ACIT, Kota V. SUNIL GALAV, BARAN

ITA 436/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54211 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: G G MUNDRA
• Keywords: Fair market value; Bad and doubtful debts
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.K.GUPTA AND SHRI N.L.KALRA) ITA NO. 436/ JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PAN: ABIPG 6484 H A.C.I.T. CIRCLE-2, KOTA V SHRI SUNIL GALAV PROP. M/S SUNIL SALES AGENCIES HOSPITAL ROAD, BARAN C.O. NO. 65/JP/2011 IN ITA NO. 436/ JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 SHRI SUNIL GALAV PROP. V A.C.I.T. CIRCLE -2, KOTA M/S SUNIL SALES AGENCIES HOSPITAL ROAD, BARAN (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA ASSESSEE BY: SHRI G.G. MUNDRA DATE OF HEARING: 18-10-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 -10-2011 ORDER PER N.L. KALRA, AM:- THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA DATED 28-02-2011 WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS FIELD CROSS-OBJECTION. 2 APPEAL OF THE REVENUE NO. 436/JP/20/2011 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. C.I.T(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,56,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN AUTHORIZED DEALER OF NEW HOLL AND TRACTOR AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS PF SELLING TRACTORS AS WELL AS SERVICING OF TRACTORS. BESIDES THIS BUSINESS THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAVING O THER BUSINESSES. A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 18.10.2007. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A COPY OF TALLY GENERATED DUPLICATE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS FOUND. SUCH PROFIT AN D LOSS ACCOUNT WAS SIGNED ON 18.10.2007 BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THE AO NOT ICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED CERTAIN EXPENSES WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DECLARED ON THE COMPUTER. ONE OF SUCH EXP ENSES WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED BUT NOT DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT GENERATED ON 18.10.2007,TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,56,000/-. BEFORE THE AO IT WAS INITIALLY STATED THAT THE EXPENSES OF INSURANCE AND REGISTRAT ION WERE IN THE FORM OF INCENTIVE GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMER FOLLOWING THE SALES PROMOTION SCHEME LAUNCHED BY THE COMPANY. THE AO MADE AN INQUIRY FR OM THE COMPANY AND THE COMPANY STATED THAT NO SCHEME WAS LAUNCHED BY T HE COMPANY. THE SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES, IF ANY, ARE TO BE INCURRED BY T HE DEALER. WHEN THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE THEN THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT SALE PROMOTION SCHEME ARE BEING INTIMATED TO THE COMPANY AND THE EXPENSES ARE BORNE BY THE DEALER. SUCH SALE PROMOTION EXPENSES ARE NOT R EIMBURSED TO THE DEALER. BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN ORDER TO SELL THE TRACTOR IN A COMPETITIVE MARKET, THE ASSESSEE PROMISED TO THE CU STOMERS THAT INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION EXPENSES WILL BE BORNE BY THE COM PANY. THE AO RECORDED 3 THE STATEMENT OF THE PROPRIETOR ON 21.12.2009. THE PROPRIETOR STATED THAT INSURANCE IS TO BE GOT DONE BEFORE THE TRACTOR WHIC H IS DELIVERED AND HENCE THE INSURANCE EXPENSES ARE BORNE BY THE ASSESSEE AN D SUCH EXPENSES ARE BEING DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AO IN HIS ORDER CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY VO UCHERS TO SUPPORT THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WER E FILED IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES ACTUALLY INCURRED. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DIS ALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 4,56,000/-. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED AFFIDAVIT OF ALL THE BUYERS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPIES OF AGREEMENTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF TRACTORS. THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,56,000/-. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINED THE AFFIDAVITS OF CUSTOMERS IN CONFIRMATION THAT REGIST RATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN BORNE BY THE DEALER. THESE AFFI DAVITS ARE DATED FEB 2010 OR MARCH 2010. COPIES OF THE AGREEMENTS ARE F OR THE PERIOD OF FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESS EE IN HIS STATEMENT ADMITTED THAT INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION EXPENSES ARE BEING BORNE BY THE DEALER. THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . IT IS TRUE THAT INITIALLY ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ESTABLISHED INCURR ING OF THE EXPENSES. THIS ONUS STAND PRIMARILY DISCHARGED WHEN THE PROPRIETOR HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INCURRING REGISTERATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMER AS BUSINESS INCENTIVE. THE AO HAS NOT MA DE ANY INQUIRY. 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT GOT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 7. THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF THE INSU RANCE AND REGISTRATION EXPENSES AT PAGES 68 TO 71. THIS LEDGER ACCOUNT GI VE THE DETAILS OF THE 4 AMOUNT PAID IN RESPECT OF INSURANCE AND REGISTRATI ON EXPENSES AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE CASH HAS BEEN STATED TO BE PAID TO THE PERSONS WHO HAVE PURCHASED THE TRACTOR. THE VOUCHER NUMBER IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN THE DETAILS. 8. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AF FIDAVITS OF PURCHASER CONFIRMING THAT THE REGISTRATION, INSURANCE ETC. WE RE GIVEN BY THE DEALER. THE PAPER BOOK ALSO CONTAINS AGREEMENT FOR THE SALE OF TRACTOR. IN THE AGREEMENT IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT REGISTRATION AND INSURANCE EXPENSES WILL BE MADE BY THE DEALER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION EXPENSES H AVE BEEN MADE BY THE DEALER SO AS TO INCREASE THE SALES OF THE TRACTORS. THE LD. CIT(A), WAS THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS NOT COLLECTED ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT PAYMENTS HAVE AS MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE. WE, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,56,000/-. 9. SECOND GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,33,037/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. 10. THE BAD DEBTS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF. THE AO HA S NOT ALLOWED CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS BECAUSE THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND DEBITED IN THE PROVISIONAL ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. 11. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEB T BECAUSE THE SAME HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. HON'BLE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF TRF LTD. V. CIT, 323 ITR 397 HAS HELD THAT AFTER AM ENDMENT THE DEDUCTION U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE IN CASE THE BAD DEBT IS WRITTEN OFF. HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF VIJAY BANK LTD. V . CIT, 323 ITR 166 HELD THAT REQUIREMENT OF WRITE OFF WILL BE CONSIDERED AS SATISFIED IF THE AMOUNT IS DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND ASSET A CCOUNT LIKE SUNDRY DEBTORS 5 IS CREDITED. IF THE LIABILITY IS SHOWN IN RESPECT OF DEBTS WRITTEN OFF IN THE BALANCE SHEET THEN IT IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS PROVIS ION. IN THE INSTANT CASED, THE DEBTS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF AND THE COPIES OF A CCOUNT OF THE SUNDRY DEBTORS HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE REQ UIREMENT U/S 36(1)(VII) OF THE ACT IS THAT BAD DEBT ARE WRITTEN OFF AS IRRECOV ERABLE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. NORMALLY JOURNAL E NTRIES ARE MADE AT THE END OF THE YEAR OR AFTER THE CLOSE OF FINANCIAL YEAR. CALCULATION OF INTEREST PAYABLE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR IS MADE AFTER THE CL OSE OF FINANCIAL YEAR AND ENTRIES ARE MADE AFTER THE CLOSE OF FINANCIAL YEAR. THE REQUIREMENT IS THAT WRITE OFF SHOULD BE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND ALONG WITH RET URN OF INCOME HAS FILED AUDIT REPORTS ON THE BASIS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D THE WRITE OFF IS CONSIDERED TO BE MADE IN ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE PRECEDING YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, JUSTIFIED IN DELETIN G THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,33,037/- ON ACCOUNT OF BAD DEBTS. 13. THIRD GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,00,400/- OUT OF SALARY. 14. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY A STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE EMPLOYEE WAS RECORDED. IN THE STATEMENT THE EMPLOYEE STATED THA T THERE ARE 8 MEMBERS AND HE GAVE THE NAMES OF 8 EMPLOYEES. THE SALARY PAYAB LE TO EACH EMPLOYEE WAS ALSO GIVEN IN THE STATEMENT. THE STATEMENT WAS MADE IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE AO RESTRICTED THE SA LARY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE EMPLOYEE AND MADE THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 10,00,400/-. 15. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE DREW ATTENT ION TOWARDS SALARY BEING PAID TO EACH EMPLOYEE AND DEBITED IN THE CASH BOOK. EVEN IN THE PROVISIONAL PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOUND AT THE T IME OF SURVEY IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE SALARY TO THE SALESMEN AND OTHER S IS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6 12,52,400. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FA ILED TO PROVIDE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND THE A DDITION CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANY INFORMATION COLLECTED ON THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED AFFID AVITS OF ALL THE EMPLOYEES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PREPARED A CHART SHOW ING THE NAMES OF THE EMPLOYEES AND THE NATURE OF JOB DONE BY HIM. THE A SSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSED THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE EMPLOYEE. 17. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,400/- AFTER OBSER VING AS UNDER:- FROM THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS FOUND T HAT AO HAS MADE THIS DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT MAKING ANY INQUIRY AND WI THOUT BRINGING ANY SPECIFIC MATERIAL ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY COPY OF TENTATIVE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DRAWN BY APPELLA NT AS ON 18.10.2007 WAS FOUND IN WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED FOLLOW ING PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY: A SALARY MISTRI STAFF RS. 1,64,400 B SALARY PARTS STAFF RS. 66,000 C SALARY SALESMAN RS. 8,28,000 D SALARY SHOW ROOM STAFF RS. 1,96,000 IN SUCH A SITUATION THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY OF RS. 10,00,400/- ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE EMPLOYEES SHRI RAJENDRA MALAV RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY . AS MENTIONED EARLIER THIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY BUT NO SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS ASKED BY THE SURVEY PARTY REGARDING SALARY PAYMENT. AS INTIMATED BY APPELLANT, SALARY PAYMENT OF RS. 6,55,900 WAS CLAIMED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. IF AO HAD DOUBTS ABO UT GENUINENESS OF SALARY PAYMENTS, HE SHOULD HAVE MADE INQUIRY FROM AT LEAST A FEW EMPLOYEES. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EXERCISE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY IS NOT JUSTIFIED. AO HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THAT DEPARTMENT HAS ONCE MADE THE SPOT VERIFICATION AT TIME OF SURVEY AND IT HAS TO RELY UPON THE EVIDENCE GATHERED DURING THE SOURC E OF SURVEY. THUS THERE IS HOWEVER, REASON AS TO WHY THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN ABOVE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN IGNORE BY AO AND DISALLOWANCE MA DE ON THE BASIS OF 7 STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJENDRA MALAV. I, THEREFORE, HO LD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10,00,400/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DIRECT ED TO BE DELETED. GROUND NO. 3 IS THUS ALLOWED. 18. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. BEFORE US, LD. AR HAS FILED PAPER BOOK WHICH CONTAINS COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS OF THE EMP LOYEES AND COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF THE EMPLOYEES. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PREC EDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE SALARY PAID WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,55,900. DURING THE YEAR THERE HAS BEEN INCREASE IN THE TURN OVER TO THE EXTENT OF 30% . WHEN THE SALARIES STAND DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE NAMES OF T HE EMPLOYEES ARE THERE THEN THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE AN ADDITION SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF AN EMPLOYEE RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY CANNOT BE CONS IDERED AS CONCLUSIVE BECAUSE INCOME-TAX ACT DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR RECORDI NG THE STATEMENT ON OATH DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE SAID STATEMENT IS A PIECE OF INFORMATION AND AFTER COLLECTING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD BY USIN G THE SAID INFORMATION THE AO CAN MAKE THE ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,400 /-. 19. 4 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,437/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 40A(2)( A) OF THE ACT. 20. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTER EST @ 18% TO ADITYA FINANCE, BARAN. THIS INTEREST RATE HAS BEEN CONSID ERED AS UN-REASONABLE AND ACCORDINGLY 1/3 RD OF THE INTEREST WAS DISALLOWED BY HOLDING THAT RAT E OF INTEREST AT 12% IS REASONABLE. 21. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER O BSERVING AS UNDER:- BEFORE MAKING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(A) THE AO IS REQUIRED TO GIVE A FINDING THAT PAYMENT IS EXCESSIVE OR UN-REASONABL E IN VIEW OF FAIR MARKET VALUE OF GOODS OR SERVICES. IN THIS CASE, N O MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY AO TO PROVE THAT DURING THE YE AR INTEREST RATE 8 WAS 12% PER ANNUM ONLY. IN SUCH A SITUATION AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO MAKE A DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2)(A) IN THIS CASE. TH IS VIEW ALSO DERIVES SUPPORT FROM FOLLOWING DECISIONS. A ANIL KUMAR V. IAC (1986) 15 ITD 695 (ASR) B OMKARMAL GAURISHANKAR V. ITO (1991) TTJ (AHD) 223 C ITO V. CHAMBA MAL ROOP CHAND (2001) 70 TTJ (ASR) 43 D R.R & P.M. MURUGIAN CHETTIAR V. ITO (1976) 2 TTJ (M AD) 1229 E POIMERA SESHAIAHSETTY & SONS V. ITO (1981) 12 TTJ ( HYD) 248 F ITO V. K.S. BHASHIN (1983) 17 TTJ (GAUHATI) 134 I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 23,437/ - IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 22. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE INTEREST IS EXCESSIVE OR UN-REAS ONABLE. THE AO HAS NOT DRAWN ANY BASIS OR CONSIDERING AS TO WHY THE INTERE ST PAID IS UN-REASONABLE OR IS EXCESSIVE. THUS THE AO HAS NOT DISCHARGED TH E ONUS. IN CASE THE TAX RATE IS SAME IN THE CASE OF RECIPIENTS AND THE PAYE E THEN THERE IS NO CASE OF EXCESSIVE PAYMENT AND NORMALLY THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 40A WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE BECAUSE THERE IS NO REVENUE LOSS. WE, T HEREFORE, FEEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 23,437/-. ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTIONS NO. 65/JP/2011 23. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS IS AGGRIEV ED AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS. 4,65,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF SEED DRILL AND BUCKER EXPENSES. 24. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENTAT ION TO THE CUSTOMERS IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE SALES. THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED THE COPIES OF AGREEMENT MADE WITH THE CUSTOMERS AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVITS O F THE CUSTOMERS. SUCH EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF ALLOWING THE INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION EXPENSES. SINCE SUCH EX PENSES ARE VERIFIABLE AS 9 PER THE EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CI T(A). ON THE BASIS OF SUCH EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DE LETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,56,000/-. ON THE SAME EVIDENCES AND ARGUMENTS , THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING A SPECIFIC REASONS HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,65,000/-. FOLLOWING OUT ORDER ON THE ISSUE OF AL LOWING EXPENSES OF INSURANCE AND REGISTRATION, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CI T(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,65,000. 25 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED WHILE THE CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 -10-2011 SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (N.L. KALRA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 21 /10/2011 SURESH COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE A.C.I.T. CIRCLE2, KOTA 2. SHRI SUNIL GALAV 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE LD. CIT(A) 5. THE LD.DR 6. THE GUARD FILE (ITA NO.39/JP /11) A.R, ITAT, JAIPUR 10 11 12 13 14 15