KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA) PVT. LTD., Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 561/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99300 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SAGONI
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries
• Section: 133A; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & DR. ARJUN LAL SAI NI, AM ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA) (P) LTD. 41, K TOWER, MAHAVEER MARG, C- SCHEME, JAIPUR. VS. THE ACIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. PAN/GIR NO.: AAACI4305H APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SAGONI (C.A.) REVENUE BY : SHRI P.P. MEENA (J.CIT) DATE OF HEARING : 06/11/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/12/2017 ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 11.03.2013 OF LD. CIT (A), JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008-09. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER DECIDED VIDE ORD ER DATED 07.09.2015 HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE SAID ORDER WAS RECALLED B Y THIS TRIBUNAL IN M.A. NO. 18/JP/2016 VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2016. TH EREFORE, THIS APPEAL WAS PLACED BEFORE US FOR HEARING AND ADJUDIC ATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 2 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A CTION OF THE AO IN NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMIN ATION OF THE PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE LD. AO IN HOLDING THE PURCHASES FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES AS BOGUS. S.N. NAME OF PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES MADE AMOUNT IN RS. 1. M/S. ASHISH JEWELLERS RS. 2,44,500/- 2. M/S. ANUPAM EXPORT RS. 2,45,000/- TOTAL RS. 4,90,000/- THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIE D, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEAS E BE GRANTED BY HOLDING THE ABOVE PURCHASES AS GENUINE. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACT ION OF THE LD. AO IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) AND THERE AFTER MAKING A TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 1,22,500/-. THE AC TION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY A ND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DELE TING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 1,22,500/- MADE BY THE AO I S CONFIRMED. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF GOLD JEWELLERY STUDDED WITH DIAMOND AND ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 3 COLOR STONES. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CAR RIED OUT AT THE BUSIMESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 03.03.2008. DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS EXCESS STOCK OF RS. 2,22,32,958/ - WAS FOUND WHICH WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TO TAX AS INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES FROM TWO PARTIES W HO WERE FOUND TO BE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDERS AND ISSUING SALE S BILLS WITHOUT ACTUAL PURCHASES OR SALES. THE AO ACCORDINGLY REJEC TED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF 25% OF THE PURCHAS ING MADE FROM THESE TWO PARTIES. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSE SSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE INVES TIGATING WING FOR TREADING PURCHASES AS UNVERIFIABLE /BOGUS WITHOUT G IVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSONS ON WHO SE STATEMENT RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE AO. EVEN THE ASSESSEE WA S NOT MADE AVAILABLE THE EVIDENCES WHICH HAS BEEN GATHERED BY THE AO AND USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 4 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHE N THE AO HAS CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY AND ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 AND NO RESPONSE WAS FILED BY THESE PARTIES THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OR PRODUCING THESE P ARTIES FOR VERIFICATION, THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR REJECTING TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND MAKING ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED. HE HAS RELIED UPON TH E DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKE INDUS TRIES VS. CIT 316 ITR 274. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE NOTE THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN CAS E OF ACIT VS. M/S ALLIED GEMS CORPORATION VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2017 IN ITA NO. 794/JP/2011 AND CO NO. 76/JP/2011 HAS HELD IN PARA S 5 AND 8 AS UNDER:- 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 145(3). THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS INVO LVED IN THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, W E DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE WHILE DECIDING THE CROSS OBJECTION. ONCE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED BY THE AO THE ONLY COURSE OF ACTION LEFT TO THE AO IS TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON T HE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT AND GP RATE IS CONSIDERED AS PROPER AND ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 5 REASONABLE BASIS AND GUIDANCE FOR THE BEST JUDGMENT . ONCE, THE BOOKS RESULT ARE REJECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN NOT PROCEED TO MAKE AN ADDITION TO THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE AS PER BOOKS RESULT. HOWEVER, THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE INSTEAD OF APPLYING THE GP RATE MADE ON ADDITION@ 25% OF TH E PURCHASES TO THE BOOK RESULTS. THIS ACT OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ITSELF CONTRADICTS THE DECISION OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND BOOKS RESULT. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE A ND UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 2.20 AND 2.30 A S UNDER:- 2.20 HENCE, THERE ARE CERTAIN CONCERNS FOR WHICH R EVENUE GOT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT RECORDED IN RESPE CT OF SUCH PARTIES, OPENING BALANCE IS RS. 37,06,175/- WHILE T HE CLOSING BALANCE IS RS. 42,81,496/-. IT MEANS THAT THERE IS AN ACCRETION OF AMOUNT OF RS. 5.75/- LACS. IT MEANS THAT TO THIS EX TENT, ACCRETION IN PURCHASE IS WITHOUT SUPPORTING THE CORRECT BILLS . OF COURSE, TOTAL OPENTING BALANCE OF ALL PARTIES IS RS. 1,15,43,782/ - AND THE CLOSING BALANCE IS RS. 1,33,36,193/-. HOWEVER, LOOK ING TO THE ACCRETION IN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE CONCERNS FO R WHICH REVENUE HAS MATERIAL, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS REASONABLE. 2.30 THE HONBLE P & H HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF UP LAKESH METAL INDUSTRIAL V CIT 177 TAXMAN 298 HELD THAT ISSUE DEC IDED BY THIS IS IN THE REALM OF APPRECIATION EVIDENCE. THE FIND OF TRIBUNAL AS MENTIONED IN THIS JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER:- 'HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PRIMA FACIE REQUIRED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS NOT MISPLACED BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISTINCTION LAID BETW EEN THE TRADE CREDITOR AND THE NON-TRADE CREDITOR AND WE ARE FURT HER OF THE OPINION THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS LIABILITY OF PAYMENT TO ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 6 THE TRADE CREDITORS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET, THE ASSESSEE IS DEFINITELY REQUIRED TO PRIMA FACIE PROVE THE IDENTI TY OF THE TRADE CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER BEEN ABLE TO DISCLOSE THE COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE TRADE CREDITORS NOR I S ABLE TO GIVE THE COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE CONSIGNORS NOR THE NA ME HAS BEEN MENTIONED ON THE CHALLAN FORMS, SO THE VERIFICATION OF THE SAME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAME TOTALLY IMPRACTICAB LE ON ACCOUNT OF LACK OF THIS COMPLETE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY TH E ASSESSEE. IT MEANS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED IN ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF THE SO CALLED TRADE CREDITORS APPEARING IN ITS BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. WE ARE FURTHER OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE IN THE INS TANT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE POINT UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE US I S REGARDING THE GENUINENESS OF THE LIABILITY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,75, 26,586 SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE-SHEET AS TRADE CREDI TORS, SO IT WAS NOT RELEVANT FOR US TO CONSIDER AS TO WHETHER THE P URCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE OR NOT OR TO WHETHER T HE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THOSE PURCHASES OR NOT. IT IS ALSO NOT MATERIAL TO CONSIDER WHETHER THE GRS FROM SALE-TAX DEPARTMENT W ERE VERIFIED OR NOT, SO, THE CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THESE POINTS WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT DISCUSSING AS TO WHETHER THE LIABILITY OF TRADE CREDITORS SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABSENCE OF FURNISHING COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF TRADE CREDITORS/CONSIGNORS AND THE PAYMENT VOUCHERS WAS G ENUINE OR NOT.' WHILE EVALUATING THE MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE REVE NUE ON THE TOUCH STONE ON HUMAN PROBABILITY AND CONSIDERING TH E ACCRETION IN THE CLOSING BALANCE IN RESPECT OF PARTIES FOR WH ICH REVENUE HAS MATERIAL IN THEJFORM OF STATEMENT. WE FELL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS REASONABLE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5.00 L ACS. HENCE BOTH THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE ARE DISM ISSED. WE FURTHER NOTED THAT WHEN THE CORRESPONDING SALE I S NOT IN DISPUTE THEN THE QUESTION IS ONLY REGARDING THE COR RECT AMOUNT OF PURCHASES AND VERIFICATION OF THE SAME. THE LD. DR HAS RELIED ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 7 UPON THE VARIOUS DECISIONS OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT IN ALL THOSE DECISIONS THERE WAS A FINDING OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE INFLATED THE PURCHASES UPTO 25% AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A CASE OF NON VERIFICATION OF THE PURCHASE AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT THE FACT WA S ESTABLISHED IN THE INVESTIGATION THAT THE ASSESSEE INFLATED THE PURCHASE PRICE AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF 25% BEING INFLATED PURCHASES WAS MADE AND UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL WHICH WAS AGAIN UPH ELD BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. ON THE CONTRARY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OF INFLATED PURCHASES BY THE ASSESSEE BUT DOUBTED THE VERY TRANSACTION OF PURCHA SES DUE TO NON PRODUCTION OF THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN THE FINDING THAT THE PRICES OF THE GOODS WAS INFLATED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE AO DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES ON THE GROUND THAT THE SUPPLIERS WERE FOUND TO BE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDERS. WHEN THE AO REJECT ED THE BOOK RESULTS U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, THEN THE AO AFTER RE JECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CAN PROCEED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF RESORTING MAKE TH E ADDITION TO THE BOOK RESULTS. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUN AL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADD ITION TO THE AVERAGE GP RATE BASED ON THE PAST HISTORY. HENCE, T HE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REVENUE APPEALS ARE REJECTED BEING WI THOUT ANY SUBSTANCE OR MERITS.--------------- --------------------------------------- 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR AS WELL AS LD. DR AND C ONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PURCHASES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND TO THAT EXTENT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT VERIFIABL E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO POINTED THAT THE INVENTO RY OF CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN VALUED ON ESTIMATED BASIS AS POINTED OUT AND SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND THER EFORE, THE ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 8 ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING THE STOCK REGISTER SHO WING THE QUANTITY AND QUALITATIVE DETAILS INCLUDING THE PURI TY OF THE PREVIOUS MATTERS. THEREFORE, THE VALUATION OF THE C LOSING STOCK WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE ESTIMATED AND NOT THE ACTUAL A ND CORRECT VALUE. THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS TO THE PARTIES FROM WH OM THE ASSESSEE MADE THE PURCHASES HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO R ESPONSE AND NO COMPLIANCE OF THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO TO THESE PARTIES. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY PO INTED OUT THAT THE SALE TO THE EXTENT OF MORE THAN 60% OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE WHEN THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF MOR E THAN 60% IS NOT VERIFIABLE DUE TO THE FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE T O PRODUCE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE SUPPLIER THEN THE BOOK RE SULTS OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT REFLECTED TRUE PICTURE AND CONSE QUENTLY IT WAS A SUFFICIENT AND PROPER GROUND FOR REJECTION OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN PARA 4.3 AS UNDER- 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO A ND THE EXTENSIVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR. THE MOST PERTINENT POINT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE HONBLE ITAT, JAIP UR BENCH HAS ALREADY ADJUDICATED IN IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 VIDE ITS ORDER ITA NO. 603/JP/2010 DATED 10.06.2011. SIMILAR DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE AO UNDER SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS ARE INVOLVED IN THE APPELLANTS PRESENT APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME I FIND THAT THE HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR IN THE APPELLANTS CAS E FOR A.Y. 2006- 07 BASED ON A DETAILED DISCUSSION FROM PAGES 2 TO 9 HAS UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY INVOKING THE P ROVISIONS OF S. 145(3) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO UNVERIFIA BLE PURCHASES. THEREFORE, AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE THE S AME IN THIS YEAR I UPHOLD THE DECISION OF THE AO TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATE HIS INCOME. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE BY FOLL OWING DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 9 2006-07. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGAL ITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES IS RESTRICTED TO GP RATE ADD ITION TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSES EE COMPRISING THE G.P. RATE DECLARED AND ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS WELL A S GP RATE WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. THEREFORE, FOR LIMITED PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE INCOME BY APPLYING THE AVERAGE GP RATE OF THE PAST HISTORY FOR MINIMUM 3 YEARS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN AN APPROPRIATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. AS REGARDS THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOLLOWING THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE TRIB UNAL CITED (SUPRA), WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE AO. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/12/2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 26/12/2017. * SANTOSH. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA) (P) L TD., JAIPUR. ITA NO. 561/JP/2013 M/S KINUBABA JEWELLERY (INDIA)(P) LTD. V ACIT 10 2. THE RESPONDENT- ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 561/JP/2013} BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR