CAERDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS, Kota V. JCIT, Kota

ITA 406/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5241 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ROSHANTA MEENA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: B V MAHESHWARI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 194C

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 VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA -@ ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10. M/S CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS, 11-A, TALWANDI, KOTA. CUKE VS. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AAFFC 2497 L VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.V. MAHESHWARI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : MRS. ROSHANTA MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/05/2016. MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/05/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/03/2013 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), KOTA FOR A.Y. 2009 -10. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD A.O. GROSSLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE PAYMENT OF AMC CHARGES RS. 70,000/-. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION. THE ISSU E IS FULLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF MERILLIN SHIPPING 70 2 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT DTR 81 (2012) BUT THE LD CIT(A) INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. 2. THAT THE LD A.O. AS WELL AS LD CIT(A) GROSSLY ERR ED IN DISALLOWING THE PRINTING EXPENSES RS. 79,000/- BY TAKING RECOURSE OF SEC. 40(A)(IA). THIS IS ALSO COVE RED BY THE DECISION OF MERILLIN SHIPPING 70 DTR 81. 3. THAT THE LD A.O. AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERR ED IN DISALLOWING THE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES RS. 5566/-. 4. THAT THE LD A.O. AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERR ED IN NOT ALLOWING THE REMUNERATION PAID TO PARTNERS U/S 40(B) RS. 26,40,000/-. THE REMUNERATION HAVE BEEN PAID. 2. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29/09/ 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF 60,80,880/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TH E HOSPITAL BUSINESS, RUNNING HEART CLINIC UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/ S CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANT AT KOTA. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL ARE AGAINST DISALLOWING THE PAYMENT OF AMC CHARGES AT RS . 70,000/- AND DISALLOWING THE PRINTING EXPENSES OF RS. 79,000/-. T HE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED RS. 70,000/- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND DEBITED A SUM OF RS. 1,27,641/- UNDER THE HEAD PRINTING AND STATIONA RY EXPENSES. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD, WHICH WAS 3 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11/11/201 1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH NECESSARY DETAILS REGARDING AMC CHARGES OF RS. 70,000/- AND NO TDS HAD BEEN DEDUCTED ON IT, THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED THIS AMOUNT AND ALSO DISALLOWED THE PRINTING EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR AS THE BILL WAS RAISED FOR PRINTING JOB AND NOT FOR PURCHASE OF STATIONARY AND ADDED U/S 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT IN V IEW OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT GETS INVOKED AS SOON AS THE AM OUNT BECOMES PAYABLE AND CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PAYEE AND IT DOE S NOT MAKE ANY DIFFERENT IF THE SAME WAS PAID LATER OR SIMULTANEOUS LY OR EARLIER. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID AMC CHARGE S DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS PER AGREEMENT AND PAYMENT IS BELOW SPECIFIED LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 194C OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER ARGUED T HAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING (2012) 70 DTR 81. LATER ON THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PVT. LTD. 357 ITR 6 42 HAS APPLIED THE SPECIAL BENCH DECISION AND HELD THAT IF THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID, NO TDS IS 4 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE PAYER. THE SLP IN THIS CA SE ALSO DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) ARE NOT JUSTIFIABLE AND MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS UNDISPU TED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF RS. 75,000/- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT AS CLAIMED BY THE AR THAT IT IS B ELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT BUT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LIMIT WAS RS. 50,000/- U/S 194C OF THE ACT. THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SQUAR ELY APPLICABLE, THEREFORE, ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) UNDE R BOTH THE HEADS IS DELETED. 6. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES AT RS. 5,556/- BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF BILL RAISED WAS IN THE NAME OF DR. RAKESH JINDAL/JWALA DAS, 2-KA-24, V.NAGAR, KOTA IN RESPECT OF DOMESTIC CONNECTION. AS THE BILL PERTAINED TO THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPENSES IS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES, 5 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A) BY OBSERVIN G THAT THE BILL OF DR. RAKESH JINDALS RESIDENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS BUSIN ESS EXPENSES. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS RESIDENCE WAS USED BY DR. RAKESH JINDAL FOR CONSULTING SERVICES AFTER OFFICE HOURS O R IN CASE OF EMERGENCY, THEREFORE, IT WAS INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES , WHICH IS ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). AFTER CONSIDERING BOTH THE SIDES, NO NEW FACTS HAVE BEEN COME BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABL ISH THAT THESE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON TH IS GROUND. 7. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS AGAINST NOT ALLOWING THE REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNER U/S 40(B) OF THE A CT AT RS. 26,40,000/-. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS AT RS. 26,40,000/-. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THE G ROUND THAT THE FIRM HAS NOT SPECIFIED REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNER AS PE R COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED FILED ALONGWITH THE REPLY. THE ASSESSEE STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED ALONGWITH ANNEXUR E-8 AND CLAIMED THAT 6 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT PARTNERSHIP DEED IS ALLOWED REMUNERATION TO THE PART NER U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY AND CLA USE-12, 13 AND 14 OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED EXECUTED ON 22/11/2006, HE HELD TH AT REMUNERATION HAD NOT BEEN QUANTIFIED IN THE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED . HE FURTHER REFERRED CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 739 DATED 25/3/1996, SINCE THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR MADE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 2009-10, WHICH IS SUBSEQUENT TO A.Y. 1996-97, THE LAST PARA OF THE CIRCULAR HAS CATEGORICALLY APPLIED . ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS AT RS. 26,40,000/-. 8. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD CON FIRMED THIS ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT SO CALLED AMENDMENT IN THE PARTNE RSHIP DEED WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT, THE SAME WAS DONE TO CREATE A NEW CASE. ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS, THEREFORE, NOT ADMITTED. AS IN THE ORI GINAL DEED FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE WAS NO PROVISION FOR PA YMENT OF REMUNERATION. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY D ISALLOWED THE SAME. 9. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND ALSO FILED MODIFIED GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE VIDE LETTER DATED 1 4/4/2016, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- THAT THE LD CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. (THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FIL ED TO CLARIFY THE CLAUSE OF REMUNERATION GIVEN IN THE PAR TNERSHIP 7 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT DEED) AND THEREBY ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE REMUNERA TION PAID TO PARTNERS RS. 26,40,000/-. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FIRM AS WELL AS PARTNER S ARE IN THE SAME BRACKET OF TAX, THERE IS NO REVENUE LOSS IN THE HANDS OF TH E PARTNERS OR IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. THUS, THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO EV ADE THE TAX BY THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED PARTNERSHIP DEED AND IT S CLARIFICATION BUT THE LD CIT(A) HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE CLARIFICATION WHICH CA N BE GIVEN ANY TIME BUT THE BASIC THING IS THAT IN CASE OF PAYMENT OF R EMUNERATION THE CLAUSE WAS GIVEN IN THE DEED AND ASSESSEE CLAIMED THIS DEDU CTION ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS DECISIONS ON THIS ISSUE. HE RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DURGA DA SS DEVKI NANDAN VS. ITO (2011) 241 CTR 180 (HP) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD T HAT CBDT CANNOT ISSUE A CIRCULAR WHICH GOES AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF I.T. ACT. THE CBDT CAN ONLY CLARIFY THE ISSUE BUT CANNOT EXECUTE THE T ERMS AND CONDITIONS, WHICH ARE NOT PART OF THE MAIN STATUTE. A READING OF SECTION 40(B)(V) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION WHICH DOES NOT EXCEED THE AMOUNT GIVEN IN THE IT ACT IS DEDUCTIBLE. IN THE PRE SENT CASE WHEN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED PROVIDES THAT THE REMUNERATION WILL BE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT, IT CLEARLY MEANS THAT THE REMU NERATION PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS SHALL BE QUANTIFIED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND SHALL NOT 8 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM REMUNERATION PROVIDED. IN ASSESS EES CASE, THE REMUNERATION HAS BEEN CALCULATED ON THE BASIS OF SE CTION 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT. AS PER CLAUSE 12 AND 13 OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEE D, THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL WORKING SHALL BE NOT EXCEEDIN G MAXIMUM LIMIT LAID DOWN IN SECTION 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, HE P RAYED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL. 10. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT ED THE 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. THE ASSESSEE H AS PROVIDED IN PARTNERSHIP DEED FOR REMUNERATION AS UNDER:- 12 THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE INDIVIDUALLY TO WORKING PARTNERS SHALL BE AMOUNT. 13. THE AMOUNT OF REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS SHALL NOT EXCEED MAXIMUM CEILING LIMIT LAID DOWN IN CLAUSE (V) R/W EXPLANATION 3 OF SUB-SECTION (B) OF SECTION 40 OF T HE INCOME TAX OR ANY OTHER APPLICABLE PROVISION AS MAY BE IN FORCE IN THE INCOME TAX ASSESSMENT OF THE PARTNERSH IP FIRM OF THE RELEVANT ACCOUNTING YEAR. 14. THE PARTNERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO REVISE THE MOD E OF CALCULATING THE ABOVE REMUNERATION AS MAY BE AGREED 9 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT UPON BY AND BETWEEN THEM FROM TIME TO TIME. SUCH REMUNERATION SHALL BE CALCULATED AT THE CLOSE OF TH E ACCOUNTING YEAR AND PARTNERS SHALL BE ENTITLED TO D RAW OUT THE REMUNERATION FOR THEIR PERSONAL NEEDS FROM TIME TO TIME. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED PARTNERSHIP DE ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD CIT(A) AND CLAUSE -12 HAS B EEN MODIFIED AS UNDER:- THE ABOVE SAID CLAUSE IS UN-COMPLETED TO OVER SIGHT , HENCE IT IS TO BE READ AS UNDER: CLAUSE NO. 12: THE PARTNERS SHALL BE PAID REMUNERATION TO THE EXTENT OF ALLOCABLE AND AVAILABLE SURPLUS OUT OF NE T PROFIT OF THE FIRM AT THE YEAR END. 1. DR. RAKESH JINDAL 60% ALLOCABLE SURPLUS OR RS. 30,000 WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. 2. DR. SAKET GLOYAL 40% ALLOCABLE SURPLUS OR RS. 20,000 WHICHEVER IS HIGHER. HOWEVER, THE AMOUNT CREDITED OR PAID IN YEAR ENDING EVERY YEAR AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS SHALL BE TREATED AS REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNE RS. THE CALCULATION OF REMUNERATION SHALL BE RESTRICTED AS PER THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED U/S 40(B)(V) OF THE I.T. ACT. AS SUCH THIS CLARIFICATION AMENDMENT IS MADE IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF MARCH, 2007 AT KOTA. THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED REMUNERATION ON THE BASIS O F SECTION 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS RATIFIED BY THE AMENDED PARTNER SHIP DEED, THE SAME 10 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BUT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE RELIED CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 739 DATED 25/3/1996 AND HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE AS SESSEES CLAIM BUT THIS CIRCULAR HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE HI MACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DURGA DASS DEVKI NANDAN VS. IT O (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT THE CBDT CANNOT ISSUE A CIRCULAR WHICH GOES AGAI NST THE PROVISIONS OF IT ACT BY APPLYING THIS CIRCULAR, BOTH THE AUTHORITI ES HAD NOT ALLOWED THE REMUNERATION COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SECTION 40(B) (V) OF THE ACT BUT IT IS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD QUANTIFIED REMUNERATION ON THE BASIS OF PARTNERSHIP WHEN CIT HAVE COTERMINOUS POWER WITH A.O. A ND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED MODIFIED PARTNERSHIP BEFORE HIM AND H ONBLE HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT DECISION ON THIS ISSUE IN THE CA SE OF DURGA DASS DEVKI NANDAN VS. ITO (SUPRA) WAS RELIED UPON BY THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF REMUNERATION OF PARTNER. THIS CIRCULAR HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIO NAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARAS COTTON COMPANY (2007) 288 ITR 2 11 (RAJ) WHEREIN THE CIT FOUND ALLOWABILITY OF THE REMUNERATION TO TH E PARTNERS IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND ON SUPPLEMENTARY DEED, SPECIFYING THE TERMS OF THE PARTNERS 11 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT REMUNERATION, FIRM WAS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 40(B) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE ITAT ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS NOT VERIFIED BY THE CIT. THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DID NOT HAVE ANY ROOM TO DRAWING PRESUMPTION AND REACHING CONCLUSION THAT SUCH A DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED WAS NOT GENUINE. THEREFORE, AMEN DED PARTNERSHIP DEED CANNOT BE DOUBTED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE, WE HAVE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RIGHTLY ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF REMUNERATION PAID TO THE PARTNERS. ACC ORDINGLY, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS GROUND. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/05/2016. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 31 ST MAY, 2015 RANJAN* VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS, KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE JCIT, RANGE-1, KOTA 12 ITA NO. 406/JP/2013 CARDIAC CARE CONSULTANTS VS JCIT 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.406/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR