ACIT, Jaipur V. M/S NAMDEV EXPORTS, Jaipur

ITA 741/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 74123114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Difference of opinion
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. ME ENA) ITA NO. 741/JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 PAN : AAAFN 8372 Q THE ACIT VS. M/S. NAMDEV EXPORTS CIRCLE- 7 BOHRON KA MOHALLA JAIPUR SANGANER,JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI RAJESH OJHA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL DATE OF HEARING: 11-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31-10-2014 ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- III JAIPUR DATED 19-05-2011 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (I) DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 6,4,775/- IMPOSED B Y THE AO U/S 271(1)( C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 EVEN WH EN THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WAS ESTABLISHED BY POSITIVE E VIDENCE. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE EXPORTS OF GARMENTS AND CLOTH MATERI ALS. THE SURVEY ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 2 PROCEEDINGS U/S 133A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WAS CARR IED OUT ON 16-01-2004 AT THE ASSESSEE'S BUSINESS PREMISES. THE PHYSICAL STOC K INVENTORY TAKEN BY SURVEY PARTY FOUND THE VALUATION OF STOCK AT RS. 1, 10,49,893/- WAS SHORT BY RS. 66,85,566/- FROM THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF RS. 1,77,35,459/-. NO SURRENDER WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY BY ASSESSE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT LD. AO HELD THAT SHORTAGE IN T HE STOCK AMOUNTED TO INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) IN FIRST APPEAL HELD THAT IN CAS E OF SHORTAGE OF STOCK IT AMOUNTED TO SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ONLY THE GROSS PROFIT SHOULD BE TAXED AS INCOME. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 21.29% WAS APPLIED WHICH RESULTED INTO PART RELIEF AND SUS TENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 16,71,392/-. 2.3 THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED BY THE A O U/S 271(1) OF THE ACT . THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DETAILED REPLY IN THI S BEHALF. THE AO HOWEVER, IMPOSED THE PENALTY BY FOLLOWING SUMMARY OBSERVATIO NS. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN GIVEN A SHOW CAUSE U/S 17 1(1)( C) ON 09-03-2009 IN REPLY TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A REPLY WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BUT NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE AS THE VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN STOCK WERE FOUND DURING TH E SURVEY OPERATION AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,71,392/- IS CL EARLY A CONCEALED INCOME WHICH WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE ON LY AS A RESULT OF SURVEY OPERATION. ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 3 2.4 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WHERE THE ASSESSEE INTER ALIA CONTENDED AS UNDER: (I) THE ASSESSEE IS A 10% EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT AND SALES THEREOF ARE COMPLETELY VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE AND SALES PROCEEDS ARE RECEIVED IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHAN GE THROUGH BANK, THUS LEAVING NO SCOPE FOR ANY SALES OUTSIDE T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS PRESUMED BY THE AO. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER ADMITTED THE SHORTAGE O F STOCK AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THE SHORTAGE OF STOCK W AS ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF GROSS PROFIT RATE OF PRECEDING YEAR, WHILE APPLYING THE SAME ON SALES OF THE CURRE NT YEAR. THUS, THE ALLEGED CONCEALED INCOME WAS ARRIVED AT O N ESTIMATE BASIS ONLY ON WHICH PENALTY IS NOT SUSTAINABLE SOLE LY ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER ADDED THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS COURTS THAT CONCEALMENT PENALTY CANNOT BE I MPOSED ON AN ADDITION WHICH IS MADE PURELY ON ESTIMATION BASI S. SIMILARLY, UNLESS THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND OF FURNISHING INACCURA TE PARTICULARS AND / OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME, THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 271(1) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. IN THIS REGARD, THE AS SESSEE RELIED ON THE DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS LIKE DELHI HIGH COURT (231 CTR 524), CHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (VIJAY KUMAR JAIN, 232 CTR 255), P&H HIGH COURT (RAJEEV GARG, 223 CTR 321) AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT (RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD., 230 CTR 320). 2.5 THE SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAWS FOUND FAVOUR WITH LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE PENALTY BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE PENALTY ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR , THE UNDIS PUTED FACTS EMERGED OUT OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER:- (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTED THE SHORTAGE OF PHYSICAL STOCK, AS WORKED OUT DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AS SUCH. THE SHORTAGE OF PHYSICAL STOCK WAS ESTIMATED BY THE AO, WHILE APPLYING THE GROSS PROFI T RATE ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 4 OF PRECEDING YEAR ON THE SALES OF CURRENT YEAR. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE GROSS PROFIT OF EVERY YEA R CANNOT BE REMAINED SAME, THUS THE SAME CANNOT BE TERMED AS AN ACCURATE BASIS TO ARRIVE AT ANY CONCEALMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. (II) AS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE DIFFERENT IN NATURE , THEREFORE, TO INITIATE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THERE SHOULD BE CLEAR FINDI NG ON THE PART OF THE AO TO JUSTIFY ITS ACT. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FRESH FINDING IN THE PENALTY ORDER TO WARDS THE CONDUCT/INTENTION OF APPELLANT THROUGH ESTABLIS HING THE PRESENCE OF THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS (LIKE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME/ FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTIC ULARS ETC.) FOR IMPOSING SUCH PENALTY. (III) IN VARIOUS COURT DECISION AS CITED ABOVE BY THE APPELLANT AND ALSO INCLUDING THE HON'BLE RAJAS THAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIV LAL TAK (251 ITR 373 ) AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANGRUR VANAS PATI MILLS LTD. (308 ITR 18 (ST.), IT IS HELD THAT A PEN ALTY U/S 271(1)( C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED IN A CASE WHERE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON MERELY ESTIMATION BASIS. SIMILARLY, IT IS ALSO OPINED BY THE COURTS THE CONC EALMENT PENALTY IS NOT AN AUTOMATICALLY PHENOMENA WHEREIN T HE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSIO N OF G.P. HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE ESTIMATED SHORTFALL OF PHYSICAL STOCK NOTED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISS UE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ALSO THE RATIO UPHELD IN VARIOUS COURTS DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS DI SCUSSED HEREINABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E APPELLANTS CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY SUCH CASE L AWS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE AOS ACTI ON OF IMPOSITION OF CONCEALMENT OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C ) IS FOUND LACKING ANY LEGAL AND FACTUAL MERITS AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE UPHELD UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. ACC ORDINGLY, ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 5 THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 271(1)( C) OF RS. 6,44,775/ - IN THE PRESENT CASE IS HEREBY CANCELLED. 2.6 AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 2.7 THE LD. DR CONTENDS THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 16 ,71,392/- ON THE ESTIMATED INCOME ON SHORTAGE OF STOCK HAS BEEN FIN ALLY RETAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSE HAS ACCEPTED THIS ADDITION. IT IMPL IES THAT ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE FACT OF HAVING SOLD THE GOODS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSI NG THE PENALTY. LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FRESH FINDINGS IN THE PENALTY ORDER TOWARDS THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ESTABLISHING THE FACTS OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. TH E LD. DR CONTENDS THAT HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UNION OF INDI A VS DHARMENDRA TEXTILES, 306 ITR 277 HAS HELD THAT LEVY OF PENALTY WAS CIVIL IN NATURE AND IT WAS NOT OBLIGATORY ON THE PART OF THE AO TO ESTABLI SH ASSESSEE'S INTENTION AND INITIAL ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THE E XPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM WAS BONA FIDE. THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN ON THIS SCORE THAT AO DID NOT ESTABLISH ACTUAL CONCEALMENT OR INT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.8 APROPOS SECOND FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT PENA LTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON ESTIMATED ADDITION, LD. DR CONTENDS THAT THIS PR OPOSITION IS NOT THE FINAL WORD AS IN MANY CASES IT HAS BEEN HELD BY COURTS TH AT PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON THE ESTIMATED ADDITION ALSO. ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 6 2.9 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE PENALTY IS GROSSLY UNJUSTIFIED AS AO DID NOT EVEN PROPERLY CONSIDER TH E WRITTEN EXPLANATION PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS EVIDENT FORM THE CRYPTIC ORDER IN THIS BEHALF. IT I S FURTHER CONTENDED THAT: (I) DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, NOWHERE TH E ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE SHORTAGE OF PHYSICAL STOCK AS WORKED OUT BY THE SURVEY PARTY. THE ASSESSEE MAINTA INS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH ARE PROPERLY VOUCHED AND AUDITED. NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS F OUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY TO INDICATE THAT ANY SA LE OF GOODS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS MADE. (II) THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT SOME OF THE GOODS W ERE LYING WITH OTHER PARTIES FOR JOB WORK LIKE GREYING AND DYEING AND SOME GOODS WERE IN TRANSIT HAS NOT BEEN AO AT ALL. (III) THE ASSESSEE'S MAJOR SALES ARE IN EXPORT WHICH ARE PROPERLY REGULATED SALES AND PROCEEDS ARE REALIZED THROUGH CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. IN THE ABSENC E OF EVEN A SINGLE LOOSE PAPER REFLECTING ANY UNDISCLOSE D SALES, THERE IS NO CASE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. (IV) MERELY BECAUSE ADDITION ON QUANTUM HAS BEEN ACCEPTE D BY ASSESSE AFTER FIRST APPEAL CANNOT BY ITSELF BE A REASON FOR LEVY OF PENALTY. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS JU DICIAL AUTHORITIES THAT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IT IS IM PERATIVE ON THE PART OF AO TO OBJECTIVELY CONSIDER THE EXPLA NATION AND THEN DECIDE THE PENALTY. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL INDICATING EVEN ONE RUPEE SA LES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND WITHOUT DEALING WITH ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THE PEN ALTY IS UNSUSTAINABLE. ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 7 (V) THE ESTIMATED ADDITION IS A RESULT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT VALUE OF INNUMERABLE STOCK ITEMS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEPARTMENT. DESPITE ALLEGED SHORTA GE OF STOCK ASSESSE DID NOT SURRENDER ANY INCOME WHICH INDICATES THAT EVEN SURVEY PARTY WAS NOT SURE ABOUT THE VALUATION. (VI) ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS ABOUT THE STOCK WERE DISCL OSED IN THE AUDITED STATEMENT WHICH IS FURNISHED ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME . IT IS NOT A CASE THAT CERTAIN ST OCKS WERE FOUND TO BE ALTOGETHER MISSING. THUS IT IS A CASE W HERE SOME STOCK WAS VALUED BY SURVEY PARTY AT A HIGHER P RICE AS COMPARED TO THE ASSESSEE'S LOWER COST. THUS THER E IS NO CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS ABOUT TH E QUANTITY OF THE STOCK. (VII) THE VALUATION OF STOCK IS OFTEN A DEBATABLE QUESTI ON BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO. WHEN ALL THE MATER IAL PARTICULARS ARE INCORPORATED IN BOOKS AND AUDIT REP ORT WHICH ARE ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE RETURN THE RATIO OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIA NCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD., 230 CTR 320 IS FULLY APPLI CABLE. IT IS PLEADED THAT PENALTY HAS BEEN RIGHTLY DELETED BY LD. CIT(A). 2.10 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FOREGOING AND RECORD FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGES. (I) THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANAT ION IN HIS ORDER AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE'S REPLY WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT MENTIONING THE CONTENTS OF THE R EPLY ABOUT TRANSIT AND JOB WORK CONSIGNED RECORD. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER ADMITTED ANY SALES OUTS IDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR SHORTAGE OF STOCK AS ALLEGE D AND NO INCOME HAS BEEN SURRENDERED IN THIS BEHALF AT TH E TIME OF SURVEY. ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 8 (III) NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY TO INDICATE THAT ASSESS EE ENDEAVOR IN SALE OF GOODS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS. THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND AUDITED. ALL THE MATERIAL AND RELEVA NT PARTICULARS WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INC OME AND IT IS A MATERIAL FACT THAT THE DETAILS ABOUT THE DI FFERENCE IN VALUATION OF PRICES OF CLOSING STOCK WERE ALSO IN T HE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT IN THE SURVEY FOLDER. (IV) EXCEPT THE VARIATION IN THE VALUATION, THERE I S NO ALLEGATION THAT ANY ITEM OF STOCK WAS INACCURATELY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY BY THREE OBS ERVATIONS:- (A) THE GROSS PROFIT IN EVERY YEAR CANNOT REMAIN SAME. (B) IT IS THE BURDEN ON THE AO TO PROVIDE FRESH FIN DINGS ABOUT THE CONDUCT AND INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY ESTABLISHING THE PRESENCE OF ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS LIKE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME. PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON AN ADDITION WHICH ARE MADE MERELY ON ESTIMATION BASIS BY RELYING ON T HE JUDGMENTS OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIV LAL TAK (251 ITR 373) AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SANGRUR VANASPATI MILLS LTD. ( 308 ITR 18 (ST.), IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW LD. CIT(A) THE FINDING OF CA STING BURDEN ON THE AO TO ESTABLISH THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT CO NCEALMENT OF INCOME IS NO MORE GOODS IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE JUDGREMENT OF HON' BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DILIP N SHROFF, 291 ITR 519. HOWEVER, L OOKING AT THE OTHER FACTS ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 9 LIKE IT BEING A DISPUTE ABOUT THE VALUE OF VARIOUS ITEMS OF STOCK AND ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHATSOEVER DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY TO INDICATE EVEN A SINGLE INSTANCE OF SALES OUTSIDE TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED THAT ANY ITEM OF STOCK WAS HELD A LTOGETHER MISSING BETWEEN THE INVENTORIES OF THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS AND AS PREPARED BY THE SURVEY TEAM. THUS THE DISPUTE IS RESTRICTED ONLY TO THE ASPECT OF VALUATION OF STOCK ITEMS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED IT TO BE AS RS. X IN THE BOOKS AND SURVEY PARTY CLAIMED IT TO BE AT RS. X+1. THUS THERE EXIST ED A DISPUTE ABOUT THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK. LD. COUNSEL CONTEND ED THAT THE BUSINESS OF SUCH MAGNITUDE IN TEXTILE RESULTS IN STOCK WHICH IS DEFECTIVE, OUT OF FASHION, OBSOLETE AND REMAINING IN TRANSIT OR CONSIGNED FOR JOBBING. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED RELEVANT EXPLANATION WHICH ARE NOT CONSID ERED BY AO BUT APPRECIATED BY LD. CIT(A). THERE IS MERIT IN THE PR OPOSITION THAT ALL THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS WERE FILED ALONG WITH THE RETU RN OF INCOME. IN THIS EVENTUALITY JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETRO PRODUCTS (P) LTD. (SUPRA) IS APPLICA BLE TO THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. IN VIEW OF FOREGOING DISCUSSIONS, WE UPHOLD THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE PENALTY. ITA NO. 741//JP/2011 ACIT, CIRCLE- 7 VS. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 10 3.0 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 -10-2014 SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 31 ST OCT 2014 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE ACIT, CIRCLE- 7, JAIPUR 2. M/S. NAMDEV EXPORTS, JAIPUR 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE LD. CIT(A), JAIPUR BY ORDER 5..THE LD. DR 6.THE GUARD FILE (IT NO. 741/JP/2011) AR ITAT, JAIPUR