SHRI MAHESH CHAND GUPTA, Jaipur V. ADD.C IT, Jaipur

ITA 392/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 39223114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MADHUKAR GARG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Rule of consistency; Question of law
• Section: 143(3)

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. 392/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 MAHESH CHAND GUPTA PROP- M/S RAJASTHAN SMALL SCALE COTTAGE INDUSTRIES, 1, JAGAT SHIROMANI ROAD, AMER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACEPG 9938 K VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUKAR GARG (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. NEENA JEPH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/05/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15/05/2015 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 19/03/2012 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2008-09 THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN APPLYING A GP RATE OF 56.17% IN EXPORT DIVISION RESULTING IN TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 20,30,516/-. TH E ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 2 TRADING ADDITION SUSTAINED IS UNJUSTIFIED AND EXCESSIVE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN APPLYING A GP RATE OF 36% IN LOCAL DIVISION AND MAKING TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 17,06,982/-. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN SUSTAINING THE TRADING ADDITION IS UNJUSTIFIED AND EXCESSIVE. 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT NONE OF THE COMMISSION RECIPIENTS HAD COME BACK TO HIS EMPORIUM. THE SAID FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIE D. 4. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS. THE SAID FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO SUBMIT T HAT THE COMMISSION AGENTS HAVE PROCURED ANY EXPORT ORDERS. THE SAID FINDING IS ILLEGAL AND UNJUSTIFIED. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,54,883/- OUT OF COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND EXCESSIVE. 7. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 75,424/- OUT OF ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES. THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED IS UNJUSTIFIED AND EXCESSIVE. 8. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,600/- ON ACCOUNT O F EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF. THE DISALLOWANCE SUSTAINED IS UNJUSTIFIED AND EXCESSIVE. ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 3 2. THE 1 ST AND 2 ND GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST APPLYING THE G.P. RATE 56.17% IN EXPORT DIVISION RE SULTING IN TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 20,30,516/- AND ALSO APPLYING A GP RATE OF 36% IN LOCAL DIVISION AND MAKING TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 17,06,9 82/-. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 06/10/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,36,17 ,080/-. HIS CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING AND EXPORT OF HANDICRAFT ITEMS AND CARPETS IN THE NAME AND STY LE OF M/S RAJASTHAN SMALL SCALE COTTAGE INDUSTRIES (EXPORT). THE ASSESSE E ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SUCH AS CASH BOOK, LEDGER ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE GP RESULT FOR THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY CONTINUED NOT TO MAINTAIN DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER OR QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SALE, CONSUMPTION OF RAW MATERIAL. THERE FORE, VERIFICATION OF TRADING RESULTS IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO MADE SOME PURCHASES FROM URDS AND PAYMENTS TO THEM WERE MADE I N CASH BELOW RS. 20,000/- EACH AT A STRETCH ON DIFFERENT DATES. THESE URD PURCHASES ARE UNVERIFIABLE AS SIMPLY SELF MADE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONTAINING COMPLETE ADDRESSES O F THE PARTIES. ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 4 THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT CORRECT INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT BE DEDUCED ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS PRODUCED BY HIM. THUS, HE APPLIED SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON TRADING RESULTS, WHIC H WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 06/10/2010. AFTER EXAMIN ING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE FOUND THESE SUBMISSIONS IN GENE RAL IN NATURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALE OF RS. 11.37 CRORES AND PUR CHASE OF RS. 7.84 CRORES BESIDES CLOSING STOCK RS. 4.71 CRORES IN LOC AL SALES. LIKEWISE IN EXPORT UNIT, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE SALE OF RS. 2.85 CRORES, PURCHASE OF RS. 1.4 CRORES, SHOWING CLOSING STOCK OF RS. 013 CRORE. ON THE BASIS OF PURCHASE AND SALE BILL AND NARRATION M ADE ON IT, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT WHAT ITEM PURCHASED AND WHAT ITEM HAD BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, QUANTITATIVE VERIFICATION IS N OT POSSIBLE INCLUDING CLOSING STOCK. NEITHER THE QUANTITY NOR THE RATE OF EACH OF THE ITEM HAD BEEN MENTIONED IN PURCHASE AND SALE INVOICES. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HELPLESS TO EXAMINE ANYTHING FROM THE RE CORD MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED G.P. ON ES TIMATE BASIS NEAR ABOUT THE G.P. RATE SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. IN PRECEDING YEAR ALSO, THE SAME DEFECTS WERE NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE REJECTED AND TRADING ADDITIONS WERE M ADE BY HIM. ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 5 ACCORDINGLY HE REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN PRECEDING PARA. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.N. NAMASWERY CHETTIYAR VS. CIT (1960) ITR 5 79 FOR MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER, CIT VS. BRITISH PAINT S INDIA LTD. 188 ITR 44 FOR THE BOOKS DISCLOSED THE TRUE STATEMENT OF AC COUNT AND CORRECT INCOME, COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. H.ESUF ALI, H. M. ABDUL ALI 90 ITR S.C. 1973 271 FOR ESTIMATING THE TURN OVER. THE LD A SSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE G.P. RATE @ 56.17% IN EXPORT DIVISION SIMILAR TO THE G.P. RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2004-05 AND A PPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2007-08 AS NO REASONS FOR FALL IN G.P. RATE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. LIKEWISE G.P. RATE ON LOCAL SALE IS APPLIE D @ 36% AS AGAINST THE DECLARED G.P. RATE OF 34.53%. ACCORDINGLY, HE M ADE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 20,30,516/- IN EXPORT SALE AND RS. 17,06,982 /- IN LOCAL SALE. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT( A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.1 IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS IN THIS REGARD EXCEPT RELYING ON THE ORDE RS OF ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 6 CIT(A) AND HONBLE ITAT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. THE COU NSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS MADE NO EFFORTS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION OF THE A.O. INASMUCH AS THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. HAVE REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED. IN FACT, THE HON BLE ITAT, JAIPUR HAS UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF AC COUNT IN A.Y. 2005-06 VIDE ITS ORDER ITA NO. 21/JP/2009 D ATED 23/10/2009. MY PREDECESSOR HAD ALSO UPHELD THE REJE CTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN A.Y. 2007-08 VIDE HIS ORDER NO. 398/09-10 DATED 16/06/2010. THE VARIOUS DISCREPANCI ES POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. ARE ENUMERATED AS UNDER: A) THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY STOCK REGIS TER THEREFORE DETAILS OF OPENING STOCK AND CLOSING STOC K WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. B) THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MAINTAINED ANY QUANTITATIV E AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS FOR VARIOUS ITEMS PURCHASED AND SOLD. IN FACT, THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN ONLY THE VAL UE OF VARIOUS ITEMS IN THE CLOSING STOCK SUCH AS CARPETS, TEXTILES, READYMADE GARMENTS. NEITHER THE QUANTITY NOT THE RA TE OF EACH ITEM WAS AVAILABLE. C) THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SUBMITTED THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF MONTHLY PURCHASES AND SALES ON THE GROUN D THAT THESE RECORDS WERE NOT MAINTAINED. THEREFORE THE TRAD ING RESULTS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT WERE NOT AMENABLE TO VERIFICATION. HE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) SANJAY VS. CIT (298 ITR 363). ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 7 (II) RADHEY SHYAM SITA RAM VS. DCIT (10 DTR 168). (III) NARSINGHDAS RAMAKISHAN PUNGALIYA VS. ACIT (2 72 ITR 467). (IV) SRIRAM & CO (316 ITR 139) (V) CIT VS. NATHEKKATTU CONSTRUCTIONS (269 ITR 346) . HE FURTHER HELD THAT THERE IS NO COGENT EVIDENCE OR REASONS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ESTI MATION IS SUPPORTED BY THE MATERIAL FACT OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE OF A.Y. 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED G.P. RATE OF 56.17% S HOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS EXPORT DIVISION IN A.Y. 2004-05. S IMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APPLIED G.P. RATE OF 36% IN THE LOCAL U NIT WHICH IS QUITE FAIR AND REASONABLE. THE SAME IS UPHELD BY FOLLOWING THE D ECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHEY SHYAM SI TA RAM VS. DCIT (SUPRA). ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES APPEAL HAD BEEN DI SMISSED IN BOTH THE GROUNDS. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICE R APPLIED SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT BY POINTING OUT VARIOUS DEFECTS I N THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT THE LD CIT(A) HAD COMPLETELY DISREGARDE D THE PAST HISTORY IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED G.P. RATE IN EXPORT UNIT AT 49.06% AS AGAINST G.P. RATE OF 49.07% AND 49.1% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 8 2007-08 AND 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. THE LD ASSESSING O FFICER APPLIED G.P. RATE IN A.Y. 2005-06 @ 56.17%, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) @ 52% AS REASONABLE IN EXPORT UNIT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR VIDE ITA NO. 21/JP/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. IT HAD BEEN DECIDE D VIDE ORDER DATED 23/10/2009 AND HAD DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION AND GP RATE OF 47.5% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AS SUCH . IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08, SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BY APPLYING THE G.P. RATE WHICH HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS, WHICH HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT BUT THE HONBLE ITAT HAD CONFIRMED THE O RDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IN BOTH THE YEARS. IN VIEW OF THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE AND THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 T O 2007-08, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR APPLYING THE G.P. RATE OF 56.1 7% IN EXPORT UNIT. 4.1 SIMILARLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITI ON IN G.P. RATE IN LOCAL UNIT FROM A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2007-08, WHICH WAS DE LETED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND THE LD CIT(A)S ORDER WAS UPHELD BY THE HON BLE ITAT. THE DEPARTMENT FURTHER FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT BUT NO QUESTION OF LAW HAD BEEN ADMITTED BY T HE HONBLE HIGH ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 9 COURT. THIS ISSUE HAS BECOME FINAL, THEREFORE, ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. THE LD D.R. HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. WHATE VER DEFECTS HAD BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REJECT THE BOOK RESULT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, ARE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE BOO K RESULT AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, THIS ASPECT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2007-08. THE COORDINATE BENCH CONFIRMED THE REJECTIO N OF BOOKS BUT IT FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME IN LOCAL UNIT, IN ABSENCE OF ANY COMPARABLE CASE AND PAST HISTORY IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IS THE BEST GUIDE IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE A SSESSEE HAD DECLARED BETTER RESULT AS COMPARED TO PRECEDING TWO YEARS AS MENTIONED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND IS A MATTER OF RECOR D. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOTAN LIME KHANIJ UDYOG 256 ITR 243 E VEN IF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJECTED IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UPHELD BY THE COORDINATE BENCH FOR LOCAL SALE . AS REGARDS THE ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 10 EXPORT UNIT, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS ONLY O NE WOOLEN CARPET EACH IN THE OPENING AS WELL AS IN THE CLOSING STOCK AND THE RELEVANT BILLS AND RECORD WAS AVAILABLE. AS REGARDS PURCHASES AND S ALES NO SPECIFIC DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT. THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE FULLY VOUCHED. THE REASON FOR FALL IN G.P. WAS EXPLAINED BE CAUSE THE EXPORT OF GOLD JEWELLERY WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TIME BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE TO SOME EXTENT. THE EXPLANATION GIVEN APPEA RS TO BE SATISFACTORY. THE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION MAY BE TO SOME EXTENT WHICH IS NOT D EFINED. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, NO ADD ITION IS CALLED FOR WHEN THE EXPLANATION OF FALL IN G.P. APPEARS TO BE S ATISFACTORY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE FINDING OF THE COORDINATE BENCH A RE SQUARELY APPLICABLE AS NO SPECIFIC DEFECT IN PURCHASE AND SA LE HAS BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN LOCAL SALE, THE G. P. HAD INCREASED FROM 34.46% TO 34.53% COMPARED TO PRECEDING YEAR. IN EXP ORT DIVISION, THE GP WAS CONSTANT AS SHOWN IN A.Y. 2007-08 @ 49.07% AND IN YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION @ 49.06%. THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFU LLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE DELETE THE ADDI TION CONFIRMED BY ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 11 THE LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF ASSE SSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 7. GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAR ARE AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 16,54,883/- OUT O F COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED T HAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED COMMI SSION PAYMENT ON LOCAL SALE AT RS. 1,80,92,369/- AND RS. 25,53,674/- ON EXPORT UNIT. ON VERIFICATION OF VOUCHERS, THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION , IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERS ON/RECIPIENT OF COMMISSION. THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT WITH THESE COMMISSI ONS AGENTS AND NO EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THEY RENDERED ANY SER VICE. THUS THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE COMMISSION PAYMENT IS UNVERIFIABLE. THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY 8% OF THESE COMM ISSION PAYMENTS AMOUNT TO RS. 2,06,86,043/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AS PER THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM A .Y. 2003-04 TO 2006- 07. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED JUSTIFICATION OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL BEFO RE THE HIGHER APPELLATE FORUM AND MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE ITAT AND MEAGER AMOUNT OF RS. 50,000/- HAD BEEN CONFIRMED IN ALL THE EACH YEAR ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 12 BY IT. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EMPORIUMS ARE S ITUATED AT NEARBY PLACES OF TOURIST INTEREST A PERSON WHO IS BRINGING CUSTOMERS TO ASSESSEES PREMISES TAKES COMMISSION. IT IS PREVALE NT IN THE HANDICRAFTS BUSINESS THAT A REASONABLE PERCENTAGE OF COMMISSION IS TO BE PAID TO THE AGENTS, WHICH ARE IN FORM OF GUIDES, TAXI DRIVER S, AUTO DRIVERS ETC.. THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED A COMPLETE VOUCHERS OF PAYMENT, WHICH WERE PREPARED RELATING TO EACH AND EVERY PAYMENT TO THE CORRESPONDING SALES. THIS VOUCHER IS SIGNED BY THE RECIPIENT AND C ONTAINS THE DATE OF BILL, BILL NUMBER, SALE AMOUNT, COMMISSION PAID, DA TE OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AND THE SIGNATURE OF THE RECIPIENTS. THE AR FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED THE DECISION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER PA SSED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. G.G. JOSHI V S. CIT REPORTED IN 209 ITR 324 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TO ESTABLISH THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS. I) ESTABLISH THE PRACTICE PREVAILING IN THAT LINE OF BUSINESS FOR MAKING SUCH PAYMENT. II) TO ADDUCE SATISFACTORY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH TH E PAYMENTS AND III) TO SATISFY THE AUTHORITIES THAT THE PAYMENTS WE RE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 13 HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIGMA PAINTS REPORTED IN 103 CTR (BO M) 305 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN DECIDED THAT EVEN NAME OF RECIPIENT HAS NO T BEEN MENTIONED ON THE BILL FOR SECRET COMMISSION, IT IS ALLOWABLE. AFTER CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HEL D THAT WHATEVER EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS WAS SHOWED THAT IT WE RE PRINTED RECEIPTS SHOWING THE SALE VOUCHER NUMBER, AMOUNT OF BILL, NAME OF PERSONS TO WHOM COMMISSION GIVEN ALONGWITH SIGNATURE OF THE RECIPIENT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED ADDRESS OF THE RECIPIENT NOR THE IDENTITY OF PERSON FROM THESE VOUCHERS. THE CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN PAID TO VARIO US DRIVERS AND GUIDES OF THE VEHICLES IS VERY GENERAL STATEMENT. TH E DETAILS WERE PREPARED BY THE STAFF OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE NO T VERIFIABLE. THUS, HE DISALLOWED THE COMMISSION @ 8% FROM THE TOTAL COMMISS ION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 16,54,883/- I N THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE TOURISTS GUIDE/TAXI DRIVERS OR AUTO DRIVERS FOR VERIFICATION. HE ALSO D IRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 14 SUBMIT THE COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF REGULAR C OMMISSION AGENTS, WHO WERE REGULARLY PAID COMMISSION FOR BRINGI NG CUSTOMER TO ITS PREMISES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E LD CIT(A) THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE COMMISSION RECIPIENTS FO R A.Y. 2008-09 BECAUSE IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE SAME PERSON WOU LD COME AGAIN. HE HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF REQUIRED DETAILS, THE COMMI SSION EXPENSES WERE NOT AMENABLE TO VERIFICATION. HE FURTHER VERIFIED T HE VOUCHER DATED 03/4/2007, WHICH SHOWED THAT THE COMMISSION OF RS. 3 1,466/- WAS PAYABLE TO SHRI JITU, HOWEVER, HE WAS PAID COMMISSION OF RS. 11,466/- IN CASH ON SAME DAY AND BALANCE AMOUNT WAS PAID THRO UGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. HE HELD THAT IT WAS TOTALLY AGAINST TH E HUMAN PROBABILITY THAT ANY TAXI DRIVER WOULD LEAVE ANY AMOUNT OF COMMI SSION IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYER. THE VOUCHER DATED 05/4/2007 SHOWED THA T THE COMMISSION OF RS. 57624/- WAS PAYABLE TO SHRI SHRAVA N, HOWEVER, HE WAS PAID COMMISSION OF RS. 17,624/- ON THE SAME DAY AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS. 40,000/- PAID THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE C HEQUE. IT WAS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE COM PLETE ADDRESS OF SHRI SHRAVAN. THE VOUCHER NUMBERS 4 TO 8 DATED 05/4/2007 SHOWED IDENTICAL AMOUNT OF COMMISSION OF RS. 57,624/- EACH TO SHRI SHRAVAN, SHRI SURESH, SHRI ANISH AND SHRI PRAMOD ON SALES OF RS. 11,52,480/- TO ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 15 SHRI DAYAL.T.MESHRI, 1110, W KEYSTONE, AVECATOOSA, U SA. IT WAS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE SAME CUSTOMER WAS BROUGHT TO THE EMPORIUM OF THE APPELLANT THROUGH FOUR DIFFERENT TAXIS I.E. RJ-14-0 761, RJ-14-4255, RJ- 14-3852 AND RJ-14-1355 ON THE SAME DAY THROUGH FOUR TAXI DRIVERS. VOUCHERS DATED 01/4/2007 AND 24/04/2007 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 5,000/- AND 14,120/- WAS PAID TO SHRI AIZAZ. HOWE VER, THE ALLEGED VOUCHERS SHOWED DIFFERENT TAXI NUMBERS AND DIFFERENT SIGNATURES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT VOUCHER DATED 28/04/2007 SHOW ED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 26,387/- WAS PAID TO SHRI ANISH IN CASH AND VOUCHER DATED 29/04/2007 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 20,53 0/- WAS PAID TO SHRI DILAWAR IN CASH. SINCE THE AMOUNT PAID IN CASH EXCEEDED RS. 20,000/-, DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(3) WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL OF APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED VOUCHERS FOR THE FEW MONTHS ONLY. THEREFORE, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN THE DI SALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(3). THE VOUCHER DATED 29/04/2007 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 20,530/- WAS PAID TO SHRI DILAWAR IN RESPECT OF SALES MADE TO HALELEINE REEVE OF AUSTRALIA AND VIRGILIO MAZZARDO OF ITALY. IT WAS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT SAME TAXI DRIVER HAD BROUGHT 2 CUSTOMERS (NOT OF SAME FAMILY) ON THE SAME DAY TO THE EMPORIUM THROUGH THE SAME TAXI. ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 16 THE VOUCHER DATED 20/06/2007 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 22,800/- WAS PAID TO SHRI ARVIND IN CASH AND VOUCHER DATED 23/06/2007 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 20,900/- WAS PAID TO SH RI GYAN PRAKASH IN CASH. SINCE THE AMOUNT PAID IN CASH EXCEEDED RS. 20,000/-, DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(3) WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. HOWEV ER, THE COUNSEL OF APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED VOUCHERS FOR FEW MONTHS ON LY. THEREFORE, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) (3) THE VOUCHERS DATED 05/4/2007 AND 23/06/2007 SHOWED T HAT COMMISSION OF RS. 57,624/- AND RS. 33,860/- WAS PAID TO SHRI PRAMOD. HOWEVER, THE ALLEGED VOUCHERS SHOWED DIFFERENT TAXI N UMBERS AND DIFFERENT SIGNATURES. THE VOUCHER DATED 26/06/2007 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 23.120/- WAS PAID TO SHRI JIVAN IN CASH, VOUCHER DAT ED 27/07/2007 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 27,050/- WAS PAID TO SH RI DINESH IN CASH AND VOUCHER DATED 06/08/2007 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION OF RS. 22,600/- WAS PAID TO SHRI JASWANT SINGH IN CASH. SINCE THE AMO UNT PAID IN CASH EXCEEDED RS. 20,000/-, DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(3) WAS LIABLE TO BE MADE. HOWEVER, THE COUNSEL OF APPELLANT HAD PRODUCED VOUCHERS FOR ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 17 FEW MONTHS ONLY. THEREFORE, IT WAS DIFFICULT TO ASCERT AIN THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(3). THE VOUCHER DATED 04/8/2011 SHOWED THAT COMMISSION O F RS. 59,110/- WAS PAYABLE TO SHRI LOKESH HOWEVER, HE WAS PA ID COMMISSION OF RS. 20,000/- IN CASH ON 04/8/2011. THE BALANCE AM OUNT OF RS. 39,110/- WAS PAID TO HIM THROUGH CHEQUE. IT WAS TOTAL LY AGAINST THE HUMAN PROBABILITY THAT ANY TAXI DRIVER WOULD LEAVE A NY AMOUNT OF COMMISSION IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CONTRADICTED HIS STAND THAT NONE OF THE COMMISSION RECIPIENTS HAD COME BACK TO HIS EMPORIUM. IT IS SEEN THAT ONE GUIDE SHRI MITESH TALUKA WAS P[A ID COMMISSION OF RS. 67,650/- ON 6 DAYS BETWEEN THE PER IOD 15/3/2008 TO 25/3/2008. IT WAS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE AND AGAINST THE HUMAN CONDUCT THAT A GUIDE COULD HAVE BROUGHT CUSTOMERS TO AN EMP ORIUM SO REGULARLY. IT IS EQUALLY STRANGE THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT HAVE EVEN HIS CONTACT NUMBER. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT THESE DISCREPANCIES WERE NO T BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE HONBLE ITAT IN DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE PRECEDING YEARS. THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON PAY MENTS MADE TO ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 18 THE VARIOUS COMMISSION AGENTS IN CASH ALTHOUGH THEI R AGGREGATE AMOUNT EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY LIMIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, THE APPELLANT HAD DEBITED COMMISSION OF RS. 49,406/ - ON 01/04/2007 WHICH IS SPLIT INTO 13 JOURNAL ENTRIES EACH BELOW RS. 2500/- AND 1 JOURNAL ENTRY OF RS. 17,364/-. HOWEVER, BEFORE HIM ONLY ONE VOUCHER BEARING NO. 1 IN THE NAME OF SHRI AIZAZ HAS BEEN FI LED. SIMILARLY THE APPELLANT HAS DEBITED COMMISSION OF RS. 40,453/- ON 02/4/2007 IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT, WHICH IS SPLIT INTO 11 JOURNAL ENTRI ES EACH BELOW RS. 2500/- AND 1 JOURNAL ENTRY OF RS. 13,202/-. HOWEVER , BEFORE HIM ONLY 2 VOUCHERS BEARING NO. 2 AND 3 IN THE NAME OF SHRI SH AMSHAD AND SHRI RAZAAK HAVE BEEN FILED. THIS SHOWED THAT THE APPELLAN T HAS BEEN SYSTEMATICALLY INFLATING ITS COMMISSION EXPENSES. I T IS THE DUTY OF THE COURT TO GO BEHIND THE SMOKE SCREEN AND DISCOVER TH E TRUE STATE OF AFFAIRS. THE COURT IS NOT TO BE SATISFIED WITH THE FO RM BUT WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. MERELY BECAUSE A PAP ER TRAIL HAD BEEN CREATED, THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF MAKE THE TRANSACTI ON GENUINE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MITTAL BELTING AND MACHINERY STORES VS. CIT 253 ITR 341, DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SCHNEIDER ELECTRIC INDIA LTD. 304 ITR 360, HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS DECI SION IN THE CASE OF ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 19 CIT VS. PREMIER BREWERIES LTD. 279 ITR 51, ONAM AGARBA THIS CO VS. DCIT 310 ITR 56 AND CIT VS. MCDOWELL CO LTD. 291 ITR 107 . ACCORDINGLY IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENT ITLED TO DEDUCT COMMISSION. THE ASSESSEE HAD MISERABLY FAILED TO SUB STANTIATE HIS CLAIM FOR EXPORT COMMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, HE CONFIRMED TH E ADDITION. 9. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAD POINTE D OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN HIS ORDER AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON BUT NO OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE LD CIT(A). HE DRAWN OUR ATTE NTION ON PAGE NO. 1 AND 2 I.E. THE COPY OF ORDERSHEET OF THE LD C IT(A). THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND NOT CALLED A NY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DISCREPANCIES MENTI ONED BY HIM IN THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE FURTHER NOT ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ALL DEFE CTS POINTED OUT, NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON COMMISSION. THE LD ASSESSING OFFI CER HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT AND NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN PAST ALSO SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER @ 8% BUT THE HONB LE ITAT HAS CONFIRMED THE LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- IN EACH OF THE YEAR. THEREFORE, RULE OF CONSISTENCY IS TO BE FOLLOWED BY T HE REVENUE. HE ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 20 RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ESCOR TS LIMITED 338 ITR 435, HON'BLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF RADHASWAMI SATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321, BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIM ITED VS. UNION OF INDIA 282 ITR 273, HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DECI SION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOPAL PUROHIT 336 ITR 287, HON'BLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GOEL BUILDERS 331 ITR 344, HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE MUKTI PROPERTIE S (P) LTD. VS. CIT 344 ITR 177. HE ALSO CITED VARIOUS DECISIONS ON CONSISTE NCY. 10. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN PA ST, SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN E ITHER DELETED BY THE CIT(A) OR CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) BUT FINALLY TH E COORDINATE BENCH HAD CONFIRMED A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- I N EACH YEAR. THE LD CIT(A) HAS SPECIFIED THE DEFECTS WITH REFERENCE TO BI LLS AND NOT DEDUCTION TDS ON COMMISSION PAYMENT BUT HE IS NOT AL LOWED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NOT DEDUCTING T DS. THE DISCREPANCY IS SPECIFIC AND COMMISSION PAYMENT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS IS ACCEPTED ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 21 IN GENERAL AS THE HANDICRAFT EMPORIUMS GENERALLY PA Y THE COMMISSION TO THE GUIDES, TAXI DRIVERS, AUTO DRIVERS. THEY COME FR OM OUTSIDE AND HAD DEALING OCCASIONALLY AND IT WAS NOT FAIR TO PAY COMM ISSION IN FRONT OF CUSTOMERS. IT IS JUST LIKE A SECRET COMMISSION AND A VERY SHORT DURATION IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLETE THE FORMA LITIES FOR PAYING COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THERE MAY BE DEFECTS IN THE R ECEIPTS OF COMMISSION PAYMENT BUT IT IS A PART AND PARCEL OF T HE BUSINESS DEALINGS. THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER THIS HEA D AT RS. 1 LAC OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.16,54,883/-. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 3 TO 6 OF THE APPEAL ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED. 12. GROUND NO. 7 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS NOT PR ESSED, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND AS NOT PRESSED. 13. GROUND NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINS T DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 24,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID P F ON 21/5/2007 AND 28/09/2007 WHEREAS THE DUE DATE WAS ON 15/5/2007 AND 15/09/2007, ACCORDINGLY HE MADE ADDITION U/S 36(1)(VA) READ WITH SECTION 2(24)(X) OF THE ACT. THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY O BSERVING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 43B(B) ARE APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF EMPLOYEES ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 22 CONTRIBUTION TO PF OR ESI AND NOT TO THE EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION. THIS VIEW WAS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF INDIAN CARD CLOTHING COMPANY LTD. (ITA NO. 214/PN/98), ACCORDINGLY HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD DEPOSITED THIS AMOUNT WITHIN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR ITS ELF AND MUCH BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JA IPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. 363 ITR 307 (RAJ) AND PRAYED TO ALLOW THE SAME. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). WE CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ARGUME NT OF BOTH THE SIDES AND THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE JAIPUR VIDYUT VITRAN NIGAM LTD. (SUPRA) HAD DECIDED THAT T HESE PAYMENTS ARE ALLOWABLE U/S 43 OF THE ACT EVEN PAID BEFORE DUE DAT E OF RETURN. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN ON 06/10/2008 WHEREAS PAYM ENTS WERE MADE IN THE MONTH OF MAY AND SEPTEMBER, 2007 IN ACCOUNTI NG YEAR ITSELF, THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA 392/JP/2012_ MAHESH CHAND GUPTA VS. ACIT 23 14. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15/05/2015. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 15 TH MAY, 2015 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- MAHESH CHAND GUPTA, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- ADDL. CIT, RANGE-5, 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 NO. 392/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR