INDERGIRI FINANCE LTD., V. CIT-2, Jaipur

ITA 598/JPR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 59823114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPUL B JOSHI
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Speculation loss; Assessment record; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

1 ITA 598(2)-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ITA NO. 598 & 1122/JP/2010 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06. INDERGIRI FINANCE LIMITED, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFF ICER 125, ASHOKA SHOPPING CENTRE, WARD 6(3), 2 ND FLOOR, L.T. MARG, NEAR G.T. JAIPUR. HOSPITAL, FORT, MUMBAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIPUL B. JOSHI & SHRI GO PAL SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL MATHUR DATE OF HEARING : 05.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.8.2011. ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 19/08/2011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY ASSESSEE COMPANY RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. APPEAL IN ITA NO. 598/JP/2010 IS AGAINST ORDER U NDER SECTION 263 PASSED BY LD. CIT AND THE OTHER APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1122/JP/2010 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) PASSED AGAINST ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECT ION 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. WE WILL TAKE FIRST APPEAL AGAINST ORDER UNDER SE CTION 263. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTING INITIATION OF PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 263 BY HOLDING THAT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) BY THE AO OR IGINALLY WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 2 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 24.12.2007 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF R S 25,22,340/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHAR ES AS BUSINESS LOSS AT RS. 54,20,000/-. THE AO BY INVOKING EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 HELD T HAT THIS IS NOT A BUSINESS LOSS BUT IT IS A SPECULATION LOSS. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE ALLOWABILITY OF LOSS AND SALE OF SHARES . QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE AO IS PLACED ON RECORD. THEREAFTER, AFTER EXAMINING THE ISSUE, THE AO HELD THAT BUSINESS LOSS IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE SAME IS SPECULATION IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY THE AO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS. 54,20,000/- AND AFTER ALLOWING BUSINESS LOSS AND UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION, TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED AT RS. 25,22,34 0/-. THE SPECULATION LOSS OF RS. 54,20,000/- WAS ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD FOR S ET OFF. THEREAFTER ON EXAMINATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD, THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT ASSES SEE HAS CLAIMED LOSS IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION OF SHARE SALE OF PRIVATE LIMITED COMPAN Y. AS THE TRANSACTION IN TRANSFER OF SHARES IS RESTRICTED IN NATURE NORMALLY THE ACTIVIT Y IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS INVESTMENT AND NOT TRADING. THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE LEGAL POSITION AND HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARES. THE LD. CIT NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED SHARES A T MUCH ABOVE THE FACE VALUE OF SHARE AND SOLD SHARE MUCH BELOW THE FACE VALUE OF SHARE. HOWEVER, NO ENQUIRY ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WAS MADE BY THE AO. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT OPINED THAT THE ORDER OF AO WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO TH E INTEREST OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY AN OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAI NING THAT WHY ORDER OF AO SHOULD NOT BE SET ASIDE. DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FI LED BEFORE LD. CIT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON 3 RECORD, THE LD. CIT HELD THAT THE AO HAS NOT EXAMIN ED THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF AO IS ER RONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF AO WAS SET ASIDE AND MATTER WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF AO TO PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER MAKING PROPER E NQUIRY AND AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FILED WRITTEN SU BMISSIONS. THE FACTUAL POSITION AS WELL AS LEGAL POSITION WAS EXPLAINED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. PHOTOCOPY OF THE NOTE SHEET OF THE AO BY WHICH VARI OUS ENQUIRIES WERE MADE WAS FILED BY THE LD. A/R ALSO. ATTENTION OF THE BENCH WAS D RAWN ON THE NOTING OF THE AO BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN SCRIP-WISE DET AILS OF SHARE TRADING GIVING DATE, AMOUNT, NUMBER OF SHARES IN RESPECT OF SALE/PURCHAS E OF SHARES. THE DETAILS OF SHAREHOLDING WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE FILED AND ASSE SSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FILE THE DETAILS HOW THE LOSS IS ALLOWABLE. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE AO HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE THOROUGHLY AND THEREAFTER THE AO HELD THAT TH E BUSINESS LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SHARE IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE LO SS IS SPECULATION IN NATURE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT (A) WH O HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT LD. CIT HAS ALREADY INIT IATED PROCEEDINGS AND THE ORDER OF AO HAS ALREADY BEEN SET ASIDE AND THE APPEAL FILED BEF ORE LD. CIT WAS DISMISSED AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL HERE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS ALSO FIXED FOR HEARING ALONG WITH THIS APPEAL UNDER SECTION 263. 8. THE LD. CIT D/R ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO ENQUIRY IN RESPECT OF GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE TRANSACTION WAS 4 MADE BY THE AO. THIS IS A CASE OF INADEQUATE ENQU IRY. THE LD. CIT HAS ONLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO TO MAKE ENQUIRY AFTER AFFORDING REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THEREFORE, ORDER OF LD. CIT DOES NOT SUFFER FROM A NY INFIRMITY. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDERED T HEM CAREFULLY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERI AL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED IN ITS APPEAL. IT IS NOTICED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH ACCOMPANYING STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT, ITS A UDITED REPORT, ANNUAL REPORT DEPICTING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS, DETAILS OF STOCK IN TRADING , DETAILS OF TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF SHARES. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT AO CONDUCTED EN QUIRY BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 6.7.2007 AND DATED 16.8.2007 COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT P AGES 44 TO 51 OF THE PAPER BOOK. REPLY WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPL Y DATED 23.7.2007 AND 20.11.2007, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 80 TO 86 OF TH E PAPER BOOK. IT IS SEEN THAT BY NOTICE DATED 6.7.2007 THE AO HAS REQUIRED FROM THE ASSESSE E TO FURNISH SCRIP-WISE DETAILS OF SHARES PURCHASED AND SOLD, COPY OF DE-MAT ACCOUNT M AINTAINED BY ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE LOSS IN SHARE TRADI NG ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS IN VIEW OF SECTION 73 OF THE IT A CT. DETAILS OF SHAREHOLDERS ALONG WITH THEIR SHAREHOLDING AND DATE OF ACQUISITION WAS ALSO REQUIRED ALONG WITH DETAILS OF BAD DEBT AND OTHER DETAILS REGARDING FINANCIAL SERVICES PROV IDED BY ASSESSEE AND MODUS OPERANDI OF BUSINESS. REPLY DATED 16.8.2007 WAS FILED, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 47 IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT DETAILS OF SCRIP-WISE SALE AND PU RCHASE AS ANNEXURE D IS FILED. REASON THAT LOSS ON TRADING OF SHARES NOT OF SPECUL ATIVE WAS ALSO FILED WHICH IS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE E. THE OTHER VARIOUS DETAILS AS REQU IRED BY AO WERE ALSO FILED. COPIES OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ARE ALSO PLACED ON RECO RD, WHICH WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE 5 REPLY BEFORE AO. THEREAFTER BY LETTER DATED 23.10. 2007 THE STATEMENT SHOWING DATE OF ACQUISITION OF SHARES AND DATE OF SALE WAS FILED AL ONG WITH THE STATEMENT SHOWING NAME, ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF THE DIRECTORS AND C OPY OF BILLS PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL SERVICES RENDERED BY THE COMPANY. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO. COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IS AL SO PLACED ON RECORD. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS SEEN THAT WHILE EXAMINING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LET TER DATED 16.8.2007 HAS SUBMITTED THE SCRIP-WISE TRADING STATEMENT FOR DELIVERY BASED TRA NSACTIONS. AS PER THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE DURING T HE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS SOLD 50,000 SHARES OF M/S. POLYMECH ENGINEERING PVT. LTD . WORTH RS. 50,00,000/- AT A SALE PRICE OF RS. 5,00,000/- ONLY AND DECLARED A LOSS OF RS. 45,00,000/- FROM THIS TRANSACTION. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 40,000 SHARES OF M/S. SHARPMIND DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD AT THE COST OF RS. 10,00,000/- AND HAS SOLD THE SHARES DURING THE YEAR AT RS. 80,000/- ONLY AND CLAIMED LOSS OF RS. 9,20,0 00/-. AS A RESULT OF BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TRADING LOSS OF RS. 54.20 LACS. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS SEGMENTS AND IN RESPONSE THERETO THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED D ETAILS OF SHARES FOR DELIVERY BASED TRANSACTIONS. A CONSOLIDATED TRADING ACCOUNT AS WE LL AS SCRIP-WISE TRADING ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FILED. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT COMPANY SUFFE RED LOSS IN SHARE TRADING. THE LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OWN TRADING HAS BEE N OFFSET BY THE FINANCIAL INCOME AND OTHER INCOME AND ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,75,744/- ONLY. THEREAFTER, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPLANATION TO SECTIO N 73, THE AO NOTICED THAT THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE A ND SALES OF SHARES ALONG WITH OTHER 6 DETAILS, HOWEVER, ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY REPLY TO THE SPECIFIC QUERY THAT WHY EXPLANATION TO SECTION 73 BE NOT INVOKED AND THE LO SS CLAIMED BE NOT TREATED AS SPECULATION LOSS. ACCORDINGLY HE TREATED THE LOSS AS SPECULATION IN NATURE AND THE DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED. 10. ON PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT IS AMPLY PROV ED THAT AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND HAS MADE ENQUIRY IN RESPECT TO PURCHASE AND SA LE OF SHARES. WHATEVER THE DETAILS WERE REQUIRED BY THE AO IN RESPECT TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, THEY WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEY WERE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE AO. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY AND WITHOUT APPLYI NG HIS MIND HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. FROM THE ORDER OF AO, IT IS CLEA RLY ESTABLISHED THAT AO HAS MADE ENQUIRY AND HAS APPLIED HIS MIND ALSO BECAUSE THE D EDUCTION CLAIMED ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS ON SALE OF SHARES AGAINST INCOME FROM FINANCIAL SER VICES RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO BY TREATING THE LOSS AS SPECUL ATION IN NATURE. DETAILED DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER AT PAGES 2 TO 5 OF HIS ORDER AND DISCUSSION ON THESE PAGES ARE ONLY IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF S HARES AND WHY LOSS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS SPECULATION IN NATURE. THE LD. CIT WANTS TO MAKE ENQUIRY IN A MANNER WHICH HE LIKES. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS MADE ENQ UIRY IN HIS OWN MANNER. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ONCE AN AUTHORITY HAS APPLIED HIS MIND BY ADOPTING A PARTICULAR MANNER, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THAT AUTHORITY CANNOT BE HE LD ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE ON THE GROUND THAT ENQUIRY SHOULD BE MAD E IN A PARTICULAR MANNER. IT IS THE AO WHO KNOWS THAT WHAT ENQUIRY HE SHOULD MAKE IN RESPE CT TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THE LD. CIT MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE AO SHOU LD HAVE ASKED FOR THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED. THE SHARES WERE 7 PURCHASED IN EARLIER YEAR AND THEY HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN STOCK-IN-TRADE AND IN EARLIER YEARS ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY COMPLETED, THEREFORE, THE AO THOUGHT IT PROPER NOT TO CALL FOR THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. HOWEVER, W HEN THE SHARES WERE SOLD AT A LOWER FACE VALUE THEN HE ENQUIRED THE MATTER AND TREATED THE LOSS AS SPECULATION IN NATURE. AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO, APPEAL WAS FILED BEFORE LD . CIT. IT MEANS THE VERY ISSUE WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL, THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASO N ALSO IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 263. 10.1. RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY LD. A/R ON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO. LTD., 243 ITR 83 (SC) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT BOTH THE CONDITIONS, THAT IS, THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AS W ELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, ARE CUMULATIVE. EVEN IF AN ORDER IS PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, BUT NOT ERRONEOUS THEN NO REVISION IS POSSIBLE. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO HAS MADE ENQUIRY. I T CAN BE A CASE OF INADEQUATE QUERY BUT ON ACCOUNT OF INADEQUATE QUERY IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT THE ORDER OF AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. EVEN T HE AO HIMSELF HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF SET OFF OF LOSS AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME AND THIS ISSUE IS BEFORE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE LD. CIT W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON T HE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GABRIEL INDIA LTD., 203 ITR 108 (BOM.) BY WHICH ERR ONEOUS ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF GABRIEL INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 CANNOT BE EXE RCISED AS JURISDICTIONALLY CORRECTIVE POWER OR AS A REVIEW OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY SUBORD INATE AUTHORITIES. THE POWER UNDER 8 SECTION 263 CAN BE INVOKED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CORRECTING SUCH WRONGS, WHICH HAVE TAKEN PLACE BECAUSE OF NON APPLICATION OF LAW OR FO R A WHOLLY INCORRECT APPLICATION OF LAW. 12. IN THE PRESENT CASE NO SUCH FACTS ARE INVOLVED AS AO HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND THEN ONLY PASSED AN ASSESSMENT BY TREATING THE BUSI NESS LOSS AS SPECULATION LOSS IN NATURE. RELIANCE HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON VARIOUS OTHER CASE S I.E. GIRDHARILAL B. ROHRA VS. CIT, 86 TTJ 177 (MUMBAI), MRS. KHATIZA S. OOMERBHOY VS. ITO , 100 ITD 173 (MUM.), CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD., 295 ITR 282 (SC) AND CIT VS. ARVIND JEWELLERS, 259 ITR 502 (GUJ.). WE HAVE CONSIDERED ALL THESE DECISIONS AND FOUND TH AT THEY ARE IN FAVOUR OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF AO BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AS THE AO HAS PASSED A JUDICIOUS ORDER BY MAKIN G ENQUIRY IN RESPECT TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT SETTING AS IDE OF ORDER OF AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT IS SET ASIDE AND T HE ORIGINAL ORDER OF AO IS RESTORED. 13. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF LD. CIT (A) IN ITA NO. 1122/JP/2010. 14. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), W E NOTED THAT LD. CIT (A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THA T ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY LD. CIT TO PASS A FRESH ORDER. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED . 15. WE HAVE ALREADY QUASHED THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 AND RESTORED THE ORDER OF AO. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE DECIDED ON MERIT BY LD. CIT (A) TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE GROUNDS RAISED BE FORE HIM. ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE 9 ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE TO PASS A FRESH ORDER AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 598/JP/2010 IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL IN ITA NO. 1122/JP/2010 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 .8.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- INDERGIRI FINANCE LTD., MUMBAI. THE ITO WARD 6(3), JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 598(2)/JP/2010) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.