DAMODAR PRASAD MAJESHWARI, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 395/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1967 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROSHANTA MEENA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 50C; 133(6); 131; 148

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 FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI, FLAT NO. 103, BHARGU MARG, BANIPARK, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD 3(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AKQPM7971E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI ROSHANTA MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 10/10/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF DATED 21.03.2017 OF CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2012-13. T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF AO IN C OMPUTING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF PLOT OF LAND AT RS. 93,44,430/- AS AGAINST SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 25,92,000 /- COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY:- ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI V. ITO, JAIPUR 2 (A) TAKING THE VALUE OF PROPERTY ADOPTED BY STAMP V ALUATION AUTHORITY AT RS. 1,45,36,430/- AS AGAINST THE SALES CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,40,00,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, (B) NOT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 74 LACS PAID TO ALKA BENGAMIN, NARENDRA KHORANIYA & SURENDRA LAMBA AND R S. 40 LACS PAIDTO AMBER BENGAMIN, AHISH BENGAMIN & SHRAWA N BENJAMIN, AGGREGATING TO RS. 1.14 CRORES FOR VACATI NG THE PLOT. (C) HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOU RCE FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF RS. 1.14 CRORES FOR VACATING THE PLOT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPE RTY BROKERAGE/ DEALING. HE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING IN COME OF RS. 1,44,020/. THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION THAT ASSESSE E HAD SOLD AN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEARING PLOT NO. 71 A & B, BHRAG U MARG, JAIPUR ON 20.05.2011 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,40,00,000/- WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.03.2011 FOR A CO NSIDERATION OF RS. 51 LACS. THE AO NOTED THE FULL VALUE CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPERTY AS PER STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY IS RS. 1,45,36,430/-. THEREFORE, THE AO OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY CAPITAL GAIN TAX ON THE SALE CONS IDERATION OF RS. 1,45,36,430/-. THE AO FOUND THAT IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 TO PROPOSE THE SHORT TE RM CAPITAL GAIN TAX. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E CONTENDED THAT AFTER PURCHASE OF LAND IN QUESTION FOR RS. 51 LACS HE PAID RS. 1.14 CRORES TO SIX PERSONS FOR VACATING THE PROPERTY AND THUS T HE COST OF THIS PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 1,65,92,000/- AGAIN ST SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1.40 CRORES. THUS ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HE HAS INCURRED LOSS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN LOSS OF RS. 25,92,000/-. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI V. ITO, JAIPUR 3 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE TO S IX PERSONS AS WELL AS AN AGREEMENT FOR VACATION OF THE PROPERTY BY THE OC CUPANTS AGAINST THE PAYMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO REASON THAT THE INFORMATION CALLED U/S 133(6) FROM ALL SIX PERSONS EXCEPT SHRI SHARWAN BENGAMIN AS WELL AS IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THESE PERSONS DENIED HAVING REC EIVED ANY COMPENSATION FROM THE ASSESEE. AS REGARDS SHRI SHAR WAN BENGAMIN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 133(6) WAS NOT SERVED AS HE WAS N OT FOUND AT THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE AO A LSO HELD THAT THE COMPENSATION CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID IN CASH IS UNUSUA L AND THIS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS A PROPERTY DEALE R WOULD PURCHASE A PROPERTY WHICH IS UNDER UNAUTHORIZED POSSESSION AND THEREBY INCURRED A LOSS OF RS. 25,92,000/- IN A SHORT PERIOD OF JUST T WO MONTHS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT WHEREB Y SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 93,44,430/- WAS BROUGHT TO TAX . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE FILED A N APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AS LD. CIT(A) HAS CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT WHEN THESE PERSONS HAVE DENIED HAVING RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION. FURTHER DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 29.09.2016 THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PERSONS FROM WHOM MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVE D FOR MAKING PAYMENTS FOR GETTING THE PROPERTY VACATED INCLUDING THEIR PAN, TTR SOURCE THEREOF. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE CONFIRMATION AND STATED THAT HE WANTS TO GO FOR DISPUTE RESOLUTION S CHEME-2016. 3. BEFORE US, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE M/S GAYATRI SCHOOL SAMITI WAS RUNNING A T THE GROUND FLOOR ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI V. ITO, JAIPUR 4 OF THIS PROPERTY IN QUESTION FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS OF WHICH SMT. ALKA BENJAMIN, HER HUSBAND SHRI NARENDRA KHORANIA AND SH RI SURENDRA LAMBA WERE THE OFFICE BEARERS. THE FIRST FLOOR AND THE BASEMENT OF THIS PROPERTY WERE UNDER THE OCCUPATION OF SHRI SHARWAN BENJAMIN, AMBER BENJAMIN AND ASHISH BENJAMIN WHO ARE BROTHERS OF SM T. ALKA BENJAMIN. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN ORDER TO GET THIS PROPERTY VACATED, AFTER THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY VIDE SA LE DEED DATED 17.03.2011, THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT DATED 30.03.2011 WITH SMT. ALKA BENJAMIN, SHRI NARENDRA KHORANIA AND SHRI SURENDRA LAMBA FOR VACATION OF THE PROPERTY IN WHICH THEY WE RE RUNNING THE SCHOOL. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY RS. 74,00,000/- AS COMPENSATION, OUT OF WHICH RS. 40,00,000/- WAS P AID ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E. 30.03.2011 AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 34,00,000/- WAS TO BE PAID ON OR BEFORE 15.05.2011 FOR WHICH A CHEQUE NO. 317242 DATED 15.05.2011 OF SBBJ, PRATHVIRAJ RAOD, J AIPUR WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ALKA BENJAMIN. THE SAID CHEQUE WAS GOT DISHONORED WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED AS THE PAYMENT WAS STOPPED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE MADE THE PAYMENT OF RS. 34,00, 000/- IN CASH ON 19.05.2011 WHICH WAS ACKNOWLEDGED BY SMT. ALKA BE NJAMIN AND SHRI NARENDRA KHURANIA ON THE BACK SIDE OF THIS CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO MADE CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 40,00,000/- TO SHARWAN BEN JAMIN, AMBER BENJAMN AND ASHISH BENJAMIN ON 18.05.2011 TO GET VACATED THE AT FIRST FLOOR AND THE BASEMENT OF THE PROPERTY. THIS PAYMENT WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY ISSUING THE RECEIPT BY THREE PERSON S. THUS, THE LD. AR HAS CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM OF PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THESE SIX PERSONS FOR GETTING THE PROPERTY VACATED THEN THE MERE DENI AL OF THESE PERSONS ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI V. ITO, JAIPUR 5 OF COMPENSATION WILL NOT RENDERED THE DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS FALSE OR FABRICATED. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE RECIPIENTS WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND SCHOOL WAS BEING RUN THEREOF. THEREFOR E, TO GET THE PROPERTY VACATED THE ASSESSEE PAID THIS AMOUNT TO T HESE PERSONS WHICHIS PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FILING VARIOUS EV IDENCES AND ALSO CORROBORATED BY THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CONNECTION WITH THE CR IMINAL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THESE PERSONS WHO WERE IN POSSESS ION OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE AO DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF TH E REPLY IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) WITHOUT EXAMINATION OF THESE PERSONS AND CONFRONTING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE A SSESSEE DULY SIGNED BY THESE PERSONS AND ALSO WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTU NITY TO CROSS EXAMINE. THUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PRESUMPTION WITHOUT CONDUCTING A PR OPER ENQUIRY AND GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THESE PERSONS. 4. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT PAID TO THES E PERSONS THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED FUND WHICH WERE REPAID THROUGH BANK TRANSACTIONS. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT OF THE BORROWED FUND AT PAGE 8 O F THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY REFUND ED THE AMOUNT TO THE CREDITORS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL. HENCE, THE L D. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS P RODUCED ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS C LAIM AND THERE IS NO IN CONSIST ANY IN THE FACTS AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE THEN DISALLOWANCE OF ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI V. ITO, JAIPUR 6 THE CLAIM BY THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE REPLY AND DENIAL OF THESE PERSONS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY ON 17.03.2011 AND THERE IS NOTHING IN THE SALE DEED DATED 17.03.2011 THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS IN THE OCCUPATION AND POSSESSION OF THESE SIX PERSONS TO W HOM THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY CLAIM TO HAVE PAID THE COMPENSATION. F URTHER THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL SUBSEQUE NT TO THE SALE DEED DATED 17.03.2011 WHICH SHOWS THAT IN ORDER TO AVOID THE TAX LIABILITY THE ASSESSEE HAS CREATED THE SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS. THE ENTIRE PAYMENT HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE PAID IN CASH WHICH S HOWS THAT IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT CLAIM PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE TO AVO ID THE TAX LIABILITY. THE LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAV ANALYZED ALL THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSE SSEE. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE EVEN FAILED TO FILED THE COMPLETE ADDRESS TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS FROM WHOM THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALLEGEDLY BORROWED FUNDS FOR PAYING THE COMPENSATION OF RS. 1 ,40,00,000/-. THE RECIPIENTS OF THE COMPENSATION ALSO DENIED THE CLAI M OF THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THEY HAVE REGISTERED AN FIR AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FILED A CRIMINAL MISCELLAN EOUS PETITION BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THUS, THE LD. DR HAS CONTEN DED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF PA YMENT OF COMPENSATION TO THESE SIX PERSONS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROP ERTY IN QUESTION ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI V. ITO, JAIPUR 7 VIDE SALE DEED DATED 17.03.2011. AS PER THE CONTENT S AND AVERMENTS OF THE SALE DEED DATED 17.03.2011. IT IS STATED THAT THIS PROPERTY PLOT NO. 71A AND B MEASURING 964.70 SQ. YARD WAS OWNED BY S ELLER/ VENDER SMT. ALKA WIDOW OF SHRISELSTEEN ROBUT D/O LATE SH RI KRAMAT MASIH. IT IS FURTHER STATED IN THE SALE DEED THAT THE SELLER IS A LEGAL OWNER AND HAVING ALL RIGHTS OF THE SAID PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY ENCUMBRANCE OR ANY OTHER INTEREST OR RIGHT OF THE THIRD PARTY. IT IS A LSO THE SAID THAT TWO PROPERTY IS FREE FROM ANY DISPUTE OR CLAIM OF ANY T HIRD PERSONS. THE SALE DEED CLEARLY STATES THAT THE SELLER HAS HANDED OVER THE VACANT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, A S PER THE SALE DEED DATED 17.03.2011 THE PROPERTY WAS FREE FROM ANY THE IR PARTY RIGHT OR OTHER ADVERSE INTEREST AGAINST THE TITLE RIGHT OVER THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT A LAYMAN BUT IS DEALING IN THE REAL ESTATE AND THEREFORE, IF THE PROPERTY WAS UNDER OCCUPATION OF THESE SIX P ERSONS THEN IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PURCHASE THE SAID PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING THE SAID FACT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED. EV EN OTHERWISE IF THE PROPERTY WAS ACTUALLY IN THE POSSESSION OF THESE SI X PERSONS THEN, THERE IS NO CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE TO SHOW WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS GOT VACATED AND ONLY AFTER AGAINST BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT PRIO R TO THE SAID DATE OF PURCHASE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE FACT STATED IN THE SALE DEED THAT THE PHYSICAL VACANT POSSESSION OF THE PRO PERTY WAS HANDED OVER BY THE SELLER TO THE ASSESEE THEN THIS CLAIM O F PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION FOR GETTING THE PROPERTY VACATED IS CO NTRADICTORY TO THE FACTS RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE FURTH ER CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS MUCH IN CASH EVEN A CHEQUE FOR P AYMENT OF RS. 34,00,000/- WAS GOT DISHONORED AND THE ASSESSEE S UBSEQUENTLY MADE THE ALLEGED PAYMENT IN CASH. THEREFORE, EXCEPT THE RECEIPTS FROM THESE ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI V. ITO, JAIPUR 8 PERSONS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OTHER REC ORD OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OR MOVEMENT OF MONEY FROM THE ASSESSEE TO T HESE PERSONS. SINCE THESE SIX PERSONS DENIED HAVING RECEIVED ANY COMPENSATION FROM THE ASSESSEE THEN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED WITHOUT PROPER INVESTIGATION AND ENQUIRY. THE AO THOUGH ISS UED NOTICE U/S 133(6) AND RECEIVED THE REPLY FROM THESE PERSONS HO WEVER, ALL OTHER CONNECTED AND RELEVANT FACTS AND ASPECTS OF THE MA TTER LIKE WHETHER THESE SIX PERSONS WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE PROPERT Y IN QUESTION AND WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS GOT VACATED. ALL THESE FACTS CAN BE VERIFIED ONLY IN THE ENQUIRY CONDUCTED THROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE SE SIX PERSONS BY RECORDING THEIR STATEMENTS AND GIVING OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED T HE REQUISITE ENQUIRY TO REACH CONCLUSIVE FINDING OF FACT. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THESE MATTERS REQUIRE A PROPER VERIFICATI ON AND ENQUIRY OF THE RELEVANT FACTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSU E TO THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONDUCT OF PROPER ENQUIRY BY EXAMINATION OF THESE SIX PERSONS AND ALSO GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER OUTCOME OF THE SUCH FACT FINDING ENQUIRY. AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF THE MONEY CLAIMED FOR COMPENSATION THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE BA RROWED FUNDS WAS USED AND REPAID THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL SUBSEQUENTL Y. HOWEVER, EXCEPT THE DETAILS OF THE BORROWED FUNDS THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY OTHER MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE TRANSACTION OF BORROWED FUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIR ED TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE CREDITORS FOR E XAMINATION BY THE AO. ITA NO. 395/JP/2017 SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI V. ITO, JAIPUR 9 IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/10/2017 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:- 31/10/2017. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SH. DAMODAR PRASAD MAHESHWARI, FLAT NO. 103, BHARGU MARG, BANIPARK, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO WARD 3(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. 395/JP/2017} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR