M/S JAIPUR TIME INDUSTRIES, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 429/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 42923114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: B P MUNDRA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Cost of acquisition; Fair market value
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA AND SHRI N.K. SAI NI) ITA NO. 429/JP/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 PAN: AABFJ 3573 A M/S. JAIPUR TIMES INDUSTRIES VS. THE ITO 23, SRI JI KI MORI WARD- 1 (3) TIPOLIA BAZAR,JAIPUR JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI B.P. MUNDRA DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI D.C. SHARMA DATE OF HEARING: 24-01-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26-02-2014 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA, JM:- THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)-I, JA IPUR DATED 27-02-2012 WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED. 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTI ON OF THE AO IN APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE I. T. ACT,1961 AND ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 58,98,65 3/- AGAINST THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 42.25 LACS. TH E ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND A GAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY TAKING THE SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 42.25 LACS ONLY AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REFUSING THE REFER THE MATTER TO 2 THE VALUATION OFFICER. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY REFERRING THE MATTER TO V ALUATION OFFICER. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUND NO.1. 2. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISM ISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. 3.1 THE FACTS APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 1.1 ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE CAPITAL GAINS FROM TRANSFER OF INDUSTRIAL PROPE RTY TO THE TUNE OF RS. 26,25,762/. ON EXAMINATION OF THE SALE DEED, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE DLC VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 58,98,653/-. ACCORDINGLY, HE HAS CALCULATED THE CAPITAL GAIN AS PER DLC VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE VALU E ADOPTED BY THE SAME VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND THEREFORE, REQUESTED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLOT OF LAND FROM RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL & MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN THE YEAR 1979 ON LEASE FOR 99 YEARS COMMENCING FROM 21-01-1979 AND H AS PAID ECONOMIC RENT AND SERVICE CHARGES TO RIICO AS PER THE RULES PREVALENT AT THAT TIME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO MOU FOR TRANSFER OF P ART OF THE LAND ON 26-04- 2005. THE AO HAS ADOPTED THE VALUE OF THIS ASSET SO LD ON 08-12-2006 AT RS. 58,98,653/- UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C OF T HE ACT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE DEEMING FICTION OF SECTION 50C EXTEN TS ONLY TO CAPITAL ASSET WHICH IS ON THE LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, IF A 3 CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS TRA NSFERRED AND THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF S UCH TRANSFER IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY, THE DEEMING FICTION U/S (1) SHALL BE ACTIVATED TO SUBST ITUTE SUCH ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE VALUE AS FULL VALUE OF CONSI DERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. AS PER THE A SSESSEE, THE DEEMING FICTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ENACTED. SINCE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS ACTION OF THE AO, THE ASS ESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND NO. 1.1 BEFORE US. 3.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CA REFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS A LESS EE IN THE LEASEHOLD LAND WHICH WAS SOLD TO RMPL. FOR READY REFERENCE, WE ARE EXTRACTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. AR IN THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSION WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 1. YOUR HONOUR, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A PLOT OF LAND ON LEASE FROM RAJASHTAN STATE INDUSTRIAL & MINERAL DEV ELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. (RIICO) IN THE YEAR 1979 FOR A LEA SE OF 99 YEARS COMMENCING FROM 21ST JANUARY, 1979. (KINDLY SEE AT PAGE NO. 23 TO 32 ) THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PAID PREMIUM TO RIICO AS PER THEIR RULES PREVALENT AT THAT TIME. 2. IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE TRANSF ER THE LAND FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS.42.25,000/-. THE ASSESSE E WORKED OUT CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 26,25,762/-. AFTER DEDUCTIN G THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION / IMPROVEMENT AT RS. 15,99,238/ -. THE LD. AO APPLIED SEC. 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AND CONSI DERED THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PLOT OF LAND AT RS. 58,98,653/- AND CONSIDERED THIS AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 42,99,415/-. THE AR 'S CONTENTION WAS THAT SINCE THIS PLOT OF LAND WAS A L EASEHOLD 4 RIGHT ONLY, IT WAS NEITHER A LAND NOR A BUILDING AN D THEREFORE SECTION 50C WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO SUCH TRANSAC TION. 3. THE LEARNED C1T (A) IN HIS BRIEF ORDER VIDE PARA 8 HAS DECIDED AGAINST ASSESSEE AS UNDER: '8.1 THE AO OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS FROM TRANSFER OF INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY OF RS. 26,25,762/-. ON EXAMINATION OF THE SALE DEED, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE DLC VALUE OF THE PROPERTY HAD BEEN DETERMINED AT RS . 58,98,653/- AND CAPITAL GAINS WERE COMMENSURATELY CALCULATED. 8.2 THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE ADO PTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER AND REQU ESTED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. 8.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND TH E SUBMISSION OF THE AR AND REJECT THE SUBMISSION AS H E HAS NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENCE OR COGENT ARGUMENTS TO SUPPORT HIS CLA IM THAT THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EXCEEDED THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY THEREFORE, HIS REQUEST IS RE JECTED AND THE DECISION OF THE AO TO TAKE THE VALUE OF THE PROPER TY AT RS. 58,98,653/- U/S 50C IS UPHELD. ' 4. YOUR HONOUR, THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A PLOT OF LA ND FROM RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL & MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CO RPORATION IN THE YEAR 1979 ON LEASE FOR 99 YEARS COMMENCING F ROM 21.01.1979. KINDLY SEE AT PAGE NO. 23 TO 32, OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS PAID ECONOMIC RE NT AND SERVICE CHARGES TO RIICO AS PER THE RULES PREVALENT AT THAT TIME. KINDLY SEE AT PAGE NO. 51 TO 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO MOU FOR TRANSFER OF PART OF THE LAND ON 26.04.2005. KINDLY SEE AT PAGE NO. 4 OF THE PAPER B OOK. THE LD. AO ADOPTED THE VALUE OF ASSET SOLD ON 08-12-2006 A RS. 58,98,653/- BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 5 0C FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING; CAPITAL GAIN. 5. YOUR HONOUR, THE MANDATE OF SECTION 50C EXTENDS ONLY TO A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH IS 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH' . IT, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT ONLY IF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS TRANSFERRED AND THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT SUCH TRANSFER IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPT ED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY THE STAR VALUATION AUTHOR ITY, THE DEEMING FICTION UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL BE ACTI VATED SUBSTITUTE SUCH ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE V ALUE AS FULL 5 VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RE SULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT A DEEMING PROVISION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ENACTED, DEEMING PROVISION CAN BE APPLIED ONLY I N RESPECT OF THE SITUATION SPECIFICALLY GIVEN AND HENCE CANNOT G O BEYOND THE EXPLICIT MANDATE OF THE SECTION. TURNING TO SECTION 50C, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DEEMING FICTION OF SUBSTITUTING ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE VALUE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY A S FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IS APPLICABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF 'LAN D OR BUILDING OR BOTH'. IF THE CAPITAL ASSET UNDER TRANSFER CANNOT B E DESCRIBED AS 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH', THEN SECTION 50C WILL C EASE TO APPLY. 6. YOUR HONOUR, FROM THE FACTS OF THIS CASE NARR ATED ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED LEASE RIGHT IN THE PLOT FOR A PERIOD OF NINETY NINE YEARS, WHICH RIGHT WAS FURTHER ASSIGNED TO 'ROCHEES MALLS PVT. LTD (RMPL).' . IT I S AXIOMATIC THAT THE LEASE RIGHT IN: A PLOT OF LAND ARE NEITHE R 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH' AS SUCH NOR CAN BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE SCO PE OF 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH. 7. YOUR HONOUR, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN A CAPITA L ASSET BEING 'LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH' AND ANY 'RIGHT IN LAND O R BUILDING OR BOTH' IS WELL-RECOGNIZED UNDER THE I.T. ACT. SECTIO N 54D DEALS WITH CERTAIN CASES IN WHICH CAPITAL GAIN ON COMPULS ORY ACQUISITION OF LAND AND BUILDING IS CHARGED. SUB-SE CTION (I) OF SECTION 54D OPENS WITH:. 'SUBJECT TO THE PROVISI ONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), WHERE THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FROM THE TRANSFER BY WAY OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION UNDER ANY LAW OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR ANY RIGHT IN LAND OR BUILDING, FORMING PART OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING '. IT CA N BE SEEN FROM SECTION 54D THAT 'LAND OR BUILDING' IS DISTINC T FROM 'ANY RIGHT IN LAND OR BUILDING'. SIMILAR POSITION PREVAI LS UNDER THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 ALSO. SECTION 5(1) AT THE MATE RIAL TIME PROVIDED FOR EXEMPTION IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ASSETS . CLAUSE (XXXII) OF SECTION 5(1) PROVIDED THAT 'THE VALUE, A S DETERMINED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER, OF THE INTEREST OF THE AS SESSEE IN THE ASSETS (NOT BEING ANY LAND OR BUILDING OR ANY RIGHT S IN LAND OR BUILDING OR ANY ASSET REFERRED TO IN ANY OTHER CLAU SES OF THIS SUB- SECTION) FORMING PART OF AN INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING' SHALL BE EXEMPT FROM TAX. HERE WE CAN SEE THAT A DISTINCTION HAS BEEN DRAWN BETWEEN 'LAND OR BUILDING' ON ONE HAND AND 'O R ANY RIGHTS IN LAND OR BUILDING' ON THE OTHER. AS SECTION 50C APPL IES ONLY TO A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, IT CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO LEASE RIGHTS IN A LAND . AS THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED LEASE RIGHT FOR NINETY NINE YE ARS IN THE PLOT AND NOT LAND ITSELF, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C CANNOT BE INVOKED . THEREFORE, YOUR HONOUR, THE FULL VALUE OF 6 CONSIDERATION IN THE INSTANT CASE BE ALLOWED TO BE TAKEN AT SALE PRICE, WHICH IS RS. 42,25,000/-. 8. YOUR HONOUR, THE ASSESSEE WAS A LESSEE IN THE LEASEHOLD LAND WHICH WAS SOLD TO RMPL. THE LD. AO HAS TREATED THE ASSESSEE A SELLER OF LEASEHOLD LAND APPARENTLY BECA USE THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTY TO THE SALE DEED. YOUR HONOUR IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE BUYER OF A LEASEHOLD LAND, AT THE TIME OF BUYING THE LEASEHOLD LAND, MUST ONLY RELATE TO OWNERSHIP RIGHTS. IN THE CASE OF TENANTED PROPERTY, WHILE THE BUYER OF PROPERTY PAYS THE OWNER OF PROPERTY FOR OW NERSHIP RIGHTS, HE MAY ALSO HAVE TO PAY, WHEN HE WANTS TO H AVE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY AND TO REMOVE THE FETTER S OF TENANCY RIGHTS ON THE PROPERTY SO PURCHASED, THE TENANTS TO WARDS THEIR SURRENDERING THE TENANCY RIGHTS. MERELY BECAUSE HE PAYS THE TENANTS, FOR THEIR SURRENDERING THE TENANCY RIGHTS, AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, WILL NOT ALTER THE CHARACT ER OF RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE TENANT RECEIVING SUCH PAYMENT. WHAT IS PAID FOR THE TENANCY RIGHTS CANNOT, MERELY BECAUSE OF THE TIMING OF THE PAYMENT, CANNOT BE TREATED AS RECEIPT FOR OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RECEIPT FOR OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF A PROPERTY AND RECEIPT FOR TENANCY RIGHTS IN RESPECT OF A PROPERTY, THE COST OF ACQUISITION FOR TENANCY RIGHT S, UNDER SECTION 55(2)(A), IS UNLESS PURCHASED FROM A PREVIO US OWNER WHICH IS ADMITTEDLY NOT THE CASE HERE, TREATED AS NIL; AND SECOND, SINCE THE PREVIOUS OF SECTION 50C APPLIES I N RESPECT OF TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, ON RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION ON TRANSFER OF A PROPERTY, THESE PROVISIONS WILL NOT COME IN A CASE WHERE ONLY TENANCY RIGHTS ARE TRANSFERRED OR SURRENDERED. 9. YOUR HONOUR, AS A PERUSAL OF THE SALE DEED UNAMBIGUOUSLY SHOWS, THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN UP AL T HE RIGHTS AND INTEREST IN THE SAID LEASEHOLD LAND, WHICH HE H AD ACQUIRED BY THE VIRTUE OF THESE AGREEMENTS WITH OWNER AND WH ICH WERE, THEREFORE, IN THE NATURE OF LESSEES RIGHTS; THESE RIGHTS ARE NOT OWNERSHIP RIGHTS. THE MONIES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE UNDER THE SAID AGREEMENT, WERE THUS CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF RECEIPTS TRANSFER OF TENANCY RIGHTS AND THUS SECTION 50C COU LD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THEREFORE, IT IS SINE QUA NON FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C THAT THE TRANSFE R MUST BE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH, BUT THEN A LEASEHOLD RIGHT IN SUCH A CAPITAL ASSET CANNOT BE E QUATED WITH THE CAPITAL ASSET PER SE. THEREFORE, WHEN A LEASEHO LD RIGHT IN LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS TRANSFERRED, THE PR OVISION OF SECTION 50C CANNOT BE INVOKED. 7 10. YOUR HONOUR KINDLY SEE PAGE NO. 4 OF PAPER BOOK , PARAGRAPH 1 WHICH REVEALS THAT ASSESSEE TRANSFER ON LY INTEREST IN LEASE HOLD LAND. 11. YOUR HONOUR, THE AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DE CISIONS. 11.1 IN DCIT VS. TAJINDER SINGH (ITAT KOLKATA) MARC H 1 ST , 2012 IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 50C DOES NOT A PPLY TO TRANSFER OF TENANCY / LEASE HOLD RIGHTS. THE SINE Q UA NON FOR APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C IS THAT THE TRANSFER MUS T BE OF A CAPITAL ASSET, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH;. A LEASEHOLD RIGHT IN LAND OR BUILDING CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH T HE LAND OR BUILDING. ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 50C HAS NO APPLICAT ION TO THE ASSIGNMENT OF LEASEHOLD/TENANCY RIGHTS. THE SAME VI EW WAS TAKEN IN KISHORI SHARAD GAITONDE VS. ITO (MUM) & AT UL G PURANIK VS. ITO (ITAT MUMBAI) 58 DTR 208 (MUM.) WHE REIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PROV ISION WHICH EXTENDS ONLY TO A CAPITAL ASSET WHICH IS LAND OR B UILDING OR BOTH. A DEEMING PROVISION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYON D THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT IS ENACTED. IN KISHORI SHARAD GAITONDE VS. ITO (ITAT MUMBAI) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SEC TION 50C DOES NOT APPLY TO ALL CAPITAL ASSET ONLY TO LAND O R BUILDING. A TENANCY RIGHT IS NOT LAND OR BUILDING (IT IS R IGHTS IN BUILDING). CONSEQUENTLY, SECTION 50 C HAS NO APPLI CATION AND THE CAPITAL GAINS HAVE TO BE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION. 11.2 ARIF AKHATAR HUSSAIN VS. ITO (ITAT MUMBAI) DEC. 24 TH , 2010 11.3 SHAVO NORGREN (I) LTD., MUMBAI VS. DCIT ON 14 TH DEC. 2012 , ITA NO. 8101 OF 2011 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, E BENCH, MUMBAI (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09) HENCE, THE ADDITION IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED IN F ULL. 3.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 3.4 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS , WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THAT SECTION 50C OF THE ACT APPLIES ONLY TO CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH BUT IT CANNOT APPLY TO LEASE RIGHT S IN A LAND. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS TRANSFERRED THE LEASE RIGHT FOR 99 YEA RS IN THE PLOT AND NOT OWNERSHIP IN LAND ITSELF, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C CANNOT BE INVOKED. THEREFORE, FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION IN THIS CASE HAS TO BE TAKEN AT RS. 42.25 LACS. THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALSO SUPPORT OUR ABOVE FINDING. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THE GROUND NO. 1.1 OF THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-02-2014. SD/- SD/- (.N.K. SAINI) (HARI OM MARATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMEBR JAIPUR DATED: 26 TH FEB. 2014 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- BY ORDER 1. M/S. JAIPUR TIME INDUSTRIES, JAIPUR 2. THE ITO , WARD- 1(3), JAIPUR 3. THE LD. CIT(A) 4. THE LD. CIT 5. THE DR 6. THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.429/JP/12) A.R. ITAT: JAIPUR 9 10 11