SHRI RAJIV GUPTA, ALWAR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ALWAR

ITA 845/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2205 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY DCIT DHK
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Valuation report; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 2(14); 142(1); 148

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 845/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 RAJIV GUPTA, 4-E, SHANTI KUNJ, ALWAR- 301001. CUKE VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, ALWAR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABRPG 6101 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/01/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18/01/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES F ROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), ALWAR DATED 17/10/2017 FOR THE A.Y . 2012-13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND LOCATED A T MIA, ALWAR ON 11/08/2011 FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 23,00,00 0/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME. HOWEVER, RET URN OF INCOME WAS MANUALLY FILED ON 01/7/2014 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 20,82,820/-. THE ITA 845/JP/2017_ RAJIV GUPTA VS. ACIT 2 RETURN FILED WAS BEYOND THE TIME LIMIT PERMITTED FOR FILING THE RETURN, THEREFORE, THE RETURN WAS A NON-EST RETURN. ON THE B ASIS OF THE INFORMATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE AC T) REGARDING THE ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 20,82,822/- . THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THAT NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DECLARING INCOME AT RS. 32,61,750/-. THIS WAS THE INCOME AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT BY ADOPTING THE VALUE AS ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AT RS. 34,78,750/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1856/- IN THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT BUT THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS RAISED DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND LEVIED THE PENALTY OF RS. 2,43,206/- BEING 100% OF THE DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN THE TAX COMPUTED ON THE ASSESSMENT AND THE TAX PAID BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS SUSTAINED THE PENALTY. 3. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY T AKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: ITA 845/JP/2017_ RAJIV GUPTA VS. ACIT 3 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC CHARGE, THE PENALTY LEV IED U/S 271(1)(C) IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) AT RS. 2,43,206/-. HE HAS FUR THER ERRED IN IGNORING THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE A.O. IS SA ME AS THAT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THERE IS NEITHER ANY C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME NOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. WHILE PLEADING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AR HAS RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS REGARDING THE INITIATION OF PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, THE BENCH IS OF THE VIEW THAT TH E ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS FILED RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE ACT BY DISCLOSING THE INCOME MORE THAN WHAT HE HAS DISCLOSED IN HIS NO NEST RETURN FILED PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THUS , THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY WELL AWARE ABOUT THE LIMBS OF INITIATION OF PENA LTY UNDER WHICH, THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED. THE OTHER CONTENTION OF THE LD AR WAS THAT THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ONLY ON THE AMOUNT WHICH WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TAXATION AS PER DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO N OTICE U/S 148 EXCEPT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1856/-, THE BANK INTEREST WHICH WAS A VERY PETTY AMOUNT. THE SAME WAS ALSO DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO THE DETECTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON TH E DECISIONS OF THE ITA 845/JP/2017_ RAJIV GUPTA VS. ACIT 4 VARIOUS HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND ITATS I.E. CIT VS MA DAN TEATRES LTD. (2013) 88 DTR 217 (KOL)(HC), CIT VS FORTUNE HOTELS AND ESTATES PVT. LTD. (2015) 232 TAXMAN 481 (BOM) (HC), CHIMANLAL MAN ILAL PATEL VS ACIT (2012) ITA NO. 508/ADHD/2010 33 CCH 647 (AHD)(T RIB), ANITA BENIWAL VS ITO (JPR TRIB) ITA NO. 742/JP/12 A.Y. 2008 -09 ORDER DATED 05/06/2015, DCIT VS TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD. IT A NO. 2337/MUM/2016 49 CCH 0055 (MUM)(TRIB), KANTIBHAI MOH ANBHAI VS. ACIT (2017) 49 CCH 0429 (AHD)(TRIB), JAGAT SINGH VS I TO ITA NOS. 5851 AND 5852/DEL/2016 ORDER DATED 28/2/2017 49 CCH 0074 (DEL)(TRIB). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD DR HAS RELIED ON THE O RDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, THE BENCH HOLD THA T THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING AND SUSTAINING TH E PENALTY LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME (NON-EST) PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDE RATION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COU RT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADAN THEATRES LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDE R: ITA 845/JP/2017_ RAJIV GUPTA VS. ACIT 5 ASSESSEE SOLD PROPERTY. FOR PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY, VALUE ESTIMATED WAS HIGHER. AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED SALE PRICE MUC H LESSER THAN ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WAS PAID. AO FIXED SALE PRICE AT VALUE E STIMATED FOR STAMP DUTY AND PROCEEDED U/S 271(1)(C). PENALTY WAS IMPOSED. CIT(A ) ALLOWED ASSESSEES APPEAL. HELD, TRIBUNAL DISMISSED APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE HO LDING THAT, IT WAS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C THAT A O HAD MADE ADDITION BY ADOPTING SALE CONSIDERATION BEING VALUE ADOPTED FOR PURPOSE OF STAMP VALUATION. REVENUE HAD NOT SHOWN AS TO HOW ASSESSEE COULD BE HELD TO HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THIS. IT HAD ALSO NOT BEEN SHOWN AS TO WHETHER ANY CORRESPONDING ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN HANDS OF BU YER. AS REVENUE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO DISLODGE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) THAT BONA FIDES OF ASSESSEE WERE GENUINE, FINDINGS OF CIT(A) WERE CONFIRMED. ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IT WAS ONLY ON BASIS OF DEEMED CONSID ERATION THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WERE STARTED. REVENUE HAD FAILED TO PRODU CE ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED ONE PAISE MORE THAN AMOU NT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. FORTUNE HOTELS AND ESTATES PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: WHERE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF A PROPERTY, MATTER WAS REFERRED TO DVO WHO DETERMINED SALES CONSIDERATION AT A HIGHER AMOUNT, THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME SO AS TO LEVY PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE AHMADABAD ITAT IN THE CA SE OF CHIMANLAL MANILAL PATEL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: A NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON ASSESSEE ON GROUND T HAT IN ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME SALES CONSIDERATION OF LAND WAS NOT OFFERED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN WHEREIN HIS SHARE OF SALES CONSIDERATION WAS TAKEN AT STAMP DUTY VALUE A S PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. ASSESSEE PAID TAXES ALONG WITH INTEREST. AO VI DE HIS ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 ACCEPTED REVISED RETURN. AO INITIATED PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C). ITA 845/JP/2017_ RAJIV GUPTA VS. ACIT 6 HELD, IT WAS NOT CASE OF AO THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEI VED CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE THAN THAT DECLARED IN SALES DEED. AO HAD NOT DISPUTED CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE. ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE ON BAS IS OF DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL FACTS OF SA LE, DOCUMENTS/ MATERIAL BEFORE AO. AO HAD NOT DOUBTED GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS/DET AILS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE. ONLY BECAUSE ASSESSEE AGREED TO ADDITIONS BECAUSE OF DEEMING PROVISIONS IT CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO BE FILING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS ON PART OF ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE AGREED TO ADDITION ON BASIS OF V ALUATION MADE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY CANNOT BE A CONCLUSIVE PROOF TH AT SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER SALE AGREEMENT WAS INCORRECT AND WRONG. IN VIEW OF THESE, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON BASIS OF DEEMING PROVISION. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY WAS DELETED. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE JAIPUR ITAT IN THE CASE OF ANITA BENIWAL VS. ITO (JPR.) (TRIB.) (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.8 LACS WHEREAS AS PER SEC. 50C OF THE ACT, THE STAMP AUTHORITY HAS ASSESSED THE VA LUE OF PROPERTY AT RS.12,35,730/-, THERE WAS DIFFERENCE AT RS.4,75,658 /- IN THE CAPITAL GAIN, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CASE LAWS REFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE. IN THIS CASE ALSO, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WITH THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED MUCH MORE THAN REFLECTED IN THE RETURN. THE ADDITIO N WAS ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMING PROVISION, THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE COORDINATE BENCH OF MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F DCIT VS.TRANS FREIGHT CONTAINERS LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 7. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS M/S FORTUNE HOTELS AND ESTATES PRIVATE LIMITED IN ITA N UMBER 1164 OF 2012. VIDE ORDER DATED 26/9/2014 THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT HAS UPHELD THE ITAT FINDING THAT IN CASE OF ADDITION BY INVOKING PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 50C, PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)C IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. ITA 845/JP/2017_ RAJIV GUPTA VS. ACIT 7 8. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE REGISTERED SALE DEED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDIT ION BY INVOKING DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50 C. NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE O UT OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT ETC. BEING FOUND. IN SUCH SITUATION ASSESS EE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR C ONCEALMENT OF INCOME. FURTHERMORE THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE H ELD TO BE CONTUMACIOUS SO AS TO WARRANT LEVY OF PENALTY. THIS PROPOSITION IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION RENDERED BY THE LARGER BENCH OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN STEEL LTD VS STATE OF ORISSA 83 ITR 26. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE AHMADABAD ITAT IN THE CAS E OF KANTIBHAI MOHANBHAI VS. ACIT (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT SECTION 50C IS A DEEMING PRO VISION TO TAX THE DIFFERENCE AS CAPITAL GAIN WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS, BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IF LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. IT IS ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMI NG PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION AFTER CONSIDERING THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER U/S 50C(2) OF THE ACT AND DETERMI NED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEI VED WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IT IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DEEMED CONSIDERATION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN STARTED. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY IOTA OF EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY REC EIVED ONE PAISE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. COURT OB SERVED THAT IN TERMS OF DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C, HIGHER SALES CON SIDERATION OF PROPERTY DETERMINED BY THE DVO DID NOT BY ITSELF AMOUNT TO F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME SO AS TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER S ECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT THE REVENUE HAS ALSO NOT SHOWN AS TO HOW THE ASSESSEE C OULD BE HELD TO HAVE ACTUALLY RECEIVED THIS AMOUNT WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED . IT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN SHOWN AS TO WH ETHER ANY CORRESPONDING ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE BUYER. T RIBUNAL FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE TOTALLY BY INVOKING THE PROVI SION CONTAINED IN SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSE D ON THE INCOME DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C AS THIS SOLITARY DOES NOT LEAD TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME, ITA 845/JP/2017_ RAJIV GUPTA VS. ACIT 8 THEREFORE, TRIBUNAL FIND LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN SUSTAINING THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COORDINATE BENCH OF DELHI ITAT IN THE CASE OF JA GAT SINGH VS. ITO (SUPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C)AO OBSERVED THAT LAN D SOLD WAS CAPITAL ASSET WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION 2(14) ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE CHARGEABLE TO TAX BUT NEITHER ASSESSEE FILED RETUR N OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 148 NOR FURNISHED ANY DETAILS AS REQUIR ED VIDE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND 144ACCORDINGLY, AO WORKED OUT T AXABLE CAPITAL GAIN IN WHICH SHARE OF ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINEDAO THEREAFTE R, IMPOSED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) BY OBSERVING THAT AS PER EXPLANATION-1 OF SECTION 271(1) , ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATIONCIT(A), UPHELD ACTI ON OF AO OF IMPOSING PENALTYHELD, IN CASE OF RENU HINGORANI VS . ACIT, MUMBAI PASSED IN ITA NO. 2210/MUM/2010 (AY 2006-07) TRIBUNAL HELD TH AT AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING THAT ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS MORE THA N SALE CONSIDERATION ADMITTED AND MENTIONED IN INCOME OR FURNISHING INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOMEIT WAS ALSO NOT CASE OF REVENUE THAT ASSESSE E FAILED TO FURNISH RELEVANT RECORD AS CALLED BY AO TO DISCLOSE PRIMARY FACTSAS SESSEE FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT FACTS, DOCUMENTS/ MATERIAL INCLUDING SALE AGREEMENT AND AO HAD NOT DOUBTED GENUINENESS AND VALIDITY OF DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFO RE HIM AND SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY ASSESSEEIT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED CORRECT PARTICULARS OF INCOMEMERELY BECA USE BY STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY WOULD NOT BE CONCLUSIVE ASSESSEE AGREED F OR ADDITION ON BASIS OF VALUATION MADE PROOF THAT SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER THIS AGREEMENT WAS INCORRECT AND WRONGACCORDINGLY ADDITION BECAUSE OF DEEMING PROVISIONS DID NOT IPSO FACTO ATTRACT PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C)FOLLOW ING DECISION IN CASE OF RENU HINGORANI VS. ACIT, MUMBAI, PENALTY IN DISPUTE WAS DELETEDASSESSEES APPEAL ALLOWED. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF LEVY OF PENALTY TO THE EXTENT OF DIFFERENCE OF TAX BETWEEN THE LONG TERM CA PITAL GAIN DECLARED ITA 845/JP/2017_ RAJIV GUPTA VS. ACIT 9 PRIOR TO THE FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND INC OME OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. WITH REGARD TO THE BANK INTEREST OF RS. 1,856/-, THE BEN CH IS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS WAS A PETTY AMOUNT AND THE AMOUNT WAS ALSO DISCL OSED DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS PRIOR TO DETECTION BY THE A.O. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18/01/2018. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 18 TH JANUARY, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI RAJIV GUPTA, ALWAR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-2, ALWAR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 845/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR