ACIT, Ajmer V. RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY, Ajmer

ITA 880/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6165 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SEEMA MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PORWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Corroborative evidences; Non compliance
• Section: 131

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 JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 780/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY S-90, VIJAY SARITA, NEAR ST. STEPHENS SCHOOL, AJMER. CUKE VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AEFPC 1003 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 880/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER. CUKE VS. SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY S-90, VIJAY SARITA, NEAR ST. STEPHENS SCHOOL, AJMER. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AEFPC 1003 E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI SEEMA MEENA (JCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL PORWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21.03.2018. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/05/2018. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM : THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 12 TH JULY, 2016 OF LD. CIT (A), AJMER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 2 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT (A), AJMER HAS ERRED IN :- (1) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,51,71,386/- & RS. 27 ,76,030/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE; (2) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,47,859/- WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS. 24,47,859/- ARE NOT A LLOWABLE LOOKING TO THE TERMS AND CONDITION OF THE SUB-CONTRACT AGRE EMENT ENTERED BETWEEN SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH AND THE ASSESSEE. (3) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,26,328/- WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY PROOF IN THIS REG ARD REGARDING DURING ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS SUB CONTRACTORS WERE A LSO NOT COMPLIED WITH THE SUMMONS ISSUED U/S 131 BY THE AO. (4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, DELETE O R MODIFY THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.51 CRORE AND RS. 27.76 LACS MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT (A ). 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND ALSO TAKE N UP SUB-CONTRACT OF RS. 6.20 CRORES FROM ONE SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH AT THE FIXED PRO FIT RATE OF 4.5% AS AGREED UNDER THE WORKS CONTRACT. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS, THE AO ON EXAMINATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF SHR I UTTAM PRAKASH NOTED THAT SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH IS HAVING CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 1,51, 71,836/- TO BE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS NO SUCH DEBIT BALANCE HAS BEEN SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO ISSUED A SHO W CAUSE TO THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- IN THE B OOKS OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE ASSESSEE FILED A RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS CHEQUES AS PER THE RECONCILIATION 3 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY ENCLOSED FOR TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 1,79,47,866/- HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH FROM 15 TH MARCH, 2010 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2010 BUT THE SAME WERE CLEARED ONLY AFTER 31 ST MARCH, 2010 AND, THEREFORE, THE DISCREPANCY POINTE D OUT BY THE AO WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECONCILED. THE ASSESSEE ACCO RDINGLY EXPLAINED THAT THE FINAL BALANCE OF RS. 27,76,030/- CREDITED IS APPEARING IN ITS BOOKS AS CREDITORS WHEREAS THESE CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE 31 ST MARCH, 2010 AND DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI UTTAM PRTAKASH UPTO 31 ST MARCH, 2010. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE SAID EXPLANATION FOR THE REASON THAT THE DEBIT BALA NCE OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- IS APPEARING IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKA SH AS WELL AS IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH ACCOUNTS ARE TALLI ED BUT DEBIT BALANCE IS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. AC CORDINGLY, THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. FURTHER, THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THERE WAS A CREDIT BALAN CE OF RS. 9,04,570/- AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET BUT THERE IS NO DETAILED SCHEDULE OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SCHEDULE OF CREDITORS. THE ASS ESSEE SUBMITTED SCHEDULE OF CREDITORS ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-C. HOWEVER, THE AO FO UND THAT IT IS UNSIGNED SCHEDULE OF CREDITORS WHEREAS ALL OTHER SCHEDULES O F THE BALANCE SHEET ARE SIGNED BY THE AUDITORS AS WELL AS ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE IS A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 27,76,030/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE TO SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH, THE AO PROPOSED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT VIDE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 5 TH JANUARY, 2013. IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO M ADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 27,76,030/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE AO SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT DAT ED 6 TH MAY, 2016 WHEREIN THE 4 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY AO FOUND THAT THE CHEQUES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,79,7 6,192/- WERE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO 31 ST MARCH, 2010. HOWEVER, THE AO POINTED OUT THAT MOST OF THE CHEQUES HAVE BEEN DRAWN AS SELF AND MUST HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF OR HIS STAFF AND THUS THERE ARE NO CREDITOR S OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 27,76,030/- WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOTAL CHEQUE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,79,47,866/- AND THE CREDIT B ALANCE SHOWN IN THE UTTAM PRAKASH ACCOUNT FOR RS. 1,51,71,836/-. HENCE THE A O ACCEPTED IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 6.5.2016 THAT THE CORRESPONDING DEBIT AND CRE DIT ENTRIES OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- IN THE BOOKS OF BOTH THE PARTIES WAS FACTUALLY CORR ECT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN THE BALANCE IN THE BALANCE SHEET, THEREFO RE, THE AO REITERATED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAID REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS THE EXPLANATION O F THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT WHEN THE BALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSE SSEE AS WELL AS UTTAM PRAKASH ARE TALLIED, THEN NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THIS AM OUNT IS CALLED FOR WHICH INCLUDES RS. 1,51,71,836/- AND RS. 27,76,030/-. THE LD.CIT ( A) THEN PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS UNDER SECTION 145(3) AND REASONAB LE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THE SELF EXECUTED JOBS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS FINALLY ESTIMATED THE PROFIT OF THE ASS ESSEE FROM SELF EXECUTED JOB WORK AT 8% WHEREAS THE PROFIT FROM THE SUB-CONTRACT WAS ACCEPTED AT FIXED RATE AS PER THE AGREEMENT. AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD . CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE ISSUE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- WAS 5 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS IT WAS SHOWN IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE BOOKS OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH. THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF T HE AO. 3.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERTAKEN THE SUB CONT RACT WORK FROM SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH AT FIXED PROFIT RATE OF 4.5%. THE PAYMENT O F THE SAID CONTRACT WORK WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANK AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAI D THE PROFIT SHARE OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH THROUGH CHEQUES WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE AS IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED T HAT SINCE THE WHOLE WORK WAS GRANTED BY SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH TO THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, ALL THE PAYMENTS AND RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN DEBITED AND CREDITED IN THIS ACC OUNT FOR RECONCILIATION. THESE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FROM CRPF AGAINST THE WORK CO MPLETED UPTO 31 ST MARCH, 2010 AND THE EXPENSES TO THIS WORK FOR MATERIAL, WA GES AND OTHER SERVICES WERE ALREADY BOOKED TO THE WORK ACCOUNT. HENCE FOR THIS CORRESPONDING LIABILITY THE CHEQUES FOR SUCH SUPPLIES/EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH AS EVIDENT FROM THE RECONCILIATION ST ATEMENT. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- IS FOR WORK COMPLETED AS SUB-CONTRACT OR AGAINST WHICH SUPPLY IN THE FORM OF MATERIAL, WAGES AND OTHER SERVICES RECEIVED AND BOOKED TO WORK ACCOUNT. SINCE SUCH LIABILITIES WERE TO BE PAID OFF AGAINST THIS WORK AND CHEQUES ISSUED UPTO 31 ST MARCH, 2010 BUT NOT ENCASHED UPTO THE LAST DATE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR HAS BEEN CREDITED IN THIS ACCOUNT TO DISCLOSE THE NET FIGURE OF ASSETS/LIABILITIES. THE LD. A/R HAS THUS SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT (A) O N THIS ISSUE. 6 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE ENTIRE CONFUSION ON THE IS SUE IS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- APPEARING IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS IN T HE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH BUT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS NO T APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE DUE TO THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTI NG ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS RECEIPT IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUB-CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH FOR CONSTRUCTION OF CRPF WALL AND THE REFORE AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID EXECUTION AND CORRE SPONDING PAYMENT BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH IS CONCERNED, THE SA ME IS NOT IN DISPUTE. FURTHER, THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS EXPENSES ON A CCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF MATERIAL, WAGES AND OTHER EXPENDITURES WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE WORK ACCOUNT TO MAKE THIS ADDITION OF NOT SHOWING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN THE BA LANCE SHEET. IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPT AND PAYMENT BUT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON THE GROUN D THAT AN EQUAL AMOUNT WAS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH HAS FINALLY GIVEN THE FINDING AS UNDE R :- FROM THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTING STATEMENTS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT CAN BE APPRECIATED THAT AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SH RI UTTAM PRAKASH, SUM OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- WAS PAYABLE TO THE APPELLA NT AS ON 31.03.2010. THE BALANCE OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- (DEBIT ) IS ALSO APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNT OF UTTAM PRAKASH (WORKS) AS APPEARIN G IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. THUS, AS FAR AS THE CLOS ING BALANCE OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT (AS APP EARING IN UTTAM 7 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY PRAKASH WORKS ACCOUNT) AND CLOSING BALANCE OF THE A PPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH ARE CONCERN ED, BOTH ARE SAME AND THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCES APPEARIN G IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. HOWEVER, IN THE BALAN CE SHEET DATED 31.3.10 OF THE APPELLANT, NO DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 1 ,51,71,836/- IN THE NAME OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH WAS APPEARING. HENCE, TH E AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- TREATING THE AMOUNT A S UNRECONCILED BALANCE OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH. IF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH ANNEXURE C OF THE BALANCE SHEET IS SEEN THEN IT CAN BE APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CREDIT BALA NCE OF RS. 9,04,570/- WHICH INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OF RS. 27,76,0 30/- UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCES FOR UTTAM PRAKASH WORKS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE APPELLANT INSTEAD OF SHOWING DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 1 ,51,71,836/- IN THE NAME OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH, HAS SHOWN CREDIT BALANC E OF RS. 27,76,030/- UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCES FOR UTTAM PRAK ASH WORKS. IF THE DETAILED SUBMISSION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IS PERUSED, IT CAN BE COMPREHENDED THAT THERE WAS UNPAID LIABILITY OF RS. 1,79,47,866/- IN RESPECT OF THE WORKS EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT ON B EHALF OF SHRI UTTAM PRTAKASH ON SUB CONTRACT BASIS. THE ASSESSEE INSTE AD OF SHOWING THIS UNPAID LIABILITY OF RS. 1,79,47,866/- IN THE LIABIL ITIES SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND RS. 1,51,71,836/- IN THE ASSET SIDE OF TH E BALANCE SHEET HAS NETTED BOTH THE BALANCES AND HAS SHOWN THE NET CRED IT BALANCE OF RS. 27,76,030/- (DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH UNPAID LIABILITIES OF RS. 1,79,47,866) IN RESPECT OF WORKS EXECUTED BY THE APPELLANT ON BEHALF OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH ON SU B CONTRACT BASIS. THUS, AS FAR AS BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE APPEL LANT IN THE BOOKS OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH AND BALANCE OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKAS H IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE . THE DIFFERENT FIGURES APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPEL LANT AND IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH ARE ONLY BECAUS E OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THESE FIGURES HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN THE BALA NCE SHEET. IF THE 8 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY ASSESSEE HAD NOT REDUCED THE UNPAID LIABILITY OF RS . 1,79,47,866/- FROM THE DEBIT BALANCE OF RS.1,51,71,836/- OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH, THE DEBIT BALANCE OF RS. 1,51,71,836/- WOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE ASSET SIDE AND UNPAID LIABILITIES OF RS. 1,79,47,866/- WOULD H AVE BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE LIABILITY SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND T HERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 27,76,030/- UNDER TH E HEAD ADVANCES FOR UTTAM PRAKASH WORKS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AS FAR AS BALANCE OF SHRI UTTA M PRAKASH IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT AND THE BALANCE OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH ARE CONCERNED SAME ARE TALLIED A ND NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ANY UNRECONCILED DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,51, 71,836/- OR RS.27,76,030/- IS CALLED FOR. THUS ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS AND FIGURES WERE CONSID ERED BY THE LD. CIT (A) TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCES APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH. ACCORDI NGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) QUA THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,47 ,859/- DELETED BY THE CIT (A). 5. THE AO NOTED THAT SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH HAS PASSED ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS IN RESPECT OF WORKS CONTRACT TAX EXPENSES OF RS. 9,74, 980/- AND SUB-CONTRACT EXPENSES OF RS. 14,72,879/- TO TALLY HIS ACCOUNT. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT AS PER THE CONTRACT AGREEMENT, THERE IS NO SUCH CONDITION REGARDING TRANSFER OF EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSES SEE AS TO WHY THESE EXPENSES OF RS. 24,47,859/- SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. IN RE SPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED 9 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY THAT HE HAS TAKEN SUB CONTRACT WORK FROM SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH AT A FIXED RATE OF 4.5% ON GROSS RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAI LS OF RS. 24,47,859/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES DEDUCTED BY SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 24,47,859/- WAS P AYABLE TO SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH OUT OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE S PROFIT AT FIXED RATE OF 4.5% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS IS NOT AFFECTED AS IT COMES TO R S. 27,93,317/-. THUS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF DEDUCTION FOR WCT AND SUB CONTRACT CHARGES WERE DEBITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH. THE A O DID NOT ACCEPT THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THES E EXPENSES ARE ALSO CLAIMED BY SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND, THE REFORE, DOUBLE DEDUCTION OF THE SAME EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED. FURTHER, THE AO HE LD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS, THEREFORE, THE S AME IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE LD. C IT (A) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED TH E DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 14,72,879/- SEPARATELY WHILE CONSIDERING THE OT HER ISSUES AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D/R AS WELL AS THE LD. A/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. BOTH THESE EXPENSES WERE DEDUC TED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF RELEASING THE CONTRACT PAYMENT AND, THEREFO RE, THESE AMOUNTS WERE DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF THE CONTRACT. T HE LD. CIT (A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE IN PARA 5.3 AS UNDER :- 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STA TEMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION CAREFULLY. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AS APPEARING IN T HE BOOKS OF UTTAM 10 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY PRAKASH THAT SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH HAS DEBITED THE ACC OUNT OF THE APPELLANT BY SUM OF RS. 9,74,890/- UNDER THE HEAD WCT (WCT EX P DEDUCTED BY DEPT ON BEHALF OF SUB CONTRACTOR) AND SUM OF RS. 14,72,8 79/- UNDER THE HEAD 'SUB CONTRACT EXPENSES' (TDS DEDUCTED BY DEPARTMENT TRANSFERRED TO SUB CONTRACT BASIS). THUS, IT CAN BE APPRECIATED THAT T HE ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DEBITED BY UTTAM PRAKASH (MAIN C ONTRACTOR) BY SUM OF RS. 24,47,859/- (RS. 9,74,890 + RS. 14,72,879). I A M OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE WORKS CONTRACT TAX DEDUCTED BY THE DEPARTM ENT ON BEHALF OF SUB CONTRACTOR IS AN ADMISSIBLE DEDUCTION FOR THE PURPO SE OF COMPUTING BUSINESS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, TDS IS N OT AN EXPENDITURE DEDUCTIBLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE BUSINES S INCOME. AS FAR AS TDS OF RS. 14,72,879/- IS CONCERNED WHILE DECI DING GROUND NO. 1 AND 2, I HAVE ALREADY ADDED THIS AMOUNT TO THE PROFIT DECL ARED BY THE APPELLANT, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, HERE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,72,879/- MAD E BY THE AO IS DELETED. AS I HAVE ALREADY HELD ABOVE THAT WCT IS A N EXPENDITURE ADMISSIBLE AS DEDUCTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTIN G THE BUSINESS INCOME, THEREFORE, WCT OF RS. 9,74,980/- DISALLOWED BY THE AO IS ALSO DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 24 ,47,859/- IS DELETED. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DEL ETED THE ADDITION BY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14,72,879/- HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED TO THE PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF TDS AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 9,74,980/- WAS CONSIDERED AS EXPENDITURE ADMISSIBLE AS DEDUCTION FOR THE PURP OSE OF COMPUTING THE BUSINESS INCOME. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE, WHEN THIS DEDUCTION WAS MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT FROM THE CONTR ACT RECEIPTS, THE SAME ARE ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIONS AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). GROUND NO. 3 IS REGARDING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,26,3 28/- WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT (A). 7. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSE E HAS GIVEN SUB CONTRACT WORTH RS. 84,81,885/- TO NINE SUB-CONTRACTORS. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE PROFIT @ 3% ON SUCH SUB CONTRACT WORK GIVEN TO THE OTHERS. THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE AS 11 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY TO WHY THE RATE OF PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AS 4. 5% INSTEAD OF 3% ON THIS SUB CONTRACT WORK OF RS. 84,21,885/- AS IN CASE OF SHRI UTTAM PRAKASH THE WORK HAS BEEN TAKEN @ 4.5%. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION BY CONSIDERING THE PROFIT RATE AT 4.5% WHICH HAS RESULTED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 1,26,328/-. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHARED THE PROFIT WITH THE SUB CONTRACTORS AND, THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ONLY 3% PROFIT FROM THE SUB CONTRACTORS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D/R AS WELL AS THE LD. A/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, THE AO IS NOT J USTIFIED IN COMPARING THE PROFIT RATE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SUB CONTRACT WORK U NDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SUB CONT RACT WORK GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, APPLYING THE SAME RATE OF 4.5% OF P ROFIT TO THE SUB CONTRACTOR THAN THE BALANCE PROFIT IN THE SAID CONTRACT WOULD NOT B E MORE THAN 3%. HENCE THE AO HAS NOT APPLIED THE CORRECT PARAMETER FOR ESTIMATIN G THE PROFIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN PARA 6.3 AS UNDER :- 6.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ST ATEMENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THE PROFIT BY ADOPTING THE FIXED P ROFIT RATE @ 4.5% AS AGAINST THE RATE OF FIXED PROFIT OF 3% DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE SUB CONTRACT OF RS. 84,81,885/- GIVEN BY THE AP PELLANT. THE ESTIMATION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY BASI S. NO EVIDENCE OF WHAT-SO-EVER OF NATURE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD B Y THE AO TO JUSTIFY THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT @ 4.5% AS AGAINST THE DECLARED PROFIT RATE OF 3%. ADDITION MADE WITHOUT ANY BASIS CAN NO T BE SUSTAINED. 12 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 1,26,328/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) QUA THIS ISSUE. ITA NO. 780/JP/2016 : 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL :- UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE THE LD. C IT (A) HAS ERRED ON CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS :- (1) RS. 21,97,740.00 FOR CREDITORS AS PER ACCOUNTS NOT VERIFIABLE. (2) RS. 26,839.00 BEING PAYMENT MADE TO KAPILANSH DHATU UDHYOG U/SEC. 40(A)(IA). (3) ANY OTHER MATTER WITH THE PRIOR PERMISSION OF CHAIR . GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,97 ,740/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE CREDITORS . 10. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED THE WORK DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THROUGH SUB CONTRACTORS AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE. THEREFORE, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY BALANCE PAYMENT OUTSTANDING TO SU CH PERSONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF R S. 21,97,740/- APPEARING IN THE NAMES OF 4 CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE A CTION OF THE AO BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND FILED THE CONFIRMATION CUM COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF SUCH CREDIT BALANCES. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY CO NSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE 13 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE B EEN VERIFIED AS THE NOTICES ISSUED TO THESE PERSONS UNDER SECTION 131 WERE NOT RESPOND ED BY THESE PARTIES EXCEPT ONLY ONE SHRI SANJEEV BANSAL PERSONALLY APPEARED AND FIL ED THE DETAILS, WHOSE STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED BY THE AO. FURTHER, THESE AMOUNT S WERE NOT APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE ALLEGED PAYMENT W AS ALSO NOT FOUND FROM THE RECORD. 11. BEFORE US, THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE COMPLETE CONFIRMATION CUM COPY OF CREDIT BALANCE WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO FOR VERIFICATION. THESE ARE PETTY SUB CONTRACTORS COVERED BY THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 44AF/44AD OF THE IT ACT. HENCE THEY DO NOT MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND OTHER RECORDS AND, THEREFORE, WERE UNABLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EX PENSES. HOWEVER, THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE RECEIPTS AND BALANCE AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2010. THE LD. A/R HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT ONCE THE LD. CIT (A) HAS REJECTED TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM THE ASSESSEE S OWN EXECUTION OF CONTRACT, THEN NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. 11.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLA IM OF OUTSTANDING AMOUNT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID ALL THE DUES TO THE SUB CONTRACTORS. SHE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TH E OUTSTANDING OF RS. 21,97,740/- IN RESPECT OF 4 CREDITORS AS UNDER :- 14 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY (A) PRABHU LAL JAT RS. 4,95,240.00 (B) PRABHU SINGH CHOUDHARY RS. 6,77,425.00 (C) SANJEEV KUMAR BANSAL RS. 1,46,125.00 (D) SHARAD GUPTA RS. 8,78,950.00 RS.21,97,740.00 WHEN THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE OUTST ANDING OF THESE AMOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE CONFIRMATION OF THESE PARTIES. H OWEVER, THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 131 WERE NOT RESPONDED BY THESE PARTIES EXC EPT ONLY ONE PERSON. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 7.3 AS UN DER :- 7.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STATE MENT OF FACTS, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION CAREFULLY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A O HAS MAINLY MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT CONFIRMATION FURNISHED BY THESE CREDITORS ARE NOT RELIABLE. ALL CREDITORS EXCEPT SHRI SANJEEV KUM AR BANSAL ARE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT. ACCORDING TO AO, THOUGH SOME OF THE SUB CONTRACTORS HAVE SUBMITTED COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, COMPUTATION AND BANK ACCOUNTS, BUT ACCORDING TO AO, THESE DOCUMENTS DOES NOT PROVE THE FACT THAT CREDIT BALAN CE OF THE SUB CONTRACTORS WAS OUTSTANDING. THE SUB CONTRACTORS HAVE NOT CONFIRMED THEIR BALANCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS. IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE FILED `SATYA PAN PATRA' BEFORE THE AO CONFIRMING THE BALANCE RECEIVABLE- FROM THE ASSESSE E AS ON 31.03.2010. COPY OF ACCOUNT OF THESE CREDITORS IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSE SSEE DULY VERIFIED BY THESE CREDITORS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AO. HENCE , ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CREDIT BALANCES APPEARING AGAINST THE NAME OF T HESE PERSONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AS GENUINE. I HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE COPIES OF DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE AO. AS FAR AS SHRI PRABH U LAL JAT IS CONCERNED, THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY THIS PERSON FROM THE ASSESSEE (RS. 4,95,240/-) IS NOT APPEARING IN HIS BALANCE SHEET DATED 31.03.2010. HE NCE, THE CREDIT BALANCE APPEARING AGAINST THE NAME OF THIS PERSON CAN NOT B E ACCEPTED AS GENUINE CREDIT BALANCE. IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRABHU SINGH CHOUDHARY , COPY OF HIS BANK PASS BOOK HAS BEEN FILED. IN HIS BANK PASSBOOK THERE IS NO RE CEIPT FROM THE APPELLANT CREDITED TILL 21.01.2013. THEREFORE, IT CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED THAT SUM RS. 6,77,425/- WAS RECEIVABLE BY THIS PERSON ON 31.03.2 010 FROM THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. STATEM ENT OF SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR BANSAL WAS RECORDED BY THE AO ON 06.02.2013. IN REP LY TO QUESTION NO. 13, IT WAS STATED BY HIM THAT HE WILL SUBMIT BY 11.02.2013 , THE DETAILS OF PAYMENT RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE FROM THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER NO SUCH DETAIL WAS FURNISHED BY HIM BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE THE CLAIM OF THE AP PELLANT THAT SUM OF RS. 1,46,125/- WAS PAYABLE TO SHRI SANJEEV KUMAR BANSAL IS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE. COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME OF SHRI SHARAD GUPTA FOR T HE A.Y. 2010-11 FILED ON 23.02.2011 IN FORM NO. ITR IV HAS BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IT IS SEEN FROM 15 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY THE RETURN OF INCOME THAT SHRI SHARAD GUPTA HAD SHO WN DEBTORS OF RS. 1,84,568/- ONLY. THUS, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT SU M OF RS. 8,78,950/- WAS PAYABLE TO SHRI SHARAD GUPTA AS ON 31.03.2010 IS NO T FOUND BE CORRECT. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONF IRMATORY LETTER FROM THESE FOUR PERSONS, YET THE CREDIT BALANCES APPEARING AGA INST THE NAMES OF THESE PERSONS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE LIABILITY. H ENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,97,740/- MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS INCLUDING COPY OF RET URN OF INCOME, BANK DETAILS WERE EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT (A). HOWEVER, NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLEA THAT ALL THESE SUB CONTRACTORS ARE FALLING UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF AND 44AD, THEREFORE, THEY WERE NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT TAKE THE EXCUSE OF NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER RECORDS BY THE CREDITORS. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR IRREGULARITY IN THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS REGARDING DISALLOWA NCE MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 13. THE AO HAS MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 26,839/- BEING THE PAYMENT MADE TO KAPILANSH DHATU UDHYOG FOR WANT OF TDS BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE OF TDS. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/ R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HA S SUBMITTED THAT ONCE THE INCOME 16 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ESTIMATED BY THE LD. CIT (A) AF TER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEN NO FURTHER DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR UNDER SE CTION 40(A)(IA). 14.1. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D/R HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 15. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT SO FAR AS THE DEFICIENCY IN BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS IS COVERED UNDER THE EXERCISE OF ESTIMATION OF INCOME, THE SAME DOES NOT WARRANT THE OTHER NON COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 145(3) COVERS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF T HE DEFICIENCY AND DEFECTS IN THE QUANTUM OF RESULTS BEING CORRECTNESS OF THE RECEIPT S AND CLAIMS MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE SAID DEFECT IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT WOULD NOT SUBSUME A CLAIM WHICH IS OTHERWISE NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT DUE TO NON COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS INCLUDING THE DEDUCTIO N OF TDS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW QUA THIS ISSUE. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/05/201 8. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 24/05/2018. DAS/ 17 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY, AJM ER. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2, AJMER. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR 18 ITA NO. 780 & 880/JP/2016 SHRI RANJEET SINGH CHOUDHARY