ITO, Jaipur V. SHRI DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT, Jaipur

ITA 299/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5355 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAY MALLIK
• Assessee Lawyers: WRITTEN SUBMISSION DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 68

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 NO. 299/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR. CUKE VS. DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT, 197, MOTI NAGAR, ROAD NO. 1, QUEENS ROAD, NEAR VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ANVPS 7833 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MALLIK (ADDL. CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/03/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/04/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10/01/2012 OF THE LEARNED C.I.T.(A)-1, JAIPUR FOR A. Y. 2008-09. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN:- 2 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT I) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 50,43,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF THE ASSESSEE. II) DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 13,81,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. HE FILED HIS RETURN ON 30/3/2009 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME O F RS. 1,09,380/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET PROFIT FROM REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AT RS. 2, 43,740/- AND INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AT RS. (-)52,729/- AFTER CLAIMI NG DEDUCTIONS U/S 24(A) AND 24(B) OF THE ACT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICE R OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 54,84,500/- ON VARIOUS DATES IN HI S BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE AND ALSO D EPOSITED RS. 32,100/- IN THE BANK OF BARODA. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BOTH THE BANK ACCOU NTS. ON PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNT, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE CASH OF RS. 8 ,73,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN VARIOUS DATES ON OBC BANK ACCOUNT NO. 09972011016381 OPERATED JOINTLY IN THE NAME OF DASHRATH SINGH AND HIS WIFE SMT. VINOD KANWAR. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER THAT THIS CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF ADVANCE MADE TO AGRICULTUR IST PARTIES AND 3 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT DEBTORS AND ALL THE VILLAGERS HAVE NOT ANY BANK ACC OUNT AND THEY HAVE MADE PAYMENT ON CASH BASIS. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS WAS G IVEN ABOUT THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 09972011017043 OPERATED JOINTLY WIT H HIS SON SHRI BRIJ RAJ SINGH AND SHRI DASHRATH SINGH, THE ASSESSE E HIMSELF IN WHICH CASH OF RS. 44,94,000/- WAS DEPOSITED BY HIM. BEFORE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD JOINED A DIRECTORSHIP WITH A COMPANY I.E. M/S PRASHANDEEP HIL AND BUILDTECH PVT. LTD. JAIPUR AND A JOINT ACCOUNT WAS OPERATED FOR DEP OSIT OF PLOT BOOKING ADVANCE AMOUNT ON BEHALF OF COMPANY AND ALL THE CAS H WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON ASSESSEES PAN ANVPS7833D. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN CHANGED HIS STAND AND CLAIMED THAT HE IS AN OLD MEM BER OF M/S MITRA GRAH NIRMAN SAHKARI SAMITI LTD. AND THE BANK ACCOUN T WAS OPENED IN JOINT NAME AND VARIOUS CASH AND CHEQUE WAS DEPOSITED BY GIVING SELF PAN ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY FOR PROCESSING HOUSING SCHEME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTION, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PAYEES AND IDENTITY OF THE P ERSONS. HOWEVER, HE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM WITH EVIDENCE. THE A SSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES BY ORDERSHEET ENTRY DATED 26/8/2010 FOR VERIFICATION AND ALSO REQUESTED TO FURNISH ITR PARTI CULARS OF CREDITORS BUT NEITHER THESE PARTIES WERE PRODUCED NOR ANY DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE 4 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A STORY TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF UNDISCLOSED CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH WA S NOT DISCLOSED BY HIM AND IDENTIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT THROUGH AIR IN FORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BY RAISING SPECIFIC QUERIES WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED ON PAGE 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CASE WAS FINALLY FIXED FOR 26/11/2010. FINALLY ON 30/11/2010, THE AR FILED REPLY AND SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A RELATIONSHIP MANAGER OF SOCIETY, THEREFORE, SOCIETY IS HAVING SEPARATE ACCOUNT AND AUDITED STATEMENT AND HE COULD NOT PROV IDE THE SAME ACCOUNTS ACCORDING TO REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FINALLY HE HELD THAT MERELY SAYING THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED ON B EHALF OF THE COMPANY OR SOCIETY OR ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER PERSON S WAS NOT SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION ESPECIALLY WHEN HUGE CASH WAS DEPOSITED M ENTIONING HIS PAN. THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS. 4,40,000/- OUT OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, BENEFIT OF RS. 4,40,000/- WAS GI VEN AND REMAINING CASH DEPOSITED AT RS. 50,43,500/- WAS ADDED IN THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS PER RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO DEBTORS AND CASH BALANCE HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 43,071/-. 5 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT WHEREAS THE BALANCE SHEET FILED DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FOLLOWING CASH CREDITORS SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE. S.NO. CASH CREDITORS AMOUNTS 1. VARIOUS CREDITORS RS. 9,50,000/- 2. SMT. NIRMALA VERMA RS. 80,000/- 3. SHRI S.P. VERMA RS. 1,00,000/- 4. SHRI NAVRATAN SINGH RATHORE RS. 51,000/- 5. SMT. MANJU RS. 2,00,000/- TOTAL R S. 13,81,000/- THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID OUTSTANDING HOUSING LOAN OUT OF THIS AMOUNT AND PURCHASED SHARES OF THE COMPANY FOR OBTAINING D IRECTORSHIP. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS; THEREFORE, HE FURT HER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 13,81,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). AF TER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED ON PAGE NO. 2 TO 4 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER AND REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, SHE HELD THAT REGISTRATION OF MITRA GRIH NIRMAL SAHAKARI SAMITI L TD., COPIES OF AGREEMENTS OF PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON BEHA LF OF THE SOCIETY BY 6 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT THE APPELLANT, PROOF OF OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND FOR WHI CH AGREEMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY, LIST OF THE 41 MEMBERS FROM WHOM ADVANCES WERE TAKEN IN LIEU OF SALE OF PLOT S, ALONGWITH THEIR ADDRESSES AND THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM THEM, COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBSEQUENT A.Y. SHOWI NG PAYMENT OF RS. 16 LACS EACH TO CHHATRAPAL, SURESH PAL AND LAXMI NA RAYAN ON 09/12/2010 FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BY SALE AGREEMENT A ND FINALLY THE RECIPIENTS OF THIS MONEY WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A. O. AND THEY HAVE ADMITTED TO HAVING RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS AS PER THE IKRARNAMA FOR SALE OF LAND TO MITRA GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD. A CCORDINGLY, THE LD CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS FOR EXPLAINING CASH DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. IF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ANY DOUBT, HE SHOULD HAVE SUMMON THE DEPOSITORS AND EXAMINE THEM AS WELL. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. ALL THE EVIDENC ES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSTANTIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS WORK ING ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY AND HAD RECEIVED DEPOSITS FROM ITS MEMB ERS AS ADVANCES AGAINST ALLOTMENT OF RESIDENTIAL PLOTS. SUBSEQUENTL Y, PAYMENT TO THE SELLERS OF HIS LAND WAS ALSO MADE FROM THE SAME BAN K ACCOUNT AND THIS HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF IN HIS REMAND REPORT. THUS, SE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,43,500/-. 7 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT SIMILARLY ADDITION OF RS. 13,81,000/- HAS BEEN DEL ETED BY CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSE SSEE RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT THROUGH CHEQUES CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . 7 PARTIES OUT OF 8 HAD PAN, DETAILS OF ADDRESSES OF THE CREDITORS WERE ALSO GIVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COPIES OF THE BANK STATE MENT OF THE CREDITORS WERE FILED. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT BASIC QUESTION ABOUT CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED HIS EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THRICE. NO W BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), HE ARGUED THAT THIS CASH DEPOSITED WAS OUT OF 41 MEMBERS WHO ADVANCED THE MONEY IN LIEU OF SALE OF PLOT, BUT NO CONFIRMATION AND PAN HAS BEEN FILED. THE BASIC ISSUE HAS NOT BEEN DEALT B Y THE LD CIT(A). THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES EVEN NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED . THUS, ONUS DISCHARGED U/S 68 OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN FULLY DIS CHARGED. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT AMOUNT RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE DOES NOT GIVE CERTIFICATE TO 8 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ENTRIES ARE SACROSANCT AS H ELD BY THE VARIOUS COURTS. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 13,81,000/- EVEN THESE CREDIT HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN IN RETURN FILED DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION. THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT REMANDED THIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THEREFORE, IT MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 5. NONE WAS ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF HEARING, BUT FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION. IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT( A). IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN OFFICE BEARER AND MEMBER OF MITRA GRIH NIRMAN SAHAKARI SAMITI LTD.. THE SOCIETY IN IT S MEETING HELD ON 10/09/1999 HAS AUTHORIZED SHRI DASHRATH SINGH SHEKH AWAT (ASSESSEE) AND MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY TO COLLECT THE CASH FROM ITS MEMBERS, TO GIVE RECEIPTS TO THEM, PURCHASE OF LAND, ALLOTMENT OF PL OTS TO THE MEMBERS, TO OPEN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN HIS NAME EITHER PERSONA LLY OR JOINTLY WITH ANY OTHER PERSON AND TO DEPOSIT THE COLLECTED CASH IN THAT BANK ACCOUNT. HENCE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CASH ON BEHALF OF THE C OOPERATIVE SOCIETY AND DEPOSIT SAME IN BANK ACCOUNT INSTEAD OF REOPENI NG CASH WITH HIM, WHICH IS A RISK ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 55,51,000/- 9 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT DURING THE YEAR AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT A MOUNTING TO RS. 55,31,000/-. HENCE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT CASH DEPO SITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGED TO THE SOCIETY AND NOT THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 48 LACS IN DECEMBER, 2010 AND R S. 12,23,900/- IN JUNE, 2011 ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY OUT OF AMOUNT R ECEIVED BY HIM TO THE SELLER OF LAND. HENCE, THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT T HE CASH RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY WAS USED FOR PURPO SE OF THE SOCIETY ONLY. THE LD CIT(A) HAD REMANDED THIS ISSUE TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER FOR HIS OBSERVATION ON THE MATTER OF UTILIZATION OF CAS H DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SOCIETY. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED ALL THE CO-OWNERS OF THE LAND (SE LLERS) SHOWN THAT THE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 01/7/1999 AND 21/6/2011 AND RECORDED THEIR STATEMENT ON 14/7/2011. ALL THE PERSONS HAD ACCEPTE D THAT THEY HAD SOLD THE LAND AND RECEIVED PAYMENT OF RS. 48.00 LAC S IN DECEMBER, 2010 AND RS. 12,23,900/- IN JUNE, 2011. FOR ADDITION OF RS. 13,81,000/-, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONFIRMATION AND PAN HA S BEEN SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSEE HAS DISCH ARGED HIS ONUS ON WHICH THE LD CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE REFORE, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 10 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESS EE EXPLAINED WITHDRAWN OF THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT I.E. PA YMENT MADE TO THE LAND OWNERS BUT NOT CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT. THE MOOT QUESTION REMAINS UNTOUCHED BY THE LD CIT(A). THE LD CIT(A) HAS COTERMINOUS POWER WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE HAS REMANDED THE ISSUE BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS FOR THEIR VERIFICATION. AS SUCH, NO CONFIRMATION WITH PAN HAD BEEN SUBMITTED FOR 41 PERSONS AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE/ALLOTEE OF TH E PLOT. THE ASSESSEE CHANGED HIS STAND BEFORE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER I N EXPLAINING THE CASH ENTRY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. EVEN, IT IS PRESUMED THA T HE HAS WORKED ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY AS OFFICE BEARER BUT THIS AMO UNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SOCIETY NOT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RAJASTHAN GOVERNMENT HAS DECIDED N OT TO ISSUE ANY PATTA AFTER 01/7/1999 TO THE ALLOTEE OF THE PLOT. H OWEVER, THE FACTS ALSO CONTRADICTORY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AUTHORIZED BY TH E SOCIETY FROM 01/7/1999 TO COLLECT MONEY ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY . IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT HE HAS COLLECTED MONEY FROM THE PLOT ALLOTEE FROM 1 999 ONWARD OR IN A.Y. 2008-09. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE REQUIRES TO SET ASIDE AND ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM ALL THE 41 ALLOT TEES OF THE PLOT WITH 11 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT PAN. FURTHER IT IS NOT EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PAN AND CONFIRMATION FOR RS. 13, 81,000/-. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM AS N O PAPER BOOK HAS BEEN FILED WHICH CAN SUPPORT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM TH AT HE HAD FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DETAILS AS PER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE ISSUES ARE SET ASIDE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T HE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROVIDE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR DISPOSAL OF SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/04/2016. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28 TH APRIL, 2015 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT, JAIPUR . 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 12 ITA NO. 299/JP/2012 ITO VS DASHRATH SINGH SHEKHAWAT 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. 299/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR