AJMER AUTO AGENCIES, AJMER V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

ITA 525/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5394 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J. C. KULHARI
• Keywords: TDS; FORM 26AS
• Section: 194C; 201; 194A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES A, JAIPUR JH JES'K LH 'KEKZ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI RAMESH C SHARMA, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO , JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 525/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 AJMER AUTO AGENCIES, SRINAGAR ROAD, AJMER. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAIFA 2148 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI J.C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 23/01/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/01/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 22/02/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR FOR THE A.Y. 201 5-16. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LEARNED CIT(A) 4, JAIPUR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 129074/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY WRONGLY ALLEGING THAT UNDISCLOSED TDS OF RS. 9504/- WAS NOT SHOWN IN ITR. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E LEARNED CIT(A) 4, JAIPUR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND REPLY TO REMAND REPORT OF LEARNED AO DATED 24.01.2018. ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 2 3. THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE FIRM CRAVES FOR A LE AVE TO ADD, ALTER AND AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF APPELLAT E HEARING. 2. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 1,29,074/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME REVEALE D AS PER 26AS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WAS AN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,504/- OF UNDISCLOS ED TDS WHICH WAS NOT SHOWN IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE SAID TDS IS WI TH RESPECT TO AN INCOME OF RS. 1,29,074/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASK ED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE SAME ALONGWITH NECE SSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY JUSTIFICATION, ACCORDINGLY, T HE RECEIPT OF RS. 1,29,074/- AS REVEALED BY 26AS WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECONCILED THE DIFFERENCE OF 26AS WITH ITS RETURN OF INCOME, HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED A T PARA 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS . 9,504/- SHOWN IN THE 26AS AS TDS IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED INCOME OF RS. 1,29,074/- WAS NOT ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 3 PART OF 26AS AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INC OME. THE LD AR HAS REFERRED TO FORM NO. 26AS AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18/08/2015 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH AMOUNT IN THE SAID 26AS AND FURTHER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS APPEARING UNDER VARIOUS ENTRIES AS PER 26AS DATED 21/11/2017. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE DETAILS OF 26AS WHICH WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETU RN. THE LD AR HAS FURTHER REFERRED HIS EXPLANATION THAT THERE ARE FOU R ENTRIES IN THE LATEST FORM NO. 26AS WHICH HAS LAID TO THE DIFFERENCE OF TH IS AMOUNT, HOWEVER THESE AMOUNTS WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO CAPITAL FIRST LTD, TVS MOTORS AND RAJ MOTORS. AS RE GARDS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 60,000/- SHOWN AS RECEIPT FROM WORLDWIDE MACHINE RY SOLUTION PVT. LTD., THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE INTEREST INCOME FROM THE SAID PARTY OF RS. 1,43,400 /- AND THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 60,000/- WAS PART OF THE INTEREST ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO FURTHER ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. SINCE THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE FORM NO. 26AS A T THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS EVEN NOT CLAIMED THE TDS CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT. THE LD AR HAS REFERRED THE EXPENDITURE ON EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF DIFFERENCE AS UNDER: (A) THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED DEALERSHIP COMMISSIO N FROM CAPITAL FIRST LTD. THE COMMISSION RECEIVED FROM THIS PARTY IS ONLY RS. 1,55,879/- (PB 16) WHICH TALLIES WITH THE AMOUNT REFLECTED IN FORM NO. 26AS DOWNLOADED ON ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 4 18.08.2015 (PB 6). LATER ON IN FORM NO.26AS DOWNLOADED ON 21.11.2017 (PB 9), AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.20,970/- IS FURTHER REFL ECTED WHEREAS ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH AMOUNT. IT APPEA RS THAT PARTY HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE TAX ALSO AND THEREFORE, THIS DIFFERENCE CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN INCOME. (B) THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS HAVING A DEALERSHIP OF TV S MOTORS TILL SEPT., 2013 AND THEREAFTER IT SETTLES ITS DUES FROM TVS MOTORS. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 1,83,085/- FROM TVS MOTORS AGAINST THE REFUND OF SECURITY DEPOSIT AND SETTLEMENT OF OUTSTANDING DUES FOR WHIC H INCOME WAS BOOKED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. IN FORM NO.26AS DOWNLO ADED ON 18.08.2015 (PB 5-6), THIS AMOUNT WAS NOT REFLECTING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY INTEREST INCOME OF RS.5,548/- AS M ENTIONED IN FORM NO.26AS DOWNLOADED ON 21.11.2017 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TVS MOTORS IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE (PB 19-20). HENCE, NO ADDITION FOR SUCH DIFFERENCE CAN BE MADE. (C) IN CASE OF WORLDWIDE MACHINERY SOLUTION PVT. LT D., THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,43,400/- (PB 14 & 21) WHEREAS IN FORM NO.26AS DOWNLOADED ON 18.08.2015 (PB 5-6) NO INCOME FROM M/S WORLDWIDE MACHINERY SOLUTION PVT. LTD. IS REFLECTED BUT IN FORM NO.26AS DOWNLOADED ON 21.11.2017 (PB 9) SUCH AMOUNT IS REFLECTING AT RS.60,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 1,43,400/- DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE INCOME. THUS, ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY INCLUDED HIGHER INCOME THAN THAT REFLECTED IN FORM NO.26AS, HENCE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 60,000/- CANNOT BE AGAIN INCLUDED IN THE INCOME. (D) ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A WORKSHOP FOR SERVICING OF HONDA VEHICLES AND WHENEVER SOME SPARE PARTS ETC. ARE REQUIRED ON URGE NT BASIS IT WAS PURCHASED FROM M/S RAJ MOTORS. THE FACT OF PURCHASE OF SPARE PARTS FROM RAJ MOTORS IS EVIDENT FROM COPY IF HIS LEDGER ACCOUNT PLACED AT PB ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 5 22-28. IN THE FORM NO.26AS DOWNLOADED ON 18.08.2015, THE N AME OF RAJ MOTORS IS NOT APPEARING BUT IN FORM NO.26AS DOWNLOA DED ON 21.11.2017 (PB 8), THE NAME IS APPEARING ACCORDING TO WHICH IT HAS DED UCTED TDS U/S 194C ON AN AMOUNT OF RS.42,556/-. IT APPEARS THAT R AJ MOTORS HAS WRONGLY DEDUCTED TDS IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, SUCH AMOUNT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE . THUS, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,970/- SHOWN AGAINST THE CAPITAL FIRST LTD. IS NOTHING BUT MAY B E TDS DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF SERVICE TAX, WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN TH E EARLIER 26AS BUT SUBSEQUENTLY IT WAS UPLOADED BY THE SAID PARTY. AS R EGARDS THE TVS MOTORS, THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE SETTLEMENT OF ITS DUES FROM THE SAID COMPANY RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 1,83,085/-, WHICH WAS I N THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THIS AMOUNT IS SUBSEQUENTLY SH OWN IN THE 26AS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS. 5,548/- WAS NEVER RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 42,556/- AS SHOWN RECEIPT FROM RA J MOTORS IS A MISTAKE AS THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY PRODUCING THE SPARE PARTS FROM THE SAID PARTY AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY RE CEIPT FROM THE SAID PARTY. THUS, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION OF THE CORRECTNESS OF THESE RECEIPTS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE THE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AS WELL AS THE LD. ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 6 CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENC ES IN THE VARIOUS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL AS PER FORM NO. 26AS. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE T HE ADDITION OF RS. 1,29,074/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE FORM 26AS WHICH WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW EXPLAINED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 1 ,29,074/- IS COMPRISING OF FOUR DIFFERENT RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE F ORM NO. 26AS IN RESPECT OF FOUR PARTIES BUT THESE ENTRIES WERE NOT A PPEARING IN THE FORM NO. 26AS AS DOWNLOADED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18/08/2015 AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. THE DISCREPANCY IN THE A MOUNT WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE 26AS BUT WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IS IN RESPECT OF FOUR RECEIPTS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH IS AS UNDER: NAME OF PARTY AMOUNT OF TDS CORRESPONDING INCOME SECTION UNDER WHICH DEDUCTION MADE CAPITAL FIRST LTD. RS. 2,098/ - RS. 20,970/ - 194H TVS MOTORS RS. 555/ - RS. 5,548/ - 194A WORLDWI DE MACHINERY SOLUTION PVT. LTD. RS. 6,000/ - RS. 60,000/ - 194A RAJ MOTORS RS. 851/ - RS. 42,556/ - 194C WE FIND THAT AS PER 26AS DOWNLOADED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 18/8/2015 AT PAGE NOS. 5 AND 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THESE ENTRIES WERE NOT REFLECTED. HOWEVER, 26AS AS UPDATED ON 21/11/2017 THE RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF THESE ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 7 FOUR PARTIES REFERRED ABOVE ARE REFLECTED, THEREFOR E, IT IS CLEAR THAT THESE RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN IN THE 26AS, SUBSEQUENTLY AS THE DEDUCTORS HAVE UPDATED THE TDS DETAILS. AS REGARDS THE CAPITAL FIRS T LTD., THE PAYMENT OF RS. 20,790/-, IT WAS A TDS DEDUCTED U/S 194H OF RS. 2 ,098/-, THE LD AR HAS EXPLAINED THAT THOUGH IN THE SUBSEQUENT FORM NO . 26AS, THIS ADDITIONAL AMOUNT WAS SHOWN WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY SUCH AMOUNT FROM THE SAID COMPANY. THE LD AR HAS SUB MITTED THAT IT MAY BE A TDS DEDUCTED BY THE SAID PARTY ON AMOUNT OF SER VICE TAX AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE VARIATION OF RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE TWO FORM NO. 26AS FIRST TAKEN ON 18/8/2015 AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND ANOTHER TAKEN ON 21/11/2017 CLEARLY MANIFESTS THAT SOME AMOUNTS WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED IN THE TRACES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION WITHOUT VERIFICATION OF THE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT AND EVEN WITHOUT VERIFICATION WHETHER ANY INCORRECT DETAILS ARE UPLOADED IN THE AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE THERE IS A TDS DETAILS UPL OADED BY THE OTHER PARTY WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO AMOUNTS TO AN ADDITIONAL RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH CAN BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME. THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT SHOWN AS RECEIPT FROM CAP ITAL FIRST WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFICATION FROM THE OTHER PARTY AS TO WHAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 20,970 /- ON WHICH THE TDS ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 8 OF RS. 2,098 WAS DEDUCTED U/S 194H OF THE ACT IS ACT UALLY REPRESENTING. ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIF Y THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DETAILS AND THE NATURE OF THE ALLEGED RECEIPTS. 5.1 AS REGARDS RECEIPT OF RS. 5,5,48/- FROM THE TVS MOTORS ON WHICH THE TDS OF RS. 555/- U/S 194A OF THE ACT IS DEDUCTED . IT APPEARS THAT THIS CREDIT WAS SHOWN ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME, HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A REFUND OF SECURITY DE POSIT AND SETTLEMENT OF OUTSTANDING DUES BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE ASSE SSEE BUT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,83,085/- WAS RECEIVED IN THE PRECEDI NG YEARS AS THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING DEALERSHIP UP TO SEPTEMBER, 2013 , THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. HE HAS REFERRED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF TVS MOTORS IN THE BO OKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE CLAIM/RECEIPT AS PER THE SETTLEMENT WITH THE COMPANY HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE LEDGER ACCOU NT, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 5,548/- RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED. HE H AS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING ANY BUSINESS WIT H THE SAID COMPANY AS THE DEALERSHIP WAS ONLY UP TO SEPTEMBER, 2013, TH EN THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT IF THE INTERES T IF ANY WAS BECAME DUE AND PAYABLE BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE THEN IT WOULD BE AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS IT WAS CREDITED ONLY DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 9 CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE SA ID INCOME OR WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 5,548/- IS ACTUALLY PAYABLE TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE TVS MOTORS OR NOT IS TO BE VERIFIED FROM THE OTHER PARTY. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE BY THE SAID COMPANY TO THE ASSESSEE OR ACTU ALLY PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION OR NOT AND THEN CONSIDER T HE SAME AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 5.2 AS REGARDS THE RECEIPT OF RS. 60,000/- AS RENT FROM WORLDWIDE MACHINERY SOLUTION PVT. LTD., WE FIND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN AN INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,43,400/- FROM WORLDWIDE MACHINERY SOLUTION PVT. LTD., THEREFORE, A LESSOR AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE F ORM NO. 26AS WOULD NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS IS AN ADDITION AL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DECLARED THE INTEREST INCOME FROM THE SAME PARTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS. 60,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.3 THE ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS. 42,556/- SHOWN AS RECEI PT FROM RAJ MOTORS ON WHICH THE TDS OF RS. 851/- WAS DEDUCTED U/S 194C OF THE ACT, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WOR KING UNDER CONTRACT OF THE SAID COMPANY BUT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASES SPAR E PARTS FROM THE SAID PARTY AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY RECEIPT BUT T HE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ITA 525/JP/2018_ AJMER AUTO AGENCIES VS. DCIT 10 PAYING AGAINST THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PAR TY. ONCE, THERE IS NO BUSINESS BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHICH WOULD FALL UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C OF THE ACT THEN THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 42,556/- SHOWN AS RECEIPT UNDER CONTRACT IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED F ROM THE OTHER PARTY. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERI FY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAID ENTRY IN THE FORM 26AS FROM THE OTHER PART Y AND THEN CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- JES'K LH 'KEKZ FOT; IKY JKO (RAMESH C SHARMA) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 28 TH JANUARY, 2019 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- AJMER AUTO AGENCIES, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPU R. 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. 525/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR