SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 736/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3558 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUP SINGH JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SOGANI
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 194C; 147; 68; 148; 10; 15

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 FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA 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 NOS. 735 & 736/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 & 2009-10 SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL, PROP.- M/S SEJAL ENTERPRISES, C-19, JAGAN PATH, CHOMU HOUSE, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AHEPK 3168 N VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI ANUP SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 14/08/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/08/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR, BOTH DATED 07/08/2015 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACT ION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAIN ST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 2 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN ADDING THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 13,24,300/- AS UNEXPLAINED CR EDITS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY TREATING THE LOAN AS GENUINE A ND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 13,24,300/-. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXT ENT OF RS. 50,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000 MADE BY THE ID. AO. THE ACTION OF ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBIT RARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 50,000/-. 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES HER RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR A LTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITION GROUND, WHICH R EADS AS UNDER: IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. OF ISSUI NG NOTICE U/S 148 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT OBTAINING PROPER SANCT ION U/S 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE REASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD. DR ON ADMISSION OF ADDITION GROUND WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HA S RAISED OBJECTION AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING PR OPER SANCTION/APPROVAL U/S 151 OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF REOPENING IS NOT A FRESH PLEA BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY RAISED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS IN THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION GROUND I S ONLY AN ADDITIONAL ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 3 PLEA IN SUPPORT OF GROUND NO. 1 OF ASSESSEES APPEA L. FURTHER THIS GROUND IS PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE AND THE FACTS AVAILABLE O N RECORD CAN BE CONSIDERED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE WITHOUT AN Y FURTHER INVESTIGATION OR ENQUIRY OF FACTS. THUS, WHEN NO NEW FACTS ARE REQU IRED TO BE INVESTIGATED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE RAISED I N THE ADDITIONAL GROUND THEN IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC), WE ADMIT ADDITIONAL G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATION. 3. IN RESPECT OF THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL ALO NGWITH ADDITIONAL GROUND REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSES SMENT, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) A FTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION BUT WITHOUT OBTAINING REQUISITE SANCTION/APPROVAL U/S 15 1 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE REOPENING WITHOUT SANCTION IS INVALID AND ILLEGAL. THE LD AR HAS REFERRED TO THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AT PAGE NO. 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE LD. C IT(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 HAD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT A SUM OF RS. 13,24,300/- PE RTAINS TO THE A.Y. 2006-07. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO DEFINITE FINDING OF TH E LD. CIT(A) ON THE ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 4 FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS INTRODUCED AS CASH CRE DIT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT THE A.Y. 2006-07 BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOU NT WAS AN OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01/4/2006 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS NOT INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ASCERTAINING THE FACT WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY INTRODUCED AS CASH CREDIT BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . EVEN OTHERWISE IN ABSENCE OF MANDATORY APPROVAL U/S 151 OF THE ACT, T HE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS INVALID AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS PRODUCED THE AS SESSMENT RECORD FOR OUR CONSIDERATION AND HAS ADMITTED THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT OBTAINED SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE ACT PRIOR TO ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE REOPENING WAS AS PER THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 150 OF THE ACT AND BASED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING THE SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE ACT. THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 150 OF THE ACT GIVES JURISDICTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT IF AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF INCOME IN CONSEQUE NCE OF/OR TO GIVE ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 5 EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN TH E ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE, THE LD DR HAS GIVEN MUCH STRES S TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 150 OF THE ACT AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LIMIT ATION AS PER THE SAID PROVISION HAS TO BE CONSIDERED WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDI NGLY, WHEN THE PROVISIONS OF LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 OF THE AC T ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN SUCH A CASE OF REOPENING IN PURSUANT TO THE ORDER O F THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THEN THE REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING SANCTIO N U/S 151 OF THE ACT IS NOT A PRECONDITION AS THE SAID LIMITATION OF FOUR Y EARS IS NOT APPLICABLE. HENCE, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE LIMITA TION OF SIX YEARS AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 149 OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABL E THEN THE SAID TIME LIMIT OF PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS U/S 151 OF THE ACT IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 AND CONSEQUENTLY THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT OF OBTAINING SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE ACT. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2006 -07 BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT ON 21/4/2011. THUS, THERE IS NO D ISPUTE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 FOR INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS IS AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE REASONS FOR REOP ENING AS UNDER: ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 6 THE A FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WI TH ITO, WARD-6(4), JAIPUR. EARLIER, ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y. 2005-06 WAS COMPLETED BY MY PREDECESSOR. ALSO, THE ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 & 2008-09 HAVE ALSO BEEN COMPLETED BY THE UNDERSIGNED. IN ALL THE ASSES SMENTS, UNSECURED LOAN WAS SHOWN AND THEY ARE TO BE VERIFIED. THE ASS ESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WHICH WAS COMPLETED ON 31/12/2009, THE A WENT IN LD. CIT(A), JPR. AND GOT SOME RELIEF ON A/C OF UNSECURED LOAN. THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE THE RELIEF ON THE PRETEXT THAT SOME AMOUNTS ARE PERTAIN ING TO A.Y. 2006-07 (RS. 13,24,300), THEREFORE, THE SAME WOULD HAVE NOT ADDED IN A.Y. 2007- 08. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER (APPELLATE) OF THE L D CIT(A) IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,24,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN SECURED LOANS HAS BEEN GIVEN ON RELIEF HOWEVER, NOW THIS FIGURE HAS C OME UP IN THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE A.O COULD NO T UNDERSTAND. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS A ND GENUINENESS OF THE CASH CREDITORS, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEF THAT ESCAP EMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. ACT ION U/S 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 IS TO BE TAKEN. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT IS ISSUED. THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REO PENED THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 DATED 21/4/2011 BASED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 12/1/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-07. THOUGH, THERE CAN BE AN ISSUE OF SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS AS THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE ORDER DATED 12/1/2011 HAS NOT GIVEN A CONCLUDING FINDING THAT T HE AMOUNT OF RS. 13,24,300/- WAS INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BO OKS DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y/. 2006-07 BUT THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THAT EXTE NT ON THE BASIS THAT ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 7 OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 20,43,800/- MADE O N ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,24,300/- WAS RECEIVED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. THUS, THE CREDITS OF RS. 13,24,300/- WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS OLD AND NOT INTRODUC ED DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION TO THAT EXTENT WAS DELETED. BASED ON THE SAID FINDING, THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION TO ASSESS THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF TH E ACT. WITHOUT GOING INTO THE ISSUE OF SUFFICIENCY OF REASONS WE CONFINE OURSELF ONLY ON THE LIMITED POINT OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT OBTAINING SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE ACT. SECTION 150 OF THE ACT STIPULAT ES ENLARGEMENT OF PERIOD FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY RESTRICTION PROVIDED U/S 149 OF THE ACT. THUS, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR REASSESSMENT OF INCOM E IN PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OR ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR R EVISION AUTHORITY THEN THE LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 OF THE ACT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, THE SAID EXTENSION OF TIME LIMIT U/S 150(1) OF THE ACT IS ALSO NOT ABSOLUTE BUT IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION AND RESTRICTIONS AS ENVISAGED IN SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 150 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, SECTION 151 OF THE ACT CONTEMPLATES REQUIREMENT OF SANCTION WHERE THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IS ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 8 YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR READ Y REFERENCE, WE QUOTE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 149 TO 151 OF THE A CT AS UNDER: TIME LIMIT FOR NOTICE. 149 [(1) NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHALL BE ISSUE D FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR,- [(A) IF FOUR YEARS HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE CASE FALLS UNDER CLAUSE (B) [OR CLAUSE ( C)]; (B) IF FOUR YEARS, BUT NOT MORE THAN SIX YEARS, HAV E ELAPSED OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS TO OR IS LIKELY TO AMOUNT TO ONE LAKH RUPEES OR MORE FOR THAT YEAR;] [(C) IF FOUR YEARS, BUT NOT MORE THAN SIXTEEN YEARS , HAVE ELAPSED FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS THE INCOME IN R ELATION TO ANY ASSET (INCLUDING FINANCIAL INTEREST IN ANY ENTITY) LOCATED OUTSIDE I NDIA, CHARGEABLE TO TAX, HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT.] EXPLANATION.IN DETERMINING INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TA X WHICH HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SUB-SECTION, TH E PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 2 OF SECTION 147 SHALL APPLY AS THEY APPLY FOR THE PURPO SES OF THAT SECTION.] (2) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) AS TO THE ISS UE OF NOTICE SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151. (3) IF THE PERSON ON WHOM A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 IS TO BE SERVED IS A PERSON TREATED AS THE AGENT OF A NON-RESIDENT UNDER SECTIO N 163 AND THE ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION TO BE MADE IN PURSUAN CE OF THE NOTICE IS TO BE MADE ON HIM AS THE AGENT OF SUCH NON-RESIDENT, THE NOTICE SHALL NOT BE ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF A PERIOD OF [SIX] YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. [EXPLANATION.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HERE BY CLARIFIED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (1) AND (3), AS AMENDED BY THE FINA NCE ACT, 2012 SHALL ALSO BE APPLICABLE FOR ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR BEGINNING ON OR BEFORE THE 1 ST DAY IF APRIL, 2012.] PROVISION FOR CASES WHERE ASSESSMENT IS IN PURSUANC E OF AN ORDER ON APPEAL, ETC. 150 . (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 1 49, THE NOTICE UNDER ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 9 SECTION 148 MAY BE ISSUED AT ANY TIME FOR THE PURPO SE OF MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION CONTAINED IN AN ORDER PASSED BY ANY AU THORITY IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT BY WAY OF APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION [O R BY A COURT IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER ANY OTHER LAW]. (2) THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL NOT APP LY IN ANY CASE WHERE ANY SUCH ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION AS IS REF ERRED TO IN THAT SUB-SECTION RELATES TO AN ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH A N ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE AT THE TIME THE ORDER WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL, REFERENCE OR REVISION , AS THE CASE MAY BE, WAS MADE BY REASON OF ANY OTHER PROVISION LIMITING THE TIME WITHIN WHICH ANY ACTION FOR ASSESSMENT, REASSESSMENT OR RECOMPUTATION MAY BE TA KEN. [SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE. [151) (1) IN A CASE WHERE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SUB-S ECTION (3) OF SECTION 143 OR BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 [BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO IS BELOW THE RANK OF ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER [OR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER], UN LESS THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED B Y SUCB ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE]: PROVIDED THAT, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO SUCH NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNL ESS THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFORESAID, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF S UCH NOTICE. (2) IN A CASE OTHER THAN A CASE FALLING UNDER SUB-S ECTION (1), NO NOTICE SHALL BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 BY AN ASSESSING OFFICER, W HO IS BELOW THE RANK OF [JOINT] COMMISSIONER, AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM T HE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, UNLESS THE [JOINT] COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED, ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER, THAT IT IS A FI T CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE.] EXPLANATION.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREB Y DECLARED THAT THE JOINT COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSIONER OR THE CHIEF COMMISS IONER, AS THE CASE MAY BE, BEING SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ABOUT FITNESS OF A CASE FOR THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148, NEE D NOT ISSUE SUCH NOTICE HIMSELF.] THE PLAIN READING OF THESE PROVISIONS REVEALS THAT S ECTION 150(1) PROVIDES EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 FOR IS SUING NOTICE U/S 148. ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 10 THEREFORE, SECTION 150 OF THE ACT CAN BE PRESSED INT O SERVICE IN A PARTICULAR CASE OF REOPENING BASED ON THE DIRECTION S OR GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ONLY WHEN THE TIME LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 HAS ALREADY EXPIRED. IN THE CASE IN HAND, T HE TIME LIMIT PROVIDED U/S 149 OF THE ACT WAS CERTAINLY NOT EXPIRED AS ON 31/4/2011, HOWEVER, IT IS CERTAINLY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM TH E END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 151, THE NOTICE U/S 148 CANNOT BE ISSUED UNLESS THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF COM MISSIONER, CHIEF COMMISSIONER, PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OR COMMISSIONE R IS SATISFIED ON THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT I S A FIT CASE FOR ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE. THEREFORE, THE CONDITION SET OUT IN SEC TION 151 AND PARTICULARLY IN THE PROVISO TO SECTION 150(1) OF TH E ACT AS EXISTED AT RELEVANT TIME IS A MANDATORY CONDITION FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. IF SUCH NOTICE IS ISSUED AFTER EXPIRY OF FOUR YEARS FROM END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR SECTION 151 GIVES JURISDIC TION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND IN ABSENCE OF THE SANCTION OF THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED U/S 151 OF THE ACT, THE N OTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INVALID. THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 150 OF THE ACT IS ONLY AN EXCEPTION TO THE LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 14 9 AND THEREFORE, THE SAID SECTION CANNOT BE TAKEN AS AN EXCEPTION TO SEC TION 151 OF THE ACT. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EVEN IF TH E ASSESSMENT IS ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 11 REOPENED TO MAKE REASSESSMENT IN CONSEQUENCE OF OR TO GIVE EFFECT TO ANY FINDING OR DIRECTION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY THE REQUIREMENT OF SANCTION U/S 151 IS MANDATORY FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/ S 147 OF THE ACT. EVEN OTHERWISE FROM THE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 150(1) O F THE ACT, IT IS CLEAR THAT IT BEGINS WITH NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE AS FAR AS TH E LIMITATION PROVIDED U/S 149 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, SECTION 150(1) HA S AN OVERRIDING EFFECT ON SECTION 149 AND NOT OVER SECTION 151 OF THE ACT. THE REQUIREMENT OF SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE ACT IS IN THE NATURE OF CHE CK AND BALANCE AND IT IS A MEASURE AGAINST THE MISUSE OF POWER BY THE ASSESSI NG AUTHORITY FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT BASED THE REASONS NOT FO UND SATISFACTORY BY THE AUTHORITIES PROVIDED U/S 151 OF THE ACT. ACCORD INGLY, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTEDLY ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 AFTER THE FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR AND WITHOUT OBTA INING THE SANCTION U/S 151 THEN SUCH NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 IS IN VIOLA TION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 151 OF THE ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SAME IS INVALID AND THE ENTIRE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS STAND VITIATED. HENCE, WE H OLD THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VALID AND THE SAME IS QUASHED. THE CONSEQUENTIAL REASSESSMENT IS ALSO QUASHED. 6. IN THE CASE FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10, THE ASSESSEE H AS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 12 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN DIS ALLOWING INTEREST OF RS. 4,94,606/- PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS OUT OF TOTAL INT EREST EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, U NJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE SAID DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4,94,606/-. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN MAK ING THE ADDITION TO CONTRACT RECEIPTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,68,966/- AS UN ACCOUNTED INCOME. THE ACTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIE D, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,68,966/-. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN TAX ING A SUM OF RS. 50,241/- AS INTEREST INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AC TION OF ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 50,241/-. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 50,000 OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000 MADE BY THE ID. AO. THE ACTION OF ID. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND A GAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 50,000/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES HER RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR A LTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 7. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS. 4,94,606/- PAID ON UNSECURED LOANS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL A S THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN ON THE GRO UND THAT THE LOAN ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 13 ITSELF WERE FOUND TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM O F INTEREST BEING CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE CLAIM OF UNSECURED LOANS WHICH WAS DISALLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. SINCE THIS IS A CONSEQUENTIAL ISSUE T O THE ISSUE OF UNSECURED LOANS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE EARLIER YEAR, ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE T O THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR QUANTIFYING THE AMOUNT OF DIS ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IF ANY AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF T HE ACT ATTEND FINALITY IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 9. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADDI TION OF CONTRACT RECEIPT AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER DETAILS OF 26AS , THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 7,68,966/-. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THIS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FURT HER IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPLIED STEEL FURNITURE TO VARIOUS GO VERNMENT OFFICES AND ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 14 THIS AMOUNT IS PART OF SALES OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, DUE TO MISTAKE, SOME OF THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES DEDUCTED TDS BEFORE M AKING THE PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF STE EL FURNITURE. THUS, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE DEDUCTOR AS IT IS ONLY A SALE OF STEEL FURNITURE AND NO CONTRAC T WORK WAS EXECUTED OR LABOUR WAS SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH REQUIRES AN Y TDS U/S 194C OF THE ACT. THE LD AR HAS REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF T DS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES HAVE DEDUCTED TDS U/S 194 OF THE ACT WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPLIED ONLY STEEL FURNITURE. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE SALE BILLS AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIED ONLY STEEL FURNITURE TO THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECO NCILE THE DETAILS AS GIVEN IN 26AS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY RECORD OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT AS SHOWN IN THE 26AS IS PART OF THE SALE DECLARED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THIS ADDITION WHEN THE ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 15 ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,68,966/- IS PART OF THE SALES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS. ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT AND EVEN DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED ITS INABILITY TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THOUGH, T HE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW REFERRED TO THE SALE BILLS IN SUPP ORT OF HIS CLAIM, HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT AFTER EXPIRY OF ABOUT 10 YEARS AND IN ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENC E, THIS FACT CANNOT BE VERIFIED EVEN FROM THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES FOR WANT O F RELEVANT RECORD PRESERVED BY THE GOVERNMENT OFFICES AFTER EXPIRY OF SUCH A LONG PERIOD. HENCE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE ASSES SEE DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS OTHER EVIDENCE IN SUPPOR T OF ITS CLAIM THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 7,68,966/- IS PART OF THE SALES RECOR DED IN THE BOOKS, THEN WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME WHIC H ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE DEBTOR BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT I NCLUDED SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 50241/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE A.O. MAD E ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 50241/- AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 16 14. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RE COGNIZING INTEREST INCOME ONLY WHEN THE SAME IS RECEIVED. HOWEVER, THE L D. CIT(A) WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SU STAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. BEFORE US, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THOUGH THE SAID INTEREST OF RS. 50241/- WAS ACCRUED ON THE OUTS TANDING RECEIVABLES, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS RECOGNIZING THE INTEREST IN COME ONLY ON RECEIPT AND THEREFORE, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE SAME AMOUNT WAS NOT DECLARED AS INCOME AS THE SAME WAS NOT RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 16. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE, NOT INCLUDING THE INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE, IS NOT AS PER ACCOU NTING POLICY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 50,241/- WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE DEBTOR M/S UNIVERSAL FOUNDARY AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AT PAGE 35 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS ON 31/3/200 9. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE IN COME ONLY ON THE ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 17 GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS NOT RECEIVED DURING THE YEA R. WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SY STEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PERMITTED TO FOLLOW THE CAS H SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING ONLY FOR A PARTICULAR INCOME WHEN ALL OTHER INCOME A RE RECOGNIZED BY FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT. HENCE, I N VIEW OF THE ADMITTED POSITION AND AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT THE A SSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THE INTEREST ON UNSECURED LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DULY RECOGNIZED BY THE DEBTOR AND B ECAME DUE TO THE ASSESSEE THEN THE SAME WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR IL LEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. HENCE, THIS GR OUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL IS REGARDING DISALLO WANCE OF RS. 1.00 LAC MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS RESTRICTED B Y THE LD. CIT(A) TO RS. 50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE LD DR AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.00 LAC DUE TO THE REASONS THA T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT VOUCHERS WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VERIFICATION OF EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT . ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 18 20. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE EXPENSES B OOKED BY THE ASSESSED ARE NOT FOUND TO BE EXCESSIVE IN COMPARISO N TO THE EARLIER YEAR THEN THE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE IS NOT CALLED FOR OR IS NOT UNJUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 50,000/-. 21. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS SUPPORTING VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENDITURE BOOKED IN T HE P&L ACCOUNT. THOUGH, THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT M AY NOT BE EXCESSIVE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE , THERE IS A CLEAR DEFAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CA SE THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED WHOLLY OR EXCLUSIVELY FOR TH E PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WHEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALREADY RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANC E TO RS. 50,000/- AS AGAINST OF RS. 1,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT( A) QUA THIS ISSUE. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ITA 735 & 736/JP/2015_ SONU KHANDELWAL VS ITO 19 22. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2 006-07 IS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/08/2018 SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO FOT; IKY JKO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 21 ST AUGUST, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SMT. SONU KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD-2(3), JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 735 & 736/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR