Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
5323114 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
17-07-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
B
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
11-01-2013
Judgement Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 53/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 LAXMI NARAYAN NEAR KHOR DARWAJA MORI WALON KI DHANI, AMER ROAD, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE CIT-II JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ABTPN 0293 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. ROLEE AGARWAL, CIT -DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/05/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 /07/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT-II, JAIPUR DATED 04-12-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 U/S 263 OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE I.T. ACT AND T HEREFORE, THE ORDER U/S 263 IS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. 2. THAT LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACT S IN WITHDRAWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY WALL, TUBEWELL & ETC. BY I NVOKING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263, EVEN WHEN THE NEC ESSARY FACTS PUT ON RECORD. ITA NO. 53/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN VS. CIT II, JAIPUR . . 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FCTS OF THE CASE IN WITHDRAWING THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B ON AC COUNT OF AGRICULTURE LAND PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE SPOUS E BY INVOKING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 24.08.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,18,610 /-WHICH INCLUDES INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND AT RS.31,500/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143( 3) DATED 05.10.2011 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,87,830/- BY ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.2,00,219/- . FOR ENHANCING THE I NCOME UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THE AO OBSERVED THAT (I) S ALES CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 50C IS RS.55,1 3,599/- AS AGAINST RS.55.00 LACS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE (II) THE ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.1 LACS BUT HAS FAILED TO P ROVE THE SOURCE OF IT (III) THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54B AT RS.43,50,000/- WHICH INCLUDES RS.11 LACS INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION OF BOR ING & PIPE, ROOMS, BOUNDARY WALLS AND STAMP DUTY BUT HAS PROVED THE SO URCE OF RS.10,44,880/- ONLY. THE AO FINALLY ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 3,87,330/- WHICH INCLUDES SALARY INCOME OF RS. 2,12 ,340, CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 2,00,219/- AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS. 47,817/-. THE LD. CIT-II, JAIPUR HAD EXAMINED THE ASSESSMENT AND FOU ND THAT THE ORDER OF ITA NO. 53/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN VS. CIT II, JAIPUR . . 3 THE AO DATED 5-10-2011 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 2.2 THEREAFTER, THE LD. CIT ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 DATED 08.08.2012 RAISING THE FOLLOWING ISSUES:- (I) ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.43,50,00 0/- U/S 54B WHICH INCLUDES RS.8,28,650/- INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION OF TUBE WELL, BOUNDARY WALL AND ROOMS ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. C OST OF TUBE WELLS, ROOMS AND BOUNDARY WALLS CONSTRUCTED ON AGRI CULTURAL LAND SUBSEQUENTLY CANNOT BE TREATED AS COST OF THE AGRIC ULTURAL LAND SO PURCHASED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54B. (II) INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS P ER SECTION 54B AND THEREFORE THE WHOLE DEDUCTION U/S 54B IS NOT AL LOWED. (III) AO FAILED TO EXAMINE THAT WHETHER THE LAND SO LD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE OR HIS PARENTS FOR AGRICUL TURAL PURPOSE OR NOT IN THE TWO YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE DATE ON WHICH TRANSFER TOOK PLACE. ACCORDINGLY, HE ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR EX PLAINING AS TO WHY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) BE NOT HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 2.3 THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED REPLY DATED. 22.11. 2012 EXPLAINING THAT THE EXPENDITURE ON CONSTRUCTION OF BOUNDARY WALLS, ROOM AND TUBE WELLS ARE INTEGRAL PART OF THE COST OF THE AGRICULTURAL L AND. FOR THIS RELIANCE IS PLACED IN CASE OF CIT VS. LATE JANARDHAN DASS 299 I TR 210 . AS AN ALTERNATE IT WAS STATED THAT DEDUCTION IS OTHERWISE AVAILABLE U/S 54/54F AS INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF ROOMS AND BOUNDARY WA LLS IS ALSO FOR USE BY ITA NO. 53/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN VS. CIT II, JAIPUR . . 4 THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS RESIDENCE. IN RESPECT OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF WIFE CERTAIN DECISION OF HIGH COURT WAS RELIED. IN RESPECT OF USAGE OF LAND FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE, COPY OF GIR DAWARI REPORT FROM TEHSILDAR WAS FILED. 2.4 THE LD. CIT HOWEVER HELD THAT COST OF TUBE WELL S, ROOM AND BOUNDARY WALLS CONSTRUCTED ON AGRICULTURAL LAND SUB SEQUENTLY CANNOT BE TREATED AS COST OF AGRICULTURAL LAND U/S 54B. THE S PIRIT OF LAW AND INTENTION IS TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY WHEN THE LAW IN AMBIGUOUS. AS THE MEANING OF THE WORDS COST OF AGRICULTURAL LAND APPEARS TO BE UNAMBIGUOUS THERE IS NO REASON FOR TAKING A LIBERAL INTERPRETATION. HE T HEREFORE DIRECTED THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE EXEMPTION U/S 54B ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.8,28,650/-. IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF SPOUSE, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF P&H COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI NARAYA N VS. ITO, 306 ITR 335 , DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION 330 ITR 309 AND DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI NANDA RAM JAT VS. ITO (ITA NO. 1271/JP/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) DATED . 08.07.2011 AND DIRECTED THE AO WITHDRAW THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B ON T HE LAND PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE SPOUSE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.5 IN RESPECT OF USER OF THE LAND SOLD FOR AGRICUL TURAL PURPOSE IN THE IMMEDIATELY TWO PRECEDING YEARS, THE LD. CIT DIREC TED THE AO TO VERIFY THE ISSUE IN DETAIL. THE LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT IT M AY BE EXAMINED BY THE ITA NO. 53/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN VS. CIT II, JAIPUR . . 5 AO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING AGRICULTURE INC OME FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND DURING THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS. 2.6 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION PRAYING THEREIN AS UNDER:- 1. IN COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED BY IT. COPY OF THE PURC HASE DEED OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ALSO SUBMITTED (PB 28-53) FROM WHICH IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT. PREM LATA. THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PURCHAS E AND IN CONSTRUCTION WAS VERIFIED BY THE AO FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE (PB 53-55) . AFTER MAKING THE COMPLETE AND DETAILED ENQUIRY, THE AO BY DISALLOWING PART OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WORKED OUT THE INCOME FR OM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AT RS.2,00,219/- AS AGAINST RS.31,500/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS WHEN THE AO HAS MADE COMPLETE AND DETAILED ENQUIRY BEFOR E ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54B BY ADOPTING ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW, HIS ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE ONLY BECAUSE THE CIT HOLDS A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THE MATTER. 2. ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54B AT RS.43, 50,000/-. IT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF TUBE WELL, BOUNDARY WALL AND ROOMS ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR RS.8,28,650/-. CIT HIMSELF WHILE GIVING REPLY T O THE AUDIT OBJECTION WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION OF TUBE WELL, BOUNDARY WALL AND ROOMS IS CLOSELY RELATED TO USE OF THE AGRICULT URAL LAND, SAFETY OF LAND AND CROPS GROWN AND THEREFORE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/ S 54B. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN C ASE OF CIT VS. LATE JANARDHAN DASS 299 ITR 210 WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT T HE TUBE WELLS AND TREES ARE PART OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEIR VALUE COULD NOT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE TOTAL INVESTMENT MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHASE OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. ON THIS BASIS IT SELF WHERE IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, EXPENDITURE IS I NCURRED ON COST OF BOUNDARY WALLS, ROOMS AND TUBE WELLS ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAN D ITSELF, THE SAME IS A PART OF COST OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 54B. THE OBJECTIVE OF SECTION 54B IS TO PROMOTE THE INVESTME NT IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO ENCOURAGE GROWTH OF THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR. ANY PR OVISION IN THE TAXING STATUTE GRANTING INCENTIVES FOR PROMOTING GROWTH AN D DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED LIBERALLY. THE WORD LAND USED SHOULD BE READ LIBERALLY SO AS TO INCLUDE THE STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTED ON IT WHICH IS NE CESSARY FOR THE IDENTIFICATION AND USE OF SUCH LAND. IT IS A MATTER OF FACT THAT A REA OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND COULD BE DEFINED BY BOUNDARY WALL AND FOR BETTER US E THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROOMS IS AN INSEPARABLE ACTIVITY. THEREFORE, WHEN T HE CIT HIMSELF HOLDS A DIFFERENT VIEW ON THIS ISSUE WHILE REPLYING TO THE AUDIT OBJECTION, THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE CANNOT HE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE ITA NO. 53/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN VS. CIT II, JAIPUR . . 6 INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION G IVEN BY THE CIT TO AO TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON THIS ACCOUNT AT RS.8,28,650/- IS BAD IN LAW. 3. THE CIT FURTHER HELD THAT INVESTMENT IN PURCHA SE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS MADE IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER SECTION 54B. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, THOUGH, PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE, BUT ASSESSEE IS THE ABSOLUTE OWNER OF THE SAM E AND ENTIRE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE AM OUNT RECEIVED FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND. THIS IS VERIFIABLE FROM HIS BANK ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE (PB 53- 54) . SECTION 54B PROVIDES THAT WHEN AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IS SOLD, DEDUCTION SHALL BE GRANTED FOR AMOUNT REINVESTED IN ANY OTHER LAND TO BE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES BY THE ASSESSEE WHO SOLD THE LAND. THE SECTION DOES NOT REQUIRED THAT THE LAND SHOULD BE PURCHASED BY THE A SSESSEE IN HIS OWN NAME. IN THE VARIOUS CASES IT IS HELD THAT IF THE INVESTM ENT IS MADE IN THE NAME OF WIFE OR SON OR CLOSE RELATIVES BUT THE FUNDS FOR SUCH IN VESTMENT HAS GONE FROM THE ASSESSEE, BENEFIT OF SECTION 54/54B/54EC/54F SHOUL D BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- 1. CIT VS. KAMAL WAHAL 351 ITR 4 (DEL.) ORDER DT. 1 1.01.2013 2. CIT VS. RAVINDER KUMAR ARORA 342 ITR 38 (DEL.) O RDER DT. 27.09.2011 3. CIT VS. GURNAM SINGH 327 ITR 278 (P&H) ORDER DT. 01.04.2008 4. CIT VS. V. NATARAJAN 287 ITR 271 (MAD.) 5. JAGPAL SINGH VS. ITO 186 TAXMAN 26 (MAGZ.) (DEL HI) (TRIB.) ORDER DT. 23.02.2007 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THERE IS A DIRECT NEXUS OF INVESTMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TH E SALE PROCEEDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND USED BY HIM FOR AGRICULTURAL PURP OSE AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE SIMPLY BECAUS E THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE IT COULD NO T MEAN THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE LAND IS NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DECISION OF JAI NARAYAN VS. ITO 306 ITR 335 (P&H) DT. 13.08.2007 AND OF VIPIN MALIK HUF VS CIT 330 ITR 309 DT. 07.08.2009 RELIED BY CIT ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FAC TS AS IN THESE CASES THERE WAS NO DIRECT NEXUS OF UTILIZATION OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CAPITAL ASSET WITH THE INVESTMENT IN ANOTHER CAPITAL ASSET. FURTHER AFTER THESE DECISIONS, THE DELHI AND P&H HIGH COURT HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54B/54F EVEN WHEN THE INVESTMENT IS MADE IN THE NAME OF WIFE/SON. OTHER WISE ALSO IF A VIEW IS TAKEN THAT AS PER THESE DECISIONS INVESTMENT MADE IN THE NAME OF WIFE FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 54B, THERE A RE DIFFERENT VIEWS OF DIFFERENCE HIGH COURTS ON THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, AO HAVING ADO PTED ONE OF THE PERMISSIBLE VIEW HIS ORDER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AND P REJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE DIRECTION OF CIT U/S 26 3 TO THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE DEDUCTION U/S 54B ON THE LAND PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE WIFE IS BAD IN LAW. 4. IN RESPECT OF USER OF THE LAND BY THE ASSESSEE OR H IS PARENTS IN THE IMMEDIATELY TWO PRECEDING YEARS BEFORE THE SALE IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPY OF KHASRA GIRDAWARI PLACED AT PB 56-5 7 WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ITA NO. 53/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN VS. CIT II, JAIPUR . . 7 BEFORE THE CIT VIDE LETTER DT. 22.11.2011 (PB 64). ITAT BANGALORE BENCH IN CASE OF NAGAPPA NAGRAJ VS. ACIT 36 SOT 253 HAS HELD THAT WHERE IT IS APPARENT FROM THE SALE DEED, RTC AND PAHANI CERTIFICATES THAT ASS ESSEE HAS PURCHASED LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO CARRIED OUT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS ON IT HE IS ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPTION U/S 54B TO THE EXTENT AGRICULTUR AL LAND SO PURCHASED HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE. IT MAY ALSO BE N OTED THAT AS PER EXPLANATION (B) TO SECTION 263(1), RECORDS SHALL INCLUDE AND SHALL BE DEEMED TO ALWAYS TO HAVE INCLUDED ALL RECORDS RELATING TO ANY PROCEEDINGS UN DER THIS ACT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSIONER. THUS, WHEN THIS EVIDENCE WAS BEFORE THE CIT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSE SSEE IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSE IN THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS BEFORE THE DATE OF SALE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE CIT TO DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY THIS ISSUE. HENC E, ON THIS ISSUE ALSO THE DIRECTION OF CIT U/S 263 IS BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE PLACED F OLLOWING RELIANCE ON THE JURISDICTION OF CIT TO PASS ORDER U/S 263 OF THE AC T. 1. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL COMPANY LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) 2. CIT VS. SHREE MANJUNATHESHWARI PACKING PRODUCTS AND CAMPHORE WORKS 231 ITR 53, 63 (SC) 2.7 THE LD. CIT - DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT. 2.8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THE AO HAD NOT ANY ENQUIRY BEFORE ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE AC T. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 54B OF THE ACT IN T HE NAME OF HIS SPOUSE, HAD NOT BEEN VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE HAD C LAIMED THIS LAND AS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT AS PER ACT THE ASSESSEE SHOUL D HAVE CULTIVATED CROPS ON AGRICULTURAL LAND IN TWO PRECEDING YEARS IMMEDI ATELY WHICH HAD ALSO NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. THEREFORE, TH E ORDER OF THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT WHICH IS JUSTIFIED. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 53/JP/2013 SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN VS. CIT II, JAIPUR . . 8 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/07/2015 . SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 17/07/2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-THE CIT II, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 5. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.53/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR
