KRISHAN KUMAR BATRA, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 236/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3922 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAL JCIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report
• Section: 37

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE : SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIA L MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 236/JP/2017, 265 TO 267/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2011-12 TO 2014-15 SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR B-11, NEW SABJI MANDI ALWAR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD 2(3) ALWAR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ACOPK 2586 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY :SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI, CA & MS. SHIVANGI SAMDHANI, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL, JCIT- DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/09/2019 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 /11/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THESE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST FOUR SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 3-02-2017, 28 -12-2017, 28-12-2017 AND 22- 01-2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2014-15 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE APPEALS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION OF INR 1,26,121 IN RESPECT OF ADHOC DISALLOWANCE @ 10% OF VARIOUS E XPENSES I.E. CASH DISCOU9NT, WAGES, TRAVELLING, BARDANA, FOOD & BEVER AGES, TELEPHONE, PETROL AND ENTERTAINMENT. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ERROR MADE BY AO IN REFERRING THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTED BY ASSESSEE FOR VAL UATION U/S 142A OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION OF INR 4,05,322/- BEING DIFFERENCE IN VALUE OF HOUSE ASCERTAINED BY T HE ASSISTANT VALUATION OFFICER AND DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ERROR MADE BY AO IN NOT COMPLYING WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE JCIT, ALWAR U/ S 144A WHEREIN WITH RESPECT TO THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER , THE JCIT HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED HIM TO CONSIDER THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 2.1 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESS EE STATED AT BAR THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THE GROUND NOS. 2 & 4 OF THE APPE ALS WHICH ARE COMMON IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE DIS MISSED AS NOT PRESSED FOR WHICH THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION. HENCE, THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. 3 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT VARIOUS EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT, WAGES, TRAVELING EXPENSES, BARDANA EXPENS ES, FOOD & BEVERAGES EXPENSES, TELEPHONE AND PETROL EXPENSES. THE AO HAS MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF ALL THESE EXPENSES. THE DETAILS OF AL L THESE EXPENSES WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ARE AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS ACTUAL EXPENSES DISALLOWED BY AO CASH DISCOUNT 4,86,209 97,242 WAGES 2,08,124 50,000 TRAVELLING EXPENSES 36,496 8,000 BARDANA 13,255 3,000 FOOD & BEVERAGES 27,960 6,000 TELEPHONE EXPENSES 15,805 3,000 PETROL EXPENSES 26,590 3,000 ENTERTAINMENT 35,483 7,000 TOTAL 8,49,922 1,77,242 THUS THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,77,242/- OU T OF THESE EXPENSES OF RS. 8,49,922/-. 3.3 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) GRANTED PART RELIEF I N RESPECT OF CASH DISCOUNT EXPENSES BY REDUCING DISALLOWANCE FROM 20% TO 10% B UT REST OF THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR 3.4 AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE DISALLOWA NCE IN RESPECT OF CASH DISCOUNT AT 10% AS REASONABLE AS AGAINST THE ADHOC DISALLOWA NCE OF 20% MADE BY THE AO. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN CONSISTENT FINDINGS. THE LD.AR HAS THUS PLEAD ED THAT IF THE DISALLOWANCES CAN BE RESTRICTED TO 10% THEN IT WILL BE REASONABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE S UPPORTING EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THESE PETTY EXPENSES AND MAJORITY OF W HICH ARE PETTY EXPENSES. 3.5 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PU RPOSES. THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REASONABLE. 3.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO MADE THE DISA LLOWANCES IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AND THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE REPRO DUCED IN PRECEDING PARA OF THIS ORDER. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN THE BASIS OF MAKING ADH OC DISALLOWANCES OF SPECIFIC AMOUNTS. EVEN THERE WAS NO PERCENTAGE ADOPTED BY TH E AO WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES. HOWEVER, THE DISALLOWANCES ARE ALSO NOT BASED ON THE QUANTUM FOR 5 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR WHICH ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH THE SUPPORTING EVI DENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 8.3 OF HIS ORDER HERE UNDER RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DISCOUNT 8.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IN ORDER TO G ET DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 37 OF THE ACT, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON T HE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE ARE INCURRED OR EXPENDE D WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. THE ONUS TO PROVIDE CREDIBLE EVIDENCES IN THIS REGA RD ALSO LIES ON THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT MOST OF SUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN INCURR ED IN CASH AND NOT ALL BILLS/VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, IT IS JUSTIFIED THAT A PART OF SUCH EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO CASH DISCOUNT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEBTORS FOR EARLY TIMELY PAYMENT IS A TRADE PRA CTICE AS IS ALSO CERTIFIED BY THE MANDI. BUT STILL THE EVIDENCES OF SUCH PAYMENTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN T HE ABSENCE OF ALL SUCH VOUCHERS, AO HAD DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXP ENSES. CONSIDERING THE TRADE PRACTICE, I FIND IT REASONABL E TO RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF C ASH DISCOUNTS. WITH THIS THE CUMULATIVE ADDITION IS ADD ITION IS 6 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR REDUCED TO RS. 1,26,121/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLA NTS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY F INDINGS ON THE QUANTUM OF THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF OTHER EX PENSES, THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCES I.E. QUANTUM VARIES IN CASE OF EACH EXPENSES AND NO REASONABLE O R CONSISTENT BASIS IS ADOPTED BY THE AO. HENCE, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE DISA LLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO ARE REASONABLE AND PROPER WHEN THE EXPENSES ARE NOT FOU ND TO BE ABSOLUTELY FALSE OR BOGUS AND THESE ARE WRITTEN EXPENSES AND SOME OF WH ICH ARE ESSENTIAL FOR DOING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE QUESTIONED ONLY ON THE POINT OF CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM OR INFLATED EXPENSES. WHEN THE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED AS REGULA R EXPENSES WHILE DOING BUSINESS ACTIVITIES BY THE ASSESSEE AND MOST OF TH EM ARE ESSENTIAL TO CARRY OUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES THEN THE REASONABLENESS OF DISA LLOWANCES ARE VERY RELEVANT MATERIAL. ACCORDINGLY, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF ONE OF ITEM OF EXPENSES TO 10% THEN THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF OTHER ITEMS IS ALSO RESTRICTED TO 10%. THUS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 7 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR 4.1 THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE. 4.2 BRIEF FACT OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO NSTRUCTED THE HOUSE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 TO 2013-14 AND CLAIMED TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 30,23,879/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REPORT OF T HE REGISTERED VALUER IN SUPPORT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS SHOWN AT RS. 28,72,212/-. THE AO ASCERTAINED THE CO ST OF CONSTRUCTION BY OBTAINING THE REPORT OF VALUATION FROM THE DVO WHO HAS DETERM INED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 48.00 LACS. THE DETAILS REGARDING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER REGISTERE D VALUER AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER DVO ARE AS UNDER:- YEARS % OF PROGRESS COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER ASSESSEE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER REGISTERED VALUER COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER DVO (CONSIDERED BY AO) F.Y.2009-10 2.80 68,000 71,677 1,34,41 7 F.Y.2010-11 56.58 14,67,622 15,05,226 27,16,179 F.Y.2010-11 SURRENDER 3,00,000 - - F.Y.2011-12 17.47 4,89,240 5,34,178 8,38,665 F.Y.2012-13 14.23 4,21,575 4,83,142 6,83,125 F.Y.2013-14 8.92 2,77,442 2,83,989 4,28,2 14 100.00 30,23,879 28,78,212 48,00,600 8 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THESE FOUR Y EARS OF RS. 20,10,304/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER REGISTERED VALUER AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER DVO. 4.3 ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF PWD RATES AS AGAINST CPWD RATES AND REDUCED THE COST OF CONSTRUC TION TO 20% THEREBY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 7,77, 075/- ON THIS ACCOUNT. FURTHER , THE CREDIT OF RS. 3.00 LACS WAS ALSO GIVEN ON ACCOU NT OF SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 4.4 AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 4.5 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DVO HAS APPLIED THE CPWD RATES AS AGAINST PWD RATES AND FURTHER ON VARIOUS ITEMS OF ELECTRICITY, WATER SUPPLY INSTALLATION AS WELL AS EXTERNAL SERVICE CONNECTION THE DVO HAS ADOPTED THE COST @ 12.5% AS AGAINST 10% . SIMILARLY FOR WATER SUPPLY CONNECTION, THE DVO HAS TAKEN THE COST AT 12% AS AG AINST 3% ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO COST INCURRED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR THE EXTERNAL SERVICE CONNECTION WHEREAS THE DVO HAS TAKEN THE SAME AT 5% . SIMILARLY, THE DVO HAS TAKEN ARCHITECT FEE AT 2% WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE IN THIS RESPECT. THE LD.AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DVO HAS ALLOWED 7.5% DISCOUNT 9 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION WHEREAS THE SAID DIS COUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AT 12% AS HELD BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN VARIOUS DECISION S. THUS THE LD.AR HAS CONTENDED THAT IF THESE RELIEFS ARE GRANTED THEN THE DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND VALUE DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALU ER WILL BE LESS THAN 6% WHICH IS WITHIN THE TOLERANCE LIMIT. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME, THE LD.AR OF THE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE O F SITA RAM KHETAN VS ITO (ITA NO. 826/JP/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-1 1 DATE OF ORDER 27-07- 2016) AND DIVAKAR LEASING & FINANCE PVT. LTD VS ITO (ITA NO.1304/JP/2018 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 DATED OF ORDER 27-03-20 19). 4.6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GRANTED 20% REBATE ON ACCOUNT OF CPWD RATES ADOPTED BY THE DVO WHICH SUBSUMES ALL THE FACTORS OF VARIATION BETWEEN THE V ALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THE LD. DR THUS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4.7 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF CLAIM ED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 30,23,879/- WHEREAS THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS D ETERMINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 28,78,212/- WHICH SHOWS THAT AC TUAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS MORE THAN THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERE D VALUER. HOWEVER, THE LD. 10 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR CIT(A) HAS TAKEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS DETERM INED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AS WELL AS DVO AND REBATE OF 20% WAS GRANTED ON ACC OUNT OF CPWD RATES APPLIED BY THE DVO AS AGAINST PWD RATES APPLIED BY THE REGI STERED VALUER. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE WHEN THE REGISTERED VALUER HAS TAKEN CARE O F ALL THESE FACTORS WHICH INCLUDES VARIOUS EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRIC INSTALLATION, WATER SUPPLY, ARCHITECT FEE AS WELL AS SELF SUPERVISION CHARGES T HEN FURTHER DISCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF THESE FACTORS CANNOT BE ALLOWED PARTICULARLY WHEN A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE MORE THAN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETE RMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THEREFORE, FURTHER RELIEF OF AROUND 8% WAS GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS DETERMINED BY THE REGIS TERED VALUER. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS S USTAINED THE ADDITION ONLY OF RS. 4,05,322/- THEN THESE CLAIMS OF FURTHER REBATE ON ACCOUNT OF ACTUAL EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED THEN COST OF C ONSTRUCTION WOULD BE LESS THAN THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE ACTUAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF ASSESSEE IS MORE THAN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. HENCE, NO FURTHER DISCOUNT OR RE BATE CAN BE GRANTED ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON SPECIFIC ITEMS. THEREFOR E, THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO PECULIAR FACTS OF 11 ITA NO. 236/JP/2017 KISHAN KUMAR VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THE ACTUAL COST OF CONSTRUCT ION IS MORE THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER. THUS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 8.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07 /11/20 19. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 07 /11 / 2019 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI KRISHAN KUMAR, ALWAR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2(3), ALWAR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.236/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR