ACIT, Kota V. SMT. SARLA MUNDRA M/S MUNDRA STONE, Kota

ITA 590/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 74853 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: C M BIRLA
• Keywords: Commercial expediency

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH: JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI H.M. MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. NO. 590/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR- 2007-08 ACIT, CIRCLE-1, VS SMT. SARLA MUNDRA KOTA. M/S. MUNDRA STONE 16, JHALAWAR ROAD, KOTA. PAN NO. ACSPM7909C C.O. NO. 68/JP/2011 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 590/JP/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 SMT. SARLA MUNDRA VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1, M/S. MUNDRA STONE KOTA. C/O B.M. BIRLA & CO., CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS 1-D, NEW COLONY, GAMANPURA, KOTA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEES BY:- SHRI C.M. BIRLA. DEPARTMENT BY :- SHRI D.C. SHARMA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 30/01/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/02/02/2014 2 O R D E R PER: HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION (CO) BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), KOTA, DAT ED 30.03.2011, PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. IN SUPPORT OF REVENUES APPEAL A WRITTEN SUBMISS ION HAS BEEN FILED, PRECISELY ON 19.12.2011, BY THE THEN SR. D.R. OF IT AT, JAIPUR, SHRI VINOD JOHRI, JCIT. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING THE LD. SR. D.R. S HRI D.C. SHARMA RELIED ON THIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND DID NOT UTTER EVEN A SINGLE WORD WITH REGARD TO THE REVENUES APPEAL AND CO. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. A.R. SHRI C.M. BIRLA BESIDES MAKING ORAL SUBMISSIONS HAS ALSO RELIED ON HIS WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL STANDS VIS--VIS THE APPELLATE ORD ER. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CULLED OUT BY US, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MUNDRA STONE AND CARRIED ON BUSINESS OF TRADING IN KOTA STONE ETC. FOR A.Y. 2007-08, SHE FILED HER RETURN O F INCOME (ROI) ON 01.04.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 12,69,910/- AND AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,20,000/- ON 01.04.2008. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID JOB WORK FOR M/S. SARAL INDUSTRIES, INSURANCE BUSINESS, HOSTEL BUSINESS. SH E HAD STARTED THE HOSTEL BUSINESS IN THIS YEAR ONLY. AS AGAINST THE DECLARED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 12,69,910/-, THE AO HAS COMPUTED HER INCOME AT RS. 39,70,260/-. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT BEFORE LD. CIT(A) A ND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN GETTING SOME OF THE ADDITIONS DELETED IN ITS FIRST APPEAL. BOTH THE PARTIES ARE AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30.03.2 011. 3 5. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LE ARNED LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN: (I) DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANC E OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 2,74,165/- II) DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT DISALLOWANCE O F TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF RS. 16,421/- III) RESTRICTING STONE CUTTING EXPENSES FROM RS. 46 ,976/- TO RS. 13,960/- IV) DELETING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN C ONDUCTION OF HOSTEL BUILDING OF RS. 2,99,241/- V) DELETING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN FROM SHRI A NIL MUNDRA AND SHRI B.D. MUNDRA OF RS. 12,00,000/- VI) DELETING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT SHOWN AS INVESTED BY SHRI ANIL MUNDRA AND SHRI B.D. MUNDRA IN HOSTEL CONSTRUCTION OF RS. 5,92,270/- VII) RESTRICTING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MESS EXPENS ES FROM RS. 1,76,684/- TO RS. 88,342/- VIII) RESTRICTION ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LAUNDRY EX PENSES FROM RS. 15,960/- TO RS. 7,980/- IX) RESTRICTING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MISCELLANEOU S EXPENSES FROM RS. 28,650/- TO RS. 8,595/- X) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LIBERTY TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND TO MODIFY/AMEND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 4 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN HER CO: 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LEARNED CIT (A), AJMER ERRED IN CONFIRMING:- - I) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 14152/- OUT OF OFFICE EXPEN SES FOR PURCHASE OF MOBILE. II) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 13960/- FROM STONE CUTTING EXPENSES; III) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. S8342/- OUT OF MESS EXPEN SES; IV) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 7980/- OUT OF LAUNDRY EXPEN SES; AND V) DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 8595/- OUT OF MISC. EXPENSE S;. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT (A), AJMER FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 1 1940/ IN INSURANCE COMMISSION INCOME. 7. THE FIRST GROUND OF THE REVENUES APPEAL (GOA(I) ) IN RELATION TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2,74,165/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CL AIM OF INTEREST PAID AND DISALLOWED. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GI VEN INTEREST FREE LOAN / ADVANCES TO HER FOLLOWING SISTER CONCERNS:- S. NO NAME OF THE PERSONS/ PARTIES TO WHOM LOAN /ADVANCES GIVEN RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE PERIOD OF LOAN AMOUNT OF LOAN (RS.) CHARGEABLE INTEREST (@ 12%) 1 ANIL MUNDRA & SONS SISTER CONCERN ONE YEAR 98 ,000 11760 2 AGRO GENERAL SISTER CONCERN ONE YEAR 19,35,00 0 232200 INDUSTRIES 10-01-07 TO 31-03-2007 3,00,000 7 868 8-02-07 TO 31-03-2007 5,00,000 8524 5 3 MUNDRA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD SISTER CONCERN 31-0 1-06 TO 31-03-07 7,12,130/- 13813 TOTAL 274165 THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED VIDE LETTER DATED 18.12.2009 , AS UNDER :- THE INTEREST FREE DEPOSITS FROM MY SISTER CONCERN/F AMILY MEMBERS ARE AS UNDER:- A. PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET MY CAPITAL 5034163 M/S MUNDRA TRACTORS 162350 M/S MUNDRA AUTOMOBILES PVT LTD 97000 SH. B.D. MUNDRA 700000 SH ANIL MUNDRA 500000 TOTAL 'A' 6491513 IN BOOKS OF M/S MUNDRA STONES M/S MUNDRA CAPITAL & LEASING CO 161007 MAHESHWARI RESORTS & GARDEN 900000 S'MT ANITA CHOUDHARY 120000 MAHENDRA CHOUDHARY 70000 M/S MUNDRA & JAIN MARBLES 111000 TOTAL B 2262007 IN BOOK OF M/S SARAL INDUSTRIES M/S MUNDRA INDUSTRIES 193589/- M/S PREET STONE INDUSTRIES 864312/ M/S SHREE STONE INDUSTRIES 65997/- M/S TRIPTI INDUSTRIES 170000/- TOTAL C 1293898/- TOTAL ( TOTAL A+B=C 10049418/- I HAVE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO MY SISTER CONCERN S/FAMILY MEMBERS AS UNDER:--:- A. PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET MUNDRA CAPITAL & LEASING CO. PVT LTD. 108000/- TOTAL 'A' 108000/- B. IN BOOKS OF M/S MUNDRA STONES M/S ANIL MUNDRA & SONS 98000/- M/S AGRO GEN. INDUSTIRES 2735839/ M/S MUNDRA AUTOMOBILS PVT LTD. 712130/- M/S MUNDRA METALS 114945/- M/S MUNDRA INDUSTRIES 43000/- M/S PREET STONE INDUSTRIES 377810/- 6 SH. PAWAN MUNDRA 64300/- M/S SHREE STONE INDUSTRIES 464275/- M/S TRIPTI INDUSTRIES 235000/- TOTAL B 4845239/- C. IN BOOK OF M/S SARAL INDUSTRIES M/S STONE EDGE CO. V 305000/- M/S AGRO GENERAL INDUSTRIES 592824/- M/S MANAK GRANITE PUT LTD 231577/- M/S MUNDRA TRACTORS 1038415/- TOTAL C 2711467/- TOTAL A+B=C 7664706/- AS MY INTEREST FREE FUNDS ARE AT RS.1004918/- WHERE AS INTEREST FREE ADVANCE ARE ONLY RS.7664706/- IT IS STATED DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AS PROPOSED BY YOU IS UNCALLED FOR. 8. BUT BEING NOT SATISFIED, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 2,74,165/- AND HAS ADDED THE SAME TO HER TOTAL INCOME. 9. ON THE CONTRARY LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDI TION. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THEIR EARLIER STANDS, WHICH ARE REFLECTE D IN THEIR RESPECTIVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FIELD ON RECORD. 10. IT IS SUBMITTED THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITI ON MAINLY ON THE CONSIDERATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MORE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES T HAN SHE ADVANCED INTEREST FREE TO SISTER CONCERNS. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED THAT THE L D. CIT(A) AHS WRONGLY RELIED ON THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED ON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE SENT TO AO AS NO SPECIFIC REPORT WAS CALLED FO R. IT IS ALSO WRITTEN THAT NEXUS BETWEEN INTEREST FREE LOANS AND INTEREST FREE ADVAN CES HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED ON VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS, LISTED AT PAGES 4 AND 5 OF DRS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS . FURTHER, IT IS ALSO STATED THAT 7 LD. CIT(A) HAS TO RELY ON THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF S.A. BUILDERS 288 ITR 1 OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT, HE IS BOUND TO ESTABLISH HO W INTEREST FREE ADVANCE WAS COMMERCIALLY EXPEDIENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE MAIN POINTS RAISED IN DEPARTMENTS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, WE HAVE FOUND THA T ALL THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS ARE NOT HELPFUL TO THEIR CASE. FROM THE WORKING GIV EN BY THE AO WE HAVE NOTICED THAT THE AO AHS NOT DISALLOWED INTEREST AMOUNT OF R S. 2,43,960/- ON INTEREST FREE LOANS BUT HAS CHARTED INTEREST ON INTEREST FREE ADV ANCES OF RS. 98,000/- AND RS. 19,35,000/- (BEING RS. 2,32,200/- AND RS. 2,43,960/ -, RESPECTIVELY). IT IS FOUND THAT BOTH THE ABOVE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES ARE OLD ONE AND DONT RELATE THIS YEAR. WE ARE UNABLE TO UNDERSTAND AS TO WHY AND HOW THE R EMAND REPORT DATED 24.06.2010 CALLED FOR BY LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT BE R ELIED UPON. THE LD. SR. D.R. IS ARGUING FOR THE AO AND CANNOT GET AWAY FROM WHAT LD. A.O. HAS DONE OR WRITTEN. THIS SEEMS TO AN WEIRD ARGUMENTS LIKELY TO BE REJECTED ON THE FACE OF IT. AGAIN, A VERY STRONG ARGUMENT HAS BEEN RAISED BY LD . SR. D.R., IT IS STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ESTABLISHED NEXUS BETWEEN ADVANC E FREE LOANS AND ADVANCES; TO OUR JAGRIN, IT IS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO ESTABLIS H THAT THERE IS NO NEXUS BETWEEN THE TWO AND IT IS NOT THE FUNCTION OF LD. CIT(A) TO PROVE AND ESTABLISH OTHERWISE. THE LD. D.R. HAS TRIED TO PUT COST BEFORE THE HORSE . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF S.A. BUILDERS (SUPRA) TO FIND THAT IT IS IN THE COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DO SO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT RENDERE D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VTC LEASING AND FINANCE CO. 39 TAX WORLD 211 (RAJ) WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONLY REAL INCOME IS TO BE TAXED UNLESS THERE I S SOME DEEMING FICTION IN THAT REGARD. RATHER HE HAS ALSO RELIED ON MANY DECISIONS , INCLUDING THAT THE JAIPUR BENCH AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT, TO HOLD THAT THE A .O. HAS TO GIVE A FINDING THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS HAVE BEEN DIVERTED FOR GIVING ADVANCES, FAILING WHICH NO SUCH DISALLOWANCES CAN BE MADE. THE DECISION OF JAIPUR A-BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. YASH INDUSTRIES IN ITA NO. 14/JP/2007 DATED 20.03.2008 HAS BEEN 8 REFERRED TO FOR THIS PURPOSE. THEREFORE, IN THE TOT ALING OF THE ABOVE REASONS WE DONT FIND ANY MERIT IN GROUND NO. (I) OF THE REVEN UES APPEAL. THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO. (III) OF REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 1(II) OF CO ARE IN RELATION TO A COMMON ISSUE. HOWEVER, THE LD. A.R. H AS NOT PRESSED GROUND NO. 1(II) OF CO, WE ONLY PROCEED TO DECIDE GROUND NO. ( III) OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THAT THE AO MADE A DDITION OF RS. 49,976/- OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF RS. 4,68,467/- ACCOUNT OF STONE CUTT ING EXPENSES WHICH WERE FOUND TO BE SUPPORTED ONLY BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS. T HE AO AHS DISALLOWED 10% OF THIS CLAIM. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THIS DISA LLOWANCE TO RS. 13,960/- HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED. IT IS SUBMITTED IN WRITTEN SUBMI SSION THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES AND IT IS TO BE SEEN WHOSE ADHO C DISALLOWANCE CARRIES MORE WEIGHT. THE LD. A.R. HAS SUPPORTED THE APPELLATE FI NDING AND HAS NOT PRESSED HIS GROUND. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS, WE ARE SAT ISFIED WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). IT IS NOT THE QUESTION AS TO WHOSE ADHOC DI SALLOWANCE IS MORE APPROPRIATE. AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE IS AN ADHOC ONE AND SUCH DISALLOWANCE ARE BASED MORE ON MAGIC RATHER THAN LOGIC. IN PRINCIPLE SUCH DISALLOWANCES SHOULD BE DEPRECATED AND DISCOURAGED BUT IN THE IDIOM AND LANGUAGE OF A FISCAL LAW SOMETIMES SUCH ADHOC DISALLOWANCES ARE NOT TREATED AS ALTOGETHER UNJUSTIFIABLE GIVEN THE FACTS OF A PARTICULAR CASE. IN THIS CASE WE DONT SEEK ANY VALID REASON TO INTERFERENCE WITH THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). THE REFORE, WE CANNOT ALLOW GROUND NO. (III) OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 12. SIMILAR IS THE CASE OF WITH THE FACTS OF GROUND NOS. II, VII, VIII AND IX OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. ALL THESE ARE ADHOC DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF RS. 16,421/- OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THEM, AND OTHER PART OF GROUND NO. (II) IS THE DELETION OF ADHOC 9 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 17,692/- MADE IN THE ACCOUNT OF STONE UNLOADING EXPENSES FOR WANT OF COMPLETE VOUCHERS. OUR FINDING IN THIS REGARD IS SAME. THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), AS THE DISALLOWANCE ARE BASED ON NO LOGIC. WE CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED DELETION AND DISM ISS GROUND NO. (II) OF REVENUES APPEAL. 13. IN GROUND NO. (IV), THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED DELETION OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,99,241/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF DVOS REPORT WH ICH WAS CALLED FROM BY THE AO TO ESTIMATE INVESTMENT IN THE HOSTEL CONSTRUCTED DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT WHEN LOCAL PWD RATS ARE AD OPTED BY REDUCING 20% STRAIGHT FROM THE ESTIMATION OF INVESTMENT ARRIVED AT BY ADOPTING CPWD RATES, THERE WOULD REMAIN NO ADDITION. THIS ISSUE IS FOUND COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF CIT VS HOTEL JOSHI REPORTED IN 242 ITR 478 (RAJ). T HERE IS NO FALLACY IN THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, WE CONFIRM THE SAME AND DISMISS GROUND NO. (IV) OF REVENUES APPEAL. 14. THE FACTS OF GROUND NO. (V) AND (VI) OF REVENUE S APPEAL RELATING TO DELETION OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 1 2LACS ADDED ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOAN / CASH CREDITS FROM SHRI ANIL MUNDRA OF RS. 5 LACS AN D FROM SHRI B.D. MUNDRA OF RS. 7 LACS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ENTIRE ADDITION BY HOLDING BOTH CASH CREDITORS AS EXPLAINED. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE REMAND REPORT OF AO CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAK EN FROM HER HUSBAND SHRI ANIL MUNDRA OF RS 5 LACS, IN THE SENSE THAT ALL EXPENSES WERE MADE THROUGH HER HUSBAND WHO SPENT THIS MUCH AMOUNT FROM HIS OWN ACC OUNTS. WITH REGARD TO SHRI B.D. MUNDRA WHO IS HER FATHER-IN-LAW, A SUM OF RS. 7 LACS PENDING ON ACCOUNT OF HIS SUPERVISION, WERE ADDED BY THE AO BY TREATING THEM AS UNEXPLAINED. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND THE 10 FACT THAT BOTH OF THEM ARE SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO T AX HAS DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 15. BEFORE US IT WAS NOT DENIED THAT BOTH OF THE CA SH CREDITORS (IF THEY ARE SO CALLED) HAVE FILED THEIR RESPECTIVE CONFIRMATION CO NFIRMING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THEY ARE SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO T AX. THE ONLY ARGUMENT PUT FORTH IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS THAT THE REMAND REPO RT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO DELETE THIS ADDITION. WE ARE SORRY TO MENTION THAT NOT EVEN A SINGLE PLAUSIBLE ARGUMENTS HAS BEEN MADE REGARDING THESE GROUNDS. AC CORDINGLY, WE DISMISS BOTH THESE GROUNDS AS WE ARE SATISFIED WITH THE IMP UGNED FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). 16. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE DISMISS RE VENUES APPEAL. 17. AS FAR AS THE CO IS CONCERNED IT WAS NOT VERILY PRESSED BY LD. AR, THEREFORE, THE CO ALSO STANDS DISMISSED. 18. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND T HE CO OF THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH FEBRU ARY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI ) (HARI OM MA RATHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. VL/- 11 COPY FORWARDED TO :- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT- 3. THE CIT (A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE D/R BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.