M/S SHREE RADHA SAREE CENTRE, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 861/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1546 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH A JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI B.R. MITTAL AND SHRI B.R. JAIN) ITA NO. 861 & 862/JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & 2009-10 PAN: AAZFS 9053 L M/S. SHREE RADHA SAREE CENTRE VS. THE ITO 240, PUROHIT JI KA KATLA WARD- 1(2) JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 889 & 890/JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 & 2009-10 PAN: AAZFS 9053 L THE ITO VS. M/S. SHREE RADHA SAREE CENTRE WARD- 1(2) 240, PUROHIT JI KA KATLA JAIPUR JOHARI BAZAR, JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI D.C. SHARMA DATE OF HEARING: 21-01-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23-01-2013 ORDER PER B.R. MITTAL, JM:- THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 02-08-2011 AND 03-08-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY. 2.1 SINCE THE FACTS AND THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THES E APPEALS ARE SAME, SAVE AND EXCEPT AMOUNT OF ADDITIONS/ DELETIONS INVOLVED, WE HEARD T HESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSE OFF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2 2.2 FIRSTLY, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2008-09 BEING ITA NO. 861/JP/2011 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NO. 889/J P/2011 FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 2.3 THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS INTERCONNECTED WITH THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2.2 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER:- 1. THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 07-12-2010 AR E BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE SAME FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION A ND VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED. 3.2 THERE WAS NO SUBMISSION IN REGARD THERETO. HENC E, GROUND NO. 1 OF THE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 4.1 IN GROUND NO. 2.1 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE H AS DISPUTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO TO INVOKE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. 4.2 AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PRESS FOR THIS GROUND AS THE FACTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 69/JP/2010 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06-08-2010 UPHELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE LD. AR DID NOT MAKE ANY SUBMISSION ON MERITS IN REGARD TO ABOVE GROUND. ACC ORDINGLY, THE GROUND NO. 2.1 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 5.1 IN GROUND NO. 2.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE H AS DISPUTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN APPLYING THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 7.50% A S AGAINST 6.35% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 10% APPLIED BY THE AO. 5.2 THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM I S ENGAGED IN TRADING OF VARIOUS TYPES OF CLOTHES, SAREES AND DRESS MATERIALS ON WHOLESALE BASIS. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF 3 INCOME DECLARING RS. 3,61,590/- AS ITS INCOME. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPARATIVE G.P/ N.P. CHART FOR THE LAST THREE YEAR S AND THE SAME WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- A.Y. SALES G.P. G.P. RATE IN % 2008-09 RS. 10,14,29,496 RS. 64,37,865 6.35% 2007-08 RS. 10,37,00,988 RS. 55,29,990 5.33% 2006-07 RS. 9,33,97,783 RS. 46,94,870 4.91% THE AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SUBSTANTIA L JOB CHARGES OF RS. 4,62,72,299/- OUT OF WHICH JOB CHARGES PAID IN CASH WERE OF RS. 61,01 ,054/- AND OUT OF TOTAL JOB CHARGES PAID OF RS. 7,51,802/-WHERE NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED. T HE AO STATED THAT IT IS DIFFICULT TO VERIFY THE QUANTITY OF GOODS PURCHASED, GOODS SOLD AND ALSO TO COMPUTE PROFIT. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE I NVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. THE AO FURTHER STATED THAT ONCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE REJECTED, HE HAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ESTIMATE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. KANCHWALA G EMS, 288 ITR 10 (SC) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT IN A BEST JUDGMENT CASE TH ERE IS ALWAYS CERTAIN DEGREE OF GUESS WORK AND NO DOUBT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD TRY TO MAKE AN HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME EVEN IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT. THE AO CONSIDERED IT REASONABLE AND FAIR TO APPLY GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 10% ON THE TOTAL TUR NOVER OF RS. 10,14,29,496/-. THUS THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM COMES TO RS. 1,01 ,42,950/- AS AGAINST RS. 64,37,895/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT RESULTED INTO TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 37,05,055/- WHICH WAS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGG RIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4 5.3 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT O F RS. 64,,37,865/- WITH GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 6.35% AS AGAINST GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 5.33% IN T HE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A CONSTANT SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE. THE AO DID NOT CITE ANY COMPARABLE CASE TO APPLY THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 10%. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 (SUPRA) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ITAT ACC EPTED 5% GROSS PROFIT RATE AS AGAINST 4.91% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) CONS IDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DECISION OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN ASSES SEE'S OWN CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DATED 06-08-2011 (SUPRA) AND APPLIED T HE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 7.50% WHICH GIVES GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 76,07,212/- AS AGAINST RS . 64,37,895/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF OF RS. 37,05,05/- AND RESTR ICTED THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,69,317/-.. THE RELEVANT PARA 4.4 AND 4.5 OF LD. CIT(A) AT PAG ES 4 AND 5 OF HIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 4.4 REGARDING ESTIMATION OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE W AS REQUIRED TO FILE THE SALE BILLS OF A PARTICULAR DATE OF EVER Y MONTH OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND THEN HE WAS ASKED TO CORRELATE THE COST OF THE SAREE TO ARRIVE AT A JUST ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT. ON CONDUCTING THE EXERCISE, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE GROSS PROFIT COMES TO 10.57%. THE A.R, WAS THEN ASKED TO SUBMIT WHY THE GROSS PROFIT MAY NOT BE ESTIMATED AT 10.57% . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE A.R. THAT ADJUSTMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE GIVEN O N ACCOUNT OF SALES DISCOUNT OF 3.78%, CARRIAGE EXPENSES OF 0.19% AND C OMMISSION PAYMENT EXPENSES OF 0.24% THEN THE GROSS PROFIT WOULD BE RE DUCED TO 6.36% AS AGAINST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE 6.35%. 4.5 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSION OF A.R. AND FIND THAT SALES DISCOUNT WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE INDIVI DUAL SALE BILLS. COPIES OF SOME PAYMENT ADVICES WERE BROUGHT BY THE A.R. TO SHOW THAT THE DISCOUNT WAS REDUCED BY THE BUYER AND COPY OF LEDGE R OF SALES DISCOUNT WAS ALSO FINISHED. THE FACT OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY WAY OF STOCK REGISTER, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO LINK INDIVIDUAL SALE BILLS WITH THE DIS COUNT GIVEN. THEREFORE, A 5 FAIR ESTIMATION KEEPING IN CONSIDERATION WITH A.R. S SUBMISSION APPEARS TO BE A GROSS PROFIT OF 7.50% WHICH GIVES A GROSS PROF IT OF RS. 76,07,212/-. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A TRADING PROFIT OF RS. 6 4,37,895/- THE IMPUGNED TRADING ADDITION OF RS. 37,05,055/- IS DIR ECTED TO BE RESTRICTED TO RS. 11,69,317/- 5.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,69,317/- AND WHEREAS THE DEPARTMENT HAS DISPUTED THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 37,05,055/- IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US. 5.5 THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HIGHER RATE OF GROSS PROFIT AT 6 .35% AS AGAINST 5.33% IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND 4.91% IN THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07. HE SUBMITTED THAT TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE @ 5% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. 2006-07. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE REJECTED, THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT SHOULD BE BASED ON PAST HISTOR Y AND THAT TOO IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE INSTEAD OF APPLYING ARBITRARY RATE OF PROFIT. TO SU BSTANTIATE HIS SUBMISSION, THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDI CTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. INANI MARBLES 316 ITR 125. AND CIT VS. GOTAN L IME KHANIJ UDYOG, 256 ITR 243. HE SUBMITTED THAT GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 7.50% AS AP PLIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS MERELY BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES AND NOT BASED ON ANY FA CTS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONFIRME D AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION AS SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A) BE DELETED. 5.6 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE AO CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE CORRECT PROFIT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DEDUCED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE AS APPLIED BY THE AO IS JUSTIFIED AND T HE SAME SHOULD BE CONFIRMED. 6 5.7 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES AND EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS A FACT THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION IS MORE THAN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DECLARED IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSM ENT YEARS I.E. @ 5.33%. HOWEVER, WE OBSERVE THAT TOTAL TURNOVER / SALES IN THE ASSESSME NT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS LESS AS COMPARED TO PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. FURTHER THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.4 AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE HAS STATED THAT SHE CONSIDERED THE SALE BILLS OF PARTICULAR DATE OF EVERY MONTH AND CORRELATED THE COST OF SAREES TO ARRIVE AT A JU ST ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE COMES TO 10.57%. NO DOUB T, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WAS REQUIRED TO GIVE SALES DISCOUNT AND TO INCUR CARRIA GE EXPENSES AND COMMISSION EXPENSES BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT SA LES DISCOUNT WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE INDIVIDUAL SALE BILLS. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND ALSO THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT IS FACT TH AT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO LINK INDIVIDUAL SALES BILLS WITH DISCOUNT GIVEN. WE ALSO AGREE WITH THE LD. AR THAT WHILE ESTIMATING THE PROFIT, PAST HISTORY HAS TO BE CONSIDERED. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF JCIT VS. KANCHWALA GEMS (SUPRA ) HELD THAT IN A BEST JUDGMENT CASE, THERE IS ALWAYS CERTAIN DEGREE OF GUESS WORK AND NO DOUBT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOULD TRY TO MAKE AN HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE INCO ME. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DECISION AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WILL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO APPLY THE GROSS PROFIT RATE 6.50% ON THE TOTAL T URNOVER OF RS. 10,.14,29,496/- WHICH GIVES GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 65,92,917/- AS AGAINST TR ADING PROFIT OF RS. 64,37,865/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS WE SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS . 1,55,052/- AS AGAINST RS. 11,69,370/- 7 CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, GROUND NO. 2.2 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART WHEREAS THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAK EN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS REJECTED. 6.1 IN GROUND NO. 3, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 34,990/- OUT OF FOLLOWING EXPENSES. S.N. HEAD OF EXPENSES EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE 20% DISALLOWED BY LD. AO 10% DISALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) 3.1 TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 1,11,145/- RS. 22,229/- RS. 11,114/- 3.2 CAR, SCOOTER RUNNING EXPENSES RS. 2,38,759/- RS. 47,752/- RS. 23,876/- TOTAL RS. 3,49,904/- RS. 69,981/- RS. 34,990/- 6.2 WE HAVE HEAD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE PART IES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE OBSERVE THAT THE AO MADE DISA LLOWANCE @ 20% OF THE ABOVE EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE. THE AO ALS O STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING THE CALL BOOK AND LOG BOOK FOR USE OF TELEPHONE AND CAR ETC. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE CL AIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.3 DURING HEARING, THE LD. AR DID NOT DISPUTE THE FACTS AS MENTIONED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHON E AND CAR ETC. COULD NOT BE RULED OUT BUT SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCES @ 10% IS EXCESSIVE . 6.4 THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE @ 10% IS FAIR AND REASONABLE. 6.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED LOG BOOK AND CALL REGISTER IN RESPECT OF CAR, SCOOTER RUNNING EXPENSES AND 8 TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HENCE, PERSO NAL USE OF TELEPHONE AND CAR, SCOOTER RUNNING CANNOT BE RULED OUT. WE FIND THAT THE LD. C IT(A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE TO RESTRICT THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCES @ 10% ON THE ABOVE EXPENDIT URE AND WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THUS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 7.1 THE GROUND NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING C HARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B AND 234D OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION. 8.1 NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2009-10 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO. 862/JP/2011 AND THE DEPARTMENT BEING ITA NO. 890/JP/2011 RESPECTIVELY. 8.2 AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE THAT FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, SAVE AND EXCEPT THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. FUR THER, IT IS RELEVANT TO STATE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO REJECT ED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT AND APPLIED THE GRO SS PROFIT RATE OF 7% AS AGAINST 6.44% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND 10% APPLIED BY THE AO. 8.3 SINCE THIS APPEAL WAS HEARD ALONGWITH APPEAL F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND WE HAVE CONFIRMED THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 6.50 % ON TOTAL SALES. HENCE, WE HOLD TO APPLY GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 6.50% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS MODIFIED TO THAT EXTENT BY CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 73,769/- AS AGAINST RS. 6,76,210/- CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, GROUND NO. 2.2 OF THE APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10 IS ALLOWED IN PART. CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROUND OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT IS RE JECTED. 9 9.1 IN REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE EXPENSES, CAR AND SCOOTER RUNNING EXPENSES AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PAR A 6.5, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THUS GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 10.1 WE MAY STATE THAT GROUND NO. 2.1 OF THE APPEA L IS IN RESPECT OF INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS NOT PRESSED FOR BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. HENCE, GROUND NO. 2.1 IS REJECTED BEING NOT PRESSED FOR. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND 2009- 10 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE DEPAR TMENT ARE DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23-01 -2013. SD/- SD/- (B.R. JAIN) (B.R. MITTAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 23 RD JAN 2013 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- BY ORDER 1. M/S. RADHA SAREE CENTRE, JAIPUR 2. THE ITO, WARD- 1 (2) , JAIPUR 3.THE LD. CIT 4.THE LD. CIT(A) 5.THE LD. DR 6.THE GUARD FILE (IT NO.861 & 862/JP/11) A.R. IT AT: JAIPUR 10 11