RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 198/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54320 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, A JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA) ITA NO.198/JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-1998 SH. RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL VS. I.T.O. WARD 3(4) , JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING: 22.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.12.2011 ORDER PER SHRI N.L. KALRA, A.M. 1. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER O F LD. CIT (A) CENTRAL JAIPUR DATED 21.12.2010. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ARE AS UND ER: 2 UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE CASH CREDITS FROM THE F OLLOWING PARTIES AS UNEXPLAINED. SH. GHANSHYAM GUPTA RS.95000/- PLUS INTEREST OF R S.9100 THEREON. SH. RAVI BANSAL RS.61000/- THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE CIT (A) AND LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER IS QUITE ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY, EXCESSIVE, WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND BASED O N GUESS, CONJECTURE AND SURMISES. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARAS 3.1 TO 3.4 OF HIS ORDER HAS STATED THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND HENCE THERE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THE FACT OF THE CASE IN RESPECT OF LOAN FROM GHANSH YAM GUPTA IS THAT DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOAN OF RS.95,000/- FRO M SH. GHANSHYAM GUPTA @ 18% P.A. SH. GHANSHYAM GUPTA HAS GIVEN LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS.30,000/- FROM HIS SAVINGS AND RS.65,000/- BY TAKING LOAN FROM HIS FATHER, WHO WAS EXPIRED IN 1995. HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE ACCEPTE D THE FACT OF GIVING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED. IN APPEAL, THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE A DDITION AS THE CREDITOR HAS NOT PROVED SOURCE IN HIS HAND AND EVIDENCE OF FUND RECE IVED FROM FATHER. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITA NO.108/JP/2001 DATED 21.2.2005 SET AS IDE THE ISSUE WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION:- WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORD. AS REGARDS THE CASH CREDIT OF RS.95,000/- IN THE NAME OF SHRI GHANSHYAM GUPTA, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. RS.65,000/- WAS TAKEN ON 27 .07.1996 AND RS.30,000/- WAS TAKEN ON 04.3.1997. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD CONCLUD ED AT PAGES 7 AND 8 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE INSPECTOR RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE CREDITOR AND THE CREDIT WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS A HAWKER AND HI S FINANCIAL POSITION WAS WEAK AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS NOT PROVED. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INSPECTOR IS NOT AN AUTHORITY UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO RECORD THE STATEMENT. THIS CASH CREDIT REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION BY THE AO . WE DIRECT THE AO TO RECORD THE STATEMENT HIMSELF OF SHRI GHANSHYAM GUPTA AND H E SHOULD CALL FOR THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI GHANSHYAM GUPTA IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND IF HE IS ASSESSED TO TAX, THEN THE GENUINENESS SHOU LD BE LOOKED INTO HIS HANDS. IN SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE A GAIN FILED ALL THESE EVIDENCES AND PRODUCED THE CREDITOR AND HIS STATEMENT WAS REC ORDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT SH. GHANSHY AM GUPTA HAS RECEIVED RS.60,000/- FROM HIS FATHER, WHO EXPIRED IN 1995. F URTHER, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT HE HAD SAVINGS OF RS.30,000/- AND IT IS UNBELI EVABLE THAT A PERSON, WHO EARNS 3 RS.30,000/- PER ANNUM, THAT IS JUST SUFFICIENT TO M EET THE DAILY HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES, CAN GIVE HIS TOTAL SAVINGS AS LOAN WITHOU T DECIDING RATE OF INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH COPY OF RETURN FILED BY SH . GHANSHYAM GUPTA AND BANK STATEMENT FOR A.Y. 1997-98. BANK STATEMENT WAS CALL ED FROM THE BANK VIDE LETTER DATED 11.10.2005 AND ON PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT O F SH. GHANSHYAM GUPTA, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS HARDLY ANY CREDIT BALANC E EXCEEDING RS.6,000/- DURING THE F.Y. 1999-00, WHICH SHOWS THE POOR FINANCIAL CO NDITION OF SH. GHANSHYAM GUPTA. THUS, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF T RANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.95, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH-CREDIT. THE FACT OF THE CASE IN RESPECT OF LOAN FROM RAVI B ANSAL IS THAT HE IS THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEES SISTER IN LAW AND WAS EMPLOYEE WI TH HIS ELDER BROTHER GETTING SALARY OF RS.3500/- PER MONTH. HE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1999-2000 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.43,335/-. ASSESSEE HAS TAKE LOAN AT RS.61,000/- FROM SH. RAVI BANSAL DURING THE YEAR 1997-98. SH. RAVI BANSA L STATED THAT HE HAS NOT GIVEN LOAN TO ANY OTHER PERSON EXCEPT ASSESSEE AND RATE O F INTEREST WAS NOT DECIDED AT THE TIME OF LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED THE LOAN AMOUNT BACK FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.61,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, MADE BY AO. THE HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITA NO.108/JP/2001 DATED 21.02.2005 IN PARA 16 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION:- SIMILARLY, SHRI RAVI BANSAL HAS ALSO ADVANCED RS.61 ,000/- WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE FACT OF GIVING THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS SAVINGS. THE AO IS ALSO DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THIS CASH CREDIT AS PER DIRECTION IN THE CASE OF SHRI GHANSHYAM GUPTA. IN SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE F ILED COPY OF RETURN FOR A.Y. 1997-98 AND 1999-2000. CREDITOR WAS ALSO PRODUCED A ND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT COPY OF R ETURN AND BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI RAVI BANSAL FOR A.Y. 1997-98 WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. BANK STATEMENT WAS CALLED FROM THE BANK VIDE LETTER DATE D 11.10.2005 AND ON PERUSAL OF BANK STATEMENT, IT WAS NOTED THAT THERE WAS HARDLY ANY CREDIT BALANCE EXCEEDING RS.5000/- DURING 24.8.1999 TO 31.2.2000, WHICH SHOW S THE POOR FINANCIAL CONDITION OF SH. RAVI BANSAL. THUS, CREDIT WORTHINE SS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.61,000/-. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A S UNDER: 4 THE LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF GHANSHYAM GUPTA ARGUED THAT THE LOAN IS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. THE CREDITOR HAS ACCEPTED TH E SAME IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS IN SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE STATEMENT HE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HE IS ASSESSED TO TAX. THE M ATTER IS TOO OLD AND FATHER OF CREDITOR HAS ALSO EXPIRED AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO GET THE EVIDENCE OF FUNDS RECEIVED FROM FATHER. THE BALANCE OF RS.6,000 /- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT CREDITOR IS NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEAR. THE HONBLE I TAT HAS ALSO HELD THAT IF CREDITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX, GENUINENESS SHOULD BE LOOKED IN HIS HANDS. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, SINCE THE CREDITOR IS ASSESSED TO TAX, AMOUNT IS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED, THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM HIM SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. LD. AR OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF LOAN FROM RAV I BANSAL ARGUED THAT THE LOAN IS RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. CREDITOR IS IN COME-TAX ASSESSEE. HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE ACCEPTED THE FACT OF GIVING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT, IT CAN BE NOTED THAT HE WAS HAVING CAPITAL OF RS.99,548/- AS ON 1.4.1996, WHICH IS SUF FICIENT FOR GIVING LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS BUR DEN OF PROOF. THE LD. AR PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- LABH CHAND BOHRA VS. ITO (2008) 219 CTR (RAJ) 571 : - IN THE PRESENT CASE ADDITIONS WERE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE ENTRIES OF TWO LENDERS VIJAY KUMAR AND DHARAM SINGH, FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- EACH I N THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE PROVED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADVANC ED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, THROUGH BANK AND IS DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE, AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE OF THE TWO LENDERS INCLUDING THE DISCH ARGE OF BURDEN ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS PROVED. SO FAR AS THE CAPACITY OF LENDER TO ADVANCE MONEY TO T HE ASSESSEE WAS CONCERNED, IT WAS NOT A MATTER WHICH COULD BE REQUIRED OF THE ASS ESSEE TO BE ESTABLISHED, AS THAT WOULD AMOUNT TO CALLING UPON HIM TO ESTABLISH SOURC E OF THE SOURCE. THE ADDITIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE ENTRIES OF VIJAY KUMAR AND DHAR AM SINGH, FOR THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- EACH, MADE IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E WERE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. KANHAIALAL JANGID VS. ASSTT. CIT (20080 217 CTGR (R AJ.) 354 :- WHILE IT IS THE ASSESSEES BURDENT TO FURNISH EXPLANATION RELATING TO CASH CREDITS, THE ASSESSEES BURDEN DOES NOT EXTEND BEYOND PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF THE CREDITOR AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT SUCH CREDITOR OWNS TO HAVE ADVANCED THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE TO HIM. HOWEVER, THE BURDEN DOE S NOT GO BEYOND TO PUT THE ASSESSEE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO FURTHER PROVE AS TO WHERE FROM THE CREDITOR HAS GOT OR PROCURED THE MONEY TO BE DEPOSITED OR ADVANC ED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE CREDITOR ABOUT THE SOU RCE FROM WHERE HE PROCURED THE MONEY TO BE DEPOSITED OR ADVANCED TO THE ASSESS EE AND MAKING ADDITIONS OF SUCH DEPOSITS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISC LOSED SOURCES BY INVOKING SECTION 68 UNLESS IT CAN BE SHOWN BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE SOURCE OF SUCH 5 MONEYS COME FROM THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OR SUCH SOURC E COULD BE TRACED TO THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. CIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS 256 ITR 360 (GUJARAT): IF T HE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS PROVED AND THE AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUES, THE INITIAL BURDEN OF PROVING CREDIT IS DISCHARGED AND THE SOURCE OF C REDITS NEED NOT BE PROVED. FACT THAT THE EXPLANATION WAS NOT SATISFACTORY WOULD NOT AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN DEEMING AMOUNTS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIB UNALS HOLDING THAT AMOUNT REPRESENTING CASH CREDITS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOT AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS HELD TO BE JUSTIFIABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE LD. AR PLEADED THAT ADDITI ON OF RS.95,000/- AND 61,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT MADE BY THE AO IS UNCALLE D FOR AND BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AFTER OBS ERVING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ORDER OF T HE HONBLE ITAT AND THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. AR. IN RESPECT OF BOT H THESE CREDITORS, HONBLE ITAT HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO RECORD THE STATEMENT OF THE CREDITOR, CALL FOR THE BANK ACCOUNT TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT AND IF THEY ARE ASSESSED TO TAX THAN THE GENUINENESS SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO THE HANDS OF THE CREDITORS. FROM THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD I FIND THAT STATEMENT OF BOTH TH E CREDITORS WERE RECORDED BY THE AO. IT IS NOTED THAT IN CASE OF SHRI GHANSHYAM GUPTA NO EVIDENCE IS FILED THAT HE IS ASSESSED TO TAX. NO EVIDENCE AS TO THE AMOUNT OF RS.65,000/- RECEIVED ON DEATH OF HIS FATHER AND RS.30,000/- OUT OF OWN SAVI NGS WAS FILED. COPY FOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR RELEVANT PERIOD OF THE CREDITORS IS NOT FILED. THUS WHEN NO EVIDENCE OF THE CREDITOR BEING ASSESSED TO TAX IS F ILED AND THE HONBLE ITAT HAS SPECIFICALLY DIRECTED THAT IF THE CREDITOR IS ASSES SED TO TAX IT SHOULD BE LOOKED INTO HIS HANDS, THE CREDIT IN HIS NAME HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 68. THE ADDITION OF RS.95,000/- AND INTEREST OF RS.9,100/- THEREON IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER CREDITOR SHRI RAVI BANSAL HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BY AO. THOUGH ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RETURN FOR A.Y. 1999-2 000 IS ON RECORD, HOWEVER, THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT FOR FILING THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 1 997-98 IS NOT FILED, WHICH INDICATE THAT HE WAS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE REL EVANT PERIOD. SOURCE OF ADVANCING LOAN TO ASSESSEE IS NOT DISCERNABLE. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT FOR RELEVANT PERIOD IS NOT FILED. AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HONBL E ITAT BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITOR IS TO BE CALLED FOR IN ORDER TO EXAMINE TH E SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND IF IS ASSESSED TO TAX, THE GENUINENESS IS TO BE LOOKED IN THE HANDS OF THE CREDITOR. IN PRESENT CASE BAND ACCOUNT OF CREDITOR HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED AND HENCE SOURCE OF HIS DEPOSIT IS NOT VERIFIABLE. MOREOVER, THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 1997-98 HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY THE CREDITOR. THEREFORE AS THE DIRECTION O F THE HONBLE ITAT IS NOT COMPLIED WITH, VARIOUS DECISIONS REFERRED BY THE LD . AR SUPRA ARE NOT OF RELEVANCE PRESENTLY AND IN VIEW OF THE FINDING GIVE N BY THE A.O. AND FURTHER 6 REASONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONFIRMED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WHILE MAKING ORI GINAL ASSESSMENT, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE A.O. FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY INSPECTOR THAT THE CREDITOR SH. GHANSHYAM GUPTA WAS A HAWKER AND HIS FINANCIAL POSITION IS WEEK. THE TRIB UNAL DIRECTED THE A.O. TO RECORD THE STATEMENT AND CALL FOR THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SH. GHANSHYAM GUPT A IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT AND IF IS ASSESSED TO TAX THEN GENUINESS BE LOOKED INTO IN HIS HAND. STATEMENT OF SH. GHANSHYAM GUPTA WAS RECORDED AND HE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE. RS. 30,000/- WAS STATED TO BE FROM HIS SAVING AND RS.65,000/- WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER IN 1975. THE SOURCE OF RS.65,000/- CAN NOT BE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED AS NO PRUDENT MAN WI LL KEEP THE SUM FROM 1975 TO 1996 PARTICULARLY WHEN THE CREDITOR WAS ABLE TO SAVE ONL Y RS.600-800 PER MONTH. HENCE WE FEEL THAT SOURCE OF RS.65000/- IS NOT EXPLAINED. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS EARLIER ORDER MENTIONED THAT GENUINENESS MAY BE SEEN IN THE HANDS OF CREDITOR IF HE IS AN INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IS TO BE ASCERTAINED. FOR THE PURPOSES OF S ECTION 68, ONE HAS TO SEE THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. HENCE WE FEEL THAT ADDITION OF RS.95,000/- BE REDUCED TO RS.65,000/-. 6. IN RESPECT OF CREDIT OF RS.61,000/- IN THE NAME OF RAVI BANSAL, THE TRIBUNAL GAVE THE SAME DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF SH. GHANSHY AM GUPTA. RAVI BANSAL FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 99-00 ON 6.10.99 I.E. BEFORE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 30.3.2000. SH. RAVI BANSAL WAS HAVING A MONTHLY SAL ARY OF RS.3500/- PER MONTH. HE HAS STATED TO HAVE MADE A GIFT OF RS.30,000/- AND GAVE RS.61,0 00/- AS LOAN WITHOUT INTEREST. SH. RAVI BANSAL STATED THAT HE WAS PAYING RS.2000/- P.M. FOR HOUSEH OLD TO HIS MOTHER. IT MEANS THE SUM LEFT AFTER MEETING PERSONAL EXPENSES AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WA S NOT SUBSTANTIAL. 7 7. IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT ATTACHED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 99-00, HE HAS SHOWN DRAWINGS OF RS.15,600/- ONLY. 8. THIS IS NOT CORRECT AS PER HIS STATEMENT. HIS CA PITAL IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL. THE A.O. ALSO MADE ADDITION ON A COUNT OF RECEIPT OF GIFT AND THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED. 9. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AS ABOVE, WE FEEL THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30.12.201 1 SD/- SD/- (R.K.GUPTA) (N.L.KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 30.12.2011 *S.KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(4), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE D/R, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. THE GUARD FILE IN ITA NO.198/JP/2011 BY ORDER A.R., I.T.A.T., JAIPUR