ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, ALWAR V. SHRI BABU LAL DATA, 2015-16

ITA 1233/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3008 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Document seized; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Difference of opinion; Documents seized; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 148; 143(3); 153A; 133(6); 271D; 22

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR Mk 0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2015-16 Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar cuke Vs. Shri Babu Lal Data, 20, 21 & 22, old Ind. Area, Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAQ PD7663J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@Assessee by : Sh. P. C. Parwal, CA jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by: S. Naiyer Ali Najmi, CIT lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 16/03/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 05/05/2022 vkns'k@ORDER PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal is filed by the Department aggrieved from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-4, Jaipur [ Here in after referred as Ld. CIT(A) ] for the assessment year 2015-16 dated 26.08.2019. 2. The hearing of the appeal was concluded through audio-visual medium on account of Government guidelines on account of prevalent situation of Covid-19 Pandemic, both the parties have placed their written as well as oral arguments during this online hearing process. 2 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar 3. The appellant has taken only one grounds in this appeal; “Whether on facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) has justified in deleting the penalty of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- imposed u/s. 271D of the Act on the basis of incorrect facts regarding the nature of these receipts and neglecting the facts that the assessee was unable to establish that the receipts of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- were as advance for sale of agricultural land.” 4. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to understand the basic facts about the assessee to deal with this appeal. The assessee is an individual derives income from salary, interest & remuneration from various concerns in which he is partner and also earns income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 13,06,680/- and agricultural income of Rs. 12,46,718/- on 30.03.2016. A search & seizure operation u/s 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961 was conducted at various premises of Data Group, Alwar on 14.10.2015 of which assessee is one of the members. During the course of search cash of Rs. 4,31,265 was found, further various documents were seized from the residence of the assessee including page no. 71A of Exhibit no. AS-1. 5. During the course of search proceedings, various incriminating documents were found & seized from assessee's residential premises situated at Bank Colony, Alwar on vacation of prohibition order. The assessee, during the course of assessment proceedings vide query letter dated 04.09.2017, was confronted with the contents of the following documents which were seized and annexed as under: Sr.No. Page no. of Annexure As Exhibit-1 Date of Transaction A. Y. Amount in Rs. 1 71A 11.12.2014 2015-16 10,00,000 3 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar 2 71A 11.12.2014 2015-16 10,00,000 3 71A 12.02.2015 2015-16 1,50,00,000 4 71A 24.02.2015 2015-16 25,00,000 5 71A 11.03.2015 2015-16 30,00,000 6 71A 25.03.2015 2015-16 50,00,000 Total 2,75,00,000 From perusal of these documents’ prima facie, it appears that these loose papers appear to be related to cash loans/advances of Rs. 2,75,00,000/ received by assessee. 6. During the course of assessment proceedings, as per above information possessed with Assessing Officer, it was observed that the assessee had taken/accepted loans/deposits more than rupees twenty thousand in cash or otherwise than by account payee cheque/account payee draft from the following person/party during the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 in contravention of the provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961: सं म र िश 1 11.12.2014 म 10,00,000 2 11.12.2014 र 10,00,000 3 12.02.2015 म 1,50,00,000 4 24.02.2015 श म र 25,00,000 5 11.03.2015 िम ! 30,00,000 6 25.03.2015 र म र 50,00,000 Total 2,75,00,000 4 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar This page attracted attention of the learned assessing officer since it provides transactions of similar nature held at various dates with different persons. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to provide an explanation for these transactions amounting to Rs.2.75 cr for the year under consideration. Accordingly, the assessee field their reply vide letter dated 19.12.2017. The assessment of the assessee was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961 by the DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar on 30.12.2017. The AO based on his findings in the assessment order alleged that the assessee has taken cash loan as against the explanation submitted by the assessee that the said amount relates to the advances received against the sale of agricultural land which was duly supported and corroborated with evidences on record. 7. The Assessing Officer i.e. DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar referred the matter to Addl. CIT, Central Range, Jaipur vide his office letter No. 2223 dated 28.02.2018 for initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 8. Accordingly, a show cause notice for proposing to impose penalty under section 271D of the IT Act, 1961 was issued on 07.03.2018 and the assessee was asked to show cause as to why the penalty may not be imposed u/s 271D of the IT Act, 1961 for violation of provisions of section 269SS of the I.T. Act, 1961. 9. In response to this show cause, the A/R of the assessee Sh. Vijay Data, CA submitted that the assessee has not accepted any alleged loan and advances so as to expose himself for the penal consequences as envisaged under section 269SS r.w.s. 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, therefore, no penalty is leviable upon the 5 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar assessee. Nevertheless, the assessee has filed an appeal before Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Jaipur as per copy of form no. 35 placed on record wherein the alleged acceptance of loan or deposit of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- have been challenged, therefore, he has requested to keep the penalty proceedings in abeyance till the disposal of the appeal and requested to reduce the multiplicity of the proceedings. 10. Based on the submission made the Addl. CIT, Central Circle, Jaipur found that these transactions are mentioned on the documents seized during the course of search proceedings contains the receipt accepted by Sh. Babu Lal Data. It was contended by the Addl. CIT that said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against land but cash loan taken on interest. There was satisfactory conclusion that the said receipts of advances are not the advances against the land as claimed but the cash loans. He has relied upon the discussion made in the assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A dated 30.12.2017 for A.Y. 2015-16 in which the AO has given specific finding which are reproduced as under: "(i) Assessee has contended that as these transactions are mentioned overleaf at page no. 71 and page no. 71 contains the details of land holdings of Sh. Babu Lal Data, therefore, these advances are also on account of sale of those land pieces only. Here it is worth to mentioning that no supporting agreement of land has been furnished by the assessee. Just by mentioning of these entries on the backside of a paper, which contains the details of agriculture land, does not sufficient to conclude that the advances have been received against sale of those pieces of land only. In fact, if we take a look on seized documents, we found that page no. 71 to 75 is in continuity of each other and having details of land holdings of all the family members in 6 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar his/her individual capacity. Therefore, a random noting of transaction on a certain page correlated the transaction with that page automatically without any supporting documentary evidence. (ii) Moreover, the assessee was specifically asked to furnish details of the land(s) against which advance of Rs. 2.75 cr., is said to be taken with supporting documents such as copy of agreement and copy of sale deed etc. Also, to inform the present status of the land(s) whether the same have been sold out in between or not, if yes, then furnish copy of sale deed and if not, then furnish supporting for cancellation of any such agreement. But assessee has simply submitted that "the sale deed of aforesaid land could not be executed till date due to ongoing family disputes between the Data family, which is pending in courts. All the immovable properties including agriculture lands of Data family is subject to courts order and above transaction were made subject to rights being accrued by the court order only" but remained silent regarding the sale agreements of the land against which such a huge amount of advances have been said to be received by him. He badly failed to furnish any details in respect of the land against which advances were said to be taken. Also, even the assessee failed to furnish even PAN and address of the persons to whom advances were said to be taken against agricultural land. The assessee submitted that these transactions were entered into through brokers. However, could not provide PAN and complete address of such brokers even. As the assessee has intentionally not furnished the addresses of neither those persons who advanced the money and nor of the brokers to enable this office for any further inquiry either u/s 133(6) or u/s 131 of IT Act, 1961 to be conducted. It is quite strange that assessee is unaware of whereabouts of those persons and of the brokers, from whom he had taken such a huge amount of advances. (iii) On being asked about the present status of land, the A/R simply said that these lands are under dispute and subject to adjudication under Courts and above transaction were made. The question arises that on account of disputed land how one can entered into sale agreements with numbers of persons and if so than why those individuals would give him so much of advances without even knowing the title clearance of the land in question which is subject to rights being accrued by the court order only. Further, very interestingly these accounts are still not got settled by them and rolling over time to time. 7 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar (iv) Further, if we have a close look over the said document seized and which is under consideration, it transpires that the word बयाना in which the assessee is putting stress in support of its claim is actually termed as या बा ा भाव. If we consider as otherwise, than बयाना advance could not be subject matter of renewal on time to time on market rate as there is no common practice of renewal of advances in the matter of land deals. Such kind of deals either got finalized and executed through registered documents or got cancelled, if not materialized, but not got renewed. (v) The contention of the assessee of advance against agriculture land is also found though subsequent seized pages, it is very much evident, in which name of some loan broker Mr. Rahul reflecting through which transactions was made. It might be possible that any land deal could be done through any mediation/broker but it is unbelievable that the advances against such kind of deal would also be received through broker only. Moreover, it is further evident from page no. 88, 89, 90, 91 seized, said advance were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. (vi) Furthermore, the assessce vide letter dated 16/11/2017 and again by letter dated 18/12/2017 was asked to furnish the complete details of assets and liabilities u/s 142(1)(iii) of the IT Act, 1961 which was pending up to the finalization of the order. In absence of this very essential document, the nature of transaction cannot be ascertained or whether accounted for or not. Even cash flow statement/cash book was also not been furnished by the assessee to verify the transactions. He simply stated that the same has not been maintained. The above discussion is sufficient to draw the conclusion that the said receipts of advances are not the advances against the land as claimed but the cash loans (cash credits under the ambit of section 68 of IT Act, 1951)." 11. Based on the above finding of the AO, Addl. CIT taken a view and stated that it is clear in the section that when loan/deposit, taken by the assessee is Rs. 20,000/- or more in cash and other wise by account payee cheque or draft it is 8 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act and attracts penalty under provision of section 271D. Prime facie there is nothing to show on record that it is covered in any exemption listed in provisions of section 269SS of the IT Act. 12. He further stated that the imposition of penalty u/s 271D of IT Act, 1961, in this case is supported by various judicial pronouncements. In the case of Kum. A.B. Shanthi, 255 ITR 258 (SC)(2002) the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the object of introducing section 269SS is to ensure that a taxpayer is not allowed to give false explanation for his unaccounted money, or if he has given some false entries in his accounts, he shall not escape by giving false explanation for the same. Similar views have also been expressed in the following cases: 1) Sundarshan Cold Storage (P) Ltd. 296 ITR 188 (MP) 2) Kasi Consultant Corporation 311 ITR 419 (Mad.) 3) R.K. Singhal 221 CTR 412 (Raj.). 4) Bhalotia Eng. Work Ltd. 275 ITR 399 (Jharkhand) 13. In view of the above, the Addl. CIT stated that the assessee had taken cash loan of Rs. 2,75,00,000/- in violation of section 269SS of the IT Act, 1961 and, therefore, the assessee is liable for penalty of 2,75,00,000/- i.e. equal to the amount of Loan accepted in cash. Accordingly, penalty for 2,75,00,000/- is imposed on the assessee on the terms of section 271D of the IT Act, 1961. 14. Aggrieved from the said order of levying penalty assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) raising as much as ten grounds of appeal for levy of penalty. The assessee filed a detailed submission before the Ld. CIT(A) which is extracted here in below as appearing from page 5 of the order of Ld. CIT(A): 9 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO OUR SUBMISSIONS MADE IN OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE OBSERVATIONS/ CONTENTIONS/ ALLEGATIONS OF THE LD. ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MENTIONED ABOVE ARE COUNTERED AS FOLLOWS: 3.2.1 The Ld. assessing officer has denied acceptance to the fact that the details mentioned overleaf at page. no. 71 are in liaison with page no. 71 i.e. details mentioned on page no. 71A are not regarding landholdings specified on page no. 71 of exhibit no. AS 1. In this context, it is submitted that it is a general tendency of a human being to record details in relation to a document either on the same side of the document or on the other side of the document to reduce chances of misplacement of such crucial details. The Appellant being a human being has a similar tendency and thus, he jotted down the transactions in relation with his landholdings as specified on page no. 71 of exhibit no. AS1 on the backside of the page i.e. page 71A. Therefore, it is true that the advances in relation to sales of land as mentioned on page 71A are for landholdings stated on page no. 71. 3.2.2The Ld. assessing officer has backed his contention based on the situation that the Appellant was not able to furnish sales agreement, details of buyers or brokers. In this relation, it is submitted that the sales agreement could not be executed due to ongoing family disputes between the Data family. However, the Appellant had received amount of advances based on oral agreement with buyers through a broker Also, due to family disputes, sales agreement could not be executed in writing. Further, names of the person/broker through whom advances were received is clearly mentioned on the seized paper itself, therefore, contents of the same cannot be denied in view of the provision of section 132(4A) of the Act in the absence of any evidence to the contrary. Further, there are also documents available on record, which establish beyond doubt about the receipt of money from such person/brokers, therefore, insufficiency of supplementary evidences for the satisfaction of the Ld. AO cannot be the ground to reject the explanation of the Appellant. Accordingly, the addition made is unwarranted. 3.2.3 The Ld. assessing officer has expressed his doubt that `The question arises that on account of disputed land how one can enter into sale agreements with numbers of persons and if so than why those individuals 10 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar would give him so much of advances without even knowing the title clearance of the land in question which is subject to rights being accrued by the court order only’. In this respect, it is submitted that the above- mentioned statement is based on sheer presumption/ assumption on the part of the Ld. assessing officer. It is to be appreciated that statute neither restricts a person from selling a land in case of family disputes nor objects receipt of advances from buyers in such circumstances. Thus, the contention of the Ld. AO does not have any merit to draw adverse inference against the appellant. Further, it is clarified here that there is no dispute as to the title of the property, it is just family dispute existing in relation to distribution of Property on account of which no formal agreement could be executed with the proposed buyers. 3.2.4 The assessing officer has tried to establish nexus between page no. 71A and some other page of seized document where name of loan broker Mr. Rahul is mentioned. In this regard, it is submitted that the Ld. assessing officer is here contradicting his own belief. He has clearly denied acceptance of the fact that details mentioned on page no. 71A are for landholdings specified on page no. 71 (para 1 of page no. 7 of assessment order of Assessment Year 2015-16 and para number 10.8.1 (i) of page number 50 for the Assessment Year 2016-17) merely on the basis that it is mentioned at overleaf of the page, however, here he is ready to believe that name of loan broker as mentioned on any random page of seized documents is for transactions stated on page no. 71A which in reality has no connection. The Learned Assessing officer cannot pick & choose his own version to draw negative inferences against Appellant. It is surprising that the Ld. AO has just relied upon that certain part of the information/documents, while he ignored the other portion of information. Accordingly, he is not justified in drawing adverse inference against the Appellant. 3.2.5 The Ld. assessing officer has stressed on the aspect that only cash loans taken can be renewed/rolled over, thus, he believes that advances received by the Appellant are actually cash loans. The verbatim of assessing officer for same is as under: Moreover, it is further evident from page no. 88, 89, 90, 91 seized, said advances were renewed from time to time and fixed rate of interest were 11 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar paid on it which itself proves that the amount taken is not advances taken against agricultural land but cash loan taken on interest through loan broker. In regard to this, we would like to draw your kind attention towards a statement already furnished by the Appellant in 'Details and explanation of documents of entries listed in notice dated 04.09.2017(Annexure 9), his statement is as follows: To Quote (entry no. 17 is relation to page no. 88 of exhibit As-1)"receipt of Rupees 3000000.00 as an advance for sale of agricultural land on 28.05.2015, was cancelled and renewed/roll over on 28.09.2015 for another six months" To Unquote From mere reading of the abovementioned statement, it is evident that the Appellant is required to pay interest on such advance from 28.09.2015 instead of 28.05.2015 (date of transaction). Thus, the term renewed/roll over here is used in context of interest payable on such advances against sale of agricultural land. 3.2.6Further, the Ld. assessing officer has reiterated on the fact that the Appellant has failed to provide cash flow statement or other details which can be only known if the Appellant had maintained books of accounts. The Appellant being partner in multiple firms is not required to maintain books of accounts u/s 44AA of Income-tax Act, 1961 regarding his personal transactions. Accordingly, the information regarding personal transactions such as cash flow statement, opening balances of debtors etc. could not be furnished by the Appellant as no books of account were maintained by him. Succinctly, the contentions and grounds submitted by the additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, in order to support imposition of penalty is baseless, thus, the penalty imposed deserves to be quashed. 3.3Further, it is submitted that penalty u/s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 can be imposed by Joint CIT or Additional CIT but not at the authority of assessing officer. This provision was inserted with a view that assessing officer is not the competent authority to impose penalty on the appellant, thus, only Joint CIT v/s Additional CIT can impose such penalty. Considering the intention behind fixation of authority for imposition of penalty, it is highlighted that when assessing officer is not competent 12 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar authority to impose penalty then even contention proposed by him/her cannot be counted as sufficient for imposition of such penalty. As a result, the penalty imposed based on borrowed contentions deserves to be deleted. For this purpose, reliance is placed upon following precedents: (i) In the case of CIT vs. SHREE RAJASTHAN SYNTEX LTD. (2009) 313 ITR 0231 Rajasthan HC, (Annexure 10) it has been held that Simply because the AO of lessee at M had formed a different opinion, on the same set of documents, initiation of reassessment proceedings of assessee (lessor) by the AO at U, on the basis, was rightly held by the Tribunal as on 'borrowed satisfaction' not sufficient for initiating reassessment proceedings Reassessment was initiated only on the basis of opinion arrived at by AD at M, hence invalid. (ii) CIT vs. SHIV RATAN SONI (2008) 217 CTR 222 Rajasthan HC (Annexure 11) Conclusion arrived at by the AO for issuing notice under s. 148 is not his own but is a borrowed satisfaction held by the Asstt. CIT while making the order under s. 132(5) for retaining the seized assets until regular proceedings are held-There was no other material before the AO on the basis of which subjective satisfaction could be reached that the income of the relevant assessment year has escaped assessment-Impugned notice under s. 148 rightly quashed. (iii) RAJATH LEASING & FINANCE LTD. vs. ACIT (1995) 129 CTR 0377 Guj HC (Annexure 12): No notice under s. 148 can be issued simply on the basis of audit report and the CIT's approval of the action under s. 147 without there being satisfaction and application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer. (iv) ACIT v. Dhariya Construction Co.(2010) 328 ITR 515 (Annexure 13)the Supreme Court in a short order held that AO has to apply his mind to the information, if any, collected and must form a belief thereon.(para 10) (v) BIR ARINA ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. vs. ITO (1993) 204 ITR 0258 JKHC (Annexure 14), it has been held that the notices issued under sec. 148 do not disclose any basis for the belief of the ITO justifying the issuance of the notices. The notices appear to have been issued mechanically. The record of the IT authorities only shows a note of the ITO that the petitioner herein 13 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar had allegedly escaped liability, without there being any basis or supporting evidence for such a belief. It is true that the High Court cannot see the adequacy of the record on the basis of which the opinion is formed by the ITO, but there must be some record to formulate the opinion. In the absence of any record worth the name, the action appears to have been taken either merely upon suspicion or change of opinion of the ITO not warranted under law. Even in the column of reason for belief in the proforma attached, the ITO has only mentioned the conclusions of his belief without disclosing the reasons even in his own file. The issuance of the notices in the instant case under sec. 148 was, therefore, unjustified and without any material. From abovementioned judgments, it can be understood that borrowed satisfaction is never sufficient for making any assessment or imposing penalty. Thus, it is our humble request to quash the penalty imposed by Ld. Additional CIT without bring forth his own satisfaction. 4 0 Ground no. 4 of appeal: Imposition of penalty in contradiction of facts That the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax has erred in law as well as on the facts and circumstances of the case in imposing a penalty of Rupees 27500000 and Rupees 16800000 in AY 2015-16 and AY 2016-17 respectively, under section 271D of the income Tax Act, 1961 by holding that that the Appellant has accepted the loan of Rupees 44300000 (27500000.00+16800000.00) in contradiction of the facts on records. 4.1In this regard, it is submitted that the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax has imposed penalty u/s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 for violating provisions of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961. As per his perspective, the appellant has received an amount of Rs. 2.75cr and Rs. 1.68cr in cash which is in violation of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, the whole conundrum revolves around section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961, thus, it is sine qua non to understand the provisions of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961. To Quote (Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961)No person shall, after the 30th day of June, 1984, take or accept from any other person (hereafter in this section referred to as the depositor), any loan or deposit otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft or use of electronic clearing system through a bank account] if 14 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar (a) the amount of such loan or deposit or the aggregate amount of such loan and deposit; or (b) on the date of taking or accepting such loan or deposit, any loan or deposit taken or accepted earlier by such person from the depositor is remaining unpaid (whether repayment has fallen due or not), the amount or the aggregate amount remaining unpaid ; or (c) the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (a) together with the amount or the aggregate amount referred to in clause (b), is [twenty] thousand rupees or more. To Unquote From plain reading of the above-mentioned section, it can be explicitly observed that section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961 is applicable when any assessee has taken loan or deposit aggregating to Rs. 20000 or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. Since, Section 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 can be attracted only when there is violation of Section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961, thus, it is pertinent that following pre-requisites must be cumulatively satisfied before levying penalty: (i) The Appellant has taken loan or deposit from a party (ii) The amount is Rs. 20,000 or more, taken otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. 4.25ince, in the present case, the Ld. Additional Commissioner of Income- Tax has imposed penalty u/s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961, thus, this implies that he has purported that the appellant has taken either loan or deposit amounting to Rs. 20,000 or more otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft. As a result, the next step of paramount importance is, understanding the nature of transactions in question. 4.3In this context, it is reiterated that during search some documents including page no. 71A of exhibit AS-1 were seized from residential premises of the appellant. This loose page consisted of details of advances received by the appellant for sale of agricultural land to various parties. However, the Ld. AO rejected the contention of the Appellant and considered it as cash loans based on assessment order dated 30.12.2017. In contravention, it is worth noticing that the contention of Ld. AO is based on sheer presumption/ assumption without even analyzing the page which gave 15 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar rise to all these arguments. It is pertinent to note here that since the root cause of this conundrum is page no. 71A of exhibit AS-1, it is onus of the assessing officer to understand the document word to word before presenting any opinion upon it. Any contention which goes against the wordings specified in the document automatically becomes false. The learned assessing officer has only worked on his pre-decided motive to prove the Appellant wrong and doing the same he has not even evaluated the root cause i.e. page no. 71A only. 4.4Analysis of page no. 71A of AS-1 (Overleaf of Page no. 71 of exhibit AS-1) 4.4.1 At the outset, the head of the page specifies as heading which implies that the details specified on this page is related to landholdings in Ramgarh. Since, the Appellant has ownership of agricultural land in Ramgarh as disclosed on page no. 71 of exhibit AS-1, therefore, details mentioned on page no. 71A of exhibit no. AS-1 i.e. at overleaf of page no. 71, are in context to agricultural land in Ramgarh under ownership of the Appellant. The details of ownership of land as seized during search are furnished herein with (Annexure 15). Thus, on conjoint perusal of Page 71A along with Page 71, it is established beyond doubt that whatever transactions have been mentioned at Page 71A are pertaining to the agricultural lands situated at Ramgarh. 4.4.2Now, moving on to details, there are 12 transactions of similar nature stated on Page 71A. A specimen of the same is as under: " र " 01.04.15 B.S.Gupta स Rs. 10000000/- # $म % $ ब $ र भ स ( From mere reading of above line, it can be observed that the Appellant has received Rupees 1,00,00,000.00 from Mr. B.S Gupta on 01.04.2015. But the question arises whether it is cash loan or advance against sale of agricultural land. For this purpose, it is submitted as under: The word '' clearly denotes that the amount has been received for land. This implies that the amount which has been received has to do something with land. Here, for an instance, even if it is assumed for argument sake but not admitted that the Appellant has taken cash loans and not advance for sale of land. Then, this cash loans taken must be for purchase of land which is the 16 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar only purpose for which cash loans in relation to land can be taken. However, we would like to bring it to your kind notice that the Appellant has not purchased any of the agricultural land in the concerned assessment year. For proof, refer seized document page no. 71 of exhibit AS-1 i.e. annexure 2. Therefore, the Ld. AO's presumption that the seized paper at Page 71A pertains to cash loans taken or given by the Appellant is not corroborated by any evidence under the facts and circumstances of the present case in hand. Since, the Appellant had no reason to obtain cash loans from different persons in relation to land, thus, the contention placed by the assessing officer is void and untenable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. In view of the above, explanation as provided by the Appellant is correct and acceptable i.e. the Appellant has received advances against sale of agricultural land as the same is corroborated with evidences and is established from the facts of the present case. It is also pertinent to mention here that in para number (v) of page number 52 of Assessment Year 2016-17 and para number (v) on page number 8 of the Assessment Year 2015-16 of the respective assessment order, it has been given a finding by the ld assessing officer that "It might be possible that any land deal could be done through any mediator/broker but it is unbelievable that the advances and interest thereon against such kind of deals would also be transacted through broker only, "This is an admission on the part of the Id assessing officer that the amount have been received against the land deals. 4.5 From above explanation, it is an established fact that the transactions stated on page no. 71A are for receipt of advances against sale of agricultural land and not the loans or deposit within the meaning of section 269SS of the Act. But here the question arises, 'can these advances treated as loans or deposits?'. For this purpose, it is submitted that section 269SS does not provide intricate meaning of terms 'loans' or 'deposits' but only states that "loan or deposit" means loan or deposit of money. Therefore, definition itself does not extend to receipt of advance as per the facts of the present case. 4.6But, it is pertinent to note here that the department has amended section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961 through Finance Act, 2015 wherein 'specified sum' was used in addition to loans or deposits w.e.f. 01/06/2015. Further, 'specified sum' was defined as any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place. This implies that the amount received as advances against sale of agricultural land were not 17 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar included in loans or advances, but same was additionally included in 'specified sum' w.e.f. 01/06/2015. Since, the present case pertains of PY 2014-15/AY 2015-16, thus, advances against sale of agricultural land was not covered under the scope of section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961. Further, the word specified sum was made effective w.e.f. 01.06.2015 and the assessee has received the amount during the Assessment Year 2016-17 before 01.06.2015, therefore, the said amount received also falls out the purview of the definition of the specified sum in the Assessment Year 2016- 17. 4.7 In pursuant of above explanation, it is submitted that the transaction as considered cash loans by the Ld. AO are not actually loans or deposits. Therefore, condition (i) for imposing penalty u/s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 has failed to be satisfied. In other words, since the amount received is neither loan or deposits, thus, section 269SS of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable, let alone section 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961. Since, both the conditions (as mentioned in para 4.1 above) were required to be applied cumulatively, thus, non application of condition (i) sets aside the need to even consider condition Hence, it can be concluded that penalty imposed by the Ld. Additional is erroneous, since, section 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961 is not applicable in the case of the appellant. In support of the conditions made herein, reliance is placed on the following judicial pronouncements: Commissioner of Income-tax v. Kailash Chandra Deepak Kumar [2009] 317 ITR 351 (Allahabad) (Annexure 16) Held that on the quantum side the assessing authority had added Rs. 1,00,000 which was the same amount as unexplained cash credit under section 68 and the Commissioner (Appeals) had held that the aforesaid amount had been taken as advance from BR against subsequent purchase of pulses made from the assessee-respondent. The provisions under section 269SS are applicable only in case of loan or deposit and do not cover cash advance for purpose of goods in future. Karnataka Ginning & Pressing Factory vs. Joint Commissioner of Income- tax [2001] 77 ITD 478 (MUM.) (Annexure 17) Moreover, the amounts taken by the assessee in the present case from VE were temporary advances and there was no evidence that there was any 18 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar stipulation as to the period or any stipulation for interest. It was therefore a matter of grave doubt as to whether the amounts received from VE could be characterised as loans or deposits. They could be more appropriately referred to as temporary advances. Such temporary advances are outside the purview of section 269SS. Therefore, it is our humble request to kindly delete the penalty-imposed u/s 271D of Income Tax Act, 1961, since; same is not applicable as prayed here in above. 15. Based on the submission made by the assessee, the Ld. CITA) observed that the seized document annexure AS-1, page 71A, which was treated as cash loan/ advances received by the appellant from various person and decided that rather provision of section 68 is not applicable considering the facts of the case and deleted the quantum additions and accordingly based on that finding the sum is not of the nature of loan or advances the penalty u/s 271D is not applicable. He has further evaluated the transactions whether they fall in to the definition of specified sum'. The word specified sum was added in the section 269SS and also in section 271D w.e.f. 01-6-2015. The specified sum is defined in the section 269SS as under: “Explanation.-For the purposes of this section, (i) ¹2" banking company" means a company to which the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949) applies and includes any bank or banking institution referred to in section 51 of that Act; (ii) "co-operative bank" shall have the same meaning as assigned to it in Part V of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949); (iii) "loan or deposit" means loan or deposit of money; (iv) "specified sum" means any sum of money receivable, whether as advance or otherwise, in relation to transfer of an immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place. 19 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar Looking to the above provision being amended transactions in the AY 2015-16 are definitely not specified sum as the entire amount received are before 31-03-2015. Transactions that are for the AY 2016-17 the Addl. CIT has listed sum on which penalty was imposed. However, dates are not listed in that table and therefore, Ld. CIT(A) on perusing the seized material to link it with the dates to ascertain whether they were received before 01-06-2015 or after. The table on page of the order by the Addl. DIT is reproduced below with the addition of dates extracted from the seized material; Sr. No. Name of person Amount Date from page 71A of Ann. AS-1 1 Shri B. S. Gupta 10000000 01.04.2015 2 Shri Avanish Jain 2500000 21.04.2015 3 Shri Satya Prakash 300000 01.05.2015 4 Smt. Sneha Lata 500000 22.05.2015 5 Shri Bijendra Kumar 500000 22.05.2015 6 Shri Rejendrakumar Gupta 3000000 28.05.2015 16. It can thus be seen that the transaction for the relevant A Y 2016-17 also does not fall in the category of specified sum' as all transaction are before the cutoff date of 01-06-2015. Considering the above, factual aspects the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the penalty levied u/s 271D of Rs. 2.75 Crores & 1.68 Crores for the AYrs 2015-16 & 2016-17 respectively. 17. Aggrieved from the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the revenue has preferred the appeal before us in respect of the penalty appeal for both the years. The revenue has also preferred an appeal before us by filling a separate appeal in respect of the 20 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar deleting of the quantum addition made by the Ld. CIT(A) for the quantum additions and even for these quantum appeal even the assessee has filed the appeal before us. 18. The appeal no. 1234/JP/2019 related to the assessment year 2016-17 against which the assessee has filed the application under the vivad se viswas scheme and therefore, the said appeal of the department was dismissed as withdrawn on that fact. Since, in both the year issue being same but only difference on account of amendment and inclusion of the specified sum made applicable. There is no such fact so far as the fact related to this year is considered and the bench has noted the said facts while considering this appeal of the revenue. 19. During the hearing of the appeal the Ld. AR of the assessee has filed the written submission which is extracted here in below : 1. At the outset it is submitted that the seized paper on the basis of which addition is made is titled 'Ramgarh jamin ke pete' under which the date, name of person, amount received and the narration on account of land- interest market rate is noted. Thus, the paper clearly indicates that the amount noted on this paper is in relation to the amount received against Ramgarh land. This is further supported from the fact that this noting is made overleaf of Pg No.71 which contains the details of agricultural land holding of assessee at Ramgarh and the subsequent pages at 72-75 contain the details of agricultural land holding of the family members of assessee. Thus, it is beyond doubt that Pg 71A (PB 1) relate to amount received against Ramgarh land. 21 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar 2. It is submitted that as per section 292C it is presumed that the contents of the books of accounts and other documents found in the possession or control of any person in the course of search are true. Therefore, when the paper clearly indicates that the amount is received against the land at Ramgarh, the same cannot be considered as loan or advance in as much as any sum of money received as advance in relation to transfer of immovable property, whether or not the transfer takes place is also roped in the ambit of section 269SS only from 01.06.2015. Therefore, amount received by the assessee as advance in relation to transfer of immovable property is not covered by section 269SS prior to 01.06.2015 and hence, Ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the levy of penalty. 3. Without prejudice to above, it is submitted that AO has considered the sum received by the assessee against Ramgarh land as unexplained cash loan and made addition for the same u/s 68 of the Act. Thus, once the sum so received is considered as undisclosed income, the same cannot be at the same time be treated as acceptance of loan or deposit u/s 269SS so as to levy penalty us 271D. In this connection reliance is placed on the following cases: Gyarsi Lal Vijay Vs. CIT ITA No.7/2002 order dt. 24.08.2016 (Raj.) (HC) (PB 14-16) In this case the Hon'le High Court after reproducing section 68 of the Act in para 8 of the order gave the following findings in para 9 of the order: "9. Perusal of the above section envisage that if any sum is found credited in the books of account and the assessee fails to offer satisfactory explanation regarding the nature and source so offered by him or fails to tender satisfactory explanation, the said amount can be treated as deemed income of the assessee. In our view once it has been held as deemed income of the assessee or an addition u/s 68 has been made the character of the said amount/addition will not remain as a loan or deposit and section 269 SS will not be applicable. Although addition w/s 68 or provisions of sec.269SS are independent provisions but if the alleged income is held to be deemed income of the assessee, the penalty u/s 271D could not be invoked." 22 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar DIT(Exemptions) Vs. Young Men Christian Association (2014) 111 DTR 77 (Mad.) (HC) (PB page 17-23) Para 7 & 10 of the decision reads as under: "7. We find from the order of the Tribunal, in the case of transaction relating to receipt of Rs. 1 crore and payment of Rs. 50 lakhs, the Tribunal, having considered the order of the assessing authority that it is a case of unexplain which is subjected to tax under s. 68 of the Act, held that the question of treating it as transaction in violation of ss. 269SS or 269T does not arise as it stands mutually excluded. 10. The Tribunal, taking note of the abovesaid decisions, accepted the stand of the assessee that there was no justification for imposition of penalty under ss. 271D and 271E, as it is not a transaction in contravention of ss. 269SS and 269T. In the light of the proposition of law expounded by the Delhi High Court in the above cited decisions, which has been rightly relied on by the Tribunal, we find no reason to take a different view as we find that the reasons of the CIT(A), as observed by the Tribunal, justifies a case of undisclosed income at the hands of the assessee subject to tax under 68 of the Act." Diwan Enterprises Vs. CIT & Ors. (2000) 246 ITR 571 (Del) (HC) Para 22 of the decision reads as under: "22. The record of the proceedings shows that the AO had discarded the theory of the assessee having taken any loan. He accepted the surrender of the amount as income of the assessee. It was open to the AO not to accept the surrender, treat the amount as loan and then petitioner liable to penalty under s. 271D for noncompliance with s. 269SS. The AO cannot be hold the permitted to treat the amount of loan as income for the purpose of assessing tax thereon while framing the assessment and at the same time to treat it as a loan for the purpose of s. 269SS read with s. 271D and subject the 23 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar transaction to penalty. Such proceedings would be self contradictory. For non-compliance with the provisions of s. 269SS, the genuineness of the transaction as loan was doubted by the AO and so the amount was surrendered by the assessee. The surrender was accepted by the AO as income of the assessee. It ceased be a loan and, therefore, the very foundation for initiating the proceedings for and levying penalty under s. 271D was lost." CIT VS. Standard Brands Ltd. 285 ITR 295 (Del.) (HC) Para 8 & 9 of the decision reads under: “8. On these facts, we are of the view that the Revenue could not, on the one hand, contended that the amount of Rs. 3 lakhs is undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee and at the same time seek to initiate proceedings violation the provisions of 269SS the Act which with cash deposits loans in excess of Rs. 20,000. 9. The Revenue, having taken stand the income was undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee, it could not resort to proceeding under Ss. 269SS read with s. 271 D of the Act, as held by the Tribunal." 20. On the contrary the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of the revenue relied upon the order of the AO and finding given in that order. The Ld. DR has not placed any single argument which establish that the advance amount received by the assessee is not against the disputed agricultural land account, even though the seized material itself shows the name of the persons and amount received from each of the persons on the dates mentioned therein. 21. We have heard the rival contentions, persuaded the submission made and order of the lower authorities. Here it is not disputed by both the parties that the 24 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar assessee is having sufficient agricultural land on its disposal as joint owner. It is also evident that on the seized material related to the land ownership document on the back side of that paper the assessee has written the date, amount and the name of the person from the money has been received. On the top of the seized material below the details of money received it is also mentioned that र म ढ़ $म प ट [“Ramgadh Jamin ke pete” mean on account of Ramgadh land] There is no contrary finding that the version stated in the above seized documents are not correct and even the assessee has accepted the facts mentioned in that seized documents. On accepting this fact, the Ld. AR of the assessee argued that as per provision of section 292C department has to accept the facts stated in that seized documents in the absence of the contrary finding that the amount received is not on account of sale of agricultural land. The details are perfectly mentioned in that seized documents and the money so received is against the sale of agricultural land for which sale document or agreement to sale is not made on account prevailing dispute between the family members. Accordingly, the amount so received is the advance received against the sale of agricultural land owned by the assessee. During the course of the assessment proceeding the assessee contended that as regards the details of all six persons from whom such advance against sale of agricultural land was received, it is submitted that such advances were received through broker(s) in open market, which is a normal and prevailing practice. All the transactions have been entered through broker. The names of all theses persons have been given by the broker(s). At present, the brokers are not in touch with the assessee. This written submission of the assessee is in accordance with the seized material found during the course of search and assessee has accepted the facts stated in that paper and once the assessing officer has considered the holding of the land, details of the amount received as advance for the sale of agricultural land all 25 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar the details and facts arising out of the seized documents support the contention raised by the AR of the assessee and on the contrary department has not challenged this basic arguments of the assessee that he has received the money as on account of sale of agricultural land. Till the date of transaction of advance received by the assessee the money so received is also not coming under the purview of specified sum and the same has been introduced in the Act w.e.f. 01-06-2015. Thus, the said amendment does not affect the transaction of the year under consideration. It is submitted by the AR of the assessee that once the cash receipt on account of sale of agricultural land was not prohibited under the law the advance so received by the assessee can not be considered as cash loan once the nature of credit is evidently clear that the money so received is for sale of agricultural land on face of the document seized. Thus, we have gone through the submission of the assessee and material available on the records and on abutted reading of page 71A along with the page 71, it is clear beyond doubt that the transactions entered on the page are pertaining to the agricultural land of the assessee situated and the department has not raised any doubt about the adequacy of the land and the amount related to the said land received by the assessee. Thus, this indirect admission of the department strength the argument of the assessee. 22. On perusal of the assessment order and arguments of the AR of the assessee the page 71 and 71A are related to the case on hand, the Ld. Assessing officer has denied the acceptance to the fact that the details mentioned overleaf at page no. 71 are connected with the details mentioned on page no. 71A and the said paper is part of the seized records. The Ld. AR of the assessee argued that it is general tendency of a human being to record details in relation to a document either on the same side or on the other side of the document to reduce chances of misplacement 26 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar of such important information. Thus, the argument of the AR of the assessee that the information recorded on that page is only related to the said disputed land and assessee has received the amount as an advance for sale of that land only. 23. On the other hand, the Ld. Assessing Officer, contended that the appellant was not able to furnish sales agreement, details of buyers or brokers. In this regards assessee has submitted that sale agreement could not be executed due to ongoing family disputes between the data family. The appellant has received the advance which is supported from the seized page itself where in the purpose of the amount is also recorded date wise and the name of the person is also written. The name of the person making the payment and the name of the broker already written on the face of the page seized. The content of this page is also explained in the statement recorded at the time of search and in the absence of the contrary finding available on record the evidence placed before us cannot be ignored and a side and decide the issue ignoring this important document found at the time of search. The Ld. Assessing officer expressed his doubt that when the land is disputed how one can enter into sale agreement with these number of persons and that substantial amount has been given knowing to the fact the land is under disputes. On this issue the Ld. AR of the assessee stated that the law neither restricts a person from selling a land in case of family disputes nor objects receipt of advance from buyers and thus the doubt of the Ld. AO has no merits. The Ld. AR draw our attention to the fact that the Ld. AO does not accept the money in relation to land on page 71A but when the explanation of page 88,89,90 and 91 renewal of this advances and accepted the amount is received with the name of the broker is written. This being the amount reflected on this page 71A. Thus, the version of the assessing officer is contradictory on same set of evidences. 27 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar 24. Further the Ld. AO reiterated that the assessee failed to provide cash flow and other details which can be known if the assessee maintained the books of accounts. On this issue the Ld. AR of the assessee stated that assessee being partner in multiple firms is not required to maintain the books of accounts and merely the cash flow statement not submitted or submitted will not change the nature of transactions or it does not affect the facts of the case to decide the issue on hand. 25. The Ld. Addl. CIT while passing the order of levying penalty u/s. 271D has relied upon the finding of the order of the assessing officer in the quantum proceeding for A. Y. 2015-16 where in six issues has been pointed out the assessing officer in relation to the page under consideration, while levying the penalty order, except that point there is no separate finding or satisfaction of the Ld. Addl. CIT in this matter. The Ld. AR of the assessee has already filed the explanation stating that why the said finding of the AO is not correct and is also discussed in above paras. Thus, the order of levying penalty has no separate finding or observation as to why the penalty should sustain. Thus, the said order is considered in the light of the submission made by the Ld. AR of the assessee. The facts of this case and the fact of case of the decision cited by the Ld. Addl. CIT are different and the same is considered as differentiated on facts of this case. Thus, we are of the view that while levying the penalty the Ld. Addl. CIT has not dealt so as to why and how the penalty is leviable considering the present set of facts available on record. Looking to the facts, evidences and written arguments placed before us we concur the finding given by the Ld. CIT(A) and thus, based on this finding the appeal of the department is dismissed as the impugned transaction listed on the back side of page 71 is the amount received on the proposed sale 28 ITA No. 1233/JP/2019 ACIT, Alwar vs Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar transaction of the agricultural land and thus the considering that aspect the assessee has not violated the provisions of section 269SS of the act and in turn he is not liable for the penalty u/s. 271D of the Act. In the result the appeal of the department is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 05/05/2022. Sd/- Sd/- ¼ Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh ½ ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ (Dr. S. Seethalakshmi) (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@ Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 05/05/2022 *Ganesh Kr. vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Alwar 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Shri Babu Lal Data, Alwar 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 1233/JP/2019) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar