VINOD KUMAR MITTAL, BEAWAR V. ITO, Ajmer

ITA 783/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2156 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Avoidance of tax; Deemed dividend; Capital receipt; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 37(1)

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; IKWY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,O JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAUL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL PROP: M/S. V.M. ENTERPRISES NEAR KRISHI MANDI, BHEGERA ROAD, KEKRI -305 404 CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2(3) AJMER LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ADFPM 5878 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY:SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDL. CIT - DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 15/01/2018 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 9 /02/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 27-07-2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. (1) (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS.43,4 5,236/- TREATING THE SAME AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SEC. 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. (II) BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERE D INTO ARE IN THE NATURE OF ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 2 CURRENT ACCOMMODATION ADJUSTMENTS ACCOUNTS/TRADE AD VANCES AND ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR ADVANCE AND THEREFORE THE VER Y PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT APPLY. (III) BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE APPELLANT SHARE HOLDER HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PAYMENT FROM THE COMPANY FOR HIS INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE INVOKED AT ALL. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L EARNED CIT (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF INTERES T EXPENSES OF RS.46890/- INSPITE THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAVE INTEREST FREE L OAN AND HIS OWN CAPITAL. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF RS.14.47 CRORES FROM ONE M/S DHANVARSHA OIL MILLS PVT. LTD. (DHANVARSHA/THE COMPANY FOR SHORT ) IN WHICH HE WAS HAVING A SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST OF SHAREHOLDING WITH VOTING POWER OF MORE THAN 24%. SINCE, AS PER THE AO, THIS WAS A LOAN TAK EN BY THE PVT. LTD. CO., THE AO CONSIDERED THE SAME AS A CASE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E). THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS IN REG ULAR DEALING WITH DHANVARSHA. DHANVARSHA IS ENGAGED IN THE MANUFACTUR ING OF EDIBLE OIL WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OR O IL, OIL CAKES ETC. THEREFORE, THERE ARE CONTINUOUS TRANSACTION OF PURC HASE AND SALE BETWEEN THE PARTIES , NOT ONLY IN THIS YEAR BUT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND LATER YEAR AS WELL. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14.47 CRORES WAS THE CREDIT BALANCE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THE REGULAR COURSE OF THE BUSINESS ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 3 DEALINGS, BUT THE AO REJECTED SUCH CONTENTIONS. THU S THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 49,74,429/- U/S 2(22)(2) OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THUS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN ITS LEGALITY, AN ADDITION OF RS. 49,74,429/- {RS. 36,87 ,000/- WHICH IS THE RESERVE AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY + R S. 6,58,236/- PROFIT BROUGHT FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS YEA RS + RS. 6,29,193/- PROFIT EARNED DURING THE YEAR)(RESTRICTE D TO THE EXTENT OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF THE COMPANY) BEING MADE TO ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. AC T, 1961 BEING DEEMED DIVIDEND. 2.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAT EMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS THE BENEFICIA L OWNER OF SHARES HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER IN M/S DHANVA RSHA OIL MILL PVT. LTD., DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y.2013-14. T HE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ADVANCES ACCEPTED BY THE A PPELLANT FROM M/S DHANVARSHA OIL MILL PVT. LTD. WERE UTILIZED BY HIM FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES, THEREFORE, THE ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT F ROM M/S DHANVARSHA OIL MILL PVT. LTD. CAN NOT BE TREATED AS DIVIDEND U/S 2 (22)(E) OF THE I.T.ACT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) AND THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. NEITHER IN SECTION 2(22 )(E) NOR ANY OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE RECIPIENT OF LOAN OF ADVANCE IS UTILIZING THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OR ADVANCE FOR HIS BUSINESS PURPOSES, THE LOAN OR ADVANCE SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS DIVIDEN D U/S 2(22)(E). THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT AMOUNT RECEIVE D BY THE APPELLANT AS ADVANCE FROM M/S DHANVARSHA OIL MILL PVT. LTD. IS N OT DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E), IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, THE ANOTHER ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE PROFIT EARNED DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR CAN NOT BE TREATED AS ACCUMULATED PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DIV IDEND U/S 2(22)(E), IS NOT ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 4 FOUND ACCEPTABLE, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. V.DAMODARAN 13 CTR 0191. HENCE, THE AMOUNT OF A CCUMULATED PROFIT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)( E)IS RESTRICTED TO RS.43,45,236/- AS AGAINST THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT CO MPUTED BY THE AO AT THE RS.49,74,429/-, BY EXCLUDING THE CURRENT YEARS PRO FIT OF RS.6,29,193/-. AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT APPEARING UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL RES ERVE (RS.36,87,000) IS CONCERNED, IT IS VERY MUCH PART OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E). ACCORDINGLY, T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS REDUCED TO RS.43,45,236/- FROM RS.49,74,429/- . THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.6,29,193/-. 2.3 BEFORE US, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THE DETAILED SU BMISSION AS UNDER: 1.1. FIRSTLY , THE ENTIRE CASE TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER THE SUBJECT ED AMOUNT SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, UP TO THE EXTENT OF RESER VES & SURPLUS IS IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR ADVANCE IN ITS TRUE LEGAL MEANING IN THE CONTEXT OF SEC.2(22)(E). 1.2.1 SEC.2(22)(E) APPLIES TO ANY PAYMENT BY A COMPANY TO A SUBSTANTIAL SHARE HOLDER BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN. WHERE PAYMENT IS MADE FOR BUSINESS CONSIDERATION, THE SAME IS NOT COVERED BY DEEMING F ICTION OF SECTION 2 (22)(E). IT BEING A DEEMING FICTION NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUED ST RICTLY. FOR APPLICABILITY OF THIS SECTION, FOLLOWING CONDIT IONS SHOULD BE SATISFIED:- (I) THERE SHOULD BE A PAYMENT. (II) PAYMENT SHOULD BE OF A SUM. (III) SUCH PAYMENT SHOULD BE BYWAY OF LOAN OR ADVAN CE. THEREFORE, UNLESS & UNTIL ALL THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED, DEEMING FICTION WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTED. 1.2.2 IN VIEW OF THE OBJECT OF S. 2(22)(E), THE WORD ADV ANCE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORD LOAN USUALLY A LOAN IN VOLVES POSITIVE ACT OF LENDING COUPLED WITH ACCEPTANCE OF MONEY AS LOAN BY THE OTHER SIDE AND THERE IS AN OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE TERM ADVANCE IN ITS WIDEST MEANING MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE LENDING WOR D ADVANCE IF NOT FOUND IN THE COMPANY OF OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORD LOAN MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE THE OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT APPLYING THE RULE OF NOSCITUR A SOCIIS, THE WORD ADVANCE WHICH APPEARS IN THE COM PANY OF THE WORD LOAN COULD ONLY MEAN SUCH ADVANCE WHICH CARRIES WITH IT AN OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT THUS, TRADE ADVANCE WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF MONEY ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 5 TRANSACTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTI ON DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF S. 2(22)(E) . 1.3 IN ORDER TO COVER ANY AMOUNT WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E), IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED SHOULD EITHER BE LOAN OR ADVANCE. (I) THE WORD ADVANCE HAS NOT BEEN DEFINED. HOWEVE R, IN CASE OF CIT VS. RAJ KUMAR (2009) 318 ITR 462 (DEL)(DPB 1-10) , IT WAS HELD THAT APPLYING THE RULE OF NOSCITUR A SOCIIS WHICH MEANS THAT TH E WORDS IN AN ACT OF PARLIAMENT IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH REFERENCE TO T HE WORDS FOUND IN IMMEDIATE CONNECTION WITH THEM, THE WORD ADVANCE HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORD LOAN . USUALLY ATTRIBUTES OF A LOAN ARE THAT (I) IT INVOLVES A POSITIVE ACT OF LENDING COUPLED W ITH ACCEPTANCE BY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MONEY AS LOAN (II) GENERALLY CARRIES AN INTEREST (III) OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT. THEREFORE, THE WORD ADVANCE WHICH APPE ARS IN THE COMPANY OF THE WORD LOAN COULD ONLY BE SUCH ADVANCE WHICH CA RRIES WITH IT AN OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT. THUS, TRADE ADVANCES WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF MONEY TRANSACTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTI ON WOULD NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2(22)(E) (II) THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN INVOLVES LENDING DELIV ERY BY ONE PARTY & RECEIPT BY ANOTHER PARTY OF SUM OF MONEY UPON EXPRESS OR IMPLI ED AGREEMENT TO REPAY IT WITH OR WITHOUT INTEREST. IN CASE OF BOMBAY STEAM NAVIGATION CO. (P.) LTD. 56 ITR 52, 57 (SC), IT WAS HELD THAT A LOAN OF MONEY RESULTS IN DEBT B UT EVERY DEBT DOES NOT INVOLVE A LOAN . LIABILITY TO PAY A DEBT MAY ARISE FROM DIVERSE SOURCES & LOAN IS ONLY ONE OF SUCH SOURCE. EVERY CR EDITOR WHO IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A DEBT CANNOT BE REGARDED AS A LENDER. (III) IN CASE OF ARDEE FINVSET (P.) LTD. VS. DCIT 79 ITD 547/70 TTJ 378 (DEL.) (TRIB.) IT WAS HELD THAT LOAN MEANS A LENDING; DELIVERY BY ONE PARTY TO AND RECEIPT B Y ANOTHER PARTY OF SUM OF MONEYS UPON AGREEMENT, EXPRESS OR I MPLIED, TO REPAY WITH OR WITHOUT INTEREST. FOR A LOAN THERE MUST BE A LENDER , A BORROWER, A THING LOANED FOR USE, AS WELL AS A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE P ARTIES FOR THE RETURN OF THE THING LOANED. A LOAN CONTRACTED NO DOUBT CREATES A DEBT, BUT THERE MAY BE A DEBT WITHOUT CONTRACTING A LOAN. IN A LOAN THE MIND AND INTENTION OF THE TWO PARTIES, THE LENDER AND THE BORROWER MUST BE AD IDE M. THE EXPRESSION ADVANCE MEANS SOMETHING WHICH IS DUE TO A PERSON, BUT WHICH IS PAID TO HIM AHEAD OF TIME WHEN IT IS DUE TO BE PAID. IN THE DICTIONARY OF ACCOUNTS BY ERIC L. KOHLER (5THEDN.) , THE EXPRESSION ADVANCE WAS DEFINED AS PAYMENT OF CASH OR THE TRANSFER OF GOODS FOR WHICH ACCOUNT MUST BE RENDERED BY THE RECIPIENT AT SOME LATER DATE. LOAN & ADVANCES COULD ONLY BE CONSIDERED DEEMED DIVIDEND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 2(22)( E).IT IS, THEREFORE, SINE QUA NON, TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT NATURE OF THE PAY MENTS. THE CHIEF ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 6 INGREDIENT OF S. 2(22)(E) IS THAT ONE SHOULD BE SHA REHOLDER ON THE DATE THE LOAN WAS ADVANCED TO HIM. WHERE SUCH INGREDIENT IS NOT ESTABLISHED, THE ADVANCE COULD NOT BE TAKEN AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S. 2(22)(E). IT IS SETTLED RULE OF INTERPRETATION OF A FICTION THAT THE COURT SHOULD ASCERTAIN FOR WHAT PURPOSE THE FICTION IS CREATED AND AFTER ASCERTAINI NG THE PURPOSE, THE COURT HAS TO ASSUME ALL FACTS WHICH ARE INCIDENTAL TO GIV E EFFECT TO THAT FICTION. IT WILL NOT BE GIVEN A WIDER MEANING THAN WHAT IT PURP ORTS TO DO. LAW DEALING WITH FICTION RELATES TO THAT BREACH OF JURISPRUDENC E WHICH SHOULD BE NARROWLY WATCHED, ZEALOUSLY REGARDED AND NEVER TO BE PRESSED BEYOND ITS TRUE LIMITS. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF THE CASE, THE RECEIPT FROM H LTD. WAS IN THE NATURE OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY . IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED LOAN OR ADVANCE. AS SUCH, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS BEYOND THE KEN OF S. 2(22)(E).---' 1.4 IN CIT V/S SRINIVASAN (K) (1963) 50 ITR 788 (MAD HC) HAS DEFINED THAT ADVANCES MEANS SOMETHING WHICH IS DUE TO A PERSON BUT WHICH IS PAID TO HIM AHEAD OF THE TIME WHEN IT IS DUE TO BE PAID. 2. APPLICATION ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE: 2.1 APPLYING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE FOLLOWING IMPORTANT FEATURE EMERGES: 1. THERE APPEARS FREQUENT RECEIVING AND GIVING OF THE AMOUNTS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND DHANVARSHA OR VICE VERSA. 2. SECONDLY, THERE IS NO INTEREST PAYMENT BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES ON SUCH RECEIVING/GIVING OR ON DEBIT/CREDIT BALANCE ON ANY OF THE DAY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. 3. SIMILAR POSITION PREVAILED IN THE PAST 5-7 YEARS AS ALSO IN THE LATER YEARS . 2.2 THE PURPOSE AND THE OBJECT WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE TO GETHER WITH DHANVARSH AND OTHER PROPRIETARY OF THE ASSESSEE (M/S V. M. EN TERPRISES) CONSTITUTED A GROUP. AS AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE NEEDED THE FUND TO PAY OFF THE DEBTS BECAUSE OF THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THIRD PART IES, IT OBTAINED FUNDS FROM THE SAID COMPANY. SIMILARLY THE SAID COMPANY TOO, A S &WHEN IT NEEDED THE FUNDS (AND NATURALLY WITH A VIEW TO STOP THE CHARGI NG OF THE INTEREST IN THE OD A/C), GOT BACK THE FUNDS FROM THE ASSESSEE AND PUT THEM IN THE BANK. THIS IS A COMMON FEATURE THAT IN THE GROUP CONCERNS, THERE AR E USED TO BE FREQUENT INTER TRANSFERS OF THE FUND BETWEEN THE PARTIES AS AND WH EN NEEDED. SINCE NO INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID WHAT COMES OUT IS THAT THERE WAS NO RECEIPT/REPAYMENT OF ANY LOAN AND RATHER IT WAS IN THE NATURE OF A RUNNING/CURRENT A/C BEING ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 7 MAINTAINED BY BOTH THE PARTIES FOR THEIR BUSINESS C ONVENIENCE AND IN THE IRRESPECTIVE BUSINESS INTEREST. THE FACT OF THERE BEING SHORTAGE/REQUIREMENT OF THE FUND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS FULLY PROV ED FROM A CHART (PB 111- 113) . WE MAY SHOW, THROUGH A FEW EXAMPLES , THAT THERE WAS SCARCITY OF THE FUNDS IN THE BANK AS ALSO IN THE CASH IN HAND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD TO OBTAIN THE FUNDS. AT THE SAME TIME THE COMPANY ALSO NEEDED THE FUNDS TO STOP THE INTEREST AND THEREFORE, WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE W AS HAVING PLENTY OF FUNDS, THE COMPANY TOOK BACK THE SAME. 2.3 IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN ASSESS EE AND M/S DHANVARSHA IS NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOANS OR ADVANCES BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, AS EVIDENT THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ASSESS EE REQUIRED TEMPORARILY MORE FUNDS FOR ITS BUSINESS AND THEREFORE M/S DHANV ARSHA AS A TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION PROVIDED RS.14.48 CRORES TO THE COMPA NY. THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID BACK BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE COMPANY. THEREAFTE R, WHEN THE COMPANY WAS IN NEED OF THE FUND, THE ASSESSEE PAID SUM TO THE C OMPANY. COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF M/S DHANVARSHA IS ALSO SUBMITTED (PB 4-11) . FROM THIS COPY OF ACCOUNT IT CAN BE NOTED THAT IN A.Y.20 09-10 ALSO COMPANY GAVE TEMPORARY ACCOMMODATION OF RS.14.48 CRORES WHICH WA S REPAID BACK BY THE COMPANY. ALL THESE FACTS SHOWS THAT VKM IN COURSE O F BUSINESS, ON OCCASIONS, REMAINED SHORT OF FUNDS AND THEREFORE, IN BUSINESS INTEREST, DHANVARSHA PROVIDED FUNDS TO VKM. THUS SUCH RECEIPTS WERE IN T HE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND UNDER BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY 2.4 IN THESE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ONLY B ECAUSE ON VARIOUS DATES ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.14.48 CRORES FROM DHANVARS HA, THE SAME CANT BE CONSIDERED AS A LOAN OR ADVANCE PARTICULARLY WHEN T HE AMOUNT SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REFERENCE TO MEET ITS TEMPORAR Y NEEDS. THUS, THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND DHANVARSHA IS A MU TUAL, OPEN, CURRENT/RUNNING ACCOUNT WHICH IS NOT A LOAN OR ADVANCE AS ENVISAGED U/S 2(22)(E). 2.5 THE CONTENTION THAT WHAT WENT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT & DHANVARSHA WAS NOTHING BUT MERE ACCOMMODATION/ADJUSTMENT ENTRY BET WEEN THE TWO ENTITIES IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJ RAT HIGH COURT IN CIT V/S SCHUTZ DISHMAN BIO-TECH PVT. LTD. DBITA NO.958 & 959/2015 (DPB 11-14) VIDE ORDER DATED 21.12.2015 WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 4. IT CAN THUS BE SEEN THAT THE COMMISSIONER AS A MATTER OF FACT FOUND THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF CURRENT ADJUSTMENT. THERE WAS MOVEMENT OF FUND BOTH WAYS ON NEED BASIS . THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE NATURE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE USUALLY VERY F EW IN NUMBER WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE IN THE FORM OF ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 8 CURRENT ACCOMMODATION ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES . THE COMMISSIONER THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT IN T HE NATURE OF LOANS AND ADVANCES. THE REVENUE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL . THE TRIBUNAL CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AND HE LD THAT AMOUNTS WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF INTER CORPORATE DEPOSITS AND WERE THEREFORE, NOT TO BE TREATED AS LOANS OR ADVANCES AS CONTEMPLA TED IN SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 5. THE ISSUE IS SUBSTANTIALLY ONE OF APPRECIATION O F FACTS. WHEN THE CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL CONCURRENTLY HELD THAT LOOKING TO LARGE NUMBER OF ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNTS BETWEEN TWO ENTITIES , THE AMOUNTS WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR DEP OSIT, BUT MERELY ADJUSTMENTS, APPLICATION OFSECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WOULD NOT ARISE . CONSEQUENTLY, NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPE ALS ARE DISMISSED. 2.6.1 THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CONTENTION IN PARA 4.3 PG 8 BY SIMPLY MENTIONING THAT NEITHER THE PROVISION NOR THE DECI SIONS CITED, HAVE HELD THAT THE RECIPIENT OF THE LOANS AND ADVANCES THOUGH UTIL IZED FOR ITS BUSINESS PURPOSE YET THE SAME SHALL NOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEN D. IN FACT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AT ALL UNDERSTOOD/ PURPORTEDLY IGNORED THAT THE VERY PURPOSE OF INTRODUCING SEC. 2(22)(E) WAS TO STOP AVOIDANCE OF TAX LIABILITY U/S 115O BY DISTRIBUTING THE DIVIDEND UNDER THE GUISE OF LOANS & ADVANCES MEANT FOR THE BENEFITS OF THE RECIPIENT SHAREHOLDERS. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WHERE THERE IS A FREQUENT GIVING (OF THE AMOU NTS) AND RECEIVING BACK HOW IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNTS GIVEN WERE MEANT FO R THE BENEFIT OF THE RECIPIENT SHAREHOLDERS (SO AS TO BE TREATED AS DEEM ED DIVIDEND) WHEN, THE SAME RECIPIENT SHAREHOLDER HAD ALSO BEEN GIVING THE AMOUNTS TO THE SAME COMPANY TIME TO TIME AS AND WHEN NEEDED. IT IS NOT AT ALL A CASE WHERE THE AMOUNTS WERE GIVEN TO THE RECIPIENT SHAREHOLDER FOR A LONG PERIOD. 2.6.2 THE AO WAS WRONG TO STATE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER T HAT HE HIMSELF HAD ACCEPTED IN PRINCIPLE THAT SEC. 2(22)(E) IF ATTRACT ED IN THIS CASE AND THIS ALLEGATION WAS SPECIFICALLY DENIED BEFORE THE LD. C IT(A) IN HIS WS (PG 7 PR 4.2) NOR IT WAS SO IN LETTER DATED 28-01-2016 TO AO (PBP 14-16) OTHERWISE THERE IS NO ESTOPPELS. 2.7 ON THIS ASPECT, ALSO KINDLY REFER OUR DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REPRODUCED IN HIS ORDER, PARTICULARL Y AT PAGE 6 & 7 2.8 SUPPORTING CASE LAWS: FOR THIS RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES:- ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 9 (1) CIT V/S CREATIVE DYEING & PRINTING P LTD. 318 I TR 476 (DEL HC) IT WAS HELD THAT AMOUNT ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY ANOTHER COMPANY HAVING COMMON DIRECTORS NOT BEING A LOAN BUT AN ADVANCE F OR BUSINESS TRANSACTION WHICH IS TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE MONEYS PAYABLE BY THE LATTER TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS, SAME DID NOT FALL WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S. 2(22)(E). (2) MTAR TECHNOLOGIES (P) LTD. V/S ACIT 39 SOT 465 (HYD TRIB) (3) CIT V/S AMBASSADOR TRAVELS (P) LTD. 318 ITR 376 (DEL HC) (4) DCIT V/S LAKRA BROTHERS (2007) 106 TTJ 250 (CHA ND. TRIB) (DPB 41- 47) , IT WAS HELD THAT THE IMPORTANT WORDS IN THE SECTION ARE LOAN OR ADV ANCE AND FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF SUCH SHAREHOLDERS. THE LOAN I S SOMETHING DIFFERENT FROM DEBT. FOR A LOAN THERE MUST BE A LENDER, BORRO WER AS WELL AS A CONTRACT/AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES FOR THE RETU RN OF THE LOAN AMOUNT. EVERY SALE OF GOODS ON CREDIT DOES NOT AMOU NT TO A TRANSACTION OF LOAN. IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, THERE WAS A DEBIT BALANCE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ADVANCE PAID BY AEPL AND THIS WAS PURELY ADV ANCE DURING THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS FOR BUSINESS EXPEDIENCI ES. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE WAS INTENTION OF THE COMPANY TO GIV E A LOAN. AO HAS NEVER DOUBTED THE SEQUENCE OF MARKET SERVICE, EXHIB ITION AT HOTEL AND EXECUTION OF ORDERS IN PURSUANCE OF THE ADVANCE. IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A DIFFERENT STORY IF AEPL WOULD HAVE MADE THE PAYMENT BY WAY OF LOAN OR ADVANCE TO THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, BUT FOR THEIR INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT. NO SPEC IFIC DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A). THE SA ME IS UPHELD. LAKHMICHAND MUCHHAL VS. CIT (1961) 43 ITR 315 (MP) AND CIT VS. SAURASHTRA CEMENT & CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. (1975) 101 ITR 502 (GUJ) RELIED ON. (5) SRI SATCHINDANANAD S. PANDIT V/S ITO 19 SOT 213 (MUM TRIB) (6) IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S SHRI NARAYAN J. PAGRANI IN ITA NO. 7480/MUM/2011 VIDE ORDER DATED 13.08.2014 (DPB 48-5 1) WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 10 -------THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF COMPANY FOR THE PURPOSES OF 2(22)(E)BY TAKING THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF EARLIE R YEARS AS WELL AS CURRENT YEAR PROFITS BEFORE TAX, AS REDUCED BY CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUBSIDY OF RS 30 LACS, INCOME TAX PAID OF RS 3,32,000/-,DI VIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAX OF RS.63,514/- AND PRIOR PERIOD EX PENSES OF RS.5,85,474/-AND ONLY THEREAFTER TO MAKE THE ADDITI ON, TO THE EXTENT OF SUCH ACCUMULATED PROFITS, IN HANDS OF THE APPELLANT U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 2.9 OTHER SUPPORTING CASE LAW: IN KRISHNA KR. PATHAK (HUF) VS. ITO (2004) 90 TTJ 940 (KOLTRIB) (DPB 15-17) HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE(HUF) AND THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE(HU F) WERE MAINTAINING CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH EACH OTHER AND THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THEM WERE IN THE NATURE OF TEMPORARY ADJUSTMENT/ACCOMMODATION AND THERE WAS NO CASH LOAN OR DEPOSIT BY THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE (HUF). THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT DISPUTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE (HUF) THAT NO INTEREST WAS PAID OR PAYABLE OR RECEIVED BY EITHER SIDE. BY PASSING THE JOURNAL ENTRY BY THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE (HUF) ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURR ED BY HIM FOR GIVING GIFTS TO RELATIVES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE (HUF) DOES NOT AMOUNT TO LOAN OR DEPOSIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF S. 269SS AND AS SUCH, NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER S. 271D. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY IS CANCELLED.SHREPAK ENTERPRISES VS. DY. CIT (1998) 6 0 TTJ (AHD) 199 : (1998) 64 ITD 300 (AHD), MUTHOOT M. GEORGE BANKER S VS. ASSTT. CIT (1993) 47 TTJ (COCH) 434 : (1993) 46 ITD 10 (COCH), DILLU CINE ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS. ADDL. CIT (2002) 80 ITD 48 4 (HYD) AND SUN FLOWER BUILDERS (P) LTD. VS. DY. CIT (1997) 61 ITD 227 (PUNE) RELIED ON. KARNATAKA GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY V/S JCIT (2001 ) 72 TTJ 0307 (MUM BENCH) - TEMPORARY ADVANCE IS NOT LOAN DEPOSIT. THUS, THE MOVEMENT OF THE FUNDS BETWEEN THE TWO GRO UP CONCERNS WAS NEED BASED HENCE, SUCH TRANSACTIONS WERE IN THE FORM OF CURRENT ACCOMMODATION ADJUSTMENT ENTRIES AND NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF LOAN & ADVANCE SEC.2 (22)(E) WAS WRONGLY INVOKED. 3. CAPITAL SUBSIDY IS NOT ACCUMULATED PROFIT: 3.1 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS ARE NOT DENI ED THAT THE RESERVES &SURPLUS INCLUDING THE B/F AND CURRENT YEAR PROFIT TOTALING TO RS.49,74,429/- INCLUDED THE AMOUNT RS.36,87,000/-RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF A CAPIT AL SUBSIDY IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. KINDLY REFER THE AUDITED BAL ANCE SHEET NOTE: RESERVES AND SURPLUS (PB 1-2), AND ALSO REPRODUCED AT PG 8 TOP OF THE CIT(A) ORDER . IT ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 11 IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 2(22)(E) C AN BE APPLIED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS, WHICH ARE REVENU E IN NATURE AND NOT OTHERWISE. 3.2.1 IN THIS CASE THE MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUS TRIES, NEW DELHI VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 09.09.2008 (A.Y.2009-10) (PB 104) SANCTION GRANT-IN-AID OF RS.18,43,500/- TO THE APPELLANT FOR SETTING UP OF EDIBLE OIL PLANT AS MENTIONED IN THE ENCLOSED THIS (ANNEXURE I) AS GRANT-IN-AID U NDER THE SCHEME OF SETTING UP/MODERNIZATION/EXPLANATION/TECHNOLOGY UP GRADATIO N. FURTHER SUCH GRANT- IN-AID WAS SUBJECT TO VARIOUS TERMS & CONDITIONS AS WERE MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE II. THEREAFTER, THE SAID MINISTRY AGAIN VI DE THEIR LETTER DATED 10.05.2012 (A.Y.2013-14) (PB 101-103) HAS PAID THE SECOND INSTALLMENT OF THE GRANT-IN-AID OF RS.18,43,500/- TO THE APPELLANT (OU T OF THE TOTAL GRANT-IN-AID OF RS.36.87 LAKHS) FOR THE SAID VERY PURPOSE AND THE S AME WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SIMILAR TERMS & CONDITIONS AS MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE II. SUCH GRANT IS CONTINUOUSLY BEING SHOWN BY THE COMPANY IN ITS BALA NCE SHEET. 3.2.2 IT IS VERY PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN THE CASE OF DHANVARSHA THE REVENUE HAS RATHER TREATED SUCH AMOUNT AS A CAPITAL SUBSIDY THEREFORE, NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR A.Y.2009-10 WHEREIN PAR T OF THE SUBSIDY WAS RECEIVED AND AGAIN IN A.Y.2013-14 WHERE THE OTHER PART WAS RECEIVED. OF COURSE, DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, THIS ISSUE AROSE AND WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH HENCE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION THAT THE SUBJ ECTED AMOUNT WAS A CAPITAL SUBSIDY AND WAS NOT REVENUE IN NATURE WHICH WAS ACC EPTED BY THE CONCERNED AO AFTER DUE SATISFACTION. THE SAID COMPANY HAS NEV ER SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF SUCH SUBSIDIES AS A CREDIT TO ITS PROFIT & LOSS A/C IN ANY OF THE PRECEDING/SUCCEEDING/CURRENT YEARS MEANING THEREBY THE COMPANY ALSO TREATED THE SAME TO BE OF REVENUE NATURE. KINDLY REFER W/S DATED 30-01-16 GIVEN TO THE AO BY THE COMPANY (PBP 17) 4.3.1 ANOTHER ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT THE PROVISI ONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 R/W THE RELEVANT RULES, THE DECLARATION A ND DISTRIBUTION OF THE DIVIDEND IS SUBJECTED TO CERTAIN LIMITATIONS IN AS MUCH AS IT CAN BE DECLARED AND DISTRIBUTED ONLY OUT OF THE OPERATING PROFIT ON LY BUT NEVER OUT OF THE CAPITAL SUBSIDIES. IN THAT VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITI ON AND RESTRICTIONS PUT BY THE LAW, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION OF THE DISTRIB UTION OF DIVIDEND MUCH LESS DEEMING AS DIVIDEND WHICH, OTHERWISE IS NOT PERMISS IBLE BY THE STATUTE. 4.3.2 IT IS USEFUL TO REFER TO THE DEFINITION OF THE EXPR ESSIONS 'ACCUMULATED PROFITS',AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION 1 & 2 TO SEC. 2(22), READING AS UNDER: EXPLANATION 1.THE EXPRESSION 'ACCUMULATED PROFITS ', WHEREVER IT OCCURS IN THIS CLAUSE, SHALL NOT INCLUDE CAPITAL GAINS ARISING BEFORE THE ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 12 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1946, OR AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MA RCH, 1948, AND BEFORE THE 1ST DAY OF APRIL, 1956. EXPLANATION 2.THE EXPRESSION 'ACCUMULATED PROFITS' IN SUB-CLAUSES (A), (B), (D) AND (E), SHALL INCLUDE ALL PROFITS OF THE COMPANY UP TO THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION OR PAYMENT REFERRED TO IN THOS E SUB-CLAUSES, AND IN SUB-CLAUSE (C) SHALL INCLUDE ALL PROFITS OF THE COM PANY UP TO THE DATE OF LIQUIDATION, BUT SHALL NOT, WHERE THE LIQUIDATION I S CONSEQUENT ON THE COMPULSORY ACQUISITION OF ITS UNDERTAKING BY THE GO VERNMENT OR A CORPORATION OWNED OR CONTROLLED BY THE GOVERNMENT U NDER ANY LAW FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, INCLUDE ANY PROFITS OF THE COMPANY PRIOR TO THREE SUCCESSIVE PREVIOUS YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDI NG THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH ACQUISITION TOOK PLACE. THE SAID EXPLANATION NOWHERE INDICATES THAT ANY AMO UNT OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED ON CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS ALSO TO BE INCLUDED/CONSIDERE D WITHIN THE EXPRESSION ACCUMULATED PROFITS. THUS, THE LEGISLATURE HAVING PROVIDED SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF THE EXPRESSION ACCUMULATED PROFITS WHEREIN, THERE IS NO INCLUSION OF THE CAPITAL SUBSIDY HENCE, IT CANNOT B E PRESUMED THAT TO MAKE THE DEEMING FICTION WORKABLE U/S 2(22)(E), THE SCOPE OF THE EXPRESSION ACCUMULATED PROFITS SHOULD BE ENLARGE EVEN TO THE EXTENT TO INCLUDE A CAPITAL SUBSIDY WHICH, OTHERWISE BY ITS VERY NATURE IS NOT A PROFIT MUCH LESS A REVENUE PROFIT/AND THAN AN ACCUMULATED PROFITS. 4.4 THE LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, REJECTED SUCH CONTENTION SU MMARILY IN PARA 4.3 PG 9 AT SIMPLY SAYING THAT .. AS THE AMOUNT APP EARING UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL RESERVE (RS.36,87,000/-) IS CONCERNED, IT IS VERY MUCH PART OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E)... THIS WAS SUBMITTED TO AO ALSO VIDE W/S DATED 28-01-16 (PBP 16) WHO MADE NO ADVERSE COMMENTS. 4.5 COVERED ISSUE: THIS ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED ON SIMILAR FACTS IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S RAJASTHAN WIRES (P) LTD. (003) 81 TTJ 0673 (JP TRIB) (DPB 3140) WHEREIN, IT WAS HELD THAT DIVIDENDDEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER S. 2(22)(E)ACCUMUL ATED PROFITSLOAN FROM S LTD., A COMPANY IN WHICH ASSESS EE IS HOLDING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST AND VOTING POWERAMOUNT OUTSTA NDING IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF S LTD., UNDER THE HEAD 'LOANS AND ADVANCES HAD TO BE TREATED AS ADVANCE/LOAN TO SHAR EHOLDER AS ENVISAGED UNDER S. 2(22)(E)IN THE ABSENCE OF PRODU CTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER RECONCILIATION, THE CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID FOR EXPENSES CANNOT BE ACCEPTEDEXPLN. 2 T O S. 2(22) CLARIFIES THAT THE WORDS 'ACCUMULATED PROFITS' ALSO INCLUDE CURRENT PROFITS OF THE COMPANY UPTO THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTIO N OR PAYMENT ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 13 REFERRED IN S. 2(22)(E)UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AND LOSSES AS PER IT ACT CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE ACC UMULATED PROFITS ARRIVED AT AFTER MAKING PROVISION OF DEPRECIATION A ND CHARGING EXPENSESFURTHER, CAPITAL RECEIPTS CANNOT BE SAID T O BE EARNED PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION CAPITAL RESERVE ON ACCOUNT OF STATE CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUBSIDY, LAB EQUIPMENT SUBSIDY AND ISI S UBSIDY PROVIDED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN ACCUM ULATED PROFITS SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT TREATED THE AMOUNT OF SUB SIDY AS REVENUE RECEIPT NOR THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDITED AS PROFITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF S LTD. IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS, THE CONTENTION TH AT THE AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDY WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THUS, THE SUBSIDY AMOUNT CANNOT BE TERMED AS CAPITALIZED PROFITS OF T HE COMPANYONLY THE CURRENT YEARS PROFIT COULD BE TREATED AS DEEME D DIVIDEND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE HENCE, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL SUBSIDY OF RS.3 6,87,000/- CANNOT BE TREATED AS ACCUMULATED PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF S EC.2(22)(E) AND HENCE, KINDLY BE DELETED THEREFROM. 4.6 ALSO KINDLY REFER OUR DETAILS SUBMISSIONS FILED BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REPRODUCED IN HIS ORDER. 5. IN CASE OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION, THE VIEW FAVOURAB LE TO ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED IN ASSESSMENT. KINDLY REFER CIT V/S VEGETABLE PRODUCTS (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC), ACIT & ORS. V/S VELLIAPPA TEXTILES LT D. & ORS. (2003) 184 CTR 193 (SC). HENCE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION KINDLY BE DELETED IN FU LL. 2.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED O N THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 2.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE PROVISION, IT IS CLEAR THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22) (E) OF THE ACT, IT SHOULD BE IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR ADVANCE. ON THIS ASPECT, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 14 THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BY THE LD.AR. WE HAVE A LSO GONE THROUGH THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSE AND M/S DHANVARSHA O IL MILLS PVT. LTD. IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE RELEVANT YEAR, COPIES PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PG. NO. 4 TO 11, AND A CHART PLACED AT P G. 111 TO 113. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ESTABLISHES THAT IT WAS A TRANSACTION OF LOAN OR ADVANCE. HENCE, THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE H AS NO MERIT . HOWEVER, THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR WAS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E), IF AT ALL TO BE APPLIED, COULD BE APPLIED ONLY TO EXTENT OF THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS WHICH MEANS ONLY THE REVENUE/OPERATING PROFIT AND NOT A CAPITAL SUBSIDY/GRANT. WHEREAS, IN THIS CASE, OUT OF THE TOTAL SUBJECTED RECEIPTS OF RS. 43.45 LACS, RS. 36.87 LAC S WAS AN AMOUNT, RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E A .Y 2012-13 AND IN THIS YEAR, WAS ON ACCOUNT OF A CAPITAL SUBSIDY. ON THIS ASPECT, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS A NOTE IN THE AUDITED BALANCE SHE ET AS ON 31.03.2013 AND THE BREAKUP OF THE RESERVE & SURPLUS PLACED AT PGS 1-2 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH READS AS UNDER. RESERVE & SURPLUS 1. CAPITAL RESERVE AMOUNT AMOUNT SUBSIDY RS. 36,87,000/- 2. SURPLUS (PROFIT AND LOSS A/C) BALANCE BROUGHT FORWARD FROM PREVIOUS RS. 6,58,236 /- ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 15 YEAR ADD: PROFIT FOR THE PERIOD RS. 6,29,193/- RS. 12,8 7,429/- TOTAL RS. 49,74,429/- IT IS NOTICED THAT THE MINISTRY OF FOOD PROCESSING INDUSTRIES, NEW DELHI VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 09.09.2008 (A.Y.2009-10)(CO PY PLACED AT PB 104) SANCTIONED A GRANT-IN-AID OF RS.18,43,500/- TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SETTING UP OF EDIBLE OIL PLANT AS MENTIONED IN THE ENCLOSED TH IS (ANNEXURE I) AS GRANT- IN-AID UNDER THE SCHEME OF SETTING UP/MODERNIZATION/EXPLANATION/TECHNOLOGY UP GRADATIO N. FURTHER SUCH GRANT-IN-AID WAS SUBJECT TO VARIOUS TERMS & CONDITI ONS AS WERE MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE II. THEREAFTER, THE SAID MINISTRY AGAIN VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 10.05.2012 (A.Y.2013-14) (PB 101-103) HAS PAID THE SECOND INSTALLMENT OF THE GRANT-IN-AID OF RS.18,43,500/- TO THE ASSESS EE (OUT OF THE TOTAL GRANT-IN-AID OF RS.36.87 LAKHS) FOR THE SAID PURPOS E AND THE SAME WAS ALSO SUBJECTED TO SIMILAR TERMS & CONDITIONS AS MENTIONE D IN ANNEXURE II. SUCH GRANT IS CONTINUOUSLY BEING SHOWN BY THE COMPA NY IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS A CAPITAL RECEIPT UNDER THE HEAD OF RESERV E AND SURPLUS. A PERUSAL OF THE AUDITED P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR END ING 31.03.2013 DOES NOT SHOW ANY CREDIT ON THIS ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE GRANT OF RS. 36.87 LAKHS APPEARS TO BE A PART OF RESERVE & SURPLUS IN THE AUDITED BALANCE ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 16 SHEET OF THE COMPANY THIS YEAR, AS ALSO IN THE PREC EDING YEAR. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE AR OF THE CO MPANY TO THE AO, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS OF M/S DHANVARSHA FOR THE SAME YEAR I.E A.Y 2013-14 WERE ALSO GOING O N SIMULTANEOUSLY WHEREIN, THE SAME AO CONSIDERED THE RECEIPT OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF THE SUBSIDY (OF BALANCE OF RS.18,43,500/- RECEIVED THIS YEAR) AS OF CAPITAL NATURE AND HENCE NO ADDITION APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN M ADE ON THAT ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE RECEIPT OF CA PITAL SUBSIDY IN A.Y. 2009-10 OR IN A.Y. 2013-14 WAS CONSIDERED AS REVENU E IN NATURE AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID COMPAN Y. THE LD. DR COULD NOT DENY FROM THESE FACTS NOR HE COULD SHOW IF THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT READ WITH RELEVANT RULES, PERMITS TH E CONSIDERATION OF THE CAPITAL SUBSIDY/GRANT AS A PART OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT TO BE DECLARED AS A DIVIDEND. WHEN ASKED THE LD. AR DENIED THAT A CAPIT AL SUBSIDY CANNOT BE DISTRIBUTED AS DIVIDEND. THE PROVISION OF S. 2(22)( E) ALONG WITH ITS EXPLANATIONS 2 AS STOOD AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME, SHALL ONLY MEAN THAT THE EXPRESSION 'ACCUMULATED PROFITS' SHALL ONLY INCLUDE ALL THE PROFITS OF THE COMPANY UP TO THE DATE OF DISTRIBUTION WHICH ARE NORMAL REVENUE PROFITS. THE WORDS USED ARE PLAIN, CLEAR AND UNAMBI GUOUS THAT ONLY THE ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 17 PROFITS OF THE COMPANY ARE TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THI S PURPOSE. THE SAID PROVISION NOWHERE INDICATES THAT CAPITAL SUBSIDY/GR ANT SHOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED/ CONSIDERED WITHIN THE EXPRESSION ACCUMUL ATED PROFITS. WE ARE IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH THE DECISION OF THE COORDINA TE BENCH CITED BY THE LD. AR IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S RAJASTHAN WIRES (P) LTD. (003) 81 TTJ 0673 (JP TRIB) (COPY PLACED AT PG 31-40 OF THE DECI SION PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN, A SIMILAR CONTROVERSY WAS INVOLVED AND IT WAS HELD THAT .... FURTHER, CAPITAL RECEIPTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE EARN ED PROFITS AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION CAPITAL RESERVE ON ACCOUNT OF STATE CAPITAL INVESTMENT SUBSIDY, LAB EQUIPMENT SUBSIDY AND ISI S UBSIDY PROVIDED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT CANNOT BE INCLUDED IN ACCUM ULATED PROFITS SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT TREATED THE AMOUNT OF SUB SIDY AS REVENUE RECEIPT NOR THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN CREDITED AS PROFITS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF S LTD. IN ANY OF THE EARLIER YEARS, THE CONTENTION TH AT THE AMOUNTS OF SUBSIDY WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THUS, THE SUBSIDY AMOUNT CANNOT BE TERMED AS CAPITALIZED PROFITS OF T HE COMPANYONLY THE CURRENT YEARS PROFIT COULD BE TREATED AS DEEME D DIVIDEND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL SU BSIDY OF RS. 36.87 LAKH COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A ACCUMULATED PROFIT AND IS OUT OF THE PREVIEW OF THE S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL SUB SIDY WAS A PART OF ACCUMULATED PROFITED TO BE CONSIDERED AS DEEMED DIV IDEND UNDER S. 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, FOR THIS REASON ALS O, THE ADDITION MADE OF ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 18 THE DEEMED DIVIDEND TO THIS EXTENT WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D. THUS THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 3.1 APROPOS THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE, THE B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE HAD ADVANCED RS. 7,32,00 0/- INTEREST FREE TO ONE SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR, WHO IS SON IN LAW OF THE ASSESSE E, OUT OF WHICH RS. 1,71,000/- WERE REPAID. WHEN ASKED AS TO WHY INTERE ST PAID OF RS. 46,890/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED, IT WAS STATED TH AT SUCH INTEREST FREE ADVANCE WAS MADE OUT OF THE CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS MORE THAN RS. 40 LAKHS. HENCE, NO PART OF INTEREST COULD BE D ISALLOWED. HOWEVER, THE AO REJECTED THE CONTENTION SAYING THAT IT WAS F OR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE SAME WAS PAID OUT OF THE CAPITAL BECAUSE T HE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED INTEREST BEARING UNSECURED LOANS ALSO. HENCE, IF TH E ASSESSE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUND, NO PRUDENT MAN LIKE THE ASSESSEE W OULD GO FOR INTEREST BEARING LOANS WHICH SHOWS SHORTAGE OF FUNDS WITH TH E ASSESSEE AND THAT THE ASSESSE HIMSELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT SHRI NEERAJ K UMAR WAS RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO NEEDED THE FUNDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF A HOUSE. THE SUBJECTED ADVANCE WERE NOT MADE FOR THE BUSINESS PU RPOSES AS THE ASSESSEE DIVERTED HIS INTEREST FREE FUNDS TO INTERE ST FREE LOANS. HENCE, THE AO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 46,890/- U/S 37(1) OF THE ACT . ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 19 3.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALSO CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAT EMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION CAR EFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY FUND FLOW STATEMENT TO SUBSTA NTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT ADVANCES OF RS.7,25,000/- GIVEN TO SHRI NARESH KUMA R JAIN WAS OUT OF HIS OWN CAPITAL OR INTEREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WI TH HIM. INTEREST PAID IS ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 36(1)(3), ONLY IF, THE I NTEREST IS PAID IN RESPECT OF CAPITAL BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSI NESS ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THA T THE ADVANCE OF RS.7,32,000/- GIVEN TO SHRI NARESH KUMAR JAIN WAS F OR BUSINESS PURPOSES, OR THE ADVANCES WERE GIVEN OUT OF THE INT EREST FREE FUNDS AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.46,890/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 3.3 NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAIL ED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND RELIED UPON CASE LAWS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS HAVING INTEREST FREE FUNDS MUCH LARGER THAN THE INTEREST F REE ADVANCES. HENCE, A PRESUMPTION WOULD ARISE THAT INTEREST FREE LOANS & ADVANCES WERE BE ONLY OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS AND NOT OUT OF INTEREST BEARING BORROWINGS. THE AO HAS NOT DENIED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS H AVING INTEREST FREE FUNDS BEING CAPITAL MORE THAN RS. 40 LACS AND LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 20 RS.95,71,170/-, AS AGAINST WHICH THE ALLEGED INTERE ST FREE LOAN WAS OF RS.7,92,300/- ONLY WHICH IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE INT EREST FREE FUNDS. THIS HONBLE BENCH HAS ALSO BEEN TAKING A CONSISTENT VIE W TO THIS EFFECT AND REPLIED UPON ACIT V/S RAM KISHAN VERMA (2012) 143 TTJ 1 (JP), WHICH WAS AFFIRMED BY THE HON`BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT VI DE PARA 12 & 14 IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S RAM KISHAN VERMA (2016) 132 TAX MAN 107 (RAJ.) (DPB 18-25). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A COMPARATIV ELY RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLE P. LTD VS. CIT (2015) 128 DTR 1/379 ITR 347 (SC) ALSO DIRECTLY SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSE E AND SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN RECENTLY, AFTER FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DEC ISIONS IN M/S ALLEN CAREER INSTITUTE IN ITA NO.10/JP/13 FOR A.Y.2009-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.09.2017 (EXTRACT ONLY DPB 26-30 IN PARA 25 & 40) . HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IGNORED THE ANNUAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS AND THESE BASIC ADMITTED FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO PREPARE A FUND FLOW STATEMENT TO THIS EFFECT. THE L D.AR OF THE ASSESSEE THUS PRAYED FOR DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE IN FULL. 3.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY RELIED O N THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 21 3.5 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED AT BAR. THE FACTS ARE NOT DENIED THAT TH E ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A CAPITAL OF MORE THAN RS. 40 LAKH. THIS CONTENTION W AS RAISED BEFORE THE AO VIDE LETTER DATED 28.10.2015 FILED TO THE AO, CO PY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PG 12 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. THEREAPART, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING INTEREST FREE LOAN TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 95,1 7,170/- (PAGE 9 OF LD. CIT(A) ORDER). THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE T HE AO AND CIT(A) BOTH, AS APPEARING FROM THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS WHERE IN THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED. AS AGAINST TH IS, THE SUBJECTED INTEREST FREE LOAN WAS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7, 92,300/-. THIS FACTS WERE NOT DENIED BY THE LD. DR. A SURVEY OF THE VARIOUS C ASE LAW CITED SHOWS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING MIXED FUNDS I.E IN TEREST FREE AND INTEREST BEARING BOTH AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INTER EST FREE FUNDS LARGER THAN THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES, A PRESUMPTION WOUL D CERTAINLY ARISE THAT INTEREST FREE LOANS & ADVANCES TO THE RELATIVES WER E MADE ONLY OUT OF INTEREST FREE FUNDS. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HERO CYCLE P. LTD VS. CIT (2015) 128 DTR 1/379 ITR 347 (SC), HELD THAT ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 22 INSOFAR AS THE LOANS TO DIRECTORS ARE CONCERNED, IT COULD NOT BE DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A CREDIT BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHEN THE SAID ADVANCE OF RS. 34 LAKHS WAS GIVEN. REMARKA BLY, AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT (APPEAL) IN HIS ORDER, THE COMPANY HAD RESERVE/ SURPLUS TO THE TUNE OF ALMOST 15 CRORES AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY COULD IN ANY CASE, UTILISE THOSE FUNDS FOR GIVING ADVANCE TO ITS DIREC TORS. THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S RAM KI SHAN VERMA (2012) 143 TTJ 1 (JP) HAS ALSO HELD THAT THERE IS NO ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT INTEREST-FREE ADVANCES ARE OUT OF INTEREST-BEARING ADVANCES IF NON-INTEREST-BEARING FUNDS ARE MORE. ACCORDINGLY, IN THIS CASE ALSO, IN ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY, AS PER THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION, A PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN THAT ADVANCE G IVEN OF RS. 7,92,300/- TO SHRI NEERAJ KUMAR WERE OUT OF THE HUG E INTEREST FREE CAPITAL OF RS. 40 LACS, WHICH WAS MANY TIMES MORE. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT T HE APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BY A FUND FLOW STATEMENT. TH EREAPART, SUCH INTEREST FREE FUND COULD BE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY PURPOSE WHATSOEVER AS HELD BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ACIT V/S RAM KISHAN VERMA (SUPRA) AND ALSO BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN HERO CYCLE P. LTD VS. CIT (SUPRA).HENCE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTI FIED IN CONFIRMING THE ITA NO. 783/JP/2016 SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL VS ITO, WARD- 2(3), AJMER 23 DISALLOWANCE AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED . THUS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9-02-2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKWY JKO HKKXPUN (VIJAY PAUL RAO) ( BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 9/02/ 2018 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT-SHRI VINOD KUMAR MITTAL, KEKRI 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO,WARD- 2(3), AJMER 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 783/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR