SARITA DEVI GARG, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 199/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 19923114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 54F; 54

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. 199/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SARITA DEVI GARG, 2/152, VIDHYADHAR NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. I.T.O. WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABXPG 5442 N VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L. MOOLCHANDANI (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15/10/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/10/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 02/01/2014 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2010-11. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS UNDER:- 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN DISMISSING GROUND NO. 3 REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT FOR WORKING OUT DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT ON THE WRONG PLEA THAT NO OBJECTION WA S ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 2 RAISED AGAINST INCREASING THE SALE CONSIDERATION B Y A.O. U/S 50C. SUCH FINDINGS ARE FACTUALLY INCORRECT IN V IEW OF GROUND OF APPEAL WRITTEN SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE THE HONBLE CIT(A). 2. (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,22,542/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE C LAIM MADE U/S 54F WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE C ASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN REJ ECTING THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT U/S 54F OF THE ACT BY TA KING A VERY NARROW MEANING OF THE WORDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IGNORING THE REAL SPIRIT OF THE LEGISLATURE IN THIS REGARD. 2. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE INTERLINKED AND A RE AGAINST NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AT RS. 54,22,542/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INCOME FRO M CAPITAL GAIN AND INTEREST INCOME. SHE FILED INCOME TAX RETURN FOR A. Y. 2010-11 ON 30/3/2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,61,039/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY ON 18/8/2009 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,91,69,644/-, WHICH WAS REGISTERED WITH SUB-REGISTRAR-III, JAIPUR. I T WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HER HU SBAND SH. RAJENDRA GARG AND HER TWO SONS SAURABH AND KARTIK WERE JOINTLY OWNED AN AGRICULTURAL LAND MEASURING 1.26 HECTARE AT VILLAGE MOTHU KA BAS, TEHSIL ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 3 AMER, JAIPUR. THIS LAND IS SITUATED NEAR HARMADA ARE A, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN JOINTLY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FAMILY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,52,00,000/-, WHICH WAS VALUED BY THE SUB-REGISTRAR FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES AT RS. 1,91,13,86/-. THE SHA RE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HER MINOR SON KARTIK WAS 40%, THEREFORE THE ASSE SSEE HAD SHOWN SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 60,80,000/- I.E. 40% OF R S. 1,52,00,000/- IN HER RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COPY O F PURCHASE DEED IN RESPECT OF THIS LAND DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, ACCORDING TO WHICH 40% SHARE OF THIS LAND WAS PURCHAS ED BY HER ALONGWITH HER MINOR SON KARTIK ON 23/01/2002 FOR A C ONSIDERATION OF RS. 3,10,000/- AND RS. 34,000/- WERE PAID AS STAMP DUTY EXPENSES. THE COST OF LAND TO ASSESSEE CAME AT RS. 3,44,000/- WHEREAS T HE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN COST OF LAND AT RS.4,43,160/- AND AFTER INDEX ATION, IT WAS CLAIMED AT RS. 6,57,458/-. FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED SOME DOCUMENTS/RECEIPTS, ACCORDING TO WHIC H SHE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND AT NARAYAN VIHAR (R), JAIP UR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 61,08,175/- THROUGH AUCTION BY JDA. THE LD AS SESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO APPLY PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT FOR COMPUTING THE CAPITAL GAIN. THERE WAS NO RESPONSE ON THIS QUERY FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HA D TAKEN 40% SHARE OF ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 4 THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION OF SALE OF I MMOVABLE PROPERTY U/S 50C AT RS. 76,45,550/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT S UBMITTED ANY EVIDENCE TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE OF ACQUISITION O F COST COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE CLAIMED SOME COST OF IMPROVEMENT ON THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HE HAD TAKEN COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 3,44,000/-, WHICH WA S AFTER INDEXATION COMES AT RS. 5,10,374/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON DEDUCTION U/S 54F, WHI CH WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM I.E. PLOT OF LAND AT NARAYAN VIHAR (R), JAIPUR WAS PURCHASED AT RS. 61,08,175/- BUT ON VERIFICATION OF THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS COMMERCIAL PLOT MEASURING 464.50 SQ.MTR HAVING PLO T NO. RC-95, NARAYAN VIHAR (R), JAIPUR. THE LEASE DEED WAS ISSUED FOR THE USE OF COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY ONLY. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE WITH T HE ASSESSEE THAT ANY CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN DONE ON IT. THE LD ASSESSI NG OFFICER FURTHER HELD THAT EVEN CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE , THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT WAS COMMERCIAL, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, HE HAD NOT ALLOWED ANY DEDUCTION U/S 54F WHEN ASSESSEES LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 71,35, 176. ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 5 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD DIS MISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE; ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLANTS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. APPELLANT CLAIM ED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL G AIN ON SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET OF THE GROUND THAT IT WAS INVE STED IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY. ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMI NED THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND AS PER THA T APPELLANT CLAIMED THE SAID DEDUCTION ON COMMERCIAL PROPERTY PURCHASED FROM JDA. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE T HAT THE COMMERCIAL PLOT PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY TO BE USED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES. EVEN THE MAP FOR CONSTRUCTION APPROVED BY JDA ON 26/4/2011 CLEARLY MENTIONED THE PLOT AS COMMERCIAL. AS AGAINST THIS, APPELLANT ONLY SUBMITTED AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION WITH MESSER KALYANI ENGINEERING. EVEN AS PER THIS AGREEM ENT, THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIA L HOUSE. APPELLANT SUBMITTED A PHOTOGRAPH SHOWING BOUNDARY WAL L AND ONE SMALL STRUCTURE INSIDE WITH APPELLANTS NAME APPEARING ON THE GATE. EVEN WITH THIS PHOTOGRAPH, ON E CANNOT SAY THAT THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. WHEN T HE JDA, THE DEVELOPING AND APPROVING AUTHORITY HAD CLEARLY EARMARKED THE PLOT AS COMMERCIAL, THERE IS NO QUEST ION OF TREATING THE SAME AS RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. NONE OF THE ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 6 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT ESTABLISHED THE APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT THE NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSE WA S RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS, TH ERE IS NO DOUBT THAT NEWLY CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY IS COMMERCI AL AND NOT RESIDENTIAL. 1. JDA IS THE DEVELOPING AUTHORITY WHICH HAS DEVEL OPED THE SCHEME AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SCHEME, THE PLO T WAS ALLOTTED TO THE APPELLANT FOR COMMERCIAL USE ONLY. 2. IN THE ALLOTMENT LETTER OF JDA, IT IS CLEARLY M ENTIONED THAT THE PLOT ALLOTTED COULD BE USED ONLY FOR COMME RCIAL PURPOSES AND THEREFORE USING THE SAME FOR RESIDENTI AL HOUSE IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. 3. THE AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION ON THE COMMERCIAL PLOT NOWHERE MENTIONS CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. EVEN THE WAY IT IS CONSTRUCTED, IT CANNOT BE USED FOR RES IDENTIAL PURPOSES. IT CAN BE USED FOR GODOWN OR OFFICE ONLY. 4. THE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT APPROVED PLAN F OR CONSTRUCTION, APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY APPROV AL FOR RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE JDA APPROVED PLAN IS FOR COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION ONLY. 5. EVEN THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE PROPERTY SUBMITTED B Y THE APPELLANT NOWHERE INDICATES THAT IT WAS RESIDENTIAL H OUSE. RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW DOES NOT LOOK LIKE THE STRUCTUR E CREATED ON THE COMMERCIAL PLOT BY THE APPELLANT. ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 7 6. IT IS COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT COMMERCIAL PLOTS ARE MUCH COSTLIER THAN RESIDENTIAL PLOTS AND THEREFORE NO SENSIBLE PERSON WILL CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON COMMERCIAL PLOT. EVEN OTHERWISE COMMERCIAL AREA DEVELOPED BY JDA CANNOT HAVE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SINC E NO SUCH PERMISSIBLE WILL BE ALLOWED BY JDA. CONSIDERING ALL THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT APPELL ANT DID NOT CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE PROPERTY WITHIN 3 YEARS OF TRANSFER. THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND JUST TO CLAIM DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F EVEN WITHOUT FULFILLING THE BASIC CONDITIONS. THE DEC ISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO TH E FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE. WHEN APPELLANT DID NOT CON STRUCT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ALLOWING SUCH CLAIM. ONE CAN USE EVEN COMMERCIAL BUILDING ALSO TEMPORARILY FOR RESIDENCE BUT THAT WILL NOT MAKE THE HOUSE RESIDENTIAL. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND ALSO E VIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE FIRM VIEW TH AT APPELLANTS CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54F IS WITHOUT ANY B ASIS AND THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTI ON OF THE A.O. IN REJECTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F I S CONFIRMED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LADY ASSESSEE. SHE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS. 54,22,542/- ON THE BASIS O F 40% SALE ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 8 CONSIDERATION AT RS. 60,80,000/- MINUS INDEXATION C OST AT RS. 6,57,458/- AND CLAIMED 100% DEDUCTION U/S 54F IN RESPECT OF SU CH CLAIM AS RS. 61,08,175/- WERE INVESTED IN NEW ASSET PURCHASED FOR THE PURPOSE OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT IN NARAYAN VIHAR (R), JAIPUR THROU GH AUCTION FROM JDA, JAIPUR AND DECLARED NIL CAPITAL GAIN FROM THE SALE OF THE OLD ASSET. ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F INCLUDING CONSTRUCTIO N WORK VIDE LETTER DATED 04/3/2013. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DISPUTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE INSTRUMENT AND VALUED FOR THE S TAMP DUTY PURPOSES. THE LD AR FURTHER ARGUED THAT SECTION 50C FOR CLAIMING OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F IS NOT APPLICABLE. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE VARIOUS ITATS INCLUDING HONBLE JAIPUR ITAT THAT DEE M PROVISION COULD NOT BE APPLIED BEYOND INTENTION OF LEGISLATURE, FOR WHIC H HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF GYAN CHAND BAIRA VS. ITO (2 010) 133 TTJ (JP) 482, 45 DTR 41 (2010) 6 ITR 147. THE LD AR REQUESTED TO CONSIDER THE SALE CONSIDERATION, WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE I.E. AT RS. 60.80 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PLOT FROM J DA FOR RS. 61,08,175/-. THE LD CIT(A) HAD FAILED TO CONSIDER TH E PHOTOGRAPHS OF BUILDING CONSTRUCTED, WHICH WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF RE SIDENCE. HE FURTHER FOUND THE FAULT IN THE AGREEMENT ENTERED WITH THE CO NTRACTOR THAT THERE IS ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 9 NO MENTION ABOUT CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THAT AGREEMENT. HOWEVER, FACTS ARE CLEAR FROM THE MAP AND EVIDENCE S UBMITTED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON PAGE NO. 14 TO 21 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND TRIED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSESSEE HAD CON STRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON THE PLOT IN QUESTION. THE LD CIT(A) HAS DISA LLOWED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM BY CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF THE PLOT AS COMM ERCIAL. IT IS PURELY AND SOLELY THE DISCRETION OF THE APPELLANT FOR WHAT PURP OSE, THE BUILDING WAS BEING USED. THUS, THE PURPOSE OF BUILDING WAS SOLELY THE DECISION AND WISDOM OF THE APPELLANT WHICH COULD NOT BE QUESTIONE D BY GENERAL FEELINGS, SURMISES AND PRESUMPTIONS AS HELD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, JAIP UR BENCH A, JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. OM PRAKASH GOYAL (2012) 53 SO T 158 IN ITA NO. 647/JP/2011 ORDER DATED 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2012 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54F ON INVESTMENT MADE IN PUR CHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT BENEFIT OF SECTION 54 CANNOT BE DENIED ON THE GROUND THAT LAND ON WHICH CONSTRUCTION WAS DONE WAS AGRICULTURAL IN NATURE. IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PURCHASE OF PLOT OF LAND AND THEN CON STRUCTED A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON IT. HOUSE CONSTRUCTED ON AGRICULTURAL LAND OR ON OTHER LAND DOES NOT MATTER BUT THE FACT THAT HOUSE SHOULD BE CONSTR UCTED, THUS THE HONBLE ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 10 ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). THE LD AR ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE ARGUMENT AND CASE LAW CITED ABOVE HAS PRAYED T O ALLOW THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE PLOT WAS AL LOTTED BY THE JDA ITSELF SHOWS THAT IT WAS A COMMERCIAL PLOT AND ON TH AT THE ASSESSEE CONSTRUCTED SOME ROOMS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 31/7/2010 MADE WITH M/S KALYANI ENGINEERING, JHOTWARA , JAIPUR FOR CONSTRUCTION AS PER MAP PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH E TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT WAS RS. 10.50 LACS. THERE WAS A RECEIPT FOR PAY MENT OF RS. 19,281/- FOR FILLING THE SOIL. THE ANOTHER EVIDENCE ON PAGE 19 OF PAPER BOOK IS A COPY OF BOUNDARY CONSTRUCTED ON THE PLOT, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE SOME INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION, THEREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THESE DETAI L PAYMENTS AND CONSTRUCTION MADE BY M/S KALYANI ENGINEERING, JHOTWA RA, JAIPUR AND ALSO CONSIDER THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. ACI T VS. OM PRAKASH GOYAL (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING ITA 199/JP/2014_ SARITA DEVI GARG VS. ITO 11 OFFICER TO RECONSIDER ALL THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND MAKE SPOT INQUIRY FOR USE OF THE PLOT, ELECTRICITY CONNE CTION AND OTHER FACILITIES CREATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE THE NATURE OF BUI LDING. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/10/2015. 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:- 30 TH OCTOBER, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SARITA DEVI GARG, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 4(2), 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. 199/JP/2014) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR