ITO, Jaipur V. SMT INDU JAIN, Jaipur

ITA 184/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5155 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Rule of consistency; Question of law
• Section: 69C; 260A

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 HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 258/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. SMT. INDU JAIN, 419, IIND FLOOR, RANI SATI NAGAR, NIRMAN NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFNPJ 4243 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 184/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SMT. INDU JAIN, 419, IIND FLOOR, RANI SATI NAGAR, NIRMAN NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFNPJ 4243 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 17.08.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/08/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REV ENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 21.12.2012 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2009-10. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 184/JP/2 013. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER :- 2 ITA NO. 258(2)/JP/2013 SMT. INDU JAIN WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 33,97,217/- ON A/C OF UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT FOR CREDIT CARD PURCH ASES IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF TRADING BUSINES S VIZ. PURCHASE BILL ETC. WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRE D TO AS THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2011. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO M ADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 26,04,670/- AND UNEXPLAINED PAY MENT TOWARDS CREDIT CARD TOTALING TO RS. 33,97,217/-. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVE D BY THIS ORDER, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING TH E SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE A PPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,04,670/- DEPOSITED IN CASH I N STANDARD CHARTERED BANK AND RS. 5,05,000/- IN ICICI BANK AND ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,25,778/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 33,35,448/-. NOW, BOTH THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY TH IS ORDER ARE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ONLY GROUND IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 33,97,217/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT FOR C REDIT CARD PURCHASES IGNORING THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF TRADING BUS INESS VIZ. PURCHASE BILLS ETC. WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. D/R SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDITIONAL CIT VEHEME NTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS 3 ITA NO. 258(2)/JP/2013 SMT. INDU JAIN INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND PROVED THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IN THE ABS ENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCES, THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN EARLIER YEARS ALSO. THE REVE NUE HAS TREATED SUCH PAYMENTS AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FIND THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING OF FA CT THAT PAYMENTS MADE THROUGH CREDIT CARD FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT AND THE DEPO SITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ADDED INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, A SET OFF WAS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE HAS TAKEN US THROUGH THE PAPER BOOK BY STATING THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE F ROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT. ONCE THE DEPOSITS INTO THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT HAVE A LREADY BEEN ADDED, THEREFORE, PAYMENTS OUT OF SUCH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE ADDED AGAIN . HENCE WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), TH E SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- 1. THAT LEARNED ASSESSING AUTHORITY GROSSLY ERRED IN M AKING ADDITION OF RS. 26,04,670/- AND LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. 2. THAT LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY GROSSLY ERRED IN F ACTS AND LAW IN MAKING ADDITIONAL ADDITION OF RS. 5,05,000/- UNDER THE HEA D CASH DEPOSITION. 4 ITA NO. 258(2)/JP/2013 SMT. INDU JAIN 3. THAT LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY GROSSLY ERRED IN M AKING ENHANCEMENT UNDER THE HEAD CASH DEPOSITION BY RS. 5,05,000/- WITHOUT NOTICE AND WITHOUT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT BEFO RE MAKING ADDITION. 4. THAT LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY GROSSLY ERRED IN F ACTS AND LAW IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,25,778/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF INC OME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THAT LEARNED APPELLATE AUTHORITY GROSSLY ERRED IN L AW AND FACTS IN UPHOLDING EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE INTER CONNECTED, THEREFORE, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITS OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE SALES OF JEWELLERY AND OTHER ITEMS. THE REVENUE IN EARLI ER YEAR HAS TREATED SUCH SALES AS THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE L D. COUNSEL HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09 FILED AT PAGES 62-64 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, LD. COUNSEL SU BMITTED THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR ALSO I.E. 2010-11 THE DEPOSITS HAVE BEEN TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE, HE SUBMITTED THAT LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THE REVENUE TO B LOW HOT AND COLD AT THE SAME TIME. THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY HAS TO BE MAINTAINED. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT EVERY A SSESSMENT YEAR IS AN INDEPENDENT YEAR. THE LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT THE AU THORITIES BELOW AS JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTEN TION, LD. D/R RELIED UPON HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SUDHIR K UMAR SHARMA (HUF). 5 ITA NO. 258(2)/JP/2013 SMT. INDU JAIN IN RE-JOINDER, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REL IED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AN ITA CHOUDHARY IN D.B. INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 289/2010 (ON THE BASIS OF ANITA CHOUDHAR Y TREATED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE) AS HAS BEEN DONE I N EARLIER YEARS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE SHOULD BE CONSIS TENT IN ITS APPROACH. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGE STING THAT THE UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS IN THE FORM OF DEPOSITS AND PAYMENTS A RE OTHER THAN BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS CULLED OUT OF RECORDS ARE THAT THE SIMILAR TRANSACTION FROM AN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOTICED BY THE REVENUE IN THE A.Y. 2008-09 AND ALSO IN 2010-11. THE PRESENT APPEAL PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THEREFORE, ADMITTEDLY THE REVENUE HAS TREATED IDENT ICAL TRANSACTIONS AS UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES AND SALES, THUS ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME IN BOTH YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION, TREATING THE ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCO ME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. LD. D/R SUBMITTED THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AN INDEP ENDENT YEAR, ANY ERROR COMMITTED IN A PARTICULAR YEAR CAN NOT BE ALLOWED T O BE CONTINUED IN OTHER YEARS AS WELL. HE CONTENDED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ACTION OF THE AO DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR TH OUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD . FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAKING CLAIM OF BUSINESS INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ONLY AFTER DETECTION BY THE REVENUE. ADMITTEDLY, SHE HA S NOT DISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESS EE GIVES RISE TO THE SUSPICION 6 ITA NO. 258(2)/JP/2013 SMT. INDU JAIN ABOUT THE NATURE OF CASH DEPOSITS AND PAYMENTS THRO UGH CREDIT CARDS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE RULE O F CONSISTENCY AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT R ENDERED IN THE CASE OF ANITA CHOUDHARY, SUPRA. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE ABO VE CITED CASE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER :- THIS IS WHAT THE TRIBUNAL HELD IN PARA 4 OF THE IR ORDER : WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 29 TH MAY, 2009 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAM SWAROOP IN ITA N O. 113/JP/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 22.86 LACS MAD E IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAM SWAROOP IN IDBI BANK. THE DEPOS ITS WERE SIMILAR OF THE NATURE AS ARE AVAILABLE IN THIS CASE . THE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE HELD THAT I NCOME OF RS. 1.25 LACS TO BE ESTIMATED AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO ADD THE SAME OF RS. 1.25 LACS AS AGAINST CASH DEPOS IT DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR. THE LD.AR HAS FILED BEFORE US THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT CONTAINS 9 PA GES. THERE ARE NUMBER OF ENTRIES IN EACH MONTH. THE MAXIMUM CR EDIT BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,51,905/- AS ON 11.08.2004. THE MINIMUM BALANCE IS OF RS. 563/-. THE CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31.03.04 IS RS. 56,558/- WHILE CREDIT BALANCE AS ON 31.03.05 IS RS. 566/-. THIS SHOWS THAT THE AMOUN T DEPOSITED DURING THE YEAR IS LESS AS COMPARED TO THE WITHDRAW AL MADE DURING THE YEAR. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENU E THAT WITHDRAWALS MADE IN THIS ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN UTILIZED ELSEWHERE. IN CASE THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THEN REVENUE IS REQUIRED TO CONSID ER THE AVAILABILITY OF SUCH DEPOSITS FROM THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FROM SUCH BANK ACCOUNT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE THE REQUIRED DETAILS BECAUSE SUCH DETA ILS HAVE NOT BEEN KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCE S, ONE HAS TO CONSIDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND A CCORDINGLY ONE WILL HAVE TO CONSIDER INCOME PORTION FROM THE TURNO VER AS MENTIONED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IT IS AN ACCEPTED POS ITION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS IN MARBLE AND TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. ONCE THE ASS ESSEE HAS OFFERED AN EXPLANATION AND THE REVENUE HAS NOT ESTA BLISHED THAT EXPLANATION IS FALSE THEN ONE WILL HAVE TO CON SIDER THE 7 ITA NO. 258(2)/JP/2013 SMT. INDU JAIN INCOME GENERATED FROM THE TURNOVER AS IN THE BANK A CCOUNT. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS PROFIT IN THE MARBLE BUSINESS AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY UPHELD THE ADDITION BY APPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 8.78%. WE FEEL TH AT IN CASE WHERE FUNDS ARE RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARBLE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO RENDER THE SERVICES FOR PURCHASES O F MARBLE AND TRANSPORTATION THEN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE WILL BE S LIGHTLY HIGHER AND WE FEEL THAT THE INCOME FROM THE TURNOVER TO TH E EXTENT OF RS. 25,20,272/- SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT RS. 2.52 LAC S. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXCESS INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETUR N TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2.10 LACS, THE BALANCE ADDITION WILL REMAIN TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 42,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 11,271/- CONF IRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A). THUS THE SOLITARY GROUND OF THE REVENU E IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHAT IS INVOLVED IN THE CASE IS A PURE QUESTION OF FACT AND NOT ANY QUESTION OF LAW MUCH LESS SUBSTANT IAL QUESTION OF LAW. SECONDLY, THIS COURT CANNOT AGAIN IN THIS APPE AL UNDERTAKE THE EXAMINATION OF FACTUAL ISSUES NOR CAN DRAW ANY FACT UAL INFERENCES ON THE BASIS OF EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESSEE. TH IRDLY, ONCE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED BY AN A PPELLATE COURT ON FACTS, THEN IN SUCH EVENT, A FINDING RECORDED ON SUCH EXPLANATION IS BINDING ON THE HIGH COURT BEING A FINDING OF FAC T. 7. PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED FINDING WOULD GO TO SHOW TH AT TRIBUNAL DID EXAMINE THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND THEN RECORDED A FIN DING. SUCH FINDING WHEN CHALLENGE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ANY SUBS TANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 260A IBID IN A N APPEAL ARISING OUT OF SUCH ORDER. 8. IN OUR OPINION, THEREFORE, ONCE THE CIT (APPEAL) AN D TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE FACTUAL EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE AND AC CORDINGLY, DELETED IN PART THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION MADE BY A .O. IN EXERCISE OF ITS APPELLATE DISCRETIONARY POWERS, THEN IT WOULD N OT INVOLVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL ISSUE OF LAW AS SUCH. IN OTHER WORDS, T HIS COURT IN ITS APPELLATE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 260-A IBID, CO ULD NOT AGAIN DENOVO HOLD YET ANOTHER FACTUAL INQUIRY WITH A VIEW TO FIND OUT AS TO WHETHER EXPLANATION OFFERED BY ASSESSEE AND WHICH F OUND ACCEPTANCE TO THE TRIBUNAL IS GOOD OR BAD, OR WHETH ER IT WAS RIGHTLY ACCEPTED, OR NOT. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE FACTUAL FINDI NG RECORDED HAD BEEN ENTIRELY DEHORS THE SUBJECT, OR WHEN IT HAD BE EN BASED ON NO REASONING, OR WHEN IT HAD BEEN BASED ON ABSURD REAS ONING TO THE EXTENT THAT NO PRUDENT MAN OF AVERAGE JUDICIAL CAPA CITY COULD HAVE EVER REACHED TO SUCH CONCLUSION, OR WHEN IT HAD BEE N FOUND AGAINST ANY PROVISION OF LAW, THEN A CASE FOR FORMULATION O F ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ON SUCH FINDING CAN BE SAID TO ARIS E. SUCH IS NOT THE 8 ITA NO. 258(2)/JP/2013 SMT. INDU JAIN CASE HERE ON FACTS. THAT APART, THE APPEAL DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY INTERPRETATION OF SECTION/RULE OR CBDT CIRCULAR, WH ICH CAN BE TERMED AS INVOLVING SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. IN DEED IT WAS NOT SO DISPUTED ON THIS ISSUE BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E APPELLANT. 9. IN VIEW OF FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE FIND NO MERIT I N THE APPEAL THAT DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WI THIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 260-A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE APPEAL THUS FAILS AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED IN LIMINE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, SUPRA, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSIT TRANSACTION AS BUSINESS RECEI PT AND AFTER GIVING SET OFF OF THE DEBITS, RE-COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.08.2016 . SD/- SD/- ( HKKXPUN ( DQY HKKJR ) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 30/08/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. INDU JAIN, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 258 & 184/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 9 ITA NO. 258(2)/JP/2013 SMT. INDU JAIN