ITO (TDS-2), Jaipur V. CHANDMAL SANCHETI, Jaipur

ITA 25/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2133 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L CHANDEL
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK

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 HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 25 & 26/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 & 2012-13 INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS-2), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. CHANDMAL SANCHETI, PORP.- M/S HINDUSTAN SALES CORPORATION, 144-B, SAKET COLONY, VIJAY BARI, PATH NO. 7, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/TAN NO.: JPRC 02319 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI S.L. CHANDEL (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 31/07/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/08/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FRO M THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, JAIPUR DATED 28/10/201 6 FOR THE A.YS. 2011- 12 & 2012-13, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN COMMON E FFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM IN RESPECT OF DECLARATION IN FORM 27C ITA 25 & 26/JP/2017_ ITO (TDS-2) VS CHANDMAL SANCHETI 2 WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF PU RCHASE OF GOODS BY BUYER AND COPY OF DECLARATION SHOULD BE DEPOSITED BY RESPONSIBLE PERSON WITH COMPETENT AUTH ORITY ON THE SPECIFIED DATE AS REQUIRED BY RULE 37C AND T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH SUCH LEGAL REQUIREME NT. II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT BY GIVING SPECIFIC DIRECTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEMAND RAISED U/S 206C(7) F OR CHARGING INTEREST VIOLATES THE PROVISION OF SECTION 206C(7) OF THE ACT. 2. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE BEING HEARIN G TOGETHER, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTORED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE HON BLE ITAT BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ORDER U/S 206C(6A)/ 206C(7) AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE F IRST CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1(A) IS REGARDING SHIP-BREAKING SCRAP BEING SOLD BY THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP. THIS GROUND IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN HIS OWN CASE VIDE ORDER DATED 16-08-2016 IN ITA NOS. 344 & 345/JP/2015 FOR A.YS2008-09 AND 2009-10. THE RELEVA NT PORTION OF THE SAID ORDER IS AS UNDER: FURTHER THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP IF READ IN CONJUNC TION WITH SUB- SECTION (1A) OF SECTION 206C, IT CLEARLY SUGGESTS T HAT THE SCRAP IS ONLY INDICATIVE OF NATURE OF GOODS AND IT IS NOT IN DICATIVE OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE TCS IS REQUIRED TO BE COLLECTE D. THE ITA 25 & 26/JP/2017_ ITO (TDS-2) VS CHANDMAL SANCHETI 3 DEFINITION OF SCRAP IN VIEW OF THE BENCH, DOES NOT SUGGEST THAT THE SCRAP SHOULD BE GENERATED BY THE SELLER HIMSELF. TH E ONLY CONDITION OF THE SCRAP IS THAT THE SCRAP SHOULD BE WASTE AND SCRAP FROM THE MANUFACTURING OR MECHANICAL WORKING OF MATERIAL, WH ICH IS DEFINITELY NOT USABLE AS SUCH ON ACCOUNT OF BREAKAG E, CUTTING UP, WEAR AND OTHER REASONS. IN OUR OPINION, THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE AS THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER AND DEALING IN THE SCRAP GENERATED FROM THE MECHANICAL WORKING OF THE MATERIAL (BREAKING OF THE SHIP). FUR THER IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT SUCH MECHANICAL WORKING (BREAKING OF THE SHIP) SHOULD BE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 206C OF THE ACT ON THE SALE OF SCRAP. IN FACT, THE ADMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE IS THE BEST EVIDENCE TO ADMIT THE LIABILITY. THE ASSESSEE HIMSE LF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN THE SCRAP GENERATED FROM THE BREAKING OF THE SHIP AND HAD PURCHASED THE SCARP. T HE CONTENTION OF THE ID AR THAT SINCE THE IRON SCRAP LIKE STEEL, INGOTS, IRON ETC. IS BEING USED BY THE INDUSTRIES WITHOUT ANY CHANGE, IS NOT CORRECT AS THE NATURE OF GOODS SHALL REMAIN SAME, THEREFORE, I T COMES UNDER THE DEFINITION OF THE SCRAP. IN OUR VIEW, THE MATER IAL SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE USED AS SUCH WITHOUT ANY MODIFIC ATION BY THE BUYER OF THE SAID SCRAP. AS THE SAID MATERIAL/GOODS COME FROM THE BREAKING OF THE SHIP, THESE GOODS WERE SOLD TO THE MANUFACTURER/REROLLING MILLS, AS SCRAP THEREFORE, T HE GOODS (SCRAP) SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT USABLE AS SUCH AND TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TCS FROM THE BUYER, IN VIEW THEREOF, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS DECIDED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 3.4 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT, JAIPU R BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS HELD THAT SHIP-BREAKING SCRAP SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SCR AP AS PER EXPLANATION TO SEC.206C. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS TH US DISMISSED. 3.5 THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH ALSO C OVERS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS RAISED IN GROUND NO. 1(C) THAT APART FROM THE SHIP-BREAKING SCRAP, THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO SOLD ITA 25 & 26/JP/2017_ ITO (TDS-2) VS CHANDMAL SANCHETI 4 VARIOUS OTHER MATERIAL SUCH AS MS BAR, CHANNEL, M.S . INGOT, PIG IRON, SILICON MANGANESE, OLD AND USED PLATES ETC. W HICH ARE USABLE AS SUCH AND HENCE DO NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFI NITION OF SCRAP. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT SALE OF PLATES TO CERTAIN PARTIES ACCORDINGLY WOULD NOT FALL UNDER SCRAP AN D HENCE ACCORDINGLY THE RELATABLE INTEREST OF RS. 43,783 CH ARGED U/S 206C(7) SHOULD BE DELETED. IN THIS REGARD, THE ITAT HAS GIVEN ITS FINDING( SUPRA) THAT THE MATERIAL SOLD BY THE ASSES SEE CANNOT BE USED AS SUCH WITHOUT ANY MODIFICATION BY THE BUYER OF THE SAID SCRAP AND WOULD HENCE FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF SCRAP THEREBY ATTRACTING TCS. SINCE PLATES ARE PART OF SHIP-BRE AKING SCRAP PURCHASED AND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, THESE WOULD BE COVERED UNDER SCRAP. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS T HEREFORE NOT ACCEPTABLE. GROUND 1(C) IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 4. GROUND 1(B) IS AGAINST DEMAND U/S 206C(6A)/206C( 7) RAISED BY THE AO DUE TO NON-FURNISHING OF FORM NO. 27C WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SH IP- BREAKING SCRAP IS SOLD TO MANUFACTURERS WHO HAVE GIVEN DECLA RATION IN FORM NO. 27C, EVEN THOUGH IN THE COURSE OF TDS PROC EEDINGS, AND HENCE THERE SHOULD BE LIABILITY U/S 206C(6A)/20 6C(7). IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED DECISION OF ITAT, J AIPUR BENCH (SUPRA) IN HIS OWN CASE, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD T HAT EVEN WHERE FORM NO. 27C IS FILED BELATEDLY, THE BENEFIT OF SUCH DECLARATION SHOULD NOT BE DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID DECISION IS QUOTED BELOW: THE PROVISION OF SUB SECTION (IA) OF SECTION 206C, IN OUR VIEW, DO NOT PROVIDE THE CONSEQUENCES OF THE DELAYED FILING OF THE DECLARATION. THOUGH, IT PROVIDES THAT IT IS TO BE F ILED ON OR BEFORE THE 7 TH DAY OF THE NEXT FOLLOWING MONTH IN WHICH DECLARATI ON IS FURNISHED TO HIM. THEREFORE, THOUGH THERE IS DELAY IN ISSUING THE ITA 25 & 26/JP/2017_ ITO (TDS-2) VS CHANDMAL SANCHETI 5 DECLARATION BY THE BUYER, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PE NALIZED OR DEPRIVED FROM THE BENEFIT OF THE DECLARATION GIVEN BY THE BUYER. THE ONLY DUTY CAST UPON THE SELLER TO SUBMIT DECLAR ATION IN THE FOLLOWING MONTH IN WHICH THE DECLARATION RECEIVED. NO TIME LIMIT HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE ON THE BUYER TO SUBMIT THE DECLARATION IN FORM 27. IN VIEW THEREOF THE GROUND IS REQUIRED TO BE ALLOWED. IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE DEEM IT APPRO PRIATE TO REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO VERIFY WHETHER THE DECLARATION HAS BEE N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REQUISITE FORM AND WHAT WILL THE EF FECT OF FILING OF THIS DECLARATION ON THE CALCULATION OF THE TCS U/S. 206 OF THE ACT. IT IS, HOWEVER, AGAIN CLARIFIED THAT THE DELAY IN F ILING THE DECLARATION SHALL NOT BE A GROUND TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF THE DECLARATION TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES ONLY 4.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT IN TH E ASSESSEES OWN CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY WHETHER DECL ARATIONS IN FORM 27C AS MANDATED BY SEC. 206C(1A), HAVE BEEN FI LED IN THE REQUISITE FORM AND TO GIVE CREDIT THEREOF IF SO FIL ED AND THEREBY RECOMPUTE THE LIABILITY U/S 206C(6A) AND 206C(7). 5. GROUND NO. 1(D) IS AGAINST CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT IN VIEW OF CERTIFICATES FILED IN FORM 27BA AS PER PROV ISO TO SEC. 206C(6A) STATING THAT THE BUYER HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE AMOUNT OF PURCHASE PR ICE OF GOODS FOR COMPUTING HIS INCOME AND HAS PAID TAXES THEREON . IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED SUCH CERTIFICATES AND HAS NOT CREATED LIABILITY U/S 206C (6A) IN RESPECT OF ALL PARTIES WHEREIN THE SAID CERTIFICATES WERE G IVEN, EXCEPT IN ONE CASE VIZ. SHARMA STEEL ROLLING MILLS. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAID CASE AND TO DELETE THE LIABILITY U/ S 206C(6A) IN RESPECT OF THIS PARTY IF CERTIFICATE IN FORM NO. 27 BA HAS BEEN ITA 25 & 26/JP/2017_ ITO (TDS-2) VS CHANDMAL SANCHETI 6 FURNISHED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISO TO SEC. 206C(6 A). SUBJECT TO THE VERIFICATION, THIS GROUND IS TREATED AS PART LY ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO. 1(E) IS AGAINST INTEREST DEMAND RAISED U/S 206C(7) IN RESPECT OF NON-DEDUCTION OF TCS OF THOSE PARTIES WH ICH HAVE PAID DUE TAXES BY CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF PURCHAS E IN COMPUTING THEIR INCOME. 6.1 THE AO HAS CHARGED INTEREST U/S 206C(7) IN RESP ECT OF THOSE CASES IN WHICH FORM NO. 27BA WAS FURNISHED IN ACCOR DANCE WITH PROVISO TO SEC. 206C(6A). THIS INTEREST HAS BEEN CH ARGED FROM THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH TAX WAS COLLECTIBLE TO THE D ATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY SUCH BUYER IN ACC ORDANCE WITH PROVISO TO SEC. 206C(7). THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDE D THAT MOST OF THE BUYERS OF THE SCRAP HAVE PAID ADVANCE TAX/ T DS WHICH IS MORE THAN THE TAX DUE AS PER THEIR RETURN OF INCOME , THUS IN SUCH CASES THERE IS NO LOSS TO REVENUE ON ACCOUNT O F NON- DEDUCTION OF TCS. IT IS THUS CONTENDED THAT NO INTE REST U/S 206C(7) SHOULD BE CHARGED IN SUCH CASES. THE INTERE ST CHARGED IN SUCH CASES IS QUANTIFIED AT RS. 87,256 BY THE AP PELLANT. 6.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT. IN THE ORDER DATED 16-08-2016 IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE(SUPRA), IT AT, JAIPUR BENCH HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: THE HON'BLE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR A. Y 2008-09 & 2009-10 ALSO DIRECTED THE AO TO LEVY THE INTEREST A FTER CONSIDERING THE ADVANCE TAX PAID BY HOLDING AS UNDE R:- WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSEE IS DUTY BOUND TO COLLECT THE TCS FROM THE BUYERS IN TERMS OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE COLL ECTION OF TCS AND DEPOSIT OF THE TCS IS ONLY EXEMPTED IN RESPECT OF THE CASES ITA 25 & 26/JP/2017_ ITO (TDS-2) VS CHANDMAL SANCHETI 7 WHERE THE DECLARATION IS BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN VIEW OF SUB-SECTION (I A) OF SECTION 206C OF THE ACT. IN VI EW THEREOF THE REVENUE IS ONLY ENTITLED TO THE RECOVERY OF THE INT EREST ON THE UNPAID TAX AMOUNT/DEPOSIT/SHORT TAX DEPOSITED BY TH E BUYER. IF THE TAXES DEPOSITED BY THE BUYER IS FAIR AND MORE T HAN THE TAX REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN IN THA T EVENTUALITY, NO INTEREST IS PAYABLE. HOWEVER, IF TH E TAX DEPOSITED BY THE BUYER WAS FOUND TO BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT T O BE DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN THE ASSESSEE IS LIAB LE TO PAY THE INTEREST UP TO THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURNS WERE BEEN FILED BY SUCH BUYERS. SINCE THE DECLARATION IS REQUIRED TO B E SUBMITTED IN TERMS OF RULE 37 READ WITH FORM 27, THEREFORE, IF T HE TAX IS NOT DEPOSITED UP TO THE DATE WHEN THE TCS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED THEN THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY THE INT EREST, FOR EXAMPLE IF THE TCS IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AND P AID AND THE DUE DATE AS PER RULE 37 WAS 30TH JULY OF THE YEAR 2 008 AND THE ADVANCE TAX WAS DEPOSITED ON 01/2/2009, THEN THE AS SESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD 01/8/2008 UP TO THE DATE OF DEPOSIT OF THE ADVANCE TAX. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABO VE OBSERVATION, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO REMANDED BACK TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO (I) TO VERIFY A S TO THE DATE WHEN THE TCS WAS DUE BY THE SELLER/ASSESSEE, (II) T HE DATE ON WHICH THE ADVANCE TAX WAS PAID/DEPOSITED BY THE BUY ER, (III) IN CASE THE ADVANCE TAX IS DEPOSITED PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE OF TCS, THEN NO INTEREST SHALL BE CHARGED. HOWEVER, IF THE ADVANCE PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE THEN THE INTEREST SHALL BE CHARG ED FOR THE INTERMEDIARY PERIOD THE ID ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIR ECTED TO VERIFY ALL THESE FACTS IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS. IN VIEW THEREOF THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ALSO ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 6.3 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT, JAIPUR BE NCH IN APPELLANTS OWN CASE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY SUCH CASES WHERE CERTIFICATES AS PER PROVISO TO 206C(6A) ARE F URNISHED AND IF IN SUCH CASES THE ADVANCE TAX DEPOSITED BY THE B UYER IS MORE THAN THE TAX REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSE E THEN IN THAT CASE NO INTEREST U/S 206C(7) SHOULD BE CHARGED . HOWEVER, IF TAX DEPOSITED BY THE BUYER IS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT TO BE ITA 25 & 26/JP/2017_ ITO (TDS-2) VS CHANDMAL SANCHETI 8 DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE ASSESSEE IS LIA BLE TO PAY INTEREST UP TO THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE BUYERS. IN SUCH CASES, THE AO MAY VERIFY THE DA TE WHEN TCS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DATE ON WHICH ADVA NCE TAX WAS PAID BY THE BUYER. IN CASE THE ADVANCE TAX IS D EPOSITED PRIOR TO THE DUE DATE OF TCS, THEN NO INTEREST SHAL L BE CHARGED. HOWEVER, IF ADVANCE TAX IS PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE OF TCS, THEN INTEREST SHALL BE CHARGED FOR THE INTERMEDIARY PERI OD AS ILLUSTRATED IN THE ORDER OF THE ITAT(SUPRA). 4. THE LD SR. DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT THE RULES FRAMED UNDER THE ACT ARE S TATUTORY AND ARE BEING AND NON-FURNISHING OF THE DECLARATION WITHIN T HE TIME GRANTED BY THE RULES WILL DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BENEF IT OF THE DECLARATION. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10, THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR HAVE DECIDED TH E ISSUES UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES O NLY. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT BOTH THESE CASES MAY ALSO BE RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE EA RLIER ORDER PASSED BY THE ITAT IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE A.YS. 2008-09 AND 2009- 10 (SUPRA), I FIND NO ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL WHATEVER REPORTED BY THE LD. ITA 25 & 26/JP/2017_ ITO (TDS-2) VS CHANDMAL SANCHETI 9 CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER, THEREFORE IN ABSENCE OF ANY MAT ERIAL AGAINST THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), I HAVE NO ALTERNATE BUT T O CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEALS ARE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/08/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02 ND AUGUST, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, TDS-2, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI CHANDMAL SANCHETI, JAIPUR. 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. 25 & 26/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR