Shri Rahul Bhandari, Jaipur V. Income Tax officer, Ward-6(2), Jaipur

ITA 746/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5986 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RUNI PAL JCIT DHK
• Keywords: Capital asset; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings; Capital Gains
• Section: 2(14); 133(6); 147; 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCH SMC, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14. SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI 18, GOLIMAR GARDEN, SAHKAR MARG, BAIS GODAM, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ACGPB 4996 C VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SOGANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RUNI PAL (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30/09/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 01.03.2018 OF LD. CIT (APPEALS)-2, UDAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 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 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING ILLEGAL A ND WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 2 ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. (B) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S 148 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WITHOUT OBTAINING PROPER SANCTION U/S 151 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE A CTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASH ING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEING ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,18,564/- AS ALLEGED LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAIN ON SALE OF A LAND, BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND, NOT OFFERE D FOR TAXATION. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFI ED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE B E GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 2,18,564/-. (B) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN NOT PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PERSONS , WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,18,564/-. THE ACTION OF THE LD. C IT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE ACTION OF LD. CIT (A) AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,18,564/-. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF LD. AO IN CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF INSPECTOR OF INCOME TAX/VILLAGE PATWA RI, NATATA DATED 03.12.2016 FOR ASSESSING THE LOCATION OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND AND, THEREBY, NOT CONSIDERING THE REPORTS ISSUED BY TEHSILDAR/VILLAGE PATWARI, NATATA DATED 2 5.03.2014 IN RESPECT OF THE LAND SOLD IN AUGUST 2012. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAI NST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY ACCEPTIN G REPORT ISSUED BY TEHSILDAR/VILLAGE PATWARI, NATATA DATED 2 5.03.2014 FOR ASSESSING THE LOCATION OF LAND. 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES HIS RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR A LTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSES SEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS GROUND NO. 1(B) OF THE APPE AL AND THE SAME MAY BE 3 ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE LD. D/R HAS RAISED N O OBJECTION IF THE GROUND NO. 1(B) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSE D. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1(B) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING NOT PRE SSED. GROUND NO. 1(A) IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. 3. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A O HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RECORDING THE REASONS THAT THE AGRICU LTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSE T DUE TO THE REASON THAT IT IS SITUATED WITHIN 5 KM FROM THE BOUNDARY OF NAGAR NIG AM, JAIPUR. HE HAS POINTED OUT THAT PRIOR TO THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A REPORT OF THE CONCERNED TE HSILDAR SHOWING THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN QUESTION BEYOND 8 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIM IT OF JAIPUR AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FUR NISHED THE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LAND IS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT, THEN THE AO WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE LAND IS SITUAT ED WITHIN 5 KM FROM THE BOUNDARY OF THE NAGAR NIGAM JAIPUR. HE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE PHYSICAL VERIFICATION IN THE REASONS RECORDED. HOWE VER, NO SUCH REPORT IS PLACED ON RECORD OR CONFRONTED WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO MATTER WITH THE AO AT THE TIME OF RECORDING THE REASONS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS SITUATED WITHIN 8 KM FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE INCOM E ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE LD. A/R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REPRODUCED THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR DATED 3 RD DECEMBER, 2016 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SHOWS THAT PRIOR TO THAT REPORT NOTHING WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. HENCE THE LD. A/R HAS 4 ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. SUBMITTED THAT THE REOPENING NOT BASED ON ANY TANGI BLE MATERIAL WHICH HAS DIRECT NEXUS TO THE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME ASSE SSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE REOPENING WAS PRE-MATURE AS THE AO HAS NOT CONFRONTED WITH SO CALLED PHYSICAL VERIFICATION REPORT WITH THE ASSESS EE TO ARRIVE AT THE FINAL OPINION AND BELIEF OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE AO HAS RECORDED THE REASONS WHICH REVEALED THE FACT OF SALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER PERSONS. THIS FACT IS NOT IN DISPUTE. FURTHER, TH E AO HAS CONDUCTED ENQUIRY AND ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO TH E ASSESSEE. THUS THE REASONS WERE RECORDED AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE FACT RE GARDING THE ACTUAL DISTANCE OF THE LAND FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT BY RECO RDING THE REASONS AS UNDER :- ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION BROUGHT ON RECORD, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS JOINTLY WITH TWO PERSONS SOLD A LAND OF 11 BIGHA 4 BISWA SITUATED AT VILLAGE-NATATA, PATWAR, HALKA-N ATATA, TEHSIL- JAMWARAMGARH, DIST. JAIPUR FOR SALE CONSIDERATION O F RS. 2,80,00,000/-, OUT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEES PART WAS RS. 70,00,000/ -. ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ITO (INTELLIGENCE)-I, JAIPUR U/S 133(6) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND S UBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED AGRICULTURE LAND IS SITUATED BEYOND 8 KM FR OM THE MUNICIPAL 5 ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. LIMITS OF JAIPUR AND THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT A CAPITA L ASSET. FROM COMPUTATION OF INCOME SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS. 70,00,000/- AS EXEMPTED INCOME BEING RECEIVED FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ALLE GED LAND I.E. KHASRA NO. 179/862 AT NATATA VILLAGE IS SITUATED WI THIN 5 KMS FROM THE BOUNDARY OF NAGAR NIGAM JAIPUR HENCE THE LAND IS A CAPITAL ASSET AND ISSUE OF CAPITAL GAIN IS INVOLVED IN THIS TRANSACTI ON. THE ASSESSEE HAS E-FILED HIS ITR FOR A.Y. 2013-14 O N 30.03.2014. ON PERUSAL OF INCOME-TAX RETURN IT IS N OTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY CAPITAL GAIN ON THE ABOV E TRANSACTION. THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION IS A CAPITAL ASSET FOR WHI CH THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO PAY CAPITAL GAIN TAX BUT HE DID NOT PAY A NY TAX. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE T HAT INCOME OF RS. 70,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND IT IS A FIT CASE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THUS THE AO HAS DULY RECORDED THE FACTS REGARDING S ALE OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH TWO OTHER PERSONS OUT OF WHICH THE ASSES SEES SHARE IN THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS RS.70,00,000/-. THIS FACT IS NOT I N DISPUTE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF P ROPERTY IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE AO HAS ALSO CONDUCTED AN ENQUIRY BY ISSUING NOT ICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE LA ND IN QUESTION. THUS, PRIMA FACIE THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO LED TO THE FORMATION OF BELIEF THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX IN THE SHAPE OF CAPITAL GAINS HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF FORMATION OF BELIEF ON ASSUMPTION OF FACT S BUT THE AO HAS CONDUCTED A PROPER ENQUIRY TO FORM THE BELIEF THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION DOES NOT FALL IN THE 6 ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. EXCLUSION CLAUSE OF SECTION 2(14) BEING CAPITAL ASS ET. THEREFORE, AT THE STAGE OF RECORDING THE REASONS, THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO ES TABLISH THE SUFFICIENCY AND CORRECTNESS OF THE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCO ME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IT IS ONLY A PRIMA FACIE REASONABLE BELIEF BASED ON THE R EASONS RECORDED THAT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ONCE THE BELIEF OF THE AO IS BASED ON SOME FACTS RECORDED IN THE REASONS AND THESE FACTS ARE NOT IN DISPUTE, THEN THE ISSUE WHETHER THE LAND IN QUESTION IS CAPITAL ASSET OR NO T CANNOT BE FINALLY DETERMINED IN THE REASONS RECORDED BUT IT IS A SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE AND MERIT IN GROUND NO. 1(A) OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING. THE SAME IS R EJECTED. GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 ARE REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 2, 18,564/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BEING LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN ON SALE OF LAND. 6. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND REPRODUCED AT PAGE 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER :- THE AGRICULTURAL LAND I POSSESSED HAD NO ACCESS F ROM SIAWAD ROAD. WE HAD TO COME VIA KUKAS AS IT WAS THE ONLY MOTORAB LE ROAD DURING THE YEAR 2012. RIGHT IN FRONT OF MY LAND THERE WAS A STONE QUARRY WHERE MINING USE TO HAPPEN THEY WOULD CROSS THROUGH MY LAND AND THEN A GOVERNMENT LAND TO REACH SAIWAD ROAD/NATATA. THEN ON MY LEFT AND RIGH T WERE NIJI KHATEDARI LAND. SO ONE COULD ACCESS MY LAND ONLY FROM KUKAS A REA AND NOT NATATA. I SOLD THIS LAND TO MANGLAM DEVELOPERS IN 2012 WHO THEN IN 2014 DEVELOPED AN ENTIRE TOWNSHIP/PLOTTING SCHEME AND DI D ALL THE LAND DEVELOPMENT. TO MAKE THIS SCHEME SALEABLE THEY MADE SOME ROAD NETWORK. SOME PASSES THROUGH THIS LAND. FURTHER THEY WITH TH E HELP OF PANCHAYAT 7 ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. NATATA DEVELOPED ONE MORE ACCESS ROAD THOUGH THE GO VERNMENT LAND AND GOT THE ACCESS VIA SAIWAD ROAD. WHICH TODAY IS THE ACCE SS TO MY LAND AND IT DIDNT EXISTED IN 2012. THUS THE DISTANCE MEASURED THROUGH THE NEWLY DEVELOPED ROADS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO ME AND I STRONGLY OPPOSE THE SAME. SO THE PATWARI REPORT SUBMITTED BY ME IN YEAR 2014 STATES THE DISTANCE TO MY LAND FROM JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM BOUNDARY IN YEAR 2012. TO CLARIFY THE SAME I DID COME TO YOUR OFFICE WITH MY LAPTOP AND MEASURED THE DISTANCE VIA ROAD ON GOOGLE EARTH AS P ER POSITION IN 2012 AND IT WAS AROUND 8.7 KMS. I AM ALSO ENCLOSING THE SUPER IMPOSED MAPS OF GOOGL E EARTH AND THEN JNN (JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM) MAP WHICH WILL HELP YOU UN DERSTAND THE CLEAR DISTANCE OF MY LAND FROM JNN BOUNDARY. I AM ALSO EN CLOSING THE MAP OF JAIPUR NAGAR NIGAM. I WOULD REQUEST YOU TO ALLOW ME TO CROSS EXAMINE TE HSILDAR AND NATATA PATWARI IN YOUR PRESENCE SINCE THEIR REPORT MATTERS THE MOST IN THIS CASE AND DEPARTMENT IS RELYING ON ONE OF THE REPORTS ISSUED BY THEM WHERE AS I HAVE SUBMITTED OTHER CONTRADICTORY REPORTS ISSUED BY THE M. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO BRING TO YOUR NOTICE THAT REPO RTING FROM PATWARI AND TEHASILDAR JAMWARAMGARH SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERE D AS FINAL DOCUMENT BECAUSE THE MAPS AND RECORD OF LAND THEY HAVE ARE C ONFINED ONLY TO THEIR TEHSIL. IN MY CASE THE JNN BOUNDARY ENDS IN AMER TE HSIL, FOR WHICH THEY DONT HAVE ANY LAND RECORD AND MAPS, SO I HAVE ALL THE DOUBTS ABOUT THEIR REPORTING. A MAJOR PART OF THEIR REPORT IS BASED ON ASSUMPTIONS OF JNN BOUNDRY. THEY SHOULD HAVE CONSULTED JNN AND, AMER TEHSIL BEF ORE SUBMITTING THE REPORT. ELSE THERE SHOULD BE A COMMITTEE WHERE IN YOU HAVE MEMBERS FROM ALL THE CONCERN DEPARTMENTS YOU CAN GIVE A CON CLUSIVE AND ACCURATE REPORT. MOST IMPORTANT POINT WHICH I HAVE BEEN RAISING EVER Y TIME IS THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO BE SEEN IN REFERENCE TO 2012 AND THE SITUATION AND ROAD NETWORK EXISTED THEN. 8 ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THERE WAS NO DIRECT ACCESS TO THE LAND, THEN THE DISTANCE OF THE LAND HAS TO BE MEASURED ON LY FROM THE ROAD WHICH CONNECTS THE LAND. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LAND IS SITUAT ED BEYOND 8 KMS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY THE LAND WAS SOLD BY THE ASSE SSEE TO M/S. MANGLAM DEVELOPERS WHO HAS DEVELOPED THE ENTIRE TOWNSHIP AN D PLOTTING SCHEME ON THIS LAND. THE LAND WAS TRANSFERRED FOR NON AGRICULTURAL PURPO SE AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS NO MORE AN AGRICULTURAL LAND EVEN AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER W HEN THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES WAS UNDISPUTEDLY TO USE THE LAND FOR NON AGRICULTUR AL PURPOSE. SECONDLY, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14)(III)(B) IT IS CLEAR THA T THE DISTANCE HAS TO BE MEASURED FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS TO THE AREA IN WHICH THE LAND IS SITUATED AND NOT TO A PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE AREA IS WITHIN 8 KMS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS, THEN EVEN IF THE PARTICULAR LAND IS BEYOND THAT DISTANCE OF 8 KMS, IT WILL NOT BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION OF CAPITAL ASSET BEING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, ALL THESE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AR E ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTICULAR LAND IN QUESTION AND NO SUCH DISPUTE HAS BEEN RAISED THAT THE AREA IN WHICH THE LAND IS SITUATED IS BEYOND 8 KMS FROM THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS. ACCORDINGLY, IN 9 ITA NO. 746/JP/2018 SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I DO NOT F IND ANY MERIT OR SUBSTANCE IN THE GROUND NOS. 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/09/20 19. SD/- ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIJAY PAL RAO) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 30/09/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAHUL BHANDARI, JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ITO WARD 6(2), JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 746/JP/2018). VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR