DCIT, Jaipur V. KIRODI MAL MODI, Jaipur

ITA 419/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5352 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation
• Section: 44AD; 143(3); 133A; 145; 144

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. 419/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. KIRODI MAL MODI, 74, SUDHARSHANPURA, INDUSTRIAL AREA, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO. : AFAPM 2021 E VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI KAILASH MANGAL (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 28/03/2016 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/04/2016 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/02/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2010-11. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING TRADING ADDITION BY ESTIMATING PROFIT @ 7.5% SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST. ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 2 (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT FACTS IN A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2008-09 WERE DISTINGUISHABLE AS NO EVIDENCE OF UNDISCLOSED AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WERE FOUND IN THOSE YEARS AS DETECTED DURING SURVEY IN A.Y. 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. HE FILED RETU RN FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 15/10/2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,04,99 ,939/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT THE ACT). BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAINST DELETING THE TRADING ADDITION ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER @ 7.5% SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST AND INCRIMINATING DOCUMEN TS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT RS. 76,91,42,00 8/- ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT @ 6.76% HAD BEEN SHOWN AS AGAINST THE G.P. RAT E @ 6.46% ON TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 120,02,63,973/- DECL ARED IN IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S BRAHAM PRAKASH MODI, A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND DUR ING THIS YEAR, HE WAS ENGAGED IN VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION WORKS. ACCOUNTING STANDARD-7 ISSUED BY THE ICAI REQUIRES THAT IF A PERSON IS ENG AGED IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF CLEAR SEPARATE IDENTIFIABLE PROJECT S OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION THEN PROJECT-WISE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REQUIRED TO B E MAINTAINED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED PROJECT WISE BOOKS OF ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 3 ACCOUNT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HE FOUND THAT NO PRO PER SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. NO SITE WISE/PROJECT WISE BOOKS, STOCK REGISTER AND VOUCHERS ETC. HAD BEEN MAINTAINED. THEREFORE, HE GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD AS TO WHY BOOK RESULT SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED U/S 145 (3) OF THE ACT AND NP RATE @ 8.8% SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED AS HAS BEEN APP LIED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN HER ORDER IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE FILED REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 21/2/2013 WH ICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 2 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED IN REPL Y THAT COMPLETE BILLS/VOUCHERS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED AS THE SAME WER E LYING AT WORK SITE AND SAME WERE MISPLACED. HE HAD FURTHER ADMITTE D THAT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO MAINTAIN THE PROPER RECORD AND THE EXPENSES ARE NOT VOUCHED OR SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS. THERE WAS A SURVEY U/S 143(3A) OF THE ACT ON 14/7/2011. IN SURVEY PROCEEDI NGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RECORDING ALL HIS TRANSAC TIONS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, VARIOUS INC RIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. AS PER ANNEXURE- A-1, WHICH ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 4 WAS AN ULTRA-TECH CEMENT DIARY, THERE WERE SOME ENTRI ES WHICH DEPICTED CASH PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUB-CONTRA CTOR SHRI BIRBAL SINGH SHOORA. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSEE WAS INQUIRED ABOUT THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED IN THE DIARY AND TO VERIFY THE SAME FROM HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE STATE MENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFOR E, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAI NED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RELIABLE. THEREFORE, CORRECT INCOME FROM THE CONTRACT BUSINESS CANNOT BE DEDUCED. ACCORDINGLY HE APPLIED SECTION 1 45(3) OF THE ACT AND REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT AND ESTIMATED INCOME. IT IS FURTHER HELD THAT IN EARLIER YEAR ALSO, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REJ ECTED UNDER THIS SECTION, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE LD CIT(A) UP TO A.Y. 2009-10. AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE LD ASSESSING OF FICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME BY CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS BASIS OF ESTIMATI ON OF INCOME I.E. PART HISTORY BUT WHICH IS ALSO WAS NOT FOUND RELIABLE AS THE BOOKS WERE REJECTED AND INCOME WAS ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN PRECEDING YEAR ALSO. THE ANOTHER METHOD IS TO APPLY A COMPARABLE CASE BUT ON ACCOUNT OF PECULIAR NATURE OF BUSINESS OF AS SESSEE, THIS METHOD ALSO CANNOT BE APPLIED. SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT PRO VIDES THAT 8% OF THE ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 5 GROSS RECEIPT SHALL BE DEEMED PROFIT OF THE BUSINES S IN THE CASE OF CIVIL CONTRACTOR HAVING GROSS RECEIPT LESS THAN RS. 40 LA CS. THE LD CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR WHILE DECIDING THE CASE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND ADOPTED NP RATE OF 10.26% AND THEREAFTER ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE PLEA TH AT PART OF INCREASE IN NET PROFIT RATE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF PROPRIETORY CON CERN HAVING BEEN CONVERTED INTO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THIS RESULTED IN AN INCREASE IN PROFIT RATE BY 1.37% BECAUSE JOINT VENTURE CHARGES WERE NO LONGER PAYABLE. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION DIRECTED THAT A PROFIT RATE OF 8.89% CAN BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE FOUND THAT THE APPROACH OF T HE LD CIT(A) WAS LOGICAL AND SCIENTIFIC. THUS, HE APPLIED NP RATE @ 8. 9% ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE F OLLOWING DECISIONS FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF CIVIL CONTRACT. (I) COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX VS. H.M. ESUFALI, 90 ITR 271 (SC) (II) KAUSARAY BEARING P LTD. VS. ACIT 270 ITR 235 (R AJ). (III) CIT VS W.HUSSAIN 171 ITR 405 (PATNA). (IV) K.M. MUDALIYER VS. CIT 61 ITR 644 (MADRAS) (V) CIT VS ROYALA CORPORATION, 215 ITR 883 (MAD) HE FURTHER ALLOWED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIAT ION BUT INTEREST PAID TO THIRD PERSON HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTI ON BY CONSIDERING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 6 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT( A), WHO HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL PARTLY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 3.1.2 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED AO'S CONTENTION AND A PPELLANTS SUBMISSION, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD, DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AND ALSO APPL ICABLE LEGAL POSITION. HERE THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE REJECTION OF BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF THE P AST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE, IT IS SEEN THAT NP RATE HA S BEEN FLUCTUATING YEAR AFTER YEAR. HON'BLE ITAT JAIPUR BEN CH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HAS CONFIRMED THE NP RATE IN AY 2005-2006 @ 7.2% , IN A.Y. 2006-07 @ 7.1%, IN AY 2007- 2008 @ 7.2% AND IN AY 2008-2009 @ 7% SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION & INTEREST [ REF : PG 11 PARA 7 OF ITA NO 697 & 776/JP/2011 ]. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING PA ST HISTORY AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, I FI ND IT PROPER AND REASONABLE TO APPLY NP RATE OF 7.5% SUBJ ECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST. FROM THIS, NO FURTHER DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF JV CHARGES WILL BE ALLOWED AS THE SAME HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE APPLYING NP RATE @ 7.5%. HOWEVER, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IN RESPECT PENAL TY OF RS. 8,43,999/- AND DONATION OF RS. 3,60,000/- IS CALLED FOR AS THE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY APPL YING ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 7 NP RATE. THEREFORE, ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @ 7.5% SUBJ ECT TO DEPRECIATION OF RS. 2,09,83,906/- AND INTEREST O F RS. 31,15,739/= WORKS OUT TO RS. 3,35,86,005/=AS AGAINST NET INCOME FROM CONTRACT ASSESSED BY THE AO AT RS. 4,86,73,732/-. ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE LD CIT(A) HAD ALSO ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER THAT P AYMENT OF RS. 40,43,000/- IN CASH WAS MADE TO M/S SHOORA CONSTRUCT ION COMPANY PROPRIETOR SHRI BIRBAL SINGH SHOORA AS LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE INCOME BY REJECTING BOOK RESULT AND APPLIED NP RATE @ 8.9%. THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MA DE. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AR GUED THAT THERE WAS A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON 14/07/2011 AND AM U LTRA-TECH CEMENT DIARY WAS FOUND AND IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY, IN WHICH VARIOUS INCRIMINATING ENTRIES WERE FOUND AND THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE CASH PAYMENT MADE TO M/S SHOORA CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 40,43,000/- AND APPLIED NP RATE BY CONSIDERING THIS UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT RIGHT I N HOLDING NP RATE @ 7.5% SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST. ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 8 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REI TERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND FURTHER ARG UED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS COVERED BY THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIP UR BENCH DECISION FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN ITA NO. 815/JP/2012 ORDER DATED 24/07/2015. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEE N REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONL Y ALTERNATE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME U/S 144 OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES BEST J UDGMENT BY CONSIDERING ALL MATERIAL AVAILABLE, WHICH THE LD ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS GATHERED, BUT IT SHOULD NOT BE AN ACT OF DISHONESTL Y OR VINDICTIVELY OR CAPRICIOUSLY BECAUSE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER MUST EXERCISE JUDGMENT IN THE MATTER. HE MUST MAKE WHAT HE HONESTLY BELIEF TO BE A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE PROPER FIGURE OF ASSESSMENT AND FOR THIS PUR POSE HE MUST BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND REPUT E IN REGARD TO THE ASSESSEES CIRCUMSTANCES AND HIS OWN KNOWLEDGE OF PR EVIOUS RETURNS BY AND ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALL OTHER MATTER S WHICH HE THINKS WILL ASSIST HIM IN ARRIVING AT A FAIR AND PROPER EST IMATE AND THOUGH THERE MUST NECESSARILY BE GUESS WORK IN THE MATTER, IT MUS T BE AN HONEST GUESS WORK. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED NP RATE @ 8.9% ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES OWN PAST HISTO RY. HE SUMMARIZED THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE AS UNDER:- ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 9 A.Y. GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS N.P. RATE DECLARED BY ASSESSEE (BEFORE DEP. AND INTEREST) N.P. RATE APPLIED BY A.O. (SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION) N.P. RATE APPLIED BY CIT(A) AND UPHELD BY ITAT (SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST) 2010 - 11 (PRESENT APPEAL) 76,91,42,008 6.76% 8.9% 7.5% BY CIT(A) 2009 - 10 1,20,09,79,663/ - 6.46% 8% 8.89% BY CIT(A ) 7% BY ITAT (REFER ORDER DATED 24/7/2015 IN ITA NO. 815 AND 869/JP/2012, PARA(ORDER ENCLOSED) 2008 - 09 96,53,57,927/ - 6.06% 8% 7.2% BY CIT(A) 7% BY ITAT (ORDER ENCLOSED) 2007 - 08 93,96,06,963/ - 6.97% 8% 7.2% 2006 - 07 66,75,57,202/ - 7.02% 8% 7.1% 2005 - 06 42,07,54,436/ - 6.73% 8% 7.2% IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE ITAT HAD DIRECTED TO APPLY NP RATE @ 7% TO 7.2% SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST. CO NSIDERING THE PAST HISTORY, THE LD CIT(A) APPLIED NP RATE OF 7.5% SUBJ ECT TO DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST, THEREFORE, HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE O RDER OF THE LD CIT(A). HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS :- (I) CIT VS GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (2015) 1 16 DTR 377 (RAJ). (II) CIT VS INANI MARBLES PVT. LTD. 316 ITR 125 (RAJ .) (III) KANSARA BEARINGS P LTD. VS. ACIT 270 ITR 235 ( RAJ). (IV) CIT VS BHAWAN PATH NIRMAN (BOHRA) & CO. 258 ITR 431. ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 10 REGARDING GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON 14/7/2011 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2012-13. THERE WAS A CERTAIN PAYMENT MADE TO SUB- CONTRACTORS M/S SHOORA CONSTRUCTION WAS NOTED. THIS WAS OFFERED FOR TAX IN STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY. HOWEVER, IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT SO OFFERED IS INCURRED AS THE EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSES SEE WITH REFERENCE TO SAID PAYMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON RECEIPT OF CLAIM OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. F URTHER ONCE TRADING ADDITION IS MADE BY ESTIMATING THE NP RATE, NO ADDI TION FOR SUCH PAYMENT CAN BE MADE. EVEN THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION FOR SUCH AMOUNT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENT IS LIABLE T O BE QUASHED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. WHATE VER DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED, THE REJE CTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. WHEN BOOKS OF ACCOUN T HAS BEEN REJECTED, THE ONLY ALTERNATE BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, GE NERAL KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CIVIL CONTRACT OR BY COMPARING THE IDENTICAL CASE. AS ALL THE CIVIL ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 11 CONTRACT HAS UNIQUE TYPE OF CONTRACT, WHICH CANNOT B E COMPARED SQUARELY. THEREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONSIDER THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE DECISION OF THE C OORDINATE BENCH. AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE COORDIN ATE BENCH HAS CONFIRMED THE NP RATE @ 7% TO 7.2% IN PRECEDING YEA R. FURTHER THE DISCREPANCIES FOUND OUT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY , HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NO SEPARATE ADDITION H AS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER APPL IED NP RATE @ 8.9% SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION. HE HAS NOT ALLOWED THE INT EREST PAID TO THE THIRD PARTY, WHICH HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND NOT CHALLENGED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE FIND NP RATE APPLIED BY THE LD CIT(A) @ 7.5% IS REASONABLE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD TH E ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/04/2016. 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:- 28 TH APRIL, 2016 ITA 419/JP/2015_ DCIT VS. KIRODI MAL MODI 12 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI KIRODI MAL MODI, 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. 419/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR