RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 383/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9104 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K RAWAT
• Assessee Lawyers: B V MAHESHWARI
• Keywords: Business income; Business expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S,B 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. 382 & 383/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2012-13 & 2014-15 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., C-39, LAJPAT MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACC 9510 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.V. MAHESHWARI (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. RAWAT (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/09/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/12/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINS T THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 19.01.2018 FOR A.Y. 2014 -15 AND DATED 02.02.2018 FOR A.Y. 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COM MON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. WITH THE CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES, THE ASSESS EES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 383/JP/2018 FOR A.Y. 2014-15 IS TAKEN AS TH E LEAD CASE FOR THE ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 2 PRESENT DISCUSSION. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE H AS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS W ELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ASSESSING THE LEASING OF RS. 1 ,92,55,083/- AS RENTAL INCOME U/S 23/24 OF THE I.T. ACT IN PLACE OF BUSINESS INCOME WHICH IS DECLARED IN THE RETURN BY THE COMPA NY AND AFTER ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) & 24(B) THE NET IN COME ASSESSED AT RS. 1,18,29,943/- IN PLACE OF RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 88,36,390/-. THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A) ALSO ERRED IN C ONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION THOUGH THE MATTER IS COVERED BY THE O RDER OF HON. ITAT JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE COMPANY ITSELF IN EARLIER YEARS. 2. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GOA-1, THE LEARNED AO GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE COMPANY WHICH TOO WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER. THE COMPANY INCURRED ALL EXPENSES AS BUSINESS EXPEN SES SINCE THE COMPANY IS MEANT FOR BUSINESS. THAT THE LD. C.I .T.(A)-I, JAIPUR ALSO ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SAID EXPENSES , AND FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO HAVE NOT DONE PROPER DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER. 3. IN GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE LEASING INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUS E PROPERTY AS AGAINST INCOME FROM BUSINESS/PROFESSION AS DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. 4. THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LEASING AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT . IT HAS DEVELOPED A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WHICH IS APPROVED BY JAIPUR DEVE LOPMENT ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 3 AUTHORITY (JDA) AND THE OFFICE SPACE THEREIN HAS BE EN GIVEN ON LEASE TO M/S BANSAL CLASSES AND NOKIA INDIA LTD SINCE FINANC IAL YEAR 2005-06 ONWARDS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEASE INCOME HA S BEEN CONSISTENTLY DECLARED AS BUSINESS INCOME RIGHT FROM ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID POSITION HAS BE EN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES CONSISTENTLY RIGHT FROM ASSES SMENT YEAR 2006-07. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE VERY FIRST YEAR I.E. A SSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN FAV OUR OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHICH DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED ANY FURTHER APPEAL. IN A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09, THE MATTER WAS AGAIN DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. SIMILARLY IN A.Y. 2010-11 & 2011-12, THE MATTER WAS DECIDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE HAS BEEN NO FURTHER APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT T HERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IT IS THE SAME BUSINESS WHICH IS RUN FROM THE VERY FIRST YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY SHOULD APPLY AND THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED TO DEPART FROM THE POSITION ACCEPTED IN EARLIER YEA RS AT THEIR SWEET WILL IN ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGE IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT (1992) 193 ITR 321 WHERE IN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THERE ARE NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS, A DIFFERE NT CONCLUSION WAS NOT WARRANTED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICIALS. FURTHER, REL IANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. NEO POLY PACK PVT. LTD. (2000) 245 ITR 492 WHEREIN IT WAS OB SERVED THAT THE ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 4 DOCTRINE OF RES JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO THE INCO ME TAX PROCEEDINGS SINCE EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS INDEPENDENT OF THE OT HER, BUT WHERE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED CONSISTENCY IN A BROAD MANN ER FOR EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, FOR THE SAKE OF CONSISTENCY, THE SAME VIEW SHOULD CONTINUE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS UNLESS THERE IS MATERIAL CHANGES IN THE FACTS. 6. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE FINDI NGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. AT THE SAME TIME, IT WAS FAIRLY SUBMIT TED THAT THE MATTER IS COVERED BY EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL BUT AT THE SAME TIME, THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND A N APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY THE LEASE RENTAL IN COME HAS BEEN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD I NCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AS AGAINST THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS /PROFESSION AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE SAID CONTRASTING POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY MAINTAINED BY THEM YEAR AFTER YEAR SINCE AY 2006-07 . 8. AT THE SAME TIME, AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, BOTH T HE LD CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE COORDINATE BENCHES HAVE CONSISTENTLY UP HELD THE POSITION SO ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE LEASE RENTAL INCO ME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND OFFERED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS/PROFESSION. THE REASON WHY THE AO HAS NO T ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IS THAT THE R EVENUE HAS PREFERRED ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 5 AN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE EARLIER ORDER S OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES HAVE BEEN STAYED OR OVERRULED BY THE HONBL E HIGH COURT. IT THUS APPEARS THAT IN ORDER TO KEEP THE MATTER ALIVE AND TO TAKE CARE OF THE SITUATION WHERE THE MATTER MAY BE FINALLY DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOLLOWING THE SAM E TREATMENT AS DONE IN THE PREVIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS AND ASSESSING THE LEASE RENTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. 9. THE FACT OF THE MATTER HOWEVER IS THAT CONSISTEN TLY, THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE COORDINATE BENCHES HAVE HELD THAT TH E LEASE RENTAL INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME AS AGA INST INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY SO DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. GIVEN THAT THERE ARE NO CHANGES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, IN LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES FOR EARLIER YEARS AND FOLLOWING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY AS UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG (SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN REITE RATED IN THE LATTER DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. (394 ITR 449) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 38. ..WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES JUDICATA WOULD NOT APPLY TO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, THE NEED FOR CONSISTENCY AND CERTAINTY AND EXISTENCE OF STRONG A ND COMPELLING REASONS FOR A DEPARTURE FROM A SETTLED POSITION HAS TO BE SPELT OUT WHICH CONSPICUOUSLY IS ABSENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THIS REGARD WE MAY REMIND OURSELVES OF WHAT HAS BEEN OBSERVED B Y THIS ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 6 COURT IN RADHASOAMI SATSANG V. CIT [1992] 193 ITR 3 21/60 TAXMAN 248 (SC). 'WE ARE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT STRICTLY SPEAKING RE S JUDICATA DOES NOT APPLY TO INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS. AGAIN, EACH AS SESSMENT YEAR BEING A UNIT, WHAT IS DECIDED IN ONE YEAR MAY NOT APPLY IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR BUT WHERE A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT P ERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOU ND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NO T BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR.' WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO BASI S TO CHANGE OR INTERFERE WITH THE CONSISTENT POSITION WHICH HAS BE EN ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER YEARS THAT IS, TO ASSESS THE LEASE RENTAL I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS/PROFESSION. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. CONSEQUENTLY, TH E GROUND NO. 2 BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. 11. IN ITA NO. 382/JP/2018, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ASSESSING THE LEASING INCOME OF RS. 1,7 7,70,150/- AS RENTAL INCOME U/S 23/24 OF THE I.T. ACT IN PLACE OF BUSINE SS INCOME WHICH IS DECLARED IN THE RETURN BY THE COMPANY AND AFTER ALL OWING THE DEDUCTION ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 7 U/S 24(A) &24(B) THE NET INCOME ASSESSED AT RS. 93, 51,611/- IN PLACE OF RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 93,03,400/-. THAT THE LD. C. I.T. (A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION THOUGH THE MATTER I S COVERED BY THE ORDER OF HON. ITAT JAIPUR IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE C OMPANY ITSELF IN EARLIER YEARS. 2. ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GOA-1, THE LEARNED AO GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN CURRED BY THE COMPANY WHICH TOO WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ORD ER. THE COMPANY INCURRED ALL EXPENSES AS BUSINESS EXPENSES SINCE TH E COMPANY IS MEANT FOR BUSINESS. THAT THE LD. C.I.T.(A)-I, JAIPUR ALSO ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE SAID EXPENSES, AND FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO HAVE NOT DONE PROPER DISCUSSION IN THE ORDER. 3. THAT THE LD. A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN PLACE OF BUSINESS INCO ME, FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE SAID ADDITION MA DE BY LD. A.O. RS. 1,20,094/-. 4. THAT THE LD. A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE AD DITIONS OF RS. 475500/-, BEING INTEREST ON I.T. REFUND WHICH WAS N OT ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT, IT WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST DEMAND, AND NO I NTIMATION WAS GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN H OLDING THAT THE A.O. JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SAID ADDITION OF SUCH SUM RS. 4 75560. 12. GROUND NOS. 1 AND 2 ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 383/JP/2018. THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS AND DIRE CTIONS CONTAINED IN ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 8 ITA NO. 383/JP/2018 SHALL APPLY EQUALLY IN THIS REG ARD. GROUND NO. 1 IS ALLOWED AND GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOU S. 13. IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED TH E ACTION OF AO IN ASSESSING THE INTEREST INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN PLACE OF BUSINESS INCOME. 14. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARN ED INTEREST ON SHORT TERM DEPOSIT OF AMOUNT WITH THE BANK AND THER EBY IT HAS PARTED WITH THE BUSINESS CAPITAL FOR THE TIME BEING IN THE BANK, HENCE INVESTMENT OF BUSINESS CAPITAL IS DETERMINATION IN EARNINGS FOR BUSINESS AND, THEREFORE, INTEREST EARNED IS RIGHTLY SHOWN AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE LEARNED A.O. AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE IGN ORED ITS DISCUSSION AND TREATED IT AS IN INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHIC H IS NOT AS PER THE SYSTEM AND LAW IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 15. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE INTEREST ON SHORT TERMS DEPOSITS HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES AND WE ACCORDINGLY DONOT ACCEDE TO THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE LD AR AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS DISMISSED. 16. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED T HE ADDITION OF RS. 4,75,500/- BEING INTEREST FROM INCOME TAX REFUN D. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE NO SUCH REFUND WAS PA ID TO THE COMPANY ON 24.03.2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, THE SAME WAS PROCES SED AND ADJUSTED DIRECTLY AGAINST THE DEMAND PENDING PAYABLE FOR A.Y . 2007-08 BUT FOR THE SAME, NO SUCH INTIMATION WAS SEND TO THE ASSESS EE COMPANY, EVEN ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 9 IN THE 26AS OF THE COMPANY THE SAME AMOUNT WAS SHOW N AS REFUND ADJUSTED BY GOVERNMENT AND IN INTEREST COLUMN NO AM OUNT WAS SHOWN, ON THE BASIS OF THAT, COMPANY WAS NOT ABLE TO ADJUS T AND SHOWN INTEREST INCOME IN A.Y. 2012-13. 17. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT REFUND OF RS. 22. 58 LACS WAS GIVEN TO THE COMPANY FOR THE EARLIER YEARS DEMANDS TAKEN AND OR ADJUSTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF INTEREST O F RS. 4,75,560/- WAS SHOWN IN INTEREST INCOME IN A.Y. 2015-16 WHEN T HE ACTUAL INTEREST WAS RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY. THEREFORE THIS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN F.Y. 2011-12 BECAUSE IN A.Y. 2011-12 NO SUCH REFUND WAS ISSUED TO THE COMPANY. IF IT WILL A DD IN F.Y. 2012-13 IT WILL CAUSE DOUBLE TAX ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF INCOME WHICH IS AGAINST THE NATURAL JUSTICE. 18. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE LD CI T(A) HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD AR AND HIS FOL LOWING FINDINGS ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED: 3.3.2 DETERMINATION: (I) I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A PPELLANT, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 4,75,560/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON THE AMO UNT OF REFUND RELATING TO AY 2007-08 RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLA NT THAT IT HAS SHOWN THE SAME AS INCOME IN ITS INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE AY 2015-16 AND THIS AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 10 THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE YEAR TO WHICH I T PERTAINS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT AS PER THE ITS DETAILS, THE INTERES T OF RS. 4,75,560/- WAS PAID TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, THOUGH THROUGH ADJUSTMENT AGAINST THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 4,75,560 /- ON INCOME TAX REFUND PAID TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HENCE, THE SAME IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. HOWEVER, THE A O IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT HAS DECLARED THE SAME IN AY 2015-16 AND IF FOUND CORRECT, THEN THE S AME IS TO BE REDUCED FROM THE INCOME OF AY 2015-16 AS THE SAME I NCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 383/JP/18 IS A LLOWED AND APPEAL IN ITA NO. 382/JP/18 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/12/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 13/12/2018. * SANTOSH VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: ITA NO. 382 & 383 /JP/2018 RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT 11 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- RAJNANDINI CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., J AIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 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. 382 & 383/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR.