ITO, Jaipur V. SHRI RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL, Jaipur

ITA 792/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99499 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP CIT DHK
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 131

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 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. 792/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ITO WARD- 5 (1) JAIPUR CUKE VS. SHRI RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL 31, AGARWAL SADAN, SANTOSH NAGAR COLONY, BRAHMPURI, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AAECS 2610 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SHRI PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP, ADDL. CIT LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 /11/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM:- THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 23-07-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A), JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN:- (I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,45,366/- MADE B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCY OF EXCES 7282.1 SQ. FT CARPET WHICH HAVE BEEN WASHE D DURING THE YEAR WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY OPENING STOCK OR PRODU CTION DURING THE YEAR. 2 (II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,03,798/- ON ACC OUNT OF IMPUGNED INCOME U/S 41(1) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRO VIDED THE CONFIRMATION OR THE PRESENT ADDRESS OF THE PARTY I. E. M/S. LAXMI CARPET ENTERPRISES AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THA T THE AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAYABLE TO SAID PARTY AS ON 31-03-2009 . 2.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE - THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND PROP. OF M/S R.S INTERNATIONAL WHICH IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING & TRADING OF CARPETS AS ALSO THE PARTNER IN M/S AGARWAL KRISHI FARM. RETURN OF TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 3,62,880/- WAS FILED ON 30/09/2009. THE ASSESSING O FFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 30/12/2011 BY REJECTING THE BOOKS UNDER SECTION 145(3) AND MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS : - A) SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION RS. 37,45,366/- B) U/S 41(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 RS. 7,03,498/ - C) LOW HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAW RS. 63,730/- TOTAL ADDITIONS RS. 45,12,594/- 2.2 AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD AO, THE ASSESSEE FILED FIRST APPEAL CHALLENGING REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S 145( 3) AND ADDITIONS ON MERITS. THE LD CIT(A) BY DETAILED OBSERVATIONS HELD THE ACT ION OF REJECTION OF BOOKS TO BE UNJUSTIFIED BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: . THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE WITHOUT HAVING ANY COGENT REASON AND WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE REPLY AND MATERIAL FURNISHED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INCLUDING STOCK RECORDS WHICH WERE AUDITED BY CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT EXCEPT STOCK RECORDS WHICH WAS PRODUCED 3 BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AND NO DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO IN THESE RECORDS. THE AUDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CERTIFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE SHOWED TRUE AND FAIR PROFIT. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ST. TERESAS OIL MILLS VS. STATE OF KERALA (76 ITR 365) WHEREIN HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT HELD THAT ACCOUNTS REGU LARLY MAINTAINED IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS HAD TO BE TAKE N AS CORRECT UNLESS THERE WAS A STRONG AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO INDICATE THAT THEY WERE UNRELIABLE. FURTHER THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HUNDRED PERCENT EXPORT SALES OR SALES TO EXPORT HOUSE AND T HE SAME WERE ALSO VERIFIABLE. THERE WERE NO LOCAL SALES. THEREFO RE, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SOLD THE ALLEGED GOO DS IN THE LOCAL MARKET OUT OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. I THEREFORE, HOLD T HAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON AC COUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION. I ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,45,366/- MADE BY HIM. THESE GROU NDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. BESIDES ON MERITS ALSO CIT(A) DELETED ALL THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US. IT SHALL BE PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY GROUND AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR UPHOLDING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THUS THE REVEN UES GROUNDS IN APPEAL ARE ONLY ON THE MERITS OF ADDITIONS. 2.3 APROPOS FIRST GROUND, LD. AO WAS OF THE VIEW TH AT THERE WAS DISCREPANCY IN THE CARPET WASHING A/C TO THE TUNE OF PRODUCTION OF 7282.11 SQ. FEET AS NO EVIDENCE OF CARPETS REWASHING WAS PRODUCED; QUALITY DETAILS OF CARPET 9X9 NORMAL AS MENTIONED IN COMPUTERIZED SHEET WAS NOT S UBMITTED; 1892 SQ. FEET WERE NOT IN OPENING STOCK OR THE QUALITY MANUFACTUR ED DURING THE YEAR; 7282.11 SQ. FEET WASHED AND FINISHED CARPETS WERE NOT SHOWN IN PRODUCTION RECORDS; CONSUMPTION OF YARN RECORDED IN THE YARN STOCK REGI STER WAS UNVERIFIABLE; 4 QUANTITY WISE STOCK TALLY WAS NOT PRODUCED; WEAVING CONTRACTORS WERE NOT PRODUCED AND COST OF PRODUCTION WAS NOT VERIFIABLE . ON THE BASIS OF THESE OBSERVATIONS LD. AO TREATED THE 7282.11 SQ. FEET CA RPETS AS SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION WHICH WAS SOLD OUT OF THE BOOKS RESULTIN G INTO ADDITION OF RS. 37,45,366/-. 2.4 IN FIRST LD CIT(A) BY DETAILED FINDINGS MENTION ED AT PAGE 12-19 OF HIS ORDER HELD THAT THERE WERE NO ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES IN THE STOCK OF WASHED CARPETS, THE CONFUSION WAS CAUSED BY A DEFECTIVE CO MPUTER STATEMENT WHICH WAS CLARIFIED AND WASHED CARPET STOCK WAS RECONCILED BY ASSESSE BEFORE AO WHICH HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE, CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 2.5 LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CONTEN DS THAT LD. AO HAS LISTED OUT VARIOUS DEFICIENCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE. OBSERVA TIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE ORDER OF LD. AO ARE RELIED ON. 2.6 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI VIJAY GOYAL ON TH E OTHER HAND CONTENDS THAT REVENUE IN THE FIRST PLACE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ALLOWING ASSESSEES GROUNDS IN RESPECT O F REJECTION OF BOOKS. BESIDES THE SO CALLED DEFICIENCIES WERE DULY EXPLAINED BEFO RE LD. AO, WHO DID NOT CONSIDER THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND LD. CIT(A) DULY APPRECIATED ALL THE FACTS, FIGURE AND RECONCILIATIONS AND AWARDED THE RELIEF. BRIEF FACTS ARE CONTENDED TO BE THAT THE CARPET INDUSTRY IN JAIPUR WORKS ON SET PRE VALENT MARKET PRACTICES. AS IN EARLIER YEARS, ASSESSEE MAINTAINS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT RECORD 5 OF STOCK IS DULY MAINTAINED. LD. AO EXCEPT RAISING SOME SUPERFICIAL ISSUES, HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN MATERIAL TERMS I N THE DETAILS OF FIGURES OF RECORD OF CARPET PRODUCTION AS FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSE WHICH ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY CONTRACTORS JOB BILLS, STOCK REGISTER AND OTHER RELEVANT RECORD. THE PRODUCTION OF THE CARPET IS CARRIED OUT THROUGH JOB WORKERS/CONTRACTORS AND THE PRODUCTION IS DULY INVENTORIED IN THE RECORD AND SA LES ARE DULY SUPPORTED BY INVOICES. THEREFORE, THE PRODUCTION RECORD OF THE C ARPETS IS FULLY SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE AND NO DEFECT WHATSOEVER IS INDICATED BY LD. AO IN THIS BEHALF. THE DISCREPANCY AS ALLEGED BY AO WAS ONLY A MISUNDE RSTANDING ON THE PART OF AO ON A PRINTOUT WHICH WAS FULLY EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF WHICH FINDS ITS PLACE AT PB PAGE 70-76. A) AS PER PREVALENT TRADE PRACTICE, THE CARPET WEAVING WORK IS ASSIGNED TO LABORERS, BY SUPPLYING THEM PARTICULA R QUALITY OF YARN BASED ON FIXED FORMULA IN TERM OF RATIO OF CON SUMPTION OF YARN PER SQ. FT. CARPET. TO AVOID WORKERS MISUSE OF YARN BY CLAIMING EXCESS CONSUMPTION OR INFLATING THE WEIGHT OF CARPET BY SOAKING IN WATER/MOISTURE OR PUTTING THE CARPET IN DUST ETC.; A FORMULA FOR YARN CONSUMED IN PER SQ. FT. CA RPET PRODUCTION IS AGREED. THUS ASSESSEE RECEIVES MANUFA CTURED CARPETS IN TERMS OF SQ. FEET AND THE RATIO OF FIX C ONSUMPTION OF YARN. IT MAY VARY IN SOME CASES ACCORDING TO WEAVIN G QUALITY. THE CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE LD. AO ARE SUPPORTED BY RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMATIONS FROM JOB WORKER S PLACED AT PB PAGE 77 TO 83. LD AO. FAILED TO APPRECIATE TH E EVIDENCE, CONFIRMATIONS, EXPLANATION AND MADE THE A DDITION. B) THE CONTRACTORS ARE ISSUED RAW MATERIAL I.E. COT TON, WOOLEN, SILK YARN, TANI, THEDA BY CHALLANS; COPY IS RETAINE D EACH BY CONTRACTOR AND ASSESSEE. RELEVANT STOCK ENTRIES ARE MADE IN THE STOCK LEDGER OF RESPECTIVE CONTRACTOR WHICH TAL LIES WITH SUCH CHALLANS. ON DELIVERY OF CARPETS THE PAYMENT I S MADE TO CONTRACTORS BY VERIFYING THESE CHALLANS. LD. AO DIS CARDED THE 6 ENTIRE RECORD ONLY BECAUSE CHALLANS WERE SIGNED, SU MMARILY DISCARDING THE ENTIRE RECONCILIATION OF STOCK BY TH E ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO PREVALENT REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNING OF CH ALLANS AS MOST OF THE TIMES, THE YARN IS RECEIVED BY EMPLOYEE S OF THE CONTRACTORS WHO ARE UNWILLING TO SIGN. THUS LD. AO S ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT CONSUMPTION OF YARN IS BEREFT OF VE RIFICATION OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS OF JOB WORKERS, YARN ISSUE , RETURN MEMOS AND STOCK REGISTERS, OTHER RECORDS AND RECONC ILIATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSE. ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT I N CASE OF ANY DOUBT, CONTRACTORS MAY BE CALLED, HOWEVER ENTIR E EVIDENCE SUBMITTED WAS REJECTED IN SUMMARY MANNER I GNORING THE SPECIFIC REQUEST FOR ISSUE OF SUMMON U/S 131 OF INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE ABSENCE OF VERIFICATION OF RECONCIL IATION AND FURTHER INQUIRY THE ADVERSE INFERENCE DRAWN BY LD. AO IS WITHOUT ANY COGENT BASIS. LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY APPREC IATED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS CONTRACTOR WISE STOCK REGIST ER WITH DETAILS OF MATERIAL ISSUED, RETURN MEMO ON DELIVERY OF FINISHED GOODS, MATERIAL CONSUMED AS PER FIX PARAME TERS FOR DIFFERENT QUALITY OF CARPETS AND STOCK OF RAW MATER IAL LYING WITH CONTRACTORS. IS VERIFIABLE FROM STOCK LEDGER O F SUCH CONTRACTOR. APROPOS THE ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT DISCREPANCY IN UNWASHED CARPETS, LD. AO RE-PRODUCED QUANTITY TALLY OF UNW ASHED CARPETS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FY 2008-09 DETAILS ARE AS UNDE R:- PARTICULARS SQ FT OPENING STOCK 23018 ADD:- CARPET MANUFACTURED DURING THE YEAR 55990.39 TOTAL 79008.39 LESS CARPET WASHED DURING THE YEAR 69277.39 CLOSING BALANCE OF CARPETS 9739.00 THE ABOVE TALLY WAS CAUSED BY A COMPUTER STATEMENT WHEREIN THE LINE OF OPENING STOCK WAS NOT PRINTED DUE TO PR OBLEM IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM. AFTER NOTICING THE COMPUTER PR INTING MISTAKE, ASSESSEE RESUBMITTED THE CORRECT PRINT OUT TALLY OF UNWASHED CARPETS AS UNDER:- PARTICULARS SQ FT OPENING STOCK 29877 ADD:- CARPET MANUFACTURED DURING THE 55990.39 7 YEAR TOTAL 85867.39 LESS CARPET WASHED DURING THE YEAR 76136.39 CLOSING BALANCE OF CARPETS 9731.00 THE MAIN DIFFERENCE IS IN FIGURE OF OPENING STOCK, WHICH WAS RECONCILED BY FIGURE AGAINST THE CLOSING STOCK AS O N 31-03- 2008. (PB 221), WHICH SHOWS THE CLOSING STOCK OF 29 877 SFT AGAINST UNFINISHED CARPET. THIS INADVERTENT PRINTIN G MISTAKE HAS BEEN HELD BY AO AS UNEXPLAINED DISCREPANCY FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS AND MAKING THE ADDITION. THE RECONCILIATION OFFERED BY ASSESSE IS AS UNDER:- RECONCILIATION OF DIFFERENCE IN WASHING OF CARPETS AY 2009-2010 PARTICULARS PB PAGE SQ FT OPENING STOCK OF UNWASHED CARPETS REPORTED IN REVISED Q TALLY FOR WASHING SUBMITTED (COPY AT PB PG 93) AND ALSO VERIFIABLE BY CLOSING STOCK STATEMENT OF PREVIOUS YEAR (PB 221) 93, 221, 29877 LESS OPENING STOCK OF UNWASHED CARPETS SHOWN IN ORIGINAL Q TALLY (INCORRECT) FOR WASHING SUBMITTED 85 23018 DIFFERENCE ON ACCOUNT OF REPORTING OF WRONG FIGURE OF OPENING STOCK IN ORIGINAL Q TALLY SUBMITTED TO AO 6859 ADD CARPETS REWASHED 94 TO 99 323.08 ADD EXCESS FIGURE TAKEN IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE (PB PG 68-69) REPLIED TO AO (PB PG 70) 76559.50-76459.47 100.03 TOTAL DIFFERENCE (ALLEGED AS SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION) 7282.11 D) THE SUMMARY OF WASHING EXPENSES SUBMITTED TO THE AO ON THE BASIS OF CORRECT CHART IS AS UNDER: - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE PA ID TOTAL WASHING CHARGES OF RS. 24,29,699/- TO M/S MEH BOOB CARPET FINISHING CENTRE DETAIL OF WHICH IS AS UNDER : - A) 30411.00 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 20/- PER SQ. FEET RS . 6,08,220.00 B) 45725.39 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 32/- PER SQ. FEET RS . 14,63,212.44 8 TOTAL NEW CARPETS WASHED 76136.39 SQ. FEET CARPET R S. 20,71,432.44 ADD: - A) 6993.89 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 50/- PER SQ. FEET (ANTIQUE WASH) RS. 3,49,863.50 B) CARPER RE-WASHED 178.00 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 20/- PER SQ. FEET RS. 3760.00 145.08 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 32/- PER SQ. FEET RS. 4642.56 TOTAL WASHING CHARGES DEBITED IN TRADING A/C RS. 2 4,29,699/- THUS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION 76136.39 S Q. FEET NEW CARPETS WERE WASHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 323.08 SQ. FEET CARPETS WERE REWASHED. E) THE OPENING STOCK OF UNWASHED CARPETS OF AY 2008-09 ARE VERIFIABLE FROM THE FIGURES SUBMITTED IN THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS OF AY 2007-08 AND AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCO UNT FOR AY 2007-2008 AND AY 2008-2009. THE Q TALLY OF UNWASHED CARPET FOR AY 2008-2009 WAS AS UNDER:- OPENING UNWASHED CARPETS AS ON 01.04.07 26771 SQ. FEET (QTY TALLY SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF AY 2007-08 IS AT PB PAGE 231) ADD: -CARPETS MANUFACTURED DURING FY2007-08 66724.14 SQ.FEET 9X9 (PB 223) =11091 9X9HT (PB 224)=18895.14 10X10 W/S (PB 225=36738 TOTAL 66724.14 ======= LESS: - CARPETS WASHED DURING FY 2007-08 63618.14 SQ. FEET 9X9 (PB 223) =16920 9X9HT (PB 224)=13674.14 10X10 W/S (PB 225)=32916 10X10 WOOL (PB 225) 108 ====== TOTAL 63618.14 ======= CLOSING STOCK OF UNWASHED CARPETS AS ON 31.03.08 29 877 SQ. FEET WRONGLY TAKEN AT 23018 SFT IN ORIGINAL Q TALLY (PB 85) AND CORRECTLY TAKEN AT 29877 SFT IN CORRECTED Q TALLY (PB 93) 9 THE SUMMARY OF WASHING CHARGES OF CARPETS AS FOR FY 2007-08 IS AS UNDER: - A) 27765.725 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 20/- PER SQ. FEE T RS. 5,55,314/- B) 32962.000 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 32/- PER SQ. FE ET RS. 10,54,784/- C) 2866.00 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 45/- SPECIAL WASH RS. 1,28,970 /- TOTAL NEW CARPETS WASHED 63618.14 SQ. FEET CARPET R S. 17,39,068/- ADD: - 14322.225 SQ. FEET CARPET @ RS. 50/- PER SQ. FEET RS. 7,16,111/- (ANTIQUE WASH) TOTAL WASHING CHARGES DEBITED IN TRADING A/C RS. 24 ,55,179/- THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF AY 2008-09 ARE PLACED AT PB PAGE 232 TO 233, FROM ABOVE FIGURES IT IS CLEAR THAT THE STOCK DETAILS OF PRODUCTION OF UNWASHED CARPETS FOR AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE FULLY VERIFIABLE FROM STOCK RECORDS. AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE SE FIGURES, WORKING AND RECONCILIATION SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE. APROPOS ATTENDANCE OF WEAVING CONTRACTORS, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OF JOB WOK CONTRACTORS PLACED AT PB PG 72, 74 . LD. AO ASKED TO ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ONLY TWO CONTRACTORS NAMING M/S LAVI ENTERPRISES AND M/S MANJU CARPETS. THE ASSESSE E REPLIED THAT THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S MANJU CARPETS IS OUT OF STATION AND WILL BE BACK BY 28 OR 29 TH DECEMBER, 2011; PROPRIETOR OF M/S LAVI ENTERPRISES HAVING GIV EN CONFIRMATION WAS NOT READY TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO. AS ASSESSEE HAS NO STATUTORY POWER TO ENFORCE THE PERSONAL PRESENCE OF PARTY, IT WAS REQUESTED TO ISS UE SUMMON AND ASSESSEE IS READY TO DEPOSIT THE COST OF EVIDENCE, IF SO REQUIRED. HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF MAKIN G FURTHER INQUIRIES LD. AO SUMMARILY REJECTED ALL THE CONFIRMATIONS FILED BY ASSESSEE. APROPOS THE REQUIREMENT OF QTY. DETAIL OF STOCK AND VERIFICATION OF COMPARATIVE COST OF PRODUCTION QTY WISE DETAILS AS WELL AS STOCK RECORDS AYS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND AY 2009-10 IS AS UNDER: - 10 AY 9X9 9X9HT 10X10 WOOL SILK WOOL SILK SPL 12 X 12 & 14X 14 WOOL SILK PURE SILK 12X12 10 X10 WOOL 09- 10 235.08 286.66 459.65 609.65 723.36 771.73 283.02 (OPENING STOCK 08- 09 233.43 291.42 461.82 609.71 NA NA 283.02 07- 08 227.00 292.49 576.29 NA NA NA 283.02 FROM THE ABOVE CHART, IT IS CLEAR THAT PRODUCTION COST SLIGHTLY INCREASED IN THE CASE OF 9X9 QUALITY WHICH IS DUE TO THE REASON TH AT COST OF WOOLEN YARN IN AY 2007-08 WAS RS. 59.59 PER SQ YARD WHILE IT INCRE ASED TO RS. 62.78 PER SQ. YARD IN AY 2009-10. THEREFORE THE LD. AO IS NOT CORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE COST OF PRODUCTION IS NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATION. THE PRODUCTION COST OF THE CURRENT YEAR IS VERY CLOSE TO THE PRODUCTION COST I N AY 2007-2008 AND AY 2008-2009, THEREFORE, IT IS VERY HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIAB LE TO ALLEGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LESS PRODUCTION IN BOOKS OF ACCO UNT. HAD THE PRODUCTION WAS SHOWN AT LESSER FIGURE ON THE SAME INPUT COST, THAN THE COST OF PRODUCTION PER UNIT WOULD BE HIGH, WHICH IS NOT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.7 IN RESPECT OF UNWASHED CARPET 9X9 AND 9X9 (NO RMAL) THE PRODUCTION COST OF BOTH THE CARPETS IS SAME. FOR TH E PRODUCTION AND SALE PURPOSE, THESE TWO ARE NOT SEPARATE ITEMS. THESE AR E SEPARATE ITEM ONLY FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF WASHING WHETHER MEANT FOR NORMA L WASHING OR FOR 11 SPECIAL WASHING. THEREFORE, FOR RECORDS MAINTAINE D FOR WASHING PURPOSE ONLY 9X9 NORMAL WAS MENTIONED. DURING THE YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION NO SPECIAL WASH WAS GOT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE BOTH THE QUALITIES WAS OF SAME COST AND AT THE END OF THE YEAR THERE W AS NO SEPARATE QTY, THEREFORE IN THE CHART SHOWING COST OF PRODUCTION O NLY COST OF 9X9 CARPET WAS CALCULATED. LD. AO REJECTED THE PAST HISTORY AND SU BMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON PRESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION IGNORING THE COR RECT STOCK TALLY AND STUCK TO THE INCOMPLETE QTY. TALLY WHICH WAS SUBMIT TED BY MISTAKE AND DULY REVISED. THE FOLLOWING PAST HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL. A) COST OF PRODUCTION AY 9X9 9X9HT 10X10 WOOL SILK WOOL SILK SPL 12 X 12 & 14X 14 WOOL SILK PURE SILK 12X12 10 X10 WOOL 09- 10 235.08 286.66 459.65 609.65 723.36 771.73 283.02 (OPENING STOCK 08- 09 233.43 291.42 461.82 609.71 NA NA 283.02 07- 08 227.00 292.49 576.29 NA NA NA 283.02 FROM THE ABOVE CHART, IT IS CLEAR THAT PRODUCTION C OST SLIGHTLY INCREASE IN THE CASE OF 9X9 QUALITY WHICH IS ALSO DUE TO THE MAIN R EASON THAT COST OF WOOLEN YARN IN AY 2007-08 WAS RS. 59.59 PER SQ YARD WHILE DUE TO INCREASE IN RATE 12 THE SAME WAS RS. 62.78 PER SQ. YARD IN AY 2009-10. THE COST OF OTHER CARPETS WAS LOWER IN COMPARISON TO PREVIOUS YEARS. B) COMPARATIVE CHART OF TURNOVER, GROSS PROFIT, G .P AY TURNOVER GROSS PROFIT GP RATE 07-08 1,90,96,854.63 24,00,270.68 12.57% 08-09 2,56,13,509.31 30,98,529.94 12.10% 09-10 2,65,84,753.88 32,33,792.62 12.16% THE GP RATE OF THE ASSESSEE IS BETTER IN COMPARISON TO AY 2008-09. THE SLIGHTLY FALL IN GP IN COMPARISON TO A Y 2007- 08 WAS BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT THE COST OF RAW M ATERIAL INCREASED AND DUE TO CHANGE IN VALUE OF CURRENCY. C) CONSUMPTION OF YARN I) AY 2007-08 (THE Q. TALLY OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUMED AND GOOD PRODUCED AT PB PAGE 234 TO 236) QUALITY PRODUCTION IN SQ. FEET CONSUMPTION OF YARN (IN KG.) YARN CONSUMED PER SQ. FEET CARPET (IN GMS) 9X9 44635.500 (PB PG 234) 22317.750 (PB PG 236) 500 9X9 HT 15949.000 (PB PG 235) 7974.500 (PB PG 236) 500 10X10 188.000 (PB PG 235) 49.250 (PB PG 236) 262 10X10 WOOL SILK. 3342.000 (PB PG 235) 875.550 YARN 668.400 SILK (PB PG 236) 262 YARN 200 SILK 13 II) AY 2008-09 (THE Q. TALLY OF RAW MATERIAL CONSUM ED AND GOOD PRODUCED AT PB PAGE 237 & 223 TO 224; 225) QUALITY PRODUCTION IN SQ. FEET CONSUMPTION OF YARN (IN KG.) YARN CONSUMED PER SQ. FEET CARPET (IN GMS) 9X9 11091.00 (PB PG 223) 5545.500 (PB PG 237) 500 9X9 HT 18895.14 (PB PG 224) 9447.450 (PB PG 237) 500 10X10 WOOL SILK 36738.00 (PB PG 225) 9184.100 YARN (PB PG 237) 7347.350 SILK (PB PG 237) 250 YARN 200 SILK III) AY 2009-10 (THE Q. TALLY OF RAW MATERIAL CONSU MED AND GOOD PRODUCED AT PB PAGE 86 TO 89 AND 91) QUALITY PRODUCTION IN SQ. FEET CONSUMPTI ON OF YARN (IN KG.) YARN CONSUMED PER SQ. FEET CARPET (IN GMS) 9X9 3102.000 (PB PG 86) 1551.000 (PB PG 91) 500 9X9 HT 5607.000 (PB PG 87) 2783.300 (PB PG 91) 496 10X10 WOOL SILK 21181.500 (PB PG 87) 250 YARN 200 SILK WOOL SILK SPECIAL 23539.890 (PB PG 88) 250 YARN 200 SILK 14X14 WOOL SILK 96.000 (PB PG 88) 11595.312 YARN (PB PG 91) 9673.164 SILK (PB PG 91) 275 SILK 175 YARN 14 PURE SILK 12X12 322.000 (PB PG 88) 350 SILK 12X12 WOOL SILK 2142.000 (PB PG 89) 275 SILK 175 YARN FROM THE ABOVE CHART IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CONSUMPTI ON OF ASSESSEE IS NOT MORE THAN PREVIOUS YEARS AND IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FORMULA OF YARN CONSUMPTION FIXED BY ASSESSEE AND BY CONTRACTORS. THE COPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AY 2007-08 AND AY 2008-09 ARE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD . 2.8 APROPOS ALLEGATION OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS EITHER DETECTED OR INDICATE D BY LD. AO. MERE ALLEGED DISCREPANCY IN THE WASHING OF THE CARPET IS PRESUMED TO BE BASIS OF ADDITION FOR SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AND SALE. NO OTH ER INDEPENDENT MATERIAL OR INQUIRY HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE SUPP RESSION OF PRODUCTION. THE PRODUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE BILL OF JOB WORKERS. LD AO HAS FAILED TO CITE ANY COMPARABLE CASE OR CONTRO VERT THE FACTUAL DATA AND TABLES SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. T HE FINDING AND ADDITIONS BEING FIGMENT OF IMAGINATION, SURMISES AND CONJECTU RES OF LD. AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON:- (A) DHAKESWARI COTTON MILLS LTD VS CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (B) LAL CHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM VS CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) (C) OMAR SALAY MOHAMAD VS CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC) 15 IN FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS HONOURABLE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT ALLEGATION OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION CANNOT BE BASED ON MINOR TECH NICALITIES SUCH AS LOW YIELD, HIGHER WASTAGE, HIGHER CONSUMPTION OF ELECTR ICITY ETC.:- ( A) OUDH SUGAR MILLS LTD . UNION OF INDIA [1978] ELTJ 172 HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOR REMOVAL OF GOODS WITHOUT PAYMENT OF DUTY, THE AVERAGE PRODUCTION CAN NOT BE MADE BASIS FOR ISSUE OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION. (B) INTERNATIONAL FOREST CO. V. CIT [1975] 101 ITR 721 HONBLE J & K HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IN THE CASE OF A FOREST COUPE, MERE LOW YIELD OF OUT-TURN COMPARED TO EARLIER YEARS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO MAKE AN ADDITION. (C) R. B. BANSILAL ABIRCHAND SPG. & WVG. MILLS V. CIT [1970] 75 ITR 260 BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE OFFICER'S RIGHT UNDER PROVISO TO SECTION 13 OF THE INDIAN INCOME-TAX ACT, 1922 (CORRESPONDING TO PROVISO TO SECTION 145(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961) ARISES ONLY AFTER A FINDING IS RECORDED AS TO THE UNACCEPTABILITY OF THE METHOD AND THE IRREGULARITY OF ACCOUNTS KEPT. THE MERE FACT THAT THE PERCENTAGE OF DEAD LOSS OF COTTON WAS HIGH IN A PARTICULAR YEAR, THE COURT HELD, CANNOT LEAD TO AN INFERENCE THAT THEREBY THERE HAS BEEN SUPPRESSION OF THE PRODUCTION IN A SPINNING MILL. (D) IAC VS RELIANCE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES LTD 43 ITD 165 ITAT BOMBAY A BENCH HAS HELD THAT SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION CAN NOT BE PRESUMED ON THE BASIS OF YIELD AND ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF YIELD PERCENTAGE CAN NOT BE MADE (E) INCOME TAX OFFICER VS ARUN OIL INDUSTRIES 13 ITD 769 ITAT JAIPUR BENCH ( TM ) HELD THAT WHEN THERE IS NO INFORMATION TO INDICATE THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS LOW OR MANIPULATED, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS YIELD. 16 2.9 IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF THE GROUND AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES GROUND ON REJ ECTION OF BOOKS, THE CORRECTNESS OF BOOKS OF THE ACCOUNTS STANDS ACCEPTE D BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THIS EVENTUALITY, THE ADDITIONS DESERVES TO BE DELETED A S THE BOOKS ARE NOT CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE ITAT. 3.0 APROPOS REVENUES SECOND GROUND ABOUT ADDITION U /S 41(1), LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. AO AND CONTENDS THAT ASS ESSE FAILED TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S LAXMI CARPET ENTERPRISES, THE REFORE, AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN DRAWING AN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT IMPUGNED TRADING LIABILITY HAD CEASED AND ADDING THE SAME U/S 41(1). 3.1 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE CONTENDS THAT THE A MOUNT IN QUESTION REPRESENTS COMMISSION PAYABLE TO M/S LAXMI CARPET E NTERPRISES FOR ARRANGING EXPORTS TO A FOREIGN PARTY M/S HASSAN CARPET PVT LT D. THE SALES AND CORRESPONDING COMMISSION WERE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS FOR FY 2006-07 AND WAS PAYABLE ON RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS. DUE TO SOME DI SPUTES ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO RECOVER THE SALE PROCEEDS FROM SAID M/S HASSAN C ARPET PVT LTD SINCE LAST 5 YEARS, CONSEQUENTLY PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO M/S LA XMI CARPET WAS WITHHELD PENDING REALIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS WHICH LEAD TO STRAINED RELATIONSHIP; THE PARTY REFUSED TO GIVE CONFIRMATION. LD. AO WITHOUT APPRECIATING THESE SIMPLE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS AND THE FACT THE ASSESSE HA D A LIEN OVER THE PAYMENT DUE TO PENDING DISPUTE; ARBITRARILY HELD THAT ASSES SEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE 17 AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY PAYABLE TO M/S LAXMI CARPET ENT ERPRISES AS ON 31.03.2009; HOLDING IT TO BE CESSATION OF TRADING L IABILITY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) WERE ARBITRARILY APPLIED AND ADDITION OF RS. 7,03,498/- IS MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. IT IS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT LD CIT(A) RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND BY DETAILED OBSERVATIONS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CESSATION OF LIABILITY QUA THE COMMISSION PAYABLE TO M/S LAXMI CARPET ENTERPRISES AND DELETED THE ADDITION. IT IS CONTENDED THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AY 2007-2008 WAS DECIDED BY HONBLE ITAT IN ITA NO 1080/JP/2011 DATED 25-01-201 2 AND ON SIMILAR FACTS QUA ANOTHER PARTY ADDITION U/S 41(1) HAS BEEN DELET ED COPY THEREOF IS PLACED AT PB PAGE 271 TO 278. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIO NS:- (I) CIT VS SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD (SC) 236 ITR 518 SC. (II) THE CIT-III VS SHRI VARDHMAN OVERSEAS LIMITED (DELH I HIGH COURT ITA NO 774/2009 ORDER DATED 23/12/2011) . (III) UTTAM AIR PRODUCTS (P) LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ITAT, DELHI C BENCH (2006) 99 TTJ (DEL) 718 (IV) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. THAKKER DEVELOPERS ITAT, PUNE A BENCH 115 TTJ (PUNE) 841 : (2008)/ 6 DTR 238. 4.0 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A) BY DETAILED FACTUAL FINDI NGS HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS IN FIRST APPEAL TO THE EFFECT TH E REJECTION OF BOOKS BY AO U/S 145(3) WAS UNJUSTIFIED. REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF 18 LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THUS ASSESSEE'S BOOKS ARE TO BE TREATED AS PROPERLY MAINTAINED AND REFLECTING TRUE AND CORRECT PROFITS. THE SALES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE 100% EXPORT SALES AND COMPLETELY VERIFIABLE, AND AC CORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A), THERE WAS NO REASON TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 4.1 ON MERITS, THE LD. CIT(A) BY DETAILED FINDINGS HAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN REWASHED CARPET ACCOUNT AS ALLEGED B Y AO AND A PROPER EXPLANATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS BEHAL F, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. SIMILARLY, THE CONFUSION CAUSED BY DEFE CTIVE COMPUTER PRINT OUT IN THE CASE OF 9X9 (NORMAL) CARPET WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY FILING THE CORRECT PRINT OUT AND TALLYING IT WITH STOCK RECORD. THESE FINDIN GS OF THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD. DR APROPOS THE PAPER BOO K FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CONSUMPTION OF YARN BEING NORMAL AND COMPARABLE WIT H EARLIER YEARS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CURRENT STOCK DETAILS AND PRECEDING YEARS TRADING, MANUFACTURING AND STOCKS DETAILS, WHICH AR E TABULATED ABOVE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN CLEAR FINDING OF FACTS THAT :- (I) THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN QUANTITY OF 9X9 UNWA SHED CARPET. (II) THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE STOCK WITH THE RECORD OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. (III) THE PRODUCTION AND STOCK OF CARPET WAS RECONC ILED FROM WASHING CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. (IV) THE MISTAKE IN A COLUMN OF INVENTORY OF 9X9 CA RPET WAS DUE TO COMPUTER MISPRINT WHICH WAS PROPERLY RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 19 (V) THE NON-APPEARANCE OF CONTRACTOR M/S. LAVI ENT ERPRISES AND M/S. MANJU CARPETS WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESS EE AND THE AO TOOK NO FURTHER EFFORTS TO ENQUIRE INTO THE MATT ER. (VI) FURTHER THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CANNOT BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, MORE SO, WHEN EVERY ASPECT OF PURCHASES, CONSUMPTION AND SALES WERE RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RECO NCILIATION OF ALL THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN WELL FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE AO, LD. CIT(A) AND BEFORE US ALSO AND PART OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED ABOVE AND CONTAINS THE DETAILS IN THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS IN THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DELETING T HE ADDITION ON MERITS AFTER DULY APPRECIATING THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. VS. CIT, 26 ITR 775 (SUPRA) AND OTHER CASES MENTIONED ABOVE. THUS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5.0 ADVERTING TO GROUND NO. 2, THE EXPORT OF CARPET TO M/S. HASAN CARPET (P) LTD. WAS ARRANGED THROUGH M/S. LAXMI CARPET ENTERPR ISES FOR WHICH COMMISSION OF RS. 7,03,498/- CLAIMED IN F.Y. 2006-0 7 REMAINED OUTSTANDING DUE TO NON-PAYMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS BY M/S. HASAN C ARPET (P) LTD. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY LD. DR, BESIDE THEY CLEAR LY EMERGE FROM THE RECORD. ONCE, THERE IS AN IMPENDING DISPUTE BETWEEN ASSESSE E AND M/S. LAXMI CARPET ENTERPRISES THEN IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT LIABILIT Y FOR PAYMENT HAS CEASED, CONSEQUENTLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) CANNOT BE INVOKED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS. JAIPUR ITAT IN ASS ESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND ON SIMILAR FACTS IN RES PECT OF ANOTHER PARTY HAS 20 DELETED THE SIMILAR TYPE OF ADDITION U/S 41(1) OF T HE ACT. BESIDES THE JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUGAULI SUGAR WORKS (P) LTD. (SC) IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE CASE. IN VIEW OF THESE FA CTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CITE D ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THUS GROUND N O. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 6.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 /11/2 015. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) (R.P.TOLANI) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 20 /11/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD- 5 (1),JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL, JAIPUR 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.792/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR