SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 329/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99278 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DILIP SHARMA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I; R K KHUNTETA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Depreciation; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 132

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 VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 329/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 . SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, 171, SIRSI ROAD, OFFICERS CAMPUS EXTENSION, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ADRPK 5003 F. VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 299/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, 171, SIRSI ROAD, OFFICERS CAMPUS EXTENSION, JAIPUR. VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L. MOOLCHANDANI(ADVOCATE) & SHRI R.K. KHUNTETA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI DILIP SHARMA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16.07.2015. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/08/2015. 2 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI T.R. MEENA, A.M. THESE ARE TWO CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D REVENUE EMANATING FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR DATE D 31.1.2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE TRADING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 91,83,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL A DDITION OF RS. 1,25,67,788/- MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER THE HEAD OF PR OPERTY BUSINESS IN PERSONAL NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THUS, THE ADDITION SO CONFIRM ED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN MAKING AND CONF IRMING TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 1,57,558/- IN THE CONCERN M/S. GUMAN FURNITU RE & FIXTURES, JAIPUR AFTER REJECTING BOOK RESULTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THUS, THE A DDITION SO CONFIRMED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AS U NDER :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, DESPITE CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT AND LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONFIRMIN G THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% APPLIED BY THE AO FOR DETERMINING THE INCOME FR OM PROPERTY BUSINESS BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF LD. ITAT IN EARLIER YEAR AND INSTEAD JUST SUSTAINING INTEREST DISALLOWANCES FOR ESTIMATI ON OF PROFIT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, DESPITE CONFIRMING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMAT ING THE PROFIT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE, BESIDES NOT BEING ABLE TO SHOW UTILIZATION OF ENTIR E BORROWED FUND FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, HAS ALSO FAILED TO - 3 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. (I) PRODUCE THE BILLS AND VOUCHER FOR VERIFICATION OF G ENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES. (II) CO-RELATE THE EXPENSES TO PARTICULAR CONSTRUCTION. (III) JUSTIFY THE BASIS OF VALUATION OF EACH PROPERTY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISLODGING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% UPHELD BY THE LD. ITAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING LAST YEAR STATIN G THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED DURING THE YEAR, IGNORING THE FACT THAT HE HIMSELF HAS UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTA INED DURING THE YEAR UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEES FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINS T CONFIRMING TRADING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 91,83,000/- AND ALL THE GROUNDS O F REVENUE ARE AGAINST NOT CONFIRMING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% ON PROPERTY BUSINESS BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF ITAT IN EARLIER YEAR AND INSTEAD JUST SUSTAINING THE INTERE ST DISALLOWANCE FOR ESTIMATION OF PROFIT. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.10.20 10 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A SSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME FROM TWO BUSINESSES, REMUNERATION, RENT AND OTHER SOURCE S. THE ASSESSEE HAS DONE PROPERTY BUSINESS IN THE PERSONAL NAME AND BUSINESS OF FURNI TURE AND FIXTURES UNDER THE NAME M/S. GUMAN FURNITURE AND FIXTURES. THE CASE WAS SC RUTINIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS SHOWN SALES OF CONSTRUCTED/NON CONSTRUCTED PLOTS OF RS. 1,78,18,20 0/- AND OTHER BUILDING CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS OF RS. 37,15,800/- TOTALLING TO RS. 2,15,3 4,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED A NET LOSS OF RS. 99,83,708/-. THE ITAT IN EARLIER A SSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 HAD UPHELD THE PROFIT RATE @ 12% UNDER ALMOST SIMILAR CIRCUMST ANCES. THE AO FURTHER FOUND THAT 4 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED BUILDING MATERIAL CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES OF RS. 72,13,666/- AND OTHER WORK-IN-PROGRESS EXPENSES CAPITALIZED AS WAS DONE IN THE PAST FOR RS.73,80,995/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES WHICH ARE MOSTLY INCURRED IN CASH IN SMALL AMOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE ABLE TO LINK UP THE EXPENSES WITH SPECIFIC PROPERTIES, THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCES OF PURCHASE OF SPECIFIC BUILDING M ATERIAL AND LABOUR EXPENSES FOR SPECIFIC SITE AND CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO N OT EXPLAINED AS TO HOW THE VALUATION OF STOCK WAS DONE IN ABSENCE OF PROPER LINKAGE OF C ONSTRUCTION AND IMPLICATION ON PROPERTIES. IN EARLIER YEARS RELATED TO SEARCH ACT ION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE IT ACT, 50% OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF NOT BEING PROPERLY VERIFIABLE. THE ADDITION WAS PARTLY REDUC ED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BUT FINALLY THE ITAT HAD IN A.Y. 2007-08 HELD THAT NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% WILL BE REASONABLE IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS BILLS AND VOUC HERS ETC. IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THAT OF A.Y. 2007-08 SUBJECT TO OR DER OF ITAT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF ITAT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 AND APP LYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE IT ACT AND REJECTING ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, NET PROFIT OF ASSESSEES CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS WAS ESTIMATED @ 12% WHICH RES ULTED INTO NET PROFIT OF RS. 25,84,080/- AS AGAINST CLAIM OF LOSS OF RS. 99,83,7 08/-. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE LOSS IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS MAINL Y DUE TO CLAIM OF INTEREST ON OD LOAN OF ADARSH CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO LINK UP THE OD LOAN WITH THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY DEALING. IN WIP EXPE NSES, THE ASSESSEE WAS IN CONSISTENT 5 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. PRACTICE OF CAPITALIZING THE INTEREST COMPONENT ON LOAN AND INCLUDING IT IN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BUT THIS INTEREST HAD BEEN CLAIMED SEPARATELY IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. AS PER DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LOAN WAS NOT FULLY UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. NEITHER IT WAS USED FOR REPAYMENT OF EAR LIER LOAN NOR WAS USED FOR ACQUIRING NEW ASSETS OR STOCKS BUT IT WAS EITHER UTILIZED FOR ADVANCING TO OTHER SISTER CONCERNS OR ITS MAJOR PART REMAINED AS CASH IN HAND AT THE YEAR END. AS SUCH THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF INTEREST CANNOT BE CLAIMED TO BE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR KEEPING SUBSTANT IAL CASH IN HAND BY RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S. A. BUILDERS VS. CIT, 288 ITR 1 AND CLAIMED THAT IT IS A BUSINESS NECESSITY AND PRUDENC E OF THE BUSINESSMAN TO DECIDE THE EXACT USE OF THE LOAN AND IT CANNOT BE MADE ON ANY FIXED TERM AND GUIDELINES NOR ONE CAN BE FORCED TO USE THE LOAN ANY PARTICULAR WAY. THE ASSESSEES REPLY HAD NOT CONVINCED TO THE AO, THEREFORE, HE ESTIMATED ASSESS EES INCOME ON THE BASIS OF NET PROFIT RATE @ 12% AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 3. ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO , CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTIALLY BY OBS ERVING THAT IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN OVERDRAFT LOAN OF RS. 6.50 CR. ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS. 1,26,94,537/- WAS PAID. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTED THAT PART OF SUCH LOAN ON WHICH SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID VIRTUALLY REMAINED IDLE IN THE FORM OF CASH AND IN THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2009 TH E PEAK AMOUNT OF CASH IN HAND WAS AT RS. 46992173/-. THEREFORE, THE NECESSARY INF ERENCE WAS THAT PART OF THE OVERDRAFT LOAN ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID WAS DEFINITELY NOT UTILIZED FOR THE 6 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. BUSINESS PURPOSES AND PARTICULARLY TO THE EXTENT OF CASH STATED TO BE KEPT READY OR IDLE FOR EXECUTION OF PROPERTY DEALS. DURING THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS, REGARDING SUCH CLAIM AND ISSUE, FURTHER INQUIRIES WERE MADE BY WAY OF CA LLING SPECIFIC INFORMATION AND IT WAS NOTED THAT SUCH HUGE DASH AVAILABILITY WAS SHOWN ON LY IN THIS A.Y. IT WAS GATHERED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS NO SUCH HEAVY CASH AVAILABILITY HA S BEEN SHOWN PARTICULARLY IN RESPECT OF FUNDS ON WHICH INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID. IT ALSO CAME TO NOTICE THAT THE LAND DEALS AGAINST AVAILABILITY OF SUCH UNUSED CASH WERE STATE D TO BE EXECUTED IN NEXT A.Y. THEREFORE, PRIMA FACIE WHEN THE UNUTILIZED LOAN IS NOT USED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE RELEVANT A.Y. THEN SUCH CLAIM MAY NOT BE ALLOWA BLE IN THAT A.Y. THEREFORE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF CL AIM OF SUCH INTEREST ON THAT PORTION OF LOAN WHICH WAS NOT USED AND SIMPLY KEPT AS CASH AVA ILABILITY CANNOT SAID TO BE TRUE AND COMPLETE IN AS MUCH AS SUCH CLAIM WAS NOT PROPER. THEREFORE, TO SUCH AN EXTENT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT CAN BE SAID TO B E ATTRACTING PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) OF IT ACT. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS OF ESTIMATION OF PR OFIT I FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE A.Y. 2007-08 IN WHICH NP RATE OF 12% WAS CONFIRMED WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT IN AS MUCH AS IN A.Y. 2007-08 IT WAS A CASE OF NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREAS THE A.Y. UNDER CONS IDERATION BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED WHICH ARE ALSO OF AUDITABLE NATURE. THER EFORE AS AGAINST APPLYING A PARTICULAR NP OR GP RATE IT IS CONSIDERED MORE LOGI CAL TO MAKE SPECIFIC DISALLOWANCE IN AS MUCH AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ONLY OF CLAIM OF I NTEREST ON THE PART OF THAT LOAN FROM ADARSH COOPERATIVE BANK WHICH WAS STATED TO BE REMA INED IDLE IN CASH AND NOT UTILIZED DURING THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION. DURING APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS, ON EXAMINATION OF 7 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. THIS ISSUE IT EMERGED THAT OUT OF TOTAL LOAN OF RS. 6.50 CR., AMOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4.70 CR. REMAINED IDLE/UNUTILIZED IN FORM OF CASH. ADMITTEDLY THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 12694537/- WHICH INCLUDE IN TEREST ON SUCH UNUTILIZED AMOUNT OF RS. 4.70 CR. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT KEEPING OF SUCH CASH READY/IDLE WAS HIS BUSINESS NEED BUT SUCH CONTENTION IS NOT PROVED THROUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR THROUGH CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. THERE IS NOTHING O N RECORD WHICH MAY INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TO EXECUTE ANY PROPERTY DEAL IN C ONSEQUENCE TO BE AVAILING OF SUCH OVERDRAFT LOAN FROM ADARSH COOPERATIVE BANK. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT NO SUCH HUGE CASH WAS EVER KEPT IN THE PAST TO SUPPORT THIS CONTENTIO N. THEREFORE, IT CAN REASONABLE BELIEVED THAT THE INTEREST BEARING FUNDS STATED TO BE LYING IN THE FORM OF CASH WERE UTILIZED FOR EXTRA BUSINESS CONSIDERATION AND THERE FORE INTEREST TO THE EXTENT OF THAT PART OF LOAN MAY NOT BE ALLOWED. ALTERNATIVELY EVEN IF I T IS PRESUMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT AS CASH AND THE BO5RROWED FUNDS IN THE FORM OF CASH WERE UTILIZED IN NEXT F.Y., THEREFORE, THE INTEREST CLAIM PERTAINING TO THE BUS INESS TRANSACTION CARRIED OUT IN NEXT A.Y. CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THIS A.Y. THEREFORE, PROP ORTIONATE INTEREST ON SUCH UNUTILIZED OVERDRAFT LOAN OF RS. 4.70 CR. OUT OF TOTAL OVERDRA FT LOAN OF RS. 6.50 CR IS HELD TO BE NOT USED FOR ANY BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE SAME IS TO B E DISALLOWED. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS NOTED THAT ON THE TOTAL LOAN OF RS. 6.50 CR. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED INTEREST LIABILITY OF RS. 1.27 CR. THE INTEREST PAYMENT ATTRIBUTABLE T O RS. 4.70 CR. IS ARRIVED AT RS. 91.83 LACS (127/650X470=91.83) AND THEREFORE INTEREST PAY MENT OF RS. 91.83 LACS IS TO BE DISALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS . 12567788/-, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 8 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. RS. 9183000/- IS CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT ACCORDING LY GETS RELIEF OF RS. 3384788/- (12567788-9183000). 4. NOW BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN A.Y. 2007-08 THE ASSESSMENT WAS F RAMED UNDER SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE IT ACT. THE APPELLANT HAD CONTINUOUSLY DERI VING INCOME MAINLY FROM PROPERTY BUSINESS AS IN THE PAST, BESIDES HAVING INCOME FROM REMUNERATION, RENT AND OTHER SOURCES ETC. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO STARTED A NEW VENTURE OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURE UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. GUMAN FURNITURE AN D FIXTURES, JAIPUR, DURING THE YEAR FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I S REGULAR YEAR AND THERE IS NO BEARING OF SEARCH OPERATIONS ON THE BOOK RESULTS FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO SOLELY ASSESSED THE ASSESSEES INCOME BY FOLLOWING THE ITATS ORDER WHEREIN GP RATE @ 12% APPLIED ON PROPERTY BUSINESS. FOR SEARCH ASSE SSMENT PERIOD, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GP WAS ESTIMATED BY THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH RESULT ONLY. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE AUDI TED. THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE, DISCREPANCY OR DEFECT OF GLARING NATUR E IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EXCEPT ROUTINE DEFICIENCY FOR NON MAINTENANCE OF ST OCK REGISTER AND VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK ETC. THEREFORE, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR OF THE SEARCH PERIOD. DURING THE YEAR HUGE INTEREST PAYMENT TO TH E TUNE OF RS. 1.4 CRORES WERE MADE TO BANK WHICH DISTURBED THE ENTIRE GP SCENARIO AND MAKING THE FACTS OF THE CASE 9 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. ENTIRELY UN-COMPARABLE. THE LD. AO IGNORING THESE FACTS HAD ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM PROPERTY BUSINESS @12% WHICH COMES TO RS. 2,15,34,0 00/- AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,25,67,788/- WHICH IS MORE THAN 50% OF TURNOVER ON THE PLEA THAT HUGE INTEREST PAYMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1.40 CRORES WAS HYPOTHET ICAL. BUT BOOK RESULT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING GP RATE AT 20.61% SUBJECT T O DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST PAYMENTS AND WERE FAR BETTER AS COMPARED TO GP PREV AILED IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK GP R ATE OF 8% IS APPLIED SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST PAYMENTS. THEREFORE, NET PROFIT RATE @ 12% WITHOUT APPLYING DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST PAYMENTS TO THE BANK IS A RBITRARY AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE LD. CIT (A) ALSO ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT T HAT NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT FOR SEARCH PERIOD CANNOT BE APPLIED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS TH ERE WERE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED FOR THE SEARCH PERIOD BY THE ASSESSEE. H OWEVER, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH IS AUDITED AS PER LAW. BUT LD. CIT (A) HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE OD LOAN OF RS. 6.50 CRORES FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE PARTIALLY ACCEPTED THE USE OF OD FOR B USINESS PURPOSES. RS. 4.70 CRORES WERE LYING IDLE IN THE BANK. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT LD. CIT (A)S FINDING WAS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT ASSESSEE USED CASH FUND AVAILABLE WITH HIM FOR EXTRA BUSINESS CONSIDERATION . ALTERNATIVELY, THE FUND WAS USED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE INTEREST PAYMENT WOULD BE ALLOWED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR NOT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. BUT OD WAS SAN CTIONED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE FUND WAS ALWAYS AVAILABLE FOR USE FOR BUSIN ESS PURPOSES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO 10 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. WITHDREW THE CASH FROM THE OD WHICH HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND KEPT READY TO BE USED IN PROPERTY BUSINESS IMMEDIAT ELY. NO TRANSACTION COULD BE MATERIALIZED AS THERE WAS NO LAND TRANSACTION DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. HE AGAIN RELIED UPON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN CASE OF S.A. BUILDERS (SUPRA) AND ARGUED THAT WISDOM OF ASS ESSEE WILL PREVAIL ON HOW TO RUN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT DICTATE THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS HOW TO RUN THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UTILIZE THE FUND. IT IS FACT THAT NO BUSINESSMAN WOULD PAY INTEREST ON BORROWED FUNDS AND BOOK THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT. THE LIABILITY IS ON THE ASSESSEE AND IT ALSO AFFECT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE. ONE OF THE REASONS OF WITHDRAWING CASH FROM THE OD WAS THAT OD LIMIT COULD BE REDUCED BY THE BANK. HE FURTHER REL IED ON THE DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. TARAI DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (1994) 205 ITR 4 21 (ALL.) AND ARGUED THAT AO CANNOT OBJECT ON GENUINE BORROWING EVEN IF THE RATE OF INTEREST IS VERY HIGH. THE LD. AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE GENUINENESS AND CORRECTNESS OF THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 1,25,67,781/-. THE NEGOTIATION FOR THE PROPERTY TR ANSACTION WORTH RS. 8 CRORES WERE UNDERWAY DURING THE YEAR AND WERE MATERIALIZED IMME DIATELY AFTER THIS YEAR. THUS THE FACT OF BUSINESS EXIGENCY COULD NOT BE RULED OUT. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT INVESTMENT MADE OUT OF BORROWED FUND S SHOULD YIELD ANY PROFIT IN THE YEAR. FOR THIS HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN CASE OF CALICO DYEING & PRINTING WORKS VS. CIT (1958) 34 ITR 265 (BOM.). THE LD. AO ALSO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY INTEREST BEARING FUND WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADV ANCES TO ANY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO NEXUS ESTABLISHED BY THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. A/R ARGUED 11 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. THAT WHATEVER DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE AO ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE BOOK RESULT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE IT ACT. EVEN IF BOOK RE SULT ARE REJECTED UNDER SECTION 145(3), IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO MAKE ADDITION ON INC OME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHICH HE RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHA N HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GOTTAN LIME KHANIZ UDYOG, 256 ITR 243 AND OTHER CASES ALSO . THE LD. A/R RELIED ON NUMBERS OF DECISIONS IN HIS SUBMISSIONS AND REQUESTED THAT ADDITION CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) AT RS. 91.83 LACS MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. D/R VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND REITERATED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ITAT DECISION FOR A.Y. 2007-08 I.E. NET PROFIT @ 12% ON TOTAL RECEIPTS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT APPELLANT HAD TAKEN OD LOAN OF RS. 6.5 CRORES ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS. 1,26,94,537/- WAS PAID AND SUBSTANTIAL CASH WAS IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PURPOSE OF OD WAS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND THE SAI D OD FACILITY WAS CARRIED OVER BY THE ASSESSEE FROM PRECEDING YEAR. THE AO APPLIED TH E NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% ON CONSTRUCTION RECEIPTS ON THE BASIS OF COORDINATE BE NCH DECISION FOR A.Y. 2007-08, BUT AS HELD BY LD. CIT (A) THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT AS FOR THE SEARCH PERIOD NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE A SSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN AUDITED UNDER THE I NCOME-TAX LAW. THEREFORE, NET PROFIT RATE OF 12% CANNOT BE APPLIED DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE 12 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION NP R ATE @ 8% IS APPLICABLE SUBJECT TO INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION BUT ASSESSEE IS NOT A CIV IL CONTRACTOR BUT BUILDER. THEREFORE, NP RATE OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION CANNOT BE APPLIED HER E. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS PROFIT RATE BEFORE INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION @ 20.6 1% WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OBJECTED BY LD. D/R AND CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS BETT ER COMPARED TO PRECEDING YEAR. THE AO POINTED OUT THE VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIZ. NON-MAINTENANCE OF CLOSING STOCK, PURCHASES IN CASH AND ALSO NOT PRODU CED THE SALES/PURCHASE VOUCHERS OF MATERIAL USED IN CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS. THEREFORE, BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD COMPLETE AND CORRECT. THUS PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 145(3) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM NP RATE @ 10% IN PLACE OF 12% APPLIED BY THE AO SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST PAYMENT. WE ARE OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO NOTIONAL ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST ON OD ACCOUNT. FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT ASSESSEE H AD USED FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HIM SOMEWHERE ELSE AS THE BURDEN IS LYING ON THE REVENU E TO PROVE OTHERWISE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE REVENUE. NO PRUDENT BUS INESSMAN WOULD CREATE LOSS BY AVAILING OD FACILITY AND PAYING INTEREST ON IT. TH ERE WAS A BUSINESS NECESSITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AVAILING THE OD FACILITY. IT IS UNDIS PUTED FACT THAT FUNDS HAD NOT BEEN UTILIZED DURING THE YEAR BUT LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT O F INTEREST HAD BEEN OCCURRED. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE INTEREST CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE BEING JUST AND IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY NP RATE ON CONSTRUCTION R ECEIPTS @ 10% IS CONFIRMED SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST PAID. THE AO IS DIRECT ED TO CALCULATE THE INCOME AS PER ABOVE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THIS BENCH. 13 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. 6.1. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED PARTLY AND ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,57,558/- BY REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT UNDER SECTIO N 145(3), IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT DURI NG THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED FURNITURE AND FIXTURE BUSINESS WHICH IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 36,92,311 /- AND G.P. RATE OF 19.8% ON TOTAL SALES/RECEIPTS OF RS. 1.86 CRORES. THE NP HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 28,525/- WHICH IS ONLY 0.01% WHICH IS QUITE LOW IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER NOR QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF ANY NATU RE AND CLAIMED CONSUMABLE STORES OF RS. 28,65,795/- AND LABOUR CHARGES WHICH WERE NOT V ERIFIABLE IN ABSENCE OF PROPER AND COMPLETE VOUCHERS. MAJOR EXPENDITURE IS AGAINST ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID/PAYABLE ON VARIOUS SECURED LOANS WHICH IS AGAIN NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION FOR EXACT USE OF LOAN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. THEREFORE, AO FOUND VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND APPLIED SECTION 145( 3) FOR THE FURNITURE AND FIXTURE BUSINESS WHICH WAS RUNNING IN THE NAME OF M/S. GUMA N FURNITURE & FIXTURES AND THE AO ESTIMATED THE NP @ 1% WHICH COMES TO RS. 1,86,28 3/- AS AGAINST NP SHOWN AT RS. 28,525/-. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 14 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. 6.4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSI ON OF THE APPELLANT AS ALSO THE FINDING OF THE AO. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE AO HAS APPLIED PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) ON ACCOUNT OF THE REASON THAT THE NP RATE SHOWN AT 0.01% WAS QUITE LOW AND T HAT NO STOCK REGISTER IS MAINTAINED NOR ANY QUANTITATIVE DETAILS ARE MAINTAINED. THE CLAIM OF CONSUMABLE STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS. 2865 795/- AND LABOUR CHARGES WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE INTEREST PAYMENT ON SECURED LOAN WAS ALSO NOT SUBJECT TO PRO PER VERIFICATION FOR WANT OF EXACT USE OF LOANS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE S. THE AO ACCORDINGLY APPLIED PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) AND E STIMATED PROFIT BY APPLYING 1% OF NP RATE. THE APPELLANT HAS DISPUT ED THE APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) AS ALSO AP PLICATION OF NP RATE OF 1%. IT IS STATED THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC AND SIGNIFICANT DISCREPANCY OR OMISSION AN D IN ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC MISTAKE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT LEGALLY MAINTAINABLE. AS REGARDS APPLICATION OF 1% NP RATE IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE APPLICATION OF RATE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. AS REGARDS RAISING OF SECURED LOANS THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT IT WA S THE FIRST YEAR FOR CARRYING OUT BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND THE APPELL ANT HAD TO RAISE LOANS AND PAY INTEREST ON THE BORROWED CAPITAL FROM BANKS. IT IS STATED THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN VERY GENERAL FINDING T HAT EXACT USE OF THESE FUNDS FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES WAS NOT VERIFIABL E AND THAT WHEN THE INTEREST PAYMENTS ARE VERIFIABLE FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE FINDING OF THE AO WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ALL RELEVANT FACTS IT IS NOTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT STOCK REGISTER AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF TRADING ITEMS ARE NOT MAINTAINED. IT MAY ALSO BE STATED THAT KEEPING OF S TOCK REGISTER IS DEFINITELY OF GREAT IMPORTANCE FOR VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNTS 15 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.N. NANASIVAYM CHETTIAR VS. CIT, 38 ITR 579. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF FURNITURE ITEMS AND THE ITEMS WERE DEALT WITH ARE NOT IN THAT HIGHER NUMBER THAT MAINT ENANCE OF STOCK WAS IN PRACTICABLE OR NOT POSSIBLE. IT IS ALSO NOTE D THAT IT IS NOT A CASE THAT ONLY STOCK REGISTER IS NOT MAINTAINED IN AS MUCH AS THE AO HAS POINTED OUT OTHER DEFECTS AS TO HOW EXPENDIT URE SHOWN ON CONSUMABLE ITEMS WAS NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. I N MY VIEW THE NON MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER AND QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF ITEMS OF TRADING COUPLED WITH OTHER DEFECTS IN RESPECT OF UN-VERIFIABILITY OF EXPENSES DEFINITELY ATTRACTED PROVISIONS OF SEC. 14 5(3) OF IT ACT. FOR APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145(3) IN SUC H CIRCUMSTANCES RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS :- I) RAJASTHAN COMMERCIAL HOUSE VS. DCIT (2004) 86 TTJ 8 51 ITAT JODHPUR. II) VIJAY TRADERS VS. CIT (1969) 74 ITR 279. III) AMIYA KUMAR ROYS & BROS. VS. CIT (1994) 206 ITR 306 . AS REGARDS ESTIMATION OF NP IT MAY BE NOTED THAT T HE AO HAS APPLIED NP RATE OF 1% AS AGAINST NP RATE SHOWN AT 0 .01%. THE NP RATE SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS DEFINITELY VERY LOW AND THIS BEING FIRST YEAR OF BUSINESS THE AO WAS NOT HAVING ANY RE CORD OF PAST YEARS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESS MENT FOR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, DID NOT JUSTIFY AND POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC REASON FOR SUCH LOW NP RATE. IN SUCH GIVEN CIRCUMST ANCES THE APPLICATION OF NP RATE OF 1% APPEARS TO BE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF FINDING O F THE AO. THEREFORE, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. 9. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. THE LD. A/R OF T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) CANNOT BE INVOKED IN P ERFUNCTORY MANNER WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY, FOR WHICH H E RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS IN CASES OF UTTAM CHUNA PATHAR UDHYOG, 64 ITD 460 (ITAT JP), M/ S. GOTAN LIME KHANIZ UDYOG, 256 ITR 243 (RAJ.HC), M/S. ASHOKE REFRACTORIES (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2005) 279 ITR 457 (CAL.), M/S. PANDIT BROTHERS VS. CIT, 226 ITR 159 ( PUNJ.), M/S. VEERIAH REDDIAR VS. CIT, 38 ITR 152 (KER.). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENT, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IS NOT LEGALLY MAINTAINABLE. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT DU E TO HEAVY INTEREST PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT, THE NET PROFIT RATE WAS LOW. THEREF ORE, HE REQUESTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 9.1. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. D/R SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT (A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE DEFECTS POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE AO ARE SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD. A/R OF THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD TO WHOM THE INTEREST PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. GUMAN FURNITURE & FIXTURES. THE OD FACILITY AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOR CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCUSSED IN PRECEDING PARAS. BESIDES THIS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHICH SUBSTANTIATED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT HE HAD MADE HEAVY PAYMENT OF INTEREST AMOUNT. FURTHER NP RATE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE I S BELOW THE RATE OF COMPARABLE CASE IN THE LINE OF BUSINESS. THE AO WAS REASONABLE TO APPLY 1% NP RATE IN FURNITURE AND FIXTURE BUSINESS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO REASON TO 17 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). ACCORDING LY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALL OWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.08.2015 . SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 11/8/ 2015 DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT/DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIP UR. 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. 329 & 299/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR 18 ITA NO. 329 & 299/JP/2013 A.Y. 2009-10. SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR.