JAI KRISHNA CLUB, Jaipur V. CIT, Alwar

ITA 541/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 54123114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH CHANDRA
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Reasonable cause; Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 148; 263; 10; 154; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. MEENA) I.T.A. NO. 541 & 542/JP/2014 ASSTT. YEARS- 2006-07 & 2007-08 PAN NO. AAATS 8594 C M/S JAI KRISHNA CLUB THE C.I.T., VINAY MARG, OPP. G.D. GIRLS COLLEGE, VRS. ALWAR. ALWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- SHRI P.C. PARWAL. DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA. DATE OF HEARING : 15/10/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/11/2014 O R D E R PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/03/2014 OF THE LEARNED CIT, ALWAR FOR THE A.YS. 2 006-07 AND 2007-08. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE SAME A ND ONE OF THE APPEALS GROUNDS IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 1 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S 263 DATED 14/3/2014 READ WITH ORDER PASSED U/S 154/263 DATED 09/07/2014 SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D U/S 148/143(3) DATED 29/09/2011 IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN L AW AND BE QUASHED. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS ERRED O N FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. U/S ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 2 148/143(3) DATED 29/09/2011 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUD ICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-RECOR DING OF SATISFACTION AND NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS U/S 271(1)(C) IN THE BODY OF THE ORDER. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. NECESSARY COST BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE FIRST GROUND IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REF ERRED AS THE ACT) DATED 09/7/2014 SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 148/143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 29/9/2011. THE LEARNED CIT, ALWAR OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURN WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED U/S 139 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 22/4/2010 IN BOTH THE YEARS. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 30/4/2010 DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 13,61,309/- IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND RS. 9,01,320/- IN A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/148 OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED O N 29/09/2011 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED CIT FOUND THAT ORDER DATED 29/09/2011 IN BOTH THE YEARS TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, ACCORDI NGLY, HE GAVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS RESPONDED BY IT. AF TER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LEARNED CIT OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, ALTHOUGH, THE ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 3 CASE WAS PRIMA FACIE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF IT S INCOME OF RS. 13,61,610/- IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND RS. 9,01,320/- IN A .Y. 2007-08, SINCE IT FAILED TO FURNISH WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE ITS RETUR N OF INCOME U/S 139 AND NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 142(1)( I) OR 148 UNTIL THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD U/S 139 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WAS REQUIRED TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AND MAKE A MENTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REGARDING INITIATIO N OF PENALTY, WHERE SUCH A PRIMA FACIE CASE EXISTED FOR LEVY OF PENALTY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY OFFICE NOTE AS REGARDS THE REASON FOR NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THUS, IT IS CLEARLY A CASE OF NON-APPLICATION OF MIND WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT CONSI DERING THE FACTS, REGARDING NON-FILING OF RETURN U/S 139 OF THE ACT WI THIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN THE ACT, IN THE LIGHT OF EXPLANATION 3 BELOW SECT ION 271(1)(C). THUS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE RE VENUE SINCE NOT ONLY THERE IS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND BUT ALSO BECAUSE A WRONG LEG AL PRECEDENCE HAS BEEN SET. LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AFTER ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED SATISFACTION I N THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ALTHOUGH, LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT IS TO ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 4 BE MADE BY A SEPARATE ORDER, BUT ITS GENESIS LIES I N THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE SATISFACTION AND INITIATION OF C ONCEALMENT PENALTY HAS TO BE CLEARLY AND NECESSARILY STATED IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER. THE LEARNED CIT RELIED UPON THE DECISION PASSED IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD. VS. CIT 243 ITR 83 AND CIT VS. SURENDRA PRASAD A GRAWAL 275 ITR 113 (ALL.). HE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES ARGUM ENT AND CASE LAWS CITED BY IT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ACT HAS B EEN AMENDED W.E.F. 01/6/2002 AND HAS PROVIDED THAT APART FROM ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE COMMISSIONER IS ALSO EM POWERED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO RECORD SATISFACTION AND INI TIATE/LEVY OF PENALTY. THUS, THE VIEW THAT IF COMMISSIONER IS NOT EMPOWERED B Y SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT TO RECORD SATISFACTION, ON HIS OWN, HE CANNOT DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD WOULD NO LONGER BE RELEVANT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN CONSIDERATION. CONSIDERING THE E NTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, HE WAS OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 DATED 29/09/20 11 ARE ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVE NUE ON THE GROUND OF NON- RECORDING OF SATISFACTION AND NON-INITIATION OF PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN THE BODY OF ASSESSMENT ORDE R WHEN THERE WAS A ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 5 PRIMA FACIE CASE FOR THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, HE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT DATED 14/3/2014 IN BOT H THE YEARS, THE ASSESSEE MOVED RECTIFICATION APPLICATION U/S 154 DA TED 27/6/2014 ON THE GROUND THAT LEARNED CIT HAD WRONGLY MENTIONED IN 263 ORDER THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS SET ASIDE AND OR DER PASSED U/S 143/148 DATED 29/9/2011, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN EARLIER A.Y. 2004-05 A ND 2005-06, HIS PREDECESSOR HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE RETURNED INCOME A ND NOT INITIATED ANY PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, SATISFIED THAT NON-FILING OF RETURN WITHI N THE TIME SPECIFIED IS BECAUSE OF REASONABLE CAUSE AND, THEREFORE, HAS NOT INITIATED ANY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED CIT, THEREAFTER, PASSED THE ORDER DATED 09/7/2014 IN BOTH THE YEARS U/S 154 BY ACCEPTING TH E ASSESSEES PLEA ON ISSUE NO. 1 AND RECTIFIED THE WORD IN THE LAST PARA OF THE ORDER U/S 263 TO BE READ AS ORDER PASSED U/S 148/143(3) IS SET ASIDE IN PLACE OF ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS SET ASIDE. THE SE COND GROUND OF RECTIFICATION WAS ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEES GROUND CANNOT ACCEPT U/S 154 OF THE ACT AS THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD. ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 6 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEALS BEFORE US. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR A. Y. 2004-05 TO 2007-08 ON 30/04/2010 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148. THE ACIT, C IRCLE-2, ALWAR FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND 05-06 ON 22.10.2010 ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME. NO PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS WERE INITIATED IN THESE ORDERS. THEREAFTER, THE AO (ITO) PASSED THE A SSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 29.09.2011 AFTER DISCUSSING THE FAC TS AND BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ACIT, CIRCLE-2 IN EARLIER YEARS ACCE PTING THE RETURNED INCOME. FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ALSO, THE AO PASSED THE AS SESSMENT ORDER ON 29.09.2011 CONSIDERING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE AND ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME. AT THE END OF THE ORDER, IT IS MEN TIONED TO CHARGE INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C. THERE IS NO DIRECT ION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IF T HE AO HAS NOT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR IF HE HAS NOT MENTIONED ANYTHING ON THIS ISSUE IN THE OFFICE NOTE, IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT SUCH NON-INITIATION MAKES HIS ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT AO IS REQUIRED TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ONLY IF HE IS SATISFIED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER, THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS SUBJECT TO ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 7 SEC. 273B. THEREFORE, WHEN THE AO HAS NOT INITIATED T HE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT WOULD MEAN THAT HE IS SATISFIED THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INI TIATED FOR WHICH THE LAW DOES NOT REQUIRE THE AO TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION IN WRITING. IN FACT ON THE SAME FACTS, ACIT, CIRCLE-2 IN A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005- 06 HAS ALSO NOT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE ORD ER PASSED BY HIM FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 BY NOT INITIATING THE PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF THE REVENUE. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT CIT U/S 263 CANNOT DIRECT THE ITO TO MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT FOR INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR W HICH RELIANCE IS PLACED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS MENTIONED AT PAGE 3 AND 4 OF T HE ORDER U/S 263 PARTICULARLY THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT I N CASE OF CIT VS. KESHRIMAL PARASMAL 157 ITR 484. THE CIT HAS REFERRED T O EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC. 271(L)(C).THIS EXPLANATION PROVIDES THAT WHERE A NY PERSON FAILS, WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE, TO FURNISH WITHIN THE PERIO D SPECIFIED U/S 153(1) A RETURN OF HIS INCOME AND UNTIL THE EXPIRY OF THE PERIOD AFORESAID NO NOTICE IS ISSUED U/S 142(1) OR 148 AND THE A.O. OR THE CIT(A) IS SATISFIED THAT SUCH PERSON HAS TAXABLE INCOME, THEN SUCH PERSON SHALL BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INC OME. THUS, AS PER THIS SECTION, ONLY THE AO OR THE CIT(A) CAN LEVY THE PENA LTY IF THEY ARE SATISFIED ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 8 THAT ASSESSEE WITHOUT REASONABLE CAUSE HAS NOT FURNI SHED THE RETURN WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED U/S 153(1) I.E. WITHIN 21 MONTHS OF THE END OF THE A.Y. IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS FIRST ASSESSABLE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE WAS SATISFIED THAT NON FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED U/S 153 (1) WAS BECAUSE OF A REASONABLE CAUSE AND THEREFORE HE HAS NOT INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE UNDER EXPLANATION 3 TO SE CTION 271(L)(C), NON- INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS BY AO WOULD NOT MA KE HIS ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 W.E.F. 01.06.2002 AMENDED SECTION 271(1) TO PROVIDE THAT APART FROM AO OR CIT(A), IF THE CIT IN C OURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PE RSON HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY TH E PENALTY. THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THIS AMENDMENT STATES THAT SE CTION IS AMENDED TO INCLUDE A REFERENCE TO COMMISSIONER AS BEING AN AUTHORITY, WHO CAN INITIATE AND LEVY PENALTY UNDER THE SAID SECTION. TH EREFORE, THE CIT U/S 263 HAS NO AUTHORITY TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 148/143(3) WITH A DIRECTION TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE RAISED BY HIM AND REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR THIS, RELIANCE IS PLACED IN C ASE OF S. ANITHA VS. CIT ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 9 55 SOT S8 (BANG.) (TRIB.). FURTHER, AS EXPLAINED IN P ARA 2 ABOVE, ONLY AO/CIT(A) HAS POWER TO INITIATE AND LEVY THE PENALTY UNDER EXPLANATION 3 TO SECTION 271(L)(C). THEREFORE, EVEN AFTER AMENDMEN T MADE IN SEC. 271(1), CIT HAS NO POWER TO INITIATE AND LEVY THE PEN ALTY UNDER EXPLANATION 3 TO SEC. 271(1)(C). IN VIEW OF ABOVE FA CTS, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT DIRECTING THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF INIT IATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS B AD IN LAW AND THE SAME BE CANCELLED. 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED CIT DR VEHEMENTLY SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT, ALWAR. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER IN BOTH THE YEARS HAD NOT RECORDED HIS SATISFACTION TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF T HE ACT. WITH EFFECT FROM 01/6/2002, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IS EMPOWERE D TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDING S UNDER THIS ACT AND RECORD HIS SATISFACTION AND IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KESHRIMA L PARASMAL 157 ITR ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 10 484 AND S. ANITHA VS. CIT 55 SOT 88 (BANG.)(TRIB.). I N CASE OF S. ANITHA VS. CIT, THE ITAT B BENCH OF BANGLORE HAS HELD AS U NDER:- PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF IN COME- BONAFIDE CLAIM- LEVIABILITY-ASSESSEE BEING INDIVIDUAL CONTRA CTOR FILED RETURN CLAIMING 100 PERCENT DEPRECIATION ON CENTERING MATE RIAL PURCHASED- A.O. HELD THAT DEPRECIATION CLAIMED ON C ENTERING MATERIAL AT 100 PERCENT WAS WRONG AND CORRECT RATE WAS 15 PERCENT- HE ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION CLA IMED AND ADDED SAME TO RETURNED INCOME- CIT(A), FOLLOWING JUDG MENT IN CASE OF INDIAN PHARMACEUTICALS, HELD THAT NON INITI ATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS ERRONE OUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTEREST OF REVENUE AND THEREFORE, S ET ASIDE ASSESSMENT AND REMITTED CASE TO A.O.- HELD, PENALTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE SINCE ASSESSEE HAD MADE BONAFIDE CLAIM WIT HOUT ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION SINCE 100 PERCENT DEPRECIATION WA S ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF CENTERING MATERIAL PURCHASES PRIOR TO CO NCERNED A.Y.- CLAIM OF 100 PERCENT DEPRECIATION WAS MADE IN CONCER NED A.Y. WITHOUT NOTICING AMENDMENT MADE- CIT(A) HAD AUTHORITY TO INITIATE AND LEVY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IN RESPECT OF CONCERNED A.Y.- HENCE, QUESTION OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY, WHET HER IT WAS JUSTIFIABLE ON FACTS OF INSTANT CASE, HAD TO BE DEC IDED BY CIT HIMSELF- MATTER REMITTED TO CIT(A)-ASSESSEES APPEA L ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN CASE OF CIT VS. KESHRIMAL PARASMAL (SUPRA), THE H ONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT THUS THE LEARNED CIT IN THE PROCEEDING U/S 263 COULD NOT DIRECT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER TO MAKE A FR ESH ASSESSMENT FOR ITA 541 & 542/JP/2014 JAI KRISHNA CLUB VS. CIT 11 INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDING. BUT W.E.F. 01/6/2002 THE CIT IS EMPOWERED TO INITIATE LEVY/PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT, ALWA R IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28/11/2014. SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 28 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 * RANJAN COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. M/S JAI KRISHNA CLUB, ALWAR. 2. THE CIT, ALWAR. 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R GUARD FILE (I.T.A. NO. 541 & 542/JP/2014) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.