BHHARAT CHAWLA, Alwar V. ITO, Alwar

ITA 438/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2084 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY DCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 438/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 BHARAT CHAWLA, E-7, NEW SABJI MANDI, ALWAR (RAJ) CUKE VS. I.T.O., WARD- 2(3), ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AEGPC 5528 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 29/08/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/09/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 05/02/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2 011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN ADHAT OF FRUITS AND VE GETABLES AND EARNED COMMISSION INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) PARTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. NOW TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 2 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE ADHOC EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO INR 1, 70,322. THE ACTION OF ID. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE, RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE SAID D ISALLOWANCE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CAS H DISCOUNT GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS AMOUNTING TO INR 2, 00,000. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,1 05 BEING PHYSICAL CASH, RS. 9,562 BEING DEBTORS AND RS. 32,0 63 BEING PURCHASE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF INR 1,3 8,035 OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF INR 5, 06,142 BEING BUSINESS INCO ME. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF INR 5,6 60 OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF INR 94,331 BEING UNDISCLOSED SALES. 6. THE ASSESSEE RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 3. GROUNDS NO. 3 AND 5 OF THE APPEAL WERE NOT PRESSE D AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THEREFORE, THE SAME STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. GROUND NO. 6 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, DOES N OT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 5. IN THE GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL, THE IS SUE INVOLVED IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF EXPENSES ON AD HOC BASIS OF RS. 1,70,322/- AND DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CASH DISCOUNT TO THE CUSTOMERS AT ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 3 RS. 2.00 LACS RESPECTIVELY. IN THE GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,38,035/- OUT OF THE ADDITION MADE BEING BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 6. THE LD. CIT(A)S FINDINGS ON DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1, 70,322/- RAISED IN THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 7.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND RE PORT OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS AND CROSS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND FI ND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CLAIMED UNDER THE FOLLOWIN G HEADS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT SUPPORTING VOUCHE RS AND OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR THESE EXPENSES COULD NOT B E PRODUCED:- (I) PETROL, DEPRECIATION ON CAR AND INSURANCE - A D ISALLOWANCE OF RS. 20,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 96650 HAS B EEN MADE BY THE AO. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED AS BEING REASONABLE. (II) VEHICLE REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE - A DISALLOWANC E OF RS. 9,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 44,054 HAS BEEN MADE B Y THE AO. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO I S CONFIRMED. (III) WAGES - A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 57,000 OUT OF T HE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 2,53,735 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE WORKERS EMPLOYED AND THE WORK DONE BY THEM COULD NOT BE FILED. CONSIDERING THE FACT TH AT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELL ANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 4 (IV) TRAVELLING EXPENSES - A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13 ,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 66,806 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. CON SIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BEING RE ASONABLE IS CONFIRMED. (V) PRINTING AND STATIONARY - A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 15,250 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A O. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO I S CONFIRMED. (VI) MOBILE EXPENSES - A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,500 OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 16,924 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. CON SIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS CONFI RMED. (VII) STAFF WELFARE - A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7,000 O UT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 34,103 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. CON SIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE OR ANY VOUCHER COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A O BEING REASONABLE IS CONFIRMED. (VIII) TEA, FOOD AND BEVERAGE - A DISALLOWANCE OF R S. 23,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 1,13,009 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A O BEING REASONABLE IS CONFIRMED. (IX) SHOP EXPENSES - A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,300 OU T OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 6,418 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. CONS IDERING THE ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 5 FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS CONFI RMED. (X) LOCAL CONVEYANCE - A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 37,880 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. CON SIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS CONFI RMED. (XI) BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES - A DISALLOWANCE O F RS. 6,500 OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 32,840 HAS BEEN MADE BY T HE AO. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO I S CONFIRMED. (XII) INTEREST ON CAR LOAN - A DISALLOWANCE OF TOTA L EXPENSES OF RS. 19,022 HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT I NTEREST FREE LOANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO RELATED PERSONS. THEREFORE , THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN OBTAINING FUNDS AT HIGHER COST. CO NSIDERING THE FACT THAT NO CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT TO JUSTIFY THE PAYMENT OF INTEREST, THE D ISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. 6.1 THE LD. CIT(A)S FINDING ON GROUND NO. 2 FOR SUST AINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2.00 LACS ARE AS UNDER:- 8.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND RE PORT OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS AND CROSS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND FI ND THAT A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 LACS OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 7,89 ,526 CLAIMED UNDER THIS HEAD HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAS CLA IMED A CASH DISCOUNT OF RS. 1,61,090 ON SALES OF OTHER ITEMS AN D OF RS. 6,28,436 ON SALES OF ONIONS. THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE GROUN D THAT NO DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED TO WHOM CASH DISCOUNT ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 6 WAS GIVEN. FURTHER, NO OTHER EVIDENCE WITH REGARD T O THE CLAIM OF CASH DISCOUNT COULD BE FILED. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED T HAT GIVING DISCOUNT TO CUSTOMERS IS CUSTOMARY IN THIS TRADE AND THIS PRACT ICE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE KRISHI UPAJ MANDI ALSO. 8.6 IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE AND STILL C ONSIDERING THE CLAIM OF THE EXPENSES BEING PREVALENT IN THIS NATURE OF TRADE, O NLY A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 LACS WAS MADE BY THE AO OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPE NSES CLAIMED UNDER THIS HEAD. THE APPELLANT HAS REITERATED THE SUBMISS IONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND HAS STATED THAT CONFIRMATION OF FOUR PARTIES WAS ALSO FILED IN THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. AO IN T HE REMAND REPORT HAS STATED THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY PE RSON/FIRM WISE AND DATE WISE DETAILS OF DISCOUNT GIVEN AND ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE AMOUNT OF DISCOUNT GIVE N TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE APPELLANT WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. FURTHER, IT IS STATED THAT TH E CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE CASH DISCOUNT F ROM FOUR PARTIES ARE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,34,137 OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 7,89,526 AS EXPENSES UNDER THIS HEAD. 8.7 CONSIDERING THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, I DO NOT FI ND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN INTERFERING WITH THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO AN D HOLD THE SAME TO BE JUSTIFIED AND FAIR IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES. ACCORDI NGLY, I CONFIRM THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 2 LACS MADE BY THE AO UNDER THI S HEAD. THE ISSUE RAISED IN BOTH THESE GROUNDS ARE DISALLOWAN CE OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER VARIOUS HEAD S IN HIS P&L ACCOUNT. ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 7 6.2 REGARDING GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. C IT(A) HAS ALSO SUSTAINED PART DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATI NG THE PROFIT ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDING S OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 12.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, REMAND R EPORT OF THE AO, SUBMISSIONS AND CROSS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT AND FI ND THAT AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,06,142 HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINES S INCOME OF OTHER ADHATIYAS TRANSACTED THROUGH APPELLANTS BANK ACCOU NT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 92,02,360 HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH WAS STATED TO BE THE COLLECTION OF PROCEEDS F OR OTHER ADHATIYAS. AO HAS TREATED THE COMMISSION OF 6% ON SUCH RECEIPT S AS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 5,52,142 AND AFTER ALLOWING DE DUCTION OF BANK COLLECTION CHARGES OF RS. 46,000 MADE AN ADDITION O F RS. 5,06,142 TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 12.6 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT COMMISSION ON GR OSS BASIS ACCRUES TO THE DEALER @ 6% AND IN THIS CASE ALL THE PROCEEDS DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE ON BEHALF OF ANOTHER PARTY M/S SURENDR A & CO. A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT DULY EXECUTED WITH THAT PARTY HAS BEE N FILED ON RECORD. IT IS STATED THAT PROFIT OF 25% OF THE GROSS COMMIS SION EARNED ON SALES @ 6% OF SALES, IS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SU BMITTED THAT OUT OF GROSS COMMISSION - 6% OF SALES OF RS. 5,52,142, AFT ER MEETING EXPENSES A NET PROFIT OF 25% OF THIS COMMISSION AMOUNT WHICH COMES TO 1,38,035, IS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE COLLE CTION CHARGES OF BANK HAVE TO BE ALLOWED AGAINST THIS INCOME OF RS. 1,38, 035 TO ARRIVE AT THE NET INCOME. ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 8 12.7 THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION. AO IN HIS REPORT HAS REITERATED THE REASONS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STATED THAT ADDITION OF RS. 5,06,142 MADE IN THE ORDER IS JUSTIFIED. 12.8 HAVING CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RE CORD, I FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT GROSS COMMISSION OF 6% ON SALES IS EARNED BY THE PARTY. THIS ISSUE OF SALES MADE ON BEHALF OF THE OTHER ADH ATIYA HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT I N THE PRECEDING YEAR AND IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/147 DATED 28-03- 2013, HAS ASSESSED THE NET PROFIT AT 25% OF THE GROSS COMMISS ION WHICH IS 6% OF THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THUS, I HOL D THAT IN THIS YEAR ALSO, THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WOULD BE COMPUTED AT 6% OF 92,02,360 - RS. 5,52,142 AND 25% NET PROFIT OF RS. 5,52,142 WOULD BE RS.1,38,035. FURTHER, I HOLD THAT NO FURTHER DEDUCT ION FOR ANY OTHER EXPENSES WOULD BE GIVEN AGAINST THE INCOME AS COMPU TED. 12.9 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I CONFIRM AN ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,38,035 AS AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 5,06,142 MADE BY THE AO UNDER THIS HEAD. 7. BEFORE THE ITAT, IT WAS PLEADED THAT ONCE THE ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE BY ESTIMATING THE INCOME THEN AD HOC DISALLOWAN CE OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE OR SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). I DO AGREE WITH THE CONT ENTION OF THE LD AR THAT WHERE INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AFTER REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEN NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. HOWEVER , THE FACTS OF THIS ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 9 CASE ARE COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. THE LD CIT(A) HAS SUS TAINED THE NET PROFIT OF 25% OF THE GROSS COMMISSION EARNED @ 6% ON THE SA LES WHICH WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D THESE SALES WERE MADE FOR THE OTHER ADATHIYAS. THE LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINE D NET PROFIT @ 25% OF GROSS COMMISSION. THE REVENUE IS NOT IN APPEAL ON RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I FIND NO REA SON BUT TO AGREE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ESTIMATING NET PROFI T @ 25% OF GROSS COMMISSION. HENCE GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. AS FAR AS OTHER DISALLOWANCES MADE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL IN GROUND NO. 1 AND 2, I FOUND THAT THESE DISALLOWANCES ARE OU T OF THE VARIOUS EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AGAINST THE DEC LARED TURNOVER BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THESE DISALLOWANCES ARE MADE FOR LACK OF SUPPORTING VOUCHERS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AN D WHERE NO DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED WITH REGARD TO THE CASH DISCOUNT. SINC E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 25% OF THE COMMISSION @ 6% ON THE SALES OF RS. 92,02,368/-, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I DIRECT TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT AS 1.5% OF DECLARED SALES OF RS. 5.00 CRORES , THUS PART ADDITION SUSTAINED. THE DECLARED TURNOVER WAS OF AROUND RS. 5. 00 CRORES. HENCE THE ESTIMATED INCOME ON THIS TURNOVER COMES AT RS. 7.5 LACS. INSTEAD OF NET INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE IN COME FROM DECLARED ITA 438/JP/2016_ BHARAT CHAWLA VS. ITO 10 TURNOVER SHALL BE AT RS. 7.5 LACS. THUS, THE TOTAL I NCOME FROM THE BUSINESS OF ADATHIYA IS ESTIMATED AT RS. 8,88,035/- ( 7,50,0 00/- + 1,38,035/-). ACCORDINGLY GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED A ND GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/09/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 08 TH SEPTEMBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI BHARAT CHAWLA, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 2(3), ALWAR. 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. 438/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR