SHRI RAJ KUMAR BABUTTA, Jaipur V. ADD. CIT, Jaipur

ITA 346/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87537 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DILIP SHIVPURI
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Depreciation; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Avoidance of tax; Onus to prove
• Section: 194C

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. 346/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 RAJ KUMAR BABUTTA 169, GANPATI PLAZA, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ADDL. C.I.T. RANGE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACNPB 1052 E VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 314/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI RAJ KUMAR BABUTTA PROP. M/S VAISHNO ASSOCIATES, 169, 1 ST FLOOR, GANPATI PLAZA, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA- @ PAN/GIR NO.: ACNPB 1052 E IZR;K{KSID @ OBJECTOR IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 950/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE D.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. SHRI RAJ KUMAR BABUTTA PROP. M/S VAISHNO ASSOCIATES, 169, 1 ST FLOOR, GANPATI PLAZA, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACNPB 1052 E VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 2 VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 05/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI RAJ KUMAR BABUTTA PROP. M/S VAISHNO ASSOCIATES, 169, 1 ST FLOOR, GANPATI PLAZA, M.I. ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACNPB 1052 E VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DILIP SHIVPURI (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : MS. NEENA JEPH SR. DR. LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08/12/2014 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 /02/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: R.P. TOLANI, J.M. THIS IS A SET OF CROSS APPEALS FOR A.YS. 2008-09 AN D 2009-10 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 17/01/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 A ND 18/10/2012 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES AS WE LL AS THE REVENUES APPEALS ARE AS UNDER:- GROUNDS IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRED IN LAW IN FACT IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT TAKING INT O CONSIDERATION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE COMPLETE AND MADE ACCORDING TO ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 3 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) AND 145(2) AND THEREFORE THESE CANNOT BE REJECTED AND PROVISIONS O F SECTION 145(3) CANNOT BE APPLIED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY CONFIRMING NP RATE AT 6.15% WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT WHEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE ARE COMPLETE IN ALL RESPECTS AND FURTHERMORE, REFLECTS TRUE AND FAIR FINANCIAL POSIT ION, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF SUCH ESTIMATION LOOKING TO PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF IN-OPERATIVE EXPENSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION, INTEREST, BANK CHARGES AND CASH BROKERAGE FROM THE ESTIMATED RATE OF NET PROFIT. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT MAY TAKE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, DELETE, SUBSTITUTE, INCORPORATE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THEIR APPEAL. GROUND IN REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN DIRECTING TO APPLY N.P. RATE OF 6.15% AS AGAINST 8% APPLIED BY THE A.O. EVEN THOUGH THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN UPHELD. GROUND IN REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10 WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE N.P. RATE TO 6.15% AS AGAINST 8% APPLIED BY THE A.O. DESPITE UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. GROUNDS IN ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 4 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ERRED IN LAW IN FACT IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RECORDS ARE COMPLETE AND MADE ACCORDING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(1) AND 145(2) AND NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS WERE POINTED OUT THEREIN. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS BY CONFIRMING NP RATE AT 6.15%. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF IN-OPERATIVE EXPENSES INCLUDING DEPRECIATION, INTEREST, BANK CHARGES AND CASH BROKERAGE FROM THE ESTIMATED RATE OF NET PROFIT. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT MAY TAKE LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, DELETE, SUBSTITUTE, INCORPORATE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THEIR APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE IS A WORKS CONTRACTOR FOR JAIPUR VID HYUT VITRAN NIGAM LIMITED, JAIPUR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, RAJAST HAN STATE ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUS T, UDAIPUR, RIICO LIMITED AND RAJASTHAN HOUSING BOARD. ASSESSEE IS REGULARLY ASSESSED, PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MA INTAINED AND AUDITED. DETAILS OF ASSESSEES BOOK RESULTS FOR DIF FERENT PRECEDING YEARS AS WELL AS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE AS UND ER:- ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 SALES/JOB WORK RECEIPTS 20234111/- 132447407/- 200604674/- 240597598/- GROSS PROFIT 1587812/- 9647716/- 19266536/- 2485089 5/- G.P. RATE 7.84% 7.28% 9.60% 10.33% OPERATING PROFIT 789871/- 5166451/- 11168124/- 16817386/- OPERATING PROFIT RATE 3.90% 3.90% 5.57% 6.99% NET PROFIT 585549/- 4873811/- 10073044/- 12209290/- NET PROFIT RATE 2.89% 3.68% 5.02% 5.07% INCOME TAX PAID AS PER RETURN 67789/- 1395495/- 3287173/- 3957780/- ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE ABOVE CHART DEPICTS THAT HE H AS BEEN OFFERING BETTER RESULTS ON YEAR TO YEAR BASIS AND D ESPITE INCREASED TURNOVER G.P. RATE, OPERATING PROFIT RATE AND N.P. R ATE HAS SHOWN CONTINUOUS UPTREND. THESE FIGURES DEMONSTRATE THAT A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED COMPARATIVELY LESSER EXPENSES ON MORE TURNO VER. ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 WAS UNDE RKEN IN SCRUTINY BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR AND TRADING ADDITION FOR RS.1,22,645L- WAS MADE BY INCREASING TH E NET PROFIT RATE FROM 2.89% TO 3.50%. IN APPEAL THIS TRADING AD DITION WAS DELETED THUS THE RETURNED INCOME SHOWING OPERATING P ROFIT OF 3.90% & NP OF 2.89% WAS FINALLY ACCEPTED. II. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 WHI CH ARE IN QUESTION, THOUGH THE OP AND N.P. RATES ARE FAR B ETTER THAN EARLIER YEARS DESPITE INCREASED TURNOVER, LD. AO AR BITRARILY REJECTED ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 6 THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR NO JUSTIFIABLE REASON, FO RGETTING THE PAST HISTORY, ESTIMATED THE NET INCOME AT 8% RATE I N BOTH THE YEARS. IN FIRST APPEAL, THE N.P. RATE IS REDUCED BY LD. CIT(A) TO 6.15% IN BOTH YEARS UPHOLDING THE ARBITRARY REJECTI ON OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AGGRIEVED BOTH THE PARTIES ARE BEFORE US ASSESSEE AGAINST REJECTION OF BOOKS AND ESTIMATION OF NP @ 6 .15%; REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PART RELIEF. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ALL T HE CONTRACT RECEIPTS ARE FROM GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OR CORPORA TIONS AND OTHER SIMILAR BODIES; RECEIPTS ARE SUBJECTED TO TAX DEDUC TION CERTIFICATES FROM PRINCIPALS, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER ABOUT THE RECEIPT SIDE. LIKEWISE ALL THE PURCHASES ARE MADE FROM REGIS TERED PARTIES AND ASSESSEE IS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BY COMMERCIAL TA XES DEPARTMENT ALSO. EACH OF THE INPUT TAX CREDITS ARE VERIFIED BY THEM AND DUE REFUNDS WERE ALLOWED VIDE THEIR ASSESSMENT ORDERS AFTER DETAI LED SCRUTINY. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED DAY TO DAY STOCK REG ISTER, STATEMENT AND COPIES OF ACCOUNTS SHOWING COMPLETE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONG WITH ASSESSEE' S REPLIES FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; THEY ARE PART OF THE RECORD. THE STOCK SUMMARY REFLECTING ITEM WISE STOCK WITH INWAR D AND OUTWARD DETAILS WERE FILED, THUS IT IS WRONGLY HELD BY LOWER A UTHORITIES THAT STOCK ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 7 REGISTERS ARE NOT PRODUCED. WHATEVER WAS ASKED BY AO HAS BEEN DILIGENTLY COMPLIED WITH AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF NON COOPERATION AGAINST ASSESSEE. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER SOME MISTAKE PF SUPERFICIAL NATURE ARE POINTED OUT WHICH IN FACT HAVE BEEN EXPLA INED WITHIN THE PARAMETERS OF DISCHARGE OF BURDEN ON THE ASSESSEE. LD. AO WANTED SOME INFORMATION WHICH WAS NOT IN THE REACH OF ASSES SEE AND SOME STATEMENTS TAKEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE HAVE BE EN RELIED WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION. THE REJECTION OF B OOKS BASED ON SUCH ARBITRARY REASONS IS GROSSLY UNJUSTIFIED. AN ACTION WHICH IS SERIOUS IN NATURE HAS BEEN RECOURSE TO BY AUTHORITIES BELOW IN A VERY CASUAL MANNER. 3.2 DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ABOU T COST OF RS.27261991/- AGAINST TOTAL CONTRACT OF RS.24059759 8/- WHICH COMES TO 11.33% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS WHICH IS LESS THAN BENCHMAR K BSR RATE AND G- SCHEDULE RATE WHICH CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS NO INFLATION OF PAYMENT IN ORDER TO REDUCE PROFITS FOR AVOIDANCE OF TAX. THIS IN TURN SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT COMPLETED GOVT. TEND ERS ON LESSER COMPETITIVE RATES AND BY DILIGENTLY INCURRING LESSE R INPUT COST HAS DECLARED MORE BUSINESS INCOME RESULTING; IT SUGGEST S TOTAL DILIGENCE AND DISCRETION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 8 3.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A COMPARATIVE CHART OF LA BOUR COST INCURRED ON SUCH CONTRACTS ON PWD-BSR RATES AS WELL AS G-SCHEDULE, WHICH ARE THE GOVERNMENT PRESCRIBED PARAMETERS AND T HE LABOUR COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE YEARS. THESE C HARTS ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 COMPUTATION OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR COST BASED ON PWD BRS RATE, G-SCHEDULE RATE AND LABOUR COST: PARTICULARS (A) LABOUR COST (B) CONTRACT VALUE (C) %AGE OF LABOUR COST TO CONTRACT VALUE (D=B/C) LABOUR COST BASED ON THE PWD-BSR RATES 23761995.00 198016627.00 12.00% LABOUR COST BASED ON THE G-SCHEDULE 25742162.00 198016627.00 13.00% LABOUR COST INC URRED AND BOOKED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 22463247.00 198016627.00 11.34% ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 COMPUTATION OF COMPARATIVE LABOUR COST BASED ON PWD BRS RATE, G-SCHEDULE RATE AND LABOUR COST: PARTICULARS (A) LABOUR COST (B) CONTRACT VALUE (C) %AGE OF LABOUR COST TO CONTRACT VALUE (D=B/C) LABOUR COST BASED ON THE PWD-BSR RATES 23761995.00 198016627.00 12.00% LABOUR COST BASED ON THE G-SCHEDULE 25742162.00 198016627.00 13.00% LABOUR COST INCURRED AND BOOKED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT 22463247.00 198016627. 00 11.34% ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 9 THE ABOVE CHARTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEES INC URRED COST IS LESS THAN THE PWD-BSR RATES AS WELL AS G-SCHEDULE CORROBO RATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED COMPARATIVELY LOW LAB OUR COST, WHICH INCLUDES THE PAYMENT TO SUB-CONTRACTORS, THUS, NO A DVERSE INFERENCE QUA THE SUB-CONTRACTORS CAN BE MADE UNDER THESE CIR CUMSTANCES. 3.4 SUB LETTING THE WORK TO SUB CONTRACTORS IS AN ES SENTIAL FEATURE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS MODULE. DESPITE COPIOUS COMPLIA NCE QUA THE SUB CONTRACTORS LD. AO WITHOUT ANY INFORMATION TO THE A SSESSEE ISSUED SUMMONS TO DIFFERENT SUB CONTRACTORS FOR EXAMINATIO N, OUT OF 13 SUBCONTRACTORS, 3 COMPLIED WITH AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE REMAIN ING, IT WAS HUMBLY REPLIED THAT THEIR WORKS WERE FINISHED LONG BA CK AND NOW ASSESSEE DOES NOT KNOW THEIR WHEREABOUTS; THEY MAY PR ESENTLY BE WORKING AT DIFFERENT PLACES, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO P RODUCE THEM IN SHORT SPAN OF TIME BEING GIVEN. BESIDES THEIR TDS WAS DEDU CTED BY ASSESSEE U/S 194C THEIR WORK MAY BE CROSS VERIFIED FROM THE D EPARTMENTAL RECORD. DESPITE IT ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE 2 MORE SU B CONTRACTORS BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS INSTEAD O F APPRECIATING THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS, MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND MAKING DUE ENQUIRIES ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 10 FROM THE I T RECORD WHICH WAS EASILY ACCESSIBLE TO LD. AO, ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN ARBITRARILY REJECTED. L D. CIT(A) ALSO DIDNT DWELL ON THESE ISSUES IN A JUDICIOUS MANNER AND SUMM ARILY UPHELD THE AOS ACTION OF REJECTION OF BOOKS . 3.5 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESIRED ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION ON VARIOUS ISSUES FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 WHICH WERE REPLIED IN DETAILS ON 18.10.2011 AND 8. 11.2011; THEY ARE PART OF THE RECORD. WITHOUT ADVERTING TO OR CONSIDE RING THE CONTENTS OF REPLIES, BOOKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND NP HAS BEEN E STIMATED AT HUMONGOUS 8% WITHOUT PAYING ANY HEED TO THE ESTABLIS HED PAST HISTORY WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF. IT IS SU RPRISING THAT IN AY 2009-10 SAME ALLEGATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS ARE SUMMA RILY REPEATED BY LD. AO WHICH CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE CONTENTS OF B OTH THE ORDERS, WHICH REFLECTS NON CONSIDERATION OF MERITS OF ASSESS EES EXPLANATION AND NON APPLICATION OF JUDICIAL MIND. 3.6 LD. COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE ALLEGED D EFECTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AO ARE CONCERNED, THEY ARE VAGUE AND GENERAL IN NATURE QUA WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN APPROPRIATE REPLIES WHICH CAN BE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER:- ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 11 AOS REASONS & ASSESSES REPLIES: (I) STOCK REGISTERS ARE NOT MAINTAINED:- IT WAS REPL IED THAT THEY ARE PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND THE DETAILS OF OB, INWARDS, OUTWARDS AND CB IN TERMS OF QUANTITY, RATE A ND VALUE HAVE BEEN DULY FILED. BESIDES, ANY VARIATION IN VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IS ONLY PREPONMENT OR POSTPONEMENT OF PROFITS AS THE DIFFERENCE IS ALLOWABLE IN THE SUBSEQ UENT YEARS. SAME IS ESSENTIALLY REVENUE NEUTRAL. (II) COMPLETE VOUCHERS AND PRIMARY DOCUMENTS OF EXPENSES HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED:- IT WAS SUBMITTE D THAT OUT OF TOTAL 2182 NO. OF VOUCHERS, VOUCHERS NU MBERING TO 2177 WERE PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION UNDER AUDIT EX CEPT ONLY FIVE NUMBERS OF VOUCHERS FOR PETTY EXPENSES GI VEN BELOW: 1. DISCOUNT RS. 21,795/- 2. STAFF MEDICAL EXPENSES RS. 5,000/- 3. POSTAGE & COURIER RS. 400/- 4. EARNEST MONEY FORFEITED RS. 40,000/- 5. COMPENSATION RS. 3,525/- RS. 70,720/- IT IS PLEADED THAT IT IS TRAVESTY OF ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS THAT FOR NOT PROVIDING OF FEW EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS O UT OF A ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 12 MAMMOTH RECORD HAS BEEN HELD TO BE A POTENTIAL REAS ON FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED MORE PROFITS IN BOTH YEARS. (III) PAYMENTS MADE TO SUBCONTRACTORS IS NOT VERIF IABLE AS THEY DO NOT EXIST OR SOME OF THEM HAVE DENIED TRANSACTIO NS:- ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT ALL THE SUBCONTRACTORS PROVID E THEIR IDENTITY BY PAN CARD AND OTHER DOCUMENTS. AFTER COMPLETION OF THE PART OF WORK THE WORK IS VERIFIED B Y THE SITE SUPERVISOR. THIS REPORT IS SUBMITTED TO THE HEA D OFFICE AND AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION THE PAYMENT IS APPROV ED. THEREAFTER IT IS PAID BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AFTER DUE TDS DEDUCTION. THUS, ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS BURD EN IN PROVING THE IDENTITY OF SUBCONTRACTORS, THE WORK EXECUTED, AND GENUINENESS OF EXPENDITURE AS IT IS B Y WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE PAYMENTS ALONG WITH DUE TDS DEDUCTI ON. MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE CONTRACTORS WERE EXAMINED IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND DID NOT REMEMBER OF TRANSACTIONS; IT CANNOT BE HELD AS A MEANS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE BUS INESS OF THE ASSESSEE, SUBCONTRACTORS KEEP ON CHANGING FROM SITE TO ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 13 SITE. ASSESSEE HAVING MAINTAINED PROPER RECORD TO CORROBORATE HIS TRANSACTIONS HAS NO FURTHER BURDEN TO PRODUCE SUCH SUBCONTRACTORS. ANY ADVERSE STATEMENT TAKEN IN ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION IS INADMISSIBLE EV IDENCE. THESE INVALID OBSERVATIONS CANNOT BE USED AS A MEANS TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. (IV) THE ASSESSEES POINT TO POINT REPLY IN SPECIFIC TERMS IS MENTIONED UNDER COPIOUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). SAME ARE REFERRED TO BY THE LD COUNSEL DURIN G THE COURSE OF HEARING TO BUTTRESS HIS CONTENTIONS THAT THE QUERIES WERE PROPERLY REPLIED AND THERE IS NO WORTHWHI LE DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, SO AS TO BE CASUA LLY REJECTED U/S 145(3) IN ORDER TO GET A LEVERAGE TO WI LLY NILLY ESTIMATE THE PROFITS. NO APPRECIATION HAS BEEN GIVE N TO THE GLARING FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEES PROFITS ARE BETTE R ON EVERY COUNT AND FRONT AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. 3.7 WITHOUT POINTING OUT SPECIFIC DEFECTS IN THE AS SESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEY CANNOT BE REJECTED U/S 145(3) IN CASU AL MANNER, WITHOUT SPECIFYING MATERIAL DEFECTS WHICH MAKE THE ASCERTAI NMENT OF PROFITS ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 14 IMPOSSIBLE FOR AO. WHEN THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY A SSESSEE DISCHARGES THE ONUS WHICH LIES ON IT, REJECTION OF B OOKS IS NOT WARRANTED. ASSESSEES BOOKS AND RECORD MAINTENANCE I S PROPER, SOUND AND CAPABLE OF REFLECTING THE CORRECT PROFITS OF TH E BUSINESS NOT ONLY BY THE MARERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD BUT BY THE ACCEPTE D PAST HISTORY. IT IS FURTHER EVIDENT FROM SUCCESSIVELY BETTER RATES OF O . P.; G.P. & N.P. RATES DECLARED BY ASSESSEE DESPITE HIGHER TURNOVER IN THE SE TWO YEARS. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS FOR THESE PROPOSITIONS (I) ACIT VS. VIJAY SOLVEX LIMITED ITA NO. 676/JP/20 11 A.Y. 2006-07 DATED 210/01/2012. (II) DCIT VS. VIJAY INDUSTRIES ITA 952/JP/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 ORDER DATED 23/09/2011. FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT WHEN DAY TO DAY STOCK REC ORDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REASONABLY MAINTAINED, THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT CANNOT BE REJECTED AND GP CANNOT BE APPLIED. 3.8 SIMILAR SITUATION AROSE IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DIAMOND VS. ACIT 5 ITR 469 (TRIB.) (AHD.), LD. ASSESSING OFFICER INSISTE D ON QUALITY WISE DETAILS OF DIAMOND LOTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD REFLEC TED LESSER GP, BOOKS WERE REJECTED AND PROFITS ESTIMATED. THE AHMADABAD TRI BUNAL QUASHED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS AND CONSEQUENT ADDITIONS BY HOLDING THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES GP WAS REDUCED; IT CANNOT BE A REASON FOR ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 15 REJECTION OF BOOKS. ASSESSEES FACTS ARE MUCH BETTE R INASMUCH AS THE PROFITS EARNED ARE FAR BETTER THAN EARLIER YEARS. B ESIDES IN EARLIER AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH ARE MAI NTAINED ON SAME METHOD OF VOUCHER AND STOCK KEEPING, VALUATION OF I NVENTORIES AND SYSTEM WITH SUB CONTRACTORS. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLA CED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) DCIT VS. ASSOCIATED STONE INDUSTRIES LIMITED 2 2 TW 155 (JP). (II) AMBIKA TEXTILE INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT 22 TW 199 (J P). (III) VADAYATTU JEWELLERY VS. STATE OF KERELA (1997 ) 104 STC 121, 126 (KER.). (IV) ST. TERRSA OIL MILLS VS. STATE OF KERALA (1970 ) 76 ITR 365 (KER.). (V) CIT VS. SMT. POONAM RANI 41 DTR 194 (DEL.) (2010 ). (VI) CIT VS. OM OVERSEAS 315 ITR 185 (P&H) (VII) DCIT VS. PARAS DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS P. L TD. 4 ITR 29 (TRIB.) (AHD.) (2010). (VIII) CIT VS. JACKSONS HOUSE 198 TAXMAN 385 (DELHI) . (IX) CIT VS. JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS 324 ITR 95/2 33 CTR 398 (DEL.) (2010). 3.9 ALTERNATIVELY LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS T HAT THE ADOPTION OF ESTIMATED NP OF 8% IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITR ARY AND HARSH. MERELY BECAUSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED LD. AO CANNO T JETTISON THE PAST ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 16 HISTORY AND ADOPT AN APPROACH TO TAX THE ASSESSEE A T A PRESUMPTIVE RATE OF TAXATION APPLICABLE TO VERY SMALL CONTRACTO RS. IF AT ALL THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE IS MOST RELIABLE AND SCIENT IFIC WAY OF ESTIMATING THE PROFITS. EVEN IF, THE ALLEGED NONEXISTENT DEFEC TS IN THE BOOKS ARE ASSUMED, BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION; LOWER AUTHOR ITIES HAD NO JUSTIFICATION IN TRAVELLING BEYOND THE PAST HISTORY FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFITS. THE RESULTS OF THESE YEARS BEING BETTER THA N EARLIER YEARS THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ADDITION IF EVEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S ARE REJECTED. THUS NO DEMONSTRATIVE CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT BY LD. AO O R CIT(A), AS TO WHY THE EARLIER HISTORY SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED. THUS L OOKING FROM ANY ANGLE THE ADDITIONS RETAINED BY LD. CIT(A) HAVE NO JUSTIFICATION TO STAND, THEREFORE, THEY DESERVED TO BE DELETED. 4. LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE RECORD, IT CLEARLY EM ERGES THAT THE ASSESSEES TURNOVER FROM CONTRACT WORKS HAS INCREASE D IN THIS TWO YEARS; THE PROFITABILITY ON ALL PARAMETERS I.E. O P , G P & N P ETC. ALSO HAS IMPROVED. THUS THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE COMPETIT ION AND INCREASED TURNOVER HAS BEEN ABLE TO OFFER BETTER PROFITABILIT Y ON ALL RELEVANT PARAMETERS. ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 17 5.1 APROPOS THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE RE IS NO ISSUE ON THE RECEIPT SIDE AS THEY ARE FROM GOVERNMENT UNDERT AKINGS ON WHICH TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. THE ISSUES AS POINTED BY AO AR E ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE. IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT IN ASSESSEE LINE OF CONTRACTS, SAME IS OUTSOURCED BY APPOINTING THE SUB -CONTRACTORS OF NEARBY LOCALITIES ON PIECE WORK BASIS. IT HAS NOT BE EN DISPUTED THAT THE PAYMENT TO THE SUB-CONTRACTORS ARE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND WHEREVER APPLICABLE TDS U/S 194C IS DEDUCTED FROM THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM. THE ACCOUNTING YEARS ENDED ON 31/3/200 8 AND 31/3/2009 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE PASSED RESPE CTIVELY ON 27/12/2011 AND 31/12/2010. ASSESSEE HAD FINISHED IT S WORK ON MOST OF THE SITES AND SUBCONTRACTORS WERE SUMMONED AFTER A P ERIOD OF ABOUT 2 YEARS IN ASSESSMENT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEES BUS INESS MODULE, ONCE THE WORK IS OVER AT A PARTICULAR SITE, THE SAME IS WOUND UP AND SHIFTED TO A NEW SITE. THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS PROPER STOCK REGISTERS REFLECTING QUANTITATIVE DETAILS WHICH HAS BEEN FILED WITH ASSESSING OFFICER ALONGWITH ASSESSEES RELEVANT REPLIES. 5.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESIRED TO VERIFY THE AMOU NTS PAID TO SUB- CONTRACTORS. THE EMPLOYMENT OF SUB-CONTRACTORS IS NO T DISPUTED LIKEWISE THE PAYMENT TO THEM THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, DEDUCTION OF TDS ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 18 WHEREVER APPLICABLE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WANTED THEIR PERSONAL ATTENDANCE; SOME ATTENDED SUO MOTU, SOME WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHO CONFIRMED THE WORK. SOM E WERE EXAMINED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. SOME OF T HEM ADMITTED DOING WORK BUT EXPRESSED INABILITY TO REMEMBER THE R ELEVANT DETAILS AFTER A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS. LIKEWISE SOME DENIED HAV ING DONE ANY WORK FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM, IN THAT CAS E AO SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THEIR BANK PASS BOOKS TO TEST THE VERACITY OF THEIR DEPOSITIONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EX AMINE THEM AND THE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE TRUE AND A TOOL TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE U/S 145(3). IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE A DVERSE INFERENCE DRAWN IN THIS BEHALF IS NOT TENABLE. SIMILARLY IN CO NTRACTORS CASES THERE ARE NUMEROUS OCCASION OF DRAWING SELF MADE VOUCHERS AS THEY ARE MANY A TIMES INCURRED AT FAR AWAY SITES. THEREFORE, S ELF MADE VOUCHERS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BOGUS ON FACE VALUE AND A FEW O F THEM DONT HAVE THE PROPENSITY TO RENDER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS L IABLE FOR REJECTION U/S 145(3). 5.3 THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS CASE HAS HELD THAT TH E ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE A VESTED RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SUBCON TRACTORS WHO DEPOSED AGAINST HIM; WITH RESPECT WE DONT AGREE TO T HIS FINDING. LD. ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 19 ASSESSING OFFICER CAN CALL A WITNESS, RECORD HIS STA TEMENT AND DRAW SUITABLE INFERENCE THEREFROM, HOWEVER IT IS INCUMBEN T FOR HIM TO TEST THE VERACITY OF DEPOSITION FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT LIKE PAN NO., BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPONENT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A)S OBSERVATION IS NOT TENABLE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ANY RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF EXPE NDITURE, THE ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEUQES, THE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEES AC COUNTS AND THE TDS DEDUCTION CERTIFICATES DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSE SSEE PRODUCED THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE. IN THIS SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OBLIGED TO GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINING THEM BESIDE EFFECTIVELY REBUTTING THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY ASS ESSEE. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE CONFRONTED THE IS SUE OF TDS CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY ASSESSEE AND BANK ACCOUNTS O F SUCH DEPONENT SUB-CONTRACTORS, NO SUCH EXERCISE HAS BEEN DONE TO ESTABLISH THEIR VERACITY. THESE SUB-CONTRACTORS STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON FACE VALUE NEITHER BY GIVING OPPORTUNITY FOR CROSS EXAMI NATION NOR CONFRONTING IT WITH THE EXISTING RECORD; THUS THEIR VERACITY REMAINS UNCORROBORATED. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UN ABLE TO UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND C IT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AS ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 20 THEY ARE UNSUBSTANTIATED AND AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTA L PRINCIPLES OF LAW OF NATURAL JUSTICE. UNDISPUTEDLY THE SUB-CONTRACTIN G OF THE WORK IS ESSENTIAL IN THIS BUSINESS; THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN P AID BY BANK ACCOUNT; THE BILLS BEAR PAN NUMBERS AND TDS IS DEDUC TED. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN TO PROVE THE INC URRING OF EXPENDITURE IN THIS BEHALF. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HOULD HAVE REBUTTED THE SAME IN EFFECTIVE TERMS, WHICH IS NOT DONE, BESI DES, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WANTED TO RELY ON SOME MATERIAL, WHICH IS CON TRARY TO THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEE N INTIMATED TO HIM AND EXPLANATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED. OR IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CORROBORATED FROM OTHER MATERIAL WHICH IS STARKLY MI SSING. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO HAS GIVEN PROPER EXPLANAT ION FOR EACH AND EVERY SUB-CONTRACTORS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW T HAT AS FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON SUB-CONTRACTORS IS CONCERNE D, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS TO CORROBORATE THE SAME . THUS BOOKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT REBUTTING THE ASSESSEE EXPLANA TION AND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE DEVI ANT SUB-CONTRACTORS, WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN IN THIS RESPE CT ON UNSUBSTANTIATED DEPOSITIONS. ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 21 5.4 APROPOS THE ALLEGATION THAT SOME OF THE EXPENDI TURE VOUCHERS ARE SELF MADE AND IN CASH, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE A SSESSEE CONTRACTOR OPERATES AT VARIOUS SITES MOST OF THEM BEING INRURA L AREA, IT WILL BE TOO MUCH TO EXPECT THAT FOR EACH AND EVERY RURAL WORKER, VENDOR, ELECTRICIAN WILL GET PRINTED BILLS AND GIVE IMPRESSIVE/PRESENTAB LE INVOICES. IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL OCCASIONS WHEN THE CONTRACTORS WORKING ON MULTIPLE SITES HAVE TO INCUR THE EXPENDIT URE IN CASH ON THE REPORT OF THE SITE SUPERVISOR; THEY MAKE A SELF MAD E VOUCHER WHICH ARE CONSIDERED AS AN EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE. THIS DIFFI CULTY CANNOT BE HELD AS A LEVERAGE BY THE AO TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE SURROUNDING CI RCUMSTANCES. AT THE MOST, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY HAVE DISALLOWED PART OF THE AMOUNT, WHICH DEPENDS ON VARIOUS FACTORS INCLUDING I DENTIFICATION OF THE ITEMS TO BE DISALLOWED. 5.5 IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF FACTS; THE ADVERSE INFERENCE DRAWN IN RESPECT OF TH E STOCK REGISTER, PAYMENTS TO SUB-CONTRACTORS AND EXPENDITURE INCURRE D ON SELF MADE VOUCHERS DO NOT HAVE THE PROPENSITY OF RECOURSING T O THE HARSH ACTION OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) IN TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES. AND MORE SO WHEN ALL THE RESULTS ARE MUCH BETTER TH AN EARLIER YEARS. ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 22 THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS HAVE BEE N WRONGLY REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, THE SAME DESERVES T O BE UPHOLD. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 5.6 BEFORE PARTING WE MAY LIKE TO MENTION THAT EVEN IF WORST IS ASSUMED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF REJECTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS; IN THE EVENTUALITY OF REJECTION, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER CANNOT ADOPT THE HARSH PRESUMPTIVE RATE OF TAXATION GLOSSI NG OVER THE ACCEPTED PREVIOUS HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OP, G.P. AND N.P. IN THESE YEARS ARE BETTER THAN EARLIER YEARS. IN THIS HYPOTHETICAL EVENTUALITY OF REJECTION OF BOOKS ALSO, THEREFORE, NO QUESTION OF SUCH ADDIT ION ARISE. ON MERITS ALSO, WE HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS PRIMARY ONUS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE STOCK REGISTER, SUB-CONTRACTOR S PAYMENTS AND SELF MADE VOUCHERS ARE PROPERLY MADE. THERE IS NO EFFECTI VE REBUTTABLE FROM THE SIDE OF ASSESSING OFFICER OR LEARNED CIT(A) TO C OUNTER IT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE I S NO SCOPE OF ANY ADDITION ON MERITS. THEREFORE, ALL THE ADDITIONS, WH ICH ARE SUSTAINED, ARE DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED AND REVENUES APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ITA 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013_ ADDL.CIT VS. RAJ KR. BABUTTA 23 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/02/2015. SD/- SD/- VH-VKJ-EHUK VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (T.R. MEENA) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED 13/02/2015. *RANJAN. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- RAJ KUMAR BABUTTA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ADDL. C.I.T.,RANGE-2, JAIPUR/ A.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR/ D.C.I.T.,CIRCLE-2, 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 346, 314, 950JP/2012 & ITA 05/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR