KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA, Jaipur V. ACIT, JHUNJHUNU

ITA 199/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5429 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Question of law
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 145

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 VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NOS. 199/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 200 9-10. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA, H-3, KHETAN SADAN, INDIRA NAGAR, JHUNJHUNU. CUKE VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ACIPG 4123 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY S BY : SHRI SHRAWAN GUPTA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI KAILASH MANGAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06.01.2016. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/02/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI LALIET KUMAR, J.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISIN G FROM THE ORDER DATED 09.01.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A)-3, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 05.12.2011 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE FOR WANT OF JUR ISDICTION AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2.1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WE LL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE INVOKING OF THE PROVISIO NS OF S. 145(3) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. THE PROVISIONS SO INVOKED AND CONFIR MED BY THE CIT (A), BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS O F THE CASE, HENCE THE SAME MAY KINDLY BE QUASHED AND THE CONSEQUENT TRADI NG ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 10,72,520/- MAY KINDL Y BE DELETED. 2 ITA NO. 199/JP/2015 A.Y. 20090-10. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT. 2.2. RS. 10,72,520/- : THE LD. AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN MAKING TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 10,72,520/- BY APPLYING THE N.P. RATE OF 8.5% AS AGAINST 5.92% DEC LARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (A) IS BEING ABSOLUTELY, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND F ACTS OF THE CASE AND NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE LAW, HENCE THE SAME MAY KIND LY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2.3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME FROM FDRS ETC. UNDER THE HEAD AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE AS AGAINST RECEIPTS AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS HEAD BEING PART A ND PARTIALS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. HENCE THE AO MAY KINDLY BE DIR ECTED TO TREAT THE INTEREST RECEIPTS AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS. 3. THE LD. AO ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B, 234C & 234D AS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. THE APPELLANT TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING O F ANY SUCH INTEREST. HENCE THE INTEREST SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO TH E PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK AND RUNNING OF HEAVY GOODS VEHICL E/MACHINERIES ON HIRE. HE HAS SUBMITTED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.9.2009 WHICH W AS REVISED ON 24.02.2010 DECLARING THE INCOME OF RS. 1,25,99,660/-. THE RETU RN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1). HOWEVER, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEING SE LECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED. THEREAFTER ANOTHER NOTICE U/S 142(1) WAS ISSUED ALONG WITH QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE NET PROFIT OR RS. 1,26,99,659/- ON THE TURN OVER OF RS. 21,42,46,639/-. IN THE NET PROFIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS. 16,54,507/- AN D DEPRECIATION OF RS. 81,33,734/-. FURTHER, THE PROFIT AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN CLUDED THE INTEREST ON FDR OF RS.49,01,129/-. IT IS INTERESTING TO KNOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DECLARED THE 3 ITA NO. 199/JP/2015 A.Y. 20090-10. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT. INTEREST INCOME ON THE FDR AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOU RCES IN HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IN ADDITION TO THE CONTRACT INCOME. 2.1. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THE INTEREST I NCOME OF RS. 49,01,129/- AND RENTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,10,140/- WHILE CALCULATING T HE NET INCOME, THE N.P. RATE COMES TO 5.92%. HOWEVER, IF THESE TWO ELEMENTS I.E. INTERES T INCOME FROM THE FDR AND RENTAL INCOME ARE EXCLUDED, THEN THE NP COMES TO 3.54%. T HE AO OBSERVED THAT THE NET PROFIT RATE AFTER EXCLUDING THE INTEREST INCOME ON FDR AND RENTAL INCOME WAS VERY LOW. THEREFORE, THE AO PROCEEDED TO EXAMINE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS. ON EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS, IT WA S NOTICED THAT NO STOCK REGISTER WAS MAINTAINED, DETAILS OF DAY TO DAY EXPENSES AND CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL WAS NOT MAINTAINED. ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED CONSOLIDATED EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD CONTRACT EXPENSES AND NO HE AD-WISE BIFURCATION OF DETAILS OF EXPENSES ARE MAINTAINED AS A RESULT, THE AO HAS ISS UED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IN VIEW OF THE DEFECT S POINTED OUT, SECTION 145(3) BE NOT INVOKED. ACCORDINGLY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJ ECTED BY THE AO RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF S.N. S AMASIVAYAM CHETTAIR, 38 ITR 579, BASTI RAM NARAYAN DAS MAHESHWARI VS. CIT, 210 ITR 4 38 AND CIT VS. BRITISH PAINTS INDIA LTD. 188 ITR 44. 2.2. AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE AO H AS APPLIED THE NP RATE OF 8.5% ON THE BASIS OF PAST HISTORY, AS UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT (A) FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 SUBJECT TO FURTHER DEDUCTION OF DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST PAID TO THIRD PARTY. THE INCOME AROSE UNDER THE FDRS WERE SEPARATELY ADDED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE INCOME OF 4 ITA NO. 199/JP/2015 A.Y. 20090-10. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED TO AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,36, 72,177/- INSTEAD OF RS. 1,25,99,660/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,72,510/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AT PAGE 13 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER :- KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONSISTENT DECISIONS OF HONB LE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT AND HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT THE PROFIT IS TO BE ESTIMATED KEEPING IN VIEW THE PAST HISTORY OF THE APPELLANT OWN CASE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT AS PER THE PAST HISTORY OF THE APPELLANT CASE, IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 NP RATE OF 8.5% WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) SUBJEC T TO FURTHER CLAIM OF INTEREST TO THIRD PARTIES AND DEPRECIATION. THE AP PELLANT APPEAR TO HAVE NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE APPEL LATE AUTHORITY. THE AO HAS ALSO APPLIED THE NP RATE OF 8.5% FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF LD. CIT (A) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. IT MAY FURTH ER BE MENTIONED THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND 2008-09 WERE NOT SUBJEC T TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE THE RESULT SHOWN IN RESPEC T OF THESE TWO ASSTT. YEAR MAY NOT BE TREATED TO BE A VALID PAST HISTORY. MOREOVER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT CASE ARE BROADLY THE SAME AS IN RESPECT OF ASSTT. YEAR 2006-07. ACCORDINGLY THE ACT ION OF THE AO FOR APPLYING NP RATE 8.5% SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND I NTEREST TO THIRD PARTIES IS CONFIRMED. AS REGARDS TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME ON FDR AS I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IT MAY BE NOTED THAT EVEN IF WHEN THE FDR A RE GOT ISSUED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES THE FACT IS THAT SUCH INCOME IS N OT PART OF THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND WHATEVER EXPENSES ARE INCURRED IN RESP ECT OF OBTAINING OF SUCH FDR, SUCH EXPENSES ARE ALREADY CLAIMED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SHOWN SUCH INCOME IN THE P&L ACC OUNT SEPARATELY. 5 ITA NO. 199/JP/2015 A.Y. 20090-10. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT. THEREFORE SUCH INCOME IS NET OF THE EXPENDITURE ALR EADY INCURRED AND IS TO BE TAXED SEPARATELY EVEN IF FDRS WERE GOT ISSUED FO R CONTRACT BUSINESS. THEREFORE THE ACTION OF THE AO TAXING RS. 49,01,129 /- BEING FDR INTEREST SEPARATELY IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. ACCORDINGLY ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4.1. THE LD. A/R FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS VEH EMENTLY CONTENDED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE AO HIMSELF HAS APPLIED N.P RATE OF 5.8% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THEREFORE, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE THE SAME, AS ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF HAS DECLARED THE N.P RATE AT 5.92% ON THE T OTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH IS BETTER THAN 5.80% APP LIED BY THE AO FOR THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE ADDITION MADE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 4.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO DUCE THE STOCK REGISTER BEFORE THE AO DESPITE PROVIDING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES. WE FIND TH AT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE TURNOV ER OF RS. 21,42,46,639/- AND HAD DISCLOSED THE NET PROFIT OF RS. 1,26,99,660/-. THU S THE NET PROFIT RATE COMES TO 5.92% WHICH IN THE EYES OF AO WAS VERY LOW. THE AO FURTH ER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING THE STOCK REGISTER, THEREFORE, THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE VERIFIED, ACCORDINGLY HE HAS INVOKED SECTION 145(3) AND HAS R EJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT RATE @ 8.5% SUBJECT TO DED UCTION OF DEPRECIATION, INTEREST PAID 6 ITA NO. 199/JP/2015 A.Y. 20090-10. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT. TO THIRD PARTY. THE LD. CIT (A), ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO ON BOTH THE COUNTS I.E. FOR REJECTION OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNT AND APPLYING NP RATE OF 8.5%. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. IN DB ITA NO. 59/2014 DECIDED ON 1 8 TH AUGUST, 2014 HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 2. BRIEF FACTS WHICH HAVE BEEN NOTICED FROM THE IMP UGNED ORDER AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE THAT THE RES PONDENT- ASSESSEE BEING A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND HAS FURNISHED HIS INCOME TAX R ETURN FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ALONGWITH AUDIT REPORT AND OTHER INFORMATION. THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL CONTRACT WORK AT RS. 12,32,57,523/- DECLARING NET P ROFIT RATE OF 5.38% SUBJECT TO INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE P ARTNERS. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT NET PROFIT RATE IN IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS 5.02% 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE MATER IAL TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT VIS-A-VIS RECEIPTS AND NUMBER OF QUERIES WERE RAISED. 4. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DISSATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT ONLY IN VOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT AND REJECTED T HE BOOK RESULTS, BUT HE FURTHER DISALLOWED EXPENSES TO THE RUNE OF RS. 1,17,75,202/- THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EFFECT BY DISALLOWING RS. 1,17,75,202/- DETERMINED NET PROFIT AT 13.7%. 9. IN OUR VIEW, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW CAN BE SAID TO ARISE OUT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS IT IS ESSENTIALL Y A FINDING OF FACT BY THE TWO APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. IT IS ADMITT ED FACT THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT HAVE RIGHTL Y BEEN INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO ALSO UPHELD BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES, BUT IN A CASE WHERE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 7 ITA NO. 199/JP/2015 A.Y. 20090-10. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT. 145(3) ARE INVOKED ONE HAS TO CONSIDER EITHER THE P AST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE OR HISTORY OF SIMILAR SITUATED OTHER B USINESSMAN / TRADERS. HOWEVER, ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R, WE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ABSOLUTELY SILENT AS TO JUSTIFYING NET PROFIT RATE TO THE EXTENT OF 13.7%,WHETHER THE ADDITION/ DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO CAN BE SAID TO BE APPRO PRIATE. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TOTALLY SILENT ABOUT SIMILA RLY SITUATED OTHER TRADERS/BUSINESSMAN SHOWING NET PROFIT OVER A ND ABOVE WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AND COMPARED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD AS TO HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE AT 13.7%. IN OUR VIEW WHILE COMPARING WITH THE PAST HI STORY, IF THE RESULTS ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE THEN INVARIABLY NO ADDITION NEEDS TO BE MADE. 11. THOUGH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. OFFICER OF THE R EVENUE CAN BE SAID TO BE PROPER AND JUSTIFIED THAT IN A CA SE WHERE THE ASSESSEE MANIPULATES THE ACCOUNTS BY KEEPING THE PR OFIT MARGINS COMMENSURATE WITH PAST ASSESSMENT YEARS OR SLIGHTLY INCREASES AND THAT ITSELF BY AND LARGE CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE RESULTS. BUT IN THE FACT OF THE S AID FACTS, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BRING ON RECORD SOME C ONCRETE MATERIAL / EVIDENCE TO MAKE A PROPER ADDITION. WE H AVE ALREADY NOTICED HEREINABOVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY DISALLOWED 20% OR 10% AS THE CASE MAY BE OUT OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES, WHICH IN OUR VIEW IS NOT PROPER AND HE HA D TO BRING ON RECORD JUSTIFIABLE BASIS FOR MAKING OF AN ADDITI ON AND BRING ON RECORD SOME EVIDENCE FOR MAKING OF ADDITION. 4.4. THUS CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. (SUPRA) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BASIS TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION OF 8.5% OF NP RATE INSTEAD OF 5.92%, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTRICT THE NP RATE OF 6% SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST PAID TO THIRD PARTY. SINCE THE 8 ITA NO. 199/JP/2015 A.Y. 20090-10. SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA VS. ACIT. ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE STOCK REGISTER A ND OTHER DOCUMENTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF QUALITATIVE VERIFICATION, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FO R THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO VERIFY THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE SQ UARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED TO THAT EXTENT. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/02/2016. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK YFYR DQEKJ (T.R. MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 24/02/2016. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR GUPTA, JHUNJHUNU . 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-THE ACIT, CIRCLE, JHUNJHUNU. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE 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/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR