GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO., Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 61/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5378 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS PREMLATA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 145; 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 61/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO., A-34, GANESH NAGAR, SHYOPUR ROAD, SANGANER, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-7, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AADFG 4615 N VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. JAIN (ADV) & MRS. PREMLATA (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19/02/2016 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/03/2016 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 14/12/2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, JAIPUR FOR A.Y. 2012-13. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELL ANT ARE AS UNDER:- 1 THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ER RED IN LAW AND FACTS IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 2 145(3) WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR AND PAPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DULLY AUDITED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND EXPENSE ARE VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY E RRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT ACCEPTING CBDT CIRCULAR OFFIC IAL MEMORANDUM [F.NO. 279/MISC/52/2014-(ITJ] DT. 07/11/2014 ISSUED U/S 119 (2) OF THE IT ACT WHICH IS BINDING ON ALL OFFICERS EMPLOYED IN THE EXECUTION O F THE ACT [ NAVNEET LAI JHAVERI V/S K.K. SEN.AAC (1965) 5 6 ITR 198 (SC), AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO MADE IS WITHOUT JURISDICTIONS, ILLEGAL AND VOID AB-I NITIO. 3. THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ER RED IN LAW AND FACTS IN MAKING/ CONFIRMING TRADING ADDIT ION OF RS. 93,51,479/- AND NOT PLACING RELIANCE ON THE PAST HISTORY OF CASE. THE DEPARTMENT, ITAT, HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS ESTIMATED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF NET PROF IT THEORY, SINCE LAST MANY YEARS AND THE SAME CANNOT B E DISTURBED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGUISHING FEAT URE. 'PAST IS THE BEST GUIDE' YEAR TURNOVER NP DECLARED % OF NP DECLARED % APPLIED IN ASSTT. BY A.O APPEAL EFFECT 2012 - 13 153853690 7610364 4.95 1 1% CIT(A) CONF. 11% 2011 - 12 20556421 740615 3.60 5% NO APPEAL 2010 - 11 109639345 5117816 4.67 5% CIT(A) CONF. 5% 2010 - 11 109639345 5117816 4.67 5% CIT(A) CONF. 5% 2009 - 10 123257523 6629223 5.38 VARIOUS ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ADHOC ADDIT ION CONFIRMED BY ITA1 RS.5 LACS (HC. DISMISSED GOV. AP. 2008 - 09 106227305 5338548 5.02 5.02 ACCEPTED WITHOUT SCRUTINY ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 3 2007 - 08 48834743 2489297 5.10 5.10 ACCEPTED WITHOUT SCRUTINY 2006 - 07 21090878 1056688 5.01 6.00 5% BY ITAT 2005 - 06 12632146 471641 3 .73 6.00 5% BY ITAT 2004 - 05 24003129 852775 3.55 8.00 5% BY ITAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTICAL WITH THE PAST AND THEREFORE PREVIOUS YEARS NET PROFIT RATE SHOUL D HAVE BEEN APPLIED CIT(A) INSTEAD OF NET PROFIT 11%. 4. THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING THIRD PARTY INTEREST FROM NET PROFIT DETERMINED BY APPLING NET PROFIT THEORY. 5. THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN TAXING BANK INTEREST AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS ON FUNDS LYING IN THE BUSINESS. 6. THAT THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S, 234(B) OF RS. 1,58/436/- , 234(D) OF RS.2,41,396/- & 244(A)RS. 2,32,703/-. 2. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTI ON WORK. THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED ITS RETURN ON 26/09/2012 DECLAR ING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 25,68,360/-. THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) /144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO TAL CONTRACT RECEIPT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT RS. 15,38,53 ,690/- AND NET PROFIT OF RS. 76,10,364/-, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 4 PARTNERS YIELDING NET PROFIT RATE OF 4.95% AS COMPA RED TO CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 2,05,56,431/- AND NET PROFIT OF 8.2 6% FOR A.Y. 2011-12. ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE AGAINST REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A SSESSMENT OUT OF JURISDICTION, NOT CONSIDERED THE PAST HISTORY OF TH E CASE, NOT ALLOWED THIRD PARTY INTEREST AND TREATING INTEREST INCOME A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CHARGING INTEREST UNDER VARIOUS SECTION S. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER, CONSUMPTION REGISTER, OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK INVENTORY. THE AUDIT REPORT, NO COMMENT ON IT. THE ASSESSEE DID NO T HAVE PARTY WISE PURCHASE DETAILS OF RS. 9,39,39,576/-, WHICH IS NOT SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD NOT PRODUCED PUR CHASE VOUCHERS. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED PAYMENT OF LABOUR AT R S. 13,15,039/-, FOR WHICH NO PAYMENT REGISTER HAD BEEN MAINTAINED AND NO VOUCHERS WERE AVAILABLE FOR THESE CASH PAYMENTS. THE ASSESSEE ALS O CLAIMED OTHER DEDUCTION OF RS. 2,58,415/-, ROYALTY OF RS. 10,19,1 62/- AND SALES TAX OF RS. 23,12,462/- FOR WHICH NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HA D BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ALSO CLAIMED PRINT ING & STATIONARY EXPENSES, VEHICLE REPAIRING EXPENSES, REPAIR AND MA INTENANCE EXPENSES AND OFFICE EXPENSES WITHOUT ANY BILL VOUCHERS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 5 ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DA TES BUT NO COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE PARTNERS OF THE FIR M. SUMMONS TO ALL THE PARTNERS WERE ALSO ISSUED TO MAKE COMPLIANCE OF QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVEN NOTICE U/S 131, NO PARTN ER ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DECIDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF NET PROFIT AND CONSIDERING THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE. HE ALSO APPLIED SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND RELIED ON THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF S.N. NAMASIVAYAM CHETTIAR VS. CIT 38 ITR 579 AND VED PRAK ASH VS. CIT 191 CTR 168/210 ITR 486. IN IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR, TH E ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT RATE @ 8.26%. AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS FACTS, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED 11% NP RATE ON TOTAL C ONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 15,38,53,690/- AND ADDITION OF RS. 93,51,579/- WAS MADE IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THE INTEREST INCOME ALSO ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 23,94,707/-. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WH O HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT COMPLETE BILLS/VOUCHERS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, REJECTION U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED. IT IS ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 6 FURTHER HELD THAT IN A.Y. 2011-12, THE NET PROFIT H AS BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE @ 12.7%. IN THIS YEAR, THE NET PROFIT B EFORE INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION IS DOWN TO 6.48% WHICH HAS BEEN TABULATE D IN APPEAL ORDER BY THE LD CIT(A). SHE FURTHER HELD THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN APPLYING THE N.P. RATE @ 11% SUBJECT TO INTEREST, REMUNERATION AND DEPRECIATION. THE INTEREST TO THE T HIRD PARTY HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ALLOWED BY HER ON THE BASIS OF A.Y. 2011-12 AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND DID NOT FILE ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE PRINCIPL E OF CONSISTENCY, SHE FOUND NO REASONS TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE FURTHER HELD THAT INTEREST U/S 234(B), 234(D) A ND 244(A) ARE CONSEQUENTIAL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ARGUED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAS N OT CONSIDERED THE ASSESSEES PAST HISTORY BY ESTIMATING THE PROFIT. H E HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON HONBLE ITAT IN A.Y. 2006-07, 2005-06 A ND 2004-05 HAD DECIDED THE APPEAL BY ACCEPTING NET PROFIT RATE @ 5% IN ALL THE YEARS. IN A.Y. 2009-10, A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONBLE ITAT WHEREAS NET PROFIT RATE DISCLOSE D BY THE ASSESSEE @ 5.38%. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS MAINTAINED ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 7 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONSISTING OF CASH BOOK, LEDGER, P URCHASE VOUCHERS, CASH PAYMENT VOUCHERS, BANK STATEMENT, LOAN STATEME NT ETC. THE ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT BY THE QUA LIFIED PERSON, WHO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT, WHICH WAS ALSO PRODU CED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, INVOCATION OF PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 145(3) HAS NO MERIT. HE FURTHER RELIED VARIOUS DECISIONS O F THE VARIOUS COURTS ON REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER IT IS ARG UED THAT EVEN IN INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 DOES NOT CONFIRM BLIND POWER UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SHE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE THE INCOME AT WHATEVER FIGURES SHE WANTS. SHE IS BOUND TO MAKE AN H ONEST ESTIMATION OF INCOME ON THE BASIS OF PAST HISTORY, LOCAL KNOWLE DGE AND COMPARABLE CASE AFTER CONFRONTING WITH THE TREADING RESULT. AN ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND WILD ESTIMATION HAS DONE IN THE PRESENT CASE, AR E NOT AT ALL PERMITTED IN THE EYES OF LAW, FOR WHICH HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF BRIJ BHUSHAN LAL PARDUMAN KUMAR VS. CIT 115 ITR 524 (SC). HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT EVEN BOOKS ARE REJECTED U/S 145 , IT IS NOT MANDATORY IN EACH AND EVERY CASE, ADDITION IS REQUI RED TO BE MADE AS HELD BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. GOTAN LIME KHANIZ UDYOG 256 ITR 243 (RAJ.). THE APPELLANT HAD DI SCLOSED BETTER NET PROFIT THIS YEAR COMPARED TO PRECEDING YEAR. EV EN AVERAGE NET PROFIT ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 8 OF LAST SIX YEARS, IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED LAW WHERE THERE IS AN AD HOC APPLICATION OF NP RATE, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION, INTEREST PAID TO THE THIR D PARTY FOR WHICH HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH DECISION IN THE CASE OF MOHATA CONS. CO. VS ITO 21 TW 257 (JP), ITO VS GOP ALARAM PREMARAM 24 TW 442 (JP) AND VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS OF HONBLE ITAT, JODHPUR. FINALLY HE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE BOOK R ESULT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD CIT(A)S ORDER IS WELL REASONED AND HAD ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED ALL THE FA CTS AND LEGAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCE D COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THEREFORE, REJECTION OF BOOKS U/S 145 OF THE ACT IS JUSTIFIED AND ALSO NET PROFIT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE LD CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PR ODUCED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD ASSE SSING OFFICER OR LD ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 9 CIT(A), THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF COMPLETE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEDUCED CORRECTLY. THEREFORE , WE UPHOLD THE REJECTION U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE LD AR CHALLENGE D THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AS WELL A S BEFORE US BUT THERE IS NO BASIS ON WHICH JURISDICTION HAS BEEN CHALLENGE D BY THE LD AR, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT ON RAISING GROUND NO. 2 BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. WHEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAD BEEN REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ONLY OPTION IS LEFT BEFORE H IM TO ESTIMATE FAIR INCOME ON THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES AND NATURE OF THE BUSINESS BY COMPARING THE CASE OF BY COLLECTING THE EVIDENCES. THE NET PROFIT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS 4.95% BEFORE INTERE ST AND REMUNERATION ON TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 15,38,53,690/-, WHI CH WAS 3.6% IN PRECEDING YEAR ON TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 2.0 5 CRORES. THE LOWER AUTHORITY ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT @ 11%, WHICH IS HI GHER SIDE AS IN A.Y. 2011-12 AND 2010-11 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTI MATED NET PROFIT RATE @ 5%. IN A.Y. 2009-10 ALSO VARIOUS AD HOC DISAL LOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON NET PROFIT RATE @ 5 .38% ON TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 12.32 CRORES. THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS CONFIRMED THE LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS. EVEN FROM A.Y. 2004-05 ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 10 TO 2008-09 THE ASSESSEE EITHER DISCLOSED NET PROFIT RATE MORE OR LESS 5% OR ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT @ 5% SUBJECT TO INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNERS. THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2009-10 WAS BEFORE THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WHERE LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5 L ACS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THIRD PARTY INT EREST FROM THE NET PROFIT RATE ESTIMATED BUT ON VERIFICATION OF THE PA ST HISTORY, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER CLAIMED THIRD PARTY INTERES T AGAINST THE NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREF ORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT ON GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. SIMILARLY INTEREST ON FDR HAS ALSO BEEN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSES SEE IN PAST. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DISTURB THE C ONSISTENCY OF THE CASE. THE NET PROFIT RATE APPLIED @ 11% IS HIGHER SID E EVEN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REJECTED AS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BU T THE BUSINESS RESULT CAN BE COMPARED FROM THE OTHER CASES, WHICH H AS ALSO NOT BEEN APPLIED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITY EVEN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION BY THE LD CIT(A). KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CA SE, WE APPLY N.P. RATE @ 5.5% SUBJECT TO INTEREST AND REMUNERATION TO THE PARTNER. THE ITA 61/JP/2016_ M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. VS DCIT 11 ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE THE INCO ME AS PER OBSERVATION MADE BY US. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/03/2016. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 04 TH MARCH, 2016 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- M/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO., JAIP UR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-7, 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. 61/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR