MOHD. CONST. CO., Kota V. ADDL. CIT, Kota

ITA 649/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5639 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Capital asset; Depreciation; Charitable institution
• Section: 44AD; 40A(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 BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YA DAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 649/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., 5-B- 18 VIGYAN NAGAR, KOTA. CUKE VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, C.R. BUILDING, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AACFM 0470 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPEL LANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA (ADVOCATE) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JHA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/01/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/01/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), KOTA DATED 31.05.2013 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1 . THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT AND IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 2 ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BY UPHOLDING THE RE JECTIONS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE NET PR OFIT RATE @ 11% ON CONTRACT RECEIPTS (SUBJECT TO INTEREST & SAL ARY TO PARTNERS AND DEPRECIATION) AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS THAT RESULTED INTO NET PROFIT RATE OF 10.64% (SUBJECT TO SALARY, INTEREST AND DEPRECIATION). 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN DISALLOWING OF 10% OF DEPRECIATION OF JEEP AND CAR I.E. RS.20,472/- CONSI DERING THAT THE SAME WERE INCURRED ON PERSONAL USE PARTICULARLY UND ER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT APPELLANT FIRM HAS ALSO PAID FRI NGE BENEFIT TAX ON THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLE AND ALSO FOR THE REASON THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS R EJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS APPLIED A N.P. RATE ON GR OSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) ALSO ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLA NT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACT WORK FROM T HE EX. ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCES BARAN, PALI, KOTA, TONK ETC. THE RE TURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.10.2006 AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,20,07,3 90/-. DURING THE YEAR ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 3 UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GROSS CO NTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.17,35,96,602/- AND N.P. AT RS.1,74,62,945/- GIVI NG NP RATE OF 10.05% AS AGAINST GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT RS.1,1 1,69,719/- AND N.P. AT RS.11,19,15,160/- GIVING NP RATE OF 9.94% LAST Y EAR (BEFORE INTEREST, SALARY AND DEPRECIATION. 3. THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND ENHANCED THE NP RATE TO 11% (SUBJECT TO INTEREST, S ALARY AND DEPRECIATION) ON TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.17,35 ,96,602/- AND MADE TRADING ADDITION OF RS.16,32,681/-. THE RELEVANT FI NDINGS OF THE AO ARE AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INVOKING OF PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF I.T. ACT. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE AUDITED U/S 44AB OF I.T. ACT, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AND THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS ARE RECONCILED WITH THE TDS CERTI FICATES IS NOT DISPUTED. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SATISF ACTORY EXPLANATION AS REGARDS TO THE FACT THAT PURCHASES OF THE MATERIAL IN THE LAST WEEK OF THE MARCH, 2006 AS THE SAME WERE STATED TO BE CONSUMED. THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT IT WILL NOT SIGNIFICANTLY AF FECT THE PROFIT. BUT THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF MAT ERIAL IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND PART OF THAT MATERIA L WAS IN FACT NOT USED AND IT SHOULD HAVE FORMED PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK . AS THIS WAS NOT CONSUMED, THIS CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 4 WERE NEITHER CORRECT NOR RELIABLE. ANOTHER MAJOR DE FECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REGARDING UN-VERIFIABIL ITY OF LABOR PAYMENT EXPENSES WHICH ARE AT RS.1,77,04,415/-. ADMITTEDLY THE LABOR PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED ON THE BASIS OF LABOR REGISTERS/MUSTROL L REGISTERS. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE MAINTAINED SITE WI SE DETAIL OF THE LABOR PAYMENT BUT SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CASH AND THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE RECIPIENTS WERE ALSO NOT COMPLETE. D UE TO SUCH DEFECTS, THESE EXPENSES WERE ALSO NOT SUBJECT TO PROPER VERI FICATION. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BASTI RAM NARAYAN DAS MAHESHWARI V/S CIT REPORTED IN 210 ITR 438 HAS HELD THAT NON M AINTENANCE OF DAY TO DAY CONSUMPTION REGISTER CAN LEAD TO REJECTIONS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ACCORDING TO THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF I.T . ACT, 1961. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) ARE C LEARLY APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS APPLICATION OF THE PROFIT RATE, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CARRYING OUT SUCH BUSINESS WITH HEA VY UTILIZATION OF CAPITAL ASSETS AND THAT IS THE REASON THAT THE DEPR ECIATION CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOR RS.34,31,532/-. DUE TO SUCH CAPITAL INVESTMENT, THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING MORE ECONOMIES OF SCALE AND PR OFIT RATE SHOULD ALSO BE HIGHER. THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S JAIN CONSTRUCTION & CO. HAS UPHELD THE NP RATE OF 12.5% IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTION. SIMILARLY THE HONBLE ORISSA HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S BUILDERS UNION 211 ITR 993 HAS ALSO CONSIDE RED REASONABLE NP RATE OF 12.5% IN THE CASE OF CONTRACTOR. THE FOLLOW ING ASSESSES OF THIS RANGE CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL CONSTRUCTI ON HAVE ALSO DISCLOSED BETTER PROFIT RATE SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION INTEREST ETC. AS UNDER:- ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 5 SL. NO. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE A.Y. TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS NET PROFIT NET PROFIT @ 1. M/S JAIN ENTERPRISES 2006 - 07 RS.9,60,64,093/ - RS.1,00,68,196/ - 10.48% 2. SH. HARBANS LAL SETHI PROP M/S GOODWILL ADVANCE CONSTRUCTION CO., KOTA. 2006 - 07 RS.24,27,14,639/ - RS.2,66,97,007/ - 11% CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MENTION ED ABOVE, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND WORK EXECUTE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE GP RATE SHOWN IN THE COMPARABLE CASES, THE NET PROFIT RATE IS REASONABLE APPLIED @ 11% ON TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS.17,35,96,602/- SUBJECT TO SALARY, INTEREST TO PA RTNERS AND DEPRECIATION. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS CONFIRMED THE REJECTION OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND CONFIRMED ADDITION OF RS.10 LACS WHICH RESULTED IN NP RATE OF 10.64% (SUBJECT TO INTEREST, SALARY AND DEPRECIATIO N). THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD CIT(A) IS AS UNDER: I HAVE GONE THROUGH ASSESSING OFFICERS FINDINGS, ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND ALSO SEEN BILLS OF MARCH, 2006. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NIL CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FOLLOWIN G PAYMENTS DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2006:- CONTRACT RECEIPT PERIOD 23-03-2006 TO 31-03-2006 ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 6 SR. NO. DATE SITE AMOUNT 1. 23/03/2006 SUKLI SELWARA IRRIGATION PROJECT ESCALATION 23,20,842.00 2. 30/03/2006 BANDI SANDH RA IRRIGATION PROJECT 64,32,968.00 3. 30/03/2006 SUKLI SELWARA IRRIGATION PROJECT 47,51,487.00 4. 30/03/2006 GALWA G - 1 IRRIGATION PROJECT 12,28,477.00 5. 30/03/2006 GALWA G - 1 IRRIGATION PROJECT ESCALATION 9,10,487.00 6. 30/03/2006 GALWA G - 2 IRRIGATION PROJECT ESCALATION 1,84,966.00 7. 30/03/2006 BUNDI KA GOTHRA IRRIGATION PROJECT 14,18,639.00 8. 30/03/2006 BUNDI KA GOTHRA IRRIGATION PROJECT ESCALATION 10,33,834.00 9. 31/03/2006 SAI DIVERSION PROJECT 27,28,569.00 BILL NOS. 1 & 3 BELONGED TO SIROHI SITE, BILL NO.2 BELONGED TO JALAORE SITE, BILL NOS. 4, 5 & 6 BELONGED TO TONK SITE, BILL NO.7 & 8 BELONGED TO BUNDI SITE AND BILL NO.9 BELONGED TO SUMARPUR SITE. IT IS A WELL KNOWN FACT THAT FOR PASSING ANY BILL, FIRST OF ALL A JUNIOR ENGINEER ENTERS THE DETAILS OF WORK DONE IN A MEAS UREMENT BOOK (MB) AND THEREAFTER IT GOES UPTO EXECUTIVE ENGINEER/SUPE RINTENDING ENGINEER DEPENDING UPON THE QUANTUM OF BILL. NORMALLY THIS P ROCEDURE TAKES 3 TO 15 DAYS. THEREFORE NORMALLY THE WORK RELATED TO PAY MENT HAS TO BE COMPLETED 3 TO 15 DAYS BEFORE THE RELEASE OF PAYMEN T. ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 7 THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ARE WORTH MENTIONING:- I) THE BILLS OF RS.10,33,834/- [BUNDI SITE] WAS RELATE D TO ESCALATION CHARGES AND NOT ANY NEW WORK DONE BY ASSESSEE. II) THE BILLS OF TONK WERE DATED 29/03/2006 AND NOT 30.03.2006, OUT OF THESE SR. NO. 5 & 6 WERE ESCALAT ION BILLS AND NOT RELATED TO ANY NEW WORK DONE BY ASSESSEE. III) SR. NO.3 [SIROHI SITE] WAS ALSO A PRICE ESCALATION BILL [NO WORK DONE]. IV) THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CEMENT OF RS.466900/- FROM JODHPUR ON 31.03.2006 ON THE BILL IT WAS WRITTEN TH AT THE SAME WAS DELIVERED ON 30.03.2006. WE ALL KNOW THAT SUCH A HUGE QUANTITY CANNOT BE CONSUMED IN A DAY. MOREOV ER EVER IF IT WAS CONSUMED, CEMENT TAKES AT LEAST 7 DA YS FOR QUARRYING ETC. AND NO BILL CAN BE PREPARED AND PASS ED ON THE SAME DAY. V) CEMENT OF RS.3,22,000/- WAS PURCHASED ON 31.03.2006 , CLAIMED TO BE DELIVERED ON 11/03/2006, NO EVIDENCE OF DELIVERY WAS PRODUCED. VI) CEMENT OF RS.2,37,000/- WAS PURCHASED ON 31.03.2006 , CLAIMED TO BE DELIVERED ON 11/03/2006 ON 18.3, 23.3 , 25.3 & 26.3 TO SAI DAM. VII) CEMENT WAS PURCHASED FROM J.K. LAXMI CEMENT LTD., O UT OF VARIOUS BILLS, BILL NO.5042441 [RS.61,796/-], BILL NO.5042442 [RS.33,988/-], 5042449 [RS.61,796/-], BI LL NO.5042450 [RS.30,898/-], BILL NO.5042452 [RS.62,76 0/-] ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 8 SHOWED DATE OF REMOVAL AS 31.03.2006. THE CEMENT WA S TO BE DELIVERED AT JALORE. THE LAST BILL RAISED FOR THIS SITE WAS DATED 30.03. 2006 AND THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY THAT THIS CEMENT COULD BE USED BEFORE IT WAS REMOVED FROM FACTORY. VIII) CEMENT WAS PURCHASED FROM M/S JAIN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION. OUT OF VARIOUS BILLS, 2482 [RS.80,000/ -], 2487 [RS.80,000/-] WERE DATED 25.03.2006 AND 26.03.2006. THIS CEMENT WAS MEANT FOR SIROHI SITE [SELWARA DAM]. IX) THERE WAS CASH PURCHASE OF CEMENT FROM JAIN COMMERC IAL CORPORATION [EACH BILL BEING LESS THAN RS.20,000/-] . TOTAL 35 BILLS BETWEEN 22/03/2006 AND 31/03/2006. THIS FI RM WAS SITUATED IN SIROHI. THE LAST BILL OF SIROHI SITE WAS DATED 23.03.2006 A ND LAST BILL OF JALOR SITE WAS 30.03.2006. SO CEMENT PURCHASED O N 31.03.2006 [5 BILLS OF RS.19,200/- EACH] CANNOT BE CONSUMED BEFORE RAISING THE BILL. X) ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF TMT BARS & M.S. BARS ON 30.03.2006 FROM KANPUR FOR SIROHI PROJECT. THE LAST RECEIPT FROM THIS SITE WAS DATED 23.03.2006 AND THIS STEEL CANNOT BE CONSUMED BEFORE 23.03.2006. [TOTAL BILLS WERE OF RS.7,48,116/-] CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, I AM OF THE FIRM OPINION THA T ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL. IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS UPHELD. THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED THE CONSUMPTION O F MATERIAL BY AT ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 9 LEAST RS.10 LACS. THEREFORE, I CONFIRM ADDITION OF RS.10 LACS. THIS RESULTS INTO N.P. RATE OF 10.64% SUBJECT TO SALARY, INTERES T AND DEPRECIATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.6,53,153/-. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONSISTING OF CASH BOOK, LEDGER AND JOURNAL. ALL THE PURCHASES AND SALES ARE FULLY VOUCHED. ALL THE EXPENSES WERE FULLY SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS. THE FINA NCIAL ACCOUNTS AND THE OTHER SUBSIDIARY RECORDS WERE DULY MAINTAINED. FURTHER THE ACCOUNTS WERE SUBJECTED TO TAX AUDIT U/S 44AB. THE SAME WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO ALSO ALONG WITH OTHER DETAILS FROM TIME TO T IME. THE AO HAS NOT AT ALL JUDICIOUSLY CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE THE AO. MINOR IRREGULARITIES, EVEN ASSUMING WERE THERE, CANNOT BE MADE BASIS OF THE REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OF TRADING AD DITION. KINDLY REFER PADAMPATH RAMGOPAL 76 ITR 719 (SC). WHAT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE IS THAT THE AO HAS VERY C ATEGORICALLY ADMITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS REGARDS THE FACT OF MAIN TENANCE OF COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; THAT THE SAME ARE AUDITED; WERE D ULY PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS DULY RECONCILE D WITH THE TDS CERTIFICATES. THE FACT OF CLAIMING LABOUR PAYMENTS BASED ON THE LABOUR REGISTERS, MUST ROLL REGISTERS AND THE FACT OF MAIN TENANCE OF SITE WISE DETAILS OF LABOUR PAYMENT, WERE ALSO DULY ADMITTED BY THE AO. THUS, THE ONLY OBJECTION/BASIS OF REJECTION OF THE ACCOUNTS RAISED BY THE AO ARE THAT: ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 10 I. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES OF THE MATERIAL IN THE LAST DAYS OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR, WHICH IS SUSPECTED NOT TO HA VE BEEN CONSUMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, SHOULD REMA IN AS A PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK. RESULTANTLY THE PROFIT TO THA T EXTENT SHOULD HAVE GONE UP. II. PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH AND THE NAME & ADDRESS O F THE RECIPIENTS WERE NOT COMPLETE. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME ALLEGING THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXCESSIVE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL. FIRSTLY, WE STRONGLY RELY UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS FILED BEFORE THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A). THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE C OMPLETELY IGNORED THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES AND REALITIES OF THE BUS INESS AND MORE PARTICULARLY IN THE LINE OF THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINE SS, MORE PARTICULARLY THOSE REPRODUCED IN PARA (B) JUSTIFICATION FOR NON MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTERS AT PG 5 AND 6 OF THE LD. CIT(A) ORDER. THE FACTS ARE NOT DENIED THAT THE APPELLANT HAVE BE EN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AND ALSO RECORDING THE TRANSACTION IN THE SAME METHOD AND MANNER THIS YEAR, AS WAS PREVALENT IN THE PAST. NO CLOSING STOCK/WORK IN PROGRESS WAS SHOWN THIS YEAR FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND SIMILARLY, NO OPEN ING STOCK WAS SHOWN (OR THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YE AR). THUS, INCREASE OR DECREASE OF WORK IN PROGRESS/CLOSING STOCK IS TA X NEUTRAL. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT ANY INCREASE OR (DECREASE) IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF ONE ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 11 YEAR HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO OPENING STOCK OF THE SUCCEEDING YEAR BY INCREASING/DECREASING THE STOCK AND ANY ATTEMPT MAD E BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ACCOUNT HAS ALWAYS BEEN CONSIDERED TAX NEUT RAL. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED ON THIS ASPECT. KINDLY REFER MAHENDRA MILLS LTD. V/S PB DESAI (1975) 99 ITR 355 (SC) [DPB 3-10] : V.K.J. BUILDERS & CONTRACTORS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2009) 318 ITR 0204 (SC) [DPB 1-2], AO VS. MASS BUILDTECH (P) LTD. IN ITA NO.666/JP/2009 DATED 16.07.2010 & I N BRIDGE & ROOF CO. (INDIA) LTD. VS. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 15 (CAL), I T WAS HELD AS UNDER: AO HAVING REJECTED THE CHANGED METHOD OF VALUATION AND DETERMINED THE CLOSING VALUE OF THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 1986- 87 HIGHER BY ADDING BACK THE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOSSES, IT WAS INCUMBENT UPON HIM TO FOLLOW THE SAME PRINCIPLE IN THE SUBSEQ UENT YEARS; MISTAKE WILL APPEAR FROM THE RECORD OF THE CASE AND THERE I S NO QUESTION OF ENTERING INTO ANY NEW MATERIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF D ETECTING THE SAID MISTAKE. DIRECTLY ON MERITS BEING IN CIT VS. KRISHNA GOPAL K APOOR & SONS (2010) 325 ITR 214 (ALL) [DPB 11-13] HELD AS UNDER: ACCOUNTS - VALUATION OF WORK IN PROGRESS ADDITIO N - ASSESSEE CARRIED ON THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPERS A ND, FLAT PROMOTERS-ASSESSEE HAD ADOPTED A CONSISTENT PRACTIC E OF NOT DISCLOSING THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS WHILE WORKING ITS P &L-AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,47,000/- BEING THE VALUE OF THE WORK-IN- PROGRESS- IF THE VALUE OF THE WORK-IN-PROGRESS IS T AKEN IN THE CLOSING STOCK, THE OPENING STOCK SHALL HAVE TO BE A DJUSTED IN THIS ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 12 ASSESSMENT-RATE OF PROFITS SHOWN BY ASSESSEE REASON ABLE- TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DELETION OF VALUE OF GOODS USED IN WORK-IN-PROGRESS. HENCE, FOR THE ABOVE REASON AND ALSO FOR THE REASON S THAT BECAUSE OF THE PRACTICAL DIFFICULTIES OF THE BUSINESS AND UNAV OIDABLE COMPULSION ON THE PART OF THE CONTRACTOR TO RAISE BILLS SHOWING C OMPLETE WORK DONE WITHOUT BEING ANY WORK IN PROGRESS/CLOSING STOCK IN HAND, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR INVOKING OF SECTION 145, ALSO WHE N THIS IS NOT ONE OF THE REASONS PROVIDED U/S 145. AS REGARDS THE ALLEGATIONS OF CASH PAYMENT, IT IS A MATTER OF COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT LABOURERS DEMAND CASH PAYMENT AND CA NNOT WAIT FOR RECEIVING CHEQUE AND REALIZATION THEREOF. FURTHER, ONCE ADMITTEDLY DETAILED WAGES SHEETS AND MUSTER ROLLS ETC. HAVE BE EN MAINTAINED, THEY CONTAIN ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS. THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH THE LABOUR CONTRACTORS/SUPERVISORS THEREFORE, SUCH PAYM ENT CANNOT BE DOUBTED AND IS NOT A GOOD BASIS TO INVOKE SECTION 1 45. ON THE NON MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER THE AO & L D. ICT(A) HAS NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION AND NOT MADE A FINALLY BASIS O F INVOKING SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. HENCE, INVOKING OF SECTION 145 PLEA SED BY QUASHED. 5.1 ON MERITS, ALTERNATIVELY AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE SUBMISSIONS ON MERITS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO ADD ITION AT ALL WAS CALLED FOR IN VIEW OF THE FOLLOWING FACTS AND SUBMI SSIONS: ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 13 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN INVOKING OF SEC. 145 DOES NOT CONFER BLIND POWERS UPON THE AO AND HE IS NOT AT LIBERTY TO ASSE SS THE INCOME AT WHATEVER FIGURE HE WANTS. HE IS BOUND TO MAKE AN HO NEST ESTIMATION OF INCOME, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE O N RECORD, PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, LOCAL KNOWLEDGE AND REPUTE OF THE ASSE SSEE. HE IS ALSO SUPPOSED TO COLLECT NECESSARY MATERIAL FOR THE PURP OSE, IF SO REQUIRED. AN ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND WILD ESTIMATION, AS DO NE IN THE PRESENT CASE, ARE NOT AT ALL PERMITTED IN THE EYES OF THE L AW. THE LEGAL POSITION U/S 145 OR U/S 144, FOR THE PURPOSE IS THE SAME. TH E LAW U/S 144 (OR U/S 145) IS WELL ESTABLISHED TO THE EFFECT THAT WHI LE MAKING ESTIMATION, IT IS THE BEST JUDGMENT, WHICH THE AO IS REQUIRED TO T AKE, BY MAKING AN HONEST EXERCISE ON ALL DIRECT/INDIRECT EVIDENCES/AV AILABLE MATERIAL. HOWEVER, IT WILL APPEAR THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, T HE LD. LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT MADE A FAIR ESTIMATION IN CONF ORMITY OF THE ABOVE SETTLED JUDICIAL GUIDELINE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION NEED NOT BE MADE EVEN IF SEC. 145 IS INVOKED. IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S GOTAN LIME KHANIZ U DYOG 256 ITR 243 (RAJ.), IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT MERE REJECTION OF BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS NEED NOT NECESSARILY LEAD TO ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED I NCOME. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, TOGETHER WITH PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE AS ALSO MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE AO (OF COURSE, AFTER CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE) SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ESTIMATION OF IN COME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON ONE H AND HAVE COMPLETELY REJECTED THE ACCOUNTS U/S 145(3) HOWEVER, HAVE AGAI N FALLEN BACK ON ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 14 THE SAME BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SIMILAR SITUATIONS HAVE ARISEN WHEN EVEN AFTER REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES U/S 40A(3) OR UNDER OTHER PROVISIONS WERE MADE. HOWEVER, THE COURTS IN SEVERAL DECISIONS HAVE HELD THAT THE MOMENT ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED: IT O VS. NARDEV KUMAR GUPTA (2013) 142 ITD 0303 (JP) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN ASSESSEES INCOME WAS ASSESSED BY ESTIMATING P ROFIT AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE SEPARATELY U/S 40A(3). ALSO KINDLY REFER CIT VS BANWARI LAL BANSHIDHAR (19 98) 229 ITR 229, 232 (ALL.), CIT VS. G.K. CONTRACTOR (2009) (PB 17-1 8) 19 DTR 305 (RAJ.), INDWELL CONSTRUCTIONS V CIT (1998) (PB 14-16) 232 I TR 776 (AP), MADDI SUDARSANAM OIL MILLS CO. V/S CIT (1959) 37 ITR 369 (AP), ECI ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION CO. LTD. IN ITA NO.2048/ HYD/2011, SAMURAI TECHNO TRADING CO. (P) LTD. V/S CIT (2010) 37 DTR 3 86 (KER.), ITO V/S KENARAM SAHA & SUBHASH SAHA (2008) 116 TTJ 289 (KOL .) (SB). IN THIS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) MADE THE ESTIMATION OF NP @ 10.64% BASED ON THE ADHOC ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED INF LATED CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL AND THUS AGAIN CONSIDERED THE SAME ACCOUNT S ALREADY REJECTED, HENCE WAS NOT A GOOD BASIS. THE ONLY COURSE LEFT AF TER THE REJECTION IS A FAIR ESTIMATION TAKING RELEVANT MATERIAL INTO CONSI DERATION AND PAST HISTORY BEING THE MOST RELEVANT AND BINDING MATERIA L, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN IGNORED. ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 15 IN THE PAST ALSO SIMILAR SITUATION HAD ARISEN HOWEV ER, ESTIMATION FROM THIS APPROACH WERE NEVER MADE. THE RULE OF CONSISTE NCY THEREFORE DEMAND THAT THE AO MUST NOT HAVE DEPARTED FROM THE SETTLED PRACTICE ON FACTS AND IN LAW BOTH, BETWEEN THE PARTIES, IN A BSENCE OF ANY NEW MATERIAL OR CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES. KINDLY REFER UOI AND ORS VS MAJOR S.P. SHARMA AND ORS (2014) 6 SSC 351 (SC), CIT VS. J.K. CHARITABLE TRUST (2008) 220 CTR 105 (SC)/308 ITR 161 (SC), CIT V/S K.J. BUSINESS CENTRE (2009) 24 DTR 99 (DEL.). WE MAY SUBMIT THAT PAST HISTORY HAS BEEN HELD TO BE THE BEST GUIDE IN THE CASES OF FAIR ESTIMATION. KINDLY REFER CIT V/S POPULAR ELECTRIC CO. PVT. LTD. (1993) 203 ITR 630 (CAL.), MA RAUF V/S CIT (19 58) 33 ITR 843 (PAT.). IN CIT V/S GUPTA K.N. CONSTRUCTION CO. (201 5) 116 DTR 377 (RAJ.) HOLDING THAT WHERE THE RESULTS OF THE CURREN T YEAR ARE BETTER AS COMPARED TO THE PAST YEAR THEN INVARIABLY NO ADDITI ON TO BE MADE. ALSO KINDLY REFER VAIBHAV GEMS 112 DTR 84 (RAJ.), TO THE SAME EFFECT. THE APPELLANT, THIS YEAR DECLARED NP RATE OF 10.05% AS AGAINST 9.94% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2005-06 (BEFORE INTEREST, SALARY & DEPRECIATION) AND 6.88% & 2.84% AFTER RESP ECTIVELY, WHICH IS MUCH BETTER. KINDLY REFER THE FOLLOWING CHART: COMPARATIVE NP RATE (BEFORE INTEREST, SALARY, DEPRECIATION) A.Y. GROSS RECEIPT (RS.) GROSS PROFIT (RS.) NP RATE (BEFORE) NP RATE (AFTER) 2005-06 11,19,15,160/ 1,11,69,719/- 9.94% 2.84% ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 16 2006-07 17,35,96,602/ 1,74,62,945/- 10.05% 6.88% 2004-05 5,74,59,801/- 2,01,76,083/- 5.66% FURTHER THE DECLARED NP RATE WAS MORE THAN THE COMP ARABLE CASES. SEC. 44AD THOUGH NOT TECHNICALLY BINDING YET CONTAINING A STATUTORY ESTIMATION OF NP RATE OF 8%, CAN ALSO BE A GOOD GUI DE FOR THIS PURPOSE. MOREOVER THE RECEIPTS HAVE SHARPLY INCREASED FROM R S.11 CRORES TO A WHOPPING RS.17.36 CRORES. DESPITE SUCH INCREASE, TH E GP IS MUCH BETTER. THE OVERALL PERFORMANCE IS MUCH BETTER. THU S, KEEPING IN MIND THE PAST HISTORY, NO ADDITION AT ALL WAS WARRANTED. HENCE, THE REMAINING ADDITION BE ALSO DELETED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRE CIATION ON VEHICLES IS NOT WARRANTED WITH THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AS DEPRECIATION BEING A STATUTORY ALLOWANCE AND HENCE CANNOT BE RES TRICTED ON THE BASIS OF PERSONAL USE AS HELD IN CASE OF TRIVENI PHARMA ( 2006) 35 TAX WORLD 64 (JP) AND ALSO IN KAILASH CHAND GUPTA V/S DCIT 35 TAX WORLD 36 (JP). 6. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THE MATTER AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURSUED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FIRSTLY, REGARDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, U/S 143 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED TWO BROA D REASONS FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FIRSTLY, THE ASSESS EE HAS SHOWN PURCHASE OF MATERIAL IN THE LAST WEEK OF MARCH, 200 6 WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CONSUMED AND AS A RESULT NO CL OSING STOCK HAS ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 17 BEEN SHOWN. HOWEVER, NECESSARY EXPLANATION REGARDIN G CONSUMPTION OF THE MATERIAL SO PURCHASED HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THE ONLY EXPLANATION WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED IS THAT IT WIL L NOT SIGNIFICANTLY AFFECT THE PROFITS AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVIDE NECESSARY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE PURCHAS E AND CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL IN THE LAST WEEK OF MARCH, 2006. IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT THE SAID MATERIAL WAS FULLY CONSUMED. THEREFORE, THIS H AS RESULTED IN EXCESS CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WHEREBY THE PROFITS SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE WAS NEITHER CORRECT NOR RELIABLE. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT( A) HAS EXAMINED THE MATTER AND HAS GIVEN CATEGORICALLY FINDING GIVING S PECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE THE MATERIAL HAS BEEN PURCHASED ON 31 ST MARCH, 2006 AND GIVEN THAT, IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY THA T THE MATERIAL SO PURCHASED CAN BE CONSUMED IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR HAS REITERATED THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RE CORDING THE TRANSACTION IN THE SAME METHOD AND MANNER AS WAS PR EVALENT IN THE PAST. NO CLOSING STOCK, WORK IN PROGRESS WAS SHOWN THIS YEAR AND SIMILARLY NO OPENING STOCK WAS SHOWN. THUS, INCREAS E OR DECREASE OF WORK IN PROGRESS, CLOSING STOCK IS TAX NEUTRAL. THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT ANY INCREASE OR DECREASE IN THE CLOSING STOCK OF ONE YEAR HAS TO BE GIVEN EFFECT TO OPENING STOCK OF THE SUCCEEDING YEA R. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE SAME. THE ISSUE WHICH H AS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THOUGH THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND AUDITED AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY EXPLANATION REGARDING NON-DIS CLOSURE OF CLOSING STOCK OUT OF MATERIAL PURCHASED AT THE FAG END OF T HE ACCOUNTING YEAR ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 18 WHICH HAS RESULTED IN A SITUATION WHERE THE PROFITS CANNOT BE DETERMINED CORRECTLY, WHERE THE MATERIAL IS PURCHAS ED AND CONSUMED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THE SAME CAN BE CLAIMED AS AN E XPENDITURE. HOWEVER, WHERE THE MATERIAL IS PURCHASED AND NOT CO NSUMED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR, THE SAME HAS TO NECESSARILY FOR M PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK AND TO THAT EXTENT IT CANNOT BE CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE. THIS IS A WELL ACCEPTED ACCOUNTING METHODOLOGY WHICH IS FOL LOWED FOR DETERMINATION OF TRUE PROFITS AT THE END OF THE YEA R FOR TAX PURPOSES. WHAT IS THEREFORE RELEVANT IS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SHOULD BE MAINTAINED IN SUCH A MANNER THAT THE CORRECT PROFIT S CAN BE DEDUCED THEREFROM. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT THE CLOSING STO CK OF ONE YEAR WILL FORM PART OF THE OPENING STOCK OF THE NEXT YEAR, AT THE SAME TIME, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DETERMINE AND DISCLOSE ITS TRUE AND CORRECT PROFIT & LOSS SITUATION FOR EACH YEAR. THE CONTINUITY OF THE TRAN SACTION AS WELL AS THE INTER-CONNECTION BETWEEN VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS CANNO T BE A BASIS TO DISTORT THE STATE OF AFFAIRS BELONGING TO A PARTICU LAR FINANCIAL YEAR. 8. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION REGA RDING NON-DISCLOSURE OF CLOSING STOCK OUT OF THE PURCHASES MADE TOWARDS THE FAG END OF THE YEAR AND THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING SPECIFIC INSTANCES O F SUCH CASES, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9. REGARDING THE ESTIMATION OF PROFITS, THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT RATE @ 11% ON CONTRACT RECEIPT (SUBJECT TO I NTEREST, SALARY TO PARTNERS AND DEPRECIATION). IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOW N TO 10.64% BY ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 19 THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS DECLARED NP RATE OF 10.05% AS AGAINST 9.94% IN THE IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING A.Y 2005-06 AND SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE RESULTS OF THE CURRENT YEAR IS BETTER AS COMPARED TO PAST YEAR THEN NO ADDITION SH OULD BE MADE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS TRUE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS HAVE BEEN REJECTED AT THE SAME TIME, THERE HAS TO BE A FAIR E STIMATION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT MATERIAL AS WELL AS PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THOUGH NO BASIS HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE SAME TIME, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS CEMENT A ND TMT BARS AND MS BARS HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INFLATED THE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL BY AT LEAST RS.10 LAC. IN OUR VIEW, WE FIN D THE OBSERVATIONS OF LD. CIT(A) TO BE FAIR, REASONABLE AND BASED ON SPEC IFIC MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE A SSESSEE. 10. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAC CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE DEPRECIATION BEING STATUTORY ALLOWANCE, THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE DEP RECIATION IS DELETED. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 30/01/2017. * SANJEEV*. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- M/S MOHD. CONST. CO. KOTA. ITA NO.649/JP/2013_ M/S MOHD. CONST. CO., KOTA VS. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-1, KOTA. 20 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T, RANGE-1, KOTA. 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. 649/JP/2013} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR