DCIT, Jaipur V. GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LIMTITED, Jaipur

ITA 639/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5532 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: G G MUNDRA
• Keywords: Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 10AA; 147; 148

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 VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH YFYR DQEKJ] U;KF; D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI T.R.MEENA, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 639/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LIMITED, 40-PANCHRATNA, M.S.B. KA RASTA, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACG 7934 Q VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT IZR;K{KSI.K @ C.O. NO. 51/JP/2013 (ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 639/JP/2013) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LIMITED, 40-PANCHRATNA, M.S.B. KA RASTA, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA- @ PAN/GIR NO.: AAACG 7934 Q IZR;K{KSID @ OBJECTOR IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA ( ADDL.CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.G. MUNDRA (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19/11/2015 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/01/2016 ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 2 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M.: THE APPEAL BY REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY ASSESS EE ARISE FROM THE ORDER DATED 16/04/2013 OF LD. CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR. EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES C.O. ARE AS U NDER:- GROUNDS IN REVENUE APPEAL. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- 1. PASSING A PERVERSE ORDER IN HOLDING THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 WERE INVALID AND THEREBY IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. RELYING ON THE IRRELEVANT DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IGNORING THE SPECIFIC AND RELEVANT DECISIONS CITED BY THE A.O. IN HER ORDER. 3. HOLDING THAT ALL MATERIAL FACTS HAVE BEEN DISCLO SED FOR OBTAINING THE BENEFITS U/S 10AA. 4. FOR QUASHING ASSESSMENT ON LEGAL GROUND AND THEREAFTER DISCUSSING IT ON MERITS AS WELL. GROUNDS IN CROSS OBJECTION 1. THE LD CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 147/148 IN CASE WERE BAD I N LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS INVALID WHICH DECISION IS BASED ON CORRECT APPRECIATION OF LAW AND ON EXAMINATION OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON ASSESSMENT RECORD. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED AND CORRECT IN LAW I N GIVING ALTERNATE FINDING ON MERIT EVEN AFTER HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS INVALID IN LAW THAT ENTIRE INCOM E ASSESSED IN IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT U/S 147/148 WAS EXEMPT U/S 10AA OF IT ACT, 1961 BY FOLLOWING THE ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 3 APPEAL ORDER AND ORDER OF HONBLE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON THE SAME ISSUE. 2. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF T RADING AND MANUFACTURING OF PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES, . DIAMOND AND STUDDED GOLD JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSEE FIRM FILED ITS R ETURN ON 21/10/2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 35,73,020/-. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 10/12/2009 AT RS. 43,69,520/-. THE LD ASS ESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION OF RS. 2,55,79,596/- U/S 10AA. HE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD TWO UNITS OUT OF WHICH ONE UNIT WAS SET UP DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN SEZ AT SURAT (GUJARAT). IN THE SEZ UNIT, THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY IMPORT AND RE-EXPORT OF DIAMONDS AS WAS EVIDENT FROM P&L ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO MANU FACTURING OR PROCESSING ACTIVITY WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS UNIT WHEREAS IT HAD CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT AT RS. 2,55,7 9,596/- ON THE INCOME OF SURAT SEZ UNIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y WAS NOT ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OR PRODUCING ARTICLES OF THINS OR PROVIDING ANY SERVICES AND MERELY ENGAGED IN TRADING ACTIVITY WHICH WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 4 AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS IN WRITING HAD ISSUED NO TICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 30/3/2012. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT HAD FILED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 43,69,520/- ON 24/4/2012. COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED WERE PROVIDE D TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE REOPENING U/S 147 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY HIM ON PAGE NOS. 3 TO 1 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING TRADIN G, WHICH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS SERVICE, THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED DEDU CTION U/S 10AA OF THE ACT AT RS. 2,55,79,596/-. ALTERNATIVELY, HE ALSO AP PORTIONED THE EXPENSES BETWEEN THE SEZ UNIT AND NON-SEZ UNIT ON ACCOUNT OF DIRECTORS REMUNERATION. 3. ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE AGAI NST QUASHING THE REOPENING PROCEEDING BY THE LD CIT(A) ON THE GROUND OF CHANGE OF OPINION WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES C.O. IN SUPPORT OF TH E ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). IN APPEAL, THE LD CIT(A) HAD THOROUGHLY EXAMI NED THE ISSUE OF REOPENING U/S 147 AND HELD THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 10/12/2009. THE LD ASSESSING OF FICER CONSIDERED THE ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 5 CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 10AA MADE BY THE APPELLANT W HILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. HE VERIFIED THE SALE AND PURCHASE, DETAILS OF WAGES AND OTHER EXPENSES AS WELL. AFTER VERIFICATION OF THESE DETAILS, HE UPHELD THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 10AA SUBJECT TO CERTAIN DISALLOWANCES. SHE HAS REPRODUCED THE FINDIN G OF ASSESSING OFFICER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 10/12/2009 ON PAGE 4 OF HER ORDER. SHE FURTHER HELD THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FI NALIZING THE INCOME INITIALLY U/S 143(3), THE SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDING INI TIATED U/S 147 ARE BAD IN LAW AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC), ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION AT THE TIME OF REOPENING THE CASE, THERE WAS NO TANGIBLE MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REOPENING TH E CASE. SHE ALSO DISCUSSED THE VARIOUS OTHER HIGH COURTS DECISION O N THIS ISSUE ON PAGE NO. 5 OF THE APPEAL ORDER. SHE ALSO RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S GANESH HOUSIN G CORPORATION LTD. VS DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 131 (GUJ) ON SUPPRESSION OF M ATERIAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND SECOND OPINION FORMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO EXERCISE JURISDICTION. SHE FUR THER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F OHM STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. VS CIT (2013) 351 ITR 443 (BOM) ON REVIEWING THE EARLIER ORDER ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 6 PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSED MATERIAL FACT FOR THE ASSESSMEN T. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS FOR ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 10AA AND ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T BY FORMING OPINION, THEREFORE, REOPENING BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IS REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUS ORDER, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW. ACCORDINGLY SHE QUASHED THE REOPENING PROCEEDING. 4. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND ASSESSEE IN C.O. BEFORE US. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND ARGUED THAT SEZ UNIT OF SURAT WAS INVOLVED IN IMPORT ING AND EXPORTING THE DIAMOND AND WAS DOING TRADING ACTIVITY. THESE FACTS H AD NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO HAD NO T DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, REOPENING WAS JUSTIFIED. 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REI TERATED THE ARGUMENTS MADE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 HAS BEEN INITIATED BY LD. A .O. IS MERELY ON CHANGE OF OPINION. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WELL AWARE ABOUT THE PRIMARY FAC TS, VIZ, THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE CLAIM WAS MADE, AND THE PROVISION OF LAW WHICH COULD BE APPLIED WHILE GRANTING THE ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 7 DEDUCTION, AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSCIOUSLY CO NSIDERED THE FACTS & SUBMISSIONS MADE BY ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS (P.B. PAGE 1 3) REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION AND ARRIVED A T A DECISION, THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED MERELY BECAUSE SUBSEQ UENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CHANGES HIS OPINION OR SOME OTHER OFFICER TAKES A DIFFERENT VIEW. A DECISION IS RIGHT OR WRONG IS NONE OF THE CONCERN OF THE SUBSEQUENT OFFICER. (REFER SITA WORLD TRAVEL (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2005) 274 ITR 186) . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (2010) 320 ITR 561 (SC) HELD THAT THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE OPEN AN ASSESSMENT DOES NOT STAND OBLITERATED AFTER THE SUBSTITUTION O F SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDME NT) ACTS, 1987 AND 1989. AFTER THE AMENDMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T, BUT THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN AN ASSE SSMENT ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE CONCEPT OF CHANGE OF OPINIO N MUST BE TREATED AS AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK THE ABUSE OF POWER. IN A RECENT JUDGMENT BY FULL BENCH OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (2012) 348 ITR 485 THE COURT HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION CHANGE OF OPINI ON POSTULATES FORMATION OF OPINION AND THEN A CHANGE T HEREOF. IN THE CONTEXT ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 8 OF SECTION 147 IT IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R SHOULD HAVE FORMED AN OPINION AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, I.E. IN THE PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND NOW BY INITIATION OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING , THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSES OR WANTS TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW. TH E SAME VIEW WAS HELD BY DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. EICHER LTD. (200 7) 297 ITR 310 (DEL). IN A RECENT JUDGMENT THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ADJUDICATED ON SIMILAR FACTS IN THE CASE OF M/S GANESH HOUSING COR PORATION LTD. VS. DCIT (2013) 350 ITR 131 (GUJ.) WHILE ADJUDICATING IN FAVO UR OF THE ASSESSEE IT HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE MATERI ALS RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GETTING THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80-IB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AND THERE WAS NO SUPPRESSION OF MATERIALS. IN SPITE OF FULL DISCLOSURE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE PROVISION BY CONSIDERING THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND THUS, IT CO ULD NOT BE SAID THAT ANY INCOME ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE CONDITION PRECEDE NT FOR EXERCISING POWER OF REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AS PROVIDED IN SEC TION 147 OF THE ACT WAS ABSENT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACTED ILLEGALLY IN ISSUING NOTICE OF REASSESSMENT BY FORMING A SECOND OPINION ON THE SEL F SAME MATERIALS WITHOUT HAVING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL TO EXERCISE J URISDICTION. THE LD. A.O. REOPENED ASSESSMENT BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 AFTER 4 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND THEREFORE ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 9 RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON A RECENT JUDGMENT ON SIM ILAR FACTS BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF OHM STOCK BROK ERS PVT. LTD. V/S CIT (2013) 351 ITR 443 (BOM.) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE COU RT HELD THAT RE- ASSESSMENT NOTICE AFTER 4 YEARS IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143 (3) WOULD TANTAMOUNT TO PREVI EWING THE EARLIER ORDER PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE WAS NO FAILURE ON THE P ART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FULLY AND TRULY DISCLOSE MATERIAL FACTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT. IT WILL BE CLEAR FROM THESE JUDGMENTS THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS WILL BE INVALID IN CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF RECORDS THAT TH E ISSUE WAS RAISED AND IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE SAID CASES WILL BE HIT BY PRINCIPLE OF CHANGE OF OP INION. REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WILL BE INVALID IN CASE AN ISSUE OR QUER Y IS RAISED AND ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS BUT THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN SUCH SITUATIONS IT SHOULD BE A CCEPTED THAT THE ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY GROUND OR REASON TO MAKE ADDITION OR REJECT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FORMS AN OPINION. THE REASSESSMENT WILL BE INVALID BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FORMED AN OPINION IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, T HOUGH HE MAY NOT RECORD HIS REASONS. THERE IS NO DECISION CITED BY LD . A.O. IN RESPECT TO ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 10 HOLD THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 INITIATED BY HIM WAS V ALID IN LAW AND ALL THE DECISIONS CITED WERE TOWARDS MERIT OF ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S 10AA OF I. T. ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND POSITI ON OF LAW THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS CORRECT IN LAW WHICH DESERVES TO BE CONFIRM ED. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY DEPARTMENT HAVE NO MERIT, WHICH DESERVES T O BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN FIRST SCRUTINY ASSESSME NT U/S 143(3) DATED 10/12/2009 HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE PURCHASES AND SAL ES OF NON-SEZ UNIT, SEZ UNIT AND THE FACT OF THE SURAT SEZ UNIT WERE ALS O SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ASSESSMENT. THEREAFTER ON SAME FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, HE REOPE NED THE CASE U/S 147 EVEN HE DID NOT HAVE ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL WITH HIM ON WHICH HE CAN FORM OPINION ON IT. WHEN IN FIRST SCRUTINY ASSESSME NT, ALL THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAD BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AL L MATERIAL FULLY AND TRULY HAS BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER CANNOT REVIEW ITS OWN ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME MATERIA L AND INFORMATION. IT IS ONLY CHANGE OF OPINION, WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE LAW. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR INDIA LTD. (SUPRA) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. THE LD DR HAD N OT CONTROVERTED THE ITA 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013_ DCIT VS. M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LTD. 11 FINDING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A) AND THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). WHEN THE MATTER HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BEN CH ON TECHNICAL GROUND, WE HAVE NOT DECIDED THE REVENUES APPEAL ON MERIT. 8. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AND C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/01/2016. SD/- SD/- YFYR DQEKJ VH-VKJ-EHUK (LALIET KUMAR) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 22 ND JANUARY, 2016 * RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S GOENKA DIAMOND & JEWELS LIMITED, 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. 639/JP/2013 & CO 51/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR