SMT. VANDANA JAIN, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 713/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99568 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: H M SINGHVI
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH 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. 713 & 714/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 & 2009-10 SMT. VANDANA JAIN PROP. M/S. TUSHAR HAND WORKS, 11, GANGWAL PARK, JAIPUR CUKE VS. THE ACIT CIRCLE- 5 JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ACAPJ 1433 G VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.M. SINGHVI, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 24/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 /12/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) II, JAIPUR DATED 26-07-2013 RAISING THEREIN COMMON GROUNDS AS UNDER:- (I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED UPHOLDING THE REJECTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT RELYING ON H ON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF AWADH ESH PRATAP SINGH ABDUL REHMAN & BROTHERS VS. CIT, 210 I TR 406 WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEES CASE AND NOT FOLLOWING HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 2 OF MALANI RAM JEEVAN JAGANNATH VS. ACIT (207 CTR 19 1) WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEE'S CASE. (II) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THEGP ADDIT ION BY OVERLOOKING HIS OWN ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08 PASSED ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND SUMMARILY REJECTING T HE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. (III) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING BUSINESS LOSS INCURRED IN TUSHAR GUEST HOUSE WHICH WAS DULY SUPPO RTED WITH EVIDENCE. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A MANUFACTURER OF VARIOUS KINDS OF READYMADE GARMENTS AND TEXTILE HAN DICRAFTS AND IS 100% EXPORTER OF MFD. GOODS. COMPLETE SET OF BOOKS OF AC COUNT AND RELEVANT RECORDS IS DULY MAINTAINED AND AUDITED. THE RETURNS OF INCOME OF BOTH THE YEARS WERE FILED ON THE BASIS OF THESE AUDIT REPORT S. THERE IS NO ADVERSE COMMENT FROM THE AUDITORS ABOUT THE MAINTENANCE OF TRADING TRANSACTION AND CLOSING STOCK DETAILS. THE RELEVANT TRADING DET AILS OF SALES AND GROSS PROFIT RATE ARE AS UNDER:- A.Y. SALES GROSS PROFIT GROSS PROFIT RATE 2006-07 26,45,568 10,09,67.50 38.18% 2007-08 70,87,254.29 21,66,666.69 30.57% 2008-09 1,07,13,116.96 22,66,864.31 21.16% 2009-10 2,79,77,658.99 59,01,153.87 21.09% ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 3 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD . AO RAISED QUESTION ABOUT THE LOWER GROSS PROFIT IN THESE YEAR S. THE ASSESSEE FILED E DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH RELEVANT EVI DENCE EFFECTIVELY SUBMITTING THAT :- (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS MANUFACTURER AND 100% EXPORTER OF GARMENTS. THE PURCHASES & SALE PRICES ARE FULLY VER IFIABLE FROM A/C BOOKS AND BILLS AND THERE IS NO SCOPE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE PURCHASE OR SALES FIGURES. (II) THERE IS STIFF COMPETITION IN THE GLOBAL MARKE T OF READYMADE GARMENTS FROM THE COUNTRIES LIKE CHINA, T HAILAND AND OTHER SUCH COUNTRIES. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSE E CANNOT CLAIM PRICES OF ITS OWN CHOICE IN A BUYERS MARKET WHICH IS HIGHLY COMPETITIVE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT GROSS PROFIT WILL BE STATIC IN EVERY YEAR BESIDES C OMPETITION BEING ON INCREASE, THERE IS LIKELIHOOD OF REDUCTION IN THE GROSS PROFIT. THE ABOVE FIGURES FULLY DEMONSTRATE T HAT ASSESSEE'S TURNOVER HAS INCREASED FROM YEAR TO YEA R. (III) COMPARATIVE INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK DETAIL S WERE ALSO FILED WHICH ARE PART OF THE PAPER BOOK. THUS I NCREASING COMPLETION REDUCED THE SALE PRICES AND INCREASED IN PUT COST IN INDIA EFFECTED THE REDUCTION OF GP. LD. AO, THEREAFTER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DAY T O DAY PRODUCTION REGISTER WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MAINTAINED. LOOK ING AT THE VARIETY OF ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 4 THE READYMADE GARMENTS OF FINISHED, UNFINISHED AND GOODS UNDER PROCESSING, DAY TO DAY STOCK CANNOT BE MAINTAINED B Y ANY MANUFACTURER. THE AO HOWEVER, REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON TH IS OBSCURE GROUND THAT PRODUCTION STOCK REGISTER BASED ON THE PRODUCT ION WAS NOT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BESIDES QUOTING VAGUE FINDINGS THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD STITCHING, EMBROIDERY, DYING AND PRI NTING WERE QUITE HIGH AND NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSE E. THE AO DID NOT MENTION ANY ITEM OR COMPARATIVE DETAILS AS TO WHICH WAS EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE WAS HIGH IN VOLUME AND NOT IN CONSONANC E. NO COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THESE EXPENSES HAS BEEN OFFERED BY LD A O IN ABOVE YEARS. THUS BY GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS AND VAGUE ASSERTIONS, A SSESSEE'S PROPERLY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF T HE ACT WITHOUT GIVING ANY CONVINCING REASON. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MALANI RAM JEEVAN JAGANAT H VS. ACIT (207 CTR 19) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT :- THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED BASIC ERROR IN NOT APPRECI ATING THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). IT IS TRITE TO SAY T HAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF PRESENT CASE, ACCOUNT BOOKS ARE MA INTAINED AS THEY WERE ORDINARILY MAINTAINED YEARS AFTER YEARS A ND WHICH WERE FOUND TO YIELD A FAIR RESULT. MERE DEVIATION IN GP RATE CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ENTERING REALM OF ESTIMATE AND GUESSWORK. LOWER GP RATE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING CURRENT YEAR AND FALL IN GP RATE WAS JUSTIFIED AND ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 5 ALSO ADMITTED BY THE AO AS WELL AS CIT(A) AS WELL A S THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, FALL IN GP RATE LOST ITS SIGNIFICANCE. HAVING ACCEPTED THE REASON FOR FALL IN GP RATE, NA MELY, STIFF COMPETITION IN MARKET AND ALSO THAT HUGE LOSS CAUSE D IN PARTICULAR TRANSACTION, NEITHER THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCO UNT WAS JUSTIFIED NOR RESORT TO SUBSTITUTION OF ESTIMATED GP BY RULE OF THUMB MERELY FOR MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL SUFFERS FRO M BASIC DEFECT OF NOT APPLYING ITS MIND TO THE EXISTING MATERIAL WHIC H WERE RELEVANT AND WENT TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. WHEN ALL THE DA TA AND ENTRIES MADE IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT WERE NOT FOUND TO BE IN CORRECT IN ANY MANNER, THERE COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY OTHER RESULT EXCEPT WHAT HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WE ARE, THEREFORE, UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBU NAL. LD. AO THUS, WITHOUT ADVERTING TO THESE CASE LAWS E STIMATED THE GROSS PROFIT IN BOTH THE YEARS AT 31% AND MADE ADDITION A CCORDINGLY. 2.3 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS WHERE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.4 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 2.5 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE ARGUMENTS AS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND FURTHER CONTENDS T HAT NO QUESTION HAS BEEN RAISED ABOUT THE PURCHASE AND SALES OF THE ASS ESSEE AS ALL OF THEM ARE FULLY VOUCHED AND AUDITED EXCEPT MAKING SOME ADVERS E GENERAL AND SWEEPING OBSERVATIONS THAT EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HE AD STITCHING, EMBROIDERY, DYING AND PRINTING WERE COMPARATIVELY H IGH WITH THE ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 6 TURNOVER THE BOOKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND GP ESTIMA TED WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC OBSERVATION IN THIS BEHALF. NO ADVERSE INF ERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON SUCH SKETCHY, VAGUE AND SWEEPING OBSERVATIONS ABOUT THE EXPENSES. VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT GROSS PROFIT FIGURE C ANNOT BE STATIC IN YEAR TO YEAR AND IT MAY FLUCTUATE DEPENDING UPON THE MAR KET CONDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTIONS THAT IT IS OPERATING IN A CO MPETITIVE GLOBAL MARKET HAVING STIFF COMPETITION FROM CHINA, THAILAND AND O THER COUNTRIES HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED. THE READYMADE GARMENTS EXPORT IS BUY ERS MARKET, THUS SELLING PRICE AND INPUT COST IS NOT IN THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE TO ENSURE CONSTANT RATE OF GROSS PROFIT. VARIOUS COURTS HAVE HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REJECTED MERELY BECAUSE GROSS PRO FIT IS FOUND TO BE LOW. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANN OT BE REJECTED ON GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS. SUCH SKETCHY OBSERVATION HAVE NO VALUE FOR DRAWING ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE TO REJECT THE BOOKS AND ESTIM ATE GP. IT IS CONTENDED THAT ALL THESE PROPOSITIONS ARE SUPPORTED BY JUDICI AL PRONOUNCEMENTS AS UNDER:- (I) CIT VS. A KRISHANASWAMI MUDALIAR 53,ITR 122 (SC) (II) CIT V SUPERIOR CRAFTS, 353 ITR 101 AND POONA R AM 326 ITR 223 (DEL.) (III) RAM AVTAR ASHOK KUMAR VS. CST (1980) 45 STC 3 66 (ALL.) ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 7 (IV) R.V.S. AND SONS DAIRY FARM VS. CIT , 257 ITR 7 64 (MAD.) (V) ACTION ELECTRICALS VS. DCIT, 258 ITR 188 (DELHI) (VI) CIT VS. JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS,324 ITR 95 (DEL.) (VII) MALANI RAM JAEEVAN JAGANNATH VS. ACIT, 207 CT R 19 (RAJ.) (VIII) PANDIT BROTHERS 26 ITR 159 ((P&H) 2.6 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THEN ADVERTED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHEREIN THE AO ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT RATE AT 31% AGAINST GROSS PROFIT RATE DECLARED AT 30.57%. THE AO MADE THE TRA DING ADDITION OF RS. 4.00 LACS WHICH WAS REDUCED TO A MEAGER AMOUNT OF R S. 30,381/- BY THE LD. CIT(A) GIVING A RELIEF OF ABOUT RS. 3,69,619/-. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND NO FURTHER APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED. THUS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, A MINOR GROSS PROFIT ADDIT ION HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT A PPRECIATING THE FACTS OF HIS OWN ORDER ABOUT BUSINESS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BEING SAME IN AY 2007-08. AS THE FACTS UNDER YEAR I N QUESTION ARE SAME AS IN AY 2007-08, THERE WAS NO REASON TO DEVIATE FR OM THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AR E DULY MAINTAINED ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 8 AND AUDITED. THERE IS NO QUESTION ON VERACITY PURCH ASES AND SALES FIGURES AND NO MATERIAL FINDING ABOUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN TH E EXPENDITURE OR STOCK INVENTORY AND THUS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REJEC TED IN A CASUAL MANNER. THUS IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT ANY PROPER REASO NS AND MADE ADDITION. THEREFORE, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAY BE UPHELD AND GROSS PROFIT ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 2.7 THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES. 2.8 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS THE FACTS EMERGES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A 100% EXPORTER OF THE READYMADE GARMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACC OUNT ARE DULY AUDITED AND SUPPORTED BY RECORDS. THERE IS NO ADVER SE COMMENTS ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS, EXPENDITURE AND STOCK MAINTENANC E, COMPARATIVE STOCK INVENTORY PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON THE RECORD AND LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFE CTS IN THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK AND ITEMS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED IN SUCH CASUAL M ANNER AND SUMMARY MANNER. WE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MAINTENANCE OF DAY TODAY PRODUCTION STOCK IN THE RE ADYMADE GARMENTS TRADE IS IMPOSSIBLE TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E. ADVERSE INFERENCE ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 9 DRAWN ABOUT THE EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD STITCHING, EMBROIDERY, DYING AND PRINTING BEING HIGH HAVE NEITHER BEEN JUSTIFIE D LD AO NOR ANY DISPROPORTIONATENESS IN COMPARATIVE FIGURE HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED. THUS IN OUR VIEW, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE A RE NOT LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. OUR VIEWS ARE FORTIFIED BY THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS. (I) CIT V SUPERIOR CRAFTS, 353 ITR 101 AND POONA RAM 326 ITR 223 (DEL.) (II) PANDIT BROTHERS 26 ITR 159 ((P&H) (II) CIT VS. JAS JACK ELEGANCE EXPORTS,324 ITR 95 (DEL.) IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE REJECTED. BESIDES, IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, S UBSTANTIAL GROSS PROFIT ADDITION WAS REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON SAME FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO A MEAGER FIGURE. THE REASON FOR FALL IN ASSESSEE'S GROSS PROFIT CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. THE FACT IS THAT TH ERE IS A STIFF COMPETITION IN THE GLOBAL MARKET AND IT IS A BUYER MARKET WHICH CANNOT BE DISPUTED. IN VIEW OF THESE DELIBERATIONS, WE SEE NO JUSTIFICATIO N IN MAKING ANY GROSS PROFIT ADDITION. THUS WE DO NOT ENDORSE THE REJECTI ON OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ESTIMATION OF ANY GROSS PROFIT ADDITION. THE GROUND RAISE IN THIS BEHALF BY THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 10 2.9 NOW WE TAKE UP THE REMAINING AS GROUND NO. III ABOUT LOSS IN TUSHAR GUEST HOUSE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, T HE LD. AR CONTENDS THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE SIMILAR LOSS FROM TUSHAR GUEST HOUSE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ONS. SINCE ALL THESE EXPENDITURES ARE NECESSARILY REQU IRED TO BE INCURRED IRRESPECTIVE OF THE INCOME RECEIVED FROM THE TUSHAR VILLA AND NO SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN T O PRODUCE VOUCHERS OF SPECIFIC EXPENDITURES , THEREFO RE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW SUCH LOSS CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF TUSHA VILLA IS ALLOWED AND AO IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE SAME. 2.10 THIS ORDER HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT . HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED HIS OWN ORDER AND DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUMMARY MANNER. 2.11 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD ON THIS ISSUE. WE ARE OF THE V IEW THAT WHEN THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE LOSS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THEN THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN REFUSING THE ACCEPTED LOSS I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ITA NO. 713/JP/2013 SMT. VANDANA JAIN VS. ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, JAIPUR . 11 3.0 IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/12 /2015. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18/12/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. VANDANA JAIN, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 5, , JAIPUR . 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY ) @ CIT(A) 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.713/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR