Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-1, Jaipur, Central circle-1, Jaipur V. M/s. Glorious Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. F-1, Govind Marg, Rajapark, Jaipur, Jaipur

MA 3/JPR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Department of Income Tax filing a Miscellaneous Application against the order of the ITAT, Jaipur Bench, which had dismissed the revenue's appeal concerning the assessee, M/s. Glorious Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. The Department contended that the ITAT had overlooked incriminating documents and the findings of the DDIT (Investigation), which supported the addition of Rs. 2,05,00,000 as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the IT Act. The ITAT, however, found that the documents cited by the Department were already part of the assessee's books and did not constitute new incriminating material that could justify a reassessment under section 153A.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 132163 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj & Others (446 ITR 56 (Calcutta))
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Rectification of order; Document seized; Onus to prove; Documents seized
• Section: 131; 68; 132; 143(3); 153A; 254(2)

Judgement Text

vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh laanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM Miscellaneous Application No.3 /JP/2023 (Arising out of vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 437/JP/2020 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2012-13 The DCIT Central Circle-1 Jaipur cuke Vs. M/s. Glorious Buildhome Pvt. Ltd Govind Marg, Raja Park Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AACCG 4234 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri S.R. Sharma, CA lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 15/02/2023 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 15 /05/2022 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM The Department has filed a Miscellaneous Application against ITAT, Jaipur Bench order dated 30-06-2022 for rectification of mistake u/s 254(2) of the I.T.Act by praying therein as under:- ‘’The Hon'ble ITAT vide order dated 30.06.2022 in ITA .437/JP/2019 has dismissed the revenue appeal in the case of M/s. Glorious Buildhome P. Ltd.- PAN - AACCG423411 for AY 2012-13. In this case, assessment in this case was completed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Act on 31.12.2016 at assessed income of 2,22,58,810/- by making an addition of 2,05,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the IT Act. 2 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR The AO held that the share application money amounting to 2,05,00,000/- received from M/s. Northstar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd was not a genuine investment so received but only a accommodation entry which was routed through Kolkata based bogus entities. The AO has reached on this conclusion on the basis of report of DDIT(Investigation) Unit-3(3), Kolkata which was furnished by him in response to commission so issued to him u/s 131(1)(d) of the Act. The finding of DDIT vis a vis documents so seized as Exhibit -2, page number 1to 37 from the residence of Satya Narayan Shrama, who was one of the director along with Shri Vivek Chug (employee of assessee group - Mahima group) of Kolkata based dummy companies through whom unaccounted funds were layered in the bank account of M/s Northstar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd (a kolkatta based company in which one of the employee namely Shri Vivek Chug was director) and same fund was introduced in the bank account of the assessee company which camouflage as share capital premium in the books of assessee As per the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act of the director Sh. Vivek Chug, the company Mis Northstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has no business activities, no employees except himself and Shri Prabhakar Arora (another Director of company) and company has no tangible or intangible assets during the year under consideration Sh. Vivek Chup. Director of Ms. Northstar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd is also an employee of M's Mahima Group, himself admitted that he is also director in other four Kolkata based companies (through whom unaccounted funds were layered and introduced in Ms North star infrastructure pvt. ltd) without any remuneration or salary. Further, the aforesaid shell companies do not carrying out any business activity and not in existence at registered address. Thus on the basis of seized material so seized from the premises of Satya Narayan Sharma statement of Shri Vivek Chug and findings of DDIT (investigation). Unit-3(3), Kolkatta. AO has treated amount of 2,05,00,000/- as accommodation entry and added back to the total income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) vide order dated 28.01 2019 has allowed the appeal of the assessee admitting additional ground of appeal i.e. 3 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR "That on the facts and circumstances of the case the id. Assessing Officer has grossly erred in law in completing assessment u/s 153A rws 143(3) of the Act even when no incriminating material whatsoever found in the course of search which could suggest any undisclosed income so as to initiated proceedings u's 153A of the Act" and holding that the AO are without any reference to the seized material is not legally tenable. Thereafter, the Revenue has filed further appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT The Hon'ble ITAT has confirmed the decision of the Id. CIT(A) stating that there was no such incriminating document on record to assess the income of the assessee u/s 153A of the Act. The Hon'ble ITAT decided the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the facts of the case. The AO has clearly discussed about the incriminating documents in para 1 of page no. 23 of the assessment order dated 30.12.2016 wherein the show cause notice issued on 02.12.2016 mentioning Exhibit 2, (page no. 1 to 37) was reproduced. Furthermore, the learned CIT(DR) has argued the case and furnished relevant part of the Appraisal Report wherein the investigation wing discussed that some incriminating documents (Exhibit-2, page Ito 37) were found and seized from the business premises of Shri Satya Narayan Sharma during the course of Search operation which have not been considered or discussed in the order of Hon'ble ITAT. Further the said Exhibit-2.(page 1to 37) consisting vouchers of share transactions between shell companies which are actually used as colourable device by all jamakharchi entry operators duly discussed in details in Investigation report of the Kolkatta Directorate and the same report was placed before the Hon'ble ITAT by the CIT(DR.). Further, during the course of appellate proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT the the ld CIT (DR) has relied upon the Investigation report of the Investigation Directorate Kolkata dated 27.04.2015 which was also considered by Hon'ble High Court of Kolkata in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj & Others (446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) dated 14.06.2022 wherein the Hon'ble High Court upheld the order of revenue. The facts of 4 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR the instant case were also identical to the above referred case. Further, the id. CIT (DR) also filed a copy of Investigation report as well as the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court judgement before the Hon'ble Bench in which the Revenue has demonstrated that one of the companies "Anamika Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. has been identified as paper/jamakharchi company as prime bogus company in this report (pg.30) through which fund had been routed. The share application money has been received by the assessee company from the Northstar Infrastructure Company and the fund transfer in bank statement clearly shows that fund of Rs. 70,00,000/- received by M/s the Northstar Infrastructure Company on 23 03 2012 from M/s Anamika Deal Trade Pvt Ltd and on the same date ie 23.03.2012 fund of Rs. 70,00,000/- were transferred to the assessee company. The bogus entity which has been identified as Paper Company by Investigation Directorate, Kolkata and mentioned in their report was highlighted and submitted to the Hon'ble Bench. Further, in the case of Pr. CIT vs. Swati Bajaj and Others (446 ITR 56 (Calcutta)) case the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court has mentioned the Investigation Report and cognizance has been taken to its findings. On the basis of this report the entry found in the seized material becomes incriminating though it may be part of books of account of the assessee. Even when the transaction is through cheque, but transaction is proved non- genuine, the entry becomes incriminating document. Therefore, in view of the above, the findings of the Hon'ble Bench i.e. In search no incriminating document, loose paper, undisclosed asset etc were found... as mentioned in para 3 of the page 2 of the said order may kindly be considered as mistake apparent from record. Further, it is submitted that facts as submitted by the Revenue as detailed above and the judgement in the case of Pr.CIT vs. Swati Bajaj and others (446 ITR 56 (Calcutta) has not been considered and also not been discussed in the appellate order, which may kindly be considered as mistake apparent from record and the same may kindly be rectified under section 254(2) of the IT Act 1961 by recalling the appeal order and deciding the same on merits.’’ 5 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR 2.1 Against the Misc. Application of the Department, the ld.AR of the assessee has filed the reply giving elaborate submission as under:- ‘’The above application is filed by the Income Tax Department against the order of the Hon’ble Bench passed on 30-06-2022 u/s 254 of the IT Act, 1961.In this connection the appellant submits as follows:- 1. The Para no. two and three of the application are the repetition of the written submission vide para no. 3 to 9 thereof made by the ld. D/R during the course of appellate proceedings before your honour on 30-06-2022, For ready reference abd sake of convenience the said paras are reproduced herein below:- “3. In this regard the fact from the order of CIT(A) itself is clear that he allowed additional ground of assessee during the appeal proceedings without verifying or referring to the AO for remand report on the additional ground. 4. CIT(A) erred in adjudicating additional ground and deleting addition presuming no incriminating material found during course of search and without verifying this fact or without referring the matter to the AO for asking remand report for verifying facts of the issue. The basis of CIT(A) is a factually incorrect. He has not called seized material from the AO to verify the facts. He has not called for any remand report form AO in this issue. Therefore, additional ground of appeal is filed by the department. 5. CIT(A) failed to analyse the facts mentioned by Assessing Officer in Assessment Order para 6.1, Para 6.2 where inference is drawn from seized material, statement of Satya Narayan Sharma who was also searched and documents seized from his residence and statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the IT Act during the search. In assessment Para 6.4, AO has mentioned that residences of Shri Deep Shikhar Dhingra and Shri Satya Narayan Sharma were also covered during the course of search proceedings. Some documents related 6 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR to above companies.............were found and seized. During the post search investigations...... On the basis of material found and seized during the course of search it enabled to conduct the post search enquiries and enquiries during assessment proceedings. Finally in para 6.12 of Assessment where show-cause notice reproduced by AO, she categorically mentioned about seized material specially mentioning the documents seized by department (Exhibit 2, page no. 1 to 37) during search at the residence of Shri Satya Narayan Sharma. As the search cases of this group have been decentralized from the central charge to different circle/ wards so seized material could not be produced before your honours but the limited portion of appraisal report prepared on basis of seized documents ‘Exhibit 2 page no. 1 to 37’ seized from residence of Shri Satya Narayan Sharma received form DCIT, Central Circle-2, Jaipur may be seen for kind perusal (encl.). 6. Further, CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that the documents seized during the search only lead to the addition made in the assessment order. CIT(A) failed to verify whether documents seized which are incriminating material or not. Either he should have verified the seized material or should have referred matter to the AO for verification. He failed to verify facts and deleted the addition on presumption and treating only legal issue. 7. The Investigation Directorate of Kolkata basis on search, surveys and enquiries prepared the Investigation report dated 27.4.2015 which is available in public domain. In this report identification of entry operators, the shell companies, paper companies/ bogus companies, beneficiaries etc were identified. On the basis of this report various Courts/Tribunals have delivered judgements and accepted the facts of the report. One of the company “Anamika Deal Trade Pvt Ltd” has identified as paper/ Jamakharchi company as prime bogus company in this report (pg. 130). The fund in M/s. Northstar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd. has been routed through this company. The share application money has been received by assessee company from the Northstar Infrastructure company. The fund transfer in bank statement clearly shows that fund of Rs. 70,00,000/- received by M/s. Northstar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd on 23.3.2012 from M/s. Anamika Deal Trade Pvt Ltd. and on the same date i.e. 23.3.2012 funds of Rs. 70,00,000/- were transferred to assessee company i.e. 7 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR M/s Glorious Buildhome Pvt Ltd as share application money. Therefore, this fund has been routed with the bogus company which can be seen from the bank statement of the M/s. Nortstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It established the credentials regarding genuineness of the transaction has been jeopardized and is non-genuine. 8. On the basis of seized material which led post search enquiries enabled AO to establish that M/s Northstar Infrastructure Pvt Ltd, M/s. Monitor Real Estate Pvt Ltd, M/s. Kamdhenu Suppliers Pvt. Ltd, M/s Aristro Projects Pvt Ltd, M/s. Dornier Credit Capital Pvt Ltd, M/s Everyday Commercial Pvt Ltd provided entry to raise share capital and share premium to the Mahima group companies includes assessee company. The assessee failed to discharge burden of proof in establishing share holders identity, genuineness of transactions and creditworthiness of these assesses. 9. Therefore, on the basis of above, in the interest of justice, the Hon’ble bench is kindly requested to consider the above facts in deciding the matter of additional ground taken by the department.” 2. (i) The Hon’ble bench has duly considered the supra issues raised by the department in the written submission filed by the ld. CIT-D/R, in Para. No. 6 at page no. 3 to 5 of the impugned order. For ready reference and sake of convenience the issues raised by the ld. D/R and the decision of the hon’ble bench are reproduced herein below:- 2.(ii) Para no.6 Before us, the ld. D/R submitted that the ld. CIT (A) has failed to analyse the facts mentioned in the assessment order vide para 6.1, 6.2 where inference is drawn from seized material, statement of Satya Narain Sharma who was also searched and documents seized from his residence and statement recorded u/s 132 (4) of the Act during the search. In para 6.4 of the assessment order, the AO has mentioned that residences of Shri Deep Shikar Dhingra and Shri Satya Narain Sharma were also covered during the course of search proceedings. In para 6.12 of the assessment order, the AO categorically mentioned about seized material specially mentioning the documents seized by department (Exhibit 2, page no. 1 to 37) during search at the residence of Shri Satya Narayan Sharma. The ld. D/R submitted that as the search cases of this group have been decentralized from the Central charge to different circle/wards so seized material could not be produced before the Tribunal, but the limited portion of appraisal report prepared on the basis of sized 8 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR documents ‘Exhibit 2 page no. 1 to 37’ seized from residence of Shri Satya Narain Sharma received from DCIT Central Circle-2, Jaipur has been placed on record. The ld. D/R further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has failed to verify whether documents seized which are incriminating material or not. Either he should have verified the seized material or should have referred the matter to the AO for verification. He failed to verify facts and deleted the addition on presumption and treating only legal issue. The ld. D/R submitted that on the basis of Investigation report of the Investigation Directorate of Kolkata, one of the company “Anamika Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. has identified as paper/Jamakharchi company as prime bogus company in this report. The fund in M/s. Northstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. has been routed through this company. The share application money has been received by assessee company from the Northstar Infrastructure Company. The fund transfer in bank statement clearly shows that fund of Rs. 70,00,000/- received by M/s. Northstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. on 23.3.2012 from M/s. Anamika Deal Trade Pvt. Ltd. and on the same date. i.e 23.3.2012 funds of Rs. 70,00,000/- were transferred to assessee company i.e. M/s Glorious Buildhome Pvt. Ltd. as share application money. Therefore, this fund has been routed with the bogus company which can be seen from the bank statement of M/s. Northstar Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. It established the credentials regarding genuineness of the transaction has been jeopardized and is non-genuine. The ld. D/R, therefore, requested to consider the submissions while deciding the matter. 2 (iii) The Hon’ble Bench considered all the issues (matters) raised by the ld. D/R and decided the said issues as follows:- Para no. 8 (page no. 12) We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. We have gone through the detailed written submissions filed by the ld. D/R wherein it has been pleaded by ld. D/R that in para 6.12 of the assessment order, the AO has specially mentioned that show cause notices were issued to the assessee wherein it was categorically mentioned about seized material specially mentioning the documents seized by department vide Exhibit 2, page no. 1 to 37 during search at the residence of Shri Satya Narayan Sharma. It was further submitted by ld. D/R that since the search cases of this Group has been decentralized from the Central charge to different circle/wards so seized material could not be produced before the Bench. However, the limited portion of appraisal report prepared on the basis of sized documents Exhibit 2 page no. 1 to 37 received from DCIT Central-2, Jaipur may be placed on record. After meticulously going through the arguments addressed by both the parties, we noticed from the record that it is an 9 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR undisputed fact that the documents were seized by the Department during the search at the residence of Shri Satya Narain Sharma. However, the Department has miserably failed to point out as to how the seized material can be termed as “incriminating material” when the seized material has already been reflected in the books of account of the assessee or shown ny the assessee during the course of assessment. Although the Department was unable to place on record Exhibit-2 pages 1 to 37 of the seized documents on the ground that the search cases of this Group has been decentralized from the Central charge to different circle/wards so seized material could not be produced before the Bench, but even otherwise the department could not convinced the Bench that how and in what matter the alleged seized documents can be termed as ‘Incriminating material’ when those were already disclosed by the assessee. This factual position was also examined by the ld. CIT (A) during the appellate proceedings and has rightly concluded that from the perusal of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) read with section 153A shows that the additions so made by the AO are not relatable to any incriminating material. Thus, the ld. CIT (A) deleted the additions. 8.1 We have gone also through the relevant material on record. Undisputedly, the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 was not pending on the date of search on 30.10.2014. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act. Thus the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13 was not got abated by virtue of search under section 132 on 30.10.2014 and the AO would reassess the total income of the assessee as per the provisions of section 153A in respect of the assessment year 2012-13. The proceedings under section 153A in respect of the assessment year would be in the nature of reassessment and not in the nature of assessment. It is a settled proposition of law that the assessment or reassessment under section 153A in respect of the assessment years which have already been completed and assessment orders have been passed determining the assessee’s total income, the addition to the income that has already been assessed can be made only on the basis of incriminating material. In the absence of any incriminating material the completed assessment can only be reiterated. The provisions of section 132 read with section 153A of the Act stipulate two types of situations- one where the assessment of any assessment year falling within six assessment years is pending on the date of initiation of search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A of the Act. Therefore, the assessment under section 153A in respect of those assessment years which stand abated due to the reason of pending on the date of initiation of search or requisition shall be the original/first assessment. In the second category where the assessment or 10 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR reassessment has already been completed on the date of initiation of search or making of requisition as the case may be, the assessment under section 153A would be in the nature of assessment. Page no. 32. Therefore, in the assessment order there is no mention or finding that the additions have been made by the AO on the basis of any incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure in the case of the assessee. The AO has solely relied upon the seized material which cannot be regarded as incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and seizure under section 132 of the IT Act in case of the assessee. The requirement for making the addition under section 153A in the assessment years where the assessment was not pending on the date of search and the proceedings are in the nature of reassessment is essentially the incriminating material disclosing undisclosed income which was not disclosed by the assessee. In the case in hand, the AO himself has not claimed any criminating material found during the search and seizure in the case of the assessee. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the binding precedents on this issue in which the SLP filed by the revenue was also dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the additions made by the AO while passing the assessment order under section 153A for the assessment year 2012- 13 are not sustainable and accordingly the same are liable to be deleted. 3. (i) The Hon’ble Kolkata high courts judgment in case of Pr. CIT Vs. Swati Bajaj and others dated 14-06-2022 was neither referred by the ld. CIT D/R in his written submissions nor relied upon by him during the course of verbal arguments before the hon’ble Bench. The facts and submissions may be verified from the appeal file of the appellant, with the hon’ble Bench. (ii) It is an undisputed facts and also evident from the assessment order itself that the transactions of share application money and subsequent allotment of shares paid by M/s Northstar Infrastructure (P) Ltd. are recorded in regular books of accounts of the appellant, duly declared in its audited statements of accounts filed alongwith the IT return and assessed by the than AO. (iii) in ‘MA’ the ld. Pr. CIT-2 , Jaipur has mentioned that on the basis of investigation wing report the transactions recorded in books of accounts of the appellant become incriminating. The said observation of the ld. Pr. CIT is self- serving and has no legal legs and accordingly not tenable in the eyes of law. 11 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR 4. The ld. Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur, even at the stage of MA, has failed to identify the incriminating document(s) in the seized papers. Without prejudice to above the appellant for academic point of view submits that the issue decided by the hon’ble Kolkata high court was on exempted capital gain matter and not on the issue involved in present appeal regarding abated assessment and having no incriminating documents. Further in appellant’s case the share holder company has only changed the nature of its current asset(s) i.e. from bank deposit to “Shares” and ultimately the asset in form of shares always remained with the share holder company. 5. The page no. 1 to 37 recorded in books of accounts and pertain to F.Y. 2010-11 and not to the financial year 2011-12 relevant to the assessment year under appeal i.e. 2012-13. The facts and submissions are evident and verifiable from the narrations/particulars of the papers enclosed by the IT department alongwith written submissions dated 30.06.2022. In view of the above facts and submissions the case the hon’ble Bench has considered all the issues raised by the IT Department/DR in the order passed on 30-06-2022. Thus, there was no mistake apparent from the record with in the provision of section 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961, as alleged by the ld. Pr. CIT Jaipur. It is therefore requested that the application filed u/s 254(2) of the IT Act, 1961 by the Pr. CIT-2, Jaipur may very kindly be dismissed/cancelled. ‘’ 2.2 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. The bench has taken into consideration the submissions of the respective parties and noted that the ld. AR of the assessee has judiciously countered the Misc. Application filed by the Department which itself is self explanatory and we also noticed that the order passed by the ITAT in appeal No. 437/JP/2019, DCIT vs M/s. Glorious Buildhome (P) Ltd. (supra) does not suffer from any infirmity and 12 M.A. NO.3/JP/2023 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR VS GLORIOUS BUILDHOME PVT LTD. JAIPUR there is no apparent mistake in the Tribunal order . Thus, we do not concur with the submissions of the Department as to the Misc. Application filed hereinabove and the same is dismissed. 3.0 In the result, the Misc. Application of the Department is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 15 /05/2023 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) (Sandeep Gosain) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 15 /05/2023 *Mishra vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf’kr@Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant- The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- M/s. Glorious Buildhome Pvt Ltd., Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (MA No. 03/JP/2023) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asstt. Registrar