RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 300/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2045 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S K GOGRA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 133(6); 148

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, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 300/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT 97-A, GOYAL FARM, SUNDER VIHAR, KALWAR ROAD, JHOTWARA, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AWCPS 9261K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. K. GOGRA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/12/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/02/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 19.01.2016 OF CIT(A), JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL HOWEVER, ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AN D ALL OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SUBMISSIONS/ CONTENTIONS IN SUPPORT OF GROUND ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 2 NO. 1 ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY ONLY GRO UND NO. 1 IS PRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1. THAT LD. AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION IN NET PROFIT BY GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS. 24,96.557/- AS PER FORM 26AS (TDS) RECONCILIATION STATEMENT) GROSS WORK PAYMENT AS SHOWN IN TDS CERTI FICATE DT. 22.09.2009 ISSUED BY SHRI BHAWANI NIKEAN SHIKSHA SA MITI, SIKAR ROAD, JAIPUR IS OF RS. 5,19,09,588/- WHEREAS THE P AYMENT AS SHOWN IN FORM 26AS IS OF RS. 5,44,06,145/-, THUS THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 24,96,557/- WHICH IS FULLY ADDED INTO TOTAL INC OME OF APPELLANT WITHOUT GIVING DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES THEREOF. AND F URTHER ORDER OF LD (CIT(A) AS CONFIRMING THE SAME IS ALSO ERRONEOUS WHICH MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 02.09.2009 DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 22,91,734/- . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 15.05.2013. IN RES PONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE RETURN FILED ON 02.09.2009 MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NG THE AO NOTED THAT AS PER THE DETAILS APPEARING IN 26AS OF CONTRACT RE CEIPTS THE TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE SHOWN AT RS.5,44,06,14 5/- AS AGAINST RS. 5,19,09,588/- DECLARED IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONTRACT RECEIPTS APPEARING IN 26AS OF RS. 24,96,557/- WAS PROPOSED T O BE ADDED TO THE ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 3 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT AS PER FORM NO. 16A ISSUED BY SHRI BHAWANI NIKETAN SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS ARE SHOWN AT RS. 5,19,09,588/- A ND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AS GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN THE AUDITE D TRADING ACCOUNT. SUBSEQUENTLY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 24,96,557/- WAS ADDE D BY SHRI BHAWANI SINGH SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR THROUGH A TDS RETURN AND DUE TO THIS TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN 26AS ARE APPEARING AT RS. 5,44 ,06,145/-. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH SUBMITTED THAT INSTEAD OF ADDING ENTIRE AMOU NT OF RS. 24,96,557/- AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4,46,909/- BEING NET PROFIT RATE O F 9.89% MAY BE ADDED TO THE RETURN INCOME. THUS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS IT WAS STAT ED IN FORM 16A ISSUED BY SHRI BHAWANI NIKETAN SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR HOWEVER , THE SAID SHIKSHA SAMITI SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED A SUM OF RS. 24,96,557/-. THEREFORE, A TOTAL TDS RETURN AND DUE TO THIS ADDITION THE DIFFERENCE OF THE SAID AMOUNT AS APPEARING IN THE 26AS AND THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO THE ADDITION OF NET PROFIT RATE 9.89% ON THE SAID DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE A O ALSO RECEIVED INFORMATION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT FROM DETECTEE SHR I BHAWANI NIKETAN SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT T HE PAYMENT OF RS. 24,96,557/- WAS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT WORK. THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE AN D IN RESPONSE THE ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 4 ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 24,96,557 /- WAS BOOK ADJUSTMENT ENTRY MADE BY THE DEDUCTEE WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NO T BOOKED THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE HENCE, ONLY NET PROFIT RA TE MAY BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 24,96,557/-. ON APPEAL, TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED ITS CONTENTION AND SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR SUBMISSIONS OF REMAND REPORT. THE REMAND PROCEE DINGS THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE STAND THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 24,96,557 /- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF BOOK ADJUSTMENT OF THE EXPENSES AND DEDUCTIONS MADE BY THE DEDUCTEE. THE ASSESSEE GAVE THE DETAILS OF SALES TAX DEDUCTED BY THE DEDUCTEE OF RS. 8,15,095/-, INTEREST EXPENSES CHARGE OF RS. 8,37,5 69/- AND DIRECT PURCHASE OF MATERIAL BY THE DEDUCTEE OF RS. 8,43,89 3/- TOTAL OF THREE ITEMS MATCHING WITH THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 24,96,557/-. TH E ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE EXPENSES ARE LEGITIMATE BU SINESS EXPENSES WHICH COULD NOT BE CHARGED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DUE TO BOOK ADJUSTMENT. HENCE, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT NEITHER THE RECEIPT EN TRY OF THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WAS CREDITED NOR THE EXPENSES ADJUSTED AGAIN ST THIS RECEIVED ENTRY ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 5 OF RS. 24,96,557/- WERE DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AND FOUND THAT TH E CLAIM AND EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONTRARY TO THE STAN D TAKEN BEFORE THE AO AS WELL AS IT IS NOT CORRECT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS AL READY CLAIMED ALL THESE EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 3. BEFORE TRIBUNAL, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REIT ERATED ITS CONTENTION THAT THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND AT THE MOST PROFIT ELEMENT IN THE GROS S CONTRACT RECEIPTS CAN BE ADDED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIE D UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- SHRI HAMID KHAN VS. ITO 158 TTJ 0039 CIT VS. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES 258 ITR 654 RAM KISHAN VS. ITO & VICE VERSA 2016-72(II)-ITCL- 188 PLACING RELIANCE ON THESE DECISIONS IT WAS CONTENDE D THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE FOUND OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE PAYMENT ON A CCOUNT OF EXPENSES MAY ALSO BE OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ONLY THE NET PROFIT RATE ON THE UNACCOUNTED SALE CAN BE ADDED TO THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT OF SALES BY ITSELF CANNOT REPRESENT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN IF THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOT DISCLOSED. THE SALES REPRESENT ONLY THE PRICE ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 6 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURR ED FOR ACQUISITION OF THE GOODS SOLD HAS TO BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, EVEN I F THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS ARE NOT DISCLOSED ONLY NET PROFIT IN THESE UNDISCLO SED RECEIPTS CAN BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS REFERRED TO THE FI NDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS DUE TO THE BOOKS ADJUSTMENT MADE BY SHRI BHAWANI NIKET AN SHIKSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECT PURCHASE, INTEREST DEDU CTION AND SALES TAX DEDUCTION THEREFORE, AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE IS N O INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THIS DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT WHEN THE EQUAL AMOUNT ALLO WED AS AN EXPENDITURE AGAINST THE SAID RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, IT WAS FOUND T HAT ALL THESE EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN TOOK IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. HE HAS R ELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN T HE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 5,19,09,588/- WHEREAS AS PER FORM 26AS THE CON TRACT RECEIPTS APPEARING AT RS.5,44,06,145/- WHEN THIS DISCREPANC Y OF RS. 24,96,557/- OF CONTRACT RECEIPT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, ONLY THE NET PROFIT ON THESE DIFFERENTIA L AMOUNT OF CONTRACT ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 7 RECEIPTS CAN BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 2 4,96,557/- IS DUE TO BOOK ADJUSTMENT ENTRY MADE BY THE DEDUCTEE. THE REL EVANT PART OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 3.1 AS UNDER:- 3.1 SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT 1. THAT THE APPELLANT IS A WORKS CONTRACTOR AND HAS UNDERTAKEN THE CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK OF BUILDING OF SHRI BHAWANI NIKETAN SIKHSHA SAMITI, JAIPUR. DURING THE SAID YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS CARRIED OUT WORK OF 5,44,06,145/- WHICH IS SHOWN IN FORM 26AS W HEREAS TDS CERTIFICATE DT. 22.09.2009 AS ISSUED BY AWARDER GRO SS AMOUNT OF PAYMENT WAS SHOWN FOR RS. 5.19,09,588/-, COPY OF SA ID CERTIFICATE WAS SUBMITTED TO LD AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THUS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 24,96,557/- WAS ARISEN WHICH IS O N ACCOUNT OF BOOK ADJUSTMENT OF FOLLOWING EXPENSES & DEDUCTIONS MADE BY AWARDER:- (A) SALES TAX (WCT) DEDUCTED BY AWARDER 8,15,095 .00 (B) INTEREST EXPENSES CHARGES BY AWARDER 8,37,56 9.00 (C) DIRECT PURCHASE OF MATERIAL BY AWARDER 8,43, 893.00 (ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACTOR ASSESSEE) ----------- ----------- TOTAL 24,96,557/- THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF THE CONTENTION WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR THE REMAND REPOR T. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT THE LD. CIT(A) ADJUDICATED THE IS SUE IN PARAS (X) TO (XV) AS UNDER:- ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 8 (X) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. NOW THE APPELLANT CHANGED ITS STAND. DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDING, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE AO THAT IT IS B OOKING ITS EXPENSES ON RECEIPT OF THE PAYMENTS AND IT OFFERED TO INCLUDE 4.61 % OF RS. 24,96,557/- AS ITS INCOME. WHEREAS, NOW TH E APPELLATE HAS PROVIDED THE COMPLETE BREAK-UP OF RS.24,96,577/-. I T IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE APPELLANT CAN HAVE DIFFERENT STA NDS ESPECIALLY LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT IT IS MAINTAINING ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE AUDITED BY AN AUDITOR. (XI) IT IS NOTED FROM THE COPY OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES DIRECT PAYMENT TO SUPPLIERS' LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE APPEAL THAT TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 92,77,65 2/- WERE DEBITED INTO SAID ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDES AMOUNT OF RS. 4,24,000/- AND RS. 4,16,000/- DEBITED ON 01.10.2008 AND 3.11.2008 RESP ECTIVELY AND THIS EXPENDITURE OF RS. 92,77,652/- IS A PART OF TO TAL PURCHASE OF RS. 2,96,16,898/- OF THE APPELLANT DEBITED TO ITS PROFI T AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE CLAIMED TO BE MADE BY THE AWARDER TO THE SUPPLIER I .E. M/S BINANI CEMENT. THIS MEANS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY C LAIMED THE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECT PURCHASE OF THE MA TERIAL AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,40,000/- (4,24,000 + 4,16,000) I N ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WAS TRYING TO MISLEAD THE APPELLATE AU THORITY BY STATING THAT IT HAS NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENSES ON ACC OUNT OF DIRECT PURCHASE BY THE AWARDER I.E. SHRI BHAWANI NIKETAN S HIKSHA SAMITI. (XII) IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE FROM THE COPY OF LE DGER ACCOUNT OF WORKS CONTRACTS RECEIPT FILED BY THE APPELLATE WI TH ITS APPEAL THAT IT HAS SHOWN TOTAL RECEIPTS AT RS. 5,44,06,345/-. A S THE APPELLANT IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, IT SHOUL D HAVE TAKEN THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,44,06,345/- ON THE BASIS OF ITS BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREAS IT HAS TAKEN THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT RS. 5 ,19,09,557/- IN ITS AUDITED PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. (XIII) IT IS FURTHER NOTED FROM SALES TAX (WCT) A/ C LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITH ITS APPEAL THAT A SUM O F RS. 8,15,095/- WAS DEBITED IN THIS ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY INTEREST EX P. LEDGER ACCOUNT SHOWS DEBIT AMOUNT OF RS. 8,37,569/-. IF THESE EXPE NSES ARE ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 9 APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT COULD BE PRE SUMED SAFELY THAT THESE MUST HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, THOUGH HEA D WISE NOT APPEARING IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, WHILE PRE PARING ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT LOOKING TO THE FACT THAT AUDITORS HAVE MADE NO QUALIFICATION IN THIS REGARD WHILE AUDITING THE FIN ANCIAL STATEMENTS. (XIV) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD T HAT THE VERSION OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED ESPECIALLY LOOKING TO THE CHANGE OF STAND BY THE AP PELLANT AT THE ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND AS THE APP ELLANT HAS NOT COME WITH CLEAN HANDS BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y. (XV) HENCE, LOOKING TO THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKIN G ADDITION OF RS. 24,96,557/- AS UNDISCLOSED CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND TH US THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE HEREB Y REJECTED. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ANALYZED THE RELEVANT RECORD AND FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT AS ALL THESE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECT PURCHASE AND SALES TAX DEDUCTION AND INTEREST HAVE ALREADY BEEN TAKEN UNDER CONSIDERATION WHILE PREPAR ING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, ONCE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS ON ACCOUNT OF BOOKS ADJUSTMENT ENTRY IS FOUND TO BE WRONG AND CONTRARY OF THE FACTS THEN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO OF TH E DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT IS PROPER AND JUSTIFIED. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS BOOKED ALL THE CORRESPONDING EXPENSES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS THEN, EVEN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ONLY NET PROFIT OF THESE CONTRACT RECEIPT CAN BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A CCEPTABLE. HENCE, IN ITA 300/JP/16_ SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT VS. ITO 10 VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND FACTUAL FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT OR SUBSTA NCE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/02/2018. SD/- FOT; IKY JKO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL; @ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28/02/2018 *SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH SHEKHAWAT, JAIPU R. 2. IZR;FKH @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 3(1), 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. 300/JP/16) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR