CLAUSE SHOWING A PARTICULAR OBJECT WOULD NOT BE THE DETERMINATIVE FACTOR TO ARRIVE AT AN CONCLUSION WHE THER THE INCOME IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND SUCH A QUEST ION WOULD DEPEND UPON THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE, VIZ., WHETHER A PARTICULAR BUSINESS IS LETTING OR NOT. THIS IS SO STATED IN THE FOLLOWI NG WORDS: 'WE THINK EACH CASE HAS TO BE LOOKED AT FROM A BUS INESSMAN'S POINT OF VIEW TO FIND OUT WHETHER THE LETTING WAS THE DOING OF A BUSINESS OR THE EXPLOITATION OF HIS PROPERTY BY AN OWNER. WE DO NOT FURTHER THINK THAT A THING CAN BY ITS VERY NATURE BE A COMMERCIAL ASSET. A COMMERCIAL ASSET IS ONLY AN ASSET USED IN A BUSINESS AND NOTHING ELS E, AND BUSINESS MAY BE CARRIED ON WITH PRACTICALLY ALL THINGS. THEREFOR E, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT A PARTICULAR ACTIVITY IS BUSINESS BECAUSE IT IS CONCERNED WITH AN ASSET WITH WHICH TRADE IS COMMONLY CARRIED ON. WE F IND NOTHING IN THE CASES REFERRED, TO SUPPORT THE PROPOSITION THAT CER TAIN ASSETS ARE COMMERCIAL ASSETS IN THEIR VERY NATURE. THUS, BY STATING THE LEASING AS AN OBJECT NO. 7 IN MOA, IT DID NOT MEAN THAT THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE LEASI NG BUSINESS. (IX) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLAN T WAS REQUIRED TO INTIMATE THE LAST FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE MININ G ACTIVITIES WERE ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 8 CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT AT ITS MINES. VIDE ORD ER SHEET ENTRY DATED 20.10.2016, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE AR THAT AT LEAS T SINCE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09, NO MINING ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT AS ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE WERE NOT OBTAINED. EVEN, AS ON DATE, THE MINING ACTIVITIES ON THE MINES LEASED TO THE APPELLANT COMPANY WERE NOT STARTED. THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE MINING ACTIVIT IES WERE TEMPORARILY DISCONTINUED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS NOT CORRECT AS AT LEAST FOR THE LAST 7-8 YEARS, NO MINING ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE A. R WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF MINING LEASES OF THE APPELLAN T COMPANY IN RESPECT OF WHICH MINING PLANS/ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE COULD N OT BE OBTAINED AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF: * CHAINPURA NORTH MINING PLAN HAVE BEEN APPROVED U PTO 31.3.2010 BUT ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE HAS NOT YET BEEN GRANTED. * BHAGWASA NORTH MINING PLAN HAS NOT YET BEEN APPRO VED AND ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED. * BHAGWASA SOUTH MINING PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED UPTO 31.3.2018 BUT ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE HAS NOT BEEN OBTAINED. * KANKROLIA, MINING PLAN HAS BEEN APPROVED UPTO 31. 3.2018 BUT ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE HAS NOT YET BEEN OBTAINED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ENVIRONMEN T CLEARANCE HAS NOT YET BEEN OBTAINED, THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT COMPANY COULD NOT COMMENCE MINING ACTIVITIES IN THE MINING LEASE AREA . (X) THUS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT COMPANY WAS STILL NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN STAT UTORY AND CONTRACTUAL APPROVALS WHICH ARE REQUIRED FOR DOING THE MINING ACTIVITIES. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT AS PER RULE 58 OF MINERAL CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT RULES, 1988, THE CONTR AVENTIONS OF ANY ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 9 OF THE PROVISIONS OF THESE RULES SHALL BE PUNISHABL E WITH IMPRISONMENT OR FINE OR BOTH. IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO REPRODU CE RULE 58 AS UNDER: 58. PENALTY WHOEVER CONTRAVENES ANY OF THE PROVISI ONS OF THESE RULES SHALL BE PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT FOR A T ERM WHICH MAY EXTEND UP TO TWO YEARS, OR WITH FINE EXTENDING TO F IFTY THOUSAND RUPEES OR WITH BOTH, AND IN THE CASE OF CONTINUING CONTRAVENTION WITH AN ADDITIONAL FINE WHICH MAY EXTEND UP TO FIVE THOU SAND RUPEES FOR EVERY DAY DURING WHICH SUCH CONTRAVENTION CONTINUES , AFTER CONVICTION FOR THE FIRST SUCH CONTRAVENTION: PROVIDED THAT FOR REPEATED CONTRAVENTION THE PUNIS HMENT SHOULD BE IN THE FORM OF IMPRISONMENT ONLY: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ANY OFFENCE PUNISHABLE UNDER THESE RULES MAY EITHER BEFORE OR AFTER THE INSTITUTION OF THE PROSE CUTION, BE COMPOUNDED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO MAKE A COMP LAINT TO THE COURT WITH RESPECT TO THAT OFFENCE, ON PAYMENT TO T HAT OFFICER FOR CREDIT TO THE GOVERNMENT, OF SUCH SUM THAT OFFICER MAY SPECIFY: PROVIDED ALSO THAT IN CASE OF AN OFFENCE PUNISHABL E WITH FINE ONLY, SUCH SUM SHALL NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF FIN E WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED FOR THAT OFFENCE: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT WHERE AN OFFENCE IS COMPOUND ED UNDER THESE RULES, NO PROCEEDING OR FURTHER PROCEEDING, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL BE TAKEN AGAINST THE OFFENDER IN RESPECT OF THE OFF ENCE SO COMPOUNDED, AND THE OFFENDER, IF IN CUSTODY SHALL B E RELEASED FORTHWITH. (XI) THUS, SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT HAVING THE S TATUTORY APPROVAL TO DO THE MINING ACTIVITIES FOR THE LAST 7-8 YEARS, IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT IT TEMPORARILY DISCONTINUED THE MINING ACTIVITIES. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF ROYAL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VS. D CIT [2016] 70 TAXMANN.COM 86 (CHANDIGARH TRIB.)(THIRD MEMBER), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE ITAT THAT: A TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANCE OF BUSINESS MAY LEAD TO THE INTERFERENCE THAT THERE IS SOME LEAN ECONOMIC PERIOD OF RECESSIO N AND THAT THE BUSINESS CAN BE REVIVED WHEN PROPER CIRCUMSTANCES E XIST BUT THEN IT IS NOT A CONSCIOUS OR DELIBERATE ACT ON THE PART OF TH E ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 10 LEAD TO THE ABANDONMENT OF BUSINESS. IT IS THE PECU LIAR FACTS OF THE CASE WHICH WOULD DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HA S CEASED TO CARRY ON ITS BUSINESS OR IT WAS A TEMPORARY DISCONTINUANC E. * IN CIT V. INTEGRATED TECHNOLOGIES LTD., THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ITA 530/2011 DOTED 16-12-2011, HOLDS THAT THE ONLY COND ITION TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION ETC., AS EXPENDITURE IS THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT PLANT & MACHINERY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACTUALLY PUT TO USE IN THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF DE PRECIATION AND EVEN IF SUCH PLANT & MACHINERY OR OTHER ASSETS ARE KEPT REA DY FOR USE IN ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. THE ONLY CONDITION ADDED IS THAT THE BUSINESS SHOULD NOT BE CLOSED DOWN ONCE AND FOR ALL AND THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE HOPES OF THE BUSINESS BEING REVIVED ARE AL IVE AND REAL. IT IS HOWEVER NOT A MATTER THAT CAN TURN ENTIRELY ON THE ASSESSEE'S HOPES ALONE BUT THEN THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE ON RECORD T O SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE TOOK EFFORTS TO KEEP THE BUSINESS ALIVE IN THE HOPE OF REVIVING IT. [PARA 6] * IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT SECTIO N 60 OF THE UTTAR PRADESH EXCISE ACT, WHICH WAS ATTRACTED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, OUTLAWED ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN LIQUOR WITHOUT LI CENSE, MAKING IT PUNISHABLE WITH IMPRISONMENT. [PARA 10] * IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS HELD THAT BECAUSE OF THE STATUTORY PROHIBITION UNDER THE UTTAR PRADESH EXCISE ACT, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THAT THERE WAS A LEGAL BAR. (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) * IN THE RESULT, IT IS HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT E NTITLED TO DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION AND OTHER EXPENSES AS CLAIM ED WHEN NO BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE LIQUOR TRADE WAS CARRIED ON B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR IN APPEAL. [PARA 12] (XII) THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE UNDER CONSIDERA TION ARE SIMILAR THE FACTS OF THE ABOVE REFERRED CASE OF ROYAL BEVERAGES PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SAID DECISI ON AS IN BOTH THE CASES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DO ANY BUSINESS AS TH ERE WAS A LEGAL BAR TO DO THE LIQUOR/MINING BUSINESS WITHOUT THE STATUT ORY LICENSE/APPROVAL AND, IF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED OUT WITHOU T A LICENSE OR ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 11 APPROVAL, THE DEFAULTER IS LIABLE FOR PUNISHMENT UN DER THE RESPECTIVE LAWS. (XIII) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR REL IED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALIGARH AT JAIPUR (CAMP OFFICE) DATED 2 5.01.2016 IN ITS OWN CASE IN ITA NO. 110/2013-14 FOR AY 2010-11 WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) ALLOWED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. I HAVE DULY CONSIDER ED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND I DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AS IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THA T MINING ACTIVITIES WERE NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE LAST 7-8 YEARS AND IT WAS PROHIBITED BY THE OPERATION OF LAW TO DO MINING ACT IVITIES AS STATUTORY CLEARANCES HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED AND IT HAD GIVEN ITS PULVERIZERS ON LEASE TO M/S UMDSPL SINCE 01.04.2008. (XIV) THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AN D THE RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE HAT, THIRD MEMBER, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO W AS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE LEASE RENT INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. (XV) THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE LEASE RENT AT RS. 60 LAC WHEREAS AS PER FORM 26AS AND THE TDS CERTIFICATE, THE LEASE RENT W AS SHOWN AT RS. 62,92,739/- AND DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT W AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 2,92,000/- WAS PAI D AS ADVANCE LEASE RENT BY UMDSPL AND TDS WAS DEDUCTED THEREOF AND IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM, IT FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT OF UMDSPL AS APPEAR ING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SINCE, NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS FU RNISHED BEFORE THE AO, THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 62,92,739/- AS LEASE RENT AGAINST RS. 60 LAC DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT COMPANY. (XVI) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED BY THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS NOTED FROM THE ASSES SMENT RECORD THAT THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF UMDSPL AS ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 12 APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT THE DISCREPA NCY WAS NOT RECONCILED AND MOREOVER, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE CREDIT OF TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,72,739/-. THEREFORE, IF IS H ELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAKING THE LEASE RENT INCOME AT RS. 62 ,92,739/- INSTEAD OF RS. 60 LAC AS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE, IT I S NOTICED THAT THE SIMILAR ISSUE WAS ALSO DECIDED BY THE ITAT WHILE DECID ING THE ITA NO. 436/JP/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 ORDER DATED 19/10/ 2016 AND IN THAT CASE, THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. CIT(A). THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ITATS ORDER IS AS UNDER: 6. AFTER HEARING THE REVENUE AND FROM PERUSAL OF T HE RECORDS AVAILABLE, IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON THE RECORD, WHI CH SUGGESTS THAT THE BUSINESS WAS CLOSED DUE TO TEMPORARY LULL. SINCE TH E PULVERIZER WAS LEASED OUT TO M/S U.M.D.S.P. LTD. FOR THE SAME PURP OSE, WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING FROM THE SAME MACHINERY. THEREFO RE, IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS A TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR FROM THE RECORD FOR WHAT PERIOD T HIS PULVERIZER WAS LEASED OUT TO M/S U.M.D.S.P. LTD. WHETHER THE LEASE WAS ONLY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR FOR A LONGER PERIOD. FU RTHER, WHAT WAS STATUS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE CRUCIAL FACTS R EGARDING TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. T HE PERIOD OF LEASE IS ALSO NOT KNOWN FROM THE RECORDS AVAILABLE. CONSIDER ING ALL THESE FACTS, I FIND IT APPROPRIATE THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGL Y, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 13 WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE SMC BEN CH OF ITAT JAIPUR IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 DATED 19 /10/2016, IN WHICH THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). HOWE VER, IN THIS YEAR, WE FIND THAT THE PERIOD OF LEASE WAS FOR SIX YEARS W.E.F . 01/4/2008 TO 31/3/2014. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING FOUR SITES OF MINING. (1) CHAINPURA NORTH MINING FOR WHICH THE PLA N WAS APPROVED ONLY UP TO 31/3/2010. IT HAS NEVER RECEIVED ENVIRON MENTAL CLEARANCE. (2) BHAGWASA NORTH MINING PLAN NEVER RECEIVED APPROV AL. NO ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE WAS OBTAINED FOR THIS PLAN. (3) BHAGWASA SOUTH MINING PLAN AND KANKROLIA MINING PLAN ARE APPROVED ONLY UP TO 31/3/2018. NO ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE HAS BEEN RECE IVED FOR THESE PLANS TILL THE DATE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. ALL THESE FACTS SUGGEST THAT THE LETTING OUT OF THE MACHINERY WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF TEMPORARY LULL IN THE BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE. THE FACTS ON RECORD SUGGES T THAT THE ASSESSEES MINING BUSINESS IS ALMOST PERMANENTLY CL OSED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTUAL MATRIX, WE HOLD THAT THE INCOME FROM L EASING OUT OF THE MACHINERY TO THE SISTER CONCERNS SHALL BE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN ALTERNATE S UBMISSIONS THAT THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENSES SHOULD BE ALLOWED FROM THE INCOME ASSESSED UNDER OTHER ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 14 HEADS OF INCOME. FROM THE RECORDS WE OBSERVE THAT TH E GENUINENESS OF THESE EXPENSES DEBITED IN P&L ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. PRIOR TO CONSIDERING THE ALLOWABIL ITY OF THESE EXPENSES. THE GENUINENESS AND BUSINESS REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, FOR THE VERIFICATION OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES AND ALSO THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXPE NSES FOR BUSINESS REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE INV OLVED IS SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD (I) DEAD RENT OF RS. 4,16,449/-, (II) ENVIRONMENT EXPENSES OF RS. 2,00,6 40/- AND (III) SALARY AND WAGES PAID OF RS. 36,50,617/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3.2.2 DETERMINATION : (I) THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SHOW N INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS HEADS INCLUDING LEASE RENT AND CLAIMED EXPE NSES IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE INCOME AND EXPENSES CLAIMED A RE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: EMPLOYEES BENEFITS EXPENSES RS. 44,00,617/ - LEASING RE NT RS. 60,00,000/ - FINANCE COST RS. 3,373/ - DIVIDEND RS. 7,508/ - ADMINISTRATIVE RS. 10,89,783/ - INTEREST FROM IT RS. 2,055/ - ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 15 EXPENSES REFUND DEPRECIATION RS. 5,64,546 BANK INTEREST RS. 87,260/ - - - INTEREST FROM OTHERS RS.37,554/ - SUNDRY BALANCES WRITTEN OFF RS. 5,788/ - TOTAL RS. 60,58,3191 - TOTAL RS. 61,40,165/ - (II) THE APPELLANT HAVE CLAIMED A SUM OF RS. 200,6 40/- AND RS. 4,16,449/- ON ACCOUNT OF ENVIRONMENT EXPENSES' AND DEAD RENT UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES. SINCE, IT WAS HELD BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAS TREATED THE LEASE RENT AS IN COME FROM OTHER SOURCES, AND IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THESE EXPEN SES ARE NOT RELATED TO THE EARNING OF LEASE RENTAL INCOME, CONSEQUENTLY , THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THESE EXPENSES. (III) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT ENVIRONMENT EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR GETTI NG PREPARED THE SCHEMES OF MINING AND APPROVAL AND FOR ENVIRONMENT CLEARANCE WORK AND SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WITH A VIEW TO RESTART THE MINING AND MANUFACTURING ACTIVITIES. REGARDING DEA D RENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE MINING DEPAR TMENT, GOVT. OF RAJASTHAN AND THESE HAVE NOT BEEN INCURRED FOR OBTA INING MINING LEASES AND THESE EXPENSES ARE TO BE INCURRED ANNUAL LY WHETHER THERE IS PRODUCTION OR NOT. (IV) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, S UBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DONE ANY BUSINESS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE LEASE RENTAL I NCOME WAS HELD TO BE RIGHTLY TREATED BY THE AO AS INCOME FROM OTHER S OURCES AND SINCE THESE EXPENSES ARE NOT RELATED WITH THE EARNING OF LEASE RENTAL INCOME, ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 16 IT IS THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE ENVIRONMENT EXPENSES' AND DEAD RENT AND THUS THE ADDITION OF RS, 2,00,640/- AND 4,16,449/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 3.3.2 DETERMINATION : (I) THE APPELLANT HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 44,00,61 7/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAYMENTS AND IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THESE EXPENSES HAVE NO NEXUS WITH THE EARNING OF THE RENTAL INCOME . HOWEVER, BY CONSIDERING THAT THE APPELLANT MAY HAVE INCURRED SO ME SALARY EXPENSES FOR ESSENTIAL ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF FOR DAY TO DAY OFFICE AFFAIRS, THE AO HAS ALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 7,50,000/- THEREOF AND CONSEQUENTLY, HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 36,50,617/- TO THE INCO ME OF THE APPELLANT. (II) DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMI TTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS AND IT IS NEITHER PERSONAL EXPENDITURE NOR CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NO T OPEN TO THE DEPARTMENT TO PRESCRIBE WHAT EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE INCURRED AND UNDER WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT SHOULD INCUR SUCH EXPE NDITURE. THE PAYMENTS TO THOSE EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN MADE AS A PRU DENT TRADER BECAUSE THEIR VALUABLE SERVICES WILL BE REQUIRED SO ON AFTER OBTAINING APPROVAL OF MINING PLAN AND ENVIRONMENT CONTINUATIO N AND THEIR CONTINUATION IN THE SERVICE WITH THE APPELLANT COMP ANY HAS SAVES SUBSTANTIAL MONEY. (III) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS TRUE THAT THE AO CANNOT ENTER INTO THE SHOES OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, AT T HE SAME TIME, ONLY THOSE EXPENSES COULD BE ALLOWED WHICH ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 17 EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. IT HAS BEEN HELD EARLIER THAT EARNING OF LEASE RENTAL INCO ME IS NOT A BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE APP ELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THUS THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF ALLOWING HUGE AMOUNT OF SALARY CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AGAI NST RENTAL INCOME WHICH IS HELD TO BE RIGHTLY ASSESSED BY THE AO UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE A O HAS ALLOWED SALARY EXPENSES OF RS. 7.5 LAC REQUIRED FOR LOOKING AFTER THE DAY TO DAY AFFAIRS OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING DISALLOWAN CE OF RS. 36,50,617/- AND HENCE THE SAME IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. 7. WITH REGARD TO THE CLAIM OF THESE EXPENSES, WE HA VE ALREADY DECIDED THAT THE ISSUE THAT THESE REQUIRES VERIFICA TION AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS AND JUSTIFICATION OF THE EXPENSES FOR BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/11/2017. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPAN (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 17 TH NOVEMBER, 2017 *RANJAN ITA 1137/JP/2016_ M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD. VS ITO 18 VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S GOLCHA MINERALS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR . 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 2(2), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. 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. 1137/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR