RAJESH BHATIA, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 551/JPR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1930 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S L PODDAR
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Question of law; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH. RAJESH BHATIA, A-84, ATRE PATH, SHYAM NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ITO, WARD 2(4), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ACQPB8389K VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. PODDAR (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAILENDRA SHARMA (CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 05/10/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/11/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF DATED 15.07.2014 OF CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2010-11. T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED- 1. IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 148 /143(3) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IN NOT HOLDING THE SANE TO BE UNJUST, BAD IN LAW AND NOT FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF LAW. 2. IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 1,05,00,000/- AS U NDISCLOSED INCOME AND IN NOT FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF LAW. ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 SH. RAJESH BHATIA V. ITO, JAIPUR 2 3. IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF INTEREST U/S 234B RS. 14,85,248/-. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND V IDE APPLICATION DATED 14.08.2017 FILED UNDER RULE 11 R.W.R. 22 OF T HE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 17.08.2012 WHEN THE TIME FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UP TO 30.09.2012. THEREFORE THE WHOLE PROCEEDINGS INITIAT ED U/S 148 WAS INVALID AND BAD IN LAW. 3. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT TH IS ADDITIONAL GROUND HAS BEEN TAKEN BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AS IT GO TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE AND THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS LEGAL AND IT DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INVESTIGATION OF FACTS. THUS HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING U/S 148 IN GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ORIGINAL GROUND HOWEVER, THIS PLEA OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 WHEN THE TIME FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT 229 ITR 383 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS THE DISCRETION TO ALLOW OR NOT ALL OW A NEW GROUND TO BE RAISED. BUT WHERE THE TRIBUNAL IS ONLY REQUIRED TO CONSIDER A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING FROM THE FACTS WHICH ARE ON RECORD IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUCH A QUESTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO B E RAISED WHEN IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THAT THE QUESTION IN ORDER TO CORRECTLY ASSESS THE ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 SH. RAJESH BHATIA V. ITO, JAIPUR 3 TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UP ON THE DECISION OF THE JODHPUR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 14.01.2009 IN C ASE OF SHARWAN BENIWAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN ITA NO. 292/JU/20 08 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT IT CAN ADMIT ADDITI ONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AT THIS STAGE IN CASE THE ISSUE RAISED IS LEGAL AND GOES TO THE ROOD OF THE MATTER. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. STATE CO-OPERATIVE MARKETI NG FEDERATION 193 ITR 624 AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF MUMBAI SPECIAL B ENCH IN CASE OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. VS. D.CIT 122 TTJ 577 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE CAN BE NO EMBARGO ON ANY PARTY TO RAISED A L EGAL GROUND FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL PROVIDED THE RELEVA NT MATERIAL FOR DECIDING THAT QUESTION ALREADY EXISTS ON RECORD AN D NO FURTHER INVESTIGATION OF FACTS IS REQUIRED. HENCE, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BY THE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY OBJ ECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND SUBMITTED TH AT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE ASSESS EE DID NOT RAISE THIS GROUND BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BELOW THEN IT IS NOT OP EN TO THE ASSESSEE RAISED A NEW/FRESH GROUND AT THIS STAGE. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THE POINT OF ADMISSION THE AD DITIONAL GROUND. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE AD DITIONAL GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND IT ALSO DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY VERIFICATION OR INVESTIGATION OF NEW FACTS BUT THIS LEGAL ISSUE CAN BE ADJUDICATED ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND INFORMATI ON AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE OPENING ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 SH. RAJESH BHATIA V. ITO, JAIPUR 4 BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR PLEA / CONTENTION WAS NOT RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THERE FORE THE ISSUE VALIDITY OF REOPENING IS NOT A FRESH OR NEW GROUND BY THE ASSESSEE AT THIS STAGE BUT ONLY AN ADDITIONAL PLEA HAS BEEN RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS OBJECTION AGAINST THE VALID OF NOTIC E ISSUED U/S 148. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE AO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 ON 17.08.2012 WHEREAS THE TIME FOR ISSUING NOTI CE U/S 143(2) WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO UPTO 30.09.2012. ONCE THESE T WO FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE THEN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 148 CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THE VALIDITY OF JURISDICTION OF THE AO TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUI RE ANY INVESTIGATION OF NEW FACTS FOR ITS ADJUDICATION THEN, THERE IS NO IMPEDIMENT ON THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE A LEGAL GROUND FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CORPORATION LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF MUMBAI SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN CASE OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATION. 6. ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE TIME TO ISSUE NOTICE U /S 143(2) WAS STILL AVAILABLE TO THE AO THEN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS NOT VALID AS HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SH. LOKU RAM MALIK VS CIT DATED 03.05.2017 IN ITA NO. 142/2006. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE O F CIT VS. TCP LTD. ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 SH. RAJESH BHATIA V. ITO, JAIPUR 5 323 ITR 346 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COU RT HAS HELD THAT UNLESS THE RETURN OF INCOME ALREADY FILED IS DISPOS ED OF, NOTICE FOR REASSESSMENT U/S 148 CANNOT BE ISSUED. THEREFORE NO REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED SO LONG AS ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING PENDING ON THE BASIS OF THE RETURN ALREADY FILED ARE NOT TE RMINATED. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT I N CASE OF TRUSTEES OF H.E.H. THE NIZAM SUPPLEMENTAL FAMILY TRUST VS. CIT 159 CTR 114. THE LD AR HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE THIRD MEMBER DEC ISION OF CHENNAI BENCH IN CASE OF SUPER SPINNING MILLS LTD. VS. ACIT 38 SOT 14/ 3 ITR (TRIB.) 258. THUS THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW WHEN THE ASSESSEE OFFICER HAS NO T TERMINATED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS TIME TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS AVAILABLE UPTO 30.09.2011. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THAT NOTICE FOR SCRUTINY IS NO BAR FOR NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT BUT T HE NOTICE FOR REOPENING CAN BE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 DURING THE P ERIOD WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE ISSUED A SCRUTINY NOTI CE U/S 143(2). THE DR HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN CASE OF ACORUS UNITECH WIRELESS (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT 345 ITR 228 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT FOR ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S 143(2) THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO RECORD REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND THE PO WER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE UP THE RETURN FOR SCRUTIN Y IS MUCH WIDER AND THE JURISDICTIONAL PRE CONDITIONS STIPULATED U/S 14 7 ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED. THUS, THERE IS NO EMBARGO FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 EVEN WHEN THE TIME WAS AVAILABLE FOR NOTICE U/S 143(2). THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 SH. RAJESH BHATIA V. ITO, JAIPUR 6 VS. JORA SINGH 262 215 TAXMAN 424 AND SUBMITTED THA T THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THERE IS NOTHING IN THE PL AIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 143 WHICH MAY SUGGEST THAT THE RECOURSE TO SECTION 147 CAN BE HAD ONLY WHEN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO COMPLETE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING HAS EXPIRED OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER SH OULD WAIT FOR THE EXPIRY OF THE SAID PERIOD. THE AMBIT AND SCOPE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS LIMITED AND RESTRICTED AND IF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS IN ITS WISDOM PROCEEDS TO ASSESS THE INCOME WITH THE HELP OF LIMITED POWER, IT DOES NOT LIE IN THE MOUTH OF THE ASSESSEE TO SAY TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE EXERCISED WIDER JURISDICTION UN DER REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. THUS THE LD. DR HAS CONTENDE D THAT WHEN THE AO HAS CHOSEN TO ASSESS THE INCOME WITH LIMITED POW ER U/S 147 AS AGAINST U/S 143(3) THEN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 C ANNOT BE HELD AS INVALID. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS RELEVANT T O ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETUR N OF INCOME ON 27.09.2010 WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 07.12. 2010. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN OF INCOME ON 10. 09.2011 WHICH WAS ALSO PROCESSED U/S 143(1) ON 30.11.2011. THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON THE REVISED RETURN FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IS UPTO 30.09.2012 HOWEVER, AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 ON 17. 08.2012. THUS, IT IS CLEARE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUE U/S 148 ON 17.08.20 12 WAS PRIOR TO THE EXPIRY OF THE TIME PERIOD AVAILABLE TO THE AO FOR I SSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 30.09.2012. 9 THERE IS NO QUARREL ON THE POINT THAT THE JURISD ICTION OF THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME U/S 147 IS LIMITED AND CIRCUMSTAN TIAL IN COMPARISON TO ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 SH. RAJESH BHATIA V. ITO, JAIPUR 7 THE JURISDICTION UNDER SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143( 3). THEREFORE, PREFERRING THE PROCEEDING FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSES SMENT U/S 147 BY THE AO INSTEAD OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3 ) WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 INSTEAD OF ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) WHEN THE TIME WAS TILL AVAILABLE FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2). B UT THIS HAS NOT CAUSED ANY PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEV ER, AS PER VIEW TAKEN BY SOME OF THE HIGH COURTS THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S 147 CANNOT BE INITIATED PRIOR TO THE TERMINATION OF ASSESSMENT PE NDING BEFORE THE AO. WE FIND THAT THERE ARE DIVERGENT VIEWS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON THIS ISSUE. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF ACOR US UNITECH WIRELESS (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AS WELL AS IN CASE OF MT NA VS. CBDT 246 ITR 172 HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE AO CAN INITIATE REAS SESSMENT ACTION EVEN WHEN HE HAS NOT EXERCISED THE OPTION TO THE SCRUTIN Y NOTICE U/S 143(2). A SIMILAR VIEW TAKEN BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. JORA SINGH (SUPRA). HOWEVER, THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. TCP LTD. (SUPRA) HAS TAKEN A DIFFERENT V IEW AND HELD THAT WHILE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REMAIN IN INCHOATE ARE MAIN IN NO FRESH EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL COULD POSSIBLY UNEARTH. IF AN Y SUCH MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE AVAILABLE THERE IS NO RESTRICTION OR RESTR AIN ON ITS BEING TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE AO FOR FRAMING THE REGULA R ASSESSMENT. IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW THAT THE AO CAN ALSO TRAVEL THE PATH OF SECTION 147 TO ENLARGE THE TIME AVAILABLE FOR FRAMI NG ASSESSMENT. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS ALSO TAKEN A VIEW THAT IF THE TIME IS AVAILABLE FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) THEN THE INGREDIENT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 ARE NOT FULFILL. THUS WHER E THERE ARE DIVERGENT VIEWS OF DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON THE SAME ISSUE TH E DECISION OF THE ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 SH. RAJESH BHATIA V. ITO, JAIPUR 8 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THIS TRIBUN AL. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE BOUND BY THE PRECEDENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH IN CASE OF SHRI LOKU RAM MALIK VS. CIT (SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS ON THIS POINT HA S HELD IN PARAS 10, 10.1 TO 10.4 AS UNDER:- 10 WE HAVE HEARD COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 10.1 BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH THE MATTER, IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT ORDER U/S 143 WAS CONFIRMED ON 11.0 8.2000 WHEN THE RETURN WAS FILED AND THE NOTICE WHICH IS I MPUGNED U/S 148 CAME TO BE ISSUED BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT COULD H AVE BEEN DONE. 10.2 THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE NOT ICE WHICH HAS BEEN ISSUED U/S 148, INGREDIENTS U/S 148 ARE NOT FU LFILLED, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, WHEN ORDER U/S 143 IS PASSED, T HE OBSERVATIONS WHICH ARE MADE IN THE CASE OF RAJESH J HAVERI (SUPRA) IN PARAS NO. 11,12 &13 AS REPRODUCED HEREIN ABOVE WOULD APPLY. 10.3 THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE A PPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN KLM ROYAL DUTCH AIRLINES (SUPRA ). 10.4 IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS SERIOUSLY COMMITTED AN ERROR IN UPHOLD ING THE NOTICE U/S 148 WHEN THE OFFICER HAS REGULARLY FRAMED ASSES SMENT. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) IS REQUIRED TO BE ACCEPTED . THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND AGAINST THE DEPARTMENT. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT WE HOLD THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON 17.08.2012 WHEN THE TI ME WAS AVAILABLE TO THE AO FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) THEN THE INITI ATION OF REOPENING U/S 148 IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE QUASH ED. HENCE, REOPENING U/S 148 IS QUASHED BEING NOT VALID. SINCE THE NOTIC E ISSUED U/S 148 IS ITA NO. 551/JP/2014 SH. RAJESH BHATIA V. ITO, JAIPUR 9 QUASHED AS INVALID, THEREFORE, THE OTHER GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOME IN-FRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/11/2017 SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 08/11/2017. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SH. RAJESH BHATIA, A-84, ATRE PATH, SHYAM NAGAR,JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO WARD 2(4), 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. 551/JP/2014} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR