GUPTSA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 17/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2085 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR; ISHA KANUNGO
• Keywords: Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SIN GH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 16 & 17/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., METRO HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, MUMBAI. CUKE VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAACG 1223 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR & MISS ISHA KANUNGO (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16/02/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 21.02.2013 IN RES PECT OF ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 14 3(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & 2006-07. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE HAS BEE N A DELAY OF 246 DAYS IN FILING THE SUBJECT APPEALS. BEFORE WE ADJUDICATE O N THE GROUNDS SO RAISED IN THESE APPEALS, IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO EXAMINE AS T O WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED ANY REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE SUBJECT APPEALS. 2 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT BOTH THESE APPEAL S WERE FILED WITH THE REGISTRY ON 6.1.2014 STATING THE DATE OF THE COMMUN ICATION OF THE LD CIT(A)S ORDER APPEALED AGAINST AS 18.12.2013. GIVEN THAT TH E DATE OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL WAS PREFERRED WA S 21.02.2013 AND THE SUBJECT APPEALS WERE FILED ON 18.12.2013, THE ASSIS TANT REGISTRAR ISSUED A LETTER ON 7.1.2014 TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS), AJMER REQUESTING FOR THE INFORMATION REGARDING DATE OF SE RVICE OF THE ORDER UPON THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS REQUIRED FOR ASCERTAINING THE CO RRECTNESS OF THE SERVICE AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36. ON 31.1.2014, A LETTER NO. CIT(A)/AJM/2013-14/1813 DATED 22.01.2014 WAS RECEIV ED FROM THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER APPEALS, AJMER WHEREIN IT WAS STATED T HAT- IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT A COMBINED ORDER FOR APPEAL NO. 382 & 383/2011-12 IN THE AFORESAID CASES WAS PA SSED ON 21.02.2013 AND THE APPEAL ORDER WAS SENT TO THE APP ELLANT ON 01.03.2013 BY SPEED POST NO. ER524248881IN AND SERV ED ON APPELLANT ON 05.03.2013, AS PER ENCLOSED COMPLAINT- SETTLED REPLY OF POSTAL DEPARTMENT. AFTER DISPOSAL OF APPEALS, APPEAL RECORD IN THESE CASES HAVE ALREADY BEEN TRANSFERRED TO O/0 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-APPEAL, JAIPUR. 4. THEREAFTER, A LETTER NO. CIT(A)(C)/JPR/2013-14/ 768 DATED 30.1.2014 HAS ALSO BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE OFFICE OF COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CENTRAL, JAIPUR BY THE REGISTRY ON 19.2. 2014 CONFIRMING THE SERVICE OF THE ORDER UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 5.3.2013 WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT:- 3 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER IN THE ABOVE CASE WAS SENT TO THE APPELLATE ON 1.3.2013 BY SPEED POST/AD NO. ER524248881IN AND THE SAME HAS BEEN DELIVERED ON 5.3.2012. THE LETTE R DATED 18.1.2014 OF DEPARTMENT OF POSTS- INDIA, MANAGER SPEED POST SORT ING HUBRAILWAY CAMPUS AJMER RECEIVED FROM THE CIT(A), AJMER VIDE HIS LETT ER NO. 1814 DATED 22.1.2014 MENTIONING THAT LETTER WITH TRANSACTION NO. ER52428881IN ON 1.3.2013 OF MBC AJMER IS SETTLED ON 18.1.2014 WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION THAT AS PER REPLY RECEIVED FROM MARINE LINES S.O. A /U/R HAS BEEN DELIVERED ON 5.3.2013 IS ENCLOSED FOR YOUR INFORMATION. 5. THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE POSTAL DEPA RTMENT DATED 18.1.2014 REGARDING SERVICE AND DELIVERY OF THE ORD ER ENCLOSED WITH THE ABOVE REPLY FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) READS AS UNDER: DEPARTMENT OF POSTS INDIA MANAGER SPEED POST SORTING HUBRAILWAY CAMPUS AJMER 305001. TEL : [phone] COMPLAINT SETTLLED REPLY NO. 111117-03284 TO DEEP CLEARK, AYKAR AYUKT (APPELAS), KENDRIYA RAJASVA BHAVAN, AJMER, 305001. DEAR SIR/MADAM, IN CONTINUATION OF OUR LETTER REGARDING THE COMPLAI NT NO. 111117-03284, IT IS TO INFORM YOU THAT THE COMPLAINT OF NON DELIVERY OF ARTICLE OF SP EED POST LETTERS WITH TRANSACTION NO. ER524248881IN ON 01/03/2013 OF MBC AJMER IS SETTLED ON 18/01/2014 WITH THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION THAT AS PER REPLY RECEIVED FROM MARINE LINES S.O A/U/R/ HAS BEEN DELIVERED ON 05.03.2013. THANKING YOU YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- MANAGER STG. HUB AJMER 4 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. 6. THEREAFTER, A LETTER WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY ON 7.2.2014 TO THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED LAT E BY 246 DAYS IN ADDITION TO OTHER DEFECTS NOTICED BY THE REGISTRY IN FILING THE SE APPEALS. 7. THEREAFTER, THE LD. AR VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 21. 7.2014 RECEIVED BY THE REGISTRY ON 5.8.2014 HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR C ONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE SUBJECT APPEALS AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF READS AS UNDER:- THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPAN Y. THE APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON 21.02.2013 AN D WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18.12.2013 ONLY. THE ORIGINAL ORDER SEND BY THE CIT(A) WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE PENALTY NOTICE FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL CAM E TO KNOW THAT THE APPEAL WAS DECIDED ON 21.02.2013. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR CERTIFIED COPY AND CERTIFIED COPY OF APPELLATE ORDER WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 30.12 .2013. COPY OF APPLICATION AND LETTER FROM CIT(A) IS ENCLOSED HERE WITH. ON RECEIVING THE CERTIFIED COPY OF THE ORDER THE AS SESSEE IMMEDIATELY FILED APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONOUR ON 06.01.2014. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT WHERE THE DELAY WAS BONAFIDE AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR DELAY IN FILING APPEAL THE DELAY MUST BE CONDONE BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. UNDER THE SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE ITAT DELHI 'E' BENCH HAS HELD IN THE CA SE OF ORACLE INDIA 5 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. PVT. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (20 08) 13 DTR 371 THAT 'CONDONATION OF DELAY REASONABLE CAUSE DEL AY OF 1297 DAYS IN FILING APPEAL BEING ON ACCOUNT OF LAPSE ON THE PART OF CONSULTANT AND NOT BEING MALAFIDE, THERE WAS VALID REASON WARRANTI NG CONDONATION OF DELAY AND ADMISSION OF APPEAL. IT IS THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE COUNSEL THAT THE HON'BLE BENCH MAY KINDLY CONDONE THE DELAY IF ANY A S MENTIONED IN DEFECT MEMO FOR 246 DAYS AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 8. THEREAFTER, AN AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FILED BY SHRI GOVIND GUPTA, THE DIRECTOR OF M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMB AI DATED 20 TH OCTOBER 2015 WITH THE REGISTRY ON 20.7.2016 AND THE CONTENT S THEREOF READS AS UNDER:- I GOVIND GUPTA S/O SHRI SHIV SHANKAR LAL GUPTA AG ED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O METRO HOUSE, 2 ND FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, MUMBAI, DO HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM ON OATH AS UNDER- 1. THAT I AM DIRECTOR OF M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. 2. THAT WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED APPEAL ORDER OF OUR COMPA NY IN APPEAL NO. 382/2011-12 AND 383/2011-12 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 & 2006-07 FROM CIT(A), AJMER. 3. THAT THE ABOVE APPEAL ORDERS WERE NOT DELIVERED AT MY ABOVE ADDRESS TO ME OR MY ANY EMPLOYEE . 9. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR VEHEMEN TLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND RELIED ON THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CONFIRMING THE NON- RECEIPT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND THE DECIS ION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF ORACLE INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX 6 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. (SUPRA). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT A CERT IFIED COPY OF THE LD CIT(A)S ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 30.12 .2013 AND THEREAFTER, THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 6.1.2014. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A ) AND THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ORDER ONLY WHEN THE PENALTY NOTIC E WAS RECEIVED, IT REACHED OUT TO THE OFFICE OF LD CIT(A) AND REQUESTE D FOR A COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME SHOWS THE BONAFIDE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE AND REASONABLE CAU SE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE DELAY SHOULD ACCORDINGLY BE CO NDONED. 10. PER CONTRA LD. D/R RELIED ON THE COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND ALSO ON TH E LETTER DATED 18.1.2014 OF THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS STATING CLEARLY THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WAS DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 5.3.2013 THROU GH SPEED POST. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD DR THAT THIS SHOWS CLEARLY THAT WHAT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE ASSESSEES PETITION AND THE SUPPORTING AFFIDAVI T IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD DR THAT THE DELAY OF 246 DA YS SHOULD NOT BE CONDONED IN A ROUTINE MANNER AND THAT A DISTINCTION OUGHT TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IN INORDINATE, AS IT IS IN THE CASE ON HAND I.E. OF 246 DAYS AND IN CASES WHERE THE DELAY IS OF A FE W DAYS. THE LD DR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE EXPLANATION PUT FORWARD BY THE A SSESSEE FOR THE DELAY OF 246 DAYS DOES NOT AMOUNT TO REASONABLE AND SUFFICIE NT CAUSE WHICH WERE 7 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. BEYOND THE ASSESSEE'S CONTROL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CERTAINLY NOT PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT HE WAS DILIGENT AND NOT GUILTY OF NEGLIGENCE WHATSOEVER IN THE MATTER. THE LD DR SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY OF 246 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEALS BE REJECTED AND THE APPEALS BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION, THE SAME SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSAL OF T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE CONFIRMATION RECEIV ED FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF POSTS DATED 18.1.2014, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS DELIVERED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 5.3.2013. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN AB LE TO CONTROVERT THE SAID FACTUAL POSITION AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORDS. FU RTHER, THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE CONDONATION APPLICATION AND THE AFFIDAVIT SO FILED IN SUPPORT THEREOF ARE SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND NOWHERE SUPPORT, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN ITS CONDONATION APPLICATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATE D THAT A COPY OF THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED ON 18.12.2013 AND THEREAFTER THE CERTI FIED COPY WAS RECEIVED ON 30.12.2013. HOWEVER, IN THE SUBSEQUENT AFFIDAVIT D ATED 20.10.2015, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS STILL MAINTAINI NG THE POSITION THAT THEY HAVE STILL NOT RECEIVED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER. IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON 21.2.2013 HAS BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 5.3.2013 AND THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED ON 6.1.2014. THERE IS NO FURTHER EXPLANATION SUBMIT TED AND REASONABLE CAUSE 8 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE INORDINATE DEL AY OF 246 DAYS OF FILING THE SUBJECT APPEALS FROM DATE OF SERVICE OF THE ORDER O N THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 12. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF VEDABA I ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL VS SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL & ORS (200 2) 253 ITR 798 HAS HELD THAT WHILE EXERCISING DISCRETION, DISTINCTION SHOUL D BE MADE BETWEEN A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS INORDINATE AND A CASE WHERE THE DELAY IS OF A FEW DAYS, WHICH MAY DESERVE A LIBERAL APPROACH. THE EXERCISE OF DISCRETION, THEIR LORDSHIPS OBSERVED, WOULD DEPEND ON THE FACTS OF EA CH CASE AND NO HARD OR FAST RULE CAN BE LAID DOWN IN THIS REGARD. IN THE S AID CASE, THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS 7 DAY S. IN THE CASE OF GANGA SAHAI RAM SWARUP VS ITAT (2004) 271 ITR 512 (ALL), THE DELAY WAS OF 12 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL AND IT WAS HELD THEREIN T HAT A LIBERAL VIEW OUGHT TO BE TAKEN, AS THERE WAS A DELAY OF ONLY A VERY SHORT PE RIOD. EVEN IN THE LAND MARK DECISION ON THE ISSUE OF CONDONATION IN CASE OF COL LECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST KATIJI 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 SCR (2) 387 WHERE TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT LAID DOWN THAT COURTS SHOULD TAKE A LIBERAL A ND PRACTICAL APPROACH IN EXERCISING ITS DISCRETIONARY POWERS OF CONDONATION OF DELAY, THE DELAY WAS OF 4 DAYS ONLY. 13. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ARE MERELY SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS , THE VERACITY OF WHICH 9 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. ARE ESTABLISHED OTHERWISE BUT ALSO THERE IS AN INOR DINATE DELAY OF 246 DAYS IN FILING THE SUBJECT APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS AVE RMENTS HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE CAUSE WHICH BEIN G BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE, PREVENTED IT FROM FILING THE APPEALS IN TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DELAY CANNOT BE CONDONED MERELY BECAUSE THE ASS ESSEE'S CASE CALLS FOR SYMPATHY OR MERELY OUT OF BENEVOLENCE. FOR THE EXER CISE OF DISCRETION IN CONDONING THE DELAY, IT MUST BE ESTABLISHED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DILIGENT AND WAS NOT GUILTY OF NEG LIGENCE ON ITS PART. SUFFICIENT CAUSE AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE LIMITATION PROVISIONS MUST BE A CAUSE WHICH IS BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE FACTUAL MATRIX, IN OUR VIEW, CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE D ELAY WAS DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCE AND INACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE , WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IF IT HAD EXERCISED DUE CAR E AND ATTENTION. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS CASE, THERE EXISTS NO SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE INORDINATE DELAY OF 246 DA YS IN FILING THE SUBJECT APPEALS. IN COMING TO THIS FINDING, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MST KATIJI (SU PRA), VEDABAI ALIAS VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL (SUPRA), AND OF THE HO N'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GANGA SAHAI RAM SWAROOP (SUPRA). TH E COORDINATE BENCH DECISION IN CASE OF ORACLE INDIA CITED BY THE ASSES SEE HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED AND WE FIND THAT THE FACTUAL MATRIX DIFF ERENT THEREIN AND IT WAS A CASE WHERE THERE WAS LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE CONSU LTANT. IN THIS VIEW OF THE 10 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT, IN THE CASE ON HAN D, THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WOULD NOT BE SERVED BY CONDONING THE INORDI NATE DELAY OF 246 DAYS IN FILING THESE APPEALS FOR WHICH NO COGENT REASONS HA VE BEEN GIVEN. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THESE PETITIONS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 14. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE'S APPEALS FOR ASSESS MENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 ARE NOT ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION ON ME RITS AND ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16/02/2018. SD/- SD/- ( JH FOT; IKY JKO] ) ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ( VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL; /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 16/02/2018. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT-M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI. 2. THE RESPONDENT ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT. 4. THE CIT (4), 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 16, 17/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 11 ITA NOS. 16&17/JP/2014. M/S GUPTA EMERALD MINES PVT. LTD., MUMBAI.