ACIT, Jaipur V. ARUN GOEL, Jaipur

ITA 795/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5132 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G R PAREEK JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: G G MUNDRA
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 147; 148

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.795/JP/13 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ACIT CIRCLE,-6, JAIPUR CUKE VS. SHRI ARUN GOEL, G-2, VINOBA MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABBPG 4020E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.G. MUNDRA (C.A.) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI G.R. PAREEK (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27.05.2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26/07/2016. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR DATED 30.08.2013 WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TAK EN THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS. 28, 00,670/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY DID NOT DISCLOSED ACCURATE/COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE SOLD TWO PIECES OF LAND AT VILLAGE JAI SINGH PURA. IN RESPECT OF THE FIRST PIECE OF LAND WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS 23,04,000 , THE ASSESSEE DECLARED A LOSS OF RS 1,76,000 AND IN RESPECT OF SECOND PIECE OF LA ND WHICH WAS SOLD FOR RS ITA NO. 795/JP/13 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR VS. SHRI ARUN GOEL, JAIP UR 2 75,00,000, SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS 99,400 WA S REPORTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS THEREAFTER COMPLETED AT RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 64,0 3,650/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. AO RECEIVED INFORMATION IN RESPECT TO ONE OF THE PIECES OF LAND THAT STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS. 65, 20,000/- AS AGAINST THE DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 23,04,000/- AS PER SALE DEED. THE LD. AO BASED ON THIS INFORMATION ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 WHI CH ASSESSEE COMPLIED AND IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 T HE ASSESSEE DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION U/S 50C AT RS. 65,20,000/- AS AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED AT RS. 23,04,000/. IN THE RETURN FILED PU RSUANT TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE VALUE AD OPTED BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF SECOND PIECE OF LAND AT R S. 1,11,63,000/- AS AGAINST SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED AT RS. 75,00,00 0/-. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AND INCOME DETERMINED AT RS. 1,47,49, 650/- TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE INCREASED SALE CONSIDERATION OF R S. 83,46,000/- (RS. 42,16,000 + 41,30,000) IN RESPECT OF IMPUNGED TWO P IECES OF LAND AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WAS INITIATED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE A O HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ADOPTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPUN GED PROPERTIES AS TAKEN BY THE REGISTRATION AUTHORITIES, THE HIGHER VALUE WAS INFORMED ON SUBSEQUENT TRANSACTION OF THE PROPERTY FROM ANOTHER AO AND IT DOESNT MATTER THE APPELLANT SUO-MOTO DECLARED THE DLC RATE IN RESPECT OF THE SECOND PIECE OF LAND SITUATED AT JIASINGHPURA. THE AO THEREAFTER L EVIED PENALTY OF RS 28,00,670 @ 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED WHICH WAS CONTEST ED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). ITA NO. 795/JP/13 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR VS. SHRI ARUN GOEL, JAIP UR 3 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE LEVY OF PENALTY AND HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, PENALTY O RDER AND APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS. THE AO MADE ADDITION U/S 50C ON THE A MOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALE CONSIDERATION AND VALUATION MADE BY ST AMP DUTY AUTHORITY. AOI LEVIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THI S ADDITION. AS AGAINST THIS, APPELLANT RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIO NS IN HIS SUBMISSION QUOTED EARLIER INCLUDING DECISION OF BOMBAY ITAT ON THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF RENU HINGORANI. RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID OR DER IS QUOTED BELOW: WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,8 24/- BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER T HE SALE AGREEMENT AND THE VALUATION MADE BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY. TH US, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AO HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ADDITION IS MADE PURELY ON THE BASIS OF DEEMING PRO VISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING TH AT THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION IS MORE THAN THE SALE CONSIDERATION A DMITTED AND MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMENT. THUS IT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE RELEVANT RECORD AS CALLED BY THE AO TO DISCLOSE THE PRIMARY FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS, DOCU MENTS/MATERIAL INCLUDING THE SALE AGREEMENT AND THE AO HAS NOT DOU BTED THE GENUINENESS AND VALIDITY OF THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED CORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE ARE IDENTI CAL TO THE ABOVE CASE AND AO DID NOT FIND FAULT WITH THE AGREEMENT OF SALE AN D DOES NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OR RECEIPT OF EXTRA CONSIDERATION THEREFOR E IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHICH IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO IS DELETED. ITA NO. 795/JP/13 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR VS. SHRI ARUN GOEL, JAIP UR 4 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF FILING THE ORIGINAL RETURN WAS NOT KNOWING THE IMPLICATIONS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT AND THEREFORE, IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, HE DECLARED ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION(S) W HICH HE RECEIVED FROM SAID TRANSFERS. IN COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT COMPLET ED U/S 143(3) ALL THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO SALE OF PROPERTY WERE DULY S UBMITTED TO ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER HE ACCEPTED THE RETURNED IN COME. HOWEVER, WHEN ASSESSEE RECEIVED NOTICE U/S 148 IN RESPECT TO SAL E OF ONE PIECE OF LAND POINTING OUT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF IT ACT, 1961 AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION AND VALUATION OF PROPER TY BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY THEN NOT ONLY THE DECLARED STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AO BUT VOLUNTARILY DECLARED THE DIFFERENCE OF STAMP DUTY VALUE OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE DEED IN RESPECT TO O THER PIECE OF LAND WHILE COMPUTING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING SALE TRANSACTIONS AND VALUATION BY STAMP AUTHORITIES WAS THUS CORRECT AND BONAFIDE. 2.3 LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DIFFERENTIAL INCOM E IS ONLY BECAUSE OF DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C AND THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT SUCH DIFFERENTIAL CONSIDERATION IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PA RTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON SUCH DEEMING PROVISION, PENALTY C ANNOT BE IMPOSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF IT ACT, 1961. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON TH E FOLLOWING DECISIONS DIRECTLY COVERING THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED AND ARE IN SU PPORT OF OUR ABOVE CONTENTION: CIT VS. MADAN THEATRES P. LTD.(2013) 260 CTR 0075 (KOLKATA HC) RENU HINGORANI VS. ACIT ITA NO. 2210/MUM/2010 DATED 22.12.2010 (MUMBAI BENCH) ITA NO. 795/JP/13 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR VS. SHRI ARUN GOEL, JAIP UR 5 DCIT VS. JUGAL KISHORE GARG ITA NO. 743/JP/2013 DT 11.09.2015(JAIPUR BENCH) ANITA BENIWAL VS. ITO ALWAR ITA NO.743/JP/2012 DT 5 .06.2015 (JAIPUR BENCH) SARWAN KUMAR VS. ITO ITA NO. 4379/DEL/2009 DT 28.0 1.2014 (DELHI BENCH) CHIMANLAL MANI LAL PATEL VS. AD. CIT ITA NO. 508/A HMD/2010 DATED 22.06.2012 ACIT VS. MRS. N. MEENAKSHI ITA NO. 508/MAD/2008 DA TED 13.02.2009 (CHENNAI BENCH) THE APPEAL ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BY FOLLOWING VARI OUS JUDGEMENTS OF ITAT AND HIGH COURT AND THE APPEAL ORDER IS DETAILED AND REA SONED WHICH DESERVES TO BE UPHELD. THE APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT HAS NO MERI TS AND DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 2.4 THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS SUBMITTED THAT LD CI T(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI ITAT IN CAS E OF RENU HINGORANI BUT THE FACTS OF THE TWO CASES ARE NOT IDENTICAL. IN T HE CASE OF RENU HINGORANI, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN AND DECLARED SALE CONSIDERA TION AS RECEIVED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE AO ENQUIRED ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN SALE CONSIDERATION AND THE DLC RATES AND ADOPTED THE DIFFERENCE U/S 50C. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, ONCE PR OCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED AND LATER ON THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF WRONG COMPUTATION OF INCOME FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN AND CAPITAL GAIN WAS COMPUTED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. IT MEANS THE ASSESSEE W AS AWARE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AND STILL DID NOT DISCLOSED TRUE AND ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME VOLUNTARILY EITHER IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME O R DURING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, HE DECLARED ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION(S) IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE PIECES OF LAND WHICH HE RECEIVED FROM SAID TRANSFERS. FURTHER, FROM PERUSAL OF RECORDS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED SPECIFIC QUERIES REGAR DING SALE OF THE PROPERTIES AND APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C AND ALL THE DOCUMENT S RELATING TO SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES WERE DULY SUBMITTED TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE RETUR NED INCOME. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMEN TS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON THE SAME DOCUMENTS FURNISHE D DURING THE ORIGINAL ITA NO. 795/JP/13 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR VS. SHRI ARUN GOEL, JAIP UR 6 PROCEEDINGS WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT AND REA SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE REGISTERED SALE DEEDS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONTAINS THE SALE CONSIDERATION T AKEN FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES, HOWEVER THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 50C WA S NOT CONSIDERED DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS ALSO SHO WS THE LACK OF AWARENESS NOT JUST ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO ON TH E PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAME THEREFORE CANNOT BE BASIS FOR LEV Y OF PENALTY. THE MOOT QUESTION WHICH REMAINS IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY SALE CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN DISCLOSE D IN THE SALE DEEDS AND REPORTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THERE IS NO ADVERSE FINDING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THIS EFFECT AND IT THUS BECOME CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS 23,04,000 AND RS 75,00,000 IN RESPECT OF THE TWO IMPUNGED PROPERTIES RESPECTIVELY AND WHI CH HAVE BEEN DULY REPORTED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. 2.6 SUBSEQUENTLY, BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FRO M ANOTHER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REALISED THAT THE VA LUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF ONE OF THE PROPERTIES WAS RS 65,20,000/- AS AGAINST RS 23,04,000/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER SALE DE ED AND BASIS THAT, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE REOPENED AND NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S ECTION 148 OF THE ACT WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON TRANSFER SHOULD NOT BE AD OPTED AS PER THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES AS PER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING SALE CONS IDERATION AS PER STAMP DUTY AUTHORITIES IN RESPECT OF BOTH OF THE PROPERTIES EV EN THOUGH THE NOTICE WAS SPECIFIC TO ONE OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH SHOWS BONAF IDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.7 HERE WE REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CA LCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF MADAN THEATRES P LTD (SUPRA) WHERE THE HONBLE C ALCUTTA HIGH COURT REFUSED TO ADMIT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND HELD AS UNDER: 4. MR NIAUMUDDIN, THE LEARNED ADVOCATE APPEARING F OR THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD A CHOICE TO DISPUTE THE VALUATION ON THE BASIS OF THE DEEMED VALUE BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE THAT OPPORTUNITY. THE ASSESSEE HAD A CHOICE OR HE COULD HAVE LITIGATE D. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS OFFERED FOR TAX ATION. IT IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DEEMED CONSIDERATION THAT THE PROC EEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) STARTED . THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY IOTA OF ITA NO. 795/JP/13 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR VS. SHRI ARUN GOEL, JAIP UR 7 EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED ONE PA ISE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. 2.8 IT WOULD BE EQUALLY RELEVANT TO NOTE THE DECISI ON OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. FORTUNE HOTELS AND EST ATES (P.) LTD. [2014] 52 TAXMANN.COM 330 (BOMBAY) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. TO THIS EXTENT THERE IS NO DISPUTE AND WHAT LAT ER ON FOLLOWED WAS THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THIS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME INASMUCH AS THERE WAS A REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THERE WAS CONSIDERAT ION MENTIONED THEREIN. THAT GROUND WAS RAISED AND THEREFORE, THE DOCUMENT WAS FORWARDED TO THE VALUER AND FOR DETERMINATION OF TH E VALUE, BY ITSELF WOULD NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME. IN THESE PEC ULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, IS THE CONCLUSION DRAWN. 2.9 FURTHER, IT IS NOTED THAT THE COORDINATE BENCHE S IN VARIOUS DECISIONS STARTING FROM RENU HINGORANI AND OTHERS REFERRED SU PRA HAVE HELD THAT WHERE THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF CONSIDERATION OV ER AND ABOVE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT IS EITHER COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OR EVEN U/S 148 BASED ON DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, THE PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) IS NOT LEVIABLE. 2.10 IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE ENTIR ETY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE PENALTY OF RS. 28,00,670/- LEVIED BY TH E AO U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/07 /2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.P. TOLANI ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 795/JP/13 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR VS. SHRI ARUN GOEL, JAIP UR 8 JAIPUR DATED:- 26/ 07/2016 PILLAI VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI ARUN GOEL, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT II, JAIPUR 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ THE CIT(A)-II, JAIPUR 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO.795 /JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR