RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA, Jaipur V. ITO, Kota

ITA 150/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2034 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NEENE JEPH JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 131; 68; 27; 263

Judgement Text

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. 150/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA, 46, SHARDA BHAWAN, BRIJPURA, KOTA. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AFFPS 1259 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. NEENE JEPH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 22/02/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/02/2018 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), KOTA DATED 13/12/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. THE RETURN OF INCOM E WAS ORIGINALLY FILED ON 30/3/2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1, 69,830/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A SAVI NGS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 08370100013570 WITH BANK OF BARODA, JHALAWAR ROAD, KO TA. DURING THE ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 2 YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 16,50,500/- IN CASH AND RECEIVED INTEREST OF RS. 43,361/-. THIS AMOUNT AS WELL AS INTE REST EARNED THEREON WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASS ESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FILE COPY OF B ANK ACCOUNT OTHER THAN THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 4106 VIDE ORDERSHEET ENTR Y DATED 23/08/2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED NOTIC E U/S 133(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 24/08/ 2012 TO THE BANK OF BARODA AND THE BANK SUBMITTED A COPY OF BANK ACC OUNT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27/08/2012. ON 15/10/2012, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL I NCOME OF RS. 15,91,060/- WHEREIN RS. 12,00,000/- WAS DECLARED AS CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF BARODA WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND RS. 2,21,231/- BEI NG INTEREST EARNED OF RS. 43,361 IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AT BANK OF B ARODA AND INTEREST OF RS. 1,77,870/- RECEIVED FROM HITKARI VIDHYALAYA SAHKARI SHIKSHA SAMITI, KOTA. THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN TH E ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 30/3/2011 WHEREIN TOTAL INCOME DECLARED WAS ONLY OF RS. 1,69,830/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE REVISED RETURN BEING NULL AND VOID AND REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT OTHER THAN THE BANK ACCOUNT DISCLOSED IN ORIGINAL RETURN. ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 3 THE A.O. MADE ADDITION AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEED INGS AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER LEV IED THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,91,750/- BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED FO R THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS KNOWINGLY FURNISHED INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME AND COMMITTED DEFAULT IN TERMS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY T AKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 11/3/2013 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HENCE PLEASED BE QUASHED. 2. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT DATED 11/3/2013 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE, F OR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE TH E SAME KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. RS.3,91,750/-: THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT OF RS. 3,91,750/-. THE PENALTY SO IMPOSED AND CONFIRME D BEING TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 4. THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL IS CONFIRMI NG THE PENALTY OF RS. 3,91,750/- BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND A.OS FINDINGS- IN THE CASE OF MADHUSHREE GUPTA VS UOI, DECIDED BY DELHI HIGH COURT IT WAS MENTIONED THAT IN RAM COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES 246 IT R 568 (DEL) (AFFIRMED IN RAMPUR ENGINEERING 309 ITR 143 (DEL) (FB)}, THE DEL HI HIGH COURT HELD THAT IF THE AO DID NOT RECORD HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 4 PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS BAD IN LA W AND THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY WAS INVALID. TO SUPERSEDE THIS LAW, SUB-SEC (IB) WAS INSERTED IN S. 271 BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.4.1998 TO PROIRI.DE THAT IF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTAINED A DIRECTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER 271 (1) (C) IT WOULD BE DEEMED TO CONSTITUTE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. S. 271 (IB) WAS CHALLENGED AS BEING CONSTIT UTIONALLY INVALID ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. HELD UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY OF S. 271 (IB) ON ITS OWN READING OF THE PROVISION THAT: (1) THERE IS NO COGENT REASON WHY RETROSPECTIVITY TO S. 271 (IB) IS W.E.F. 01.04.1989. HOWEVER, THIS CUTOFF DATE DOES NOT CREA TE INVIDIOUS DISCRIMINATION AND VIOLATE ART. 14 VIS-A-VIS THOSE WHOSE CASE IS TO BE CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF LAW OBTAINING PRIOR TO 0 1.04.1989 BECAUSE IF AN ASSESSEE HAS FALLEN FOUL OF THE LAW ON PENALTY HE C ANNOT BE HEARD TO SAY THAT RIGOURS OF LAW OUGHT NOT TO APPLY TO HIM BECAUSE AN OTHER PERSON SIMILARLY PLACED IS NOT EXPOSED TO SUCH A RIGOUR. THERE IS NO EQUALITY IN ILLEGALITY. (2) RAM COMMERCIAL (AND OTHER JUDGEMENTS) DO NOT L AY DOWN THAT REASONS HAVE TO BE RECORDED. THE EMPHASIS IS ON RECORDING O F SATISFACTION AND THAT THE PRIMA FACIE SATISFACTION REACHED BY THE AO MUST BE REFLECTED AND/OR APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. (3) THIS LAW IS NOT CHANGED BY S. 271 (IB). THE RE VENUE CANNOT URGE THAT PRIOR TO S. 271 (IB), SATISFACTION BOTH AT THE INITIATION STAGE AND THE IMPOSITION STAGE WAS REQUIRED BUT AFTER S. 271 (IB) IT IS REQUIRED ONLY AT THE STAGE OF IMPOSITION AND NOT AT THE STAGE OF INITIAT ION. (4) S. 271 (IB) MERELY PROVIDES THAT AN ORDER INIT IATING PENALTY CANNOT BE DECLARED BAD IN LAW ONLY BECAUSE IT STATES THAT PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED. HOWEVER, IT MUST STILL BE DISCERNIBLE FR OM THE RECORD THAT THE ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 5 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT PRIMA FACIE SATISF ACTION FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS CASE THESE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED. THERE HAS BEEN CLEAR RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR INIT IATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER THOUGH THERE IS VIEW IN LAW THAT NOTICE UND ER SECTION 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFICALLY STATE THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271(1) (C), I.E., WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURN ISHING OF INCORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME & SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQU IREMENT OF LAW AND ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDE D. HOWEVER IF WE LOOK AT THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS CL EAR THAT THE A.O HAD MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,69,830/- . THEREAFTER, THE INVESTIGATION WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT BY OBTAINING COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT NO. 08370100013570 WITH BANK OF BARODA, KOT A U/S 133(6). BECAUSE OF INVESTIGATION, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS FORCED TO FILE A BELATED RETURN ON 15.10.2012. IN THIS BEL ATED RETURN THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 15,90,160/-. T HEREBY, ADMITTING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 12,00,000/- AND UNDIS CLOSED INTEREST OF RS. 2,21,231/- WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THIS FACT CLEARLY PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO CONCEAL INCOME OF RS. 14,21,230/- AND ALSO FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO HERE THAT EXTENT... SINCE THE INITIAL FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER F OUND THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF THE DEFAULT ON BOTH COUNTS, THE NOTICE U/S 274 , EV EN THOUGH IN PRINTED FORMAT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT ANY OF THE CONDITIONS NEEDED TO BE STRUCK OFF ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 6 WHEN MAKING HIM AWARE OF BASIS OF PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS INITIATED AGAINST HIM. THEREFORE I FIND ASSESSEES CASE NOT COVERED BY THE PRECONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN JUDICIAL INTERPRETATIONS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. THI S GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. GROUND NO.2 AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SINCE IT WAS A VOLUNTARY ADMISSION, THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IMPOSED AND THAT I T IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED, WE HAVE TO RELY ON FACTS INVOLVED ALSO IN EACH CASE RATHER THAT APPLY A GENERAL RULE. IF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS NOT DISPUTED TH E SAME IN THE APPEAL, WHETHER SUCH ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITION LEADS TO THE CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF SIR SHADILAL SUGAR MILLS (168 ITR 705) HELD THAT THERE MAY BE A HUNDRED AND ONE REASONS FOR NOT PROTESTING AND AGREEING TO AN ADDITION BUT THAT DOES NOT FOLLOW TO THE CONC LUSION THAT THE AMOUNT AGREED TO BE ADDED WAS CONCEALED INCOME. INDEED, TH ERE MAY BE NUMEROUS REASONS WITH THE TAX PAYER FOR NOT APPROACHING THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR JUSTICE, FOR EXAMPLE THE FOLLOWING: A. TO AVOID THE PAINS OF FURTHER LITIGATIONS, NUME ROUS HEARINGS AND MENTAL TENSIONS BORNE IN IT; B. THE RISK OF ENHANCEMENT AT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON VARIOUS TECHNICAL ISSUES; C. NOWADAYS COMMONLY SEEN ATTITUDE OF ASSESSMENT I N APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS D. HEAVY LITIGATION COST OF REPRESENTATIVES E. WITHDRAWN OF APPEAL AT INSTANCE OF ASSESSEE IS THE DISCRETION OF APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 7 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. MAK DATA LTD. VS. CIT [2013-ITRV-SC-140] HAS HELD THAT UNDER EXPLANATION 1 TO S. 271(1)(C), VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF CONCEALED INCOME DOES NOT ABSOLVE ASSESSEE OF S. 27 1(1)(C) PENALTY IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS BON A FIDE AND PROVES THAT ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED. KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. MANJUNATHA C OTTON & GINNING ITA NO. 1307/BANG/2003 [2013-ITRV-HC-KAR-093] HAS HELD THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT LEVYING TAX AND INTEREST AND HAS PAID THE SAME, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIE NT FOR THE AUTHORITIES EITHER TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IMPOSE PENALTY, UNLESS IT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT, IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH UNEARTHING OR ENQUIRY CONCLUDED BY AUTHORITIES WHICH HAS RESULTED IN PAYM ENT OF SUCH TAX OR SUCH TAX LIABILITY CAME TO BE ADMITTED, AND IF NOT, IT W OULD HAVE ESCAPED FROM TAX NET AS OPINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. IN THIS CASE, THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30.03.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1, 69,830/-. THE ASSE SSEE WAS OPERATING AN UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT AND GETTING INTEREST INCOME AND HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE DETECTION IN THE AIR INFORMATION AND INVESTIGATION BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED THE SAID ACCOUNT. FURTHER IT WAS AFTER THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 23/08/2012, WHEN THE ASSESS EE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FILED COPY OF BANK A/C OTHER THAN HIS DISC LOSED ACCOUNT AND THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 133(6) DATED 24.08.2012 TO BANK OF BA RODA, JHALAWAR ROAD, KOTA (IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE BANK ALSO FILED A CO PY OF THE UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNT NO. 08370100013570 VIDE LATTER DATED 27.08. 2012), THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED TAKING ADJOURNMENTS AND ULTIMATELY FILED A BELATED REVISED RETURN DECLARING TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 15,90, 160/- THEREBY, ADMITTING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 12,00,000/- AND UNDIS CLOSED INTEREST OF RS. 2,21,231/- WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN OF ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 8 INCOME. THE RETURN FILED UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTAN CES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE A VOLUNTARY RETURN. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT IT DID NOT KNOW THAT WHAT WAS TO BE DONE WITH THE INCOME RELATED TO THE ACCOUNT WHICH WAS IN JOIN T NAME, DOES NOT HOLD GOOD IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AVAILABLE. THE A SSESSEE IS A REGULAR TAXPAYER AND KNOWS THAT ANY INCOME EARNED HAS TO BE OFFERED FOR TAX. MAINTAINING A SEPARATE BANK ACCOUNT AND CARRYING OU T TRANSACTIONS AND NOT DISCLOSING ITS EARNINGS TO THE DEPARTMENT CLEARLY S HOW THAT THE BELIEF WAS NOT BONAFIDE BUT INTENTIONAL. UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE OP INION PROPOUNDED IN THE CASE LAWS CITED ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT PEN ALTY HAS BEEN RIGHTLY IMPOSED IN THIS CASE, THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR I NITIATION ARE SATISFIED. THERE HAS BEEN CLEAR RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER HAS B EEN PASSED AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND IS SPEAKING. HENCE, THE MATTER DOES NOT DESERVE ANY RELIEF. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DI SMISSED. 5. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED A WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHEREIN HE HAS MADE THE PLEADIN GS, WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE DECLARATION OF INCOME WAS VOLUNTARY: AT THE OUT SET, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.12, 00,000/- BEING THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE INTEREST THEREO N, WERE DECLARED VOLUNTARILY, SUO MOTO AND IN GOOD FAITH BEFORE ANY DETECTION MADE, EVEN REMOTELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS AL SO IN THE PENALTY ORDER AND THE CIT(A) ALSO REPEATEDLY REJECTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 9 DEPARTMENT WAS NOT IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BANK DEP OSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN A/C NO. 3570, BY ALLEGING THAT SUCH INF ORMATION WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, BASED ON AIR INFORMA TION AND INVESTIGATION BY THE DEPARTMENT (AND THEREFORE, VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 23.08.2012 THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO F ILE COPY OF THAT OTHER BANK ACCOUNT). HOWEVER, SUCH AN INFERENCE AND ALLEG ATION, IS COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO FACTS ON RECORD ON THE FOLLOWING REASON ING: 1. FIRSTLY, IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHAT THE SO CALL ED AIR INFORMATION CONTAINED OR WHETHER THE CONTENTS OF SUCH AIR INFOR MATION WAS MEANT FOR THE ASSESSEE ALONE WHEN IT WAS A JOINT BA NK A/C. 2. SECONDLY, THE ONLY SO CALLED INVESTIGATION MADE BY THE AO WAS THAT A NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS ISSUED ON 24.08.2012 TO THE BOB, JHALAWAR ROAD, KOTA, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE BANK FILED A C OPY OF SAID BANK ACCOUNT NO. 3570 VIDE LETTER DATED 27.08.2012 WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY IN THE JOINT NAME OF BROTHERS. THUS, WHEN ADMITTEDL Y THE SO CALLED UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT WAS A JOINT A/C IN THE NAM E OF 3 BROTHERS, HOW IT COULD BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE & ASSESSEE A LONE WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SAME, IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACIT Y. THUS, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF AO THAT THE BANK INFORMATION REVEALED T HAT THE BANK A/C EXCLUSIVELY BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY. 3. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE BA NK IN ITS REPLY DATED 27.08.2012 STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF DEPOSIT ED CASH OF RS.16,50,500/- NOR THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW T HAT IT IS THE ASSESSEE ALONE WHO DEPOSITED AND NONE OF THE OTHER BROTHERS. 4. IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE OF THE AO (BY REFERRING TO THE SAID REPLY OF THE BANK) THAT THE AMOUNT OF BANK INTEREST OF RS.43,361 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. IF SO, HOW IT COULD BE THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONE. ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 10 5.1 IT IS WRONG TO SAY (PG 2 PR 4 OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER) THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 23.08.2012, W AS ONCE AGAIN ASKED TO PRODUCE THE COPIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OTH ER THAN IN FACT, ON THIS ASPECT, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED FOR TH E FIRST TIME ON 23.08.2012 ONLY. PRIOR THERETO, THE FIRST NOTICE WA S ISSUED ON 01.09.2011 U/S 143(2) SIMPLY TO INFORM THAT THE CAS E WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND IT WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE. ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 143(2) DATED 08.08.2012 WAS ISSUED FOR 23.08.2012 WHICH WA S NOT ACCOMPANIED WITH ANY QUESTIONNAIRE. THUS, TILL 23.0 8.2012, NO SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE AO ASKING AS RE GARD THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AND INTERESTS THEREON IN THE SAID O THER BANK ACCOUNT. 5.2 IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT AFTER TH E RECEIPT OF THE SAID LETTER DATED 27.08.2012 FROM BOB, THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE INCO ME OF THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT BE NOT ADDED IN HIS HAND ONLY W.R.T TH E CASH DEPOSITS AND INTEREST BE ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS ALONE EVEN TH OUGH IT WAS A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT. HAD IT BEEN SO AND HAD AO ACTED AFTER SUCH NOTICE, THERE COULD BE SAME JUSTIFICATION. 5.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING HAS BEEN CONTENDING THAT AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THE INITIAL NO TICES FOR THE SCRUTINY, WHEN THE LD. AR AND CA, WAS SCRUTINIZING THE BANK ACCOUNTS, WITH A VIEW TO PREPARE THE DETAILS TO FAC E THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THEY ALSO CAME ACROSS THE OTHER BANK AC COUNT NUMBER 3570 WHICH WAS IN THE JOINT NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE A ND HIS OTHER TWO BROTHERS NAMELY SHRI MAHESH KUMAR SHARDA AND SH RI HARISH KUMAR SHARDA. HOWEVER, OTHERWISE THE SAID BANK ACCO UNT, IN FACT, BELONGED TO (ALL) THE FOUR BROTHERS INCLUDING SHRI ARVINDSHARDA AND THEIR MOTHER SMT. MOHINI DEVI THEREFORE, THE APPELL ANT WAS UNDER ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 11 IMPRESSION THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT TO BE SHOWN BY ALL THE INDIVIDUALS IN THEIR RES PECTIVE ITRS. BUT HOWEVER, AFTER DISCUSSION WITH ALL THE BROTHERS, TH E LD. AR ADVISED THE APPELLANT TO CONSIDER SUCH DEPOSITS IN HIS HAND S ONLY. THIS WAS ADVISED/DECIDED, ALSO WITH A VIEW TO AVOID THE PROB ABLE PROLONGED LITIGATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT. 5.4 UNDER THIS BACKGROUND, THE APPELLANT CAME FORW ARD AND REVISED ALL THE RETURNS FOR A.Y. 2007-08 TO 2011-12 ON 15.10.20 12. THESE FACTS WERE EXPLAINED VIDE LETTER DT. 15.10.2 012 (PB 5) FILED ALONG WITH THE REVISED ROI (PB 20-30). HOWEVER, TIL L THIS DATE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FURTHER ASKED WHY THE DEPOSITS BE ADDED IN HIS HAND ALONE. LEGALLY SPEAKING SUCH RETURN OF INCOME MIGHT NOT B E ADMISSIBLE HOWEVER, IT WAS A GOOD MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RE CORD SHOWING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY INCLUDED SUCH INCOME IN ITS TAXABLE INCOME AND VERY NOTABLY, THE TAX PAYABLE THEREON WA S ALSO DEPOSITED AND WAS DULY ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WELL. 5.5 ALSO IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF AO THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS THAT THE AO HAD MADE SOME EN QUIRY WITH REGARD TO THE SAID BANK DEPOSIT AND THE REPLIES GIV EN BY THE BANK TO THE AO. IT IS QUITE NATURAL THAT WHEN PREPARING TO FACE A SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, ONE IS SUPPOSED TO LOOK INTO THE BANK A CCOUNTS AND THE VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS THEREIN. THE OTHER ACCOUNT NUM BER 3570 WAS A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THREE BROTHERS AN D THEREFORE, WHILE FILING THE RETURN ORIGINALLY AND ALSO WHEN PR EPARING FOR THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THERE WAS NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO COME FORWARD AND TO DISCLOSE THE FACT OF INFORMING OF THIS BACKGROUND ALSO TO THE AO. HOWEVER, WHEN THE AO ON 23.08.2012 ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 12 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A COPY OF THE OTHER BANK ACCOUNT ALSO, THE ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS A ND ITS COUNSEL. 5.6 FROM THE ABOVE FACT &EVENTS, IT IS EVIDENTLY C LEAR THAT THERE WAS NO PRIOR DETECTION AT ALL W.R.T THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BASED ON THE AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY ASKED TO FILE A COPY OF THE OTHER BANK ACCOU NT NO. 3570 WHICH WAS ADMITTEDLY A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT. LEGALLY SPEAKING, THE FACTS OF SUCH A CASE, CLEARLY INDICATED THAT SUCH M ATTER MUST HAVE BEEN EXAMINED IN THE HANDS OF AOP/BOI ONLY. ONLY AF TER MAKING DUE ENQUIRIES FROM ALL THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT HOLDE RS, A DECISION COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO AS REGARD THE ASSES SMENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY. 5.7 THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC QUERY REGARDING ACCOUNT N O. 3570 AND MUCH LESS QUERY REGARDING DEPOSITS AND SOURCES THEREOF. 6. THE PRAYERS OF ADJOURNMENTS FROM THE PERIOD FROM DATED 23.08.2012 TO DATED 08.10.2012 WERE MADE ONLY FOR T WO REASONS I.E. BECAUSE OF HIS OTHER PROFESSIONAL ENGAGEMENT A ND PREOCCUPATIONS THE LD. COUNSEL WAS BUSY AND SECONDL Y, THE TIME BEING TAKEN TO DISCUSS THE MATTER WITH THE OTHER FA MILY MEMBERS. 7. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, APART FROM REFERRING TO T HE AIR INFORMATION HAD ALSO REFERRED TO SOME INVESTIGATION BY THE DEPA RTMENT HOWEVER, IT IS NOT AT ALL MADE KNOWN RIGHT FROM THE ASSESSME NT ORDER TILL THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS TO WHAT TYPE OF OTHER INVEST IGATION, THE DEPARTMENT HAD MADE AND WHETHER THE RESULT OF SUCH INVESTIGATION POINTED OUT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE & ASSESSEE ALONE AND NOT TO OTHER BROTHERS (AT LEAST THE OTHER TWO BROTHERS WHOSE NAME ALSO ADMITTEDLY APPEARED IN THE SAID VERY BANK ACCOUNT). IT IS NOT A CASE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE , SURVEY, ETC. ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 13 WHERE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS UNEARTHED BASED ON DIR ECT EVIDENCE FOUND. 8.1 THE SUBSTANTIVE AND VITAL FACT GOING TO THE RO OT THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS A JOINT BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF 3 P ERSONS INCLUDING THE OTHER 2 BROTHERS, HAS NOT BEEN DENIED AT ANY ST AGE AND THEREFORE, THE BONAFIDE OF THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE AR & BROTHERS WITH A VIEW TO AV OID LITIGATION AND TO HAVE BUY MENTAL PEACE, THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD TO SHOW THE ADDITIONAL INCOME COULD NOT DOUBTED. IT IS UNFORTUN ATE THAT INSTEAD OF APPRECIATING SUCH AN ATTEMPT FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE DEPARTMENT HAS RATHER IMPOSED PENALTY AND SUCH CONTENTION HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE CIT(A) BY MERELY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLAN T WAS A REGULAR TAX PAYER. 8.2 THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FORGOT THAT THERE COULD HAVE ALSO BEEN A SITUATION WHERE THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE AGITATED TH E ADDITION TO BE MADE IN HIS HAND ALONE AND COULD HAVE REQUESTED THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO ISSUE SUMMON U/S 131 OR TO MAKE ENQUIRY U/ S 133(6) FROM THE OTHER JOINT HOLDERS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE, BEI NG A TAX PAYER, WAS AWARE OF THE HARASSMENT, HENCE, IN THE LARGER INTER EST IT WAS BETTER TO SHOW THE ADDITIONAL INCOME AS AGAINST, DRAGGING THE OTHER 2 BROTHERS ALSO IN TO THE FIRE OF LITIGATION. 8.3 THEREFORE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE CIT(A) AT PAG E 11 THAT HAD IT NOT BEEN FOR THE DETECTION IN THE AIR INFORMATION AND I NVESTIGATION BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOS ED THE SAID ACCOUNT, IS COMPLETELY BASELESS AND A PURPORTED MIS READING OF THE FACT WHICH SUITED THE DEPARTMENT ONLY. 9. SUPPORTING CASE LAWS ON DETECTION: ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 14 9.1 IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S AGRAWAL ROUND ROLLING M ILLS LIMITED(2013) 85 CCH 0510 (CHATT) (DPB 1-4), IT WAS HELD THAT: PENALTY-PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C)-CONCEALMENT OF INCOME -ADDITION OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY-ASSESSEE, A COMPANY MANUFAC TURING IRON AND STEEL RE-ROLLED PRODUCTS FILED ITS RETURN SHOWING L OSS-SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED AND QUERY WAS ASKED RE GARDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE-ASSESSEE FIL ED ITS REPLY MENTIONING THEREIN THAT IT HAD RECEIVED SHARE APPLI CATION MONEY THROUGH CHEQUES AND DRAFTS WHICH WAS CLEARED BY BAN KS-HOWEVER, IN CASE OF 12 APPLICANTS FOR WHICH DETAILED LIST WAS S EPARATELY ENCLOSED, NECESSARY DOCUMENTS WERE NOT THERE AND AS SUCH A SU M REPRESENTING THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF THOSE 12 APPLICANTS WAS SURRENDERED WITH A REQUEST NOT TO INITIATE ANY PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS-AO PASSED AN ORDER U/S 143(3) ADDING THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT U/S 68 AND ALSO ORDERED FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND I MPOSED PENALTY AT 150% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY ASSESSEE-CIT(A) AND ITAT BOTH RULED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE-HELD, IT IS NOT DISPUTE D BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE SUM WHICH WAS ADDED U/S 68 WAS ONE WHICH W AS SURRENDERED BY ASSESSEE ITSELF-BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD R ECORDED FINDING THAT THERE WAS NEITHER ANY DETECTION NOR ANY INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF DEPARTMENT EXCEPT FOR THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY ASSESSEE AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WA S ANY CONCEALMENT- THIS IS A FINDING OF FACT-THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN SAME-THE TAX CASE HAS NO MERIT AND HENCE DISMISSED. IN THAT CASE ALSO, A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED A SKING THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND THE SAME WAS AGITATED ALSO, BY THE ASSESSEE BUT LATER ON HE MADE A SURRENDER W.R.T 12 SHARE APPLICANTS. BUT IT APPEARS, NO ENQUI RY WAS MADE BY THE AO PRIOR THERETO. THUS, ALL THE FACTS OF OUR CA SE ARE SIMILAR TO THE SAID CASE. 9.2 IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S SHANKERLAL NEBHUMAL UTT AMCHANDANI (2009) 311 ITR 0327 (GUJ) (DPB 5-9), IT WAS HELD THAT: PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C)CONCEALMENTREVISED RET URN FILED BEFORE DETECTION OF CONCEALMENTTRIBUNAL HAS FOUND THAT TH OUGH CERTAIN QUERIES WERE RAISED AND PUT TO THE ASSESSEE, NO PAR TICULAR ITEM OF ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 15 CONCEALED INCOME WAS SPECIFICALLY PINPOINTEDAS A M ATTER OF FACT THE PROCESS OF DETECTION WAS NOT COMPLETE TILL THE DATE WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURNS SURRENDERING THE AMOUNTS REFL ECTED IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE NAMES OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AS HIS OWN INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCESTHERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RE CORD TO INDICATE THAT THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IS INCOR RECT IN ANY MANNER WHATSOEVERFURTHER, TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO FOUND THAT VE RY SAME AMOUNTS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED ALONG WITH INTEREST IN T HE HANDS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THOSE FAMILY MEMBERS HAVE NEVER ADMITTED THAT THEY WERE BENAMIDARS OF THE ASSESSEEHENCE, EVEN TH E DEPARTMENT IS NOT CERTAIN, AS TO WHO IS THE RIGHT PERSON ASSES SABLE TO TAX QUA THE SAID INCOMETHEREFORE, PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) I S NOT LEVIABLE. 9.3 ALSO KINDLY REFER LATE SHRI BABU BHAI V/S ACIT IN ITA NO. 633/JP/2015 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON DATED 28.06.2016. 9.4 CIT VS SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (2001) 251 ITR 9 (SC), CIT VS. SAS PHARMACEUTICALS (2011) 335 ITR 0259 (DEL) AND CIT V S. PUSHPENDRA SURANA (2013) 96 DTR 0231 (RAJ). 10 SUPPORTING GENERAL CASE LAWS: 10.1 THE WORD CONCEALMENT INHERENTLY CARRIED WIT H IT THE ELEMENT OF MENSREA. TO IMPOSE A PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C), IT HAS TO BE PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSCIOUSLY MADE THE CONCEALM ENT OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE SAID PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN REITERATED IN VIRTUAL SOFT SYSTEMS LTD. VS. CI T (2007) 207 CTR (SC) 733: (2007) 289 ITR 83 (SC) HELD THAT 24. SEC.271 OF THE ACT IS A PENAL PROVISION AND TH ERE ARE WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF SU CH A PENAL PROVISION. SUCH A PROVISION HAS TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY AND N ARROWLY AND NOT WIDELY OR WITH THE OBJECT OF ADVANCING THE OBJECT A ND INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. 10.2 IN THE PECULIAR FACTS THIS CASE, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD. (2010) 322 ITR 158 (SC)IS QUITE USEFUL IN AS MUCH AS IN THAT CASE IT WAS HELD THAT W.R.T. RETURN ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 16 'PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C)CONCEALMENTDISALLOWANC E OF CLAIM FOR DEDUCTIONIN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 271(1)(C), THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEEIN THE IN STANT CASE, ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF INTEREST ON LOANS TAK EN BY IT FOR PURCHASE OF SHARESAO DISALLOWED SUCH INTERESTADMI TTEDLY, NO INFORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN WAS FOUND TO BE INC ORRECT OR INACCURATEHENCE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILT Y OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARSMAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN A CCEPTED BY THE REVENUE, PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) IS NOT ATTRACTE DIF THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1)(C) IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO FOR ANY REAS ONTHAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. ' APPLYING THIS RATIO ON THE PRESENT CASE, IT WILL B E FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD ALREADY DISCLOSED THE SUBJECTED INCOM E IN THE ROI FILED ON DATED 15.10.2012AND THE ASSESSED INCOME WH EN COMPARED WITH THIS RETURNED INCOME, THERE IS NO OCCASION FOR A DIFFERENCE AND IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 11 NO SATISFACTION RECORDED HENCE NO JURISDICTION: IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS NOT AT ALL WHISPERED A SINGLE WORD THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE , AND W.R.T THE SUBJECTED ADDITION, IT WAS THE ASSESSEE W HO COMMITTED THE DEFAULT OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CONCEALED THE INCOME. THE AO HAS NOT AT ALL APPLIED HIS MIND THAT ONCE HE FOUND THE BANK A/C TO BE JOINT BANK A/C, HE DIDNT MAKE F URTHER INQUIRY FROM THE OTHER A/C HOLDERS TO CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLIS H THAT SUCH DEPOSITS AND INTEREST WERE THE EXCLUSIVE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. SUCH A SATISFACTION OF THE AO, THOUGH A CONDI TION PRECEDENT, IS NOT AT ALL DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. H ENCE, IT CANT BE SAID THAT THE AO DERIVED SATISFACTION AS TO THE CHA RGE OF CONCEALMENT/ FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS W.R. T. THE IMPUGNED ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 17 ADDITIONS SO MADE W.R.T. THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE I MPUGNED PENALTY WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION. KINDLY REFER MS. MADHUSHREE GUPTA V/S UNION OF IND IA &ANR. (2009) 225 CTR 1/317 ITR 0107 (DEL) (DPB 35),SUBHASH GUPTA V/S DCIT (2003) 78 TTJ 692 (JP) (TM), CIT V/S RAM COMMERCIAL ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (2000) 246 ITR 568 (DEL), CIT(A) VS. MUNI SH IRON STORE 263 ITR 484 (P&H). THE HONBLE JODHPUR BENCH OF IT AT ALSO HAD TAKEN A SIMILAR VIEW IN THE CASE OF SHRI DEVENDRA T ANK 27 TW 305 (JD). HENCE, THE IMPUGNED PENALTY MAY KINDLY BE DEL ETED IN FULL. 12. IT MAY BE CLARIFIED THAT THE FACTS OF MAK DATA WERE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BEING THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY CARRIED OUT AT THE PLACE OF SISTER CONCERN WHERE SOME BLANK SHARE TRANSFER FORM AND OTHER PAPERS WERE FOUND, INDICATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME RE LATING TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, DESPITE THIS THE RETURN WAS FILE D WITHOUT DISCLOSING ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME BUT IT IS ONLY WHE N ASKED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EXPLAINING ANYTHING, STRAI GHT FORWARD MADE A SURRENDER WITH A VIEW TO BUY PEACE AND TO AV OID LITIGATION. THE AO HELD SUCH SURRENDER AS NOT VOLUNTARY AND IMP OSED PENALTY UNDER EXPLANATION 1 TO SEC.271 (1)(C) WHICH WAS UPHE LD BY SC. HOWEVER, THE ABOVE CASE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN OUR C ASE FOR THE REASONS THAT FIRSTLY, THERE WAS NO DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCE REFERRED BY AO WHICH COULD INDICATE THE SUBJECTED INCOME TO THE CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONE AS REPEATEDLY STATED H EREIN ABOVE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE CERTAINLY TENDERED A DETAILE D PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION IN RESPONSE TO SCN U/S 274 FILED BEFORE THE AO (PB 2-3). THE FOLLOWING CASES SUPPORT THE CONTENTION THAT MAK DATA IS NOT ALWAYS APPLICABLE CIT V/S GEM GRANITES (2013) 86 CCH 0160 ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 18 (CHEN), CIT V/S CHENNUPATI TYRE& RUBBER PRODUCTS(20 14) 90 CCH 0181 (AP) & SHRI CHAND SAINI V/S ITO (2016) 56 TW 0 012 (JP). 13. PENALTY NOT VALID BASED ON DEFICIENT SCN: 13.1.1 THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT &ANR. V. MANJUNATHA COTTON AND GINNING FACTORY 359 ITR 565 ( KARN), HAS HELD THAT NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT SHOULD SPECIFIC ALLY STATE AS TO WHETHER PENALTY IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER LAID DOW N THAT CERTAIN PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS GIVEN IN SEC. 27 1 ARE GIVEN WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW. IN THE SAID CASE IN PARA 59 IT WAS HELD THAT: NOTICE UNDER SEC. 274 59. AS THE PROVISION STANDS, THE PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS CAN BE INITIATED ON VARIOUS GROUND SET OUT THEREIN. IF THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE AUTHORITY CATEGORICALLY RECORDS A FINDING REGARDING THE EXIST ENCE OF ANY SAID GROUNDS MENTIONED THEREIN AND THEN PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS IS INITIATED, IN THE NOTICE TO BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 274, THEY COULD CONVENIENTLY REFER TO THE SAID ORDER WHICH CONTAINS THE SATISFAC TION OF THE AUTHORITY WHICH HAS PASSED THE ORDER. HOWEVER, IF THE EXISTEN CE OF THE CONDITIONS COULD NOT BE DISCERNED FROM THE SAID ORD ER AND IF IT IS A CASE OF RELYING ON DEEMING PROVISION CONTAINED IN EXPLAN ATION-1 OR IN EXPLANATION-1(B), THEN THOUGH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS A RE IN THE NATURE OF CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT IS PENAL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN SECTI ON 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND I MPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSES SEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPOR TUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT EXIST AS SUCH HE IS NOT LI ABLE TO PAY PENALTY. THE PRACTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT SENDING A PRINTED FA RM WHERE ALL THE GROUND MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 ARE MENTIONED WOULD NOT SATISFY REQUIREMENT OF LAW WHEN THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE ASS ESSEE NOT ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 19 REBUTTING THE INITIAL PRESUMPTION IS SERIOUS IN NAT URE AND HE HAD TO PAY PENALTY FROM 100% TO 300% OF THE TAX LIABILITY. AS THE SAID PROVISIONS HAVE TO BE HELD TO BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED, NOTICE IS SUED UNDER SECTION 274 SHOULD SATISFY THE GROUNDS WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY. OTHERWISE, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFENDE D IF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS VAGUE. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED ON THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE COURT ALSO HELD THAT INITIATING PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS ON ONE LIMB AND FIND THE ASSESSEE GUILTY ON ANOTHER LI MB IS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS HELD THAT THUS ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GRO UND, THE PENALTY SHOULD ALSO BE IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE TH E BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED, THE IMPOSITION OF PE NALTY IS NOT VALID. 13.1.2 THE ABOVE DECISION WAS FOLLOWED IN THE CASE OF SUVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA VS. ACIT ITA NO. 1303/KOL/2010 DATED 0 6.10.2015 (DPB 1-20). 13.1.3 FURTHER IN THE CASE OF NEW SORATHIA ENGINEER ING CO. VS. CIT (2006) 282 ITR 0642 (GUJ), IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC FINDING IN THE PENA LTY ORDER OR THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS CONCEAL MENT OF INCOME OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSE E, IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL UPHOLDING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 13.1.4 COVERED ISSUE: THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS NOW DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE SHRI PRAKASH JOY VS. ACIT ITA NO. 585/JP/201 3 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2016 (DPB 21-41) IN PARA 7.6 THEREOF, W HEREIN THE EARLIER TWO DECISIONS I.E. MANJUNATHA (SUPRA) AND S UVAPRASANNA BHATTACHARYA (SUPRA) HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. ALSO KINDLY REFER RADHA MOHAN MAHESHWARI VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 773/JP/13 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.03.2016FOR AY 2005-06 , ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 20 PRASHANTTHOLIA VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 391/JP/2015 DATED 13.06.2016 (DPB 42-46) AND ABHIMANYU SINGH VS.ITO IN ITA NO. 1 87/JP/2013 DATED 21.06.2016 (DPB 47-60) WHICH HAVE TAKEN A SIM ILAR VIEW. 13.1.5 ALSO KINDLY REFER PARINEE DEVELOPERS PVT LT D. VS. ACIT (2015) 174 TTJ 0137 (MUM), SATYANANDAACHARIYA BISWAS VS. DCIT (2015) 45 CCH 0328 (KOLTRIB), UMA SHANKAR AGARWAL VS. DCIT (2 016) 46 CCH 57 (KOLTRIB), SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (ITA NOS. 4625 TO 4630/M/2013), DATED 11.10.2013, M/S. ITTINA PROPERT IES PVT LTD (ITA NO.36/BANG/2014), DATED 21.11.2014 (BANG), DHARINI DEVELOPERS (ITA NO.1848 TO 1851/M/2012), DATED 7.1.2015 (MUM). 13.1.6 ALSO KINDLY REFER CIT V/S SHRI SAMSON PERI NCHERY IN ITA NO. 1154, 953, 1097, 1226/2014 ON DATED 05.01.2017(DPB 10-21). 13.1.7 RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. V/S M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS IN CC NO. 11485/2016 ON DATED 05.08.2016 (DPB 22-26 ), IT WAS HELD THAT '3. THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE HOLDING THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT) TO BE BAD IN LAW AS IT DID NOT SPECIFY WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN INITIATED I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE DIVISIO N BENCH OF THIS COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S MANJUNATHA COTTON A ND GINNING FACTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565.' IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS THE ON LYSTRESS WAS UPON THE NOTICE ONLY WHEREIN ONLY, THE OCCASION ARISE FO R THE FIRST TIME FOR THE ASSESSEE TO REPLY TOWARDS THE SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY PENALTY BE NOT IMPOSED W.R.T ONE OR W.R.T BOTH THE OFFENCES. B UT BY NOT BECOMING SPECIFIC IN INVITING A REPLY FROM THE ASSE SSEE, IT IS A GROSS ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 21 VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE THE HONBLE COURTS HAVE TREATED SUCH A NOTICE TO BE VAG UE AND NULLITY AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED PENALTY BASED THEREON , HAS ALSO BEEN HELD TO BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION.(KINDLY REF. D PB 25 Q3,58 PR. 6 & 39). ON THE OTHER HAND HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF THE COMP LETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, IT IS ONLY THE INITIATION BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CALLED UPON TO SHOW CAUSE AGAINST THE VERY INITIATION HENCE, WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED ON ONE LIMB OR THE OTHER OR BOTH THE LIMBS, IS IRRELEVANT. OTHERWISE ALSO, NO APPEAL LAY AGAINST THE VERY INITIATION. THEREFORE, THE LAW WHICH IS NOW WELL SETTLED, IS O NLY AND ONLY W.R.T THE VAGUENESS IN THE SCN AND THERE IS NO REFERENCE AT ALL TO THE FINDINGS RECORDED OR THE INITIATION OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, TO REFER THE INITIATIO N IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE AUTHORITIES TO JUSTIFY THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS COMPLETE MISREADING AND MISINTERPRETATIO N OF LAW OF THE LAND. 13.1.8 RECENTLY THE HONBLE RAJ. HC IN THE CASE OF SHEVETA CONSTRUCTION CO. PVT. LTD. V/S ITO IN DBITA NO. 534/2008 VIDE TH EIR ORDER DATED 06.12.2016 (DPB 27-31),IT WAS HELD THAT: TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISION OF THE ANDH RA PRADESH HIGH COURT WHICH VIRTUALLY CONSIDERED THE SUBSEQUENT LAW AND THE LAW WHICH WAS PREVAILING ON THE DATE THE DECISION WAS RENDERE D ON 27.08.2012. IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE SAID JUDGME NT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED AND IN THE FINDING OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS HELD THAT THE AO, HAS TO GIVE A NOTICE AS TO WHETHER HE PROPOSES TO LEVY PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. HE CANNOT HAVE BOTH THE CON DITIONS AND IF IT IS ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 22 SO HE HAS TO SAY SO IN THE NOTICE AND RECORD A FIND ING IN THE PENALTY ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO THOUGH INITIATED PROCEE DINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER W.R.T. BOTH THE OFFENCES HOWEVER, IN THE SCN, HE DID NOT MAKE CLEAR WHICH OF THE TWO HE CHOOSE TO AS K THE ASSESSEE AND SIMILARLY, IN THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDER ALSO H E IMPOSED THE PENALTY W.R.T. INACCURATE PARTICULARS ONLY AND NOT ON BOTH THE ASPECTS. HOWEVER, ON THESE FACTS THE IMPUGNED PENAL TY WAS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE HIGH COURT WHICH DIRECTLY APPLIES ON THE PRESENT CASE. U SE OF AND/OR HAS FURTHER CONFIRMED CONFUSION. 14. PERTINENTLY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ROI FILED ON 15.10.2012 WHEREIN , THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.14,21,230/- WAS INCLUDED AND THE FINA LLY ASSESSED INCOME AT RS.15,91,060/- THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ASSES SMENT ORDER WHEREIN ALSO, THE SAME AMOUNT OF THE ADDITIONAL INC OME OF RS.14,21,030/- (LAST PAGE OF THE AO), WERE AGAIN AD DED. IN OTHER WORDS, WHATEVER ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED ROI, THE LD. AO ACCEPTED THE SAME AS IT IS. KEEPING IN MIND THE RATION LAID IN THE RELIANCE PETRO (SUPRA), THERE BEING NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO, NO PENALTY WAS WARRAN TED. 15. RECENTLY IN GOPIBAI FOUNDATION VS. ACIT57 TAXW ORLD 1 (JP) (ITA NO. 760/JP/2016 DATED 29/12/2016) 16. CASES CITED BY REVENUE ARE COMPLETELY DISTINGU ISHABLE: THE AO ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS DECISIONS. HOWEVER, ALL THOSE C ASES WERE BASED ON THE PECULIAR FACTS AVAILABLE IN THOSE CASES ONLY WHICH ARE NOT OBTAINING IN THE PRESENT CASE. THEY WERE RENDERED I N DIFFERENT LEGAL FACTUAL CONTEXT AND THEREFORE HENCE ARE NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE BEING ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 23 COMPLETELY DISTINGUISHABLE AND HENCE KINDLY BE IGNO RED. ON THE CONTRARY THE BINDING DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HC AND SC HAS TO BE APPLIED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. THE BENCH HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE . WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOR MAKING THE ADDITION AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN POSSESSIO N OF INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH IS N OT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O. ASKED TO FILE DE TAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT OTHER THAN THE ACCOUNT DISCLOSED. THE A.O. ALSO ISS UED NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE BANK OF BARODA ON 24/8/2012 WITH S PECIFIC DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNT NO. 10222700000225 AND CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 16,50,500/- DEPOSITED THEREIN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED RE PLY FROM THE BANK ON 27/8/2012. THUS THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT A VOLUNTARY RETURN BUT IT WAS FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HAVING SPECIFIC INFORMATION REGARDING UNDISCLOSED B ANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WITH THE BANK OF BARODA WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED UNACCOUNTED CASH AND HAS ALSO EARNED INTEREST AND T HE SAME WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 24 UNDER CONSIDERATION. THUS, THE ASSESSEE KNOWINGLY CON CEALED THE INCOME IN THE UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AND FILED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF HIS INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED THE SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CON CEALED THE INCOME OF RS. 14,21,230/- BY WAY OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME AS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR CONCEALMENT AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME. THUS, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT LIMB IS NOT CLEAR UNDER WH ICH THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IS COMPLETELY BASELESS A ND AGAINST THE FACT ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS VERY WELL AWARE REGARD ING THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH THE BANK OF BARODA AND CASH DEPOSITED THEREIN. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EARNED INTEREST OF RS. 43,361/- THE ASSESSEE KNOWINGLY AND DELIBERATELY DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS BAN K ACCOUNT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. HE WAS ALSO WELL AWARE ABOU T THE FACT THAT UNACCOUNTED CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED BY HIM IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE INTEREST HAS ALSO BEEN EARNED THEREON. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS IN POSSESSION OF SPECIFIC INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AND UNACCOUNTED INCOME HAS BEEN DEPOS ITED IN CASH AND INTEREST HAVE BEEN EARNED, THEN ONLY ASSESSEE HAS F ILED THE SO CALLED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL A VOLUN TARY RETURN. FURTHER FROM THE EXPLANATION FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE BANK AC COUNT, UNACCOUNTED ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 25 INCOME DEPOSITED THEREIN AND INTEREST EARNED THEREO N, IT IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BEYOND ANY DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAULTED IN TERMS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT SURRENDER OF INCOME IN THE REVISED RETURN WAS NOT A VOLUNTARY ONE FOR THE REASON THAT THE REVISED RETURN WAS MADE ONLY IN VIEW OF THE DETECTION BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVE UND ISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AND HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME DEPOSITED THEREIN AND EARNED INCOME THEREON, IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. C ONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BEN CH IS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE RE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE FOR SUCH FAILURE. HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/02/2018. 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:- 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 2(3), KOTA. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) ITA 150/JP/2016_ RAJENDRA KUMAR SHARDA VS ITO 26 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 150/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR