SHAHNAZ KHANAM, JHALAWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JHALAWAR

ITA 38/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6148 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: SUHANI MAMODIA
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay

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 FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHAHNAZ KHANAM C/O RAJASTHAN AUTOMOBILE, BUS STAND, JHALAWAR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD, JHALAWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ANTPK 5222 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUHANI MAMODIA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM RAI (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/05/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/05/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 10.10.2017 OF CIT (A), KOTA ARISING FROM THE PENALT Y ORDER PASSED U/S 271B OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-1 4. THERE IS DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THIS APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WHICH IS SUPPORTED BY AN AFFID AVIT AS WELL AS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 2 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS THE LD. DR A ND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE CONTENTS APPLICATION AND SUPPORTING AFF IDAVITS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED TH E CAUSE OF DELAY OF 6 DAYS AS ILLNESS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE ASS ESSEE WAS ADVISED BED REST FOR 10 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A M EDICAL CERTIFICATE SRGH & MC JHALAWAR. HAVING CONSIDERED THE REASONS E XPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. ACCORDINGLY , WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 6 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E. 3. THE SOLITARY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH IS APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD . ITO WARD, JHALAWAR ERRED IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271B AMOUNTI NG TO RS. 107547.00 AND ALSO LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING S UCH PENALTY IGNORING REASONABLE CAUSE, WHICH IS UNJUSTIFIED AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS THE LD. DR A ND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.11.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,11,68 0/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AO FOUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 3 SHOWN THE TURNOVER OF RS. 38,95,987/- WHEREAS ACTUA L TURNOVER WAS DETECTED AT RS. 2,15,09,422/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAINED ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO AUDIT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO ACCORDINGLY INITIATED THE PROCEEDIN GS U/S 271A AS WELL AS 271B OF IT ACT FOR DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE AS SESSEE FOR NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE AUD IT OF THE SAME AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA AND 44AB OF THE ACT RESPECTIVELY. SO FAR AS THE APPEAL BEFORE US THE SAME IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271B FOR NON AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS. THE LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINE D ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEREFORE, THE QUESTION OF AUDIT OF SAME D OES NOT ARISE AND ONCE THE PENALTY HAS ALREADY BEEN LEVIED U/S 271A O F THE ACT THEN NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED U/S 271B FOR NOT GETTING ACCO UNTS AUDITED. THE LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABA D HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. BISAULI TRACTORS 299 ITR 219 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SURAJMAL PARSURAM TODI VS. CIT 222 ITR 691 . THE LD. AR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF D ELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 6696 & 6645/DEL/2014 DATED 02.03.2016. HENCE, T HE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED THE REGULAR BOOKS ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 4 OF ACCOUNT AND THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED U/S 271A OF THE ACT THEN NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED FOR VIOLATION OF SECTION 44A B OF THE ACT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS DISCLOSED INCORRECT TURNOVER OF RS. 38,95,987/- WHEREAS THE A CTUAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE RS. 2,15,09,422/-. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA AS WELL AS 44AB OF THE ACT FOR NOT MAINTAINING THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WE LL AS AUDIT OF THE SAME. 6. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CO MMITTED THE DEFAULT FOR NOT MAINTAINING THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A S REQUIRED U/S 44AA OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY IMPOS ED THE PENALTY U/S 271A FOR VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44A A OF THE ACT. THE AO HAS ALSO IMPOSED THE PENALTY U/S 271B FOR NOT GETTI NG THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN THE QUES TION OF GETTING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AUDITED DOES NOT ARISE. ONCE, THE RE IS A VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT THE SAID VIOL ATION CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AB OF ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 5 THE ACT CAN BE INVOKED ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS C OMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, T HE VIOLATION OF SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT CANNOT CONTINUE BECAUSE ONCE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCO UNT THE SAID VIOLATION CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 44AA AND HENCE, CANNOT BE HELD AS A FURTHER VIOLATION OF SEC TION 44AB OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAND HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS . BISAULI TRACTORS (SUPRA) WHILE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE AS HELD IN PA RAS 11 TO 14 AS UNDER:- 11. IN THE CASE OF S. NARAYANAPPA & BROS. V. CIT [1961] 41 ITR 125 THE MYSORE HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : 'WHAT WAS URGED BEFORE US WAS THAT IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED NO RETURN AT ALL BEFORE THE INCOME-TA X OFFICER, IT SHOULD BE PRESUMED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 28(1)(B) TH AT HE HAS FURNISHED A RETURN OF HIS INCOME INTIMATING THE INC OME-TAX OFFICER THAT HIS INCOME IS NIL. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LAN GUAGE OF SECTION 28(1) DOES NOT ADMIT OF ANY SUCH CONSTRUCTION SINCE THE CLEAR REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SUB-SECTION I S THAT AN ASSESSEE ON WHOM A PENALTY IS PROPOSED TO BE IMPOSED UNDER S ECTION 28(1)(B) SHOULD HAVE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE FURNISHE D HIS RETURN. THAT, IN MY OPINION, IS THE ORDINARY AND GRAMMATICAL MEAN ING OF THE WORDS OCCURRING IN THE ACT. TO INTERPRET THE LANGUAGE OF THIS PROVISION IN THE MANNER SUGGESTED BY THE LEARNED GOVERNMENT PLEA DER WOULD, IN MY OPINION, BE TOO ARTIFICIAL AND TOO FAR-FETCHED T O COMMEND ITSELF FOR ACCEPTANCE. ALTHOUGH IT IS TRUE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF A STATUTE LIKE THOSE CONTAINED IN SECTION 28(1)(B) HAVE TO RECEIVE TO CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO PROMOTE THE OBJECT OF THE STATUTE, IT IS C LEAR THAT WHEN WE INTERPRET A PENAL PROVISION LIKE THAT CONTAINED IN SECTION 28(1)(B), THE ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 6 INTERPRETATION WE SHOULD PLACE UPON IT MUST ACCORD WITH REASON AND JUSTICE AND MUST BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLAIN OR DINARY AND RATIONAL MEANING OF THE WORDS CONTAINED IN THOSE PR OVISIONS. SO INTERPRETED, I WOULD NOT, IN MY OPINION, BE RIGHT I N PLACING ON SECTION 28(1)(B) THE CONSTRUCTION FOR WHICH THE LEARNED GOV ERNMENT PLEADER CONTENDS.' (P. 133) 12. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE S. SANTHOSA NADA R V. FIRST ADDL. ITO [1962] 46 ITR 411 HAS GONE TO THE EXTENT THAT A VOLUNTARY RETURN FILED AFTER THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS FROM TH E CLOSE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS NOT A VALID RETURN AND SUCH A CA SE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS IF NO RETURN HAS BEEN FILED AT ALL AND IT CANNOT BE SAID IN SUCH A CASE THAT THERE HAS BEEN A CONCEALMENT OF TH E PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR DELIBERATE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTI CULARS AND SECTION 28(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 WOULD NOT BE A PPLICABLE. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : 'WHEN WE COME TO SECTION 28(1)(C ), IT DEALS SPECIF ICALLY WITH THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR THE DELIB ERATE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN THE SETTING IN WHICH THIS SUB- SECTION FINDS PLACE IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO CONSTRUE SE CTION 28(1)(C) EXCEPT AS RELATING TO A CASE WHERE A RETURN HAS BEE N FILED BUT FROM WHICH RETURN PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN OMITTE D OR ANY PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN DELIBERATELY INACCURATELY FUR NISHED. THE USE OF THE EXPRESSION PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND PAR TICULARS OF SUCH INCOME WOULD BE WHOLLY INAPPOSITE IN A CASE WHERE NO RETURN HAS AT ALL BEEN FILED; SUCH A CASE WOULD CLEARLY COME WITH IN THE SCOPE OF SECTION 28(1)(A) ALONE.' 13. THIS COURT IN CWT V. YADU RAJ NARAIN SINGH [2006] 286 ITR 564 ALSO TAKEN THE SAME VIEW. IT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS : 'THUS APPLYING THE STRICT CONSTRUCTION OF PENALTY P ROVISIONS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE (1) OF SUB-SECTION (C) OF SECTION 18 OF T HE ACT, WE FIND THAT PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT IN EXPLANATION 3 BY THE DIRE CT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1987 WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1989 IN A CASE WHERE THE PERSON WHO HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ASSESSED UNDER T HE ACT DOES NOT FILE ANY RETURN IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OR EVEN W HERE TIME FOR FILING ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 7 THE RETURN HAS EXPIRED HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN THE RE CANNOT BE ANY CONCEALMENT FOR WHICH PENALTY PROVISION CAN BE IMPO SED. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CO NCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME FOR WHICH WEALTH NO PENAL TY UNDER CLAUSE (1) OF SUB-SECTION (C) OF SECTION 18 OF THE ACT IS EXIGIBLE. 14. THEREFORE, SECTION 271B OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTE D IN A CASE WHERE NO ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED AND INSTEAD RE COURSE UNDER SECTION 271A CAN BE TAKEN. 7. A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE GAU HATI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SURAJMAL PARSURAM TODI VS. CIT (SUPRA) A ND HELD IN PARA 6 AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 44A A, 44AB, 271A AND 271B OF THE ACT. MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS I S ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 44AA AND ON FAILURE TO DO SO THE ASSE SSEE SHALL BE GUILTY AND LIABLE TO BE PENALISED UNDER SECTION 271 A. EVEN AFTER MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE OBLIGATION OF T HE ASSESSEE DOES NOT COME TO AN END. HE IS REQUIRED TO DO SOMET HING MORE, I.E., BY GETTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED BY AN ACCOUNTANT. BUT WHEN A PERSON COMMITS AN OFFENCE BY NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 44AA THE OFFENCE IS COMPLETE. AFTER THAT THERE CAN BE NO POSSIBILITY OF ANY OFFENCE AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTI ON 44AB AND, THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALT Y UNDER SECTION 271B IS ERRONEOUS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS OVERLOOKED THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. OF COURSE, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAINTAIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 44AA AND FOR THAT PENALTY IS PRESCRIB ED UNDER SECTION 271A. IT IS FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO TAKE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 8 THE DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF NIRMAL KUMAR JAIN VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PARAS 3 & 4 AS UNDER:- 3. IN SO FAR AS THE PENALTY U/S 271B IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING ON P AGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAIN TAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER ANY PNALTY CAN BE IMPOSED U/S 271B FOR NOT GETTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED. THE HON'BLE GAUHATI HIGH COURT IN SURAIMAL PARASURAM TODI VS. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 691 (GAU.), HAS HELD THAT WHERE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED, PENALTY SHOULD BE IMPOSED FOR NON- MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 271A AND NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED U/S 271B FOR VIO LATION OF SECTION 44AB REQUIRING ITA NOS.6696 & 6645/DEL/2014 AUDIT OF ACCOUNTS. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON'BL E ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. BISAULI TRACTORS (2008) 299 I TR 219 (ALL). THE HON'BLE ALIAHABAD HIGH COURT REITERATED THE SIM ILAR VIEW IN CIT AND ANR. VS. S.K. GUPTA AND CO. (2010) 322 ITR 86 (ALL) BY HOLDING THAT REQUIREMENT OF GETTING THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT AUDITED CAN ARISE ONLY WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINT AINED. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE RE CAN BE NO PENALTY U/S 271B OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE FOR EGOING LEGAL POSITION EMANATING FROM THE JUDGMENT OF THE TWO HO NBLE HIGH COURTS, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT PENALTY U/S 271B OUGH T NOT TO HAVE BEEN LEVIED BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY DI D NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR T HE DELETION OF PENALTY. 4. AS REGARDS THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDITION OF RS.7.5O LAC, WE FIND THAT THIS A DDITION HAS RESULTED ON ESTIMATION OF INCOME AT 5% ON ESTIMATED SALES ITA NOS.6696 & 6645/DE1/2014 OF RS.1.50 CRORE. EXCEPT T HAT THERE IS NO OTHER BASIS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE HON'B LE DELHI HIGH ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 9 COURT IN CIT VS. AERO TRADERS P. LTD. (2010) 322 IT R 316 (DEL) HAS UPHELD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN DELETI NG PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WHICH WAS IMPOSED ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIO N MADE BY THE AO ON ESTIMATED PROFIT. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN T AKEN IN A SERIES OF JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. DHILLON RICE MILLS (2002) 256 ITR 447 (P&H). IN THIS CASE ALSO, THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH C OURT APPROVED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WHICH WAS BASED ON AN ESTIMATE OF INC OME MADE BY THE AO. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DECISIONS, IT I S CLEAR THAT THE PENALTY SO CONFIRMED IN THE INSTANT CASE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED BECAUSE IT WAS IMPOSED BY THE AO ON THE ESTIMATE OF INCOME MADE BY HIM. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER FOR THE DELETION OF PENALTY. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE BINDING PRECEDENT, WE H OLD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE FOUND TO HAVE NOT MAINTAINING THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS CONTEMPLATED BY SECTION 44AA OF THE ACT THE DEFAULT WAS COMPLETED AND THEREFORE, AFTER THE DEFAULT OF NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THERE CANNOT BE A FURTHER DEFAULT FOR NOT GETTING THE SAME AUDITED AS REQUIRED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. HENCE, THE PENALTY OF LEVY BY THE AO U/S 271B IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DE LETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/05/2018. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN FOT; IKY JKO (BHAGCHAND) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30/05/2018. ITA NO. 38/JP/2018 SHAHNAZ KHANAM VS. ITO 10 * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHAHNAZ KHANAM, JHALAWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD, JHALAWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 38/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR