SMT. ALKA JAIN, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 798/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 91857 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P P MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV SAGONI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Accommodation entries
• Section: 131

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 FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA MKW0 VTQZU YKY LSUH ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & DR. ARJUN LAL SAI NI, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SMT. ALKA JAIN PROP. SHIRIYA ARTS, F-184, PANCH SHEEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABZPJ4547M VIHYKFKHZ@ APP ELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJEEV SAGONI JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI P.P. MEENA (J.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 06/11/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/12/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIJAY PAL RAO, J.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 11.07.2011 OF CIT (A), JAIPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD . AO IN NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE P ERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND A GAINST THE FACTS OF ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 2 THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY QUASHING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD . AO IN HOLDING THE PURCHASES FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES AS BOGUS:- S. NO. NAME OF PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES MADE AMOUNT (IN RS.) 1 M/S NIDHI GEMS 8,88,500 2 M/S NAMAN GEMS 10,14,155 3 M/S CLARITY GOLD PVT. LTD. 31,45,521 4 M/S SILVER AND SILVER 11,04,525 5. M/S BHARATI GEWELLERS 6,25,625 6 M/S PARASMANI 6,27,500 7 M/S MURLIDHAR TULSIRAM SARRAF 1,70,220 TOTAL 75,76,052 THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIE D, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY HOLDING THE ABOVE PURCHASE AS GENUINE. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD . AO IN MAKING A TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 18,94,013 WITHOUT REJECTI NG THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 18,94,013/- 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES HER RIGHT TO ADD, AMEND OR A LTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS ON OR BEFORE THE HEARING. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHIRIYA ARTS AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF SILVER JE WELLERY, PRECIOUS AND SEMI PRECIOUS STONES, GEMS AND HANDICRAFT ITEMS. DU RING THE COURSE OF ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 3 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED PURCHASES WHICH INCLUDES THE PURCHASE OF RS. 75,76, 052/- FROM 7 PARTIES WHICH ARE INDULGED IN ACTIVITY OF ISSUIN G BOGUS SALE BILLS TO BUSINESSMAN WITHOUT ACTUAL PURCHASES. THE AO HAS ST ATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT AS RESULT OF ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WI NG THESE PARTIES HAD ALREADY ADMITTED THEIR INDULGENCE IN SUCH ACTIVITIE S. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THOSE 7 PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN CLUDING PURCHASE BILLS FOR VERIFICATION OF PURCHASES. IN REPLY THE A SSESSEE HAS STATED THAT ALL THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROOF IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE I NVOICES, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT CONFIRMING PAYMENTS, CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, RECORDS OF PHYSICAL MOVEMENTS OF GOODS, ETC. HAS ALREADY BE EN FURNISHED. AS REGARDS THE PRODUCTION OF THESE PARTIES THE ASSESSE E EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT HAVING TRANSACTIONS WITH THESE PART IES PRESENTLY AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES PERSONALLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW T HAT SINCE BILLS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE GIVEN BY THESE PARTIES AS ACCOMMODATION BILLS WITHOUT ANY REAL PURCHASE AND THEREFORE, IT I S NECESSARY TO EXAMINE ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 4 THESE PARTIES PERSONALLY TO VERIFY GENUINENESS OF T HE SALES ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THESE PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE A O HELD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES FO R EXAMINATION, THEREFORE, THE ALLEGED PURCHASES FROM THESE PARTIES REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION O F HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF M/S SANJAY OILCAKE INDUSTRIES V/S CIT 10 DTR 153 (GUJ). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A DISALLOWANC E OF 25% OF THE UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASE OF RS. 75,76,052/- AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,94,013/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION AT TH IS STAGE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER DISPOSED OFF BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 25.05.2015 HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE SA ID ORDER WAS RECALLED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 11.01.201 7 IN M.A. NO. 184/JP/2016 FOR AFRESH ADJUDICATION. THUS, THIS APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN LISTED FOR HEARING AND DISPOSAL. 3. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WH EN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS U/S 145(3) THEN, ADHOC ADDITION OF 25% OF PURCHASE IS UNWARRAN TED. THE ASSESSEE DULY MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALL TRANS ACTIONS HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO PRODUCED THE ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 5 BILLS IN RESPECT OF THE PURCHASES. FURTHER, THE PUR CHASE AND SALE QUANTITY IS ALSO TALLIED AND THERE IS NO DISCREPANC Y THE OUTSTANDING FOR PURCHASE WAS PAID SUBSEQUENTLY AND THEREFORE, THE A SSESSEE DISCHARGED ITS ONUS TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE. THE LD. AR HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING STOCK RE CORD AND THE QUANTITY OF STOCK DULLY TALLIED. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS TREATED THE PURCHASES MADE FROM 7 PARTIES AS BOGUS PURCHASES OR UNVERIFIABLE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODU CE THESE PARTIES IN PERSON FOR EXAMINATION AND THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO TH ESE PARTIES U/S 131 WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ONLY ON THE PRESUMPTION WITHOUT GIVING A CONCLUDING FINDING OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES IN QUESTION. THE LD. A R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE AO A ND LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN A CONCLUDING FINDING ABOUT THE GENUIN ENESS OR BOGUS PURCHASES. THE AO HAS TREATED THE PURCHASES FROM TH ESE PARTIES AS BOGUS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIV ED BASED ON THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING WITHO UT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSON S WHOSE STATEMENTS RELIED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HA S FURTHER SUBMITTED ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 6 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 10,50,430/- ON A TURNOVER OF RS. 87,95,676/- RESULTING INTO GP RATE 11.94% WHICH IS MORE THAN THE GP RATE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE E ARLIER YEAR. THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,84,013/- HAS RESULTED INTO GP RA TE OF 33.48% AS AGAINST DECLARED GP RATE OF 11.94%. THUS, THE LD. A R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH HIGH GP IS NOT POSSIBLE AND EXCEPTED IN THIS TRADE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DE CISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT GOTAN LIME K HANIJ UDHYOG 120 TAXMAN 779. THUS, THE LD. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTI FIED AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE C OORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SWARNA GANGA JEWELLERS VS ACIT DATED 15.03.2012 IN ITA NO. 833/JP/2011 HAS APPLIED THE G P RATE INSTEAD OF THE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE @ 25% OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHA SES. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTION HI GH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. AMRAPALI JEWELS PVT. LTD. (RAJ.) 65 DTR 196 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNA L IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING THE GP RATE. ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 7 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN A SERIES OF DECISIONS HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE O F 25% OF BOGUS PURCHASE. THE LD. DR HAS GIVEN A LIST OF AS MUCH AS 30 CASES WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF BOGUS PURCHASES. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VS. DCIT 58 TAXMANN.COM 44 ( GUJ). THE LD. DR HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SANJAY OIL CAKES INDUSTRIES VS. CIT 316 ITR 274 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS PURCHASES. HE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE GP RATE ADDITIO N WHEN THERE ARE HONBLE HIGH COURT DECISION CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE 25% OF BOGUS PURCHASES. THE LD. DR HAS ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECI SION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF N.K. INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT 72 TAMANN.COM 289/ 142 DTR 962 AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS DISMISSED THE SLP FILED AGAINST THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJA RAT HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, THE SAME HAS ATTAINED THE FINALITY. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THA T THE PURCHASE OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES THE PURCHASES MADE FROM 7 PAR TIES WHICH ARE ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 8 INDULGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT ANY REAL SALES OR PURCHASE. THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES AND THE PURCHA SE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THOSE ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 2 AS UNDER:- S. NO. NAME OF PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES MADE AMOUNT (IN RS.) 1 M/S NIDHI GEMS 8,88,500 2 M/S NAMAN GEMS 10,14,155 3 M/S CLARITY GOLD PVT. LTD. 31,45,521 4 M/S SILVER AND SILVER 11,04,525 5. M/S BHARATI GEWELLERS 6,25,625 6 M/S PARASMANI 6,27,500 7 M/S MURLIDHAR TULSIRAM SARRAF 1,70,220 TOTAL 75,76,052 THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATIO N RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING WHEREBY IT WAS REPORTED THAT ALL THEE 7 PARTIES HAVE ADMITTED IN THEIR STATEMENTS TO HAVE INDULGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF ISSUING SALE BILLS BY CHARGING SOME AMOUNTS WITHOUT CARRYING OUT ANY ACTUAL BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. THEREFORE, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES IN PERSONS FOR EXAMINATION AN D TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSE D ITS INABILITY TO PRODUCE TO THESE PARTIES AND EXPLAINED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT DOING ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITIES WITH THESE PARTIES DURING T HE YEAR. SINCE THIS PURCHASES WERE MADE ABOUT TWO YEARS BACK, THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES PERSONAL LY. THE AO MADE A ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 9 DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF THESE PURCHASES FROM THESE 7 PARTIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 18,94,130/-. WE FIND THAT THERE ARE VARIOUS DECISIONS ON THIS POINT ON BOTH SIDES HOWEVER, SINCE IT IS A FACTUAL ISSUE OF GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES, THEREFORE, THE DECISIONS BASED ON IN THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THE OTHER CASES CANNOT BE APPLIED BLINDLY. 6. AS REGARDS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW AND FURTHER BY THE LD. DR WE FIND THAT IN THOSE CASES T HERE WAS CONCLUDING FINDING OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE INFLATED THE PU RCHASES UPTO 25% AND THEREFORE, THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 25% TO THAT EXTENT THE PURCHASES WERE FOUND TO BE INFLATED BY THE ASSESSEE . THIS FINDING WAS CONFIRMED UP TO THE STAGE OF THE TRIBUNAL THEREIN A CATEGORICAL FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE INFLATED THE PURCHASED BY 25%. THEREFO RE, IN THOSE CASES THE DECISION WAS BASED ON DEFINITE FINDING OF FACT REGARDING INFLATED PURCHASE UPTO 25%. THEN FINDING WAS GIVEN BY THE AU THORITIES BELOW AND IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE APPL IED IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE CASE IN HAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING OF HOW MUCH OF THE PURCHASES ARE INFLATED O R BOGUS. THE AO HAS DOUBTED THE PURCHASES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 75,76,05 2/- AND THEN MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 25% OF THESE PURCHASES. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 10 HELD THAT THESE PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE 7 PARTIES REMAINED UNVERIFIED WITHOUT GIVING A DEFINITE FINDING OF BOG US PURCHASES. FURTHER, THE AO HAS RELIED UPON THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FRO M THE INVESTIGATION WING WITHOUT CONDUCTING FURTHER ENQUIRY TO REACH TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE 7 PAR TIES ARE ACTUAL BOGUS. IN CASE THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE F ROM THESE 7 PARTIES ARE FOUND TO BE BOGUS THEN INSTEAD OF ANY A DHOC DISALLOWANCE OF 25% THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF PURCHASES IS LIABLE TO DIS ALLOW AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT, IN THIS CASE, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE PURCHASES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, TH E LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS WHEREIN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED AND THEN THE GP ADDITION WAS MADE. HO WEVER, IN THIS CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON THE ACCOUNTS OF PURCHASES WHICH WERE UNVERIFIED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE 7 PARTIES THEN THE ON US IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THOUGH ISSUED SUMMONS U/S 131 HOW EVER, THESE SUMMONS WERE RETURNED UN-SERVED AS THE PARTIES COUL D NOT FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A REASON FOR TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 11 TO DOUBTED THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASES FROM THESE PARTIES BUT THERE WAS NO FINDING GIVEN BY THE AO THAT THE PURCHASES M ADE FROM THESE PARTIES ARE BOGUS TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, IN THE F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THAT THERE IS A FAILURE O N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO DISCHARGE THEIR RESPECTIVE BURDEN AND ONUS IN RESPECT OF THES E TRANSACTIONS. WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO OF 25% ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE WHEN T HE SALE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DOUBTED. ACCORDINGLY, BY CONSIDERING TH E VARIOUS PRECEDENT OF THIS TRIBUNAL WE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 15% OF THE PURCHASES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/12/2017 SD/- SD/- (DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI) (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 26/12/2017. * SANTOSH. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SMT. ALKA JAIN, PROP. SHIRIYA ARTS, F-184, PANCH SHEEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- ITO, WARD 6(3), JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT ITA NO. 798/JP/2011 SMT. ALKA JAIN V ITO 12 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 798/JP/2011} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR