UDAI KANT MISHRA, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 292/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1813 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Bonafide belief; Wrong claim
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 80G

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 FOT; IKY JKO ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 292/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 UDAI KANT MISHRA, 601, GEETA ENCLAVE, VONOBHA MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACSPM 8470 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI (CA) & SHRI ROHAN SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.P. MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/11/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/12/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 01/01/2016 PASSED BY THE LD CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR FOR A. Y. 2005-06, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. IN LAW, IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE VALIDITY O F THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 CHAL LENGED BEFORE HIM (GROUND NO.1) DESPITE THE AO HAD NOT SPECIFIED THE CHARGE OF INITIATION OF IMPUGNED PENALTY IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD CIT( A) HAVING ACKNOWLEDGED THIS ASPECT AT PARA 3.1.2 OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE PENALTY PROCEEDING AS VOID AB INITIO AND BAD IN LAW. ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 2 2. IN LAW, IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN NOT EXPLICITLY ADJUDICAT ING THE GROUND NO. 2.1 AND 2.2 RAISED BEFORE HIM. THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HA VE INTER ALIA HELD THAT SINCE THE PROVISION OF EXPLANATION 5A IS NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE IMPUGNED LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) RE AD WITH EXPLANATION 5A IS THUS VOID IN SUBSTANCE. THE IMPUGNED PENALTY ORDE R PASSED BY THE AO U/S 271(1)(C) THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 3. IN LAW, IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE IMPUGNED L EVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. HE OUGHT TO HA VE DELETED THE PENALTY. 4. IN LAW, IN THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE DECISION OF DHARM ENDRA TEXTILE (SC) IS NOT A CONCRETE LAW FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSME NT U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN S HORT THE ACT) WAS COMPLETED AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 19,57,430/- BY MAK ING ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXP ENSES AND RS. 21,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DONATION AS INADMISSIBLE BUSINESS EXP ENDITURE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS FAMILY HAS TRAVELLED TO M AURITIUS AND FOR WHICH HE HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,41,000/- AND AS NO REPLY HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIS ALLOWED THE SAID FOREIGN EXPENDITURE. FURTHER, DONATION OF RS. 21,000/- WAS H ELD AS INADMISSIBLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE SE PARATELY INITIATED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS NOTED THAT THE ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 3 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STATED AS TO WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HE HAS BEEN INVOKED WHILE INITIATING THE SAI D PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED ALONGWITH THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER DATED 24/12/2009 ALSO TALKS ABOUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME O R FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS ALSO APPARENT F ROM THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 13/3/2013. FURTHER, ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) A LLOWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 21,000/- AND THE BALANCE FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 1,20,000/- WAS CONFIRMED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEALED AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF DONATIO N EXPENDITURE. IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE MATTER HAS THUS ATTAINED F INALITY IN ABSENCE OF FURTHER APPEAL. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF PENALTY, THERE FORE, IS DISALLOWANCE OF FOREIGN TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE OF RS. 1,20,000/- AN D DONATION OF RS. 21,000/-. 3. IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD AS UNDER: THOUGH, THERE IS NO NEED FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO PROV E MENS REA FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT AS IT BEING ACT ION OF CIVIL NATURE, STILL THE PRESENT CASE CLEARLY PROVING MENS REA OF THE AS SESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONCEALING CORRECT INCOME/FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME BY WAY OF WRONG CLAIMING DEDUCTION OF DONATION U/S 80G A ND CLAIMING TRAVELLING EXPENSES FOR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IN RESP ECT ON MENS REA, STRONG RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBL E SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN THE 306 ITR 277 (SC). UOI VS DHARMENDRA TEXTLIES, 293 ITR ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 4 584 (SC) GULJAG INDUSTRIES LTD. V/S CTO AND 317 ITR 1 (SC). CIT VS ATUL MOHAN BINDAL. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS VIDYAGAURI NATWAR LAI 238 ITR 91(GU J.), WHEREIN THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT THE WORD CONCEALMENT' I NHERENTLY CARRIES WITH IT THE ELEMENT OF MENS-REA AND WHERE THE ASSESSEE K NOWINGLY FURNISHES/ MAKES SUCH FACTS/ CLAIMS IN THE RETURN, THEREFORE, HE CANNOT ESCAPE PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. HENCE IT IS CLEAR-CUT CONCEALMENT OF INCOME & ASSES SEES INTENTION IS CLEAR IN NOT DISCLOSING CORRECT AND TRUE INCOME IN RETURN AND ACCORDINGLY IT IS HELD THAT HE HAS DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE CORRECT AND TRUE INCOME IN RETURN WHICH HE HAS FILED U/S 139. HE IS, THEREFORE, CLEARLY LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) OF THE IT ACT ON THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A)(CENTRAL), JAIPUR. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE MOOT QUESTION IS WHETHER DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLIN G EXPENSES OF FAMILY MEMBERS AND DONATION TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALME NT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR NOT SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING E XPENSES IS CONCERNED , I FIND THAT ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF BOOKING OF THIS EXPENDITURE IN THE ACCOUNTS WAS KNOWING THAT THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS EXPE NDITURE. HOWEVER, HE HAS CLAIMED THE SAME AND THEREFORE, THIS IS A CA SE OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THEREFORE, CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSES SEE WILL BE OF NO HELP AS FACTS OF THE CASES RELIED UPON ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE PRESENT CASE AS ASSESSEE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT PERSONAL EXPENS ES CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, ASSESSEE BOOKED TH E SAME IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER, THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED BY L D CIT(A) WAS NOT ON ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 5 ESTIMATION BUT THE ESTIMATE WAS MADE ONLY TO ASCERTA IN THE QUANTUM OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF FAMILY THEREFORE, PENALTY LEVIED ON DISALLOWANCE OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF FAMILY MEMBERS IS CONFIRM ED. SO FAR PENALTY IN RESPECT OF DONATION IS CONCERNED I FIND THAT THIS IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE' S CLAIM THAT THE SAME WAS INADVERTENTLY CLAIMED IN THE P & L A/C APPE ARS TO BE BONAFIDE MORE PARTICULARLY WHEN ASSESSEE HAS NOT ANY APPEAL A GAINST THE SAME. THEREFORE, PENALTY LEVIED ON RS. 21,000/- IS DELETED . 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD AR SUBMITTE D THAT IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT SPECIFIED WHICH LIMB OF SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT IS BEING INVOKED FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF PENALTY. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY ISSUED A PRE-PRINT ED NOTICE WITHOUT STRIKING OFF UNNECESSARY PORTIONS OF THE NOTICE AND THE SAID EXERCISE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOWS THAT THE INITIATION OF PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS INITIATING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OF PROVING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF EITHER CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, AND IT IS, THEREFORE, IMPERATIVE THAT THE AUTHORITIES LEVYING THE PENALTY SHOULD BE FULLY SATISFIED AFTER PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FO R INITIATION OF PENALTY. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE KARNATAKA HIGH ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 6 COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FA CTORY (2013) 359 ITR 565 (KAR.), GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F JYOTI LTD. (2013) 34 TAXMANN.COM 65 (GUJ), BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY ITA NO. 1154, 953, 1097, 1226 OF 2014 OR DER DATED 05/01/2017 AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF HONBLE KARNA TAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (2016) 73 TAXMANN. COM 241 (KAR.), AGAINST WHICH THE SLP HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE JAIPUR BEN CH OF ITAT HAS ALSO BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING A SIMILAR VIEW AS IN THE CA SE OF MRS. MRADULA AGARWAL VS ITO IN ITA NO. 176/JP/2016 AND RADHA MOHAN MAHESHWARI VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 773/JP/2013. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMI TTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE DISTINC TLY APPLIED IN ASSESSMENT RELATING TO SEARCH AND OTHER REGULAR ASS ESSMENT AND THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH CO URT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) SQUAREL Y APPLIES TO CASES WHEREIN EXPLANATION (5)/(5A) OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IS INVOKED. IN SUPPORT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF THE ITAT HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY TAKING POSITION THAT EVEN IN CASE WHERE SEARCHES HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNAT AKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) HAS BEEN FOLLOWED AS IT CLEAR IN CASE OF SHANKAR LAL CHANDELWAL VS DCI T IN ITA NO. ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 7 878/JP/2013, SHYAM SUNDER DHANUKA IN ITA NO. 1869- 1870/KOL/2013 AND OTHERS. 6. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UND ER A BONAFIDE BELIEF THAT FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES WERE ALLOWABLE F OR TAX PURPOSES AS THE SAME WERE INCURRED TO PROMOTE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSE S HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED, THE SAME DOESNT IPSO FACTO RESULTS INTO LEVY OF PENALTY AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS 322 ITR 158. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, REGARDING THE PRELIM INARY PLEA OF THE LD AR THAT IN ABSENCE OF A SPECIFIC CHARGE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE IN THE PENALTY NOTICE, CONSEQUENT LEVY OF PENALTY BY THE AO IS ILL EGAL AND BAD IN LAW, WE REFER TO THE PENALTY NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 WHICH TALKS ABOUT ASSESSEE CONCEAL ING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. THE NOTICE DOESNT SPECIFY THE EXACT CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER IT RELATES TO CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 8 INCOME. IT IS A SETTLED POSITION IN LAW THAT THE IM POSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS INVITED WHEN THE CONDITIO NS SPECIFIED THEREIN ARE SATISFIED AND FURTHER, THE TWO EXPRESSIONS CONC EALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS O F INCOME DENOTE DIFFERENT CONNOTATIONS. IT IS THEREFORE IMPERATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE BE MADE AWARE AS TO WHICH OF THE TWO CHARGES, HE IS REQU IRED TO SUBMIT HIS DEFENCE AND SUPPORTIVE ARGUMENTS. IN THE INSTANT C ASE, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THE NOTICE TALKS ABOUT BOTH THE CHARGES AND IT DOESNT CONVEY TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHICH CHARGE HE HAS TO RESPOND. TH E NOTICE THUS DEMONSTRATE NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO. FURTHER, WE REFER TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE, AFTER DISCUSSIN G THE ISSUE RELATING TO DISALLOWANCES OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENDITURE AND THE DONATION, THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS INITIATED SEPARATELY. THIS THUS SHOWS THAT THE AO HIMSELF IS UNSURE ABOUT THE CHARGE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. CONSIDERING THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALON GSIDE HIS ACTION OF NON-STRIKING OFF THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE PENAL TY NOTICE SHOWS THAT THE CHARGE BEING MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE QUA 271(1)(C ) IS NOT FIRM, SHOWS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE PART OF THE AO, AND THE VAGUENESS AND AMBIGUITY IN THE NOTICE HAS THUS PREJUDICED THE RIG HT OF REASONABLE ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 9 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS THE ASSES SEE IS NOT MADE AWARE AS TO WHICH OF THE TWO CHARGES, HE HAS TO SUBMIT HIS DEFENCE. 9. HERE, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF DILIP N SHROFF REPORTED IN 161 TAXMAN 218 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 83. IT IS OF SOME SIGNIFICANCE THAT IN THE STANDAR D PROFORMA USED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ISSUING A NOTICE DESPITE T HE FACT THAT THE SAME POSTULATES THAT INAPPROPRIATE WORDS AND PARAGRA PHS WERE TO BE DELETED, BUT THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN DONE. THUS, TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF WAS NOT SURE AS TO WHETHER HE HAD PRO CEEDED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED HIS INCOME OR HE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. EVEN BEFORE US, T HE LEARNED ADDITIONAL SOLICITOR GENERAL WHILE PLACING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT LAID EMPHASIS THAT HE HAD DEALT WITH BOTH THE SITUAT IONS. 84. THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREFORE, SUFFERS FROM NON -APPLICATION OF MIND. IT WAS ALSO BOUND TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. [SEE MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. V. CIT [20 00] 2 SCC 718]. 10. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR PROPOSITION HAS BEEN LAI D DOWN BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MANJUNATHA COTTON A ND GINNING FACTORY (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN CASE OF SSA EMERAL D MEADOWS (SUPRA) AND THE SLP AGAINST THE LATTER DECISION HAS SINCE B EEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. FURTHER, WE NOTE THAT THE HO NBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY (IN ITA NO. 1154 AND OTHERS ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 10 DATED 5.01.2017) AND KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN ITS LATEST DECISION IN CASE OF S. CHANDRASHEKHAR (SUPRA) HAS REAFFIRMED TH E SAID LEGAL PROPOSITION. 11. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE LEGAL AUTHORITIES WHERE THE FA CTUM OF NON-STRIKING OFF OF THE IRRELEVANT CLAUSE IN THE NOTICE HAS BEEN HELD AS REFLECTIVE OF NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE AO AND IN LIGHT OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE PEN ALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 12. AS WE HAVE ACCEPTED THE ABOVE PRELIMINARY PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PENALTY HAS BEEN DELETED ON THIS COUNT ITSE LF, WE DONT THINK IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO EXAMINE OTHER CONTENTIONS RAISE D BY THE LD AR AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT BEING DEALT WITH. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/12/2017. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22 ND DECEMBER, 2017 * RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI UDAI KANT MISHRA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT ITA 292/JP/2016_ UDAI KANT MISHRA VS ACIT 11 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. 292/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR