SHRI SIDDHARTH GOEL, AJMER V. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER

ITA 118/JPR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4252 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-10-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 139(1); 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENC HES 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 VIKRA M SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 118/JP/2020 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 SHRI SIDDHARTH GOEL 429, KUTCHERY ROAD, AJMER CUKE VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-02, AJMER LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABFPG0284Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUNIL PORWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/10/2020 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/10/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 18.11.2019 WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 68,000/- PERTAINING TO A .Y 2009-10. 2. THE HEARING OF THE MATTER WAS SCHEDULED THROUG H VIDEO CONFERENCING IN VIEW OF ONGOING COVID-19 PANDEMIC SITUATION IN THE COUNTRY. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME OF RS. 16,48,450/- U/S 139(1) ON 27.11.2009. THE MATTER WAS SELECTED FOR S CRUTINY AND ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED WHEREIN THE AO ESTIMATED RENTAL I NCOME IN RESPECT OF CHITRAKOOT EVENT PLACE AT RS. 3,50,000/-. BEING AGG RIEVED, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 118/JP/2020 SHRI SIDDHA RTH GOEL, AJMER VS. ACIT, AJMER 2 CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,00,000/- AND IN RES PECT OF WHICH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNT ING TO RS. 68,000/-. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT MANDATORY BUT THE LAW REQUIRES THAT WHERE THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ANY PRO CEEDING IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INC OME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, HE MAY DIREC T THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BE FORE THE LEVY OF PENALTY, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERS AN EXPLANATIO N AS PER HIS BONAFIDE BELIEF AND FAILS TO PROVE SUCH BONAFIDE BELIEF TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY AO AS WELL AS SUS TENANCE THEREOF BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECT PROOF OF THE FACTS OF BONAFIDE BEL IEF AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED COMPLETE RECORDS ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND NO DEFECTS THEREIN WERE FOUND EXCEPT THAT COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF PERSONS FRO M WHOM RENT RECEIVED NOT MENTIONED IN RECEIPTS ISSUED. HOWEVER, COMPLETE FACTS AND REASONS WERE SUBMITTED TO AO STATING THAT TO RUN THE FAST FOOD R ESTAURANT, THE PLACE IS USED AND OCCASIONALLY GIVEN ON RENTALS FOR SMALL PARTIES . IT WAS MERELY ON PAST HISTORY AND AS PER DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A .Y 2010-11, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE WITH NO OTHER POSITIVE FINDINGS FOR CONCE ALMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), THE AO HAS TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HA S CONSCIOUSLY MADE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y 2011-12, A.Y 2012-13 AND A.Y 2014-15 HAS DELETED THE PENALTY AS LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) AND THE MATTER IS THUS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE SAID DECISION AND THE PENALTY SO LEV IED MAY THUS BE DELETED. ITA NO. 118/JP/2020 SHRI SIDDHA RTH GOEL, AJMER VS. ACIT, AJMER 3 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSES SMENT IN THIS CASE WAS REOPENED U/S 148 PURSUANT TO INFORMATION GATHERED D URING THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y 2010-11 AND ENQUIRIES MADE AT THAT TIME REVEALED THAT SAID PARTY PLOT WAS BOOKED FOR MARRIAGE, BIRTH DAY PARTIES, ENGAGEMENTS, ORGANIZING GARBA, EXHIBITION FOR BUSINESS PRODUCTS, ETC FOR AROUND 6 MONTHS IN A YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY INCOME IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT LOOKING AT THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HABITUAL OF NOT DISC LOSING HIS INCOME CORRECTLY FROM THE EVENT PLACES AND HAD ALSO HAD FAILED TO PR ODUCE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE OF THE EVENT PL ACES, NO ALTERNATE WAS LEFT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE EVENT PLACES. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS FACTORS INCLUDING GROSS RECEIPT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMERC IAL TAX DEPARTMENT AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT IT IS A CASE OF MERE ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE HE HAS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO THE T UNE OF RS. 2,00,000/- AND IT IS FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). REGA RDING OTHER CONTENTION ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR REGARDING BONAFIDE BELIEF, I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND A FTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, HE HAS HELD THAT THEY CANNOT BE HELD AS BONA-FIDE B ELIEF FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE CORRECT RENTAL INCOME. FURTHER, OUR REFERENCE WAS D RAWN TO THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS AND CONTENT THEREOF READ AS UNDER:- IN THIS CONTEXT IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT INCOME FROM CH ITRAKOOT PLACE IS NIL BEING RECEIPT WERE RS. 1,46,500/- AND EXPENDITURE W AS OF RS. ITA NO. 118/JP/2020 SHRI SIDDHA RTH GOEL, AJMER VS. ACIT, AJMER 4 1,46,900/- BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY KIND OF RECEIPT BOOK FOR MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE PARTIES AND FAILED TO SPELL OUT THE ADDRESS OF 14 PERSONS FROM WHOM RENT RECEIVED AND ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH THE ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR EXPENSES, LEAVING NO OPTION BUT TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME. FURTH ER, BEFORE FINALIZING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 1 9.03.2019 WAS ALSO ISSUED BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IN THIS REGARD. NOW, REGARDING REMAND REPORT THE OPPORTUNITY WAS AG AIN PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 03.09.2019 BUT AGAIN NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT, THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS BY THE THEN AO AND THAT A PART OF ESTIMATION WAS UPHELD BY CIT(A), IT IS A PROOF OF BONAFIDE BELIEF. THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME WAS MADE BY AO. SI NCE THERE WAS NO OTHER CHOICE LEFT WITH HIM AND CONFIRMATION OF SUCH ADDITION IN APPEAL PROVES THAT THERE HAD BEEN CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AT LEAST TO THAT EXTENT. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED O N THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS WHICH ARE EMERGING FROM RECORDS ARE THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1), THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GROSS RECEIPTS FROM CHITRAKOOT PLACE AT RS. 1,46,50 0/- AND HAS CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,46,900/- AGAINST THE SAID RECE IPTS. THEREAFTER, THE MATTER WAS REOPENED BASED ON SUBSEQUENT YEAR FINDIN GS AND INCOME FROM CHITRAKOOT PLACE WAS ESTIMATED AT RS 3,50,000 BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED TO THE EXTENT OF RS 2,00,0 00/- BY THE LD CIT(A). ON THE INCOME SO SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. SIMILAR ISSUE OF LEVY OF PENALTY ON ESTIMATED INCOME HAS BEEN DEALT BY THE BENCH IN ITA NO. 118/JP/2020 SHRI SIDDHA RTH GOEL, AJMER VS. ACIT, AJMER 5 ASSESSEES OWN CASE (ITA NO. 744, 745& 1097/JP/2019 DATED 13.01.2020) AND THE RELEVANT FINDINGS READ AS UNDER: 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT FOR A.Y 2011-12, THE RENTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOT BASIS ANY MATERIAL OR DIRECT EVIDENCE FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BUT BASI S THE HYPOTHESIS THAT THE PLOT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN LET-OUT AT LEAST F OR THE NUMBER OF OCCASIONS ON WHICH THE MAHURATS ARE THERE AS PER TH E PANCHANG I.E. 28 DURING THE RESPECTIVE YEAR. THEREFORE, FOR THE REMA INING 11 MAHURATS OTHER THAN 17 MAHURATS FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED RENTAL INCOME, BASIS THE AVERAGE RATE OF BO OKING OF RS 15,000/-, RENTAL INCOME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.1,65,00 0/-. FURTHER, RENTAL FOR SMALL PARTIES, EXHIBITION AND GARBA PART Y WERE AGAIN ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SIMILAR FINDING S ARE RECORDED FOR OTHER TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SAID DETERMINAT ION OF INCOME COULD FORM THE BASIS OF ADDITION IN THE QUAN TUM PROCEEDINGS, HOWEVER FOR THE PURPOSES OF LEVY OF PE NALTY, MERE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT FOR M THE BASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSIT ION THAT ASSESSMENT AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE PRO CEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, MERE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. FURTHER, WE FI ND THAT AGAINST SAID ESTIMATION OF INCOME DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE LD CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE QUANTUM OF ESTIMATION OF REN TAL INCOME. THEREFORE, WHERE THERE IS NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE OR M ATERIAL BEYOND DOUBT OF ASSESSEE HAVING CONCEALED THE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME, MERE ADDITION IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IS NOT SUFFICIE NT TO HOLD ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. IN THIS REGAR D, USEFUL ITA NO. 118/JP/2020 SHRI SIDDHA RTH GOEL, AJMER VS. ACIT, AJMER 6 REFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE R AJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MAHENDRA SINGH KEDLA (DB APPE AL NO. 174/2010 DATED 19.03.2012) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS U NDER: 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR APPELLANT AND EXAMINED THE REASONS ASSIGNED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL FOR SETTING ASIDE THE PENALTY ORDER. 7. THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BOTH CONSIDERED THE MATTER IN DETAIL AND BY SPEAKIN G ORDER SET ASIDE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, IN T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE RELEVANT POR TION OF PARA 7 OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- PARA 7. ..... ....... ..... ..... ...... ......THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO MAY LEAD TO ARRIVE AT THE FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER THE PARTICULARS DISCLOSED ARE TRUTHFUL OR FALSE OR NOT PROVED TO BE SATISFACTORY. IN THE FIRST CASE IT WOULD BE A POSIT IVE CASE OF NO CONCEALMENT, IN SECOND CASE IT WOULD BE A POSITIVE CASE OF CONCEALMENT AND IN THIRD CASE BENEFIT OF DOUBT WILL GO IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS WITHIN THIRD CATEGORY WHERE THE ALLEGED FACT OF INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL I S FOUND TO BE NOT PROVED SATISFACTORILY. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF POSITIVE CONCEALMENT AND BENEFIT OF DOUBT GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT TRADING ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION BECAUSE THE RESULTS SHOWN BY THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE AO. WHERE AN ESTIMATED AD DITION WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT IN DIFFERENCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ESTI MATED BY THE DEPARTMENT DEPENDS UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE. ..... ..... ..... .... ..... ..... ..... ....... UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE WAS NO POSITIVE EVIDENCE BEYOND DOUBT REGARDING EST IMATED TRADING ADDITION THAT THE AMOUNT IN DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE RESULT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ESTIMATED BY THE AO WAS RESULTANT OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME O R FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF ON THE PART OF THE A SSESSEE, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED . THE AO HAD ITA NO. 118/JP/2020 SHRI SIDDHA RTH GOEL, AJMER VS. ACIT, AJMER 7 REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE TRA DING ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED S ITE-WISE ACCOUNT, NO HEAD-WISE DETAILS OF CLAIMED PURCHASES WERE FURNISHED, NO SEPARATE HEAD OF EXPENSES WAS MAINTAI NED, WORK IN PROGRESS WAS NOT DECLARED, SOME WAGES WERE SHOWN OU TSTANDING WITHOUT COMPLETE DETAILS OF CREDITORS, STOCK REGIST ER WAS NOT MAINTAINED AND MISC. EXPENSES ON WATER TRANSPORTATI ON ETC. WERE NOT VERIFIABLE AND PURCHASE VOUCHERS OF SAND, STEEL , BAJRI ETC. WERE SELF MADE ETC. ASSESSEE EXPLAINED REASONS FOR THE ABOVE DEFECTS WHICH WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS NOT FO UND SATISFACTORY. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE ESTIMATION. T HE CIRCUMSTANCES SUGGEST THAT IT MAY BE JUST AND PROPE R CASE OF MAKING ESTIMATED TRADING ADDITION BUT AN INFERENCE THEREFROM CANNOT BE DRAWN BEYOND DOUBT ESPECIALLY KEEPING IN MIND THE NATURE OF WORK IN NOT MAINTAINING THOSE BOOKS AND D ETAILS SUPPORTED WITH PROPER VOUCHERS ETC. THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE P ARTICULARS THEREOF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ATTRACT THE PENAL PROVISIONS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AND KEEPING IN MIND THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE P ENALTY IN ABSENCE OF POSITIVE EVIDENCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT THAT THERE WAS CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS THEREOF ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TOW ARDS THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISUSE IS THUS UPHELD. 8. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE BASED ON ESTIMATION ONLY. A FACT OR ALLEGATION BASED ON ESTI MATION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CORRECT ONLY, IT CAN BE INCORRECT ALS O. THEREFORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, PENALTY WA S WRONGLY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE BASIS FOR LEVY ING PENALTY IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ONLY ESTIMATION, WHICH IS PUREL Y A QUESTION OF FACT AND THERE IS A CONCURRENT FINDING OF FACT RECO RDED BY FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE APPELLATE TRIBUN AL BOTH. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HARIGOPAL SINGH VS. CIT ( SUPRA). IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DE CISIONS REFERRED ITA NO. 118/JP/2020 SHRI SIDDHA RTH GOEL, AJMER VS. ACIT, AJMER 8 SUPRA, LEVY OF PENALTY ON ESTIMATED RENTAL INCOME C ANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION, THE PENALTY SO LE VIED IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/10/2020. 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:- 27/10/2020 * GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SIDDHARTH GOEL, AJMER 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, CRICLE-02, 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. 118/JP/2020} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR