SMT. SWARN DURGIA, JAIPUR V. ITO, WARD-6(1), JAIPUR

ITA 1326/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4336 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Capital Gains
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 143(2); 73

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH A , JAIPUR JH JESK LH-'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE : SHRI RAMESH C.SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1326/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 SMT. SWARN DURGIA 57, VIDYUT ABHIYANTA COLONY MALVIYA NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 6(1) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AHFPD 9413 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L.PODDAR, ADVOCATE JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI K.C. GUPTA, JCIT-DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17/02/2020 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 /02/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) -2, JAIPUR DATED 29-11-2019 ARISING FROM THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. (I). UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WHICH WAS LEVIED BY THE AO WITHOUT STRIKING OF THE IRRELEVANT PORTION OF TH E PRINTED SHOW CAUSE ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 2 NOTICE DATED 3-11-2017 VIS. FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME BAD IN LAW. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 2 3,48,470/- IMPOSED BY AO U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT IS AGAINST THE PRIN CIPLES OF JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY AND THEREFORE, BAD IN LAW. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED HER RET URN OF INCOME ON 21-08-2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,23,54,74 0/- INCLUSIVE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF SECURITIES / SHARES OF RS. 2,23,89,673/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE ADVANC E TAX @ 10% ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY SHOWING THEM AS LONG TERM CAPI TAL GAIN ARISING FROM SALE OF LISTED SECURITIES. DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE REVISED HER COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND OFFERED THE TAX ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN @ 20% BY TREATING THEM AS UN LISTED SHARES INSTEAD OF LISTED SHARES. THE AO COMPLETED THE SCRU TINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) ON 3-11-2017 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME, THOUGH THE AO RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF LISTED SHARES WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE UNL ISTED SHARES. THE AO ACCORDINGLY INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY IS SUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 3-11-2017 AS WELL AS DATED 13-04-2018 AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 23,48,470/- BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED IN ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 3 RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLASSIFIED AS LIS TED SHARES. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 2.2 BEFORE US, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING IN USA AND IS NRI. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS DEPENDENT ON HER TAX CONSULTANT FOR FILING HER RETURN OF INCOME. IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN, THE TAX CONSULTANT HAS MISTAKENLY SHOWN THE CAPITAL GAI NS FROM LISTED SECURITIES WHEREAS THE SHARES WERE NOT LISTED IN TH E STOCK EXCHANGE. THEREFORE, IT WAS ONLY AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE TAX CONSULTANT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S DULY DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF SHARES/ SECURITIES AND ALSO OFFERED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX, THOUGH DUE TO SOME CONFUSION, THE SHARES WERE CLASSIFIED AS LISTED SECURITIES IN THE RETURN OF IN COME INSTEAD OF UNLISTED SECURITIES. THUS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EITHER FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEN ALL THE NE CESSARY PARTICULARS BEING THE NAMES OF THE SECURITIES AS WELL AS OTHER DETAILS WERE FURNISHED ONLY BECAUSE THE SHARES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ARE CL ASSIFIED AS LISTED SECURITIES WHICH WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 4 OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT LTD. VS CIT , 348 ITR 306 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD T HAT THE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN NOT DETECTI NG THE MISTAKE ABOUT THE ALLOWABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS TOWARDS PAYMENT OF GRATUITY WAS A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR AND THEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED O N THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SOCI ETEX,212 TAXMAN 73 (DEL). THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVEN THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT VALID AS THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE LIMB FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED. THE LD .AR OF THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WHILE RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME WHEREAS IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THE AO HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE LIMB OR DELETED THE IRRELEVANT PART OF THE CHARGE FOR WHICH PENALTY WAS PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED. FURTHER, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT AO HAS FINALLY LEVIED ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 5 THE PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, T HE AO WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE DEFAULT OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER AT THE TIM E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OR AT THE TIME OF ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE AS WELL AS AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE PENALTY ORDER WHICH IS THE INCO RRECT CHARGE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT FALL IN THE AMBIT OF CONCEALM ENT OF INCOME. THUS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AO WA S NOT SURE ABOUT THE CHARGE AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PRO CEEDINGS AND FINALLY LEVIED THE PENALTY ON WRONG DEFAULT THEN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTIONS THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON TH E DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MANJUNA TH COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY, 359 ITR 565 (KAR.). 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T IT IS A CLEAR CASE OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEN THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN CAPITAL GAINS FROM THE LISTED SECURITIES AS AGAINST NON-LISTED SECURITIES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTEMPTED TO CONCEAL TH E PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY PAYING LESS TAX @ 10% INSTEAD OF 20% APPLICABLE. WHEN THE AO HAS ISSUED THE NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 6 COME OUT WITH A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND O FFERED THE CORRECT INCOME TO TAX. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE L D. DR HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MA K DATA (P) LTD VS CIT, 358 ITR 593 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT SURRENDER OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES U/S 143 (2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT BY THE AO, WOULD NOT BE A VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT RELEASE FROM MISCHIEF OF PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT. THUS THE LD. DR RELIED ON TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE SCRUTINY A SSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT EXCEPT THE FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ADDITIONAL TAX @ 10% ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN BY ADMITTING THE FACT THAT THE SHARES SOLD BY THE A SSESSEE ARE UNLISTED AND THEREFORE, ATTRACTING THE TAX @ 20% INSTEAD OF 10% AS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THUS IT IS ONLY A CASE OF WRONG CLASSIFICATION OF CAPITAL ASSET SOLD BY THE ASSESSE E YIELDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE PARTICULARS AS FURNISHED BY THE A SSESSEE REGARDING THE ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 7 NAME OF THE SCRIP, PROOF OF SHARES, SALE CONSIDERAT ION AND INDEXED COST ARE DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS CORRECT. THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT ONLY IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED ON REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND CORRECTLY CLASSIFYING THE SHARES AS UNLISTED SECURI TIES. THEREFORE, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS WRONGLY SHOWN TH E SHARES AS LISTED SECURITIES AND PAID SELF ASSESSMENT TAX @ 10% INSTE AD OF 20%. THE SAID SHORT PAYMENT OF TAX WAS MADE UP BY THE ASSESSEE DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WHEN THE ASSESSEE REALIZSED T HE MISTAKE IN CLASSIFICATION OF THE CAPITAL ASSET BEING UNLISTED SHARES AS LISTED SHARES. THE AO HAS REJECTED THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IT IS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING AN NRI AND W ELL EDUCATED AND HAVING THE SERVICES OF QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL, SHE WAS WELL AWARE REGARDING THE TAXATION PROVISIONS. SHE WAS AWARE THAT THERE W AS A LIABILITY OF 20% ON THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY HER BUT ONLY TO EV ADE TAXES, THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS DECLARED IN THE SLAB OF 10% IN THE ITR. ACCORDI NGLY, THERE WAS UNDER COMPUTATION OF TAX DUE AND PAYMENT OF TAX. THIS CON DUCT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TREATED AS INADVERTENT ERROR OF MISTAKE. SHE WAS HAVING THE SERVICES OF A QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND WAS IN A PO SITION TO IDENTITY THE CORRECT NATURE OF TRANSACTION AND CORRECT TAX RATE. THUS THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A NRI AND WELL EDUCATED AND HAVING AVAILED OF THE SERVICES OF A QU ALIFIED PROFESSIONAL, ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 8 CANNOT TAKE THE PLEA OF INADVERTENT MISTAKE OR ERRO R. ONCE THE ASSESSEE'S STATUS BEING A NRI AND STAYING OUT OF COUNTRY IS NO T IN DISPUTE THEN THE DEPENDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE TAX CONSULTANT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED THROUGH THE TA X CONSULTANT THEN IT IS ONLY A MATTER OF MISCLASSIFICATION OF THE CAPITAL A SSET SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO SHORT PAYMENT OF TAX. THERE FORE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT IT IS A CAS E OF INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE MISTAKE OF WRONG CLASSIFICATION OF THE SECURIT IES YIELDING LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE TAX @ 10% INSTEAD OF 20%. EXCEPT THE CLASSIFICATION OF SECURI TIES, ALL OTHER NECESSARY AND RELEVANT PARTICULARS/ DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE SAID CLASSIFICATIONS OF THE ASSET IS NOTHING BUT A MISTAKE OCCURRED WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE TAX CONSULTANT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME FALLS IN THE AMBIT OF REASONABLE AND BONA FIDE EXPLANATIONS/ REASONS FOR THE DEFAULT / FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE R EASONS FOR WRONG CLASSIFICATION OF THE SECURITIES AND THE SAID EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BONA FIDE BEING INADVERTENT MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE TAX ADVISOR THEN THIS CASE WOULD NOT FALL IN CLAUSE B OF EXPLANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1) ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 9 OF THE ACT. THUS NO PENALTY SHALL BE LEVIED U/S 271 (1)( C) OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN TH E CASE OF PRICE WATERHOUSE COOPERS PVT. LTD VS CIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 17. HAVING HEARD LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE RATHER PECULIAR AND SOMEWHAT UNIQUE. THE ASSESSEE IS UNDOUBTEDLY A REPUTED FIRM AND HAS GREAT EXPERTISE AVAILABLE WITH IT. NOTWITHSTANDING THIS, IT IS POSS IBLE THAT EVEN THE ASSESSEE COULD MAKE A 'SILLY' MISTAKE AND INDEED THIS HAS BE EN ACKNOWLEDGED BOTH BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HIGH COURT. 18. THE FACT THAT THE TAX AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED AL ONG WITH THE RETURN AND THAT IT UNEQUIVOCALLY STATED THAT THE PR OVISION FOR PAYMENT WAS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40A(7) OF THE ACT INDIC ATES THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE A COMPUTATION ERROR IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. A PART FROM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT NOTICE THE ERROR, IT WAS NOT E VEN NOTICED EVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THAT SENSE, EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEMS TO HAVE MADE A MISTAKE IN OVERLOOKING THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT. 19. THE CONTENTS OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT SUGGEST TH AT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE CONCEALING ITS INCOME. THE RE IS ALSO NO QUESTION OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHING ANY INACCURATE PARTICULA RS. IT APPEARS TO US THAT ALL THAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT T HROUGH A BONA FIDE AND INADVERTENT ERROR, THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING IT S RETURN, FAILED TO ADD THE PROVISION FOR GRATUITY TO ITS TOTAL INCOME. THI S CAN ONLY BE DESCRIBED AS A HUMAN ERROR WHICH WE ARE ALL PRONE TO MAKE. THE C ALIBRE AND EXPERTISE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS LITTLE OR NOTHING TO DO WITH TH E INADVERTENT ERROR. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAREFUL CANNOT BE DOU BTED, BUT THE ABSENCE OF DUE CARE, IN A CASE SUCH AS THE PRESENT, DOES NO T MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF EITHER FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR ATTEMPTING TO CONCEAL ITS INCOME. 20. WE ARE OF THE OPINION, GIVEN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THIS CASE, THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JU STIFIED. WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COMMITTED AN INADVERTENT AND BONA FIDE ERROR AND HAD NOT INTENDED TO OR ATTEMPTED TO EITHER CONCEAL ITS INCOME OR FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS. ITA NO.1326/JP/2019 SMT.SWARN DURGIA VS ITO, WARD- 6(1), JAIPU R 10 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND FOLLO WING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PRICE WATERHOU SE COOPERS PVT. LTD. VS CIT (SUPRA), THE PENALTY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT IS DELETED. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE PENAL TY BY CONSIDERING THE ISSUE ON MERIT, THEREFORE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AN D ACADEMIC IN NATURE. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/02/20 20. SD/- SD/- JESK LH 'KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH C. SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 /02/ 2020 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SWARN DURGIA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 6 (1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO1326/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR