ACIT, Jaipur V. ART ASIA, Jaipur

ITA 165/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 16523114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

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 VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S. ART ASIA, G-292-293-294, EPIP SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAIFA 3883 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 17/JP/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 165/JP/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. M/S. ART ASIA, G-292-293-294, EPIP, SITAPURA INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR. VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FZKH @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI KAILASH MANGAL (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PC PARWAL (C.A.) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23.06.2015. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/8/2015. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, A.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE WHEREAS THE CRO SS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, EMANATING FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I II DATED 22 ND NOVEMBER, 2012. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS AS UNDER :- 2 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. 1. THE CIT (A) (A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 29,09,278/- TO RS. 4,91,054/- ON TH E BASIS OF NET DEBIT CUMULATIVE BALANCE OF ALL THE PARTNERS. 2. IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CI T (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAKHS. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE AS UN DER :- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,91,054/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3). 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.03.201 1 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,43,39,170/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS IN THE N AME AND STYLE OF M/S. ART ASIA AS MANUFACTURER/TRADER AND EXPORTER OF HANDICRAFT, WOO DEN FURNITURE, EMBROIDERED, TEXTILES MADE UPS ETC. AS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE AO OBSERVED THAT IN COLUMN NO. 28 OF THE TAX AUDIT REPORT STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER DUE TO VARIED ITEMS OR VARIED SPECIFICATION AND DESIGN. THE AO GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRO VIDE QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS OF OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK ALONG WITH BAS IS AND METHOD OF VALUATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE CLOSING STOCK, LIST OF F URNITURE DIVISION AND THAT OF RAW MATERIAL AND SEMI FINAL GOODS OF TEXTILE DIVISION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF TEXTILE DIVISION S FINISHED GOODS AND CONSUMABLE STORES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE HER THAT CLOSING STOCK S HAD BEEN PHYSICALLY VERIFIED BY THE PARTNERS AND HAD BEEN VALUED AT COST OR MARKET VALU E WHICHEVER IS LESS AND THAT AS 3 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. ITEMS RUN INTO NUMBERS OF VARIETIES, COLOURS, PRINT S, DESIGNS AND IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN STOCK REGISTER. THE AO GAVE SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) SHOULD NOT BE INVOKED AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THA T GP RATE IS BETTER THAN PREVIOUS YEAR AND DUE TO VARIETY OF ITEMS, DESIGNS, SIZES, C OLOUR AND NATURE OF RAW MATERIAL USED IN RESPECT OF FURNITURE AND TEXTILE, IT IS NOT POSS IBLE TO MAINTAIN DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER OR TO GIVE QUANTITATIVE TALLY OF EACH ITEM. HOWEVER , AT THE END OF THE YEAR, THE MANAGEMENT TAKES PHYSICAL STOCK AND VALUED IT. AF TER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE AO HELD THAT THE CLOSING STOCK WAS VERIFIED AT THE END OF THE YEAR WHICH DID NOT COMPENSATE FOR THE ABSENCE OF A STOCK REGISTER. PUR CHASES AND SALES WERE VERIFIABLE BUT THE NON MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER IN THE BUSINE SS OF THE ASSESSEE INDICATES THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM COULD NOT BE DEDUCED CO RRECTLY. THE CLOSING STOCK ALSO BECAME UNVERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, THE TRADING RESULTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. SHE WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CORRECT NESS AND COMPLETENESS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, SHE MADE ADHOC ADDITION O F RS. 3,00,000/- IN TRADING RESULTS TO TAP POSSIBLE LEAKAGE. 3. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO HAD UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS THAT SIMILAR DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN A.Y. 2008-09 WHERE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- WAS MADE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A). IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT IN A.Y. 2008-09 THE GP RATE D ISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS @ 15.95% IN FURNITURE DIVISION AND @ 28.61% IN TEXTIL E DIVISION. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GP RATE @ 19.8 3% IN FURNITURE DIVISION AND @ 4 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. 36.24% IN TEXTILE DIVISION ON ENHANCED TURNOVER. T HE AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY CASE FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/-. THEREFORE, HE DE LETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/-. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETIO N OF TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION F OR UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF T HE IT ACT. 5 THE LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 6. AT THE OUT SET, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING DAY TO DAY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO AUDIT. THESE BOOKS ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. THE AO HA S NOT FOUND ANY PURCHASE AND SALE, WHICH IS NOT VERIFIABLE FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MAI NTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER IS NOT POSSIBLE IN SUCH KIND OF BUSINESS, HOWEVER, ASSESSE E HAS FILED THE DETAILS OF CLOSING STOCK OF FURNITURE DIVISION VIDE LETTER DATED 22.11 .2011 AND CLOSING STOCK OF TEXTILE DIVISION VIDE LETTER DATED 25.11.2011. AO HAS WRONG LY STATED THAT CLOSING STOCK OF TEXTILE DIVISION IS NOT FURNISHED. HENCE, SIMPLY BECAUSE ST OCK REGISTER IS NOT MAINTAINED, REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS NOT CORRECT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES :- MALANI RAMJIVAN JAGANNATH VS. ACIT 207 CTR (RAJ.) 19 ASHOKE REFRACTORIES P. LTD. VS. CIT 279 ITR 457 (CAL.) CIT VS. JACKSONS HOUSE 198 TAXMAN 385 (DELHI) CIT VS. JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS 324 ITR 95 (DEL.) 5 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. CIT VS. SMT. POONAM RANI 41 DTR 194 (DEL.) CIT VS. OM OVERSEAS 315 ITR 185 (P&H) 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SIMILAR ADDITION IN A.Y. 20 08-09 IN ITA NO. 404/JP/2012. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAD DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE VI DE ORDER DATED 31.10.2012 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE ALSO CHALLENGED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE IT ACT, AS UNDER :- 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSION AND THE RE ASON FOR DECLINE IN GP, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITION MADE AND S USTAINED IS ON HIRE SIDE. STOCK INVENTORY IS PREPARED ON ESTIMATED BASI S AS STOCK REGISTER IS NOT MAINTAINED THOUGH ASSESSEE EXPLAINED DECLINE IN GP RATE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CERTAIN ADDITION IS TO BE MADE AS THE RE ARE SO MANY DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IF A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 2.5 LACS IS SUSTAINED INSTEAD OF RS. 10 LACS TH AT WILL MADE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE ARE IDENTIC AL TO A.Y. 2008-09. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED THE C LOSING STOCK ON ESTIMATED BASIS WHICH CANNOT BE VERIFIED AS NO QUANTITATIVE AND QUA LITATIVE STOCK WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GP RATE HAS INCREASED COMPARED TO PR ECEDING YEAR ON ENHANCED TURNOVER. HOWEVER, THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE A O REQUIRED TO BE CONFIRMED CERTAIN ADDITION, THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF LD. CI T (A) AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED AGAINST ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT 6 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. RS. 3,00,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. (II) IN RE VENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND AND GROUND NO. (2) OF THE CROSS OBJECTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8. GROUND NO. 1 IN REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST REST RICTING THE ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 29,09,278/- TO RS. 4,91,054/- AND I N ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION GROUND NO. 1 IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INT EREST OF RS. 4,91,054/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I T IS FOUND ON VERIFICATION OF PARTNERS ACCOUNTS THAT SHRI SANDEEP MUNDRA AND SHRI RAVI KAN T LADHA HAD DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 1,92,36,187/- AND RS. 23,30,199/- RESPECTIVELY. NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED ON DEBIT BALANCES. THE INTEREST LIABILITY OF THE FIRM HAD AL SO INCREASED FROM RS. 19,62,291/- TO RS. 49,91,013/- DURING THE YEAR COMPARED TO PRECEDING Y EAR. THIS WAS DUE TO THE INCREASE IN BORROWINGS FROM RS. 3,31,18,392/- TO RS. 4,06,39 ,175/-. IN ADDITION TO ABOVE, ASSESSEE ALSO HAD DEBITED RS. 18,00,000/- TOWARDS I NTEREST @ 12% ON FIXED CAPITAL TO PARTNERS IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE AO FURTHER O BSERVED THAT ON ONE HAND THE ASSESSEE BORROWING THE FUNDS AND PAYING THE INTERES T AND ON THE OTHER HAND SIMULTANEOUSLY THE ASSESSEE IS WITHDRAWING THE MONE Y FROM THE FIRM WITHOUT ANY INTEREST CHARGED ON IT. THE ASSESSEE, THUS DIVERTIN G ITS INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR ADVANCING INTEREST FREE LOANS TO PARTNERS. THEREFOR E, LD. AO GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND PROPOSED AS TO WHY 1 2% INTEREST SHOULD NOT BE CHARGED ON LOANS GIVEN TO THE PARTNERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 29, 09,278/-. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED VIDE LETTER DATED 30.11.2011 AND SUBMITTED THAT TWO PART NERS OF THE FIRM I.E. SHRI SANDEEP MUNDRA AND SHRI RAVI KANT LADHA HAD DEBIT BALANCES ON WHICH NO INTEREST HAS BEEN CHARGED BUT OTHER PARTNERS WERE HAVING CREDIT BALAN CES IN THEIR ACCOUNT AND FIRM HAD EARNED PROFIT. DURING THE YEAR, OUT OF WHICH ALSO THEY HAD WITHDRAWN AMOUNT. HENCE 7 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. NO INTEREST HAD BEEN CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE L D. AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY HAD NOT CONVINCED AND HELD THAT CU MULATIVE BALANCE OF THE PARTNERS DID NOT HAVE ANY LOCUS STANDI IN THE EYES OF LAW. THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT FIRM HAD EARNED THE PROFIT DID NOT SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CO NTENTION THAT ON DEBIT BALANCES NO INTEREST CAN BE CHARGED. THE AO HELD IT APPROPRIAT E TO DISALLOW INTEREST EQUIVALENT TO THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE INTEREST FREE FUND S ADVANCED/DIVERTED TO PARTNERS. THEREFORE, SHE DISALLOWED THE INTEREST ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE DEBIT BALANCES IN THE NAME OF SHRI SANDEEP MUNDRA AND SHRI RAVI KANT LADHA AMOUNT ING TO RS. 29,09,278/-. 9. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 2.3. I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORDS. THE FACTS IN THE INSTANT YEAR ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT FROM EAR LIER YEARS. IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09, THERE WERE NET CREDIT BALANCES CONSIDE RING ALL THE PARTNERS ACCOUNTS TOGETHER. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT YEAR I.E . A.Y. 2009-10, THERE IS NET DEBIT BALANCE CONSIDERING CUMULATIVE BALANCE OF ALL THE PARTNERS. LD. AR HAS INFORMED THAT INTEREST OF RS. 4,91,054/- IS PAYABLE ON THIS NET DEBIT BALANCE. FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE APPELLATE ORDERS OF EARLIER YEARS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS REST RICTED TO RS. 4,91,054/-. THE GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. NOW BOTH THE PARTIES ARE BEFORE US. THE LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND ARGUED THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAD BEEN DIVERTE D TO THE PARTNERS BY DEBITING THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE FIRM HAD NOT CHARGED ANY INTER EST ON DEBIT BALANCE FROM THE TWO PARTNERS. 8 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. 11. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT INTEREST PAYABLE ON THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS IS GOVERNED BY THE PARTNERSHIP DEED. AS PER THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, THE FIRM WILL PAY INTEREST TO PAR TNER ON FIXED CAPITAL ACCOUNT ONLY. NO INTEREST IS PAYABLE OR RECOVERABLE ON THE BALANCE I N CURRENT ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER PAID THE INTEREST NOR CHARGED THE INTEREST FROM THE PARTNERS IN RESPECT OF THE BALANCE IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT. 11.1. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER AOS CALC ULATION THERE WAS AN INTEREST PAYABLE IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND 2008-09 ON CREDIT BALANCES OF T HE PARTNERS. WHEN NO INTEREST WAS PAID/ALLOWED BY THE AO TO THE PARTNERS WHEN THERE W AS A CREDIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS, NO INTEREST COULD BE DISALLOWED WH EN THERE IS DEBIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS. THE AO IGNORED THAT OTHER TWO PARTNERS HAVE CREDIT BALANCES WHILE DISALLOWING THE INTEREST ON DEBIT BALANCES OF TWO PARTNERS. HE FURTHER CALCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE BASIS OF CREDIT AND DEBIT BALANCES OF ALL THE PARTNERS AT RS. 4,91,054/-. SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE AO IN A.Y. 2008-09 WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A) VIDE ORDER DATED 9. 3.2012. SUCH DELETION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT IN ITA NO. 404/JP/2012 DATED 31.10.2012. DURING THE YEAR THE POSITION IS SAME BUT ON DAY TO DAY BASIS ON CERTAIN DAYS THERE WAS A DEBIT BALANCE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF TWO PARTNERS BECAUSE THE PRO FIT IS CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERS AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT CROSS OBJECTION MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED ON THIS GROUN D. 12. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, AND GONE THROUGH THE COORDINATE BENCH DECISION FOR A.Y. 2008 -09 WHEREIN IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT ALL THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS ARE TO BE EXAMINED BY THE AO WHILE DISALLOWING 9 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. THE INTEREST ON DEBIT BALANCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS CA LCULATED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON THE BASIS OF CREDIT AND DEBIT BALANCES OF ALL TH E PARTNERS AT RS. 4,91,054/-. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THU S REVENUES APPEAL ON THIS GROUND AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOW ED AND ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.08.2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 11/8/ 2015 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- ACIT CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & C.O. 17/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR 10 ITA NO. 165/JP/2013 & CO 17/JP/13 A.Y. 2009-10 ACIT VS. M/S. ART ASIA, JAIPUR.