ITO, Jaipur V. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYAL, Jaipur

ITA 852/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99575 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH AGARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Question of law; Deemed dividend; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3)

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. 852/JP/2012 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE ITO WARD- 5(3), KOTA CUKE VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYAL 1-28, F-78, LAL BAHADUR NAGAR DURGAPURA, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ACIPG 3378 H VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI PURSHOTTAM KASHYAP, ADDL. CIT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, CA LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/11/2015 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 /12/2015 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) II, JAIPUR DATED 29-08-2012 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (I) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,17,89,150/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)( E) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 2 (II) ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 38,34,218/- OUT OF TOTA L ADDITION OF RS. 42,45,690/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT O F DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 2.1 BRIEF FACTS ARE ASSESSEE IS THE MANAGING DIRECT OR/ HOLDER OF SUBSTANTIAL IN A COMPANY M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD. DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME WAS FILED AFTER CLAIMING SET OFF OF LOSS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AT RS.41,87,196/- AGAINST OTHER INCOME. LD. AO RAISED SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ADVANCES TAKEN FROM ABOVE COMPANY AND ITS TAXABILITY U/S 2(22)(E) AND OTHER ISSUE OF PROPOSING DISALLOWANCE OF LOSS QUA INCOME UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AMOUNTING TO RS. 42 ,45,690/- . ASSESSEE FILED DETAIL SUBMISSIONS IN THIS BEHALF AN D RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS, WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE NOT APP RECIATED BY LD. AO. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,32,71,080/-BY MAKING ABOVE ADDITIONS . 2.2 AGGRIEVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 2 9.08.2012 IN APPEAL NO. 451/11-12 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE , ACCORDING FOLLOWING RELIEF: ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 3 S.NO. PARTICULARS ADDITION / DISALLOWANCE MADE BY AO ADDITIONS DELETED BY CIT(A) ADDITION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) 1. ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) 1,17,89,150.00 1,17,89,150.00 NIL 2. DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE 42,45,690.00 38,34,218.00 4,11,472.00 TOTAL 1,60,34,840.00 1,56,23,368.00 4,11,472.00 2.3 THE SAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN CHALLENGE D BY THE REVENUE BEFORE ITAT. 2.4 LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND CONTENDS T HAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE GIVING THE RELIEF QUA THE ADDITION U/S 2(22)( E) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN TRADE ADVANCES ARE LIABLE FOR ADDITION. BESIDE THE RELIEF HAS BEEN ACCORDED ON ERRONEOUS APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND LAW. 2.5 APROPOS THE GROUND ABOUT DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2( 22)(E), LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT LD. AO FAILE D TO APPRECIATE THE CRUCIAL FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS: (1) LD. AO HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE A/C IN Q UESTION WAS A CURRENT A/C DEPICTING CREDIT AND DEBIT OF THE AMOUNTS. LD. AO CONSIDERED ONLY THE PAYMENTS MADE TO ASSESSE E BY M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD. AND CONVENIENTLY IGNORED THE ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 4 PAYMENTS MADE BY ASSESSEE TO M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD. T HUS, THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT UNILATERAL BUT, WERE BUSI NESS TRANSACTIONS ON REGULAR BASIS FROM BOTH SIDES, AND THE CLOSING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 20,08,076.93/- APPEARED BY SET TING OFF THE DEBIT ENTRIES WITH THE CREDIT ENTRIES. (2) THAT, THE NATURE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WITH DWARKA GEMS WAS RUNNING, CURRENT, OPEN, MUTUAL AND TRADE ACCOUNT AND THE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND THE SAID COMPANY WERE ROUTED THROUGH T HIS ACCOUNT. (3) THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FACT PAID AN INTERES T OF RS. 4,65,695/- AT PREVAILING MARKET RATES TO THE SA ID COMPANY AND THE WHOLE AMOUNT ALONG WITH INTEREST WAS REPAID IN SUCCEEDING YEAR WHICH PROVES THAT NO AMOUNT WAS ADV ANCED TO ASSESSEE PRO BONO, THE TRANSACTION CARRY NO ELEM ENT OF LOAN AS PERCEIVED BY LD. AO TO INVOKE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E). (4) ASSESSEE BEING PIONEER OF THE COMPANY IN ORDER TO PROMOTE BUSINESS HAD MORTGAGED PERSONAL AND OTHE R FAMILY MEMBERS IMMOVABLE WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTION S / BANKS TO ENABLE THE COMPANY M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD. TO RAISE FUNDS AGAINST THEM. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE CONSID ERABLE LOANS WERE RAISED BY M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD. THE AMOUN T DRAWN BY ASSESSEE WERE NEVER GRATUITOUS LOAN / ADVA NCE BUT WERE FOR MEETING SOME LIABILITIES INCURRED BY ASSES SEE QUA ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 5 THESE MORTGAGES AND LOANS AND IN RETURN OF THE SIGN IFICANT ADVANTAGE ENJOYED BY DWARKA GEMS. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY LD. AO. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING QUID PRO QUO DO NOT FALL WIT HIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. (5) THAT, SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO AND HAVE ALWAYS HELD TO BE BASED ON QUID PRO Q UO AND NOT GRATUITOUS TRANSACTION AND AS SUCH WERE NOT CON SIDERED AS T ATTRACTING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE CONSISTENT PRACTICE ADOPTED BY REVENUE BASED ON SAM E FACTS HAS BEEN DEVIATED FROM BY THE REVENUE WITHOUT PROVI DING JUSTIFICATION. ALL THESE CRUCIAL FACTS WERE BRUSHED ASIDE BY THE L D. AO AND ARBITRARILY HELD THESE AMOUNTS AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E). LD. CIT(A) AFTER PERUSING THE RELEVANT FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND JUDI CIAL PRECEDENTS ON SETTLED LAW REGARDING SECTION 2(22)(E) DELETED THE ADDITION BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS AT PARA 3.2 AND 3.3 OF THE ORDER: 3.2 I FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO HAD IGNORED ONE VI TAL FACT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPELLANT HAD PLEDGED HIS PER SONAL ASSETS INCLUDING SHARES OF DWARKA GEMS LTD. HELD BY HIM AL ONG WITH SHOWROOM AT B-61, SARDAR PATEL MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIP UR STANDING IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND BROTHER AND HOUSE AT H- 20, BHAGAT SINGH MARG, C-SCHEME, JAIPUR STANDING IN THE NAME O F HIS BROTHER SH. ASHOK GOYAL TO THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS FROM WHERE M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD. HAD AVAILED CREDIT FACILITY. THESE FUNDS WERE ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 6 FULLY UTILIZED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSES BY THE SAI D COMPANY. IN THE CASE OF PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA VS. CIT (338 ITR 538) , IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT THAT WHERE THE SHARE HOLDER HAD PERMITTED HIS IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES TO BE MORTGAGED TO BANK ENABLING THE COMPANY TO OBTAIN LOANS THEN LOAN IN R ETURN FOR THE ADVANTAGE CONFERRED BY THE SHAREHOLDER WAS NOT DEEM ED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE PHRASE BY WAY OF A DVANCE OR LOAN APPEARING IN SUB-CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THOSE ADVANCES OR LOANS WHICH A SHAREHOLDER ENJOYED SIMPLY ON ACCOUNT OF BEING A PE RSON WHO WAS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARES. HOWEVER IF SUCH LOA N OR ADVANCE WAS GIVEN TO SUCH SHAREHOLDER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF A NY FURTHER CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS BENEFICIAL TO THE COMPANY R ECEIVED FROM SUCH A SHARE HOLDER, THEN IN SUCH CASE, SUCH ADVANC E OR LOAN COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANIN G OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. THUS, GRATUITOUS LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN BY A COMPANY TO THE SHAREHOLDER WOULD COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(22)(E) BUT NOT A CASE WHERE THE LOAN OR A DVANCE WAS GIVEN IN RETURN TO AN ADVANTAGE CONFERRED UPON THE COMPANY BY SUCH A SHAREHOLDER. THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED HIS PERSONAL ASSETS AND THAT OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS TO T HE COMPANY, WHICH WERE BEING PLEDGED BEFORE THE FINANCIAL INSTI TUTIONS AND FUNDS SO TAKEN WERE FULLY AND EXCLUSIVELY USED BY C OMPANY, WAS GROSSLY IGNORED BY THE AO. THE VALUE OF ASSETS SO P LEDGED WAS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE AMOUNT ADVANCED THUS IN NO CIR CUMSTANCES, THE APPELLANT HAD AVAILED HIGHER BENEFITS FROM THE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS IT WAS CLEAR THAT AMOUNT WAS AD VANCED TO THE APPELLANT FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND OUT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. 3.3 THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ARE LIMITED TO THE PARTICULAR PURPOSE FOR WHICH THESE HAVE BEEN ENACTED. THESE CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE TRANSACTIONS UNDERTAKEN IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED O UT OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY AND NOT BY WAY OF LOANS OR AD VANCES. IF A CONTRARY VIEW IS ADOPTED, IT WILL CREATE AN ANARCHI C SITUATION ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 7 WHEREBY NO CONCERN WOULD EVER ENTER INTO NORMAL BUS INESS TRANSACTION WITH RELATED CONCERNS. THE LAW ITSELF D ISTINGUISHES THE RUNNING ACCOUNT AND A LOAN ACCOUNT. FOR EXAMPLE, TH E LIMITATION ACT 1963 RECOGNIZES THE RUNNING CHARACTER OF A MUTU AL, OPEN AND CURRENT ACCOUNT BY TAKING THE LAST ACKNOWLEDGED TRA NSACTION AS THE STARTING POINT OF LIMITATION. BUT IN THE CASE OF LO AN, THE SINGLE TRANSACTION ITSELF IS THE STARTING POINT OF LIMITAT ION. THIS THROWS A LIGHT ON THE CHARACTERISTIC FEATURE OF A RUNNING AC COUNT AND A LOAN ACCOUNT IN A SUBTLE MANNER. IN THE CASE OF BOMBAY S TEAM NAVIGATION COMPANY PVT. LTD. (56 ITR 52) IT WAS HEL D BY THE APEX COURT THAT A LOAN OF MONEY MIGHT RESULT IN DEBT BUT EVERY DEBT DOES NOT INVOLVE A LOAN. LIABILITY TO PAY A DEBT MIGHT A RISE FROM DIVERSE SOURCES AND LOAN IS ONLY ONE OF SUCH SOURCES. THERE FORE EVERY CREDITOR WHO IS ENTITLED TO RECEIVE A DEBT CANNOT B E REGARDED AS A LENDER. IN THE CASE OF ARDEEFINVEST (P) LTD. VS. DC IT (79 ITD 547), IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI TRIBUNAL THA T A LOAN CONTRACTED NO DOUBT CREATED A DEBT BUT THERE COULD 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 IDEM. IT IS THEREFORE SINE QUA NON TO ASCERTAIN THE CORRECT NAT URE OF PAYMENTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE SIMPLY BECAUSE CHEQUES WERE REC EIVED AND PAID IN THE MUTUAL, OPEN, CURRENT, RUNNING AND TRADE ACC OUNT BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD., IT COULD NO T BE CONSIDERED AS PAYMENT BY WAY OF LOANS OR ADVANCES S O AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. I FURTHER FIND THAT SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS ATTRACTING PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT. THEREFORE THE CREDIT BALANCE IN SUCH ACCO UNT COULD NOT BE TREATED AS LOAN OR ADVANCES IN THE CURRENT YEAR. TH ESE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT ATTACHED WITH ANY OBLIGATION. FOR MUTUAL B ENEFIT, THE AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD. CONSIDERING THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WIT H A PARTICULAR ENTRY. THEREFORE THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED OU T OF COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY. ACCORDINGLY I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE T HE ADDITION OF RS. 1,17,89,150/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND. TH ESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 8 A PERUSAL OF LD. CIT(A)S ORDER REFLECTS DUE EXAMI NATION OF RELEVANT FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND CASE LAWS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. APART FROM THE SERVICES RENDERED TO M/S DWARKA GEMS LTD. IN RESPECT OF RAISING FUNDS ON THE MORTGAGES OF ASSESSEE AND OTHE R FAMILY MEMBERS PROPERTIES BEING MD HAD TO PROMOTE BUSINESS ACTIVI TIES OF PURCHASES, SALES, MARKETING PROMOTION, RECOVERY OF DUES AND OT HER DAY TO DAY BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF COMPANY. IN THIS CONNECTION AS SESSEE HAD TO UNDERTAKE EXTENSIVE TRAVELLING THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AROUND THE WORLD TO EXPLORE THE MARKETS AND GIVE BOOST TO SALE OF THE C OMPANY. THESE EXTENSIVE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES ALWAYS NECESSITATED T AKING ADVANCES, WHICH WERE SOLELY FOR BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND NOT AS ANY GRATUITOUS ADVANCE. SUCH BUSINESS ADVANCES WERE ULTIMATELY SETTLED CONS IDERING THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON BEHALF OF COMPANY. LD. AO HAS NOWHERE D ISPUTED THESE FACTS WHICH WERE DEMONSTRATED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BESIDES AT THE END OF THE YEAR, COMPANY HAS CHARGED INTEREST OF RS. 4, 65,695/- ON THE DEBITED BALANCE OF ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM HIS LEDGE R ACCOUNT. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) IN THE CASE OF M/S DWARKA GEM S LTD. ALSO INTEREST PAID BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TAXED AS COMPANYS INCOME . IT IS CLEAR THAT ADVANCES WERE PRIMARILY TAKEN IN THE ORDINARY COURS E OF COMPANYS BUSINESS, A DUTY WAS ASSIGNED TO HIM AS MD AND TO M EET CONSEQUENTIAL ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 9 BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS. AS A PRUDENT BUSINESS PRACTIC E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CHARGED INTEREST AT THE END OF YEAR ON THE DEFERENT IAL AMOUNT AND COMPANY HAS ALSO PAID TAXES THEREON. THE ADVANCES BEING FO R CARRYING OUT COMPANYS BUSINESS, DOES NOT ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTEN TION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT GIVEN IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V.RAJ KUMAR 318 ITR 0462 [2009] HOLDING AS UNDER: HEAD NOTE: COMPANY DIVIDEND DEEMED DIVIDEND SCOPE OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ADVANCE TO SHAREHOLDER MEANING OF ADVANCE IN SECTION 2(22)(E) TRADE ADVANCES NOT ASSESSABLE AS DEEMED DIVIDEND INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, S. 2(22)(E). INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTES RULE OF NOSCITU R A SOCIIS. RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS(PARAS) 10.9 KEEPING THE AFORESAID RULE IN MIND WE ARE OF T HE OPINION THAT THE WORD 'ADVANCE' WHICH APPEARS IN THE COMPANY OF THE WORD 'LOAN' COULD ONLY MEAN SUCH ADVANCE WHICH CARRIES WITH IT AN OBL IGATION OF REPAYMENT. TRADE ADVANCE WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF MONEY TRAN SACTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS WOULD NOT, IN OUR VIEW , FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. T HIS INTERPRETATION WOULD ALLOY THE RULE OF PURPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION WITH NOSCI TUR A SOCIIS, AS WAS DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIC OF IND IA VS RETD. LIC OFFICERS ASSN. (2008) 3 SCC 321. THE OBSERVATION IN PARA 24 OF THE REPORT BEING APPOSITE ARE EXTRACTED HEREINBELOW:- EACH WORD EMPLOYED IN A STATUTE MUST TAKE COLOUR F ROM THE PURPORT AND OBJECT FOR WHICH IT IS USED. THE PRINCIPLE OF PURPO SIVE INTERPRETATION, THEREFORE, SHOULD BE TAKEN RECOURSE TO. ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 10 11. A CLOSE EXAMINATION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NAGINDAS M. KAPADIA (SUPRA) WOULD SHOW THAT THE COURT EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF 'DIVIDEND', MONIES WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TOWARDS PURCHASES. IN OUR VIEW BOTH THE CI T(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVE CORRECTLY APPRECIATED THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IN THE SAID JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT. THE RELEVANT POR TION OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHICH SETS OUT TH IS ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS ALREADY EXTRACTED BY US IN THE NARRATIVE GIVE BY US HEREINABOVE. WE ARE ALSO IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW OF THE TRIBU NAL THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MS. P. SARADA ( SUPRA) AND SMT. TARULATA (SUPRA) HAS NO APPLICABILITY TO THE PRESEN T CASE. BOTH THE JUDGMENTS ESTABLISH THE PRINCIPLE THAT ONCE THE PAY MENT MADE TO A SHAREHOLDER IS DEEMED AS DIVIDEND THEN THE MERE FAC T THAT IT IS REPAID WOULD NOT TAKE IT OUT OF THE AMBIT OF THE TAX NET. IN THE INSTANT CASE, HOWEVER, A DISCUSSION WITH RESPECT TO WHICH HAS BEE N MADE HEREINABOVE, THE ISSUE IS WHETHER THE PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE SH AREHOLDER WOULD AT ALL FALL WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. HAVING HELD OTHERWISE, THE SAID JUDGMENTS OF THE SU PREME COURT, IN OUR VIEW, WILL HAVE NO APPLICABILITY TO THE FACTS OF TH E INSTANT CASE. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE QUESTION OF LAW AS FR AMED BY US IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. WE HOLD THAT TRADE ADVANCE DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL IS DIS MISSED. THERE SHALL BE, HOWEVER, NO ORDER AS TO COSTS . IN CIT VS. RAJ KUMAR ( SUPRA ), THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AS EXPLAINED BY THE HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT CLEARLY MEAN THAT A PAYMENT WOULD ACQUIRE THE ATTRI BUTES OF A DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE PROVISION ONLY IF THE FOL LOWING CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED : (I) THE COMPANY MAKING THE PAYMENT IS ONE IN WHICH THE PUBLIC ARE NOT SUBSTANTIALLY INTERESTED ; (II) THE MONEY SHOULD BE PAID BY THE COMPANY TO A SHAREH OLDER HOLDING NOT LESS THAN 10% OF THE VOTING POWER OF TH E ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 11 COMPANY. IT WOULD MAKE NO DIFFERENCE IF THE PAYMENT WAS OUT OF THE ASSETS OF THE COMPANY OR OTHERWISE. (III) THE MONEY SHOULD BE PAID EITHER BY WAY OF AN ADVANC E OR LOAN OR IT MAY BE 'ANY PAYMENT' WHICH THE COMPANY M AY MAKE ON BEHALF OF OR FOR THE INDIVIDUAL BENEFIT OF ANY SHAREHOLDER OR ALSO TO ANY CONCERN IN WHICH SUCH SH AREHOLDER IS A MEMBER OR A PARTNER AND IN WHICH HE IS SUBSTAN TIALLY INTERESTED ; (IV) THE LIMITING FACTOR BEING THAT THESE PAYMENTS MUST BE TO THE EXTENT OF ACCUMULATED PROFITS, POSSESSED BY SUCH A COMPANY. FURTHER, IN PARA 27 OF THE SAID JUDGMENT I.E. CIT V S. RAJ KUMAR , THE HONBLE COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT:- A BARE READING OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMM ISSION (TAXATION ENQUIRY COMMISSION REPORT OF 1953-54, V OLUME II, CHAPTER X) AND THE SPEECH OF THE THEN FINANCE MIN ISTER WOULD SHOW THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE INSERTION OF SUB-CLAUS E (E) TO SECTION 2(6A) IN THE 1922 ACT [PRECURSOR TO SECTION 2(22)(E )] WAS TO BRING WITHIN TAX NET MONIES PAID BY CLOSELY HELD COMPANIE S TO THEIR PRINCIPAL SHAREHOLDER IN THE GUISE OF LOANS AND ADV ANCES TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX. (PARA 27) THEREFORE, IF THE SAID BACKGROUND IS KEPT IN MIND, IT IS CLEAR THAT SUB-CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE ACT, WHICH I S IN PARIMATERIA WITH SUB CLAUSE(E) OF SECTION 2(6A) OF THE 1922 ACT , PLAINLY SEEKS TO BRING WITHIN THE TAX NET ACCUMULATED PROFITS WHI CH ARE DISTRIBUTED BY CLOSELY HELD COMPANIES TO ITS SHAREH OLDERS IN THE FORM OF LOANS. THE PURPOSE BEING THAT PERSONS WHO M ANAGE SUCH CLOSELY HELD COMPANIES SHOULD NOT ARRANGE THEIR AFF AIRS IN A MANNER THAT THEY ASSIST THE SHAREHOLDERS IN AVOIDING THE P AYMENT OF TAXES BY HAVING THESE COMPANIES PAY OR DISTRIBUTE, WHAT W OULD ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 12 LEGITIMATELY BE DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE SHAREH OLDERS, MONEY IN THE FORM OF AN ADVANCE OR LOAN. (PARA 28) IF THIS PURPOSE IS KEPT IN MIND THE, IN OUR VIEW, T HE WORD 'ADVANCE' HAS TO BE READ IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE WORD 'LOAN'. USUALLY ATTRIBUTES OF A LOAN ARE THAT IT INVOLVES THE POSIT IVE ACT OF LENDING COUPLED WITH ACCEPTANCE BY THE OTHER SIDE OF THE MO NEY AS LOAN : IT GENERALLY CARRIES INTEREST AND THERE IS AN OBLIGATI ON OF REPAYMENT. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ITS WIDEST MEANING THE TERM ' ADVANCE' MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE LENDING. THE WORD 'ADVANCE' IF N OT FOUND IN THE COMPANY OF OR IN CONJUNCTION WITH A WORD 'LOAN' MAY OR MAY NOT INCLUDE THE OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT. (PARA 29) IN VIEW OF THE PROPOSITION OF LAW AS SETTLED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT, IT IS CONTENDED THAT IN THE FACTS ARE NOT DI SPUTED BY LD. AO AND DULY APPRECIATED BY LD. CIT(A). PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, I.E. ASSESSEE TOTAL DEDICATION TO BUILD UP AND TAKE CARE OF COMPANYS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF SALE, PURCHASE, MARKETING, O VERSEAS TRAVEL ETC,: HAVING MORTGAGED HIS PROPERTIES FOR RAISING COMPANY FUNDS THE PRESENT CASE; THE WITHDRAWALS BEING FOR CARRYING OUT THE CO MPANYS BUSINESS AND NOT FOR PERSONAL USER HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A). AFTER IN DEPTH APPRECIATION OF FACTS IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. FURTHER R ELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE RECENT DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRADIP KUMAR MALHOTRA V.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REPORTED IN [ 2011] 338 ITR 0538 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 13 HEAD NOTE: COMPANY DIVIDEND DEEMED DIVIDEND LOAN TO SHAREHOLDER SCOPE SECTION 2(22)(E) GRATUITOUS L OAN DEEMED TO BE DIVIDEND LOAN IN RETURN TO ADVANTAGE CONFERRED BY SHAREHOLDER NOT DEEMED DIVIDEND SHAREHOLDER PERMITTING HIS IMMOVA BLE PROPERTY TO BE MORTGAGED TO BANK ENABLING IT TO OBTAIN LOAN LOAN BY COMPANY TO SHAREHOLDER NOT DEEMED DIVIDEND INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, S. 2(22)(E). THE PHRASE 'BY WAY OF ADVANCE OR LOAN' APPEARING IN SUB-CLAUSE (E) OF SECTION 2(22) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, MUST BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN THOSE ADVANCES OR LOANS WHICH A SHAREHOLDER ENJOYS SIMPLY ON ACCOUNT OF BEING A PERSON WHO IS THE BENEFICIAL OWNER OF SHARE S (NOT BEING SHARES ENTITLED TO A FIXED RATE OF DIVIDEND WHETHER WITH O R WITHOUT A RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN PROFITS) HOLDING NOT LESS THAN TEN P ER CENT. OF THE VOTING POWER ; BUT IF SUCH LOAN OR ADVANCE IS GIVEN TO SUC H SHAREHOLDER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS B ENEFICIAL TO THE COMPANY RECEIVED FROM SUCH A SHARE-HOLDER, IN SUCH CASE, SUCH ADVANCE OR LOAN CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT.THUS, GRATUITOUS LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN BY A COM PANY TO THOSE CLASSES OF SHAREHOLDERS WOULD COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SE CTION 2(22) BUT NOT CASES WHERE THE LOAN OR ADVANCE IS GIVEN IN RETURN TO AN ADVANTAGE CONFERRED UPON THE COMPANY BY SUCH SHAREHOLDER . FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON :- CIT V. AMBASSADOR TRAVELS P. LTD. [2009] 318 ITR 03 76 [IN THE DELHI HIGH COURT] IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AN ANALOGY CAN BE DRAW N FROM HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF S A BUILDERS 288 ITR 1(SC) WHICH LAYS DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT IF INTEREST BE ARING FUNDS ARE DIVERTED TO SISTER CONCERNS WITHOUT INTEREST FOR BUSINESS CO NSIDERATIONS, THE SAME IS ALLOWABLE AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. THE INTENT OF DI SALLOWANCE IS AGAIN THE SAME I.E. TO PREVENT ENTITIES FROM SIPHONING OFF TH EIR INTEREST BEARING ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 14 FUNDS WITHOUT CHARGING INTEREST THEREBY REDUCING TH EIR TAXES BUT A CLEAR EXCEPTION HAS BEEN CARVED OUT BY HONBLE SUPREME CO URT BY THIS JUDGE MADE LAW THAT EVEN THIS IS PERMISSIBLE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED THAT IT IS THE COMPANY M/S DWARKA GEMS WHICH IS A CLEAR BENEFICIARY IN THE GIVEN TRANSACTIONS; I N THE CASE OF ANY DEFAULT BY COMPANY WITH FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, IT WILL BE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS PROPERTIES, WHICH WILL BE PUT TO JEOPARDY D UE TO MORTGAGES. BESIDES THE BUSINESS NATURE OF ADVANCES HAS NOT BEE N CONTROVERTED BY LD. AO AS THE ASSESSEES COPIOUS CONTENTIONS IN THIS BE HALF WERE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS CONTENDED THAT DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE PROPOSITION OF NON APPL ICABILITY OF SEC. 2(22)(E) IN EARLIER YEARS. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING SAME WHAT IS SETTLED IN ASSESSEES CASE CANNOT BE UNSETTLED BY L D. AO WITHOUT GIVING JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR DEVIATING FROM PRINCIPLES O F CONSISTENCY IN ASSESSMENTS AS HELD BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG VS. CIT 193 ITR 321 AND FOLLOWE D IN LATEST JUDGMENT OF CIT VS. EXCEL INDUSTRIES, 358 ITR 295 . IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) AFTER APPRECIATING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE LAW ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 15 APPLICABLE THEREON, AND THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DES ERVES TO BE UPHELD ON THIS ISSUE. REVENUES GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 02: 3.1 LD. COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT APPELLANT HAD PAID I NTEREST OF RS.47,33,322/- ON BORROWED FUNDS AND CLAIMED DEDUCT ION FROM THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED AT RS.7,61,151/-. LD. AO ALL EGED THAT OUT OF TOTAL BORROWED FUNDS OF RS.2,74,24,741/- ASSESSEE INVESTE D A SUM OF RS.28,30,604/- AND HAD EARNED INTEREST INCOME AND T HE BALANCE RS.2,45,94,137/- WERE GIVEN AS INTEREST FREE ADVANC ES AND MADE THE PROPORTIONATE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE TOTAL INTERES T CLAIMED AT RS.47,33,322/- BY IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED TOTAL INTEREST OF RS.7,61,151/- INSTEAD OF RS.3,81,253/-A S ALLEGED BY THE LD. AO. 3.2 AT THE OUTSET, IT IS CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED BY ASSESSEES OWN EARLIER YEARS BY VARIOUS FAVORABLE O RDERS - LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 635/09-10 ORDER DATED 03.06 .2010 WHICH IS CONFIRMED BY ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 11.02.2011 I N ITA NO. 1046/JP/2010 AND THE ORDER OF ITAT FOR A.Y. 2004-05 IN ITA NO. 218/JP/2008DATED 13.02.2009 (APB 19-20) . LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 16 THE IMPUGNED ADDITION RELIED ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED ORDERS AND REPRODUCED THE ITAT ORDER FOR AY 2004-05 AT PARA 4. 1 OF HIS ORDER. LD. AO HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER EARLIER ORDERS AND MADE T HE ADDITIONS. THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEAVE NO SCOPE FOR INTERFER ENCE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). IT IS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE EARLIER AS SESSMENTS HAVE BEEN SUBJECT MATTER OF LITIGATION, AO NEVER RAISED THE I SSUE ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 2(22)(E) IN ANY OF THESE YEARS WHICH SUBSTA NTIATES ASSESSEES CLAIM ABOUT APPLICABILITY OF PRINCIPLES OF CONSISTENCY AS PROPOUNDED BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN RADHA SOAMI SATSANG (SUPRA). THERE FORE, IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE IT IS PRAYED THAT GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPAR TMENT IN THIS APPEAL HAVE NO MERIT, ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BEING REASONED, JUST AND BASED ON JUDICIAL PRINCIPLES MAY BE UPHELD. 3.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE FROM RECORD. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE EARLIER ITAT ORDERS AS MENT IONED ABOVE AND REPRODUCED BY LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THEM, GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1, IT EMERGES FROM THE RECOR D THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS ABOUT THE ADVANTAGES DERIVED BY COMPANY M/S DWARKA GEMS FROM THE MORTGAGE OF ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY M EMBERS PROPERTIES ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 17 HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED. BESIDE IT HAS B EEN DEMONSTRATIVELY EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE BEING MD AND PIONEER OF THE COMPANY HAD TO CARRY ON BULK OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS LIKE, PURCHA SES, SALES, OVERSEAS OPERATIONS, THE IMPUGNED ACCOUNT WAS THE MEANS TO C ARRY OUT SUCH OPERATIONS. TO BE FAIR, ASSESSEE PAID INTEREST ON T HE REMAINING AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. A LL THESE JUSTIFICATIONS HAVE NOT BEEN EFFECTIVELY CONTROVETED BY LD. AO AND HAVE BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A). A SERIES OF EARLIER YEARS LITIGATION REFLECTS THAT THE ISSUE OF ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) WAS NOT AGITATED IN EARLIER YEARS, CONSEQUENTLY ASSESSEES RELIANCE ON HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF RADHA SOAMI SATSANG (SUPRA) AND PLEA OF CONSISTENCY ALSO CARRIES SUITABLE FORCE. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJKUMAR (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND O THER JUDGMENTS O THE ISSUE AND HELD THAT KEEPING THE AFORESAID RULE IN M IND WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE WORD 'ADVANCE' WHICH APPEARS IN TH E COMPANY OF THE WORD 'LOAN' COULD ONLY MEAN SUCH ADVANCE WHICH CARR IES WITH IT AN OBLIGATION OF REPAYMENT. TRADE ADVANCE WHICH ARE IN THE NATURE OF MONEY TRANSACTED TO GIVE EFFECT TO A COMMERCIAL TRANSACTI ONS WOULD NOT, IN OUR VIEW, FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THIS INTERPRETATION WOULD ALLOY THE RULE OF PU RPOSIVE CONSTRUCTION ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 1 8 WITH NOSCITUR A SOCIIS, AS WAS DONE BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LIC OF INDIA VS RETD. LIC OFFICERS ASSN. (2008) 3 S CC 321. HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF PRADEEP KUM AR MALHOTRA HELD THAT IF THE LOAN OR ADVANCE IS GIVEN TO SUBSTANTIAL SHAR EHOLDER AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ANY FURTHER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO THE COMPANY RECEIVED FROM SUCH A SHARE-HOLDER, IN SUCH CASE, SUCH ADVANC E OR LOAN CANNOT BE SAID TO BE DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF TH E ACT. THUS, CASES WHERE THE LOAN OR ADVANCE IS GIVEN IN RETURN TO AN ADVANTAGE CONFERRED UPON THE COMPANY BY SUCH SHAREHOLDER WOULD NOT COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 2(22)(E). ASSESSEE RELIANCE ON THE ANALOGY OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF S A BUILDERS (SUPRA) ALSO THROWS LIGHT ON THE PURPOSE AND LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF SUCH DEEMING PROVISIONS TO DETER ENTITIES FROM SIPHONING OFF THE FUNDS TO AVOI D TAXES. CONSIDERING THIS JUDGMENT ALSO THE ADVANCES BEING FOR TRADE AND BUSINESS CONSIDERATIONS, ASSESSEE HAVING NOT DERIVED ANY BEN EFIT OUT OF IT AND RATHER HAVING ACQUIRED DISADVANTAGE FOR THE BETTERM ENT OF THE COMPANYS BUSINESS CANNOT BE SADDLED WITH ADDITIONS U/S 2(22) (E). IN CONSIDERATION OF ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND JUDICIAL PR ECEDENTS CITED ABOVE, WE OBSERVE NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS UPHELD, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 852/JP/2012 ITO WARD- 5(3) JAIPUR VS. SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYA L,JAIPUR . 19 5.0 IN THE RESULT, REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 /12/2 015. 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:- 18/12/ 2015 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ITO, WARD- 5(3), JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI KRISHNA BEHARI GOYAL, 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.852/JP/2012) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR