TEJWANT SINGH, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 618/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5173 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R PATEEK JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: P C SHARMA
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

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 VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO.618 /JP/15 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH C/O THAKUR GUPTA & ASSOCIATES, 29, 1 ST FLOOR SANGAM COLONY, MAHAVEER MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR CUKE VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO.AETPS 1520 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. SHARMA (ADV.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI G.R. PATEEK. (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 25.05.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/06/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 28.04.2015 WHEREIN THE ASSSESSEE HAS TAKEN FO LLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: (I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 4,38,100/- U/S 27 1(1)(C) LEVIED BY THE ITO, WITHOUT PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAW AS THE LAW IS GOVERNED BY CPC AS PER THE PROVIS IONS OF INCOME TAX ACT THEREFORE THE PENALTY IMPOSED IS ILLEGAL AND UN JUSTIFIED AS ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED AND APPLYING THE IRRELEVANT CASES FOR CONFIRMING THE PENALTY WITHOUT CONFRONTING TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REBUTTAL UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. T HE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS.4,38,100/- MAY PLEASE BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 618/JP/15 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. 2 (II) THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 4,38,100/- U/S 271()1)(C) LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE D ECLARED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ANY IN FORMATION ON RECORD PRIOR TO THE DECLARATION BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE PENALTY OF RS. 4,38, 100/- MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. REGARDING GROUND NO. 2, THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE C ASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES HIS INCOME FROM JOB WORK RELATING TO DENTIN G AND WELDING WORK OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S KASHMERI WELDING & DENTING . THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.03.2009 DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,52,697/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AN ASSESSMEN T ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS PASSED ON 22/12/2010 DETERMINING TOTA L INCOME OF RS. 25,22,670/- WHEREIN A SUM OF RS.12.60 LACS SURRENDE RED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TAXABLE AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ANOTHER SU M OF RS. 59,971/- SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INTEREST INCOME AND THE SALAMI EXPENSES OF RS 10,50,000 WERE HELD NOT ALLOWABLE. THE SALAMI AMO UNT PAID TO THREE TENANTS WAS LATER DELETED BY THE HONBLE CIT(A) IN ITA NO. 750/10-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.02.2012. PURSUANT TO THIS, AO LEVIED PENALTY O F RS. 4,38,100/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS A S WELL AS INTEREST INCOME. 3.1 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE LET TER DATED 20.12.2010 SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.12.60 LACS AS SHORT TERM CA PITAL GAIN AND A SUM OF RS. 59,971/- AS INTEREST INCOME WHICH WAS ALSO ACCEPT ED BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER DATED 22.12.2010 WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME DISCLOSED AND SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSSEE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE AO FOR FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT ONLY WITH ONE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 10.50 LACS OF SALAMI AMOUNT PAID ITA NO. 618/JP/15 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. 3 TO THREE TENANTS WHICH WAS LATER ON DELETED BY THE HONBLE CIT(A) IN ITA NO. 750/10-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 03.02.2012 AND THE AMOUN T OF CAPITAL SURRENDERED AT RS. 12.60 LACS ATTAINED FINALLY AFTER THE APPEAL EFFECT. IT IS THUS EVIDENT THAT THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED WAS ASSESSED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERATION OF ANY FURTHER INFORMATION GATHERED B Y THE AO AND NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE AND THE ADDITION CAN THUS BE SAID TO BE ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AGARWAL ROUND ROLLING MILLS LTD. (2014) 88 CCH 036 ISCC HAS HELD THAT WHERE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPO SED U/S 271(1)(C). FURTHER IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHIV KUMAR JAISWAL (2013) 86 CCH 043 (ALLHC) THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (20 01) 251 ITR SC AND VIDE PARA 10 OF THE ORDER OBSERVED THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E SUPREME COURT AND STATED THAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA MITTAL (2001) 251 ITR 9 SC, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ADDITION AL INCOME TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID LITIGATION, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE LELVIED. THE CASE SIGHTED BY THE AO IN THE ORDER OF ITAT MA DRAS IS VERY OLD DECIDED IN 1998 AND HAS BEEN OVERRULED BY THE LATES T ABOVE CITED DECISIONS BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. IT IS THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,38,100/- MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 3.2 THE LR DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF BADRI PRASAD OMPRAKASH VS. CIT (163 ITR 440). 3.3 THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) ARE AS U NDER: ITA NO. 618/JP/15 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. 4 IT IS NOT DISPUTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE SURRENDE R OF INCOME AFTER BEING POINTED OUT BY THE AO. EVEN IF THERE IS A VO LUNTARY SURRENDER OF INCOME, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THERE IS AN AUTOMATIC IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY FROM CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. THIS HAS BEEN S O HELD BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P. LTD V S. CIT (2013) REPORTED IN 358 ITR 593. VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT IT IS STATUTORY DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO RECORD ALL THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF PAYMENTS MADE A ND RECEIVED AND DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED. IN VI EW OF THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE, IN THIS CASE, I DO NOT FIND ANY ILLEGALITY I N INITIATION AND LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE AO. IT HEL D BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE MAK DATA PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THAT THE AO HAS TO SATISFY HIMSELF WHETHER OR NOT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SHOULD B E INITIATED DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THAT T HE AO HAS DONE SO IN THIS CASE. FURTHER, DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDING, PROPER AND DUE OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE ON TW O OCCASIONS (AS MENTIONED ABOVE) BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO AVA IL THEM NOR FILED ANY SUBMISSION IN THIS REGARD. EVEN DURING THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDING ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AS TO WHY IN THIS CASE IMMUNITY F ROM PENALTY PROCEEDINGS CAN BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS CASE IS ATTRACTED BY THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND AO HAS CORRECTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY. THEREFORE, AOS ACTION IS JUSTIFIED AND SUSTAINED. ASSESSEES APPE AL FAILS. 3.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF IN COME ON 27.03.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,52,697/- WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 12.60 LAKHS AS WELL AS INTEREST INCOME OF RS 59,971 WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF LEVY OF PENALTY. THEREAFTER, A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 25.08.2009 AND SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S 14 2(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 26.10.2010. IN RESPONS E TO THE SAID NOTICE DATED 26.10.2010, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS SUBMISSION DATED 20.12.2010 SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS SOLD PLOT NO. 92 AAVASIYA YOJNA, GURUNANAKPU RA, RAJA PARK, JAIPUR FOR RS. 45 LACS AND THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 12.6 LACS WAS OFFERED BY WAY OF SURRENDER FOR TAXATION VIDE ITS ABOVE SAID SUBMISS ION. THE QUESTION THAT ARISE ITA NO. 618/JP/15 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. 5 FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER SUCH SURRENDER OF INC OME IN TERMS OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND INTEREST INCOME CAN BE TERMED AS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT OR NOT. AS PER THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE SURRENDER OF INCOME AFTER BEING POINTED OU T BY THE AO AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TERMED AS VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED. SIMIL ARLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.59,971/- IN TERMS OF INTEREST RECEIVED FROM SA VINGS BANK ACCOUNT WAS SURRENDERED AS PART OF THE SAID SUBMISSION WHICH TH E AUTHORITIES HAVE AGAIN HELD AS NOT VOLUNTARILY ON THE PART OF THE APPELLA NT. RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P . LTD, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF THE PENALTY. 3.5 AS PER THE LD. AR, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AS THE AMO UNT SURRENDERED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WITHOUT CONSIDERING ANY FURTHER INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE AO AND THE FACT THAT NO OTHER INFORMATION WAS A VAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE, THE ADDITION CAN ONLY TO BE SAID TO BE ON ACCOUNT O F AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. AGARWAL ROUND ROLLING MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) WAS B ROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISI ON DATED 17.01.2014 SUPERSEDES THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT IN CASE OF MAK DATA P. LTD. WHICH WAS PRONOUNCED ON 30.10.2013. 3.6 FIRSTLY REGARDING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELL ANT THAT THE SURRENDER WAS VOLUNTARILY DONE BY THE APPELLANT. IN OUR VIEW THE SAID CONTENTIONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR BROADLY TWO REASONS. THE APPELLANT HA D FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.03.2009 AND IT HAD AMBLE TIME TO FILE A REVI SED RETURN OFFERING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX HOWEVER THE APPELLANT FA ILED TO DO SO FOR THE REASONS ITA NO. 618/JP/15 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. 6 BEST KNOWN TO HIM. FURTHER EVEN AT THE TIME OF ISS UANCE OF THE FIRST NOTICE U/S 143(2) WHERE THE MATTER WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY T HE APPELLANT DID NOT CAME FORWARD TO OFFER THE SAID INCOME TO TAX. THEREAFTE R ON ISSUANCE OF THE DETAIL QUESTIONNAIRE ALONGWITH NOTICE U/S 142(1) DATED 26. 10.2010 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SPECIFIC QUESTION RAISED BY THE AO, THE APPELLA NT CAME FORWARD AND SURRENDERED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN TO TAX VIDE ITS SUBMISSIONS DATED 20.12.2010. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BADRI PRASAD OMPRAKASH VS. CIT (163 ITR 440 ) WHERE THE HONBLE COURT HAD HELD THAT: WHERE THERE ARE QUERIES BY THE TRIBUNAL OR THE AUT HORITY CONCERNED AND THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ITS FACT ON THE DIRECTION OF T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITY AND SUBSEQUENTLY FILES A REVISED RETURN, HE CANNOT ESCA PE LIABILITY FOR PENALTY BY FILING SUCH REVISED RETURN BECAUSE IT CANNOT BE SA ID THAT IT IS A WILFUL ACT OF FILING A REVISED RETURN BUT IT CAN BE SAID THAT I T IS AN ACT UNDER COMPULSION AS THE MATTER HAS COME OUT AND THE PARTIES WERE FILING REVISED RETURN FOR TAKING DIFFERENCE IN ANTICIPATED PROCEEDINGS OF PENALTY. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DR. R.C. GUPTA (122 ITR 567) WHERE THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT HAD HELD THAT: IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT A CERTAIN AMOUNT REPRESENTED HIS INCOME, NO FURTHER EVIDENCE WOULD BE NECESSARY TO SHOW THAT IT WAS THE AMOUNT WHICH REPRESENTED HIS INCOME AND / OR THAT IT REPRESENTED HIS CONCEALED INCOME ITA NO. 618/JP/15 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. 7 IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DECISIONS, WE DO NOT CONCUR W ITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR THAT THE SURRENDER WAS MADE WITHOUT CONSIDE RING OF ANY FURTHER INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE AO AND THERE IS A VOLU NTARY SURRENDER BY THE ASSESSEE. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED HIS CONSIDERATION ON SALE OF PROPERTY AND SHORT CAPITAL GAINS IS TAXABLE , WE DO NOT SEE A NECESSITY TO PUT FURTHER ONUS ON THE REVENUE TO GATHER ANY FURTH ER INFORMATION TO BRING THE SAID AMOUNT TO TAX. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT B ELIEVE THAT THE SURRENDER WAS VOLUNTARY IN THE INSTANT CASE AS THE SAME HAS BEEN SURRENDERED SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUANCE OF SPECIFIC NOTICES AND RAISING OF SPECIFI C QUESTIONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.7 FURTHER WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISIONS OF T HE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MAK DATA (SUPRA) AS WELL AS SUBSEQ UENT ORDER IN CASE OF AGARWAL ROUND ROLLING MILLS LTD. (SUPRA) WHERE THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE LD AR THAT SUBSEQU ENT DECISION IN CASE OF AGARWAL ROUND ROLLING MILLS LTD SUPERSEDES THE EARL IER DECISION OF MAK DATA. THE REASONS FOR THE SAME ARE TWO-FOLD. FIRSTLY, IT IS TRUE THAT BETWEEN TWO DECISIONS OF BENCHES OF EQUAL STRENGTH OF THE SUPRE ME COURT, THE LATER DECISION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED PROVIDED THE EARLIER DECISION IS CONSIDERED AS HELD IN CIT VS THANE ELECTRIC (206 ITR 727). IN CASE OF AGARWAL RO UND ROLLING MILLS LTD, THE EARLIER DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CA SE OF MAK DATA WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT BENCH. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN C ASE OF AGARWAL ROUND ROLLING MILLS LTD SUPERSEDES THE EARLIER DECISION I N CASE OF MAK DATA AND SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE INSTANT CASE. ITA NO. 618/JP/15 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. 8 SECONDLY, THE SUPREME COURT HAS ELABORATELY DEALT W ITH THE EFFECT OF ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF A SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN KUNHAYAMMED VS. STATE OF KERALA (245 ITR 360) AND HAS HELD THAT WHEN THER E IS A REFUSAL OF SPECIAL LEAVE TO APPEAL IN A NON-SPEAKING ORDER, I.E. AN OR DER THAT DOES NOT ASSIGN REASONS FOR THE DISMISSAL OF THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETI TION, IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO A DECLARATION OF THE LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT, SINCE THERE IS NO LAW THAT HAS BEEN DECLARED. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE REFUSAL IS IN THE FORM OF A SPEAKING ORDER, IT THEN BECOMES A DECLARATION OF LA W WITHIN THE MEANING OF ART 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION BINDING NOT ONLY ON THE PAR TIES BUT ALSO ON ALL JUDICIAL FORA IN THE COUNTRY. THUS, THE MERE FACT THAT THE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF AGARWAL ROUND ROLLING MILLS LTD HAS REFUSED TO GRANT SPECIAL LEAV E TO APPEAL AGAINST A JUDGEMENT OF THE HIGH COURT, IT DOES NOT MEANS THA T IT IS A DECLARATION OF LAW WHICH SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 3.8 IN OUR VIEW, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MAK DATA HAS RIGHTLY BEEN APPLIED BY THE LD CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY THERE IN AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. HENCE, GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/06 /2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.P. TOLANI ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 30/ 06/2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI TEJWANT SINGH, JAIPUR ITA NO. 618/JP/15 SHRI TEJWANT SINGH VS. ITO WARD 1(4), JAIPUR. 9 2. THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD 1(4), JAIPUR 3. THE CIT(A) I, JAIPUR 4. THE CIT-I, JAIPUR 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 618 /JP/15 ) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR