SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA, Jaipur V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1-1, Jaipur

ITA 355/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3498 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANCHAL MEENA J DHK
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 145(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH A , JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE : SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 355/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA 1214, PARTANIYON KA RASTA JOHRI BAZAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 1(1) JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAYPN 3419 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MS. CHANCHAL MEENA, JCIT-DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/03/2020 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/03/2020 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 13-12-2018 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11. 2.1 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN TH IS APPEAL WAS CALLED FOR HEARING DESPITE THE NOTICE WAS DULY RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER ACKNOWLEDGMENT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD.AR O F THE ASSESSEE HAS THOUGH FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION VIDE LETTER DAT ED 12-12-2019. ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 2 ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE PROPOSE TO HEAR AND DISPOSE OFF THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EX -PARTE BY CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY THE LD.AR OF THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE GROSSLY ERRED UND ER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING TH E ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 MERELY ON THE BASIS OF DOUBT AND SUSPICION AND WITHOUT HAVING REASON TO BELIEVE. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE GROSSLY ERRED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN UPHOLDING TH E APPLICATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND REJ ECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT POINTING O UT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECTS THEREIN. 3. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE GROSSLY ERRED UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 2,15,936/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BO GUS PURCHASES. 3.1 THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING V ALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT. 3.2 THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMIS SION SUBMITTED THAT THE SOLITARY GROUND ON WHICH THE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WERE INITIATED WAS THE STATEMENT OF SOME PERSON NAMED SHRI RAJENDR A JAIN, DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI WHO ADMITTED HIS INDULGENCE IN PROVIDING THE ACCOMMODAT ION ENTRIES. THE ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 3 STATEMENTS MIGHT BE GIVEN BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN TO SAVE HIMSELF FROM THE LIABILITIES OF TAX. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y EVIDENCE WHICH GIVES A REASON TO BELIEVE THAT CERTAIN INCOME HAS ESCAPED A SSESSMENT, THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABL E TO BE QUASHED. 3.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMA TION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PURCHASES FROM THE PARTIES WHICH WERE ONLY ISSUING ACCOMMODATION BILLS AND WERE NOT HAVING ANY STOCK A VAILABLE WITH THEM. THE REOPENING WAS DONE ONLY AFTER PROPERLY RECORDIN G THE REASONS AND FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLE N MILLS LTD. VS ITO, 236 ITR 34 AND SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENCY OR C ORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT A THING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS ST AGE OF REOPENING. THUS THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QU A THIS ISSUE. 3.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE, THERE WAS NO ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT BUT THE R ETURN FILED BY THE ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 4 ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSE QUENTLY, THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION AS WELL AS STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN CASE OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, SHRI SANJAY CHOUDHARY GROUP AND SHRI DHARMICHAND JAIN GROUP OF MUMBAI ON 03-10-2013. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED DIAMOND FROM THE CONCERNS OF SHRI RAJENDR A JAIN, GROUP, THEREFORE, BASED ON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM I NVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI, THERE WAS A PRIMA FACIE MATERIAL TO FORM TH E BELIEF THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. C IT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 3.1.2 AS UNDER:- 3.1.2 DETERMINATION: (I) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A PPELLANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF THE CASE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT THE REOPENING WAS BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR JAIN WHICH CANNOT BE THE BAS IS FOR REOPENING OF THE CASE. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE AO REOPENED THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION COUPL ED WITH FOLLOW UP INVESTIGATION. THE APPELLANT WAS CLAIMING PURCHASE FROM PARTIES WHICH WERE ONLY ISSUING ACCOMMODATION BILLS AND WER E NOT HAVING ANY STOCKS AVAILABLE WITH THEM. THE REOPENING WAS DONE AFTER PROPERLY RECORDING THE REASONS AND FOLLOWING THE DUE PROCEDU RE OF LAW. THE APPELLANT IS CHALLENGING THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE REA SONS RECORDED WHICH CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. (II) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE COURTS CANNOT LOO K INTO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR REOPENING THE AS SESSMENT U/S 147 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 5 RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. VS ITO [1999] 236 ITR 3 4 (SC), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD BY THEIR LORDSHIP THAT: 'IN THIS CASE, WE DO NOT HAVE TO GIVE FINAL DECISIO N AS TO WHETHER THERE IS SUPPRESSION OF MATERIAL FACTS B Y THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. WE HAVE ONLY TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS PRIMA FACIE SOME MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPAR TMENT COULD REOPEN THE CASE. THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNE SS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT A THING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS ST AGE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COURT CANNOT STRIKE DOWN THE R EOPENING OF THE CASE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF FACTS MADE IN THE NOTICE WAS ERRONEOUS. THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO PROVE T HAT NO NEW FACTS CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCOME-TAX O FFICER AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. WE A RE NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. T HE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW ARE LEFT OPEN TO BE INVES TIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE APPELLANT W ILL BE ENTITLED TO TAKE ALL THE POINTS BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY. THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED.' (III) IN THE CASE OF MS AMIT POLYPRINTS (P.) LTD. V S DCIT 94 TAXMANN.COM 393 [2018] (GUJARAT), IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE H IGH COURT OF GUJARAT THAT: 'WHERE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON B ASIS INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING THAT A SSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM SHELL COMPANIES WORKIN G AS AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDER, REASSESSMENT COULD NO T BE HELD UNJUSTIFIED' (IV) IN THE CASE OF M/S JAYANT SECURITY & FINANCE LTD 91 TAXMANN.COM 181[2018] (GUJARAT), IT WAS HELD BY THE HELD BY TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT THAT: 'INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM INVESTIGATION WING THAT A SSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT AS A LOAN FROM A COMPAN Y, WORKING AS ENTRY OPERATOR AND EARNING BOGUS FUNDS T O PROVIDE ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PERSON, WAS JUSTIFIED' (V) IN THE CASE OF RAKESH GUPTA VS CIT 93 TAXMANN.COM 271 [2018] (PUNJAB & HARYANA), IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA THAT: ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 6 WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM PRINCIPLE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) THAT ASSESSE E HAD RECEIVED BOGUS LOSS FROM, HIS BROKER BY CLIENT CODE MODIFICATION, REASSESSMENT ON BASIS OF SAID INFORMATION WAS JUSTI FIED' (VI) IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BR OKERS (P.) LTD [2007] 161 TAXMAN 316 (SC) /291 ITR 500 (SC)/ [2007 ] 210 CTR 30 (SC),IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT: SO LONG AS THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 147 ARE FULFI LLED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U NDER SECTION 147 AND FAILURE TO TAKE STEPS UNDER SECTION 143(3) WILL NOT RENDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER POWERLESS TO INITIATE REASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, EVEN WHEN INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143 (1) HAS BEEN ISSUED ADAM EXPORTS V. DCI - 111999] 240 ITR 224 (GUJ) DISTINGUISHED.' (VII) IN THE CASE OF R.K. MALHOTRA ITO VS KASTURB HAI LALBHAI [1977] 109 ITR 537 (SC), IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT THAT: 'THE INTIMATION WHICH THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER RECEIV ED FROM THE AUDIT DEPARTMENT WOULD CONSTITUTE 'INFORMA TION' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147(B)' (VIII) THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND WAS HAVING REA SON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEA L IS HEREBY REJECTED. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. THUS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 4.1 THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RE GARDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ADDITION OF RS. 2,15,936/-. ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 7 4.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF TH E LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSE RTED THAT PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM M/S. AVI EXPORTS AGAINST PROPER INVO ICE AND PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING R EGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH STOCK REGISTER. THEREFORE, THE SAID PU RCHASES CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BOGUS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN WHEREIN HE HAS MADE A GENERAL STATEMENT OF HIS INDU LGENCE IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF SALES AND PURCHASES BUT NOT MADE AN ALLEGATION OF PARTICULAR TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSES SEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE BASIS OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS ONLY A PRESUMPTION AND SURMISES AND NOT ANY ACTUAL DEFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE PURCHASES A RE FOUND TO BE BOGUS THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GIVING TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDING LY THE AO HAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.4 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NO TE THAT THOUGH THE AO ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 8 HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF 25% OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCH ASES, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE ADDITION IN TERMS OF SECTION 145(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE ACT AND TESTED THE RESULTS OF THE ASSESS EE IN TERMS OF AVERAGE G.P. DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR S. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE AVERAGE G.P. AND ARRIVED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IF THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED BASED ON THE AVERAGE G.P. O N THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE THEN IT WOULD BE MORE THAN THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDI TION TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO. THE RELEVANT FINDI NGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AT PARA 3.2.2 (XI) OF HIS ORDER IS AS UNDER: - 3.2.2.. (XI) THUS, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S, THE PAST HISTORY OF THE APPELLANT HAS TO BE SEEN, FOR ESTIMA TING THE PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLAT WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT ITS TRADING RESULTS FOR THE LAST FEW YEARS, WHICH WERE SUBMITTED AND REPRODUCED AS U NDER:- ASSTT.YEAR TURNOVER GROSS PROFIT G.P. RATE 2008-09 36442382.50 3980389.84 10.92% 2009-10 35776809.00 3427241.50 9.58% 2010-11 45224862.97 3800513.41 8.40% TOTAL 117444054.47 11208144.75 9.54% (XII) IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S VAIBHAV GEMS LTD. [2014] 112 DTR 84 (RAJ), IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN THAT WHILE THE PAST HISTORY BECOMES THE RELEVANT BASIS BUT IF THE AO WISHES TO TINKER WITH THE BASIS OF PAST RECORDS, THEN SOME FLAW HAS TO BE FOUND BY THE ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 9 AO IN MAKING SOME ADDITION AND, IN TOE INSTANT CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 856 3,745/- WAS FOUND TO BE BOGUS/UNVERIFIABLE, WHICH IS ABOUT 1.92 % OF THE TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS. 4,48,73,893/- DECLARED BY THE APPE LLANT. AS PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF 1.92% WERE NOT VERIFIABL E DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND BILLS WERE OBTAINED THRO UGH ACCOMMODATION ENTRY PROVIDERS WHICH DEFINITELY RESU LTS IN HIGHER GP RATE. THE HIGHER GROSS PROFIT WILL ALSO T AKE INTO ACCOUNT OF THE IRREGULARITIES COMMITTED BY THE APPE LLANT IN OBTAINING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE GROSS PROFIT O F 8.40% FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS LESS THAN THE AVERA GE GROSS PROFIT OF 9.54%. AS THE TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT HAS INCR EASED, THE GP RATIO IS BOUND TO BE MODERATE. HOWEVER, THE FACT TH AT THERE WAS DEFECT IN REPORTING PURCHASE FROM PARTIES WHO ARE I N THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES NEEDS TO BE FACT ORIZE IN ESTIMATING THE BOOK RESULTS. THE AO HAS MADE AN ADD ITION OF RS. 215936/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASE. THIS ADDITIO N RESULTS IN GP RATIO OF 8.88% WHICH IS STILL FAR BELOW THE AVER AGE GP RATE OF 9.54%. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR AND THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, IF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ESTIMAT ED AS PER WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW BEING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE G. P. DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AVERAGE OF PAST HISTORY AS THE BASIS O F THE ESTIMATION THEN THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW G.P. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE THAN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AC CORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISS ED. ITA NO.355/JP/2019 SHRI SURESH CHAND NAHATA VS ITO , WARD-1(1), JAIPUR 10 5.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04 /03/202 0. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04/03/ 2020 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SURESH CHAND, JAIPUR 2 IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD- 1(1), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A), 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.355/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR