M/S. PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, JAIPUR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, JAIPUR

ITA 863/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2007 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SEEMA MEENA JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: S R SHARMA; RAJNIKANT BHATRACA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Salary income; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Question of law; Surrender of tenancy right
• Section: 69C; 68; 69; 56; 132; 10; 11

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 JH FOE FLAG ;KN O] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SIN GH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 863/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PRIVATE LIMITED., JAIPUR. CUKE VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AAECP 5336 R VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.R. SHARMA & RAJNIKANT BHATRA(CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. SEEMA MEENA (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 19.03.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/03/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A)-4 JAIPUR, DATED 04.09.2017 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 WHERE IN THE SOLITARY GROUND OF APPEAL IS AS UNDER:- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) IS WRONG, UNJUST AND HAS ERRED IN LAW IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT INCOME SURRENDERE D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 CANNOT B E SET OFF AGAINST CURRENT YEARS BUSINESS LOSS AND THEREBY CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF SET OFF OF SUCH INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 7,67,768/- AGAINST BUSINESS LOSS. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE MEMBERS OF MOTISONS GROUP ON 31.10.2012 OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE MEMBERS. DURING 2 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AT THE RESIDENCE P REMISES OF DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, SH. PRASHANT TIBERAWALA, A SALE D EED DATED 16/04/2012 IN RESPECT OF RESIDENTIAL PLOT C-114, LAL KOTHI, JAIPU R WAS FOUND. ACCORDING TO SALE DEED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD PURCHASED THE S AID RESIDENTIAL PLOT THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. RAJENDRA TIBERAWALA FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,64,00,000/- FROM SMT. SUNITA AGARWAL WHEREAS THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY DETERMINED BY THE REGISTERING AUTHORITY WAS AT RS. 1,97,58,518/-. IN ITS STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, SH. RAJENDRA TIBERAWALA ADMIT TED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 36,00,000/- IN THE PURCHASE OF TH E SAID RESIDENTIAL PLOT AND SURRENDERED THE SAME IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. 2.1 SUBSEQUENTLY, WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DISCLOSED AND OFFERED TO TAX THE SAID SURRENDER ED AMOUNT OF RS. 36,00,000/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES AND AT THE SAME TIME, CLAIMED SET OFF OF THE SAID INCOME AGAINST TH E CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 767,768/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, A SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AS THE SETOFF OF BUSINESS LOSS CANNOT BE TAKEN AGAINST THE SURRENDERED INCOME U/S 68 & 69 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 767,768/- IS SET OFF AGAINST T HE INCOME SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND DISCLOSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER 3 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT SOURCES, AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IT WAS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID BUSINESS LOSS IS FULLY VERIFIABLE FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE H ONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KIM PHARMA P LTD. VS . CIT (ITA NO. 106 OF 2011 DATED 27.04.2011) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SURRENDERED INCOME/UNDISCLOSED INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAS TO BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY. FURTHER, IT WAS HEL D IN THAT CASE THAT THE SURRENDERED INCOME HAS TO BE TAXED AS DEEMED INCOM E WITHOUT SETTING OFF OF THE LOSSES U/S 70 & 71 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, TH E AO HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF LIBERTY PLYWOOD PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT 35 TAXMAN.COM 456. IN LIGHT OF THE SAID DECISIONS, THE AO HELD THAT NO SET OFF OF ANY EXPENSES CAN BE CLAIMED AGAINST SURRENDERED INCOME AS IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED BUSINESS TRANSACTION AND NOT THE RECORDED BUSINESS TRANSACTION. THE AO FURTHER REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE(1)(A) OF THE ACT AND H ELD THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE CHARGED @ 30%. IT W AS FINALLY HELD BY THE AO THAT THE CONFESSION/ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR SH. RAJENDRA TIBERAWALA REGARDING SURRENDER IS BIND ING ON THE ASSESSEE AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 767,768/- WAS ADDED AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 4 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDING O F THE AO BY HOLDING THAT EVEN BEFORE THE AMENDED PROVISIONS, AS RELIED BY TH E LD. AR, THE COURTS ARE CATEGORICAL BY NOT ALLOWING THE SET OFF OF LOSSES W ITH THE DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND HAS RELIED ON THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FAKIR MOH. HAZI H ASSAN VS. CIT REPORTED IN 120 TAXMANN 11(GUJ). HE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO IN DISALLOWING THE SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS 767, 778 AGAINST THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. NOW, THE A SSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT SURRENDERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS LIABLE TO BE TAXED U/S 69/69A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 A ND THAT INCOME IS TO BE TAXED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 115BBE OF IT ACT, 1961 INTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 1.4.2013 I.E. FROM A.Y. 20 13-14. THE LD. AO HAS REFERRED WHILE MAKING DISCUSSION IN ASSESSMENT ORDE R JUDGMENTS OF P & H HIGH COURT KIM PHARMA P. LTD. VS CIT (ITA NO. 106 O F 2011) REPORTED AT (2013) 35 TAXMAN.COM 456 AND ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH JUDGMENT IN CASE OF LIBERTY PLYWOOD (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2013) 35 TAXMAN.C OM 456 IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT AMOUNT SURRENDERED IN SURVEY/SEARCH NOT R EFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO SOURCE FROM WHERE IT WAS DERIVED IS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69A AND SET OFF OF LOSSES U/S 70 AND 71 IS NOT POSSIBLE AGAINST SUCH INCOME. HOWEVER THESE JUDGMENTS RELATES TO PERIOD PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION OF SECTION 115BBE AND AFTER INSERTION OF SECTION 115BBE WHICH HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE ACT TO GIVE LEGAL EFFECT TO WHAT HAS BEEN HELD IN THOSE JUDGMENTS. THUS IN 5 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ISSUE IS TO BE GOVERNED B Y SECTION 115BBE OF I. T. ACT, 1961 WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN SPECIFICALLY INVOKED BY LD. A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF APP ELLANT. 4.1 THE LD. A.O. AFTER REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT SUBJECTED TO TAX THE SURRENDERED INCOME SEPARAT ELY @ 30% BY INVOKED SECTION 115BBE(1)(A). THE CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS LOS S INCLUDING CURRENT DEPRECIATION BEING PART OF CURRENT BUSINESS LOSS IS TO BE ALLOWED SET OFF AGAINST INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND INCOME ASSESS ED U/S 69A. SECTION 115BBE (2) ONLY BARS (PRIOR TO 1-4-17 BEFORE ITS AM ENDMENT MADE BY FINANCE ACT, 2016) THAT NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPE NDITURE OR ALLOWANCE SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF T HIS ACT IN COMPUTING HIS INCOME REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 158BBE. IN THIS CASE, IT WAS SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 36,00,000/- ASSESSED U/S 69A. HOWEVER, THE SAID SECTION DOES NOT BAR SET OFF OF L OSS IN OTHER HEAD OF INCOME ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 71 OF I.T. ACT FROM THE INC OME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 115BBE. IT IS FROM A.Y. 2017-18 BY VIRTUE OF AN AME NDMENT BY WHICH WORDS 'OR SET OFF OF ANY LOSS' WERE INSERTED IN SUB-SECTI ON 115BBE THAT SUCH SET OFF OF LOSS WILL BE INADMISSIBLE. THE CBDT EXPLAINING THE SAID AMENDED PROVISION OF FINANCE ACT, 2016 ISSUED CIRCULAR NO. 3/2017 DATED 20-1-2017 EXPLAINING THE EFFECT OF AMENDMENT WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 46. CLARIFICATION REGARDING SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAI NST DEEMED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 46.1 SECTION 115BBE OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT INTER ALI A PROVIDES THAT THE INCOME RELATING TO SECTION 68 OR SECTION 69 OR SECTION 69A OR SECTION 69B OR SECTION 69C OR SECTION 69D IS TAXABLE AT THE RATE OF THIRTY PER CENT AND FURTHER 6 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT PROVIDES THAT NO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPEND ITURE OR ALLOWANCES IN RELATION TO INCOME REFERRED TO IN THE SAID SECTIONS SHALL BE ALLOWABLE. 46.2 CURRENTLY, THERE IS UNCERTAINTY ON THE ISSUE O F SET-OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 115BBE OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT. THE MATTER HAS BEEN CARRIED TO JUDICIAL FORUMS AND COURTS IN SOME CASES HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT LOSSES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SET- OFF AGAINST INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 115BBE. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 11 5BE OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT DOES NOT CONVEY THE DESIRED INTENTION AND AS A RESULT THE MATTER IS LITIGATED. IN ORDER TO AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION , THE PROVISION OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT HAS BE EN AMENDED AS TO EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT NO SET OFF OF ANY LOSS SHALL BE ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF INCOME UNDER THE SECTIONS 68 OR SECTION 69 OR SECTI ON 69A OR SECTION 69B OR SECTION 69C OR SECTION 69D. 46.3 APPLICABILITY: THIS AMENDMENT TAKES EFFECT FRO M 1ST OF APRIL, 2017 AND WILL, ACCORDINGLY, APPLY FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017- 18 AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 4.2 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD CORRECTLY OF FERED THE ENTIRE SURRENDERED INCOME TO TAX AFTER CLAIMING SET OFF OF CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS LOSS AND CURRENT YEAR DEPRECIATION U/S 71 WHILE FILING T HE RETURN OF INCOME OF THIS YEAR WHICH IS ADMISSIBLE AND LD. A.O. HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 36,00,000/- AND DISALLOWING THE CURRE NT YEAR BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 7,67,768/- WITHOUT GIVING SET OFF. 4.3 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE JAIPUR BENCH OF ITAT IN CASE OF ACIT, CC-2, JAIPUR VS. GIRDHAR ASSOCIATES (ITA NO. 1043/JP/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 04-08- 2017) WHICH IS RELATED CONCERN OF ASSESSEE GROUP AND SEA RCH TOOK PLACE IN 7 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT THAT CASE ON SAME DATE BY CONFIRMING THE APPEAL ORD ER OF CIT (A)- 4, JAIPUR HELD ACCORDINGLY AS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE COMPANY H EREIN AND A SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ACIT VS. SANJAY BAIRATHI GEMS LTD (2017) 84 TAXMANN.COM 138 (JP) (ITA NO. 157/2014 ORDER DATED 08-08-2017). THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS THUS BEING EXACTLY THE SAME AND IS COVERED BY THE S AID JUDGEMENTS OF ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH. THE LD. CIT (A) WHILE DECIDING THE AP PEAL ADOPTED THE LINE TOOK UP BY A.O. WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND R ELIED ON JUDGEMENT IN CASE OF FAKIR MOHD. HAJI HASAN VS. CIT 120 TAXMAN 1 1 (GUJ.) WHICH JUDGEMENT ALSO RELATES TO PERIOD PRIOR TO INTRODUCT ION OF SECTION 115BBE AND CANNOT BE APPLIED WHILE ASSESSING UNDISCLOSED BUSIN ESS INCOME U/S 115BBE WHICH HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY INVOKED BY LD. A.O. IN ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSING THE SAID UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME SURR ENDERED IN COURSE OF SEARCH BY ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) THUS IS WRONG AND H AS ERRED IN LAW IN DISREGARDING JUDGMENTS OF JURISDICTIONAL JAIPUR BEN CH. THE LD. CIT (A) THUS HAS WRONGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND WRONGLY CONFIR MED THE ACTION OF LD. A.O. IN DISALLOWING THE SET OFF OF CURRENT YEAR BUS INESS LOSS. 5. THE LD DR IS HEARD WHO HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED TH E MATTER. SHE RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMIT TED THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN SECTION 115BBE(1)(A) BEING A CLARIFICATO RY AMENDMENT HAS TO BE READ AS EFFECTIVE FROM INSERTION OF SECTION 115BBE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 36,00,000 OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT WHICH HAS BEEN SURRENDERED DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX SUBSEQUENTLY WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED BUSINESS LO SS OF RS 767,768 DURING 8 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ONLY LIMITED DISPUTE RELATES TO WHETHER THE AMOUNT SO SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH C AN BE SET OFF AGAINST BUSINESS LOSS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN CASE OF ACIT CC-2 VS. SANJAY BAIRATHI GEMS LTD (SUPRA) , SPEAKING THROUGH ONE OF US, WE HAD AN OCCASION TO EXAMINE A SIMILAR ISSUE AND THEREIN, WE HAVE ALSO REFERRED TO THE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE AO AND THE LD CIT(A) IN THE INSTANT CASE. IT WOULD THEREFORE BE RELEVAN T TO REFER TO THE FINDINGS IN THE SAID DECISION WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN: 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND VARIOUS DECISIONS RE LIED UPON BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BROUGHT TO TAX, UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN EXCESS STOCK OF STONES, GOLD & JEWELLERY FOUND AND SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REC ORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 69B READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ALLOWED THE SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS 86,96,733 AGAINST TH E SAID INCOME OF RS 2,31,41,217 WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SEC TION 69B READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S HOWEVER ALLOWED THE CARRY FORWARD OF SAID BUSINESS LOSS TO BE SET OFF I N THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS LOSS HAS BEEN IN CURRED DURING THE YEAR IS THUS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE LIMITED DISPUTE RELATES T O SET OFF OF SAID BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX UN DER SECTION 69B READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. 8. FIRSTLY, REGARDING THE CONTENTION OF THE LD CIT DR THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE COMES UNDER CHAPTER-XII PROVIDING FO R DETERMINATION OF RATE 9 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT OF TAX IN CERTAIN SPECIAL CASES AND ACCORDINGLY, IT RELATES TO QUANTIFICATION OF THE AMOUNT OF TAX AND NOT TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOT AL INCOME AND THEREFORE, THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN BY THE FINANCE ACT 2016 WO ULD NOT AFFECT THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY CON TENDED THAT THE BUSINESS LOSSES IN THE INSTANT CASE CANNOT THEREFORE BE ALLO WED SET OFF AGAINST THE AMOUNT BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 69B IN TERMS OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN STOCK OF STONES, GOLD AND JEWELLERY. 9. IT IS NOTED THAT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016, AN AM ENDMENT HAS BEEN BROUGHT-IN IN SECTION 115BBE(2) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN THIS ACT, NO SET OFF OF ANY LOSS SHALL BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER ANY PROVISION OF THIS ACT IN COMPUTING HIS INCOME AS REFERRED TO CLAUSE (A) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THE ACT. IF WE WERE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD CIT(DR), THE QUEST ION THAT ARISES IS WOULD THAT INTERPRETATION RENDER SUB-SECTION (2) OTIOSE A ND WHAT WAS THE NECESSITY FOR BRINGING IN THE SUBJECT AMENDMENT. THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE SAID AMEN DMENT WHICH READS AS UNDER: CURRENTLY, THERE IS UNCERTAINTY ON THE ISSUE OF SE T-OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST INCOME REFERRED IN SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT. THE MATTER H AS BEEN CARRIED TO JUDICIAL FORUMS AND COURTS IN SOME CASES HAS TAKEN A VIEW TH AT LOSSES SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SET-OFF AGAINST INCOME REFERRED TO IN SECTION 115BBE. HOWEVER, THE CURRENT LANGUAGE OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT D OES NOT CONVEY THE DESIRED INTENTION AND AS A RESULT THE MATTER IS LIT IGATED. IN ORDER TO AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION, IT IS PROPOSED TO AMEND THE PROVISIONS OF THE SUB- SECTION (2) OF SECTION 115BBE TO EXPRESSLY PROVIDE THAT NO SET OFF OF ANY LOSS SHALL BE ALLOWABLE IN RESPECT OF INCOME UNDER THE S ECTIONS 68 OR SECTION 69 OR SECTION 69A OR SECTION 69B OR SECTION 69C OR SECTIO N 69D. 10 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT 10. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE AO H AS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11BBE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PROVISIONS O F SUB-SECTION (2) TO SECTION 11BBE ARE EQUALLY APPLICABLE. THE AMENDMENT BROUGH T IN BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2016 WHEREBY SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST INCOME REFER RED TO IN SECTION 69B HAS BEEN DENIED IS STATED CLEARLY TO BE EFFECTIVE FROM 1 APRIL 2017 AND WILL ACCORDINGLY, APPLY TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017-18 ONWAR DS. ACCORDINGLY, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION T O SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES AGAINST INCOME BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. 11. FURTHER, THE MATTER COULD BE LOOKED AT FROM ANO THER PERSPECTIVE. THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO SET OFF OF LOSSES ARE CONTAI NED IN CHAPTER-VI RELATING TO AGGREGATION OF INCOME AND SET OFF OF LOSSES. WHENE VER LEGISLATURE DESIRES TO RESTRICT SET-OFF OF LOSS OR ALLOWANCE OF LOSS, IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, USUALLY, THE PROVISIONS ARE MADE IN CHAPTER-VI SUCH AS NON-ALLOW ANCE OF BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST SALARY INCOME AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 71(2A) , AND TREATMENT OF SHORT- TERM OR LONG-TERM CAPITAL LOSSES. THERE IS NO SPEC IFIC PROVISION WHICH RESTRICT SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES AGAINST INCOME BROUGHT T O TAX UNDER SECTION 69B. INTERESTINGLY, BOTH SECTION 69B AND SECTION 71 FALL S UNDER THE SAME CHAPTER VI. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROVISIONS IN SECTION 71 FALLING UNDER CHAPTER-VI WHICH RESTRICT SUCH SET OFF, IN THE INSTANT CASE, S ET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES AGAINST INCOME BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 69B CAN NOT BE DENIED. 12. NOW, WE REFER TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT S QUOTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH IN CASE OF FAKIR MOHMED HAJIHASAN (SUPRA) AND SUBSEQUENT DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CHENSING VENTURES (SUPRA) ARE TWO EARLIEST DECISIONS ON THE SUBJECT WHERE THE HONBLE COURTS HAVE TAKEN A D IVERGENT VIEW IN THE MATTER. AS PER THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT, THE ADDITION ON 11 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WOULD BE CONSIDER ED AS TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITHOUT ALLOWING SET-OFF OF BUSIN ESS LOSS. AS PER MADRAS HIGH COURTS DECISION, THE ADDITION WOULD BE SET-OF F AGAINST THE BUSINESS LOSS AND THE BALANCE ADDITION, IF ANY, WOULD FORM PART O F THE TOTAL INCOME AND ATTRACT TAX. 13. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT IN CASE OF CIT VS SHILPA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS (P) LTD (SUPRA) HAD AN OCCA SION TO CONSIDER AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WHERE THE SAID DIVERGENT VIEW HAS BEEN RECONC ILED. IN THAT DECISION, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED ITS EARLIER DECIS ION RENDERED IN CASE OF FAKIR MOHMED HAJIHASAN (SUPRA) AS EXPLAINED IN ANOT HER DECISION IN CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD (SUPRA) AND ALSO THE DEC ISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CHENSING VENTURES (SUPRA). IT WOU LD THEREFORE TO RELEVANT TO REFER TO THE FACTS AND THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID D OWN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF SHILPA DYEING & PRIN TING MILLS (P) LTD. FACTS OF THE CASE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT, THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DYING AND PRINTING. DURING THE COURSE O F SCRUTINY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTI CED THAT IN A SURVEY ACTION CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE, IT HAD DECLARED A SUM OF RS. 100.98 LACS (ROUNDED OFF) ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK. IN THE RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUGGESTED CURRENT YEAR'S L OSS AGAINST SUCH INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING A BELIEF THAT INCOME FROM UNLISTED SOURCE WOULD NOT FALL UNDER ANY OF THE HEADS OF THE INCOME, THE SAME HAS TO BE TAXED SEPARATELY, THE CURRENT LOSSES CANNOT BE SET OFF AG AINST SUCH INCOME. FINDINGS AND LEGAL PROPOSITION 12 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT 8. WE, HOWEVER, FIND THAT SECTION 71 OF THE ACT PERMI TS AN ASSESSEE TO SET OFF LOSS OTHER THAN THAT OF CAPITAL GAINS AGAINST I NCOME FROM OTHER HEAD. THIS VERY ISSUE CAME-UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE MAD RAS HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CHENSING VENTURES (SUPRA). THE DIVISION BENCH OF TH E COURT CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN FOLLOWING MANNER: '6. HEARD COUNSEL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GI VEN ANY REASON WHATSOEVER TO DENY THE SET OFF OF THE BUSINESS LOSS AGAINST TH E INCOME DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD & 'OTHER SOURCES'. SECTION 71 DEALS WITH SET O FF OF LOSS AGAINST INCOME UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD. AFTER SETTING OFF LOSSES AGAI NST THE INCOME UNDER THE SAME HEAD, IF THE NET RESULT IS STILL A LOSS, THE A SSESSEE CAN SET OFF THE SAID LOSS UNDER SECTION 71 OF THE ACT AGAINST INCOME OF THE SAME YEAR UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD, EXCEPT FOR LOSSES WHICH ARISE UNDER THE HEAD 'CAPITAL GAINS'. THE INCOME TAX IS ONLY ONE TAX AND LEVIED ON THE SUM TO TAL OF THE INCOME CLASSIFIED AND CHARGEABLE UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS. SECTION 14 HAS CLASSIFIED THE DIFFERENT HEADS OF INCOME AND INCOME UNDER EACH HEA D IS SEPARATELY COMPUTED. INCOME WHICH IS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW IS ONE INCOME AND IT IS NOT A COLLECTION OF DISTINCT TAX LEVIED S EPARATELY ON EACH HEAD OF INCOME AND IT IS NOT AN AGGREGATE OF VARIOUS TAXES COMPUTED WITH REFERENCE TO EACH OF THE DIFFERENT SOURCES SEPARATELY. THERE IS ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT AND THE SAME IS MADE AFTER THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN AS CERTAINED. THE ASSESSEE IS SUBJECT TO INCOME-TAX ON HIS TOTAL INCOME THOUGH HIS INCOME UNDER EACH HEAD MAY BE WELL BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. HENCE THE LOSS SUSTAINED IN ANY YEAR UNDER ANY HEADS OF INCOME WILL HAVE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST INCOME UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.28,50,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. ONCE THE LOSS IS DETERMINED, THE SAME SHOULD BE SET OFF AGAI NST THE INCOME DETERMINED UNDER ANY OTHER HEAD OF INCOME. IN THE ASSESSMENT, NO REASONS WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF SEC TION 71 OF THE ACT. THE 13 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT BENEFIT PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 71 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE DENIED AND THE LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE IS ALSO UNABLE TO EXPLAIN OR GIVE REASONS WHY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 71 OF THE ACT. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL ARE BASE D ON VALID MATERIALS AND EVIDENCE AND THE SAME IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 71OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO ERROR OR LEGAL INFIRMITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER.' 9. WE MAY FURTHER NOTICE THAT THE DECISION IN CASE OF FAKIR MOHMED HAJI HASAN (SUPRA) CAME-UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN CASE OF RADHE DEVELOPERS INCIA LTD. (SUPRA),IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'THE DECISIONS OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF FAKIR M OHMED HAJI HASAN (SUPRA) AND KRISHNA TEXTILES (SUPRA) ARE NEITHER RELEVANT N OR GERMANE TO THE ISSUE CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IN NONE OF THE DECISIONS THE LEGISLATIVE SCHEME EMANATING FROM CONJOINT READING OF PROVISIONS OF SE CTIONS 14 & 56 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF D.P. SANDU BROS.CHEMBUR P. LTD.,(SUPRA) HAS DEALT WITH THIS VE RY ISSUE WHILE DECIDING THE TREATMENT TO BE GIVEN TO A TRANSACTION OF SURRENDER OF TENANCY RIGHT. THE EARLIER DECISIONS OF THE APEX COURT COMMENCING FROM CASE OF UNITED COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. V. CIT [1957] 32 ITR 688 (SC) HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE APEX COURT AND, HENCE, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO R EPEAT THE SAME. SUFFICE IT TO STATE THAT THE ACT DOES NOT ENVISAGE TAXING ANY INCOME UNDER ANY HEAD NOT SPECIFIED IN SECTION 14 OF THE ACT. IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF TRYING TO READ ANY CONFLICT IN THE TWO JUDGMENTS OF THIS COURT AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE.' 10. IN OUR OPINION, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 71 WAS APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. BY APPLYING THE DEC ISION IN CASE OF FAKIR MOHMED HAJI HASAN (SUPRA) AS EXPLAINED IN CASE OF R ADHE DEVELOPERS INCIA 14 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT LTD. (SUPRA), THE SAME CANNOT BE DECLINED. IN THE R ESULT, NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. TAX APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 14. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT IN LATEST DECISION OF HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN CASE OF KRISHNAMEGH YARN INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION BY THE LD CIT DR TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTIO NS REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 69B, THE EARLIER DECISION IN CASE OF SHILPA DYEING AND PRINTING MILLS HAS BEEN FOLLOWED FOR SETTING OFF OF LOSSES UNDER SECTI ON 71 AGAINST SUCH INCOME. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF HONBLE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: 8. WE HAVE LEARNED ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPECTIVE PARTIE S. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE ITAT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT DURING SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DISCLOSED THE FA CT THAT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HE HAD SHOWN LESS STOCK TO THE TUNE OF RS. 10,06,987/-. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT WHEN THE PHYSICAL STOCK WAS EXAM INED BY THE AUTHORITY, THE VALUE OF THE SAID STOCK WAS RS. 13,33,485/-, HOWEVE R, AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE VALUE OF STOCK WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.3 ,26,498/- I.E. AMOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,06,987/- WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IT IS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF THA T HE HAS NOT COMPLETELY DISCLOSED THE STOCK IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NOW, C ONSIDERING THE PROVISO OF SECTION 69(B) OF THE ACT, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULLY DISCLOSED THE STOCKS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT (APPEALS) HAVE RIGHTLY O BSERVED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD FALL UNDER THE PROVISO OF SECTION 69 (B) OF THE ACT. WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BY THE LEARNED ADVOCATE IS THAT THE CASE WOULD FALL UNDER THE PROV ISO OF SECTION 69(C) OF THE ACT DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE . IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS AN UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, W HICH WOULD COVER UNDER 15 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT THE PROVISO OF THIS ACT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR THE SET OFF UNDER THE PROVISO OF SECTION 71 OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS APPLICABILITY OF THE CASE OF SHILPA DYEING & PRINTING MILLS (P.) LTD . (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WOULD BE APPLICABLE SINCE THE COURT HAD HELD T HAT THE AMOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK WOULD FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF INCOME AS PER SECTION 14 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED FOR T HE SET OFF UNDER PROVISO OF SECTION 71 OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS THE CASE OF ATTAR SINGH GURMUKH SINGH (SUPRA) IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN T HE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE SINCE IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THERE WAS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT (APPE ALS) AS WELL AS THE ITAT HAVE COMMITTED ERROR IN REFUSING GIVING SET OFF TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 71 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THESE APPEA LS BY SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 28.02.2005 PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL (THE ITAT) AND ORDER DATED 07.07.2014 PASSED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AHMEDABAD [THE CIT (APPEALS)]. 15. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVE TO SUCCEED IN THE SUBJECT APPEAL AND WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF BUSINESS LOSS OF RS 86,96,733 AGAINST THE INCOME OF RS 2,31,41,217 WHIC H HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 69B READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF T HE ACT. IN THE RESULT, GROUNDS TAKEN BY REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. WE ALSO REFER TO THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT CC-2, VS. M/S GIRDHAR ASSOCIATES (SUPRA) WHERE IN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 3.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE CIRCULAR NO. 3/20 17 DATED 20 TH JAN. 2017 16 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT ISSUED BY THE CBDT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI. IT IS NOT IMPERATIVE TO REPEAT THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS IT IS FOUND THAT TH E ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY THE CIRCULAR NO. 3/2017 DATED 20-01-2017 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, NEW DELHI RELATING TO THE ISSUE OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT AND THIS SECTION IS OPERATIVE FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2017- 18 AND NOT RELATED TO THE ISSUE PRIOR TO IT. HENCE, THE APPLICATION OF SECTI ON 115BBE OF THE ACT APPLIED BY THE AO ON THE ASSESSEE IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DE LIBERATIONS, THE GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN SECTION 115BBE WHEREIN NO SET OFF OF LOSSES AGAINST SURRENDERED INCOME BROUGHT TO TAX IS PROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND DOESNT APPLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPO N BY THE REVENUE HAVE ALSO BEEN EXAMINED AND DOESNT SUPPORT ITS CASE. F OR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE IS NO BAR FOR SET OFF OF CURRE NT YEAR BUSINESS LOSS U/S 71 AGAINST INCOME BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ELIGIBLE FOR SET OFF OF CURRENT YEAR BUSINESS LOSS OF RS 767,768 AGAINST TH E UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS 36,00,000 TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PLOT OF LAND WH ICH HAS BEEN SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, AND SUBSEQUENTLY OFFER ED AND BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER SECTION 69 READ WITH SECTION 115BBE OF THE AC T. IN THE RESULT, SOLE GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 17 ITA NO. 863/JP/2017. M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PVT. LTD. VS ACIT IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21/03/2018. SD/- SD/- ( JH FOT; IKY JKO ) ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ( VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL; /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 21/03/2018. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- M/S PITAMBER COMMODITY FUTURES PV T. LTD., JAIPUR. 2. THE RESPONDENT ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT. 4. THE CIT (4), 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 863/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR