SHANKAR LAL KAHANDELWAL, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 878/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5402 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: K L MOOLCHANDAN I
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 153A; 27; 144; 15; 139

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 VH-VKJ-EHUK] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA- @ ITA NO. 878/JP/2013 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, A-2, RANA PRATAP NAGAR, JHOTWARA, JAIPUR CUKE VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ L A-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ADRPK 5003 F VIHYKFKHZ @ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ @ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS @ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI K.L. MOOLCHANDANI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 18/02/2016 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[ K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11/03/2016 VKNS'K @ ORDER PER: T.R. MEENA, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 10/09/2013 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), CENTRAL, J AIPUR FOR A.Y. 2007- 08. THE EFFECTIVE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY TH E APPELLANT IS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD CIT(A) HAS FACTUALLY AND LEGALLY ERRED IN UPHOLDI NG THE PENALTY OF RS. 13,00,000/- LEVIED U/S 271(1)(C) OF ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 2 THE ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE I N RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. THE PENALTY SO MADE AND CONFIRMED DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THE SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING T HE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AT RS. 13,00,000. THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINESS AND OTHER SOURCES. RETURN FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WAS FILED ON 01/5/2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,88,850/-. THERE WAS A SEARCH SEIZURE OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 16/11/2007. A NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND A SSESSEE ALSO FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 153A ON 01/7/2008 DECLARING IN COME OF RS. 31,25,448/-. THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SCRUTINIZED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E VARIOUS ADDITIONS BESIDES THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 31,25,450/- AND ASSESSMENT U/S 153A WAS MADE ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 7,87,12,881/-. THE PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) WAS INITIATED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHED INACC URATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE CHALLEN GED THE QUANTUM ADDITION BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND HONBLE ITAT. FINA LLY THE ADDITION REMAINED RS. 3,96,300/- BEING DISALLOWANCE OF WORK IN PROGRESS (WIP)/CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES AND ADDITION OF RS. 1,2 5,000/- AS INCOME ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 3 FROM TAXI HIRING. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COM PLETED ON 30/12/2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 274 READ WITH SECTION 271-272 OF THE ACT ON 30/12/2009 IN PRESCRI BED PROFORMA BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER TI CKED THE PENALTY PROCEEDING AS UNDER:- U/S 271(1)(C):- CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FURTHER NOTICE DATED 23/1/2012 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE WHEREIN THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY REFERRED SECTION 271( 1)(C) FOR IMPOSING OF PENALTY. 2.1 BEFORE IMPOSING PENALTY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFIC ER GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 27,4 4,100/- AS INCOME FROM SALE OF PLOT, RS. 3,73,798/- AS ADDITIONAL INC OME FROM MET LIFE INSURANCE, RS. 2,46,000/- AS PROFIT ON SALE OF ELEC TRONICS ITEMS AND LOSS OF RS. 8,31,593/- IN ADDITIONAL BUSINESS OF TAXI RU NNING, WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN RETURN U/S 139 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE LD AR SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DU RING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ADDITION MADE UNDER THE VARIOU S HEADS HAVE BEEN DELETED TO NEGLIGIBLE AMOUNT AND THE ADDITION SO CO NFIRMED WERE ALSO ON ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 4 ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OR DUE TO LEGAL INTERPRETATIO N REFLECTING NO POSITIVE MATERIAL OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IN AB SENCE OF ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD, NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CAN BE LEVIED AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE REPORTED IN 328 ITR 611 (D EL), 76 ITR 696 (SC), 166 CTR (SC) 187, 215 CTR (RAJ) 306, 166 TAXMAN 16. HE HAS REQUESTED TO DROP PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT SUBMISSION OR THE CLAIM MADE ABOVE, MAY BE CORRECT IN RESPECT OF ESTIMATED ADDITIONS MENTIONED ABOVE ON ACCOUNT OF W IP/CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES AND THE OTHER ADDITIONS ARE NOT BASED ON E STIMATION AND IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IN RETURN U/S 15 3A OF THE ACT. THE LD AR HAS NOT STATED IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME D ISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT A ND AS TO WHY SUCH DISCLOSURE SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATI ON 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT TOTA L OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME REMAINED DELIBERATELY CONCEALED IN ORIGINAL RETURN IS OF RS. 34,58,898/- IN CURRENT YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSED ALL THESE INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 139 OF THE ACT. IN HIS REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED NOTHING I N THIS RESPECT AND ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 5 THEREFORE IT WAS PRESUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION FOR HIS FAILURE TO DISCLOSE CORR ECT INCOME IN ORIGINAL RETURN. HAD THERE BEEN NO SEARCH IN CASE OF ASSESSE E, HE WOULD HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME AND IT WOULD HAVE R EMAINED UNTAXED. HIS CONDUCT/MENS REA/INTENTION IS CLEAR, IS NOT DIS CLOSING CORRECT AND TRUE INCOME IN ORIGINAL RETURN AND ACCORDINGLY HE IS HEL D THAT HE HAS DELIBERATELY CONCEALED THE CORRECT AND TRUE INCOME IN ORIGINAL RETURN. THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON CONCEALED INCOME. HE FURTHER REFERRED EXPLANATION 5A OF SECTI ON 271(1)(C), WHICH IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THUS, HE IMPOSE D PENALTY AT RS. 13 LACS, WHICH IS MORE THAN 100% OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EV ADED. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ORIGIN AL RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 5,88,850/-. THERE WAS A SEARCH SEIZURE OPERATION ON 17/11/2007 AT THE RESIDENCE AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE . NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED ON 14/2/2008. THE APPELLANT FILED RETURN I N RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE ON 01/8/2008 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 31,25,4 48/-. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE AT RS. 7,87,12,887/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THERE AFTER THE ASSESSEE ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 6 PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT AND FINALLY ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BESIDES THE RETURN OF RS. 3,96,300/- ON A CCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ON CONSTRUCTION AND RS. 1,2 5,000/- BEING INCOME FROM HIRING OF TAXI. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE NOTICE U/S 271(1)(C) WHERE NO SPECIFIC PROVISION I.E . EXPLANATION 5A AND PENALTY WAS EITHER FOR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCO ME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAS BEEN INITIATED . IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDE D HIS SATISFACTION BY OBSERVING THAT THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED U/S 271(1)( C) FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO SPECIF IED EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WHILE RECORDING HIS SATISFACTION. SHE FURTHER HELD THAT SEARCH SEIZURE OPERATION IN THIS CASE WAS CARRIED O UT ON 17/11/2008 AND EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS DEEMING PROV ISION HAS BEEN INSERTED W.E.F. 01/6/2007. AS PER THIS SECTION, EXPL ANATION 5A HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD CIT(A) AND BY CONSIDERING THIS SECTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEEMED TO CONCEAL PARTICULARS OF INCOM E. SHE FURTHER HELD THAT THIS EXPLANATION IS A NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE AND IT IS A DEEMING PROVISION FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ONCE THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ARE FULFILLED. THUS NOTWITHSTANDING THAT I NCOME FROM PROPERTY, MET LIFE INSURANCE AND ELECTRONICS ITEMS WAS DECLARE D BY THE APPELLANT ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 7 IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, THE APPELLANT WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED HIS INCOME AS PER THIS EXP LANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C). SINCE ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS A RE FULFILLED AS PER EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) I.E. SEARCH CON DUCTED ON OR AFTER 01/6/2007, UNACCOUNTED INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 01/5/2007 . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND, ON THAT BASIS, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE, WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HONB LE ITAT. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THAT THE RETURN U/S 153A WAS FILED VOLUNTARILY BUT THESE ARGUMENTS WERE FOUND MISREPRESENTED BY THE LD CIT(A). HE EXAMINED FOR THIS PURPOSE, SEIZED RECORD ANNEXURE-A/1 WHERE SHE FOUND APPELLANT GOT A SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 04/11/2006 WHERE THE SELLER SHRI MOHAN SINGH AND SHRI KESAR SIN GH SOLD PLOT NOS. 30 AND 31 KALYANPURI JHOTWARA TO THE APPELLANT FOR R S. 5 LAKHS. THE REGISTRY WAS DONE AT THE VALUE OF 5 LAKH WHEREAS AS PER THE IKRARNAMA IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN STATED THAT FOR THE PLOT HAD BEEN SOLD FOR RS. 40 LACS. THIS IKRARNAMA HAS BEEN MADE PART OF THIS ORDER OF T HE LD CIT(A) AS ANNEXURE-A. SHE FURTHER REFERRED THE STATEMENT RECO RDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 16/11/2007, WHICH HAS BEEN REPROD UCED ON PAGE NO. 9 AND 10 OF THE LD CIT(A)S ORDER FOR PENALTY. ON THAT BASIS, SHE HELD ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 8 THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INDULGING IN PROPERTY BUSINES S, THE INVESTMENT AND PROFIT FROM WHICH WERE NOT DECLARED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED VOLUNTARILY TO THE DISCLOSURE WAS F ACTUALLY FOUND INCORRECT TO THE LD CIT(A). SHE FURTHER REPRODUCED T HE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR QUANTUM ADDITION AND HONBLE ITAT ORDER ON PAGE NO. 10 AND 11. THE INCOME ASSESSED WAS NOT ON THE BASIS OF ESTIM ATION BUT ALL INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. EVEN WHEN THE ADDITION IS BASED ON ESTIMATE IN THE NON-SEARCH SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT CONCEALMENT PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED, SINCE OMISSION O N THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO MAINTAIN ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REGARDED IN LAW AS A GROUND FOR EXONERATING THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FROM CULPABILITY U/S 271(1)(C). SHE FURTHER RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- (I) ADDL.CIT VS CHANDRAKANTHA AND ANOTHER (MP) 205 ITR 607. (II) CIT VS. MD. WARASAT HUSSAIN (PATNA) 171 ITR 405 . (III) A.M. SHAH & CO. VS. CIT (GUJ) 238 ITR 415 (IV) CIT VS KRISHNASWAMY AND SONS (MAD) 219 ITR 157. THE LD CIT(A) FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS USHA INTERNATIONAL LTD. ITA N O. 1696/2006 DATED 05/11/2012 WHEREIN PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) HELD JUSTIF IED ON THE BASIS OF ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 9 INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY, PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN C ONFIRMED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH SEIZU RE OPERATION CARRIED OUT BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 16/11/2007. THE AS SESSEE DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 31,25,450/- U/S 153A OF THE ACT AS AG AINST RS. 5,88,850/- DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE A CT. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS IN INITIATED THE PEN ALTY BY RECORDING IN THE PENULTIMATE PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME ARE INITIATED. DU RING THE COURSE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MENTIONED EXPLANATION 5A INSERTED TO SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT, THUS PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN INITIATED WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION 5A. FORMAL SHOW CAUSE LETTER IN A CYCLOSTYLED FORM TICKI NG THEREIN THE NATURE OF THE DEFAULT AS 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED FO R CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTI CULARS OF INCOME. THE FINAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER APPEAL EFFECT AT RS. 34,58,898/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME U /S 153A AT RS. 31,25,450/-. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS AGAIN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 10 OFFICER ON 31/1/2012 FOR IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S 27 1(10(C) WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE SATISFACTION WHETHER PENALTY PROCEED INGS WERE FOR CONCEALMENT PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS SECTION WERE INITIATED AND PROCESSED IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS AS MADE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THIS ARGUMENT ALSO MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS TH AT ALL THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED WHATEVER ADDITIONS REMAINED ARE ESTIMAT ED ADDITIONS. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE BODY OF THE PENALTY ORD ER HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE SUBMISSION OF T HE AR HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON H AVE BEEN GONE THROUGH. THE SUBMISSIONS OR THE COLLECTION MADE ABOV E MAY BE CORRECT. EVEN AFTER GIVING SUCH OBSERVATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PENALTY OF RS. 13 LACS. I BELIE VE THAT EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS APPLICABLE IN THE CASE O F ASSESSEE, BUT NO VALID PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED WITHOUT LETTING THE APPELLANT KNOW ABOUT THE DEFAULT SPECIFICALLY AND ALSO WITHOUT LETTING THE MI ND OF THE REVENUE KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS O F EXPLANATION 5A. THUS, PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFI RMED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF EQUITY AND NATURA L JUSTICE. HE FURTHER ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 11 CHALLENGED THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED IN ORIGINAL R ETRN OF INCOME OF RS. 5,88,850/- AFTER REDUCING FROM THE RETURNED INCOME U/S 153A AT RS. 31,25,450/-, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IS REMAINED TO B E CONSIDERED AT RS. 25,36,600/- WHEREAS THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER IN PENA LTY ORDER HAS CONSIDERED FOR COMPUTATION OF PENALTY AMOUNT ON INC OME OF RS. 34,58,898/-, WHICH IS ON FACT IS TOTALLY NOT CORREC T. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE INCOME U/S 153A VOLUNTARILY AND SUO M OTO AND CLAIMED THAT THERE MAY BE HUNDRED ON REASONS FOR DISCLOSURE OF DECLARING ADDITION INCOME IN THE RETURN U/S 153A OF THE ACT. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF AMRUT TUBEWELL CO. VS A CIT (2015) 275 CTR (GUJ) 86, CIT & ACIT, BANGALORE VS CHANDRASEKARAN (KA RN) 9 AND DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S JAIN EXPORT PRIVATE LTD.. THE LD AR HAS FURTHER DRAWN OUR ATTENTION ON EXPERT OPINION ON EXPLANATION 5A AND ARGUED THAT AS PER TH IS OPINION, NO PENALTY UNDER EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) C AN BE IMPOSED. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF ITO V S GOPE M. ROCHLANI OF HONBLE ITAT MUMBAI G BENCH (2013) 158 TTJ (MUM) 12 0. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UND ER:- ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 12 PARA NO. 6 OF THE ORDER: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THOUGH DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES EXP LANATION ON EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C), BUT DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THE INCOME WHICH WAS OFFE RED WAS ONLY ON ESTIMATE BASIS, THEREFORE, ADDITIONAL INCOM E OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN NEITHER BE HELD TO BE CONCEALED IN COME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME .. I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE ASSESSEE THAT IN SPITE AS SESSEES CASE NOT BEING COVERED BY THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED UND ER EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) I HOLD THAT EVE N IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO ESTABLISH CONCLUSI VELY THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED BY HIM VOLUNTARILY BUT AT THE SAME TIME I FIND THAT AO HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO IDENTIFY THE VERY FOUNDATION ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE AO NEITHER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN ABLE TO LINK DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME WITH ANY MATERIAL F OUND EVEN IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ON THAT BASIS THE LD AR HAS ARGUED THAT THE LD ASSE SSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS AT THE TIME OF IMPOSIN G OF PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCL OSED U/S 153A IS BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUNDS DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. HE FURTHER CHALLENGED THE FINDING MADE BY THE LD CIT(A) AND ITAT IN QUANTUM ADDITION. THE LD AR HAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE NOTICE U/S 271 ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 13 IS TO BE SPECIFIC ON IMPOSING OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) (C) I.E. CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME FOR WHICH HE RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF H. LA KSHMINARAYANA VS. ITO (ITAT BANGLORE TRIBUNAL (A) ITA NOS. 992 TO 996/B AN/2014 ORDER DATED 3 RD JULY, 2015 WHEREIN THE DECISION OF HON'BLE KARNATAK A HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT & ANR. VS MANJUNATHA COTTO N AND GINNING FACTORY HAS BEEN CONSIDERED WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PENALTY PROCEEDING IS A CIVIL LIABILITY, IN FACT, IT IS PEN AL IN NATURE. IN EITHER EVENT, THE PERSON WHO IS ACCUSED OF THE CONDITIONS MENTION ED IN SECTION 271 SHOULD BE MADE KNOWN ABOUT THE GROUNDS ON WHICH THEY INTEND IMPOSING PENALTY ON HIM AS THE SECTION 274 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS A RIGHT TO CONTEST SUCH PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD HAVE FULL OPPORTUNITY TO MEET THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT AND SHOW THAT THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) DO NOT EXIST AS SUC H HE IS NOT LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY. IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE AUTHORITY, AT THE TI ME OF IMPOSING PENALTY TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON THE GROUNDS OTHER THAN WHAT ASS ESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO MEET. OTHERWISE THOUGH THE INITIATION OF PEN ALTY PROCEEDINGS MAY BE VALID AND LEGAL, THE FINAL ORDER IMPOSING PE NALTY WOULD OFFEND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND CANNOT BE SUSTAIN ED. ONCE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED ON ONE GROUND, THE PENALT Y SHOULD ALSO BE ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 14 IMPOSED ON THE SAME GROUND. WHERE THE BASIS OF THE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE GROUND ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NO T VALID. THEREFORE, IN NOTICE U/S 274 IS TO BE MARKED APPROPRIATE ON THE B ASIS OF LEVY OF PENALTY. THE STANDARD PROFORMA WITHOUT STRIKING OF TH E RELEVANT ITEM WILL LEAD TO AN INFERENCE AS NON-APPLICATION OF MIND. THE EXISTENCE OF SUCH CONDITION SHOULD BE DISCERNIBLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR REGIONAL AUTHORITY. THERE FORE, THE LD AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE IN PRESCRIBED PROFORMA U/S 27 4 IS DEFECTIVE AS SUCH LD ASSESSING OFFICER TICKED WITHOUT SPECIFICALL Y MENTIONED THAT PENALTY PROCEEDING HAS BEEN INITIATED FOR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE F URTHER REFERRED RECENT DECISION OF HONBLE KOLKATA ITAT TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS PRATAP PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. ITA NOS. 1386 TO 1388/KOL/2010 ORDER DATED FEBRUARY, 10, 2016 AND PRAYED TO DELETE THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 5. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) AND FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE LD ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR CONCEALING PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME IN ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 15 LAST PARA AND ALSO ON TOP OF PAGE 21 I.E. FROM THE ABOVE IT CAN BE REASONABLY INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C). I AM SATISFIED THAT I T IS A FIT CASE FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING U/S 271(1)(C) AND THE SAME ARE BEING INITIATED BELOW. THEREAFTER VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE AND IN PENALTY ORDER ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOS ED THE PENALTY ON CONCEALED INCOME. THE LD CIT(A) HAS THOROUGHLY EXAMIN ED THE LEGAL ASPECT RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDIN GS IN APPEAL ORDER. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CI T VS PRASANNA DUGAR (2015) 59 TAXMANN.COM 99 (KOL) WHEREIN PENALTY WAS IM POSED ON VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 6 CRORES EVEN THOUGH NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT SUGGESTING ANY SUCH UNDIS CLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DATED 03/2/2009 WH EREIN CLAUSE (B) OF EXPLANATION 5A OF SECTION 271(1)(C) HAS BEEN CONSID ERED. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF TEJ BHAN COTTO N GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY VS. CIT, ROHTAK (2011) 10 TAXMANN.COM 16 (P& H) IN IT APPEAL NO. 01 OF 2007 ORDER DATED 07/12/2010, WHEREIN EXCES S STOCK WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH WAS DECLARED AFTE R SEARCH IN THE RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROC EEDINGS FOR ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 16 CONCEALING/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION, THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED. THE PENALTY WAS SET ASIDE BY THE LD CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT IN THE ORD ER OF THE ASSESSMENT, REQUISITE SATISFACTION WAS NOT RECORDED IN ABSENCE OF WHICH LEVY OF PENALTY WAS WITHOUT JURISDICTION BY FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUNISH IRON STORE (2003) 263 ITR 484. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYA NA HIGH COURT HAS OVERRULED OUR OWN DECISION GIVEN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MUNISH IRON STORE (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF TEJ BHAN COTTON GIN NING & PRESSING FACTORY VS. CIT, ROHTAK (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IT IS ONLY ON SEARCH THE SAID PARTICULARS COULD BE NOTICED. THE ADDITIONS WERE DULY SUSTAINED T O THE TRIBUNAL WHICH BECAME FINAL. THE BASIS OF ADDITIONS WAS PARTICU LARS OF INCOME WHICH WERE CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT CAME TO LIGH T DURING SEARCH. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF ASSESSABLE INCOME WAS PATENT AS IS CLEAR FROM THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSM ENT. AT THE END OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS MENTIONED THAT PENALTY PROCE EDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED SEPARATELY. THE HONBLE COURT ALSO CONSIDE RED SUB-SECTION (1B) OF SECTION 271, WHICH WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT , 2008 W.E.F. ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 17 01/4/1989. AFTER CONSIDERING THIS SECTION, THE HON BLE COURT HAS HELD THAT ON THE CONTRARY, INDICATION IN THE ORDER OF AS SESSMENT REGARDING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ITSELF TANTAMOUNT ED TO SATISFACTION HAVING REGARD TO FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A CASE. THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR PENALTY WAS EXISTENCE OF SATISFACTIO N AND WHEN EXISTENCE OF SATISFACTION WAS CLEAR, THE FORMAT IN WH ICH SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED OR REFLECTED COULD NOT AFFECT THE VALIDITY OF LEVY OF PENALTY. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN PEAREY LAL & S ONS (EP) LTDS CASE (SUPRA), THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE HEL D TO BE ERRONEOUS. THE LD DR FURTHER REFERRED DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT J AIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S GRASS FIELD FARMS & RESORTS PVT. LTD. V S. DCIT IN ITA NO. 730/JP/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 ORDER DATE 27/10/2015 WHERE IN PENALTY WAS CONFIRMED BY THE THIRD MEMBER ON PURCHASE PRICE OF L AND WAS RECORDED ON LESS VALUE, WHICH WAS DETECTED BY THE REVENUE AS A RESULT OF SURVEY. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CI T-II, KOLKATA VS BALARAMPUR CHINI MILLS LTD. (2015) 64 TAXMANN.COM 9 1 (KOL) WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED CERTAIN EXPENSES ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD VALID. THE HONBLE MUMBAI ITAT IN THE CA SE OF SHRI UDAY C TAMHANKAR VS DCIT IN ITA NO. 711 TO 715/MUM/2011 ORDE R DATED ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 18 11/09/2015, IN CASE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 17/1/200 8, PENALTY WAS IMPOSED ON ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED FOR VARIOUS YEARS WHEREIN THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 20 LACS OVER AND ABOVE THE EXCESS CASH BALANCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT IS ALSO ADMITTED FACT THAT THE REVENUE DID NOT SEIZE ANY OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WHICH COMPELLED TH E ASSESSEE TO MAKE THIS DISCLOSURE. HENCE THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 20 LACS WAS NOT A VOLUNTARY OFFER. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD DR PRAYED TO C ONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN TH IS CASE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS FOR CONCEALING OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FOR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME VIDE ORDER DATED 31/12/2009. NOTICE U/S 274 READ WIT H SECTION 271-272 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30/12/2009 BY TICKING OF TH E NOTICE AS UNDER:- U/S 271(1)(C):- CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN GAVE NOTICE DURING TH E COURSE OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON 23/1/2012 WHEREIN HE GAVE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 19 271(1)(C) FOR IMPOSING OF PENALTY WITHOUT SPECIFYING THE LIMB FOR REASONS TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY, WHETHER IT IS FOR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE L D CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE ASPECT AND HELD THAT EXPLANATION 5A TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS APPLICABLE AS IN THIS CASE, A SEARCH WA S CARRIED OUT AFTER 01/6/2007 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED RETURN FOR A.Y. 2007-08 BEFORE SEARCH AND ADDITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLO SED U/S 153A. THEREFORE, DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME IN RET URN FILED U/S 153A ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH. WE HAVE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT EXPLANATION 5A IS NOT R EQUIRED TO BE MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OR EVEN IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER, BUT BASIC DEFECT WE FOUND THAT THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ME NTIONED AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER BOTH THE LIMBS I.E. CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT AT THE TIME OF NOTICE U/S 274 HE SIMPLY HAS TIC KED IN PRESCRIBED PROFORMA CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISH ED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WITHOUT DELETING EITHER LIMB O F PENALTY EVEN HE HAS NOT PUT AND IN THE NOTICE ITSELF BETWEEN TWO LIMBS. TH E AMENDED ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 20 PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1B) OF SECTION 271 HAS B EEN CONSIDERED BY THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MADHU S HREE GUPTA VS. UOL, 317 ITR 107 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT AT THE STA GE OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER NEED NOT REFLECT SATISFACTION VIS A VIS EACH AND EVERY ITEM OF ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE IF THE OVERALL SENSE GATHERED FROM THE ORDER IS THAT A FURTHER PROGNOSIS IS CALLED FOR. IT WOULD BE SUFFICI ENT COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW THAT THERE IS A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE FOR CONCEAL MENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. EVEN AFTER THIS SECTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SATISFY THE P ARTICULAR LIMB OF INITIATION OF PENALTY IMPOSABLE U/S 271(1)(C) OF TH E ACT AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY & ORS.(2013 ) 359 ITR 565 (KARN) HELD THAT SENDING PRINTED FORM WHERE ALL THE GROUNDS MENTIONED IN SECTION 271 WOULD NOT SATISFY THE REQUI REMENT OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD KNOW THE GROUND WHICH HE HAS TO MEET SPECIFICALLY, OTHERWISE, THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS OFFEN DED ON THE BASIS OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TEJ BHAN COTTON GINNING & PRESSING FACTORY VS. CIT, ROHTAK (SUPRA) H AS HELD THAT THE ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 21 ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS SATISFIED HIMSELF REGARDING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS TANTAMOU NT TO SATISFACTION HAVE RECORDED TO THE FACT ON THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONCEALED INCOME IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. TH E HONBLE COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY EVEN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INIT IATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MENTIONING PENALTY PROCEEDING FOR CONCEALING/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS EXPRESSED DIFFERENT VIEW ON INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EVEN NOTICE U/S 274 ISSUED B Y PUTTING OBLIQUE BETWEEN CONCEALING AND FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PART ICULARS OF INCOME WHEREAS THE HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT HAS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO SATISFY AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDING AND ISSUING NOTICE U/S 274 OF THE ACT THAT WHETHER PENA LTY IS FOR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE P ARTICULARS OF INCOME. THERE WERE TWO OPINIONS OF THE HONBLE COURTS. THE HON' BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT IN CASE OF TWO VIEWS OF THE COURT , FAVOURABLE VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE TAKEN AS HELD IN THE CASE OF C IT VS VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD. (1973) 88 ITR 192 (SC) AND A RECENT DE CISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP P LTD. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (S C). THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT INITIATION OF PENA LTY PROCEEDINGS IS ITA 878/JP/2013_ SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL VS DCIT 22 NOT AS PER LAW AND ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT HAVE AN Y JURISDICTION TO IMPOSE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AS THE MAT TER HAS BEEN DECIDED ON TECHNICAL ISSUE, WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING ANY VIEW O N MERIT OF THE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY CONFIRMED BY THE LD CIT(A). 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11/03/2016. SD/- SD/- VKJ-IH-RKSYKUH VH-VKJ-EHUK (R.P.TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ @ JAIPUR FNUKAD @ DATED:- 11 TH MARCH, 2016 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI SHANKAR LAL KHANDELWAL, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 878/JP/2013) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR