SMT. NIRMALA AGARWAL, Jaipur V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-5, Jaipur

ITA 645/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4580 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VEDANTA AGARWAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rejection of books of accounts; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Question of law; Tangible material; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove; Retraction; Set aside
• Section: 133(6); 143(1); 13; 145(3); 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH B, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O A JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10. SMT. NIRMALA AGARWAL, C/O AKHILESH JAIN, CA A-411,TRIVENI NAGAR, GOPALPURA BYE-PASS ROAD, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO. ABPPA 5989 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VEDANTA AGARWAL (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. MEHALA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/02/2020. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21 /02/2020. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 OF LD. CIT (A)-2, JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE 'R EASSESSMENT' BASED ON (I) REASONS HAVING NO SANCTION OF THE APPR OPRIATE AUTHORITY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PRIO R TO ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT; (II) ALLEGED INFORMATION OBTAINED F ROM A PERSON (I.E .THE SUPPLIER MR. RAJENDRA JAIN) BY WAY OF STATEMENTS U/ S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORDS ANY CORR OBORATIVE EVIDENCES TO 2 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. SUPPORT THE SAID STATEMENTS, (THE SAID STATEMENTS W ERE LATER ON RETRACTED BY DULY SWORN AFFIDAVIT); (III) WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAID PERSON AND ALSO TO CROSS VERIFY THE ACCOUNTING RECORDS OF SUPPLIER FIRMS WITH WHICH THE SAID PERSO N WAS ASSOCIATED TO ELICIT THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENTS (IV) WITHOUT GIVING COMPLETE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS OF OTHER PERSONS REFERRED TO IN THE STATEMENTS OF SAID PERSON FOR REBUTTAL BY THE ASSES SEE; AND (V) RELYING UPON JUDICIAL DECISIONS, FACTS OF WHICH WERE DIFFERENT O R OVERRULED IN SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS AND NOT CONSIDERING THE JUDICIAL DECISION S HAVING IDENTICAL FACTS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING PURCHASES OF DIAMONDS AGGREGATING RS.36651505/= (WHICH WERE EXPORTED OUT OF COUNTRY AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION BY THE CUSTOM AUTHORITIES) AS B OGUS AND SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 7533550/- (AS PER ARITHMETIC CALCUL ATION, THE AMOUNT COMES TO RS.6597271/ ) BY APPLYING PROFIT RATE OF 1 8.00% ON SAID PURCHASES FROM CONCERNS IN WHICH MR. RAJENDRA JAIN (SUPRA) STATED TO BE ASSOCIATED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT (AP PEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED - (A) REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) WHERE NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE PURCHASE OF DIAMONDS WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY EXPORTED OUT OF COUNTRY. (B) IN APPLYING HYPOTHETICAL GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 18% S TATING AS OF PREVIOUS YEAR AS AGAINST ACTUAL GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 3.98% F OR THE A.Y. 2008-09 AND AVERAGE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 4.43% OF PRECEDING THREE YEARS IN DIAMOND SEGMENT. (C) IN NOT ALLOWING REDUCTION FROM 18% GROSS PROFIT RAT E ON PURCHASE OF DIAMONDS (ALLEGED AS BOGUS) AGGREGATING RS. 3665150 5/=, THE GROSS PROFIT ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE AGGREGATE GROSS PROF IT DECLARED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT. 3 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. (D) IN SUSTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7533550/= CALCULAT ED BY APPLYING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 18%, WHEREAS THE AMOUNT IN FACT WORK S OUT TO RS.6597271/-. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, A MEND OR ABANDON ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NEER GEMS AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND EXPORT OF GEM STONES ROUGH AND POLISHED, DIAMONDS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 55,11,580/-. THE RET URN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 15.12.2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO REOPENE D THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 26 TH MARCH, 2016 ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM VARIO US CONCERNS CONTROLLED BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP, SHRI DHARMICHAND JAIN GROUP AN D SHRI SANJAY CHOUDHARY GROUP, MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO PROPOSED TO REA SSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES OF RS. 3,66,51 ,505/- MADE FROM 6 (SIX) CONCERNS AS UNDER :- SR. NAME OF SELLER AMOUNT (RS.) 1 AVI EXPORTS 90,63,237/ - 2 AADI IMPEX 95,16,954/ - 3 SUNDIAM 33,58,146/ - 4 KARNAWAT IMPEX P. LTD. 86,25,412/ - 5 KRIYA IMPEX PVT. LTD. 47,99,789/ - 6 MOULMANI IMPEX PVT. LTD. 12,87,967/ - TOTAL : RS. 3,66,51,505/ - 4 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. THE AO WHILE PASSING THE REASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 1 4.12.2016 HAS HELD THAT THESE SUPPLIERS HAVE ADMITTED TO BE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS PURCHASE ENTRIES AND, THEREFORE, THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FR OM THESE CONCERNS ARE NOT GENUINE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED 25% OF THES E PURCHASES AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 91,62,876/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND CONTENDED THAT IN SUPPORT OF ITS PURCHASES, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL THE REL EVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH INCLUDE BILLS, VOUCHERS, DETAILS OF THE SUPPLIERS INCLUDING PAN, PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND CORRESPONDING EXPORT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED EVEN BY THE CUSTOMS AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT ALL THESE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE AND THERE IS CORRESPONDING EXPORT OF THE GOODS BY THE A SSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) MODIFIED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND OBSERVED THAT AFTE R REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE IT ACT THE INCOME OF TH E ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTIMATED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION BY APPLYING 18% GROSS PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHA SES WHICH HAS RESULTED AN ADDITION OF RS. 75,33,550/-. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE 3 RD PARTY INFORMATION WITHOUT SUBJECTING THE SAME TO FURTHER SCRUTINY. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BILLS/INVOICES ISSUED BY THE SUPPLIERS OF THE GOODS ALONG WITH EXPORT BILLS WHICH SHOW THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE EXPORTED AN D WERE ALSO CLEARED BY THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE GOODS P URCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 5 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. THE EXPORTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS MATCHING AND TH E QUANTITY IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE STOCK REGISTER SHOWING INWARD AND OUTWARD OF TH E GOODS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED PAYMENT DETAILS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WH ICH IS THE BANK STATEMENT SHOWING THE PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNE L. THUS WHEN THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN DISPUTE WHICH IS THE EXPORT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF THESE GOODS, THEN THE PURCHASES OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS BOGUS. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD EXCEPT THE STATEMENT OF THE 3 RD PARTY RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING MUMBAI WHICH CANNOT BE THE BASIS OF ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE BY TREATING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CI T VS. ODEON BUILDERS PVT. LTD., 418 ITR 315 (SC) AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SARTHAK SECURITIES CO. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO, 329 ITR 1 10 (DEL.). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF PCIT VS. G & G PHARMA INDIA LTD., 384 ITR 147 (DEL.) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF 3 RD PARTY WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E TO CROSS EXAMINE THOSE PARTIES. THE LD. A/R HAS RELIE D UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. CCE, 62 TAXMANN.COM 3 (SC). EVEN OTHERWISE, AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(3) THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE BY DISALLOWING THE PURCHASE S BUT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED BY APPLYING S OME REASONABLE AND PROPER GP OR NP HAVING REGARD TO THE PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT (A) HAS TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE DISALLOWANCE @ 18% BY CITING THE GP OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS, HOWEVER, TH E PERCENTAGE OF GP SHOWN BY THE 6 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. LD. CIT (A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS NOT CORRECT. T HE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PURCHASES OF DIAMONDS ARE DOUBTED BY THE AO, THEREFORE, THE GP IN THE DIAMOND SEGMENT HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. THUS THE 18% PROFIT RATE APPLIED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS HIGHLY UNREASONABLE A ND EXCESSIVE. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES W ERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH INCLUDE THE PURCHASE BILLS/INVOICES, EXPORT I NVOICES, EXPORT WAY BILLS, AIR BILLS WHICH WERE DULY CLEARED BY THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT A ND THEREBY THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE, THEN THE CORRESPO NDING PURCHASE OF THE MATERIAL/SAME GOODS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE BOGUS. TH E LD. A/R HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS STOCK REGISTER AND SU BMITTED THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT CLEARLY MANIFEST THE PURCHASES MADE AND PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL. EACH AND EVERY ENTRY IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT CAN BE CROSSED CHECK WITH THE BANK STATEMEN T OF THE SELLERS/SUPPLIER CONCERNS. FURTHER, ALL THESE MATERIALS ARE ALSO RE CORDED IN THE STOCK REGISTER OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ONCE THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS HAVE BEEN VERIFIED AND RECONCILED FROM THE STOCK REGISTER, LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS SALES/EXPORTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN THE PURCHASES CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION DATED 10 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 OF THE DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUN AL IN CASE OF HARYANA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 2 315/DEL/2018 AND SUBMITTED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE OF PURCHASES MADE FROM THE CONCE RNS ALLEGEDLY CONTROLLED BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN GROUP AND PARTICULARLY M/S. AVI EXPOR TS WAS CONSIDERED BY THE DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) WAS DELETED. THE LD. A/R HAS ALSO RELIED U PON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 4 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 IN CASE OF M/S. SUNNY GEMS INDIA 7 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. PVT. LTD. VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 445/JP/2018. HENCE TH E LD. A/R HAS PLEADED THAT THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) MAY BE DELETE D. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AO HAS CLEARLY MADE THE REFERENCE OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE INV ESTIGATION WING MUMBAI AND THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI RAJENDRA JA IN, SHRI MUDIT KARNAWAT AND SHRI MANISH JAIN HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER WHICH CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THE FACT THAT THESE PERSONS WERE INDULG ING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED TO HAVE MADE THE PURCHASES FROM THESE 6 CONCERNS OF THE SAME GROUP FOUND BY TH E INVESTIGATION WING AS PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. ACCORDINGLY, WHEN THE AO HAS ESTABLISHED THE FACT OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PROVIDED BY THESE PER SONS, THEN THE PURCHASES OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE. HE HAS REL IED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION BY TREATING T HE PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,66,51,505/- FROM 6 PARTIES AS REFERRED IN THE FOREGOING PART OF THIS ORDER AS BOGUS PURCHASES BEING THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES PRO VIDED BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN AND OTHERS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BASED SOLELY O N THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN AND HIS EMPLOYEES SHRI MUDIT KARNAWAT AS WELL AS SHRI MANISH JAIN WHEREIN THEY HAVE ADMITTED THEIR INDULGENCE OF PROV IDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES INTER ALIA BOGUS PURCHASES. EXCEPT THESE STATEMENT S AS RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY FU RTHER ENQUIRY OR EVEN CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THOSE STATEMENTS OR TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THESE PERSONS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT TH E ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO 8 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES CLAIMED BY IT ARE GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HER CLAIM PRODUCED THE PURCHASE BILLS ISSUED BY THESE P ARTIES HAVING DETAILS OF THEIR PAN, ADDRESSES ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE EXPORT INVOICES, EXPORT WAY BILLS/AIR WAY BILLS DULY CLEARED BY THE CUSTOMS DEP ARTMENT. THEREFORE, THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS THE EXPORT WAS NOT DOUBTED EI THER BY THE CUSTOMS DEPARTMENT OR BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE LEDGER ACC OUNT OF ALL THE PARTIES SHOWING ALL THE ENTRIES OF PURCHASES AND THE PAYMENT THROUG H BANKING CHANNEL WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE CORRESPONDING BANK ACCOUNT DETA ILS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THESE SUPPLIER CONCERNS. THESE FACTS ARE NOT DISPU TED BY THE AO RATHER THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BA NKING CHANNEL. FROM THE STOCK REGISTER IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE PURCHASES MA DE FROM THESE CONCERNS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE INWARD QUANTITY AND THE CORRESPOND ING OUTWARD QUANTITY IS ALSO REFLECTED IN THE STOCK REGISTER WHICH IS ON ACCOUNT OF EXPORT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE SAME QUANTITY WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHAS ED FROM THESE CONCERNS IS EXPORTED AND REFLECTED IN THE STOCK REGISTER, WHICH CAN BE RECONCILED WITH THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND INWARD ENTRIES IN THE STOCK REGISTER AS WELL AS OUTWARD ENTRIES WITH THE CONCERNED VOUCHERS/BILLS, THEN THE PURCHASES CANNOT BE HELD AS BOGUS. ONCE THESE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASES ARE RE CORDED IN THE STOCK REGISTER GIVING THE DETAILS AND PARTICULARS OF THE QUANTITY AS WELL AS THE CORRESPONDING BILL AND THE CORRESPONDING OUTWARD QUANTITY ALSO REFLECTED W HICH IS THE EXPORT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT DISPUTED BY ANY OF THE AUTHORITIES INCLUDING THE CUSTOMS, THEN THE PURCHASES OF THE SAID QUANTITY CANNOT BE HELD AS BO GUS THOUGH THERE MAY BE AN ISSUE OF PURCHASE PRICE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE CONCERNS. HOWEVER, ONCE THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF THE PURCHASES AND EXPORTS ARE MATCHING AS PER THE 9 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. STOCK REGISTER AND THESE QUANTITIES CAN BE IDENTIFI ED WITH THE PURCHASES AND CONCERNED VOUCHERS/BILLS, THEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRI MA FACIE DISCHARGED HER ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE PURCHASES ARE GENUINE. THOUGH THE M ERE PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL DO NOT IPSO FACTO ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSA CTION IS GENUINE BUT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ALONG WITH THE PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, THEN IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL AND PARTICULARLY A DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH TH AT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FORGED, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE HELD AS BOGUS. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT ONCE THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES/TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN IT IS SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE ESTIMATED ON BEST JUDGMENT BASIS. I T IS ALSO A SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT WHILE ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE PA ST GP HISTORY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ATTAINED FINALITY IN THE PROCEEDINGS CA N BE A GOOD AND PROPER GUIDANCE. NEITHER THE AO NOR THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PROCEEDED AS PER WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION ON THIS ASPECT WHILE MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE/ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF 25% OF THESE ALLEGED BO GUS PURCHASES WHICH ITSELF PROVES THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS NOT CONSIDERED ALL T HE PURCHASES AS BOGUS. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION HAS A PPLIED 18% AS NET PROFIT ON SUCH PURCHASES. THE ACTIONS OF THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD . CIT (A) ARE NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION OF ESTIMATI ON OF INCOME AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 145(3) OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ODEON BUIL DERS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) WHILE 10 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. UPHOLDING THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AS W ELL AS OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD IN PARA 3 & 4 AS UNDER :- 3. HOWEVER, ON GOING THROUGH THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIT , ITAT AND THE HIGH COURT, WE FIND THAT ON MERITS A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 19,39,60,866/- WAS BASED SOLELY ON THIRD PARTY INFORMATION, WHICH WAS NOT SU BJECTED TO ANY FURTHER SCRUTINY. THUS, THE CIT (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE APPEA L OF THE ASSESSEE STATING : 'THUS, THE ENTIRE DISALLOWANCE IN THIS CASE IS BASE D ON THIRD PARTY INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF T HE DEPARTMENT, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY SUBJECTED TO FURT HER VERIFICATION BY THE AO WHO HAS NOT PROVIDED THE COPY OF SUCH STATEM ENTS TO THE APPELLANT, THUS DENYING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMIN ATION TO THE APPELLANT, WHO HAS PRIMA FACIE DISCHARGED THE INITI AL BURDEN OF SUBSTANTIATING THE PURCHASES THROUGH VARIOUS DOCUME NTATION INCLUDING PURCHASE BILLS, TRANSPORTATION BILLS, CONFIRMED COP Y OF ACCOUNTS AND THE FACT OF PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES, & VAT REGISTRATION OF THE SELLERS & THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCU SSION IN TOTALITY, THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT FROM M/S PADMES H REALTORS PVT. LTD. IS FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND THE CONSEQUENT D ISALLOWANCE RESULTING IN ADDITION TO INCOME MADE FOR RS. 19,39, 60,866/-, IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED.' 4. THE ITAT BY ITS JUDGMENT DATED 16TH MAY, 2014 RELI ED ON THE SELF-SAME REASONING AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. LIKEWISE, THE HIGH COURT BY THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 5TH JULY, 2017, AFFI RMED THE JUDGMENTS OF THE CIT AND ITAT AS CONCURRENT FACTUAL FINDINGS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE PERVERSE AND, THEREFORE, DISMISSED THE APPEAL ST ATING THAT NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF T HE ITAT. THUS THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BASED ON THE 3 RD PARTY INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT WHICH W AS NOT SUBJECTED TO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY T HE LD. CIT (A), CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WHICH WAS FURTHER UPHELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SOLELY BASED ON THE STATEMENTS OF THE 3 RD PARTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW WHEN THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROS S EXAMINATION WAS NOT GIVEN TO 11 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS. CCE (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PARA 5 TO 9 AS UNDER :- '5. WE HAVE HEARD MR.KAVINGULATI, LEARNED SENIOR CO UNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, AND MR. K. RADHAKRISHNA NA, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL WHO APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE. 6.ACCORDING TO US, NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CRO SS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY THOUGH THE ST ATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY INASMUCH AS IT A MOUNTED TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ADVERSELY AFFECTED. IT IS TO BE BORNE IN MIND T HAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER AS BASED UPON THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE AFORESAID TWO WITNESSES. EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS AND WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE, THE ADJ UDICATING AUTHORITY DID NOT GRANT THIS OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY HE AS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NO SUCH OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED AND THE AFORESAID PLEA IS N OT EVEN DEALT WITH BY THE ADJUDICATING. AS FAR AS THE TRIBUNAL IS CONC ERNED, WE FIND THAT REJECTION OF THIS PLEA IS TOTALLY UNTENABLE. THE TR IBUNAL HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SAID DEALERS C OULD NOT HAVE BROUGHT OUT ANY MATERIAL WHICH COULD NOT BE IN POSS ESSION OF THE APPELLANT THEMSELVES TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THEIR EX- FACTORY PRICES REMAIN STATIC. IT WAS NO FOR THE TRIBUNAL TO HAVE G UESS WORK AS TO FOR WHAT PURPOSES THE APPELLANT WANTED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THOSE DEALER AND WHAT EXTRACTION THE APPELLANT WANTED FROM THEM. 7. AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAD CONTESTED THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE STATEMENTS OF THESE TWO WITNESS ES AND WANTED TO DISCREDIT THEIR TESTIMONY FOR WHICH PURPOSE IT W ANTED TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION. THAT APART, THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE PRICE LIST AS MAIN TAINED AT THE DEPOT TO DETERMINE THE PRICE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEV Y OF EXCISE DUTY. WHETHER THE GOODS WERE, IN FACT, SOLD TO THE SAID D EALERS/WITNESSES AT THE PRICE WHICH IS MENTIONED IN THE PRICE LIST I TSELF COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT FOR THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY TO PRESUPPOSE AS TO WHAT COU LD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CROSS-EXAMINATION AND MADE TH E REMARKS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. WE MAY ALSO POINT OUT THAT ON AN E ARLIER OCCASION WHEN THE MATTER CAME BEFORE THIS COURT IN CIVIL APPEAL 12 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. NO. 2216 OF 2000 , ORDER DATED 17.2.2005 WAS PASSED REMITTING THE CASE BACK THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECID E THE APPEAL ON MERITS GIVING ITS REASONS FOR ACCEPTING OR REJECTIN G THE SUBMISSIONS. 8. IN VIEW THE ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IF THE TESTIMONY OF THESE TWO WITNESSES IS DISCREDITED, THERE WAS NO MA TERIAL WITH THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT COULD JUSTIFY I TS ACTION, AS THE STATEMENT OF THE AFORESAID TWO WITNESSES WAS THE ON LY BASIS OF ISSUING THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. 9. WE, THUS SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL. THUS THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT NOT AL LOWING THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES BY THE ADJUDICATING AUTHORITY WITH THE STATEMENTS OF THOSE WITNESSES WERE MADE THE BASIS OF IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERIOUS FLAW WHICH MAKES THE ORDER NULLITY AS WELL AS IT AMOUNTS TO VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THE CASE IN HAND, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DEMANDED THE CR OSS EXAMINATION, THE AO INSTEAD OF GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE T O CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES HAS RATHER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THOSE WITNESSE S. THE DELHI BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF HARYANA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PARA 5 AS UNDER :- 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, ON WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS RELIED WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,01,478/-, HAS BEEN RETRACTED BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN. THIS FACT HAS BEEN DULY NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 3.4.6 WHEREIN IT HA S BEEN MENTIONED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN HAD BEEN RETRACTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED THE BE NEFIT OF RETRACTION OF STATEMENT BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN BECAUSE THE DEPARTMENT HAD RE JECTED THE RETRACTION OF SHRI 13 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. RAJENDRA JAIN IN HIS CASE ON THE GROUND THAT SHRI R S JAIN HAD NOT FILED THE AFFIDAVIT REGARDING RETRACTION BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASE: STOCK REG ISTER, QUANTITATIVE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF M/S AVI EXPOR TS ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENT FROM WHICH THE PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASES WERE MADE. AP ART FROM THIS, THERE IS AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN, PROPRIETOR OF M/S AVI EXPORTS WHICH WAS FILED IN RESPONSE TO REQUISITION U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT AND A LSO CONFIRMATION OF BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, COPY OF SALES ACCOUNT REGARDING S ALES MADE TO THE ASSESSEE, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M /S AVI EXPORTS, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT OF M/S AVI EXPORTS TO SUBSTANTIATE RECEIP T OF PAYMENT AGAINST PURCHASES, THE RETRACTION OF STATEMENT BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN R EGARDING STATEMENT MADE AFTER SEARCH AND AS FILED BEFORE THE DCIT, SURAT AND AFFI DAVIT OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN REGARDING RETRACTION OF STATEMENT. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SHOWS THAT ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE COMPLETELY DISR EGARDED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. IT IS ALS O NOTEWORTHY THAT THE SALES AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ACCEPTED TO BE GENUIN E BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IT IS ONLY PURCHASES WHICH ARE BEING DOUBTED BY THE DEPAR TMENT. HOWEVER, NO COGENT REASON HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR TREATIN G THE PURCHASES AS NOT BEING GENUINE BUT ACCEPTING THE SALES MADE AGAINST THE SA ID BOGUS PURCHASES AS GENUINE. THEREFORE, ON OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) WAS NOT CORRECT IN S USTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE TUNE OF 25% OF THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASE WHEN THE VERY BASIS ON WHICH THE BOGUS PURCHASES HAVE BEEN ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE DOES NOT STAND IN VIEW OF THE RETRACTION OF STATEMENT BY SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN AS WE LL AS THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WHICH SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES FROM M/S AVI EXPORTS. THEREFORE, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO CONCUR WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. 14 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. THEREFORE, THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E SAID CASE FROM M/S. AVI EXPORTS WERE TREATED BY THE AO AS BOGUS, HOWEVER, T HE TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE VOLUMINOUS DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELET ED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOT E THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE SAID CASE OF M/S. HARYANA JEWELLERS PVT. LTD . VS. ITO (SUPRA) WAS ALSO ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN. SIMILARL Y, THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF M/S. SUNNY GEMS INDIA PVT. LTD. VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN PARA 6 AS UNDER : - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE THE AO BASE D ON INVESTIGATION CARRIED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN CASE OF RAJENDRA JAI N GROUP HAS COME TO BE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF BOGUS PURCHASES FROM FIVE CONCERNS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,83,68,232/- AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJECTED U/S 145(3) AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MAD E TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF THE UNVERIFIABLE BOGUS PURCHASES WHICH HAVE BEEN RESTRI CTED TO 15% BY THE LD. CIT(A). NO SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN AGAINST THE REJE CTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) AND HENCE, THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND RESULTS SO DECLARED THEREIN IS CONFIRMED. GIVEN THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE B ASIS OF BEST JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF RESORTING TO MAKING THE ADDITION TO THE BOOK RESULT S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTION CANNOT ACT ARBITRARILY OR CAPRICIOUSLY. THE ASSESSMENT MUST PROCEED ON JUDICIAL CONSIDERATIONS IN LIGHT OF RELE VANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OTHER WORDS, IN ANY CASE OF BEST JUDGMENT, THOUGH T HE ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK IS INVOLVED, HOWEVER THE GUESS WORK SHOULD HAVE NEXUS WITH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DISCRETION MUST NOT BE EXERCISED ARBITRARILY OR CAP RICIOUSLY. FOR THE PURPOSES OF MAKING THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, PAST HISTORY O F THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD AS RELIABLE AND REASONABLE BASIS FOR ESTIMATION OF PRO FITS. ALTERNATIVELY, COMPARABLE CASES IN THE SIMILAR LINE OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE CON SIDERED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, BEING 15 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR. THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATIONS, PAST HISTORY IS NOT R ELEVANT AND HENCE, CONSIDERING THE COMPARABLE CASE OF M/S KEDIA EXPORTS PVT. LTD., WHI CH HAS DECLARED THE GP RATE OF 10.04% AS AGAINST 11.41% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHI CH PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES AS WELL AS FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS AS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/02/20 20. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21/02/2020. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-SMT. NIRMALA AGARWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT-THE ACIT, CIRCLE-5, 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. 645/JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR 16 ITA NO. 645/JP/2018 SMT. NIRMALA AGARWALA, JAIPUR.