ITO, UDAIPUR V. Shri Jitendra Maheshwari, UDAIPUR

ITA 462/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 82928 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Procedural lapse
• Section: 80C; 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 462 /JODH/2013 (A.Y. 200 9 - 1 0 ) ITO , WARD - 1(1), UDAIPUR. VS. SHRI JITENDRA M AHES H WA RI, PROP. M/S. SHRI MANGLAM MARKETERS, VASU PRIYA COMPLEX, COLLEGE ROAD, O/S SURAJ POLE, UDAIPUR. (APPELLANT) PAN NO. ABFPM 0903 L (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 3 1 / 0 7 /201 4 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 /0 8 /201 4 . O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M TH IS IS AN APPEAL BY THE D EPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 9 /0 7 /2013 OF L D . CIT(A), UDAIPUR . 2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT . W E , THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO 2 DECIDE THE APPEAL EXPARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE , AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED D.R. , ON MERIT. 3. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN: - 1. QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, BY HOLDING THAT SIGNATURE APPEARING ON FIRST NOTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 23/09/2010 SERVED ON 24/09/2010 IS NOT OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SAME SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AVAILABLE ON POWER OF ATTORNEY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FAVOUR OF L.S. NALWAYA & COMPANY FILED ON 28/11/2011 BEFORE THE A.O. 2. QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, ALSO IGNORING THE FACT THAT SIGNATURE ON THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) DATED 23/09/2010 ARE SIMILAR TO THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN ON GROUNDS OF APPEAL & EVEN ON VERIFICATION OF THE APPEAL MEMO. 3. QUASHING THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT BY ACCEPTING ARGUMENT OF SIGNATURE BEING SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT & M AY BE FORGET, WITHOUT REFERRING THE MATTER TO ANY FORENSIC EXPERT , PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THAT THE SIGNATURE IN ALL THE ABOVE THREE DOCUMENTS NAMELY NOTICE DATED 23/09/2010, POWER OF ATTORNEY FILED ON 28/11/2011 AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL ALONG WITH ITS VERIFICATION ARE SIMILAR. 4. QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS CLEARLY OBJECTED ABOUT CLAIM OF ASSESSEE OF NOTICE NOT BEING SERVED BY FURNISHING OFFICE COPY SHOWING CLEARLY THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3 4. FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO THE QUASHING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) . 5. FACTS RELATING TO THIS CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30/09/200 9 SHOWING TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 2,65,220/ - AFTER CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S. 80C OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 90,345/ - . THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT . SINCE , IT WAS A SURVEY CASE, SO IT WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT NOTICE U/S. 1 43(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23/09/2010 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 07/10/2010 AND THEREAFTER ALSO, OTHER NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE NOTICE DATED 23/09/2010 WAS NOT RECEIVED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOW N TO HIM. THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING ADDITION INCLUSIVE OF UN - ADMISSIBLE EXPENSES AND RS. 32,00,000/ - FOR BORING WORK DONE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS . HE DID NOT 4 ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S. 80C OF THE ACT FOR A SUM OF RS. 84,759/ - AND TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 40,49, 759/ - . 6 . BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND RAISED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND: - THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED BEING BARRED BY LIMITATION AS NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED AND SERVED WITHIN TIME ALLOWED. THE LD. CIT(A) ASKED THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENT ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FAR FROM THE TRUTH AS THE FIRST NOTICE ISSUED ON 23/09/2010 WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 24/09/2010 BY THE N OTICE S ERVER SHRI JAGDISH KUMAWAT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RESPONDED AGAINST THE SAID NOTICE , T HEREFORE, HE HAD NO OTHER OPTION, BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 144 OF THE ACT . IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SIGNATURE APPEARING ON THE NOTICE DATED 23/09/2010 W AS FORGED . I N SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE, ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT AND ALSO REQUESTED TO CONSIDER THE AFFIDAVIT AS EVIDENCE AND TO PASS NECESSARY ORDERS FOR FORENSIC VERIFICATION OF SIGNATURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT BESIDES NOTICE DATED 23/09/2010, THE FOLLOWING NOTICES WERE ISSUE D AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: - 5 ISSUE DATE DATE OF SERVICE DATE OF HEARING SERVED ON REMARKS 03/03/2011 04/03/2011 16/03/2011 NOT IDENTIFIED NONE ATTENDED 06/06/2011 08/06/2011 15/06/2011 - DO - - DO - 12/07/2011 14/07/2011 26/07/2011 - DO - - DO - 27/09/2011 28/09/2011 05/10/2011 - DO - - DO - 07/10/2011 11/10/2011 18/10/2011 - DO - MOBILE [phone] - DO - 18/11/2011 24/11/2011 25/11/2011 ON THE ASSESSEE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED. 7 . THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS SUBMISSIONS DATED 16/03/2013 STATED AS UNDER: - WE ARE IN RECEIPT OF UNCERTIFIED COPY OF SEVEN NOTICES ISSUED AND SERVED U/S. 143(2) FOR IDENTIFICATION OF VERIFICATION OF PERSONS TO WHOM SERVICE OF NOTICE WERE MADE, AS REQUESTED BY US IN OUR EARLIER SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT DATED 24.08.2012 AND OUR FURTHER SUBMISSION IS AS UNDER:' 1. IN THE REMAND REPORT IT IS STATED BY THE ID A.R. THAT THE FIRST NOTICE DATED 23.09.2010 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 07.10.2010 WAS SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ON 24.09.2010 BY NOTICE SERVER SHRI JAGADISH KUMAWAT. THE APPELLANT HAS VERIFIED SERVICE OF NOTICE AND SUBMIT THAT THE SAID NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON ONE BHERULAL AND NOT UPON THE APPELLANT. 2. THE SECOND NOTIC E DATED 03.03.2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 16.03.2011 WAS ALSO SERVED UPON ONE BHERULAL ON 4.3.2011 AND NOT UPON THE APPELLANT. 3. THE THIRD NOTICE DATED 06.06.2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 15.06.2011 WAS SERVED ON 08.06.2011 TO A PERSON INITIALED SIMIL AR TO THE INITIAL OF APPELLANT BUT NOT SERVED TO THE APPELLANT. 4. THE FOURTH NOTICE DATED 12.07.2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 26.07.2011 WAS ALSO SERVED UPON ONE BHERULAL ON 14.07.2011 AND NOT UPON 6 THE APPELLANT. 5. T HE FIFTH NOTICE DATED 23.09.2011 WAS AGAIN SERVED ON 28.0 - 9.2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 05.10.2011 TO A PERSON INITIATED SIMILAR TO THE INITIAL OF THE APPELLANT BUT NOT SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT. 6. T HE SIXTH NOTICE DATED 07.10.2011 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 18.09.2011 WAS SERVE D UPON THE APPELLANT ON 11.10.2011 AFTER THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING. THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER IS OVER WRITTEN OCTOBER AFTER CUTTING ON THE COPY OF SERVED NOW BUT NO SUCH CORRECTION APPEARS ON THE COPY OF NOTICE SERVED, A COPY OF NOTICE SERVED IS ENCLOSED HER EWITH FOR KIND PERUSAL. 7. THE SEVENTH NOTICE DATED 18.11.2011 FIXING THE DATE FOR 25.11.2011 WAS ALSO SERVED IN THE APPELLANT ON 24.11.2011 BUT ONLY A DAY BEFORE THE DATE OF HEARING. YOUR HONOR WILL KINDLY APPRECIATE OUR SUBMISSION ON THE FACT THAT THE FIRS T, SECOND AND FOURTH NOTICES WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON ONE BHERULAL WHILE BHERULAL WHO WAS IN SERVICE WITH THE APPELLANT HAD LEFT THE SERVICES LONG BEFORE THE DATE OF SURVEY AND THAT THE HAS FURNISHED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING ON OATH THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH NOTICE ANY TIME FOR THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO SUBMITTED HIS AFFIDAVIT SPECIFICALLY SUBMITTING THAT HE HAS NOT AUTHORIZED ANY PERSON ANY TIME TO RECEIVE SUCH NOTICES ON HIS BEHALF, THE APPELLANT HAS MADE DETAILED SUBMISSION EA RLIER TO THIS EFFECT AND PRAY HEREWITH TO KINDLY CONSIDER LEGAL FAVOUR. AS REGARDS IDENTIFICATION OF PERSON SERVED THIRD AND FIFTH NOTICE, WE LIKE TO SUBMIT THAT THE SAME WERE NOT SERVED UPON THE APPELLANT AND RECIPIENT OF THE SAME CAN BE IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY. WE AS SUCH PRAY YOUR HONOR TO GET THE SAME DONE FROM THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. AS REGARDS SIXTH AND SEVENTH NOTICE, WE HAVE ALREADY MADE OUR SUBMISSION THAT ONE NOTICE WAS PRE DATED AND APPELLANT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE RESPON SE TO THE SAME. THE LAST NOTICE WAS RECEIVED ONLY A DAY BEFORE BUT DULY RESPONDED BY THE APPELLANT WITH A REQUEST FOR REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY BUT NOT CONSIDERED. WE, THEREFORE PRAY YOUR HONOR TO CONSIDER OUR SUBMISSION MADE VIDE LETTER 7 NO.143B DATED 07.08.2 012 AND LETTER NO. 168B DATED 20.09.2012 AND QUASH THE ORDER ALLOWING APPEAL IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.' 8 . THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT BY OBSERVING THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE SERVED STATUTORY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON OR BEFORE 30/09/2010. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SIGNATURE ON THE AFFIDAVIT AND THE APPEAL MEMO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE THE SAME, BUT THERE WAS SOME VARIATION IN THE SIGNATURE APPEARING ON THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 23/09/2010. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PERSONS ON WHOM THE OT HER NOTICES WERE SERVED , WERE NOT IDENTIFIABLE AND THERE WAS NO PROOF AVAILABLE ON THE FILE ABOUT CLAIM OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT DATED 23/09/2010 ALONG WITH THE QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SENT AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE . HE, THER EFORE, ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT EXCEPT NOTICE DATED 18/11/2011. THE LD. CIT(A) QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF INVALID NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 8 9 . THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED D.R. WAS THAT SINCE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, IT WAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE STATUTORY NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 06/06/2014 HAS STATED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/10/2013 IN I.T.A.NO. 263/JODH/2013 IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD - 1(2), UDAIPUR VS. SHRI BHUVANESH MAHESHWARI , PROP. M/S. B. MAHESHWARI & CO. , UDAIPUR, COPY OF THE SAID ORDER IS FURNISHED . 11 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED D.R. AND THE SUBMISSIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 06/06/2014 OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/10/2013 IN THE CASE OF ITO, WARD - 1(2), UDAIPUR VS. SHRI BHUVANESH 9 MAHESHWARI, PROP. M/S. B. MAHESHWARI & CO., UDAIPUR (SUPRA) WHEREIN RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 8 & 9 WHICH READ AS UNDER: - 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMED TO HAVE SERVED THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT TO ONE SHRI BH ERULAL ON 24/09/2010 FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING FOR 07/10/2010. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI BHERULAL IN HIS AFFIDAVIT STATED THAT HE WAS NOT IN TOUCH WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HAD ALSO NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICE AFTER LEAVING THE SERVICES ON 12/11/2008. THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE WAS TO BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 30/09/2010 WHEREAS NOTICE DATED 07/10/2010 WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRST TIME ON 11/10/20 10 I.E. AFTER THE STATUTORY TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT & ANOTHER VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON (2010) 321 ITR 362 HAS HELD AS UNDER: - SECTION 158BC PR OVIDES FOR ENQUIRY AND ASSESSMENT. AFTER THE RETURN IS FILED, CLAUSE (B) OF SECTION 158BC PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED TO DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158BB AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142, SUB - SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143, SECTION 144 AND SECTION145 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY. THIS INDICATES THAT THIS CLAUSE ENABLES THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER THE RETURN IS FILED, TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(2) BY FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE LIKE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2)/142. THIS DOES NOT PROVIDE ACCEPTING THE RETURN AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ONLY. IF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 158BC, NOTICE UNDER SE CTION 143(2) SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FROM THE DATE OF FILING OF THE BLOCK RETURN. OMISSION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND IS NOT CURABLE. THEREFORE, THE REQUIREM ENT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. 10 9. FROM THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE OMISSION ON THE PART OF ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND IS NOT CURABLE. THEREFORE, REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO SERVE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT TO THE ASS ESSEE WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED, THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT(A) RIGHTLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INVALID NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL . 12. SINCE , THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE OF SHRI BHUVANESH MAHESHWARI, PROP. M/S. B. MAHESHWARI & CO., (SUPRA ) IN I.T.A.NO. 326/JODH/2013 , SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER DATED 31/10/2013, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT . 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED . ( ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 14 TH AUGUST , 201 4) . SD/ - SD/ - ( HARI OM MARATHA ) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 14 TH AUGUST , 201 4 . VR/ - COPY TO: 11 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , ITAT, JODHPUR .