ITO, Jaipur V. KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV, Jaipur

ITA 753/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5333 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R PAREEK
• Assessee Lawyers: O P AGARWAL CA DH
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Reasonable cause; Time period of passing order; Revised return
• Section: 142(1); 139(5)

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 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. 753/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 I.T.O. WARD- 4(2), JAIPUR . CUKE VS. M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV, B-141, ROAD NO. 9B, VKI AREA, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAAAK 6305 VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI G.R. PAREEK (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (CA) & SHRI O.P. AGARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/04/2016 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/05/2016 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS A REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 6-6-2012. SOLE GROUND RAISED IS AS UND ER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,04,00,661/- MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. VIDE APPLICATION DATED 11-1-2016 REVENUE HAS FI LED FOR AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS UNDER:- 2 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED AFTER LIMITATION PERIOD BY ASSESSEE, WITHOUT GIVING THE WITHOUT PASSING ANY SPEAKING ORDER FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING OF APPEAL EVEN AFTER REJECTION OF PETITION U/S 264 ON THIS ISSUE IN CASE OF ONE OF JV PARTNER. 3. LD. DR CONTENDS THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL IN NATURE, DO NOT REQUIRE FRESH VERIFICATION OF FACTS AND ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PROPER DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL; IN VIEW THEREOF THEY MAY BE ADMITTED. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS HE ARD. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 4. BRIEF FACTS ARE M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV I .E. ASSESSEE IS AN AOP, CONSISTING OF FOLLOWING THREE MEMBERS/ PARTICI PANT COMPANIES NAMELY: (1) M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD., B-141, ROAD NO. 9D, V. K.I.A., JAIPUR; (2) M/S TIRUPATI PLASTOMATICS PVT. LTD., B-141A, ROAD NO. 9D, V.K.I.A., JAIPUR AND; (3) M/S MANGLA ISPAT (JAIPUR) LTD., B-234, ROAD NO. 9, V.K.I.A., JAIPUR. THEY FORMED A JOINT VENTURE (JV) FOR MAKING A BID O F THE SUPPLY AND INSTALLATION OF SIGNALING AND TELECOMMUNICATION EQU IPMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK INVITED BY RAIL VIKAS NIGA M LTD. FOR 3 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV CONVERSION OF METER GAUGE SINGLE LINE TO BROAD GAUG E RAILWAY LINE OF REWARI RINGUS PHULERA AJMER SECTION (294.57) IN TERMS OF THE JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT DATED 04.07.2006. 4.1 IT WAS AGREED BETWEEN THE JV MEMBERS THAT, THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SAID WORK IN RESPECT OF PROJEC T ADMINISTRATION, FINANCIAL AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION WORK WILL BE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE LEAD PARTNER OF THE JV I.E. M/S KIRAN INFRA ENG G. LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS KIEL) WHICH WILL ACCORDINGLY DISCHAR GE ITS AGREED OBLIGATIONS DILIGENTLY. THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS, PRO FITS THERE FROM AND TDS THEREON WAS TO B. SINCE THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND THE NET PROFIT FROM SUCH RECEIPTS HAS ALREADY BEEN FORMING PART OF THE INCOME DECLARED BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. IN ITS RETUR N OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2008-09, E OFFERED BY IT. ACCORDINGLY THE INCO ME OF JV WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF KIEL, THEREFORE, THE OTHER CONSTITUENTS BEING ONLY MEMBERS NO INCOME WAS DECLARED IN THEIR HANDS. INCOME HAVING BEEN OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF LEAD PARTNER NO REAL I NCOME ACCRUED IN THE HANDS OF OTHER JOINT VENTURE MEMBERS INCLUDING ASSE SSEE IN QUESTION FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4.2 LD. AO HAD INITIATED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN ASSESSEES CASE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THIS INCOME WERE RAISED, A SSESSEE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE TO THE LD. AO ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND PRODUCED RELEVANT 4 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV DOCUMENTS. LD. AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS, E VIDENCE AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S144 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,04,00,661/- BY HOLDING THAT THE CONTRACT W ORK WAS AWARDED BY RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. TO M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF LD. AO THAT THE JV INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED BY M/S KIEL VOLUNTARILY IN IT S RETURN OF INCOME FILED MUCH PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDIN GS IN THE CASE OF THIS ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT TANTAMOUNT TO TAXING AN INCOME TWICE AND THE ACTION AMOUNTS TO TA XING THE SAME INCOME TWICE WHICH WAS AGAINST THE LAW. HOWEVER LD. AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144, MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AND RAISED THE DEMAND. 4.3 AFTER THE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT OR DER, THE LEAD PARTNER M/S KIEL FILED A PETITION U/S 264 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 04.03.2011, BEFORE THE LD. CIT (ADMN.)-II, JA IPUR. THE APPLICATION PRAYED FOR EXCLUSION OF THE INCOME ASSE SSED HERE FROM KIELS INCOME AS THIS AMOUNTED TO DOUBLE TAXATION A S THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE ONCE IN THE HANDS OF LEAD PAR TNER AND AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF ANOTHER MEMBER. LD. CIT (ADMN.)-II, JA IPUR, HOWEVER REJECTED THE PETITION U/S 264 VIDE ORDERS DATED 05. 03.2012 BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 5 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJEC TED. THE ASSESSEE MAY TAKE OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE I NCOME TAX ACT TO SEEK DESIRED RELIEF . ASSESSEE WAS UNDER BONA FIDE IMPRESSION THAT INCOME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE AND SUITABLE RELIEF WILL BE AWARDED BY THE 264 PETITION IN THE CASE OF KIEL, CONSEQUENTLY IT AWAITED FOR ITS D ISPOSAL. SINCE IT WAS REJECTED IT WAS LEFT WITH NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO FI LE AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BELATEDLY. APPEAL WAS ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HOLDING THAT DEPARTMENT CANNOT TAX AN INCOME TWICE WHICH IS AGAI NST THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF INCOME TAX, EQUITY AND JU STICE, CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY LD. AO IN THE HANDS OF ASSESS EE WERE DELETED. 5. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. LD. DR ADVERTING TO THE FIRST ADDITIONAL GROUND CONTENDS THAT THE FIRST APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BELATED AND LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT EXPRESSLY CONDONED THE DELAY, THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR PASSING APPROPRI ATE ORDER FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. 7. APROPOS SECOND ADDITIONAL GROUND IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL WAS NOT MAINTAINABLE AS THE ISSUE WAS ALREADY DECID ED U/S 264 ALTHOUGH IN THE HANDS OF OTHER ASSESSEE, NEVERTHELE SS THE ASSESSEE IS DEBARRED FROM FILING AN APPEAL ON THE SAME ISSUE. 6 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV RELIANCE IS PLACED ON: JASKARAN 366 ITR 158 (P&H) ORISSA RURAL 343 ITR 316 (ORISSA) 233 ITR 381 (DELHI) 8. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND V EHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT LD. DR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THE LEAD PARTNER WAS PURSUING AN ALTERNATE STATUTORY REMEDY FOR DELETION OF SAME INCOME AS PROVIDED BY THE LAW U/S 264 OF THE I T ACT. IF THE LD CIT HAD ALLOWED IT, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY NECESSITY OF ASSESSEE S APPEAL. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT ASSESSEE WAS N OT DILIGENT. PURSUING ALTERNATE STATUTORY REMEDY ON SAME SUBJECT MATTER W AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE IN BELATED FILING OF FIRST APPEAL, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO PERC EIVABLE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. BESIDES LD. CIT WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 264, HIMSELF ADVISED THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: .. THE ASSESSEE MAY TAKE OTHER REMEDIES AVAILABLE IN THE INCOME TAX ACT TO SEEK DESIRED RELIEF . SINCE THE OTHER REMEDY WAS AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CI T(A) THE OTHER REMEDY HAS BEEN AVAILED. THEREFORE THERE IS N O JUSTIFICATION OR MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL ADDITIONAL GROUND IN THIS BEHALF. 9. APROPOS SECOND ADDITIONAL GROUND LD. COUNSEL CON TENDS THAT THE SAID 264 ORDER WAS PASSED NOT IN THE CASE OF IMPUGN ED ASSESSEE BUT IN THE CASE OF LEAD PARTNER KIEL, A FACT WHICH IS FAIR LY AGREED BY LD. DR BASED ON THE RECORD. THE TECHNICAL BAR WILL BE APPL ICABLE IN THE CASE OF 7 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV LEAD PARTNER KIEL AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE B AR IS NOT LEGALLY APPLICABLE THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN REVENUES SECON D ADDITIONAL GROUND. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THERE I S MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL THAT AS THE INCOME WAS TA XED TWICE, THE LEAD PARTNER WAS PURSUING AN ALTERNATE STATUTORY REMEDY. KIEL PETITIONED U/S 264 OF THE I T ACT FOR DELETION OF SAME INCOME FROM ITS HANDS, HAD IT BEEN ALLOWED IT WOULD HAVE AVOIDED THE NECESSITY OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. IN OUR VIEW THE ASSESSEE ACTED IN DILIGENT MANNER TO AWAIT THE RESULT OF APPROPRIATE STATUTORY REMEDY PROVIDED BY LAW AND WAS PREVENTED BY A REASONABLE CAUSE IN BELATED FILING O F FIRST APPEAL. THE FACTS IN THIS BEHALF ARE SELF SPEAKING; THEREFORE, THERE IS NO PERCEIVABLE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A). BESIDE S LD. CIT, HIMSELF WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 264 RIGHTLY ADVISED THE ASSES SEE TO PURSUE ANY OTHER LEGAL REMEDY AND APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BEI NG THE OTHER REMEDY IT HAS BEEN AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQU ENTLY FIRST ADDITIONAL GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 11. APROPOS SECOND ADDITIONAL GROUND ALSO WE FIND M ERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT 26 4 ORDER WAS PASSED NOT IN THE CASE OF IMPUGNED ASSESSEE BUT ON THE PET ITION OF LEAD PARTNER KIEL, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL BAR RAISED B Y REVENUE MAY BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF LEAD PARTNER KIEL BUT BYU NO STRETCH OF 8 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV IMAGINATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY LD. DR ARE NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. CONSEQUENTLY THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY REVEN UE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 12. ADVERTING TO MERITS OF THE CASE LD. DR RELIED O N THE ORDER OF LD. AO AND CONTENDS THAT THE RIGHT INCOME SHOULD BE ASS ESSED IN THE RIGHT HANDS. THE INCOME OF THE JV IN THE HANDS OF LEAD PA RTNER KIEL WAS NOT A CORRECT OFFER BUT THE RETURN WAS VOLUNTARILY FILE D, THEREFORE, IT WAS ASSESSED IN ITS HANDS. SINCE THE REVENUE CONSIDERS THAT THE INCOME IS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THIS ASSESSEE, THE ACCEP TANCE OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF KIEL IS NO BAR TO TAX THE INCOME AGAIN IN THE RIGHT HANDS I.E. ASSESSEE IN QUESTION. 13. IN LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT T HE LD. CIT(A) BY A DETAILED ORDER HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE RELEVANT FACT S, PERUSED THE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER RECORD AND THEREAFTER HELD THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 3.1 I HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 1,04,00,661/- BEING THE PROFIT EARNE D FROM CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS 17,37,17,953/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SAID INCOME HAD ALREADY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY THE LEAD PARTNER OF JOINT VENTURE M/S KIRAN INFR A 9 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV ENGG. LTD. AND THERE WAS NO PROFIT LEFT IN THE HAND S OF ASSESSEE. I FIND THAT THE CONTRACT AS AWARDED BY M/S RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. WAS EXECUTED IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. BEING A LEAD PARTY TO THE JOINT VENTURE AND IT HAD ALSO DISCHARGED THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PROJECT BY ITS OW N FUNDS AND RESOURCES AND HAD ALSO PROVIDED THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER NECESSARY SUPPORT AS REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME AND HAD THUS CLAIMED THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS FROM THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJE CT WORK AS ITS GROSS RECEIPTS AND THE INCOME ARISING THEREON HAD BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. THEREBY LEAVING NO INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE OTHER PARTIES TO THE JOINT VENTURE. SINCE TH ERE WAS NO PROFIT WHATSOEVER IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT JOINT VENTURE, THEREFORE, NO RETURN WAS FILED BY IT. I FURTHER FIND THAT THE RECEIPTS FOR T HE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT WORK AWARDED BY RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. HAD DULY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. MAINTAINED FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR RESPECTIVELY. SINCE ONE OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE JOINT VENTURE HAD TAKEN ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDING EXECUTION OF THE WORK AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE JOINT VENTURE BEING ONLY A FORMAL HEAD TO IT, HAD NEITHER RETAINED THE RECEIPTS NOR HAD EARNED ANY PROFIT. TH E CONCEPT OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF E. D. SASSOON 10 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV & CO. VS CIT (26 ITR 27) (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED MUST BE INCOME AND IT COULD NOT BE TAXED UNLESS IT HAD ARRIVED AT A STAGE WHEN IT COULD BE CALLED INCOME. IN THE PRESENT CASE NO INCOME WHATSOEVER HAD ARISEN OR ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE PROJECT WAS EXECUTED BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. AND ENTIRE RECEIPTS FROM SUCH EXECUTION HAD BEEN DISCLOSED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CONCEPT OF REAL INCOME WAS THEREFORE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E AS IT HAD NOT EARNED ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX. MOREOVER THE OTHER PARTNERS OF JOINT VENTURE NAMELY M/S TIRUPATI PLASTOMATICS PVT LTD HAD SUPPLIED GOODS WORTH RS 80,65,615/- TO M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERING LTD WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY CONSUMED IN THE PROJECT. THE OTHER PARTNER NAMELY M/S MANGLA ISPAT HAD SUPPLIED STEEL FOR THE PROJECT BUT THEIR MATERIAL WAS REJECTED SINCE IT DID NOT CONFORM TO T HE STANDARDS LAID DOWN BY THE INDIAN RAILWAYS. THEREFORE THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF RS 52,29,54,166/- (INCLUDING THE RECEIPTS OF RS 17,37,17,953/- TAXED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE) WERE DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERING LTD AND PROFIT OF RS 3,13,68,010/- (INCLUDING THE PROFIT OF RS 1,04,00,661/- TAXED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE) WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. THUS THE ACTION OF THE AO TO TAKE THE RECEIPTS OF RS 17,37,17,953/- ONCE AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT AND BRINGING TO TAX 11 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV THE PROFIT OF RS 1,04,00,661/-, TANTAMOUNTED TO DOUBLE ADDITION WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. TO ESCAPE THE DOUBLE TAXATION, M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERING LTD HAD FILED PETITION U/S 264 ON 04.03.2011 BEFORE CIT-II, JAIPUR FOR EXCLUSION OF INCOME OF RS 1,04,00,661/- FROM ITS HANDS. HOWEVER IT WAS REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE MADE THE SAID CLAIM ONLY BY WAY OF FILIN G REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S GOETZE INDIA LTD VS CIT (284 ITR 323). IT WAS HELD THAT SINCE THE INCOME HAD BEEN SHOWN VOLUNTARILY THEREFORE THE AO COULD NOT HAVE EXCLUDED THE SAME. SINCE THE PETITION U/S 264 HAD BEEN REJECTED, TIME TO FILE TH E REVISED RETURN HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 31.03.2010 AND THE INCOME STOOD TAXED IN THE HANDS OF M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERING LTD, THE AO BY RESORTING TO DOUBLE TAXATION HAD CAUSED JEOPARDY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS EMPHASIZED THE FACT THAT THE RECEIPTS OF RS 17,37,17,953/- WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HE FAILED TO ACCORD COGNIZANCE TO THE FACT THAT THESE FUNDS STOOD TRANSFERRED TO M/S KIRA N INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. FURTHER TDS DEDUCTED BY M/S RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS WAS CLAIMED BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERING LTD IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2008-09. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITI ON OF RS 1,04,00,661/- MADE BY HIM. THIS GROUND OF 12 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV APPEAL IS ALLOWED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. 14. PER CONTRA LD. COUNSEL VEHEMENTLY CONTENDS THAT WHILE TAXING THE SAME INCOME TWICE LD. AO GROSSLY IGNORED AND BRUSHE D ASIDE VERY CRUCIAL FACTS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- (1) THAT, THE AFTER THE COMPLETION OF WORK AWARDED BY R AIL VIKAS NIGAL LTD., M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. RAISED THE B ILL TO RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. FOR THE WORK COMPLETED AS HAD BEEN DECIDED BETWEEN THE PARTIES TO THIS JOINT VENTURE THAT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT, ITS ADMINISTRATIVE , FINANCIAL AND OTHER DOCUMENTATION WORK WAS THE SOLE RESPONSIB ILITY OF THE LEAD PARTNER TO THE JOINT VENTURE I.E. M/S KIRA N INFRA ENGG. LTD. ACCORDINGLY, M/S KIEL RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS WH ICH WERE FIRSTLY RECEIVED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF KIRAN TIRUP ATI MANGLA JV AND IMMEDIATELY WERE TRANSFERRED TO M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. (2) THAT, ENTIRE RECEIPTS SO RECEIVED BY M/S RIEL WERE DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2008-09 HOWE VER, M/S RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. HAS DEDUCTED THE TDS ONLY ON THE PAYMENT OF RS. 5,83,09,455/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY M /S KIEL ONLY, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT, COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUN T, DETAILS OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV HAVE BEEN PLACED ON PAPER BOOK. FURTHER T HE COPY OF THE WORK ORDER AWARDED AND THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR JV PARTICIPATION ARE ON RECORD. 13 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV (3) THE CONTRACT AS AWARDED BY M/S RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD . WAS EXECUTED IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE BY M/S KIRAN INFRA EN GG. LTD. BEING A LEAD PARTY TO THE JOINT VENTURE AND HAVE AL SO DISCHARGED THE OBLIGATIONS OF THE PROJECT BY UTILIZ ING ITS OWN FUNDS AND RESOURCES AND HAD ALSO PROVIDED THE ADMIN ISTRATIVE AND OTHER NECESSARY SUPPORT AS WAS REQUIRED FROM TI ME TO TIME AND HAD THUS CLAIMED THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS FROM THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT WORK AS ITS GROSS RECEIPTS AND THE INCOME ARISES THEREON HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. THEREBY LEAVING NO INCOME IN THE H ANDS OF THE JOINT VENTURE AND THIS FACT IS NEVER DISPUTED BY LD . AO. SINCE THERE WAS NO PROFIT WHATSOEVER IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT JOINT VENTURE THEREFORE, NO RETURN WAS FILED BY IT. (4) A CAREFUL READING OF THE 'MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDI NG (MOU) FOR JOINT VENTURE PARTICIPATION' WOULD SHOW THAT THE CREDENTIALS OF ALL THE PARTIES WERE PRESENTED BEFOR E THE AWARDER OF THE WORK AND SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE LINE OF EXPERIENCE HAVE BEEN NARRATED AT PAGE 2 IN POINT NO. 4 AS UNDER: 4. THE PARTIES HAVE RESOLVED THAT THE FOLLOWING DISTRIBUTION OF (A) RESPONSIBILITIES WILL BE FOLLOW ED IN THE EVENT OF THE JOINT VENTURE (JV) BID IS ACCEPT ED BY RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LIMITED. (A) RESPONSIBILITIES OF LEAD PARTNER (KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD.):- EXECUTION OF PROJECT, ADMINISTRATIVE, FINANCIAL LEGAL AND DOCUMENTATION WORK RELATED TO PROJECT. (B) RESPONSIBILITIES OF JOINT VENTURE PARTNER:- I) M/S TIRUPATI PLASTOMATICS PVT. LTD.:- SUPPLY O F CONTROL AND POWER CABLE REQUIRED FOR THE SAID WORK. 14 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV II) M/S MANGLA ISPAT (JAIPUR) LTD.:- SUPPLY OF STEEL / IRON MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR THE ABOVE SAID WORK AND LIASONING FOR THE ABOVE SAID WORK. THUS BE CLEAR THAT THE EXECUTION OF WORK HAVE BEEN DONE BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. BEING AN EXPERT AND OLD TIMER IN THE LINE, SIMULTANEOUSLY THE SECOND CONSTITUENTS OF THE MOU I.E. M/S TIRUPATI PLASTOMATICS PVT. LTD. STOOD BENE FITED BY SUPPLYING GOODS TO M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. WHICH WERE ULTIMATELY CONSUMED ON THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, THE TH IRD CONSTITUENTS M/S MANGLA ISPAT (JAIPUR) LTD. COULD N OT RECEIVE ANY DIRECT MONITORY BENEFIT AS THE STEEL MANUFACTUR ED BY THEM DID NOT CONFIRM STANDARDS LAID DOWN BY INDIAN RAILWAYS THOUGH THE COMPANY M/S MANGLA ISPAT (JAIPUR) LTD. H AD A VERY BIG DIRECT (THOUGH NON COMMERCIAL) ADVANTAGE B Y GETTING EXPOSURE TO SUCH A BIG PROJECT. IT THEREFOR E CANNOT BE SAID THAT ALL THE CONSTITUENTS OF THE JOINT VENTURE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY BENEFIT. (5) THE RECEIPTS FOR THE EXECUTION OF THE PROJECT WORK AWARDED BY RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. HAVE DULY BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S KIEL MAINTAINED FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR RESPECTIVELY. SINCE ONE OF THE CONS TITUENTS OF THE JOINT VENTURE HAS TAKEN ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIE S REGARDING EXECUTION OF THE WORK AND OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SUPPORTS THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE JOINT VENTURE BEIN G ONLY A FORMAL HEAD TO IT HAS NEITHER RETAINED THE RECEIPTS NOR HAS EARNED ANY PROFIT. 15 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV 15. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT, ALL THESE CRUCIAL FAC TS HAVE COMPLETELY BEEN IGNORED BY LD. AO WHICH MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AS ARBITRARY, LEADING TO DOUBLE TAXATION AND CONTRARY TO SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER MAKING ANALYSIS OF ENTIRE FACTS HA S RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE INCOME BEING ALREADY ACCRUED & DECLARED BY ONE OF THE CONSTITUENTS OF JV, SAME INCOME COULD NOT BE ASSESS ED IN THE HANDS OF THIS ASSESSEE. 15.1 THE CONCEPT OF ACCRUAL WAS CONSIDERED IN E. D. SASSOON & CO. V. CIT, (1954) 26 ITR 27 (SC) AND IT WAS HELD: 'WHAT IS SO UGHT TO BE TAXED MUST BE INCOME AND IT CANNOT BE TAXED UNLESS IT HAS ARRIVED AT A STAGE WHEN IT CAN BE CALLED INCOME'. IN THIS CASE N O INCOME WHATSOEVER HAS ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE JV AS THE PRO JECT WAS ADMITTEDLY EXECUTED BY LEAD PARTNER M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. AND ENTIRE RECEIPTS FROM SUCH EXECUTION HAVE BEEN OFFERED BY IT AND ACC EPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. CONSEQUENTLY THE RATIO OF E. D. SASSOON CASE ON REAL INCOME COUPLED WITH SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF NOT TAXING THE SAME INCOME TWICE IS FULLY APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. 15.2 THUS ALL THE RECEIPTS RELATED TO WORK AS WELL AS PROFIT EARNED THERE FROM BELONGED TO M/S. KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S. KIRA N INFRA ENGG. LTD. WITHOUT ANY QUALIFICATION OF AUDITORS. THIS HAS BEE N ACCEPTED AND 16 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV INCOME TAXED BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH IS NOT DISPUTE D BY REVENUE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I) 374 ITR 35 CIT VS. ORIENTAL STRUCTURAL ENGINEE RS PVT. LTD. (DELHI) (II) 372 ITR 429 CIT VS. SMSL-UANRCL (JV) (BOM.) (III) 357 ITR 396 CIT VS. BHOORATNAM AND CO. (AP) (IV) 70 DTR 66 TRANSSTORY (INDIA) LTD. VS. ITO (VI SAKHA) (V) 37 DTR 49 HYUNDAI ROTEM CO., IN RE (AAR) 15.3 THE JV MEMBERS ARE CAUGHT IN A PECULIAR POSITI ON AS IN CASE OF M/S. KIEL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE TIME LIMIT FOR FILING REVISED RETURN U/S 139(5) HAD ALREADY BEEN EXPIRED ON 31.03.2010 WHEREAS ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF ASSESSEE JOINT VENTUR E WAS COMPLETED ON 29.12.2010 THUS M/S. KIEL COULD NOT FILE THE REV ISED RETURN OF INCOME. THUS THE INCOME FROM CONTRACT ACTIVITY AWAR DED BY THE RAILWAY VIKAS NIGAM LTD. HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED IN CASE OF M/S. KIEL AND ITS FURTHER TAXATION IN HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE UNAMBIGUO USLY TANTAMOUNT TO TAXING THE SAME INCOME TWICE WHICH IS IMPERMISSIBLE AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE AND WELL SETTLED PR INCIPLE OF AVOIDING UNJUST ENRICHMENT OF STATE. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT V/S. SHOOR JI VALLABHDAS AND CO.[1962] 046 ITR 0144 HAS HELD AS UNDER:. INCOME-TAX IS A LEVY ON INCOME. THOUGH THE INCOME- TAX ACT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT TWO POINTS OF TIME AT WHICH THE LIABILITY TO TAX IS ATTRACTED, VIZ., THE ACCRUAL OF THE INCOME O R ITS RECEIPT, YET THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER IS THE INCOME. IF I NCOME DOES NOT RESULT AT ALL, THERE CANNOT BE A TAX, EVEN THOUGH IN 17 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV BOOK-KEEPING, AN ENTRY IS MADE ABOUT A 'HYPOTHETICA L INCOME', WHICH DOES NOT MATERIALISE. WHERE INCOME H AS, IN FACT, BEEN RECEIVED AND IS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN UP IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THAT IT REMAINS THE INCOME OF THE REC IPIENT, EVEN THOUGH GIVEN UP, THE TAX MAY BE PAYABLE. WHERE , HOWEVER, THE INCOME CAN BE SAID NOT TO HAVE RESULTE D AT ALL, THERE IS OBVIOUSLY NEITHER ACCRUAL NOR RECEIPT OF I NCOME, EVEN THOUGH AN ENTRY TO THAT EFFECT MIGHT, IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES, HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT (AS ST.) V/S. INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND DEVELOPMENT SYNDICATE LTD.[2006] 285 ITR 0310 HAS HELD THAT ONLY REAL INCOME ALONE TAXABLE BY FOLLOWING OB SERVATIONS:- THE INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF THE WORD INCOME IN SE CTION 2(24) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ADDS SEVERAL ARTI FICIAL CATEGORIES TO THE CONCEPT OF INCOME, BUT ON THAT AC COUNT, THE EXPRESSION DOES NOT LOSE ITS NATURAL CONNOTATIO N. IT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS COMPREHENDING ONLY SUCH THIN GS WHICH ARE INCOME ACCORDING TO THE NATURAL IMPORT OF THE TERM. IT IS THE INCOME WHICH HAS REALLY ACCRUED OR ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE THAT IS TAXABLE. WHETHER THE INCOME HAS RE ALLY ACCRUED OR ARISEN TO THE ASSESSEE MUST BE JUDGED IN THE LIGHT OF THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION. WHEN IN REAL ITY THERE IS NEITHER ACCRUAL NOR RECEIPT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESS EE, EVEN THOUGH AN ENTRY TO THAT EFFECT MIGHT IN CERTAI N CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T, IT WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVY OF TAX. A REBATE OBTAINED BY THE PURCHASER OR REMISSIO N OF 18 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV DEBT BY A CREDITOR WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE CREATION OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER OR DEBTOR. IT IS CONTENDED THAT, LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DUE APPRECI ATION OF LAW, HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WHICH MEETS THE ENDS O F LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF JUSTICE AND NEED NOT BE INTERFERED WI TH, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAY BE UPHELD. FURTHER RELIANCE IS FURTHER PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: (I) 57 ITR 521 (1965) POONA ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LT D. VS. CIT (SC) (II) 225 ITR 746 GODHARA ELECTRICITY CO. VS. CIT ( SC) 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS THE FACTS EMERGE F ROM THE RECORD, THE IMPUGNED M/S RAIL VIKAS NIGAM LTD. CONTRACT FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES WAS EXECUTED BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGG. LTD. BEING A LEAD PARTNER OF THE JOINT VENTURE WHO WAS FASTENED WITH VARIOUS OBLIGAT IONS FOR EFFECTIVE COMPLETION OF PROJECT INCLUDING USE OF ITS OWN FUND S AND RESOURCES; PROVIDING ADMINISTRATIVE AND OTHER NECESSARY SUPPOR T AS REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME. THE RECEIPTS AND INCOME ARISING THERE ON WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S KIRAN INFRA ENG G. LTD. THE PROJECT INCOME WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE TDS CREDIT WAS ALSO GIVEN. T HIS JV CONSTITUENT HAVING TAKEN OVER ALL THE RESPONSIBILITIES REGARDIN G EXECUTION OF THE 19 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV WORK INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE AND FINANCIAL SUPPORT ETC., DEPARTMENT ALSO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTS OF KIRAN INFRAS BE ING LEAD PARTNER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT DEPAR TMENT TAXED THE INCOME IN WRONG HAND. THE CONCEPT OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME IS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF E. D. SASSOON & CO. VS CIT (26 ITR 27) (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHAT WAS SOUGHT TO BE TAXED MUST BE INCOME. AS PER THE HARMONIOUS READING OF JV AGREEME NT, RESPECTIVE OBLIGATION, THE PROJECT INCOME WAS ACCRUABLE TO SAI D KIRAN INFRA. SINCE THE INCOME WAS ALREADY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF KIRAN INFRA THERE IS NO OCCASION TO HOLD THAT IT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO TAX IT AGAIN. THUS THE ACTION OF THE AO TO TAX THE ASSESSEE ON TH E INCOME ALREADY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF M/S KIRAN INFRA TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THE PETITION U/S 264 WAS FILED BY M/S KIRAN INFRA ON 04.03.2011 BEFORE CIT-II, JAIPUR TO AVOID THE HARDSHIP PROPOSE D BY THE DEPARTMENT IN TAXING THE ASSESSEE AGAIN. THE APPROACH OF THE D EPARTMENT IS INCOMPREHENSIBLE AS ON ONE HAND IT ACCEPTED THE ASS ESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF KIRAN INFRA, THEN IT DESIRED TO TAX ASSESS EE AS A LOGICAL CONSEQUENCE KIRAN INFRA APPROACHED UNDER A STATUTOR Y PROVISION OF LAW TO REVISE THE ORDER U/S 264. SEC. 264 BEING A STATU TORY REMEDY IS TO BE EXERCISED WITH JUDICIOUS APPROACH. IF THE CIT REJEC TS THE PETITION IT ALSO 20 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV IMPLIES THAT DEPARTMENT ACCEPTS THE ASSESSMENT IN T HE HANDS OF KIRAN INFRA. IN THIS SITUATION LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBL E TAXATION. ASSESSEES PREDICAMENT IS DISCERNIBLE SINCE THE PET ITION U/S 264 HAD BEEN REJECTED, TIME TO FILE THE REVISED RETURN HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 31.03.2010 AND THE INCOME STOOD TAXED IN THE HANDS OF M/S KIRAN INFRA ENGINEERING LTD. THIS LEFT THE ASSESSEE IN A PRECA RIOUS SITUATION OF DENYING THE LEGAL REMEDY; CONSEQUENTLY THE IMPUGNED APPEAL BECAME NECESSARY. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT INSIST ON UNJUST E NRICHMENT BY TAXING TWICE THE SAME INCOME IN THE PRETEXT OF SOME TECHNICALITIES. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND VARIOUS JUDGME NT AUTHORITIES CITED ABOVE ON THESE ISSUES, WE SEE NO INFIRMITY IN THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ASSESSMENT AND IMPUGNED ADDITIONS IN T HE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND REV ENUE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19/05/2016. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO V KJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 19 TH MAY, 2016 *RANJAN 21 ITA 753/JP/2012_ ITO VS M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD 4(2), JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- M/S KIRAN TIRUPATI MANGLA JV, JAIPU R. 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. 753/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR