BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 190/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5578 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Assessee Lawyers: B P MUNDRA C A DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Procedural lapse; Onus to prove; Set aside
• Section: 80C; 143(3); 142(1); 292BB; 143(2); 147; 131; 68; 69; 148; 6; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O A JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 105/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, 1, MAHAVEER NAGAR, MUHANA ROAD, OPP. VT ROAD, MANSAROVER, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AIPPP 2375 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 190/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10. SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, 1, MAHAVEER NAGAR, MUHANA ROAD, OPP. VT ROAD, MANSAROVER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AIPPP 2375 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.P. MUNDRA (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08.08.2019 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 /09/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE TWO CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED BY THE REVENU E AND ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.12.2013 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-I, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REV ENUES APPEAL WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE SOLITARY GROUND AS UNDER :- 2 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE AD DITION OF RS. 1,02,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE INDULGENCE TO MODIFY, ALTE R, ADD ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D/R AS WELL AS THE LD. A/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE R EVENUES APPEAL IS REGARDING ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT (A) DUE TO THE REASON TH AT THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION WAS SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF ONE SHRI MAHESH SINGH. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 09.05.2018 IN CASE OF SHR I MAHESH SINGH VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 179/JP/2014 HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION IN PARA 4 AS UNDER :- 4. GROUND NOS. 7 TO 9 ARE REGARDING THE ADDITION M ADE UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE IT ACT. THE AO NOTED THAT IN THE BANK ACCOUN T MAINTAINED WITH THE PNB, MUHANA ROAD, JAIPUR VARIOUS DEPOSITS WERE MADE . THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND FURTH ER NECESSARY CONFIRMATIONS FROM M/S. SIDHANT BUILDCOM AND M/S. RADIENT BUILDCO M FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUISITE CONFIRMATIONS AND, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF RS.1 ,02,07,000/- GIVEN TO SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL AND RS. 23,47,000/- GIVEN TO M /S. BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY. FURTHER, THE CONFIRMATIONS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND TO BE GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,25,54,000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENG ED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND CONTENDED THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT IS THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S. SIDHANT BUILDCOM AND M/S. RADIENT BUILDCOM WHICH WAS CREDITED IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD . CIT (A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT B OTH THESE CONCERNS WERE NOT FOUND TO BE GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS 3 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. CONFIRMED. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDING OF LD. CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE IS IN PARA 11.2 AND 11.3 AS UNDER :- 11.2. AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, THE MAIN CONTENTI ON OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT M/S. SIDHANT BUILDCOM AND M/S. RA DIENT BUILDCOM HAD GIVEN THE MONEY BY CHEQUE WHICH WAS CREDITED IN THE APPELLANTS BANK. THIS ARGUMENT CANNOT HELP THE APPELLANT AS BO TH THESE CONCERNS HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE GENUINE. MERELY BECAUSE A N AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE DOES NOT NECESSARILY DISCHARGE THE ONUS LYING ON THE APPELLANT. AN ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE THE IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITOR, THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS FINA NCIAL CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN LYING ON HIM U/S 6 9. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ONLY TW O CERTIFICATES WHICH WERE NOT FOUND TO BE RELIABLE EVIDENCES. MERELY BEC AUSE AN AMOUNT HAD BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE TRAN SACTION IS GENUINE. 11.3. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT EVEN IN T HE COURSE OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AO FOR FURNISHING REMAN D REPORT, THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCES REGARDING LOANS VIDE LETTER NO. 3907 DATED 14.10.20 13. IN RESPONSE TO THIS THE AR OF THE APPELLANT APPEARED BEFORE THE AO . HE WAS AGAIN GIVEN TIME ON 06.11.2013 TO PRODUCE SHRI CHATTER SI NGH DAYAMA AND MS. PRETI GUPTA ALONG WITH IDENTITY PROOF AND AFFID AVIT. THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER, FAILED TO UTILIZE EVEN THIS OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELL ANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISCHARGE THE BURDEN LYING ON AND EXPLAIN THE DE POSITS IN HIS ACCOUNT. I, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE. THE APPEAL ON THIS G ROUND, ACCORDINGLY, FAILS. THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION WITH IDENTITY PROOF BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE T HOSE PERSONS DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR. 4 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FACTS OR MATERIAL, W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). T HE SAME IS UPHELD. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,25,54,000/- INCLUD ING THE SUM OF RS. 1,02,07,000/- WHICH IS ALSO ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BE FORE US ON PROTECTIVE BASIS WAS CONFIRMED IN THE HANDS OF SH. MAHESH SINGH BY THE L D. CIT (APPEALS) AS WELL AS BY THIS TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE SUBSTAN TIVE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL, THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT SURVIVE. HOWEVER, IT IS CLARIFIED THAT IN CASE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SHRI MAHESH SINGH VS. ITO (SUPRA) IS RECALLED OR REVERSED, THEN THE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO GET THIS APPEAL REVIVED. 3. IN THE CROSS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1(A) THAT THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WITHOUT JURISDICTION BECAUSE THE JURISDICTION LIES WITH THE ITO WARD 1(4), NOT WITH THE ITO WARD 2(4). HENCE THE ORDER PASSED AND CONFIRMED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS LI ABLE TO BE SET ASIDE/CANCELLED. (B) THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S 143(3) WITHO UT PROPER AND VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS WITHOUT JURIS DICTION, HENCE BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO. 2. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 62,89,400/- U/S 69 OF TH E ACT. THE BIFURCATION OF SUCH AMOUNT IS AS UNDER : A. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CONSIDERED A SUM OF RS. 26,38,500/- RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS AND THEIR RELATI VES ON BEHALF OF M/S. BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY AS UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENT. B. THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONSIDERING A SUM OF RS. 36,08,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHERE AS THIS AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANKS A ND THE SAME 5 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. AMOUNT WAS AGAIN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AND THEREFOR E QUESTION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT DOES NOT ARISE. C. AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACT S IN CONSIDERING A SUM OF RS. 3,60,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHI CH WAS OPENING CASH BALANCE IN HAND WITH THE ASSESSEE AT T HE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS FURTHER GROSSLY E RRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DISALLOWING DEDUCTION OF RS. 70,474/- IN RELATIO N TO LIC ETC. 4. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS FURTHER GROSSLY E RRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT SERVING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO ASSESSEE BEFORE MAKING ALL DISPUTED ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION. 5. THAT AUTHORITIES BELOW HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT CONCLUDING THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCE, STATEMENTS PLACE D ON RECORD IN THE TRUE PERSPECTIVE. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES HIS RIGHTS TO ADD, AMEN D OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE DATE OF APPEAL HEARI NG. 4. REGARDING GROUND NO. 1(A), AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES N OT PRESS THIS GROUND AND THE SAME MAY BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. D/R HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE GROUND NO. 1(A) OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSE D. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 1 (A) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. GROUND NO. 1(B) IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF THE ASSESS MENT FOR WANT OF VALID SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE IT ACT. 5. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT JUR ISDICTION AS THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT 6 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. FRAMED IS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ACIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON, 321 ITR 362 (SC) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT HAS HELD THAT IF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF F ILING OF RETURN. OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE . THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WIT H. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT TO STATE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB ARE NOT APPLICABLE WHEN THERE IS NO VALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS DULY ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE NOT ONCE BUT TWICE AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT RAISING ANY OBJECTION OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHICH IS NOT PERM ISSIBLE AND, THEREFORE, THE CASE IS COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF TH E ACT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON 23.08.2010. SINCE NOBODY RESPONDED TO THE SA ID NOTICE, THEREFORE, THE AO ISSUED SUBSEQUENT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND F INALLY ON 15.07.2011 THE LD. A/R 7 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FURNISHE D THE DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER ALSO FILED THE CONFIRMATION REGARDING TH E UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 26,38,500/- FROM 124 PERSONS. THUS IT IS CLEAR THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NEVER RAISED ANY OBJ ECTION ABOUT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2). THE AO HAS ALS O RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND, THE REFORE, IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS BUT TILL THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED, NO SUCH OBJECTION WAS RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED AT THE CORRECT ADDRESS AND, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF COMPLETE ABSENCE OF THE NOTICE ITSELF. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AND NOT RAISED SUCH OBJECTION, THEN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143 (2) WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE VALID EVEN IF THERE IS SOME INFERACTION IN THE SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE BUT THE SAME WOULD BE COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF TH E ACT. ONCE THE NOTICE IS EMANATED FROM THE DEPARTMENT, THEN IF THERE IS ANY INFIRMITY IN THE MANNER OF SERVICE OF NOTICE AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED THE O BJECTION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEN SUCH DEFECT IN THE SERVICE OF NOT ICE WOULD NOT RENDER THE ASSESSMENT INVALID. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ACIT V S. HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA) WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD . CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 5 AS UNDER :- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS SEE N THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THIS CASE WAS FILED ON 16/04/2009 AND NOT ICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 23.08.2010. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ALSO ISSUED ON 8 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. 07.01.2011. AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 27.01.2011. AGAIN NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 12.05.2011 BUT NOBODY ATTENDED . LATER ON, ON 15.07.2011 SHRI N.L. BHATIA, AR OF THE APPELLANT AP PEARED BEFORE THE AO AND FURNISHED PART DETAILS. SHRI N.L. BHATIA AGA IN APPEARED ON27.10.2011 AND FILED CERTAIN DETAILS. IT IS, HOWE VER, NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION REGARDING THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO AT THAT TIME. AFTER NOTICES U/S 143(2)/142(1) WE RE ISSUED IN COMPLIANCE TO WHICH THE APPELLANTS AR APPEARED BEF ORE THE AO BUT HIS JURISDICTION WAS NEVER CHALLENGED. AS PER SEC. 124 (3) OF THE I.T. ACT, THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO CAN BE CHALLENGED ONLY W ITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2)/142(1). SINCE THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, IT CANNOT BE CHALLENGE NOW. SO FAR AS THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IS CONCERNED, SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE AO HAS FRAMED THE ORDER U/S 143(3). A NOTICE U/ S 148 EVEN IF ISSUED INADVERTENTLY WOULD NOT VITIATE THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE INITIATED CORRECTLY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE APPEAL ON TH IS GROUND FAILS. THUS THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND ASSESSEE HAS DULY PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT RAISING ANY SUCH OBJECTION OF SERVICE THEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMITTED TO QUEST ION THE SERVICE AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SHRI MAHE SH SINGH VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 3 AS UNDER :- 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D/R AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. GROUND NO. 1 TO 6 ARE REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF 9 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WI TH SECTION 144 OF THE IT ACT. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CH ALLENGING THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 READ WITH SECTION 144 IS T HAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS ISSUED NUMBER OF NOTICES, HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE NEVER RESPONDED TO ANY OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO UN DER SECTION 142(1). THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 7 AND 7.1 AS UNDER :- 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS SEE N THAT THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT SINCE NOTI CE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED ON HIM, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS W ERE VITIATED AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. IN THIS REGARD I T MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE MAIN IDEA BEHIND SERVICE OF NOTI CE U/S 143(2) IS TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE AN ORDER U/S 143(3) IS PASSED. THI S SECTION ONLY PROVIDES THE STATUTORY BASIS TO THE PRINCIPLE OF NA TURAL JUSTICE THAT NOBODY SHALL BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. IT IS APPAR ENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF THAT A NUMBER OF OPPORT UNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WHO FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO OR FILE ANY DETAILS BEFORE HIM. THE INSPECTGOR OF THE WARD ALSO SERVED A NOTICE ON THE APPELLANT BUT EVEN THEN NEITHER ANY BODY APPEARED BEFORE THE AO NOR ANY REPLY WAS FILED. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME I N RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148. HOWEVER, THEREAFTER HE DID N OT FILE ANY REPLY BEFORE THE AO NOR APPEARED BEFORE HIM. IT IS FURTHER SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN RESPONSE TO SUMMO NS ISSUED U/S 131 THE APPELLANT HAD FILED A LETTER ON 11/11/2 011 GIVING REPLY TO THE QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE AO. THEREAFTER, RTHE APPELLANT AGAIN FURNISHED A REPLY ON 07.12.2011 IN RESPONSE TO A LETTER ISSUED TO HIM ON 02.12.2011. FROM THESE DETA ILS, IT IS 10 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. OBVIOUS THAT NOT ONLY THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN SEVER AL OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD, HE HAD ALSO AVAILED T HE OPPORTUNITY AT LEAST ON TWO OCCASIONS. HENCE, IT CA NNOT BE SAID THAT THE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED WITHOUT HEARING THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS IS SUED STANDS SERVED. 7.1. IT MAY ALSO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT AS PER SEC. 292BB, WHEN AN ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED IN ANY PROCEEDING OR COOPERATED IN ANY ENQUIRY RELATING TO AN ASSESSMENT OR RE- ASSESSMENT, IT SHALL BE DEEMED THAT ANY NOTICE UNDE R ANY PROVISION OF THE I.T. ACT, WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE SERVED UPON HIM, HAS BEEN DULY SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I.T. ACT AND SUCH ASSESSEE SH ALL BE PRECLUDED FROM MAKING ANY OBJECTION IN ANY PROCEEDI NGS OR ENQUIRY UNDER THE ACT THAT THE NOTICE WAS EITHER NO T SERVED UPON HIM OR WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM IN TIME. IT MAY BE ALSO MENTIONED HERE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT RAISED AN Y SUCH OBJECTION BEFORE THE AO BEFORE COMPLETION OF THE AS SESSMENT. HENCE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SINCE N OTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT SERVED UPON HIM, THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R IS VITIATED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THE APPEAL ON THIS GRO UND, THEREFORE, FAILS. IN THE ABSENCE OF CONTROVERTING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF THE MATTER THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE WERE RE SPONDED ON TWO OCCASIONS BY THE ASSESSEE, IT GOES TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGL Y, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A). AS REGARDS THE ISSUE OF NOT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING, WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSES SEE WAS GIVEN VARIOUS NOTICES BY THE AO AND FURTHER THE LD. CIT ( A) HAS DECIDED ALL 11 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. THESE ISSUES AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTIONS AND AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE SA ID OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF ANY SUBSTANCE OR MERIT S. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN GROUND NO. 1(B) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTI ON 69 ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 62,89,400/-. 8. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALARY INCOME OF RS. 4,20,000/- AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS. 2,52,000/- DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED INTEREST OTHER THAN SECURITIES OF RS. 44,455/- AND CASH DEPO SITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 62,89,400/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE SAID DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FURN ISHED THE CONFIRMATIONS OF UNSECURED LOANS TOTALING TO RS. 26,38,500/- FROM 12 4 PERSONS. THE AO CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY FROM ALL 124 PERSONS BY ISSUING NOTICE, HOWEVER, ONLY 8 OF THEM RESPONDED AND AFTER RECORDING THEIR STATEMENT, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION BEING UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT COULD NOT SUCC EED. 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSEQUENTLY EXPLAINED THE CORRECT FACTS REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPOSIT 12 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. AND SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSIT OF RS. 62,89,400/-, A SUM OF RS. 26,38,500/- WAS RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS AND THEIR RE LATIVES ON ACCOUNT OF FEES ON BEHALF OF SHREE BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY AN D THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 36,08,500/- REPRESENTS THE WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE BANK AND A SUM OF RS. 3,60,000/- BEING OPENING CASH BALANCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) A ND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS WERE DULY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT NEIT HER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THE CORRECT FACTS REGARDING THE SOURCE O F THIS DEPOSIT. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS ALSO EXAMINED THE ASSESSEE AND IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CONFIRMATIONS FURNISHED WERE NOT CORRECT BUT THE CORRECT FACT IS THAT IT WAS REC EIVED AS FEES FROM THE STUDENTS OR THEIR RELATIVES ON BEHALF OF SHREE BIRBAL MEDICAL E DUCATION SOCIETY. HOWEVER, THE SAID FEES MISTAKENLY WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS ALSO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE SOCIETY AS WELL AS PRINCIPAL OF SHREE BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY. THE LD. A/R HAS REFERRED TO THE DETAILS O F THE DEPOSIT AND TRANSFER OF THE MONEY FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHREE BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT IF WRONG FACTS WERE STATED BEFORE THE AO BUT SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE HAS EXP LAINED THE CORRECT FACTS, THEN THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AS W ELL AS BY THE LD. CIT (A). IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DE CISION DATED 3 RD APRIL, 2018 OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PCIT V S. SHRI BHUPENDRA CHOUDHARY IN DB IT APPEAL NO. 329/2017. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON THIS ACCOUNT IS ONLY RS. 26,38,500/- AN D THE BALANCE IS THE CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 36,08,500/- AND OPENING BALANCE O F RS. 3,60,000/-. THE AO AS 13 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. WELL AS THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS FAC TUAL ASPECT OF THE MATTER WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR PROPER VERIFIC ATION OF FACTS AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AO HAS CONDUCTED DUE ENQUIRY BY ISSUING THE SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 TO ALL 124 PERSONS WHOSE CONFIRMATIONS WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THOUGH ONLY 8 PERSONS RESPONDED TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE AO AND IN THEIR STATEMENTS THEY DENIED TO HAVE GIVE N ANY LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE FAL SE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED HIS STAND AND CAME OUT WITH ANOTHER EXPLANA TION THAT PART OF THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS AS FEES ON BEHALF OF SHREE BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY. THE LD. D/R HAS THUS CONTENDED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS MIS-LEAD AND MIS- REPRESENTED THE FACT BEFORE THE AO AND WHEN HE WAS NOT SUCCEEDED, THEN HE HAS CHANGED THE STAND. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THOUGH INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AS UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN FROM 124 PERSONS AND FILED TH EIR CONFIRMATIONS, HOWEVER, WHEN THE AO EXAMINED SOME OF THE PERSONS WHO RESPON DED TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131, IT WAS FOUND THAT THEY DID NOT A DVANCE ANY LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEN THE AO ALSO EXAMINED THE ASSESSEE AND IN HIS S TATEMENT UNDER SECTION 131, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE AS FEES RECEI VED FROM THE STUDENTS. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE REPR ODUCED BY THE AO IS AT PAGE 24 14 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS THE ASSESSEE INITIAL LY THOUGH EXPLAINED INCORRECT FACTS, HOWEVER, IN HIS STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE EXPLA INED THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT AS FEES RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS ON BEHALF OF SHREE BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY. ONCE THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEN THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIED THE FACTS FROM THE RE CORDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS SHREE BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY WHERE THE SA ID AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE FEES RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS MUST BE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF SHREE BIR BAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY. AS REGARDS THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH BY THE ASSESSEE A ND THE OPENING BALANCE OF CASH AS A SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK, WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 36,08,520/- BEING CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK DURING THE YEAR AND RS. 3,60,000/- AS OPENING CASH BALANCE . THIS FACT IS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDE R :- 6. GROUND NO. 2 CHALLENGES ADDITION OF RS. 62,89 ,400/- U/S 68. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED : ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT 1961 RS. 62,89,400 /- CONTRA 3608520 RECEIPT 2638500 OPENING BALANCE 360000 RS. 36,08,500/- WAS WITHDRAWN AND AGAIN DEPOSITED, WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE BANKS STATEMENT THE SAME WAS FILED WITH TH E ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THERE WAS OPENING BALANCE RS. 360000/- A S CASH IN HAND WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR. RS. 26,38,500/- WAS RECEIVED FROM THE STUDENTS AND THEIR RELATIVES ON BEHALF OF M/S. BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY AND THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE SOCIETY THROUGH BANK, WHICH IS A PPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR ITSELF. AS S UCH THE CONTRIBUTORS ARE NEITHER RELATED TO ME NOR DO I HAVE ANY INTERES T THEREIN. BUT AS I 15 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. WAS THE CHAIR PERSON OF THE SOCIETY HENCE MY STAFF HAD WRONGLY DEPOSITED THE SAID AMOUNT IN MY BANK ACCOUNT. THAT THE LD. ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR HAS ISSUED NOTIC ES TO THE DEPOSITORS AND STATEMENTS OF 8 DEPOSITORS WERE RECORDED, BUT W ITHOUT INFORMING THE APPELLANT FOR CROSS EXAMINATION WHICH MAKE THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS ILLEGAL. IT IS ALSO VERY SURPRISING THAT THE STATEM ENTS WERE RECORDED OF 8 PERSONS BUT WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT SO DEPOSITED BY 124 PERSONS WAS ADDED IN MY INCOME . HENCE THE ADDITION SO MADE IS ARBITRARILY & BAD IN LAW. BECAUSE THE AMOUNT NOT RELATED TO THE APPELLANT BEC AUSE THE SAME WAS EITHER RELATED TO DISHONOR OF CHEQUE, CASH WITH DRAWN AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK OR THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR/ON BEHALF OF THE M/S. BIRBAL MEDICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY. HENCE THE SAME CA NNOT BE TAKEN AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, BUT THE SAME ADDED IN THE APPELLANTS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS ABSOLUTELY WRONG AND ILLEGAL, LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN TOTO. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SMT. TARA DEVI R.M. LODHA & DR. VINEET KOTHARI, JJ (2007) 211 CT R (RAJ) 509. STATEMENTS SO RECORDED WERE NOT CROSS EXAMINED THAT THE LD. ITO WARD 2(4), JAIPUR RECORDED THE STA TEMENT OF SOME OF THE DEPOSITORS BUT THE STATEMENTS SO RECORDED WERE NOT CROSS EXAMINED HENCE CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT . IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT RELIED UPON THE FOLL OWING CASES : BANGODAYA COTTON MILLS LTD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (2011) 330 ITR 104 (2009) KISHINCHAND CHELLARAM VS. CIT (1980) 19 CTR (SC) 36 0 STATE OF KERALA VS. K.T. SHADULI YUSUFF (1977) STC 478 (SC). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS ARGUED THAT THE ADDITIO NS DESERVED TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 62,89,400/- HAS NOT CONSIDERED THIS EXPLANATION OF SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. O NCE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE RECORD, THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY 16 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. ON THE GROUND THAT INITIALLY THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO GIVE A FALSE EXPLANATION. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THIS ISSUE IS SET ASIDE TO THE RECORD OF THE AO FOR PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE FAC TS AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEN DECIDE THE SAME AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING REJECTION OF CLAIM OF DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 80C ON ACCOUNT OF LIC PREMIUM. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/ R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80C OF RS. 70,474/- ON ACCO UNT OF LIC PREMIUM, HOWEVER, NEITHER BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) TH E ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. EVEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THIS FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID CLA IM. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/09/2019 . SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04/09/2019. DAS/ 17 ITA NOS. 105 & 190/JP/2014 SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-THE ITO WARD 1(4)/2(4), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-SHRI BHAGWAN SINGH POSWAL, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 105 & 190/JP/2014} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR