S.SINGHAL & CO., Alwar V. ACIT, Alwar

ITA 858/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5393 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJ MEHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO.858/JP/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: JAIPUR BENCH [SMC] : JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 858/JP/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05 M/S. S. SINGHAL & CO., E-27, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWANDI DIST. ALWAR, PAN:AAFFS2873Q VS THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MOTI DUNGARI, ALWAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ROHAN SOGANI, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJ MEHRA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING: 01-03-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 9-03-2016 O R D E R PER MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FRO M THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), ALWAR DATED 23-09-2013 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004-05. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS REPRODUCED BEL OW:- 1. IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE LD. AO IN MAKIG ADDITION OF RS.2,20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 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 SAID ADDITION OF RS.2,20,000/-. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF, AS EMERGED FROM T HE CORRESP ONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE IT ACT DATED 28-12-2010 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CHARTERED ACCOUNT FIRM. A SE ARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 17- 09-2008 ON KAMDHENU GROUP OF INDUSTRIES. THE AO HAS MADE AN OBSERVATION THAT THE GROUP IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN PROVIDING PROFE SSIONAL SERVICES OF ACCOUNTANCY. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO IN THE BUSINESS O F SHARE TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS 2 ITA NO.858/JP/2013 SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HAV ING SHARE HOLDING IN A REAL ESTATE PROJECT. FURTHER, AN OBSERVATION HAS BEEN MA DE THAT ONE SHRI SURENDRA KUMAR SINGHAL HAS SURRENDERED AN UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.73,10,000/- AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ON ACCOUNT OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATIO N ENTRIES OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. DUE TO THE SAID REASON OTHER MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY HAVE ALSO DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AMOUNTING TO RS.93,19,852/-. THE AO HAS FURTHER CLA RIFIED THAT NO INCOME WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS NO ADDITIONA L INCOME WAS DECLARED AS PER THE RETURN. IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF ELECTRONIC ITEMS, THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BILLS WERE SEIZED PERTAINING TO THE PURCHASE OF TV AND PROJECT OR OF TV. THE AO HAS RECORDED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT BECAUS E OF T HE REASON THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THEREFOR E HELD THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE AO SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THEREFORE, THE TO TAL AMOUNT OF BOTH THE BILLS OF RS.2,20,000/- WAS TAXED AFTER RECORDING THE FOLLOWI NG REASONS:- 1. SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NAME OF M/S . S. SINGHAL & CO. WAS MENTIONED IN THE BILL NO.1198 FOR RS.45,000/- J UST FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASON THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSPORTATION ADDRESS OF THE PERSON TO WHOM THE GO ODS ARE TO BE DELIVERED IS OF FAR MOST IMPORTANCE WHICH IS MENTIO NED AS E-27, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWANDI ON THE BILL. NAME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ON THE BILL ONLY INDICATES THAT THE GOODS HAVE BEEN PURCHA SED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENT O F THE T. V. PURCHASED AS PER THE BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS M ADE BY SH. W. R. SINGHAL G/F OF SH. KUNAL SINGHAL IS ALSO NOT CONVI NCING BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY EVIDENCE FOR THE SA ME. 3. IF SH. W. R. SINGHAL HAS MADE PAYMENT FOR T HE S AME, WHAT PREVENTED THE SHOPKEEPER OR SH. W. R. SINGHAL TO HA VE HIS NAME ON THE BILLS. 3 ITA NO.858/JP/2013 4. FOR OTHER BILL I.E. BILL NO.1199 FOR RS.1,75,000 /- FOR PURCHASE OF PROJECTION T. V. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE BILL HAS INADVERTENTLY BEEN ANNEXED WITH THE BILL OF RS.45,000/- I.E. BILL NO.1198. AND THE BILL NO.1199 DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ON E XAMINING THE BILL IT IS FOUND T HAT AT T HE TOP OF THE BILL FOLLOWING REMAR K IS MENTIONED (SUBSEQUENT TO BILL NO.1198). HERE IT IS NECESSARY TO MENTION THAT THE BILL UNDER CONSIDERATION IS BILL NO.1199 AND TH E BILL NO.1198 PERTAINS TO PURCHASE OF ANOTHER PROJECTION T. V. FOR RS.45,0 00/- WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN ABOVE 3 PARAS. THEREFORE, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT T HE BILL NO.1199 FOR RS.1,75,000/- HAS BEEN ISSUED SUBSEQUEN T TO BILL NO.1198 AND CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT IS ANNEXED WITH 1198 IS TRUE TO THE EXTENT THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN ANNEXED INADVERTENTLY BUT DELIBERAT ELY BECAUSE THE BILL PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND HAS BEEN ISSUED S UBSEQUENT TO BILL NO.1198 FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER PROJECTION T. V. TH E BILL AMOUNT OF RS.1,75,000 HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISOWNED THE BILL THEREFORE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF VERIFYING ITS PA YMENT FROM BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AS DI SCUSSED ABOVE VERY MUCH INDICATES THAT THE BILL PERTAINS TO THE ASSESS EE FORM FOR WHICH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. AFTER DISCUSSION AS ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT FOR PURCHAS E OF ITEMS I.E. PROJECTION T. V. AS MENTIONED IN BILL NO.1198 FOR R S.45,000/- AND BILL NO.12199 FOR RS.1,75,000/-. IN VIEW OF THE SAME AN ADDITION OF RS.2,20,000/- IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . [ADDITION: RS.2,20,000] 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS AFFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO I N THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WE LL AS THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR AND FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF ELECTRONIC ITEMS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PRE MISES OF THE APPELLANT, TWO PAPERS - PAGE 29 & 30 OF ANNEXURE A/2 WERE SEIZ ED FROM E-127, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWANDI. THESE PAPERS WERE THE BI LLS OF GANPATI ELECTRONICS, SAHARA MALL, GURGAON (I) BILL NO.119 8 DATED 10-11-2003 FOR THE PURCHASE OF 60 INCH LCD PROJECTION TV FOR R S.45,000 IN THE NAME OF S. SINGHAL & CO., E-127, INDUSTRIAL AREA, BHIWA NDI AND (II) BILL NO.1199 DATED 11-11-2003 FOR CASH, PROJECTION TV 60 INCH FOR RS.1,75,000. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF 4 ITA NO.858/JP/2013 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE PURCHASE OF TV AGAI NST INVOICE NO.1198 OF RS.45,000 WAS MADE BY SH. KUNAL SINGHAL AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY SH. W. R. SINGHAL, THE GRANDFATHER OF SH. KUNAL SINGHAL. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO PURCHASE HAS BEEN MADE AGAINST TH E INVOICE NO.1199 BY THE APPELLANT AND THIS INVOICE WAS RECEIVED BY M ISTAKE. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT THUS, COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAID PURCHASES AS NO ENTRIES WERE FOUND RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4.4 DURING THE COURSE OF PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A PPELLANT HAS REPEATED THE SAME FACTS AND HAS FAILED TO FILE ANY FURTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CONTENTIONS. THE PRIMA RY ONUS LIES UPON THE APPELLANT AS REGARDS THE PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM IS PREMISES ARE CONCERNED. THE APPELLAN T COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAID INVOICES WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENTRIES REC ORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE PURCHASES MADE IN CASH ARE A CLEAR REFLECTION OF THE UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE / INVESTMENT. A SELLER WOUL D NORMALLY ISSUE A BILL / INVOICE TO THE BUYER AGAINST THE GOODS SOLD ON CASH BASIS BY WRITING CASH ON THE INVOICE, RATHER THAN THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO IS BUYING THE GOODS. THIS IS A NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE, WHIC H IS BEING FOLLOWED BY EVERYONE IN DAY TO DAY LIFE. THUS, THERE IS NO LOGI C IN THE ARGUMENT THAT THERE IS NO NAME OF THE APPELLANT WRITTEN ON THE IN VOICE NUMBER 1199 AND ONLY CASH HAS BEEN WRITTEN ON THE BILL AND HENCE THERE IS NO PURCHASE MADE BY THE APPELLANT. 4.5 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLA IM THAT THE SAID PURCHASE AGAINST INVOICE NO.1198 WAS MADE BY SH. KU NAL SINGHAL. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE APPELL ANT AND FIND THAT THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE IT IS THE P RIMARY DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM WITH THE BEST P OSSIBLE EVIDENCE. ACCORDING TO SECTION 132(4A) OF THE IT ACT, WHERE N AY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF AN Y PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH, IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT SUCH DOCUME NT BELONGS TO THE PERSON AND THE CONTENTS OF SUCH DOCUMENT ARE TRUE. THE PRESUMPTION U/S 132(4A) OF THE IT ACT IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION A ND THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BEST POSSIBLE EVIDENCE TO D ISPROVE IT. HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS UPHELD THIS, IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. AMBIKA APPALAM DEPOT 340 ITR 0497. FURTHER, IN THE CASE OF SMT. JYOTI KUMARI VS. ACIT 344 ITR 060, HONBLE KARNATAKA HI GH COURT HAS HELD THAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OR ASSET DISCOVERE D DURING SEARCH CAN 5 ITA NO.858/JP/2013 BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE ON HIS FAILURE TO PROVE THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ALREADY D ISCLOSED. IN THIS CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DO SO BOTH AT THE ASSES SMENT AS WELL AS AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. 4.6 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I HOLD THAT TH E AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,20,000 ON ACCOUNT OF UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT, LEARNED AR MR. R OHAN SOGANI APPEARED AND VEHEMENTLY PLEADED THAT NOWHERE IT WAS ESTABLIS HED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD MADE THE INVESTMENTS. THE LEARNED AR HAS PLACED THE PHOTOCOPIES OF THE IMPUGNED BILLS BEARING NO.1198 AND 1199. THE LEARNE D AR HAS FURTHER PLEADED THAT ONE OF THE BILLS IS DATED 10-11-2009 AND THE O THER IS DATED 11-11-2009. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE BILL BEARING NO.1199 DATED 11 -11-2009 OF RS.1,75,000/- WAS MISTAKENLY ATTACHED WITH THE BILL BEARING NO.11 98 DATED 10-11-2009. OTHERWISE, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO TRAVEL ALL THE WA Y IN TWO CONSECUTIVE DATES. HE HAS, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO LOGICAL BA SIS TO PRESUME THAT THE PURCHASE OF THE ELECTRONIC ITEMS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS FIRM. HIS SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING IN SHORT WERE AS U NDER:- 4.1 THE ITEMS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY TH E APPELLANT FIRM ARE ENTERTAINMENT ELECTRONIC GADGETS. IN A CA FIRM, IN NORMAL COURSE, SUCH ENTERTAINMENT GADGETS ARE NOT INSTALLED. 4.2 THE BILLS WERE FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE AND NOT A T THE OFFICE PREMISES. NOR THERE IS ANY FINDING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THESE WERE FOUND INSTALLED AT THE OFFICE PREMISES. 4.3 IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO AS WELL AS B EFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THAT THE BILL NO.1198 FOR RS.45,000/- PERTAINED TO THE PURCHASER BY SHRI W. R. SINGHAL FATHER OF SHRI S. K. SINGHAL UNDER EX CHANGE OFFER. IN RESPECT OF BILL NO.1199 FOR RS.1,75,000/-, IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT IT DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT FIRM AND IT IN NO WAY RELATED TO THE FIRM. 6 ITA NO.858/JP/2013 4.4 A SPECIFIC REQUEST WAS MADE DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS (AO PAGE 2) TO VERIFY THE ABOVE FACT FR OM M/S. GANPATI ELECTRONICS WHO HAD ISSUED THE BILLS. 4.5 THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, FOR THE REASONS BEST KNO WN TO THEM, HAVE NOT ACTED UPON THE ASSESSEES REQUEST. ELECTRONIC ITEMS DO CARRY WITH THEM THE WARRANTY AND THEREFORE COMPLETE DETAILS OF BUYE R ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE VENDORS. 4.6 BILL NO.1199 WAS ERRONEOUSLY ATTACHED WITH BILL NO.1198. THE VENDOR IS LOCATED AT S-11, SAHARA MALL, M. G. ROAD, GURGAON WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS LOCATED AT E-127, INDUSTRIAL A REA, BHIWANDI, ALWAR. BILL NO.1198 IS DATED 10/11/2003 WHERE BILL NO.1199 IS 11/11/2003. SLIGHT APPLICATION OF COMMON SENSE WILL REVEAL THAT IF A PERSON OF BHIWANDI HAS TO BUY TWO TVS HE WILL NOT GO ON TWO D IFFERENT SUCCESSIVE DATES FROM BHIWANDI TO GURGAON TO BUY TWO TVS FROM THE SAME VENDOR. IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SECOND BILL HAS NOTHING TO DO WI TH THE ASSESSEE FIRM OR SHRI S. K. SINGHAL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, FORM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LEARNED DR, MR. RAJ MEHRA APPEARED AND HAS STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. I HA VE ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. I HAVE EXAMI NED THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. AT THE OUT SET, IT IS WORTH MENTIONING THAT IN VIEW OF AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE BILLS HAVE BEE N RECOVERED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 (4A) O F THE ACT ARE MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLICABLE ON THE ASSESSEE. WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS, BULLION, MONEY, JEWELLERY ETC, ARE FOUND IN THE POSSESSION O R CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH, THEN, IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT S UCH DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY ETC. BELONG TO SUCH PERSON. SUCH PRESUMPTION IS OTHERWISE REBUTTABLE. THEREFORE, THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSE E TO PLACE ON RECORD SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE REBUTTAL. AS FAR AS THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WAS CONCERNED, THE PRESUMPTION W AS WARRANTED DUE TO THE 7 ITA NO.858/JP/2013 RECOVERY OF THE IMPUGNED BILLS. THE DUTY WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO DISCARD THE SAID PRESUMPTION. I AM OF THE VIEW, CONSIDERING T HE EXP LANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY REBUTTED THE PR ESUMPTION. ONCE A PRESUMPTION IS NOT REBUTTED THEN, THE PRESUMPTION TAKES THE SHA PE OF AN ACCEPTED FACT. RATHER, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS BASED UPON THE P RESUMPTION AS WELL AS SURMISES THAT THE TV OR THE PROJECTOR MIGHT NOT HAV E BEEN PURCHASED BY THE CA FIRM BECAUSE IT HAS NO UTILITY IN THE PROFESSION. I N MY OPINION THE ELECTRONIC GADGETS ARE VERY MUCH USED IN THE PROFESSION ESPECI ALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING IN SHARE TRANSACTION. FOR SUCH PERSON WHO I S DEALING IN SHARES TO DISPLAY OF SHARE TRADING ON THE TV SCREEN FROM STOCK EXCHAN GE IS RELEVANT AND HENCE, USEFUL. IN ANY CASE, WITHOUT FURTHER GOING INTO THE DETAILS I HEREBY HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MERELY BASED UPON SURMISES. HENCE, DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. AS A RESULT, THIS GROUND I S HEREBY DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2016. SD/- (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED: 9 TH MARCH, 2016 LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/SR. PS LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/SR. PS LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/SR. PS LAKSHMIKANT DEKA/SR. PS COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T., CONCERNED 4. CIT ( APPEALS), JAI PUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, JAIPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE C OPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRA R, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNA L, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR.