SHRI AVNISH BANSAL , JAIPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3-1, JAIPUR

ITA 589/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9475 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J C KULHARI
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Revised return
• Section: 271(1)(c); 50C; 54F; 80IB; 54

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 VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 589/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL, C-110, GARUD MARG, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(1), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGHPB1510B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 603/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, C-110, GARUD MARG, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(3), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AGQPB7405E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MUKESH SONI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI J. C. KULHARI (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/11/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/12/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSES SEES AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-1, JAIPUR DATED 1 5.02.2018 UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. BOTH THE APPEALS INVOLVING ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 2 COMMON ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF B Y THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT B OTH THE ASSESSEES JOINTLY OWN A PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLOT NO. 1, GEEJ GARH VIHAR, HAWA SARAK, JAIPUR WHICH WAS SOLD DURING THE YEAR AND GA INSARISING THEREFROM WAS DISCLOSED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME. IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME, THEY ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 5 4 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF INDI VIDUAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER HELD THAT WHAT HAS BEEN SOLD WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BUT A COMMERCIAL PROPERT Y AND GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF RESIDEN TIAL HOUSE OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT PLOT NO. 1, GEEJGARH VIHAR, HAWA SARAK, JAIPUR, THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U /S 54 IS NOT ALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED TO GET BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION U/S 54F OF THE ACT AND THE SAM E WAS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATTER IN QUANTUM P ROCEEDINGS ATTAINED FINALITY. 3. SEPARATELY, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) R.W.S 274 FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND THEREAFTER, BY ORDER DATED 26.09.2014, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY ST ATING THAT IF MISTAKE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 54 WAS BONAFIDE, THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD HAVE FILED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 54 INSTEAD OF SECTION 54F WAS NOT BONAFIDE BUT IT WAS MALA FIDE WITH INTENTION TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAXES ON LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. ON APPEAL, THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 3 CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AGAINST WHICH BOTH TH E ASSESSEES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITT ED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD WITH RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND SHED ONLY WHICH CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THE FACT THAT NO COMMERCIAL UTI LIZATION OF THE PROPERTY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SA LE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ALL FACTS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE AVAILABLE TO THE LD. AO WITH A BONA-FIDE VIEW OF TAKING DEDUCTIO N FOR REINVESTMENT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF PROPERTY SO SOLD IN THE RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT WHAT HAS BE EN PURCHASED IS A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE AND MERELY A MISTAKE ON PART OF T HE APPELLANT TO CLAIM THE DEDUCTION BY MENTIONING WRONG SECTION BY OVERLO OKING THE FACT OF CONVERSION FOR THE REASON BEING THAT THE APPELLANT FROM THE VERY INCEPTION WAS HOLDING AND UTILIZING SUCH PROPERTY F OR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT MERELY MAKING A CLA IM UNDER WRONG SECTION, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED AND IN SUPPORT RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD 322 ITR 158 (SC). F URTHER, THE LD AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: SH. VIKAS SONGARA VS. DCIT CIRCLE-1, AJMER (ITA NO. 84/JP/2018)- ITAT JAIPUR 'ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING ELIGIBILITY OF CLAIM UND ER SECTION 54 OR SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT W HAT HAS BEEN SOLD IS A NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THE ASSESSEE IS ELIG IBLE FOR DEDUCTION ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 4 IN RESPECT OF FRESH INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY. W HILE THE ASSESSEE HAS BY MISTAKE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54, THE AO ON EXAMINATION FOUND THAT THE RIGHT PROVISIONS FOR ALL OWING DEDUCTION IS SECTION 54F AND HE THEREFORE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE NOT A CASE WHERE TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS PATENTLY ILLEGAL OR NOT ALLOWABLE AS PE R THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (SUPRA), WHERE ALL THE RE QUISITE PARTICULARS ARE FOUNDS TO BE INACCURATE, MERELY ALLOWING THE CL AIM UNDER SECTION 54F INSTEAD OF SECTION 54 WOULD MAKE THE ASSESSEE L IABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT.' CHANDRA PAL BAGGA V. INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [2003] 261 ITR 67 (RAJASTHAN) 'WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE TRANSACTION WH ICH IS THE BASIS FOR CAPITAL GAIN TAX AND THOUGH WRONGLY CLAIMED EXE MPTION FROM THE CAPITAL GAIN TAX, BUT THAT CANNOT BE A CASE OF PENA LTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. IF IT HAS CL AIMED ANY EXEMPTION AFTER DISCLOSING THE RELEVANT BASIC FACTS AND UNDER THE IGNORANCE OF THE PROVISION OF THE ACT, 1961, AND NO T OFFERED THAT AMOUNT FOR TAX, IN SUCH CASES, PENALTY SHOULD NOT B E IMPOSED. IN SUCH CASES RATHER IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO ASK FURTHER DETAILS AND TAX INCOME IF IT IS LIABLE TO T AX AND THAT HAS BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. 9. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS ON RECORD, WE SEE NO REAS ON TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS SET ASIDE AND PENALTY IS CANCELLED. THE APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED ACCORDINGLY .' ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 5 POOJA INDUSTRIES VS. ITO ITA NO.322/CHD/2015 ORDER DT.05.06.2015 (CHD.) (TRIB.): 'PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) COULD NOT BE LEVIED ONLY BEC AUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD WRONGLY CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC @ 100% INSTE AD OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB @ 25%. PENALTY COULD ONLY BE LEV IED ONLY AND ONLY IF THERE WERE INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME AND THERE WERE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 2(4), SURAT VS. SMT. SAROJB EN M. KAPADIA, ITA NO. 375/AHD/2013: ADMITTEDLY, THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY NEW MA TERIAL TO ESTABLISH THERE IS A CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271( 1)(C) OF THE ACT, EXCEPT THAT, ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED ITS MISTAKE AND NOT SUO MOTTO REVISED ITS RETURN OF INCOME. FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THERE IS AN INADVERTENT ERROR IN CLAIMING THE DEDUC TION BY THE ASSESSEE, AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD DELIBERATELY FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR CO NCEALED ITS INCOME CONSCIOUSLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) DOES NOT ATTRACTED, AND THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) IS J USTIFIED IN DELETING THE PENALTY, WHICH WE CONFIRM, AND THE GROUND OF THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 6 DEVI DASS SUKHANI VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER [2006] 101 TTJ 551 (JODH) THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD WITHDRAWN THE DEDUCTION ALLOWED IN THE ASST. YR. 1999-2000 AN D HAD CLAIMED THE SAME AGAIN IN THIS YEAR UNDER S. 54 OF THE ACT. THI S IS A CASE OF DEDUCTION HAVING BEEN CLAIMED UNDER A BONAFIDE MISC ONCEPTION AND BELIEF. THERE SEEN TO BE NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WHI CH CAN ESTABLISH ANY WILLFUL ATTEMPT TO EVADE TAX BY THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS A DEDUCTION, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED BY THE ACT, IT DOES NOT TANTAMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT. SARV PRAKASH KAPOOR V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E-TAX 4(1), AGRA [2012] 26 TAXMANN.COM 256 (AGRA) THE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT TH E ASSESSEE INVESTED A PART AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION/CAPITAL GAIN IN R ESIDENTIAL HOUSE INSTEAD OF GROSS SALE CONSIDERATION AND CLAIMED DED UCTION UNDER SECTION 54F. IT IS RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT FOR CLAIMI NG DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT INVESTMENT OF CAPITAL GAIN IS THE REQUIREMENT WHEREAS FOR CLAIMING DEDICATION UNDER SECTION 54F I NVESTMENT OF SALE CONSIDERATION IS THE CONDITION. FROM THE FACTS OF T HE CASE IT IS A CLEAR CUT CASE OF BONA FIDE CALCULATION MISTAKE. SUCH MIS TAKES ARE RECTIFIABLE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. RECTIFICATIONS OF SUCH MISTAKES ARE NOT CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF I NCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS A BONA FIDE MISTAK E IN CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE A.O. TH OUGH HAS INVOKED EXPLANATION-1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) BUT HE DID NOT F IND THAT THE ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 7 EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A FALSE E XPLANATION. CONTRARY TO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIATED HIS EXPLANATION BY SUBMITTING COMPLETE FACTS REGARDING CALCULATION OF CAPITAL GAIN MISUNDERSTANDING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54 AND 54 F OF THE AC. THUS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BONAFIDE AND UNDER THAT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SECTION OF 271(1)(C) IS NO T APPLICABLE' INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD- 1 (2), JAIPUR V. SMT. SAR OJ DEVI AGARWAL [2017] 87 TAXMANN.COM 23 (JAIPUR - TRIB.) 'AS PER ASSESSEE BY WAY OF SETTLEMENT AMONGST THE C O-OWNERS, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ABSOLUTE RIGHTS OVER THE NEW ASS ET. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION AS CLAIMED. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT CONSTRUCTING A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE ON A COMMERCIAL LAND. IT IS ALSO ARGUED THAT CONSTRUCTIN G A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN A COMMERCIAL COMPLEX WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO ALTER THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE INTO A COMMERCIAL PREMISES. 3.5 WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MA TERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT ON COMMERCIAL LAND NO RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE CAN BE CONSTRUCTED. EVEN THERE IS NO MATERIAL SUGGESTIN G THAT ANY UNAUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD DEB AR IT FROM CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/ S. 54F. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUC H MATERIAL, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW BENEFIT OF SECTION 54F CANNOT B E DENIED. ANOTHER OBJECTION OF THE AO IS WITH REGARD TO THE F ACT THAT CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WAS STARTED PRIOR TO TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET. THIS OBJECTION IS ALSO MISPLACED WH EN THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION U/ S. 54F IF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS PURCHASED ONE YEAR BEFORE THE TRANSFER OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET. THEREFORE, IN OUR ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 8 CONSIDERED VIEW MERELY BECAUSE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED PRIOR TO TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET, IF SAME IS COMPLETED WITHIN THREE YEARS OF TRANSFER OF ORIGINAL ASSET, WOULD NOT COME INTO WAY OF ENTITLEM ENT OF EXEMPTION.' 5. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH AWARE THAT LAND USE OF THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN C HANGED FROM RESIDENTIAL TO COMMERCIAL AND WHAT HAS BEEN SOLD WA S A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS A BONA FIDE MISTAKE IN MAKING A CLAIM U/S 54 INSTEAD OF SECTION 54F IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS CLEAR A CAS E FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF INCOME, THE PENALTY HAS BE EN RIGHTLY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, HE REQUESTED FO R CONFIRMATION OF ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF FRESH INVESTMENT IN HOUSE P ROPERTY. WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAS BY MISTAKE CLAIMED DEDUCTION UNDER SEC TION 54, THE AO ON EXAMINATION FOUND THAT THE RIGHT PROVISIONS FOR ALLOWING DEDUCTION IS SECTION 54F AND HE THEREFORE ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. IT IS THEREFORE NOT A CASE WHERE THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS PATENTLY ILLEGAL OR NOT ALLOWABLE AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF THE ACT. IN FACT, THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HIMSELF HAS STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F OF THE ACT . IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE R ETURN OF INCOME, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AND CONSIDERED SALE CONSIDERATION ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 9 OF LAND AS PER REGISTERED DOCUMENT U/S 50C AT RS 1, 72,43,350 AND INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO RS 41,60, 100 WHICH WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 54 OF THE ACT. THE COMPUTATI ON SO FILED THEREFORE CLEARLY DISCLOSES THE NATURE AND SPECIFIC S OF THE PROPERTY SO SOLD AND SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE OF HOUSE PROPERTY BY T HE ASSESSEE. THERE IS THUS PROPER DISCLOSURE AS FAR AS NATURE OF PROPERTY SO PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME. ON EXAMINATION THEREOF, WHERE THE AO DETERMINES THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F AND NOT UN DER SECTION 54, THE SAME CANNOT BE HELD TO BE FURNISHING INACCURATE PAR TICULARS OF INCOME. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (SUPRA) AND OTHER DECISIONS OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCHES (SUPRA), WHERE ALL THE REQUISITE PARTICULARS ARE FO UND TO BE ACCURATE, MERELY MAKING A CLAIM UNDER SECTION 54 INSTEAD OF S ECTION 54F WOULD NOT MAKE THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE RESULT, THE PENALTY SO LEVIED IN BOTH T HE CASES IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE RESPECTIVE A SSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/12/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 17/12/2018. ITA NO. 589 & 603/JP/2018 SHRI AVNISH BANSAL & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR VS. ITO, JAIPUR 10 * GANESH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI AVNISH BANSAL, JAIPUR & SHRI ASHUTOSH BANSAL, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, 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. 589 & 603/JP/2018 } VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR