M/S FINESSEE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR

ITA 490/JPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7210 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SINGH JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Loose papers; Wrong claim; TDS
• Section: 271(1)(c); 273B; 133A; 274

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O A JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2014-15. M/S. FINESSEE JEWELS PVT. LTD., A-467, VIDHYUT NAGAR, AJMER ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. AABCF 4438 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI JAI SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2019 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/10/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 20 TH MARCH, 2019 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-1, JAIPUR ARISING FROM TH E PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 WHICH IS VOID AB-INITIO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED AS N O SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED WITH REFERENCE TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOM E OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 2 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 16,0 0,000/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN RELYING ON THE SURRENDER OF THE IN COME WHICH WAS ONLY FOR PURCHASE OF PEACE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES YOUR INDULGENCE TO ADD, AMEN D OR ALTER ALL OR ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF GOLD/STUDDED JEWELLERY AS WELL AS PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22 ND OCTOBER, 2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,00,36,810/-. THERE WAS A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A CONDUCTED ON 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 47,18,937/- O N ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED A REVISED COMPUTATION DECLARING THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SURRENDER MADE D URING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE IT ACT ON 15.11.2016 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,50 ,18,690/- WHICH INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF RS. 47,18,937/- SURRENDERED BY THE ASSE SSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE IT ACT AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 16,00,000/- BEING 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID SURRENDERED AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED T HE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 3. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 47,18,937/- D URING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION PAYMEN T, HOWEVER, THE SAID SURRENDER WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDUE PRESSU RE AND COERCION ON THE PART OF THE DEPARTMENT AND TO BUY PEACE AS WELL AS AVOIDING THE LITIGATION. THUS THE SURRENDER WAS MADE UNDER THE PRESSURE OF SURVEY AUT HORITIES SIMPLY ON RAISING THE QUESTION ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE C OURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE OF ANY INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY DISCLOSING ANY BOGUS CLAIM OF COMM ISSION BUT IT IS A SIMPLE CASE OF SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PRESSURE O F THE SURVEY TEAM AND AGREED TO PAY THE TAX ON THE SAID AMOUNT. IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE, THE ASSESSEE PAID THE TAX ON THE SAID AMOUNT AS PER THE REVISED COMPUTATION O F INCOME FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, SUCH SURREND ER CANNOT BE TREATED AS CONCEALMENT OF THE INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THE ALLEGED CONCEAL MENT. THE SURRENDER IS BASED ONLY ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS CONTENDED THAT EVEN IN THE SURRENDER LETTER THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE IT CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO BOGUS COMMISSION PAYMENT BUT THE ENTIRE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO TDS. THE LD. A/R HAS REFERRED THE LET TER DATED 4 TH OCTOBER, 2016 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED THE SAI D AMOUNT BY EXPLAINING THE FACT THAT THE ABOVE SURRENDER WAS MADE TO BUY MENTAL PEA CE AND TO AVOID PROLONGED LITIGATION WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE RIGHT AND INTER ESTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE PERSONS WHO HAVE ACTUALL Y WORKED AND CONTRIBUTED IN 4 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. PARTICULAR SALES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH CROSS ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AFTER DEDUCTION OF TDS AND THE RECIPIENT HAS SHOWN THE COMMISSION INCOME WITHOUT CLAIMING ANY DEDUCTIO N IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THEREFORE, WHEN THE PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS REAL AND AGAINST THE RENDERING OF SERVICES BY VARIOUS PERSONS THEN IT CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE SURRENDER OF THE SAID AMOUNT. THE LD. A/R HAS THEN REFERRED TO THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 274 AND REITERATED ITS CONTENTION AND EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WH ICH THE SURRENDER WAS MADE AND THUS PLEADED THAT IT WAS A GENUINE TRANSACTION OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION AGAINST THE SERVICES RENDERED BY THE PERSONS. THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND SUBJECTED TO TDS. FURTHE R, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SHOWN ITS INTENTION TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF COMMISSIO N PAYMENT AND TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE F ROM THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEN THE AO OUGHT TO HAVE CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY ABO UT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION TO THE EXTENT OF CONSIDERING THE EXPLAN ATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS REASONABLE AND BONAFIDE. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENT ION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- ACIT VS. BEST & CROMPTON ENGINEERING LTD. (2016) 176 TTJ 224 (CHENNAI) RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 (SC) CIT VS. JAWAHAR KALA KENDRA (2015) 273 CTR 522 (RAJ.) 5 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. THE LD. A/R HAS REFERRED TO THE AFFIDAVITS AS WELL AS RETURNS OF INCOME OF THE VARIOUS PERSONS TO WHOM THE COMMISSION WAS PAID BY THE ASSE SSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE PERSONS HAVE CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT OF COMMISS ION AND RENDERING OF SERVICE. THE SAID COMMISSION RECEIPT WAS ALSO OFFERED TO TAX IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE RELEVANT RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTIO N OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION IS GENUINE, THEN THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) I S NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND CONSEQUENTLY HE SU RRENDERED THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX. THUS THE FACT OF BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION WA S ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDING S AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX. FURTHER, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT IT IS A CASE OF BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION FOR PRECEDING AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YEAR S ALSO I.E. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2016-17. FOR ALL OTHER YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION UNDER IDS, BUT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS PENDING ON T HE DATE OF SURVEY, THEREFORE, IT WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY FILING THE REVISED COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME. HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT OF SURRENDER OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION FOR ALL THE YEARS INCLUDING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE DIRECTOR OF A SSESSEE COMPANY SHRI KAPIL SONI IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS SURRENDERED THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS COMMISSION P AYMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2016-17. THOUGH THE AO HAS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CERTAIN INC RIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND, HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE SURRENDER MADE ON ACCOUNT O F ALLEGED BOGUS COMMISSION, THERE WAS NO SUCH REFERENCE EITHER MADE DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE SURVEY TEAM OR BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. THE GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE AO IS THAT VARIOUS INCRIMINATING LOOSE PAPERS/D OCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REFERENCE OF ANY S PECIFIC MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT DISCLOSING THE BOGUS CLAIM OF COMMISSION, THE SAID GENERAL STATEMENT OF THE AO WOULD NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE REVENUE TO HOLD THAT THE SURRENDER WAS BASED ON SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED THE STATEMENT OF ITS DIRECTOR RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY AT PAGES 7 TO 17 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE RELEVANT QUESTION ON THIS ISSUE WAS ASKED UNDER QUESTION NO. 20 AND IN ANSWER TO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE AMOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS COMMISSION. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SURVEY TEAM HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE BY CONFRONTING THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 TO 2016-17 TAKEN FROM THE COMPUTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS DECLARE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS THE COPY OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T TAKEN BY THE SURVEY TEAM FROM 7 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. THE COMPUTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REFERENCE OF PRO FIT & LOSS ACCOUNT WAS MADE ONLY TO SHOW THE COMMISSION OF SALE DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR ALL THESE YEARS. THUS OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF COMMISSION DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2011-12 TO 2016-17 THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED THE ADHOC AMOUNT AND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS. 47,18,934/- OUT OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 75,93,727/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE COM MISSION ON SALES PAID TO CERTAIN PERSONS, NAMELY, KAILASH CHAND SONI, KAPIL SONI, AD ITYA JAIN AND RATHI MALHOTRA IS GENUINE AND ALL OTHER PAYMENTS ARE BOGUS. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE SAID AMOUNTS AND ALSO OFFERED TO TAX, THEREFORE, THERE W AS NO SCOPE OF ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY ON THIS ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THIS ISSUE DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING S, THEN THE AO WAS UNDER OBLIGATION TO VERIFY THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E FROM THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY CONDUCTING A DUE ENQUIRY. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS A RELEVANT MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE O F PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). HOWEVER, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IGNORING THE EXP LANATION AND OTHER FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE A SSESSEE EVEN AT THE TIME OF SURRENDER OF THE AMOUNT HAS EXPLAINED THIS FACT VID E LETTER DATED 04.10.2016 PLACED AT PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS UNDER :- 8 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. 9 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. THUS EVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH SURRENDERED THE SAID AMOUNT AND PAID TO TAX, HOWEVE R, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SURRENDER WAS MADE TO BUY PEACE A ND AVOID PROLONGED LITIGATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE COMMISSION WAS PAID TO THE PERSONS WHO HAVE ACTUALLY WORKED AND CONTRIBUTED TO PARTICULAR SALES. FURTHER, THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND SUBJECTED TO TDS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THESE PERSONS HAVE OFFERED THE COMMI SSION INCOME TO TAX IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED THE C ONFIRMATIONS OF THESE PERSONS ALONG WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME BEFORE THE AO IN T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ALL RELEVANT EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SURRENDER ED AS BOGUS WAS NOT ACTUALLY BOGUS BUT A GENUINE PAYMENT, THEN THE AO INSTEAD OF GOING BY THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GEN UINENESS OF THE CLAIM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT AND PAID THE T AX, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS RELEVANT ONLY TO THE LIMITED EXTENT OF CONSIDERING THE SAME AS REASONABLE AND BONAFIDE EXPLANATION UNDER SECTION 2 73B OF THE IT ACT. EVEN OTHERWISE, WHEN THE SURRENDER IS NOT BASED ON ANY I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL BUT IT IS ONLY BASED ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SUR VEY, THEREFORE, THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133A IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATING EVIDENCE CANNOT BE A CONCLUSIVE BASIS FOR HOLDING T HE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT. HENCE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN S UPPORT OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE 10 ITA NO. 490/JP/2019 M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR. CLAIM, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY FINDING BY THE AO, THE SAID EXPLANATION WOULD BE REGARDED AS BONAFIDE AND REASONABLE EXPLA NATION UNDER SECTION 273B OF THE IT ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, NO PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS LEVIABLE. HENCE, THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) IS DELETED. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/10/2019. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22/10/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-M/S. FINESSE JEWELS PVT. LTD., JAIPUR . 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 490/JP/2019} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR