ACIT, Ajmer V. GANESH GOYAL, Kishangarh

ITA 946/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4836 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NILESH KARATIA DHK
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 80C; 143(3); 147

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 HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA JH DQY HKKJR ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 946 & 947/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER. CUKE VS. GANESH GOYAL, S/O- SHRI GHANSHYAM GOYAL, MAHAVEER COLONY, MADANGANJ, KISHANGARH. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AFZPG 9689 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MALIK. FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NILESH KARATIA. LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 21/12/2016 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/12/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: KUL BHARAT, J.M. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISE AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 05/10/2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-2, UDAIPU R FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 AND 2011-12. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENU E IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ARE AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN MODIFYING THE G.P. ADDITION, MADE BY THE A.O. ON TRANSACTION FACILITAT ED BY THE ASSESSEE, BY HOLDING THAT ONLY NET COMMISSIO N ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 2 INCOME OF RS. 225/- RS. 1 PER LAC COULD BE TAXED ON THE BANK DEPOSITS TAKEN BY THE A.O AS TURNOVER WITHOUT GIVING ANY SPECIFIC FINDINGS ON THE OWNER OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE DEPOSITORS AND BENEFICIARIES AND IN ABSENCE OF BASI C DETAILS, IT WAS NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS PROVIDING FACILITY OF BRINGING UNRECORDED SALES PROCEEDS OF ANY SELLERS THROUGH HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE IN THIS SITUATION, THERE WAS NO OTHER OPTION EXCEPT TO HOLD THAT THE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS ARE NOTHING BUT ASSESSEE'S OWN TRADING RECEIPTS/SALE PROCEEDS AND WITHDRAWALS WERE FOR THE CORRESPONDING PURCHASES AND EXPENSES. 3. (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN NOT APPRECIATIN G THE FACTS THAT IN THIS CASE IT WAS ESTABLISHED BY TH E A.O. THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MARBLE TRADING AND THE DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS REPRESENTS THE SALE PROCEEDS. (II) THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY APPLIED THE RATE ON GROSS PROFIT OF TRADING BUSINESS OF MARBLE CONSIDERING TH E AMOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNTS AS TRADING RECEIPTS BEING UNRECORDED SALES IN HIS HANDS. 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES OF WAGES EXPENSES OF RS. 34,876/- AND EXPENSES ON MACHINERY PARTS OF RS. 70,700/- MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO FO R EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WHICH IS ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 3 AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(2) (B) OF INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE RETURN OF INCOME AND MAKE SURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80C WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 20,937/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN LIP DESPITE HAVING BEEN GRANTED OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD BY THE AO AND IN THIS CASE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80C WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME.' SIMILAR IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN BY T HE REVENUE FOR THE APPEAL OF A.Y. 2011-12. 2. BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE BEING HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, COMMON ORDER I S BEING PASSED. 3. FIRSTLY WE TAKE REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2010-11 I.E. ITA NO. 946/JP/2015. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE T HAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED FOR ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSM ENT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HE REINAFTER REFERRED AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 27/03/2014. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER FIU-IND INFORMATION, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THER E WAS SUSPICIOUS ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 4 TRANSACTIONS IN THE FORM OF CASH DEPOSIT BELOW THE T HRESHOLD LIMIT WERE TAKING PLACE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DIFFERENT BRANCHES OF KISHANGARH. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSE E THAT HIS BANK ACCOUNTS. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS BAN K ACCOUNTS ARE BEING USED BY THE MARBLE TRADERS TO BRING CASH AGAI NST UNRECORDED SALES IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CASH DEPOSITED BY OTH ER PARTIES BASED IN DIFFERENT PARTS OF THE COUNTRY WAS WITHDRAWN AND HANDE D OVER TO THE MARBLE TRADERS AND FOR THIS ACTIVITY THEY USED TO P AY COMMISSION OF RS. 100/- PER RS. 1 LAC. 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE DEPOSITS AS TH E TURNOVER OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED GROSS PROFIT @ 20.24%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT THE INVESTMENT MA DE IN LIFE INSURANCE PREMIUM OF RS. 20,937/- WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH THE PR OOF. ACCORDINGLY, HE MADE ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT ALSO. APART FROM OT HER DISALLOWANCES OF EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCO UNT OF MACHINERY PARTS AND THE WAGES, WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED WITH EVIDE NCE. SIMILAR IDENTICAL FACTS HAS ALSO BEEN MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE A.Y. 2011-1 2. ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 5 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), W HO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THE LD. C IT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNTS DEPOSIT ED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS TREATED AS COMMISSION INCOME AND MODIFIE D THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING THAT THE NET COMMI SSION OF RS. 225/- PER RS. 1 LAC OF TRANSACTION FACILITATED COULD BE T AXED ON THE BANK DEPOSITS TAKEN BY A.O. AS TURNOVER. THE OTHER DISALL OWANCES WERE ALSO DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). SIMILAR IDENTICAL FINDINGS HAVE ALSO BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE CASE OF A.Y. 2011-12. 5. NOW THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE US. GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 3 OF BOTH THE APPEALS FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 AND 2011-12 R ELATE TO THE TREATMENT OF THE BANK DEPOSITS AS COMMISSION RECEIP TS. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF THE HEARING, IT WAS SUBM ITTED BY THE LD. DR THAT UNDER THE SIMILAR IDENTICAL FACTS, THE ISSUE R ELATED TO THE BANK DEPOSITS HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER BY THE ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 6 HONBLE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. K USUMDEVI VIJAYVARGIYA IN ITA NO. 942 TO 945/JP/2015 ORDER DA TED 20/10/2016. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE ID ENTICAL AS WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. KUSUMDEVI VIJAYVARGIYA IN IT A NO. 942 TO 945/JP/2015 ORDER DATED 20/10/2016, WHEREIN THE COOR DINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.12 IN OUR VIEW, THE MATTER REQUIRES A DEEPER AND A COORDINATED EXAMINATION BY THE AUTHORITIES AT THE HIGHER LEVEL TO BRING THE CORRECT FACTS ON RECORD WH ICH SHOULD CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISH THAT EITHER THE ASSES SEE IS THE OWNER OF THE MONEY FOUND DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNTS AS CLAIMED BY THE AO OR THE ASSESSEE IS MERELY A FACILITATOR AND EARNS COMMISSION INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET-ASIDE T HE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) TO EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTIONS: (1) THE ASSESSEE SHALL PROVIDE ALL THE REQUISITE D ETAILS IN TERMS OF NAMES AND ADDRESS AND OTHER REQUISITE PARTICULARS OF THE DEPOSITORS AS WELL AS OF THE BENEFICIARIES; ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 7 (2) THE ASSESSEE HAS TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOU RCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN TERMS OF DEPOSITS AND ESTABLISH THE NECESSARY LINKAGE BETWEEN THE DEPOSITS AND THE SUBSEQUENT WITHDRAWALS TO VARIOUS INDIVIDUAL BENEFICIARIES; (3) THE LD CIT(A) SHALL CALL FOR THE RECORDS MAINT AINED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING IN RESPECT OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND CONFRONT THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE T O PROVIDE HER A SUITABLE OPPORTUNITY; (4) THE BENEFICIARIES TO BE CONFRONTED WITH THE DETA ILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CALL FOR THEIR CONFIRMATION AND/OR PERSONAL APPEARANCES AND/OR COORDINATE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE CITS/ASSESSING OFFICERS; AND (5) NEEDLES TO SAY, BOTH THE PARTIES SHALL BE PROV IDED SUITABLE OPPORTUNITY AND THEY SHALL EQUALLY COOPERA TE AND SHALL SUBMIT NECESSARY EXPLANATION/INFORMATION/ DOCUMENTS AS AVAILABLE AND REQUIRED BY THE LD CIT(A) . WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS, WE SET-ASIDE THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR A FRESH EXAMINATION AND THE APP EAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, BY TAKING A CONSISTENT VIEW, WE ARE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 8 ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN IN ITA NO. 942 TO 945/JP/2015. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES ARE ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. SIMILAR FINDING IS ALSO GIVEN IN THE CASE OF REVEN UE FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. 7. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y . 2010-11 IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF WAGE EXPENSES AND MACHINERY PARTS. THE LD. DR HAS ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCES. ON THE CONT RARY, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT AT PARAGRAPH NOS. 8.3 AND 10 OF HIS ORDER, WHIC H IS AS UNDER:- 8.3 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE POIN T OF ISSUE. ADMITTEDLY, THE APPELLANT IS RUNNING 6 POWER LOOMS F OR MAKING COTTON CLOTH. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED BEFORE ME COPIES OF MONTHLY SHEETS FOR PAYMENT OF WAGES. THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ENGAGED 8 WORKERS / EMPLOYEES AND THE MONTHLY PAYMENTS RANGE FROM ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 9 ABOUT RS. 27,000/- TO 31,000/- AND ODD. THE PAYMENTS ARE ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE WORKERS IN REVENUE STAMPS. I DO NOT THINK THAT THE CLAIM OF WAGES IS NOT GENUINE. THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COGENT REASON FOR DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OF THE CLAIM NOR THERE ARE ANY REASONS TO SAY THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED EXCESSIVE OR EXAGGERATED. THE AO DID NOT EVEN DISCUSS THE TRADING RESULTS DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I AM OF THE VIE W THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DELETED FOR BOTH YEARS. GROUND NO. 5 IS ALLOWED. 10. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS THE FINDING OF THE AO AND ARS SUBMISSIONS. AS MENTIONE D ABOVE, THE APPELLANT IS RUNNING POWER LOOMS AND HAS DECLARED INCOME THERE FROM. IF INCOME IS GENERATED FROM SUCH POWER LOOMS, THEN THE MACHINERY ALSO REQUIRES REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE. IF MACHINERY IS N OT SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET, AT THE MOST THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CLAIM DEPRECIATION. THE APPELLANT MUST HAVE INCURRED OTHER EXPENSES ALSO, LIKE WATER & ELECTRICITY EXP., INTEREST ETC. AND THAT STANDS ALL OWED. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED BEFORE ME THE LEDGER A/C OF THE EXPENSES FOR BOTH YEARS. MOST OF THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE BY CHEQUE. NAME OF THE SUPPLIERS OF THE MATERI AL IS ALSO MENTIONED THEREIN. IN MY VIEW THERE IS NO REASON TO DOUBT THE GENUINENESS, NECESSITY OR ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 10 REASONABLENESS OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT. HAVING REGARD TO THE ENTIRE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES, I HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE DISALLOWANCES SO MADE BY THE AO FOR BOTH THE YEARS ARE ACCORDINGLY DELETED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THEREFORE, WE DO NO T SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE INTO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SIMILAR FINDING IS ALSO GIVEN IN THE CASE OF REVEN UE FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. 9. GROUND NO. 5 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE A.Y . 2010-11 IS AGAINST DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN LIP. THE LD DR HAS VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RELI ED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 11 THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HA S GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT AT PARAGRAPH NOS. 7.3 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 7.3 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISS UE INVOLVED. AS STATED ABOVE NO PROOF THE LIP PAYMENT WAS FILED BEFORE AO. THOUGH IT IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE ME, NO PROOF IS ACTUALLY FILED ALONG WI TH THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE A/R. THEREFORE I AM UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. COPY OF RETURN O F INCOME IS NOT BEFORE ME. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECT ED TO VERIFY THE RETURN OF INCOME AND MAKE SURE THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S. 80C (CHAPTER V I- A) WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. IF THE RETURNED INCOME AS TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS GROSS TO TAL INCOME (BEFORE DEDUCTION ON A/C OF LIP) THEN THE ADDITION MADE IS NOT CORRECT. IN OTHER WORDS ADDITIO N CAN BE MADE ONLY IF THE RETURNED INCOME TAKEN BY AO IS AFTER THE DEDUCTION U/S. 80C. FROM THE ABOVE FINDING, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ONLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY FROM THE R ETURN OF THE INCOME WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80C O F THE ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME. IT IS STATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IF THE RETURNED INCOME HAS TAKEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I S GROSS TOTAL INCOME (BEFORE DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LIP) THEN THE ADDIT ION MADE IS NOT ITA 946 & 947/JP/2015_ ACIT VS GANESH GOYAL 12 CORRECT. WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY INTO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE SAME IS HEREBY AFFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. SIMILAR FINDING IS ALSO GIVEN IN THE CASE OF REVEN UE FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVE NUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- HKKXPAN DQY HKKJR (BHAGCHAND) (KUL BHARAT) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, AJMER. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI GANESH GOYAL, MADANGAJ, KISHANGARH. 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. 946 & 947/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR