VISHNU SARDA, Jaipur V. ACIT, Jaipur

ITA 896/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2008 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Keywords: Depreciation; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 896/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 VISHNU SARDA, 826, JAT KE KUVE KA RASTA, CHANDPOLE BAZAR, JAIPUR, (RAJASTHAN) CUKE VS. A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AHXPS 9085 M VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.L. JAIN (ADV) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09/10/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10/10/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FR OM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-5, JAIPUR DATED 25/07/2016 FOR THE A. Y. 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INCOME FROM TRADING OF S UGAR AND SUGAR PRODUCTS. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 28/09/2010 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 17,53,300/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS . 22,50,098/-. ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 2 3. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE PART ADDITION. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT BY TAKING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES RS. 408223 : THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) 5 TH HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONFIRMING DI SALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS. 40,8223/- WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE TRUE FACTS OF THE CASE AND FURTHER WITHOUT PROVIDING OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 2. DISALLOWANCE OF PACKING EXPENSES RS. 42625/- THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) 5 TH HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONFIRMING DI SALLOWANCE OF RS. 42,625/- OUT OF PACKING EXPENSES. 3. DISALLOWANCE OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 4704, TRA VELLING EXPENSES RS. 30278 AND VEHICLE AND RUNNING EXPENSES RS. 5670: THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) 5 TH HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY CONFIRMING DI SALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS. 45,950/-. 4. NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE: THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) 5 TH HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN NOT ISSUING P ROPER AND VALID SHOW CAUSE NOTICE BEFORE MAKING ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE. 5. NO CROSS EXAMINATION THE WITNESSES: THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) 5 TH HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN DENIAL OF OPP ORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES WHOSE STATE MENTS WERE MADE THE SOLE BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS A SERI OUS FLAW RENDERING THE ORDER A NULLITY INASMUCH AS IT AMOUNTED TO VIOL ATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ANDAMAN TIMBER INDUSTRIES VS COMMISSIONER OF CENTR AL EXCISE(SC) 281 CTR (2015) 241. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, LD. CIT(A) 5 TH HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CHARGING INTE REST U/S 234A, U/S 234B AND 234C RS. 1,18,701/- ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 3 3. IN THE GROUND NO. 1, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SUSTA INING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,08,223/- MADE OUT OF BROKERAGE EXPENSES. DURI NG THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED BROKERAGE (DALALI) EXPENSES OF RS. 10,46,725/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TO PRODUCE FOUR PERSONS NAM ELY SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL, SH. SHYAM AGENCIES, SH. DINESH KUMAR KHATOR AND SH. SATISH MACHIWAL. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ONLY TWO PERSONS NAMEL Y SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL, AND SH. SATISH MACHIWAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION, WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE A SSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE A/R, THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING AND MANUFACTURING OF SUGAR PRODUCTS, FOR WH ICH HE PURCHASES DAMAGED SUGAR WHICH HE CONVERTS INTO SUGAR PRODUCTS AND SELLS THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID BROKERAGE ON PURC HASES AS WELL AS SALE OF SUGAR AND SUGAR PRODUCTS. THE AO ASKED THE ASSES SEE TO PRODUCE FOUR SPECIFIC BROKERS TO WHOM SUBSTANTIAL BROKERAGE H AD BEEN PAID. THE ASSESSEE COULD PR O DUCE ONLY TWO OF THEM VIZ SH. SATISH MACHIWAL AND S H. MANOJ AGARWAL. OUT OF THESE TWO BROKERS, ONLY SH. S ATISH MACHIWAL WAS PAID BROKERAGE ON PURCHASES AS WELL AS SALES. THE S TATEMENT OF THE TWO BROKERS WAS RECORDED. IN HIS STATEMENT, SH. SATISH MACHIWAL STATED IN RESPONSE TO Q. NO. 5 THAT THERE ARE 5-6 PARTIES (IN CLUDING THE ASSESSEE) WHICH PURCHASE GOODS THROUGH HIM, NAMELY SHIVSHANKE R PRAMOD KUMAR, KALIKA GENERAL STORE, SUNDARLAL BHEROLAL & KISHANDA S HANUMAN SAHAI. IN RESPONSE TO Q. NO. 6 WHEN ASKED ABOUT THE RATE OF B ROKERAGE EARNED, HE STATED THAT HE EARNS RS. 3 TO 10 PER BAG, DEPENDING ON THE QUALITY OF GOODS. IN RESPONSE TO Q. NO. 7 HE STATED THAT NO AC COUNTS OF BROKERAGE ARE MAINTAINED BY HIM AND THE PAYMENT FOR BROKERAGE IS RECEIVED AT THE ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 4 YEAR END ON THE BASIS OF MEMORY. IN RESPONSE TO Q. NO. 8 HE STATED THAT HE WAS WORKING AS BROKER FOR 2 YEARS ONLY AND WAS M AINLY WORKING AS AN ACCOUNTANT. FROM THE STATEMENT OF SH. MACHIWAL, THE AO INFERRED THAT HE IS ONLY PROCURING GOODS FOR THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH H E IS CHARGING COMMISSION OF RS. 3-10 PER BAG, SINCE HE HAS NO WHE RE STATED THAT COMMISSION IS EARNED ON SALES FROM THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO NOT STATED THE RATE OF SUCH COMMISSION WHICH IS 1%. THE AO THEREFO RE DISALLOWED BROKERAGE CLAIMED TO BE PAID ON SALES TO ALL PARTIE S IN RESPECT OF WHICH SUCH CLAIM HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSES SEE HAS MAINTAINED THAT PAYMENT OF BROKERAGE IS MADE ON PURCHASE AS WE LL AS SALES AND PAYMENT FOR THE SAME HAD BEEN MADE BY CHEQUES AFTER D EDUCTING TDS THEREON. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE STATEMENT OF SH. SATISH MACHIWAL, I FIND THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL ANOMALIES T HEREIN AS FAR AS THE CLAIM OF BROKERAGE ON SALES IS CONCERNED. FIRSTLY, THE SAID BROKER IS ACTUALLY AN ACCOUNTANT AND CLAIMS TO HAVE WORKED FO R ONLY 2 YEARS AS A BROKER, WHICH CASTS A DOUBT ON HIS CAPACITY TO REND ER SUCH SERVICES. SECONDLY, HE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY ACCOUNTS OF BRO KERAGE DUE AND BROKERAGE RECEIVED. NO BILL HAS BEEN RAISED BY HIM. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE REGARDING ACTUAL SERVICES BEING RENDERED BY HIM. MO REOVER, HE HAS NAMED CERTAIN PARTIES FOR WHOM HE PROCURES GOODS. O UT OF THESE PARTIES, ONLY 2 PARTIES VIZ. SHIVSHANKER PRAMOD KUMAR AND KA LIKA GENERAL STORE FIGURE IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE ON SALES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. SURPRISINGLY, THE MAIN PARTY VIZ. MAHALAX MI & CO. TO WHICH SALES ARE SHOWN TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIM HA S NOT BEEN NAMED BY SH. MACHIWAL. FURTHER, THE RATE OF COMMISSION OF RS. 3 TO 10 PER BAG STATED BY SH. MACHIWAL, IS THE BROKERAGE RATE APPLI CABLE TO PURCHASES. ON SALES THE BROKERAGE RATE IS A FLAT 1% WHICH HAS NOT BEEN STATED BY HIM IN HIS STATEMENT. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS, IT DOES NOT AP PEAR THAT SH. MACHIWAL HAS EFFECTED ANY SALES FOR THE ASSESSEE. A LSO CONSIDERING THE NON-PRODUCTION OF TWO OTHER BROKERS BEFORE THE AO, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 5 ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROVE THE EXPENSES ON S ALES BROKERAGE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE CLAIMED ON SALES IS JUSTIFIED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,08,223/- IS UPHELD. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE TWO PERSONS NAMELY SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGARWAL, A ND SH. SATISH MACHIWAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAD ACCEPT ED THE RECEIPT OF DALALI FOR THE WORK DONE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITYS CONTENTION THAT THESE PERSONS WERE NOT K EEPING DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT RECEIVED, CANNOT BE ADVERSELY TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THESE DALALS TO WHOM THE DALALI WAS PAID. HE HAS FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT NAMELY SH. SATISH MACHIWAL HAS SPECIFICALLY STATED T HAT HE HAS WORKED FOR THE ASSESSEE AS BROKER DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIA L YEAR. FURTHER SHRI MANOJ AGARWAL, WHOSE STATEMENT WAS ALSO RECORDED, HAS ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN PAID BROKERAGE ON THE SALES AFFECTED TO VARIOUS PERSONS, WHOSE NAMES WERE MENTIONED. HE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS OF THE BROKERAGE WERE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE NECESSARY TDS WAS ALSO DEDUCTED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD SR.DR HAS VEHEMENTLY S UPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 6 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE AS SESSEE HAS MADE THE PAYMENTS TO THE DALALS THROUGH CHEQUES. THE TDS WA S ALSO DEDUCTED. THE INCOME TAX DETAILS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE DAL ALIS WERE PAID WAS WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CERTAI N PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AFFIDAVITS OF THESE PERSO NS WERE ALSO FILED WHEREIN THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAD DONE THE WOR K FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THESE PERSONS DULY REFLECTING THE PAYMENTS AND THE TDS THEREON WERE ALSO FILED. CONSIDE RING ALL THESE ASPECTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION, ACCORDINGLY, I DELETE THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE GROUND NO. 2 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS CONFIR MING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 42,625/- OUT OF PACKING EXPENSES . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 3.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSES SMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE AR THE BARDANA PURCHASES HAVE BEE N MADE IN CASH AND THE BILLS THEREOF SUFFER FROM THE DRAWBACKS CIT ED BY THE AO, WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONTROVERT. MOREOVER, THE PA TTERN OF BARDANA PURCHASES DOES NOT CORRESPOND TO THE MONTH WISE SAL ES, WHICH IS ALSO STRANGE. THE MONTH WISE PURCHASES OF BARDANA ARE AS FOLLOWS: MONTH BARDANA PURCHASES (RS.) APRIL, 2009 26,614/ - OCTOBER, 2009 15,950/ - NOVEMBER, 2 009 61,607/ - JANUARY, 2009 26,480/ - ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 7 FEBRUARY, 2010 56,475/ - MARCH, 2010 26,000/ - TOTAL 2,13,126/ - HOWEVER, THE SALES ARE MORE OR LESS UNIFORMLY SPREA D MONTH WISE. IT IS THUS STRANGE THAT NO BARDANA PURCHASE WAS REQUIRED BETWEEN THE MONTHS OF APRIL, 2009 AND OCTOBER, 2009 AND THAT AR OUND 90% OF BARDANA PURCHASE IS IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE FINAN CIAL YEAR, DESPITE THE FACT THAT SALES FIGURE IN THE CORRESPONDING PERIOD IS APPROX. 50% OF ANNUAL SALES. THUS BARDANA PURCHASES APPEAR TO BE I NFLATED IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR. MOREOVER, BEING MADE IN CA SH, THESE EXPENSES ARE AMENABLE TO INFLATION PARTICULARLY WHEN THE BIL LS/LETTERHEADS ARE SIMILAR INDICATING THAT THE CONCERNED PARTIES MIGHT HAVE ACTED IN CONCERT WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT DISCHA RGED THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE SAID EXPENSES. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FA CTS, DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE PACKING EXPENSES, MADE BY THE AO IS JUST IFIED AND IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 8. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD . CIT(A)S FINDING THAT THE BARDANA PURCHASES FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2009 WAS RS. 26,614/- AND THEREAFTER THE PURCHASES WERE ONLY IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER WHILE THE SALES AFFECTED DURING THIS PERIOD WERE AROUND 5 0% OF THE ANNUAL SALES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED THAT THE PURCHASE S APPEARS TO BE INFLATED IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE YEAR. BEFORE THE BENCH ALSO THE LD AR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT PURCHA SES OF BARDANA IN THE SECOND HALF OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR WERE INFLATED AND THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 8 WHICH HAS BEEN RIGHTLY SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). TH EREFORE, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING RECORDE D BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY SUSTAINED. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE APPEA L STANDS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE GROUND NO. 3 THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS SUSTAI NING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4706/- OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES , RS. 30278/- OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND RS. 5670/- OUT OF VEHICLE A ND RUNNING EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY HOLDING AS UN DER: 4.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED CERTAIN EXPENSES I.E. TELEPHON E, TRAVELLING, VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION O N CAR. BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT MAINTAINING SEPARATE RECORD O F THE SAME. CONSIDERING THIS AND THE POSSIBLE ELEMENT OF PERSON AL USE, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED 10% OF THESE EXPENSES AS UNDER:- 1. TELEPHONE EXPENSES RS. 4706/- 2. TRAVELLING EXPENSES RS. 30278/- 3. VEHICLE AND RUNNING EXPENSES RS. 5670/- 4. DEPRECIATION ON CAR RS. 5296/- TOTAL RS. 45950/- 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS DISALLOWED 10% OF THE CLAIMED EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION DUE TO THE ELEMENT OF PER SONAL USE BEING UNDENIABLE MORE SO IN THE ABSENCE OF SEPARATE RECOR D OF THESE EXPENSES. CONSIDERING THE NON MAINTENANCE OF SEPARA TE RECORD AND ALSO THE UNDENIABLE POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL ELEMENT, THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 4706/-, RS. 30278/- AND RS. 5670/- @ 10% MADE BY TH E AO IS NOT EXCESSIVE AND IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 9 FURTHER COMING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION , IT IS HELD THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE OUT OF VEHICLE DEPRECIATIO N ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE SINCE DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLE IS A STA TUTORY ALLOWANCE AS HELD IN THE CASE OF KAILASH CHAND GUPTA VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 153/JP/2005 BY ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 5296/- IS DELETED. 10. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED 10% OF THE EXPENSES I.E. TELEPHONE EXPENS ES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES AND VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES DEBITED IN TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE. DURING THE HEARING, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A ). THERE WAS PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE, TRAVELLING AND VEHICLE RUNNING, T HEREFORE, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHOLD. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPE AL IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10/10/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 10 TH OCTOBER, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI VISHNU SARDA, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE ACIT, CIRCLE-4, JAIPUR. ITA 896/JP/2016_ VISHNU SARDA VS ACIT 10 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 896/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR