M/S GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 218/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74880 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Bonafide belief; Revised return
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JAIPUR BENCH : JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.218/JP/2012 (A.Y. 2003-04) M/S. GAJANAN TOWERS PVT. LTD., VS. ITO, WARD-4(1) , BEHIND OIL MILL COMPOUND, JAIPUR. NAHARGARH ROAD, JAIPUR. PAN NO. AABCG 8411 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.C. SHARMA - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 29/01/2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/03/2014. O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 27/01/2012 OF LD. CIT (A)-II, JAIPUR. THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 4,52,026/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 200% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 2 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE CRAVES YOUR INDULGENCE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF, OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE CONFIRMATION OF PENALTY OF RS. 4,52,026/- LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT). 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31/03/2004 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THEREAF TER, A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 10/03/2006 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT AND IT WAS DETECTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS. 12,49,355/- AS ADVANCE ON VARIOUS DATE S FROM VARIOUS BUYERS. BUT, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD REC ORDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6,34,355/- ONLY AS ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE CU STOMERS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 6,15,000/- WAS NOT RECORDED. CONSEQUENT UPON THE DETECTION OF THESE RECEIPTS, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/03/2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6,15,000/- BY ENCLOSING THEREWITH THE FOLLOWING NOTE:- 'ENCLOSED PLEASE FIND THE REVISED RETURN IN THE DE CLARING AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 6,15,000/-. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS TO INF ORM YOU THAT THE COMPANY IN THIS CASE IS A BUILDER SHOPS AND IN THE ORIGINAL RE TURN FILED NIL INCOME WE MENTIONED IN THE ANNUAL ACCOUNT THAT THE BUSINESS C OMMENCED, HENCE, ENTIRE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CAPITA RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT S AS ADVANCE AGAINST 3 BOOKING OF FLATS AND SHOPS WHICH WERE DULY DISCLOSE D IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE COMPANY HAS ALSO RECEIVED CERTAIN OTHER AMOUNTS IN CASH AS ADVANCE AGAINST SHOPS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND DURING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 6, 15,000/- WAS RECEIVED. THE COMPANY HAS NEITHER SOLD ANY SHOP NOR GIVEN POSSESS ION OF ANY SHOP AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WERE ONLY IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCES AND HENCE THE ADVANCES SO RECEIVED WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME OF THE COMPANY AS THE COMPANY IS ACCOUNTING FOR PROFIT ONLY WHEN THE SALE IS COMPLET ED OR WHEN POSSESSION OF FLAT/SHOP IS GIVEN. HOWEVER, SHRI JAGDISH NARAIN C HIPPA, DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY, DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED HA S AGREED TO DECLARE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN ADVANCE AS INCOME OF THE COMPANY AND ON THE BASIS OF SAID STATEMENT THIS AMOUNT IS BEING OFFERED TO TAX ALTHO UGH NO INCOME HAS ACTUALLY ACCRUED BY THE COMPANY. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT IS OFFERED TO TAX IN CONFORMITY WITH THE STATEMENT GIVEN AND RETURN IS BEING FILED TO AVOID LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE AND COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT WITH AN UND ERSTANDING THAT PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD NOT BE LEVIED ON THIS INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND ALSO NOTED THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS FILED ON 31/03/2004 I.E. BEYOND THE PRES CRIBED TIME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. SO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T ELIGIBLE FOR FILING THE REVISED RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THA T A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS PREMISES ON 10 /03/2006 AND UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPTS OF RS. 6,15,000/- WAS DET ECTED. THUS, THERE WAS NO WAY OUT TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT TO OFFER THE SU M OF RS. 6,15,000/- FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THE ASSESSEE GUILTY OF CONCEALMENT AND LEVIED PENALTY OF RS. 4,52,026/- WHICH WAS 200% OF THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. 4 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE A SSESSEES BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT STARTED BUSINESS IN REAL TERMS AND HAD RECEIVED BOOKING AMOUNT ONLY AGAINST SOME OF THE FLAT BOOKIN GS WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE LIABILITIES SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. IT W AS STATED THAT AS THERE WAS NO BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PREPARED ANY P ROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND ONLY ADVANCE BOOKING WAS MADE FROM CUSTOMERS AN D THE MONEY RECEIVED AS ADVANCE BOOKING WERE SHOWN IN THE LIABI LITY SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY ON 10/03/2006, ON THE BASIS OF SOME COMPUTERIZED DETAI LS AND THE STATEMENT OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SH RI JAGDISH NARAYAN CHHIPA, THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED SOME UNDISCLOS ED INCOME IN VARIOUS YEARS. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT IN THE COMPUTERIZED DETAILS, SOME CASH RECEIPTS IN VARIOUS YEARS AGAINST FLAT BOOKINGS WER E NOT ACCOUNTED FOR AND THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THOSE RECEIPTS FOR INC OME ALTHOUGH, THE SAME WAS NOT INCOME AND WAS ONLY ADVANCE RECEIPTS A ND LIABILITY IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BUT TO HONOUR THE STATEME NT AND COMMITMENT, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED, ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR BOOK ING AMOUNT AND FILED A LETTER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH THE RE VISED RETURN STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEITHER SOLD ANY SHOPS NOR GIVEN P OSSESSION OF ANY SHOP 5 AND THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED WERE ONLY IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCES, HENCE, THE ADVANCES SO RECEIVED WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEECOMPANY ACCOUNTING FOR THE PROFIT ONLY WHEN THE SALE WAS COMPLETED OR WHEN POSSESSION OF FLAT/SHOP WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, PENALTY WAS NOT LEVIABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- I) THE INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W AS ONLY RECEIPT AGAINST BOOKING AND COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THE SALE WAS EFFECTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS AFTER COMPLETION OF PROJECT AND WHEN SUCH PROPERTY WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NAME OF THE BUYER, THE RECEIPTS BECAME INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT PARTICULAR YEAR ONLY. II) THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THIS INCOME TO PUR CHASE PEACE AND AVOID LITIGATION WITH THE CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY WOULD BE LEVIED. III) THE ASSESSEE HAD REVISED THE RETURN AND PAID T AX BEFORE ANY ENQUIRY OR INVESTIGATION WAS MADE OR NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO T HE ASSESSEE. IV) THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE INITIATED THEREFORE HE HAD HON OURED HIS COMMITMENT AND PAID TAX ACCORDINGLY. V) THE DEPARTMENT DID NOT BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON REC ORD THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CONCEALED INCOM E AND NO FURTHER ENQUIRIES WERE MADE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- I) CIT VS. SIYA RAM GARG 313 ITR 256 (P & H) II) CIT VS. S.K. ELECTRONICS P. LTD. 274 ITR 334 (MP) III) CIT VS. SHYAM LAL M. SONI 276 ITR 156 (MP) IV) SHADILAL SUGAR & GENERAL MILLS LTD. VS. CIT 168 ITR 705 (SC) 6 V) ACIT VS. CHINA KRISHNA MURTHY 121 ITR 326 (AP) VI) CIT VS. CVC MINING CO. 102 ITR 830 VII) SOHINDER SINGH & BROS. VS. CIT 121 ITR 834 (P & H) VIII) CIT VS. VINAY CHAND HARILAL 120 ITR 752 (GUJ.) IX) CIT VS. AMALENDU PAUL 145 ITR 439 (CALCUTTA) X) CIT VS. SURESH CHAND MITTAL 251 ITR 9 (SC) XI) CIT VS. JKA RAJAPPA CHETTIAR 153 ITR 245 XII) HAGVANJI BHAWANBHAI & CO. VS. CIT 141 ITR 640 (CALC UTTA) XIII) CIT VS. NAVNITLAL POCHALAL 213 ITR 69 (GUJ.) XIV) CIT VS. M. GEORGE & BROS. 160 ITR 511 (KERALA) XV) KRISHAN LAL SHIV CHAND RAI VS. CIT 88 ITR 253 (P & H) XVI) RAM SARAN GUPTA VS. ACIT 58 TTJ 599 (JP) 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVE Y PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED BOOKING A MOUNT OF RS. 6,15,000/- RECEIVED IN CASH WHEREAS CHEQUES OF RS. 18,75,940/- RECEIVED FROM THE ALLEGED BUYERS WERE DULY RECORDED AND NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E. THE LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE PRINTOU TS OF THE DATA ALLEGEDLY MAINTAINED IN THE COMPUTER TO THE AUTHORI ZED OFFICER DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, WHICH SHOWED THAT CASH RECEIPTS WERE TOTALLY OMITTED FROM BEING ACCOUNTED. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE 7 COULD NOT EXPLAIN THAT AT WHAT RATES IT WAS ACTUALL Y SELLING THE FLATS/SHOPS AND WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SELLING RATES OF SHOPS AND FLATS. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IF THE INCOME WAS SURRENDE RED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OR SEARCH OPERATION FOR EARLIER YEARS AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY INCOME WAS REVISED THROUGH ANOTHER RETURN OF INCOME , IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT REVISED RETURN WAS FILED VOLUNTARILY IN A BONAFIDE MANNER, BUT WITH A VIEW TO ESCAPE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FILING A PROPER RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OFFER ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION INDICATING THE REASON AS TO WHY AMOUNT HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN IN T HE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, THE LEVY OF PENALTY WAS VALID. THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED INITIAL RETURN OF INCOM E DISHONESTLY WITH A VIEW TO CONCEAL THE INCOME AND THE REVISED RETURN W AS FILED OUT OF THE COMPULSION AND FURTHER BY MAKING DISCLOSURE ON ACCO UNT OF ON MONEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD STOPPED THE DEPARTMENT FROM FURTHER PR OBE, THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO SAVE ITS BUSINESS INTERESTS BY NOT GIVING DETAILS OF EXACT CASH RECEIVED FROM THE ALLEGED BUYERS AND THEIR COMPLETE ADDRESSES WERE ALSO NOT GIVEN AND HAD THE DEPARTMENT CONDUCTED MORE INQ UIRIES THAN THE ALLEGED BUYERS WOULD HAVE ALSO SURRENDERED THEIR CA SH PAYMENTS BECAUSE THE UNRECORDED TRANSACTIONS WERE MEANT FOR MUTUAL B ENEFIT AND CONVENIENCE. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, HELD THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER 8 WAS RIGHT IN LEVYING PENALTY AT THE RATE OF 200% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 6 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS WAS FIRST YEAR OF ITS BUSINESS IN WHICH NO INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE ALSO NOT COMPLETE. IT W AS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PEACE AND AVOID THE LITIGATION, AGREED FOR SURRENDER OF RS. 6,15,000/- ALTHOUGH IT WAS NOT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE NEITHER ANY SHOP WAS SOLD NOR POSSESSION WAS GIVEN. THEREFORE, THE ADVANCE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A LIABILI TY AND NOT THE INCOME. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE BASI S OF STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTOR RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVE Y, WHEREIN HE HAS AGREED FOR SURRENDER, REVISED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND OFFERED TO TAX INCONFORMITY WITH THE STATEMENT GIVEN JUST TO AVOID LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE AND TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT NO PENALTY WOULD BE LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, PENALTY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS 9 SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON MONEY AND HAD TH ERE BEEN NO SURVEY THE SAID AMOUNT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF CONCEALMENT O F INCOME AND THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS RIGHTLY LEVIED. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, CERTAIN CASH RECEIPTS WERE FOUND ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKING FOR DIFFE RENT FLATS AND SHOPS. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINE D THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BECAUSE NO BOOK WAS FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY. ONLY COMPUTER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXAMINED MINUTELY AND THE CASH RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKING OF FLATS/SHOPS WERE FOUND. I N THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE AM OUNT OF RS. 6,15,000/- AS AN ADVANCE AGAINST BOOKING OF FLAT AND IT IS THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT ANY SALE WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE TO EARN PROF IT. IN THE PRESENT CASE WHEN THERE WAS NO SOURCE OF EARNING THE INCOME I.E. THE SALE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TAXATION WAS THE 10 INCOME EARNED. MOREOVER, THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF ADM ITTED THIS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION AS AN ADVANCE AGAINST THE SHOPS AND SINCE THE SHOPS WERE NOT SOLD DURING THE YEAR, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF EARNING THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE ENCLOSED A NOT E WITH THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30/03/2006 WHEREIN THE AM OUNT SURRENDERED I.E. RS. 6,15,000/- WAS DECLARED AS INCOME AND IT W AS STATED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS OFFERED TO TAX INCONFORMITY WI TH THE STATEMENT GIVEN, TO AVOID THE LITIGATION, TO BUY PEACE AND CO OPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PENALTY U NDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE LEVIED ON THIS INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBST ANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. AT THE MOST, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ADVAN CE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ITS LIABILITY WAS NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BUT THE SAID LIABILITY CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AMOUNT WAS SURR ENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTU ALTHOUGH IT WAS AN ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED AGAINST THE SALE OF SHOPS/FLATS. SO IT CAN BE A GOOD CASE FOR TAXING THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT, BUT NOT SUFFICIENT TO LEVY THE PENALTY UNDE R SECTION 271(1)(C) OF 11 THE ACT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF ACC EPTED THIS FACT THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS AN ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CUSTOMERS AGAINST THE SALE OF SHOPS/ FLATS . WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAIN ED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 11 TH MARCH, 2014). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 11 TH MARCH, 2014. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JAIPUR.