JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

ITA 37/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9486 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDER MEHTA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Bonafide belief; Wrong claim; Difference of opinion; Revised return; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 273B; 143(3); 14A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH- 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,O A H JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C. SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 37/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15. JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., 1 ST FLOOR, KHANIJ BHAWAN, UDYOG BHAWAN PREMISES, TILAK MARG, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AACCJ 2822 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SHYAM LAL AGARWAL (CA) & SHRI TARUN AGARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDER MEHTA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 08.05.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06/06/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 22.11.2018 OF LD. CIT (A)-2, JAIPUR ARISING FROM THE PENALTY ORDE R PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE AS SESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIR CLE-6, JAIPUR HAS ERRED AT LAW AS WELL AS IN FACT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME KNOW INGLY OF RS. 7,93,85,651/-. 2. THE LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCL E-6, JAIPUR HAS ERRED AT LAW AS WELL AS IN FACT IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND LEVYING THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,57,56,670/-. 2 ITA NO. 37/JP/2019 JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR. 3. THE LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCL E-6, JAIPUR HAS ERRED AT LAW AS WELL AS IN FACT IN NOT PROVIDIN G PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD. IS A WHOLLY OWNED COMPANY OF GOVERNMENT OF RAJASTHAN. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY W AS INCORPORATED WITH THE OBJECT OF PLANNING, DESIGNING, DEVELOPING, CONSTRUC TING, MAINTAINING, OPERATING AND FINANCING THE MASS TRANSIT AND OTHER URBAN TRANSPOR T AND PEOPLE MOVER SYSTEMS OF ALL TYPES AND DESCRIPTIONS IN THE STATE OF RAJASTHA N, EITHER INDIVIDUALLY OR IN ASSOCIATION WITH OTHER UNDERTAKINGS AND COMPANIES O R PERSONS IN INDIA AND/OR ABROAD AND/OR ACQUIRING THE BUSINESS/ESTABLISHMENT/ UNDERTAKING OF MASS TRANSIT AND OTHER URBAN TRANSPORT SYSTEM, AND TO CARRY ON BUSIN ESS RELATING TO CONSTRUCTION, MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF MASS TRANSIT AND OTHER URBAN TRANSPORT. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 12,83,09,345/-. THE RETURN WAS REVISED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2015 DECLARING LOSS OF RS. 13,08,21,562/-. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF ADVERT ISEMENT EXPENDITURE OF RS. 7,93,85,651/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT COMMENCED THE BUSINESS/OPERATION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION AND, THEREFORE, THE EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED. THE ASSESS EE CHALLENGED THE SAID ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A), HOWEVER, COULD NOT S UCCEED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO 3 ITA NO. 37/JP/2019 JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR. INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT BY ISSUING SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016 AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,57, 56,670/- BEING 100% OF TAX ON THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF ADVER TISEMENT EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN CHALLENGED THE LEVY OF PENALTY BEFOR E THE LD. CIT (A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE SAID ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED MAINLY FOR I NAUGURATION OF METRO RAIL AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND THE SAME WERE REVENUE EXPENDITURE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND, THE REFORE, CLAIMED AS PART OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO AND NO DISCREPANCY IN THE AM OUNT OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED AND DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE WAS FOUND BY THE AO. THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS DULY EVIDENCED AND ACCOUNTED FOR AND WAS AUDITE D BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR DULY APPOINTED BY COMPTROLLER & AUDITOR GENERAL OF INDIA (CAG). HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE WERE NO QUALIFYING COMMENTS FR OM THE AUDITOR APPOINTED BY THE CAG REGARDING THE TREATMENT OF THE ADVERTISEMEN T EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER THEIR REPORT DATED 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2014. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHICH WERE DULY AUDITED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR AS WELL AS THE TAX AUDITOR UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE O F FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME, BUT THIS WAS A STRONG AND BONAFIDE BELIEF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON INAU GURATION OF PROJECT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CAPITAL EXPENDITURE BUT IT IS A REVENUE EXPENDITURE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE 4 ITA NO. 37/JP/2019 JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR. HAS INCURRED A HEAVY OPERATING LOSS AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR MAKING ANY IMPERMISSIBLE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE, BUT THE EXP ENDITURE WAS BOOKED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT STRICTLY AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STAND ARD WHICH WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE AS PER THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD BY THE STATUTORY AUDITO R. HENCE, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO HAVE FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BONAFIDE WHEN TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE ME RE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED WILL NOT ATTRACT THE PENALTY PROVISION UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CI T VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD., 322 ITR 158 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. HONGO INDIA PVT. LTD., 374 ITR 4 8 (ALL.). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED T HE ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMMENCE D ITS BUSINESS OR PROJECT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THEREFORE, THE SAID E XPENDITURE IS NOT AN ALLOWABLE CLAIM BUT WAS CERTAINLY REQUIRED TO BE CAPITALIZED. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEN TH E ASSESSEE HAS KNOWINGLY MADE AN IMPERMISSIBLE CLAIM PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF THE BUSINESS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN T HE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARED A LOSS OF RS. 13,08,21,562/- AFTER CLAIMIN G INTER ALIA ADVERTISEMENT 5 ITA NO. 37/JP/2019 JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR. EXPENDITURE OF RS. 7,93,85,651/-. THE AO WHILE C OMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) DISALLOWED THE SAID ADVERTISEMENT EX PENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMMENCED ITS BUSINESS/OPERATION D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND, THEREFORE, EXPENSES MUST HAVE BE EN CAPITALIZED. THUS THE PARTICULARS OF ALL THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE WERE ALREADY PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RATHER PART OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO HA S NOT POINTED OUT THAT ANY PART OF THE INCOME OR EXPENDITURE WAS NOT PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT ALL THE PARTICULARS AND DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE A O DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THOUGH THE CLAIM OF ADVERTISEMENT EXP ENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT IT SHOULD HAVE BE EN CAPITALIZED AS THE ASSESSEE HAS YET TO COMMENCE ITS OPERATION, HOWEVER, WHEN TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE DETAILS AND PARTICULARS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE AUDITED BY THE STATUTORY AUDITOR APPOINTED BY THE CAG THEN SUCH A CLAIM WHICH IS NOT AGAINST THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD CANNOT BE HELD AS MALAFIDE OR BOGUS CLAIM ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CLAIM OF DEDUCT ION ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS NOT FOUND TO BE ALLOWABLE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, IT IS ONLY A CASE OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLA IM DUE TO THE REASON OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION. THE ASSESSEE HAD A BONAFIDE BELIEF WHE N THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DULY AUDITED THROUGH THE CAG AND NO ADVERSE CO MMENTS WERE MADE REGARDING THE SAID CLAIM OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE BY THE AUDITOR. EVEN THE TAX AUDITOR HAS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT ANY SUCH DEFICIENCY OR MISTAKE IN MAKING THE CLAIM OF ADVERTISEMENT EXPENDITURE AS REVENUE. THUS IT IS ON LY A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT THE NATURE OF CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AS CLAIMED BY TH E ASSESSEE BUT WAS FOUND TO BE 6 ITA NO. 37/JP/2019 JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR. NOT ALLOWABLE BUT TO BE CAPITALIZED IN THE OPINION OF THE AO. ONCE THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY OR ANY DEFICIENCY IN TH E ACCOUNTS OR PARTICULARS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE MERE DISALLOWAN CE OF CLAIM WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GUILTY OF FURNI SHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME ATTR ACTING THE PENALTY PROVISION UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PARA 9 TO 11 AS UNDER :- 9. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED IN THE PRESENT CASE WITH THE MENS REA . HOWEVER, WE HAVE TO ONLY SEE AS TO WHETHER IN THIS CASE, AS A M ATTER OF FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN WEBSTER'S DICTIONARY, THE WORD 'INACCURATE' HAS BEEN DEFINED AS : 'NOT ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT; NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH; ERRONEOUS; AS AN INACCURATE STATEMENT, COPY OR TRANSCRIPT.' WE HAVE ALREADY SEEN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'PARTI CULARS' IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS JUDGMENT. READING THE WORDS IN CONJUNCTION, THEY MUST MEAN THE DETAILS SUPPLIED IN THE RETURN, WHICH ARE NOT ACCUR ATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. WE MUST HASTEN TO ADD HERE THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT ANY DETAILS SUPPLIED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN WERE FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR ERRONEOUS OR FALSE. SUCH N OT BEING THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF INVITING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C ) OF THE ACT. A MERE MAKING OF THE CLAIM, WHICH IS NOT SUSTA INABLE IN LAW, BY ITSELF, WILL NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULAR S REGARDING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN CANNOT AMOUNT TO THE INACCURATE PARTICULARS. 10. IT WAS TRIED TO BE SUGGESTED THAT SECTION 14A OF T HE ACT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE DEDUCTIONS IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITU RE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF T HE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE DIVIDENDS FROM THE SHARES DID NOT FORM THE PART OF THE TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS, THEREFORE, RE ITERATED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CORRECTLY REACHED THE CONCLUS ION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXCESSIVE DEDUCTIONS KNOWING THAT THEY ARE INCORRECT; IT AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT WAS TRIED TO BE ARGUED THAT THE FALSEHOOD IN ACCOUNTS CAN TAKE EITHER OF THE TWO FORMS; ( I ) AN ITEM OF RECEIPT MAY BE SUPPRESSED FRAUDULENTLY; ( II ) AN ITEM OF EXPENDITURE MAY BE FALSELY (OR IN AN EXAGGERATED AMOUNT) CLAIMED, AND BOTH TYPES ATTEMPT TO REDUCE THE TAXABLE INCOME AND, THEREFORE, BOTH TYPES AMOUNT TO CONCEAL MENT OF PARTICULARS OF 7 ITA NO. 37/JP/2019 JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR. ONE'S INCOME AS WELL AS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. WE DO NOT AGREE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE DE TAILS OF ITS EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME IN ITS RETURN, WHICH DETAILS, IN THE MSELVES, WERE NOT FOUND TO BE INACCURATE NOR COULD BE VIEWED AS THE CONCEALMEN T OF INCOME ON ITS PART. IT WAS UP TO THE AUTHORITIES TO ACCEPT ITS CLAIM IN TH E RETURN OR NOT. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE EXPENDITURE, W HICH CLAIM WAS NOT ACCEPTED OR WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE REVENUE, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT, IN OUR OPINION, ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C ). IF WE ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THEN IN CASE OF EVERY RET URN WHERE THE CLAIM MADE IS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ANY REASON , THE ASSESSEE WILL INVITE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)( C ). THAT IS CLEARLY NOT THE INTENDMENT OF THE LEGISLATURE. 11. IN THIS BEHALF THE OBSERVATIONS OF THIS COURT MADE IN SREE KRISHNA ELECTRICALS V. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [2009] 23 VST 249 AS REGARDS THE PENALTY ARE APPOSITE. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISION WHICH PERTAINED TO THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN TAMIL NADU GENERAL SALES TAX ACT, TH E COURT HAD FOUND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD FOUND THAT THERE WERE SOM E INCORRECT STATEMENTS MADE IN THE RETURN. HOWEVER, THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE REFLECTED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS COURT, THEREFORE, OB SERVED : 'SO FAR AS THE QUESTION OF PENALTY IS CONCERNED THE ITEMS WHICH WERE NOT INCLUDED IN THE TURNOVER WERE FOUND INCORPORATE D IN THE APPELLANT'S ACCOUNT BOOKS. WHERE CERTAIN ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT IN CLUDED IN THE TURNOVER ARE DISCLOSED IN THE DEALER'S OWN ACCOUNT BOOKS AND THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES INCLUDE THESE ITEMS IN THE DE ALER'S TURNOVER DISALLOWING THE EXEMPTION, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSE D. THE PENALTY LEVIED STANDS SET ASIDE.' THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS STILL BETTER A S NO FAULT HAS BEEN FOUND WITH THE PARTICULARS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RE TURN. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURA TE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WHEN ALL THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE AS WELL AS INCOME WERE A VAILABLE WITH THE AO AS PART OF THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT EVEN IF THE CLAIM OF ADVERTISEMENT IS NOT ALLOWABLE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY FALLS IN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 273B OF THE IT ACT AS A REASONABLE EXPLANATION WHEN IT IS A BONAFIDE CLAIM AND NOT QUE STIONED AT ANY STAGE OF STATUTORY 8 ITA NO. 37/JP/2019 JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD., JAIPUR. AUDIT AS WELL AS TAX AUDIT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06/06/2 019. SD/- SD/- ( JES'K LH- 'KEKZ ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (RAMESH C. SHARMA ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 06/06/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- JAIPUR METRO RAIL CORPORATION LTD ., JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE DCIT, CIRCLE 6, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 37/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR