JCIT, Jaipur V. M/S MEFCO ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD., Jaipur

ITA 985/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 98523114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: NAVEEN GARG
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 80IB; 147; 148

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR (BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI T.R. ME ENA) ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 PAN : AAACB 7543 A THE JCIT (OSD) VS. M/S. MEFCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD . CIRCLE- 4 E-244, ROAD NO. 13 JAIPUR VKI AREA, JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1045/JP/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 PAN : AAACB 7543 A M/S. MEFCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD. VS. THE ACIT E-244, ROAD NO. 13 CIRCLE- 4 VKI AREA, JAIPUR JAIPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI RAJESH OJHA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NAVEEN GARG DATE OF HEARING: 09-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17-10-2014 ORDER PER T.R. MEENA, AM THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT (A)- II, JAIPUR DATED 29-08-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2003-04. 2.1 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THE GROUND NO. 1 TO 5 OF THE APPEAL. THUS T HE SAME ARE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED. ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 2 3.0 NOW WE TAKE UP THE GROUNDS OF THE CROSS APPEALS WHICH ARE CONNECTED WITH EACH OTHER. 4.1 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN:- (I) ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IB OF THE ACT IN CASE OF COLD STORAGE FOR STORING COMMODITIES RECEIVED FROM TRADERS OTHER THAN THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE BY TREATING IT TO BE COLD CHAIN FACILITY. (II) ALLOWING DEPRECIATION @ 25% ON BUILDING OF COL D STORE BUILDING TREATING THE SAME AS PLANT AND MACHI NERY. (III) UPHOLDING THAT SUBSIDY RECEIVED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000 IS LIABLE TO BE REDUCED FROM BLOCK VALUE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 4.2 THE ASSESSEE'S GROUND NOS. 6,7 AND 8 ARE AS UND ER:- (6) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED HIGHER DEPREC IATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY THAN ELIGIBLE RATE OF 25% (7) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,47,575/- ON PLANT AND MACHINERY MADE BY THE AO. (8) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) OF THE ACT IS N OT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR STORING APPLES WHICH IS A HORTI CULTURAL PRODUCT. 4.3 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE DERIVES INCOME FROM OPERATING COLD STORAGE AND RECEIVED PRESERVATION CH ARGES FOR THE PARTIES WHO KEEPS GOODS IN THE COLD STORAGE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 3 ANNAPURNA COLD STORATE. THE ASSESSEE'S RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. WHILE RECORDING REASONS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE G ROUND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IT IS NOTICED THAT SUBSIDY OF RS. 50 LACS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM NABARD THROUGH BANK OF BARODA DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 1999-2000. THE ASSESSEE WHILE CALCULATING DEPRECIATION ON BUIL DING AND PLANT AND MACHINERY DID NOT DEDUCT THE AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY FROM THE COST OF ASSETS TO ARRIVE AT ACTUAL COST AS DEFINED U/S 43(1) OF T HE ACT. AS THE SUBSIDY WAS NOT DIRECTLY RELATABLE FOR A PARTICULAR ASSET, ACTU AL COST OF ASSET HAS TO BE WORKED OUT ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS AS PER EXPLANATIO N 10 TO PROVISO OF SECTION 43(1) OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @ 25% ON COLD STORAGE BUILDING TREATMENT THE SAME A S PLANT. HOWEVER, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER 2005-06, IT HAS BEEN ESTABLISH ED THAT COLD STORAGE BUILDING CANNOT BE TREATED AS PLANT AND DEPRECIATIO N @ 100% ONLY IS ALLOWABLE ON THE SAME. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEPRECIATION ON BUILDING AND PLANT & MACHINERY. TH E AO HAS WORKED OUT THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE AND DEPRECATION AT PAGE 3 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXCESS DEPR ECIATION OF RS. 24,38,473/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. AS PER THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) OF THE ACT. THE AO GAVE ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 4 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS AVAILED BY THE ASS ESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 2-7-2010 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED IN ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE BY THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25-02-2009 IN ITA NO. 1434/JP/2008 AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.4 BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO PARTIALLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 4.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BL E RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND ITAT, I DIRECT THE AO NOT TO REDUCE THE SUBSIDY OF RS. 50 LACS FROM THE BLOCK OF ASSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEPRECIATION. HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT AWAY BY FURNISHING WRONG STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND ITAT THAT IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08, IT HAD REDUCED THE SUBSIDY OF RS. 50 LACS FROM RS. 50 LACS FROM BLOCK OF ASSETS WHEREAS IN REALITY IT HAD NOT REDUCED THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE AO TO E XAMINE THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 A ND TAKE REMEDIAL ACTION AS PER LAW. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE SEVENTH & EIGHTH GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 22 ,90,898/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON COLD STORAGE BUILDING AND DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,47,575/- ON ACCO UNT OF EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON PLANT AND MACHINERY . THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE J AIPUR TRIBUNAL (ITA NO. 1424/JP/2008) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005- ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 5 06 DATED 25-02-2009 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEA LT IN PARA 9 ON PAGE 8. THE OBSERVATION OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL A RE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE FULLY CONCUR WITH THE VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE WAL L AND ROOF OF THE COLD STORAGE BUILDING ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED OR MAINTAINED IN A PARTICULAR MANNER, WHICH IS EXCLUSI VELY NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COLD STORAGE AS THESE ARE INSULATED. IN ABSENCE OF THE BUILDING, THE SAME CAN NOT BE USED FOR THE STORAGE OF GOODS AT A PARTICULAR TEMPERATUR E. THUS THE COLD STORAGE BUILDING HAS NO SEPARATE EXISTENCE THA N THE APPARATUS BEING THE CHAMBERS WHERE THE GOODS ARE ST ORED. THE HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI GOPI KISHAN IND. (P) LTD. (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THE COLD STORAGE CHAMBERS AS PLANTS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT( A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOW THE CLAIMED DEPREC IATION @ 25% ON COLD STORAGE BUILDING. THE SAME IS UPHELD. T HE GROUND NO. IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 5.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ITAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, I DIRECT THE AO T O ALLOW DEPRECIATION TO THE APPELLANT ON COLD STORAGE BUILD ING @ 25%. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED HIGHER DEPRECIATI ON ON PLAN AND MACHINERY THAN THE ELIGIBLE RATE OF 25% AS PER IT RULES. THE AO HAD THEREFORE, DISALLOWED THE EXCESS DEPREC IATION OF RS. 1,47,575/- ON PLANT AND MACHINERY. DURING THE P RESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF RS. 1,47,575 /- MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. 6. IN THE NINTH GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE DENIAL OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 6,18,733. - U/S 80IB(11) OF THE I.T. ACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEL LANT HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF ORDER OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT (DB INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 04321/2010) FOR A.Y. 2001 -02 DATED 27-07-2011 WHEREIN THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT ON PAGE 1. THE OBSERVATION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT ARE REPRODUCE D AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 6 THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT RELEVANT CONDITION S FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) OF THE I.T. ACT WER E NOT FULFILLED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ITEMS STORED CANNOT BE TERMED AS AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THEREFORE, , ASSESSEE CO MPANY WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) OF I.T. ACT . THE NUMBERS OF WORKERS EMPLOYED WERE LES THAN TEN. CERT AIN ARTICLES WERE NOT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE TRIBUNA L HAS RELIED UPON THE REASONINGS GIVEN IN THE ORDER DATED 25-02- 2009 PASSED IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. IT HAS BEEN OPINED THAT IN ORDER TO AVAIL DEDUCTION U9U 80IB(11 ) O THE I.T. ACT, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE MAN UFACTURES OR PRODUCE ANY ARTICLE OR THING. THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 80IB(2)(IV) WHICH PRESCRIBES THE REQUIREMENT OF EMP LOYMENT OF 10 OR MORE WORKER IS NOT APPLICABLE IN A CASE WH ERE DEDUCTION IS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 80IB(11). FOLLOWING REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN THE ORDER PASSED BY ITAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WHILE CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBM ISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ISSU E IN DETAILS AND HAS COME TO THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION VIDE PARA 1.3 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, CONTENTS WHEREOF ARE BEING R EPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE READY REFERENCE. 1.3 .. 6.1 RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND ITAT, I HOLD THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11). HOWEVER, IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED BY HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT THAT THE ARTICLES WHICH WERE NOT AGRICULTURAL PRODU CE HAVE TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, I DIRECTED THE APP ELLANT TO FURNISH THE DATE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH WERE STORED IN ITS COLD STORAGE FACILITY. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, I FIND THAT RECEIPTS OF RS. 19,01,110/- WERE RECEIVED ON STORIN G APPLES WHICH IS A HORTICULTURAL PRODUCE AND SAME IS NOT EN TITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11). I THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION OF RS. 64,345/- U/S 80IB(11) AS PER FOLLO WING WORKING. ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 7 TOTAL PRESERVATION CHARGES RS. 46,93,378/- (RS. 65, 94,488/- LESS RS. 10,01,110/-) LESS ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES RS. 2,67,306/- COLD RUNNING CHARGES RS. 15,26,411/- FINANCIAL CHARGES RS. 1,84,058/- DEPRECIATION RS. 25,01,119/- NET PROFIT RS. 2,14,482/- DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) 30% OF ABOVE RS. 64,345/- THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.5 BOTH THE PARTIES ARE BEFORE US. 4.6 THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E AO WHERE THE LD. AR FOR THE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THIS BENCH WHICH WERE ARGUED IN LENGTH. THE LD. AR WAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THE SUFFICIENT REASONS THAT AS TO WH Y THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE A SSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT REASONS TO FILE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES. THEREFORE, THIS BENCH HAS DECLINED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC ES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE ALSO OPPOSED BY THE LD. DR. 4.7 THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT ITAT JAIPUR BENCH VIDE I TS ORDER DATED 20- 11-2009 IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 IN ITA NOS. 617 & 618/JP/2009 HAD ALLOWED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) OF THE ACT IN CASE OF ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 8 THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT AGRA BE NCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. AMBICA SHEET GRAH (P) LTD. (2008) 12 MTC 44 3 (TRIBUNAL). THUS, THIS ISSUE IS COVERED. 4.8 FOR EXCESS DEPRECIATION, THE ITAT IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ALSO HELD THAT THE COLD STORAGE BU ILDING HAS NO EXISTENCE THAN THE APPARATUS BEING THE CHAMBERS WHERE THE GOO DS ARE STORED AND ALLOWED DEPRECIATION @ 25% ON COLD STORAGE BUILDING INCLUDING PLANT AND MACHINERY. THUS THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.9 THE OTHER ISSUE OF SUBSIDY RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE AT RS. 21.00 LACS HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY ITAT IN GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL WHERE THE SAID AMOUNT OF SUBSIDY WAS TO BE U TILIZED ON COMPLETE REPAYMENT OF REMAINING TERM LOAN OUTSTANDING SUBSID Y AMOUNT AND BANK OF BARODA ITSELF IN THEIR LETTER DATED 30-01-2008 H AD CLARIFIED THAT RS. 50.00 LACS WAS TREATED AS THE REPAYMENT ON TERM LOA N ON 10-05-2006 WHICH REPRESENTS THE SUBSIDY AMOUNT AS RECEIVED EAR LIER FROM NABARD FOR THE EXECUTION OF PROJECT OF COLD STORAGE BUT ON COMPLETION OF LOCK IN PERIOD. THE ITAT FOUND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DECIDED THE CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 9 4.10 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS ALL THE THREE ISSUES ARE CO VERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT JAIPUR BENCH IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2 002-03, THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COOR DINATE BENCH ON IDENTICAL ISSUE, WE ALSO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THESE GROUNDS. 5.1 THE GROUND NOS. 9 AND 10 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AG AINST ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) BY THE LD. CIT(A) @ 30% INST EAD OF 100%. 5.2 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO DI D NOT ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) OF THE ACT. BUT IN APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) ALLOWED 30% DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CHALLE NGED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.3 THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT ON COLD STORAGE CHAIN FACILITY THE DEDUCTION U/S 80IB(11) OF THE ACT IS ALLOWABLE @ 100% INSTEAD OF 30%. THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 5.4 AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. DR OPPOSED THAT IN PAST ALSO THE DEDUCTION @ 30% HAD BEEN ALLOWED BY THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. C IT(A) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, 30% DED UCTION SHOULD BE ALLOWED. ITA NO. 985/JP/2011 JCIT ( OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 10 5.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT FULL FACTS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. THUS THE SAME IS SEN T BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE-NOVO BY PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. THUS GROUND NO. 9 AND 10 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT 17-10-2014 SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED: 17 TH OCT, 2014 *MISHRA COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE JCIT (OSD), CIRCLE- 4, JAIPUR / THE ACIT C IRCLE- 4, JAIPUR 2. M/S. MEFCO ENTERPRISES (P) LTD., JAIPUR 3. THE LD. CIT 4. THE LD. CIT(A), JAIPUR 5..THE LD. DR 6.THE GUARD FILE (IT NO. 985/JP/2011) BY ORDER A.R. , ITAT JAIPUR