Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Mittal Granite Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs Assessee on 16 March, 2016
1 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE:SHRI R.P.TOLANI, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos.761,1016,762, 1017,1018, 1019 & 1020/JP/2013
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2003-04 to 2009-10
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. cuke The DCIT
Road No. 15, VKI Area, Vs. Central Circle- 3
Jaipur Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AABCM 6234 A
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal, CA and
Shri Gulshan Agarwal, CA
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri M.S. Meena, CIT -DR
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/02/2016
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 16 /03/2016
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER BENCH:-
This is a set of assessee's appeals against 07 separate orders of ld.
CIT(A), Central, Jaipur dated 22-07-2013, 30-10-2013, 22-07-2013 and 30-10-2013 (four appeals) for the assessment years 2003-04 to 2009-10 arising from the search assessments framed u/s 153A rws 143(3). Following grounds are raised in these appeals:-2 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur
2.1 Ground no.1 of the assessee which is common to all the years challenges rejection of books u/s 145(3) without pointing out any specific defects therein.
3.1 Common Ground No. 2 of the assessee challenges estimation of gross profit resulting in additions as under in impugned AYs 2003-03 to 2009-10:-
A.Y. Gross profit rate G.P. Rate G.P. Rate confirmed by the declared by the estimated by ld. CIT(A) assessee the AO 2003-04 28.74% 30% 30% i.e. amounting to Rs.
52,726/-
2004-05 23.75% 25% 25% i.e. amounting to Rs.
65,213/-
2005-06 23.77% 25% 25% i.e. amounting to Rs.
59,711/-
2006-07 16.72% 20% 20% i.e. amounting to Rs.
2,76,545/-
2007-08 17.20 20% 20% i.e. amounting to Rs.
2,05,698/-
2008-09 -13.12% 17% 17% i.e. amounting to Rs.
21,41,926/-
2009-10 19.41% 20% 20% i.e. amounting to Rs.
60,746/-
4.1 At the outset assessee referred to petition for admission of additional
ground in appeals from AY 2003-04 to AY 2008-09, reading as under: -
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the proceeding under s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961 is not legal and void ab initio and the impugned assessment u/s.153A r/w.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is liable to be annulled as department has not carried out search operations over the assessee but survey u/s 133A of Income Tax Act and no search warrant served on the appellant.3 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur 4.2 Ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that:-
i. The ground being raised is purely legal in nature and does not require any fresh verification of facts.
ii. It is provided by the Income Tax Act and settled by Hon'ble Supreme Court and various other High Courts that assessment u/s 153A can be made only consequent to a search u/s 132(1) by issuing, authorizing, serving the search warrant in conformity with the relevant provisions of law . In the case of the assessee no valid search was carried on assesse company's premises. Only a survey u/s 133A was carried out. Therefore, there being no search in terms of sec. 132(1) the impugned assessment framed u/s 153A are bad in law and deserve to be annulled.
iii. In this behalf following propositions are raised by the assesse:
- There was no search u/s 132(1) in the assessee's premises:-
a) It is contended that M/s Mittal Granites (MG for brevity) has a factory for cutting and polishing of granites situated at Plot No A-301(E) Road No 14, VKI Area, Jaipur. Admittedly no search was carried out there and on the department carried out only survey proceedings u/s 133A of Income Tax Act 27/08/2008, during the course thereof, books of account and documents were impounded and inventoried u/s 133A. Despite recording these facts orders impugned assessments have been arbitrarily completed u/s 153A by ld. AO misdirected himself by confusing survey with search. This is apparent from his findings in Assessment Order itself at pg 2 observing that-4 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur "During search the following assets/documents have been found and seized:-
(A) Books of account/document as per Annexure A1 to A47"
It is vehemently contended that this crucial observation is factually incorrect in as much as these books of accounts were found not found during the search but impounded in the course of survey. Assessee emphatically claims that there was no search in terms of sec 132, on its premises.
b) Assessee's head office and registered office is situated at B-18, Chomu House, Jaipur, which was not covered under the alleged search u/s 132(1). Only survey u/s 132A was conducted at its factory premise situated at VKI Area, Jaipur. Survey party recorded the statement of Shri Subhash Gupta on 27/08/2008 who clearly stated in answer to question no 8 (PB pg
15) that the apart from factory at VKI area, MG assessee's Head Office is situated at B-18, C-Scheme; Chomu House, Jaipur and does not have any other office, godown or branch at any other place. This statement which is accepted by the department clearly mentions that there are no other premises of the assesse in question. Thus the alleged search u/s 132(1) was not conducted at any of its premises; neither at registered office at 18 Chomu Road nor at factory i.e. VKI Indl. area. Only survey proceedings u/s 132A were carried out on 27/08/2008 at VKI area factory premises. The statement of Shri Subhash Gupta was recorded, inventory was prepared and books 5 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur were impounded all under the survey proceedings u/s 132A and not under alleged search proceedings. Record thus clearly indicates that none of the premises owned, occupied or possessed by assesse were ever searched 132(1).
4.3 It is contended that Chomu house is a big complex and various group companies have distinct spaces occupied by them. Company is an incorporated entity and search on one company cannot be assumed to be deemed to be a search u/s 132 on a concern who has no connection whatsoever with these premises. The residential portion used by Sh. Madan lal Mittal, Smt. Sangita Mittal, Sh. Lal Chand Mittal, Sh. Radhey Shyam Mittal, Smt. Sharda Mittal, Sh. Murari Lal Mittal, Smt. Shakuntala Mittal, Sh. Suresh Mittal, Sh. Mayank Mittal, Sh.Rajesh Mittal, Sh. Ankit Mittal. Smt. Vaishali Mittal, Sh. Aashish Mittal, Sh. Prafful Mittal, Sh. Shubham Mittal, Sh. Deepak Mittal, and Sh. Saurabh Mittal were also searched. Panchanama and inventory prepared consequent to search at B-18, Chomu House, Jaipur, does not makes any reference to assessee's name. Paper Book reference is made to such panchanama and inventory prepared at B-18, which are not the premises of assesse company.
c) B-19, Chomu House, Sardar Patel Road, Jaipur. (PB pg 360 to
364):-
6 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur The assessee has no office or business in this premise. This is residential premise of Sh..Madan lal Mittal, Smt. Sangita Mittal, Sh. Lal Chand Mittal, Sh. Radhey Shyam Mittal, Smt. Sharda Mittal, Sh. Murari Lal Mittal, Smt. Shakuntala Mittal, Sh. Suresh Mittal, Sh. Mayank Mittal, Sh.Rajesh Mittal, Sh. Ankit Mittal. Smt. Vaishali Mittal, Sh. Aashish Mittal, Sh. Prafful Mittal, Sh. Shubham Mittal, Sh. Deepak Mittal, and Sh. Saurabh Mittal. The name of assessee is not appearing on the panchanama and inventory prepared for search at B-19, Chomu House, in the absence thereof, it cannot be assumed that there was search in terms of sec. 132(1) on the assesse in question.
d) D-42, Chomu House, Sardar Patel Road, Jaipur:
The assessee has no office or business in this premise. This is residential premise of Sh..Madan lal Mittal, Smt. Sangita Mittal, Sh. Lal Chand Mittal, Sh. Radhey Shyam Mittal, Smt. Sharda Mittal, Sh. Murari Lal Mittal, Smt. Shakuntala Mittal, Sh. Suresh Mittal, Sh. Mayank Mittal, Sh.Rajesh Mittal, Sh. Ankit Mittal. Smt. Vaishali Mittal, Sh. Aashish Mittal, Sh. Prafful Mittal, Sh. Shubham Mittal, Sh. Deepak Mittal, and Sh. Saurabh Mittal. (PB pg 365-370). Since the name of assessee is not appearing on the panchanama and inventory prepared for search at D-42, Chomu House, it 7 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur cannot be notionaly deemed that search operations were carried over the assessee's premises.
e) Mittal Chambers, C-1, Shiv Heera Path (Opp- Roadways Depot, Chomu House, Jaipur.
The common panchanama and inventory for all the group concerns was prepared by the search party for the premise situated at C-1, Mittal Chambers, Heera Path Chomu House, Jaipur but this premise also does not belong/occupied by the assesse. This is so as from this premise, only pharmaceutical business of other group concerns i.e. M/s Mittal Enterprises and M/s Mittal Associates are carried out. This premise does not belonging to or is occupied or shared by assesse, therefore, the alleged search warrant was never served upon the assessee. In the absence of proper execution of search warrant, there cannot be any valid search. The search party recorded statements about the location of office of various business concerns of the group which is tabulated as under:-
S.No Statement made Place What stated in PB pg
by where statement
recorded
1 Shri Murari Lal D-42, • Office of Mittal 375
Mittal statement Chomu Enterprises is at
dated 27-08- House C-1, Chomu
2008 House, Opp
Roadways
Workshop Jaipur
8 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur Office of M/s Mittal Granite is at Road No 14, VKI Area, Jaipur 2 Shri Murari Lal C-1, Office of Mittal 411 Mittal statement Mittal Enterprises is at C-1, dated 28-08- Chamber, Mittal Chamber, 2008 C- Chomu House, Opp Scheme, Roadways Workshop Jaipur Jaipur Office of M/s Mittal Granite is at Road No 14, VKI Area, Jaipur 3 Shri Radhey C-1, Answer to question 415 Shyam Mittal Mittal No 2 is that office of statement dated Chamber, M/s Mittal 05-09-2008 C- Enterprises, Mittal Scheme, Associates, Mittal Jaipur Bros, and Mittal & co is at C-1, Shiv Heera Path, Chomu House, Jaipur From the above statements, it is clear that the assessee has no office at C-1, Mittal Chamber, Shiv Heera Path, Chomu House, Jaipur, therefore, warrant in its name was neither served nor executed upon the assesse. Consequently there being neither valid service nor execution of search warrant on assessee the impugned search assessments framed u/s 153A on assesse are void ab initio for want of these vital ingredients. The assessee having no existence in the searched premises of other group concerns; it cannot be assumed that because there was search in group concern therefore it can be assumed or nationally assumed that assessee was also searched u/s 132(1). 9 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur 4.4 Ld. Counsel placed reliance on judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC Ltd. vs. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), jurisdictional High Court in Zakir Hussain v. CIT 202 ITR 40 (Raj) and other mentioned in written submissions to support admission.
4.5 Ld. DR opposed the additional ground contending that assesse nowhere raised this plea before any of the lower authorities. The Director disclosed additional income in the hands of the assesse consequent to impugned search proceedings, returns of income u/s 153A were filed and taxes were paid. Raising this legal plea at this stage is an attempt to frustrate the assessment proceedings and avoid adjudication of merits. Therefore it is prayed that the above Additional ground being raised by the assesse may be not admitted.
4.6 Ld. Counsel for the assesse in rejoinder contends that its trite law that a legal ground which goes to the root of jurisdiction can be raised at any time during the appellate proceedings. There is a statutory provision in this behalf and various judicial pronouncement including Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC (supra) have upheld such rights of the assesse. Therefore, there is no merit or relevance in the contentions of ld. DR, the department cannot shy away from demonstration exercise of valid jurisdiction in a serious enforcement action like search, any unauthorized 10 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur search and subsequent proceedings amount to serious invasion on the fundamental civil rights of the assessee, adjudication thereof cannot be denied merely because it is raised before ITAT. There being a statutory provision conferred by the Income Tax Act and supported by a plethora of judicial precedents including Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC (supra); the assessee's addition ground is fully eligible for admission and proper adjudication.
4.7 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record in respect of the additional ground. In our considered view the additional ground raised by the assessee is purely legal in nature, goes to the root of the assessments, no fresh verification of facts is required. Respectfully following Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of NTPC (supra), the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted. 5.1 Adverting to arguments on there being no search assessment u/s 132(1) on the assessee, ld. Counsel reiterated the facts mentioned above and cross tallied them with relevant pages of detailed paper books filed in this behalf. Reliance is placed on following decisions:-
(i) Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J.M. Trading Corporation vs. ACIT', 20 SOT 489 (Mum), wherein, it was held that where a search is carried out at the premises owned by the assessee, 11 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur but rented to other concern, the same does not result into a valid search u/s 132 on the assessee.
(ii) Hon'ble High Court of Bombay, in the case of CIT vs. J.M. Trading Company' in ITA No.589 of 2009 dismissed the appeal filed by the department against the aforesaid Tribunal judgment by following observations:
" ... The Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding of fact of initiation of the search that non compliance to the provisions of the Act by the Authorised Officer, such searches are invalid and illegal. No search was conducted against the assessee as the premises occupied by the assessee were not entered upon and searched by the Authorised Officer..."
Further vide order dated 06.09.2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in 'CIT, Mumbai vs. M/s J.M. Trading Corporation Ltd.' in CC No.13456/2010, has dismissed the departmental SLP against the Hon'ble Bombay High Court order.
(iii) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of ACIT Vs Sarmangalam Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd ITA No 196 to 198/Del/2011 order dated 14th March 2014 held in para 11 to 13 as under (Copy of order is at PB pg 462-472):-
"11. It cannot be denied that this is an issue pertaining to jurisdiction. It goes to the very root of the matter. The facts with regard thereto are available before us. As such, we can very well go into this issue at this stage. The Warrant of Authorisation (APB page 177-178) shows the address of the premises to be searched as '3 rd Floor, Global Arcade, MG Road, Gurgaon.' The assessment order as well as the order under appeal have taken note of the fact of this address being the address of the premisis searched. The assessee contends that this premises is not owned by it and, therefore, the search carried out is invalid qua the assessee. The department has not disputed the factum of the said premises not belonging to the 12 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur assessee. Even the document pertaining to the assessee, which was found from this premises in the search was, as stated by the ld. Counsel for the assessee before us on query, owned up by the Vipul Group and surrender was made by them on the basis thereof. Thus, indisputably, there is nothing on record to connect the assessee with the premises searched. Now, in 'JM Trading Corporation', 20 SOT 489 (Mum) (supra), it has been observed, inter alia, that mere search of the premises owned by the assessee but rented to another concern does not by any implication, prove the conduct of search against the assessee, in view of the fact that the assessee was not available at the address searched upon. In the present case, the situation is rather more in favour of the assessee. Here, it is not that the premises was owned by the assessee but was rented out. Rather, undisputedly, the premises searched does not belong to the assessee. The department's appeal in the case of 'JM Trading Corporation' was dismissed in limine for want of substantial question of law by the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay. While doing so, the finding of the Tribunal to the effect that non- compliance of the provisions of the Income-tax Act by the authorized officer renders a search invalid and illegal. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has also dismissed the SLP filed by the department. In 'Dr. Mansukh Kanjibhai Shah vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2', 129 ITD 376 (Ahm) (supra) also, since, inter alia, no search operation was conducted in the premises of the assessee, it was held that the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act were invalid and bad in law.
12. No decision to the contrary has been brought to our notice.
13. In view of the above discussion, we hold that since no search was conducted on the premises of the assessee and the search conducted was conducted on a premises not owned by the assessee, the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act are invalid and bad in law. Accordingly, the orders of the authorities below are set aside and quashed. Hence, CO No.1 is accepted and CO No.2 is rejected. CO No.3, being on merits, requires no adjudication."13 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur 5.2 Since the search u/s 132 was not on assessee and some documents indicating undisclosed income of assessee were found at directors residence. In that case, the legal course for revenue was to initiate the proceedings u/s 153C and frame the assessment after recording appropriate satisfaction. Ld. DR conceded that no action u/s 153C was taken and only survey u/s 133A was carried out. Thus sec. 153C also cannot be deemingly applied to assessments in question as the ld AO has neither recorded statutory satisfaction in this behalf nor issued any notice u/s 153C. An assessment which ought to have been completed u/s 153C cannot be framed in the guise of sec. 153A for this proposition reliance placed on following decisions:-
1. Siksha Vs CIT Orissa HC (2011) 336 ITR 112 Held that:
(i) Thus, we are of the view that in absence of any search warrant in the name of an assessee, search conducted in its premises is not a valid search as contemplated under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 (Para 7)
(ii) In view of the above, we are not inclined to accept the contention of Mr A. Mohapatra that even if there is any illegality in the search warrant, the same will not invalidate the search assessment proceeding initiated under s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961.
Therefore, we are of the view that initiation of a valid search as contemplated under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 in case of a person is a prerequisite to issue notice for making assessment/reassessment under s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of such person. (Para 8) 14 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur
(iii) the appellant raised an additional. ground that as no search warrant was served on the appellant, proceedings initiated under s. 153A of the IT Act, 1961 are not legal. Additional ground was admitted.
2. CIT Vs Smt Vashoda Shetty (Karnataka High Court) (2015) 371 ITR 75 (Karn) On, search assessment cannot be made on the basis of survey.
Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Orissa High Court in the case of Siksha vs. Commissioner of Income Tax & Ors. (2011) 336 ITR 0112 wherein Hon'ble High Court has held that:-
"... If search as contemplated under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961 is conducted in the premises of a person without any warrant of authorization in the name of the person searched, or on the basis of a warrant of authorization in the name of some other persons, that would be a clear case of non-application of mind of the empowered IT authorities and such a search cannot be held to be valid. It is so, because the belief which forms the foundation of search relates to a definite person who is to be subjected to search. If the contrary is the fact situation, the same would amount to serious lapses and would be in clear violation of the provisions contained in s. 132(1) of the IT Act, 1961, as it does not stand to the test of s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961. Therefore, the most serious content of the warrant of authorization is the name and description of the person whose premises, etc., are sought to be searched.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jagmohan Mahajan & Ors. vs. CIT & Ors. 1976 CTR (P&H) 316 : (1976) 103 ITR 579 (P&H) held that a search authorized in the absence of material necessary to form the requisite belief under s. 132(1) on the basis of blank warrant of authorization signed by the CIT was illegal and no order under s. 132(5) on the basis of such a search could be made.
The Delhi High Court in Ajit Jain's case (supra) held that it is axiomatic that search under s. 132 has to be a valid search. An illegal search is no search 15 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur and as a necessary corollary in such a case Chapter XIV-B would have no application. This judgment of the Delhi High Court has been upheld by the apex Court in Union of India vs. Ajit Jain & Anr. (supra). The Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Rohini S. Walia (supra) held that it would be a futile exercise to entertain the appeals where admittedly no search warrant was issued in case of the assessees and the Tribunal held that unless a search warrant was issued, the AO could not invoke the provisions of s. 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 for initiation of block assessment proceedings against the assessees.
Thus, we are of the view that in absence of any search warrant in the name of an assessee, search conducted in its premises is not a valid search as contemplated under s. 132 of the IT Act, 1961."
5.3 Ld. DR initially contended that there was no warrant in the name of assessee, however in the interest of justice further time was given by the bench to department to trace the warrant if any available. At the subsequent hearing ld. DR claimed that warrant is available a copy thereof was filed to which ld. Counsel responded that this is not a new document as it is already on record and filed by the assessee. Mere mention of assesse on the authorization of search does not automatically result into a search in terms of sec 132. Unless the warrant is executed on assessee's and a search is actually carried out on assessee's premises and thereafter a panchnama is prepared in the name of assesse, it cannot be held that there was a valid search in terms of sec. 132.
16 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur 5.4 Thereafter, ld. DR vehemently contends that, residential premises of one of the director were searched who accepted undisclosed income in the name of assesse. Residential premises of a director are akin to the premises belonging to company. Therefore, a harmonious perusal of departmental record will reveal that there was a valid warrant on assesse based on an authorization which was validly executed on one of the directors. Therefore, there is no infirmity in the impugned search proceedings. 6.1 Adverting to the merits of appeals ld. Counsel for the assessee contends that ground No. 1 & 2 challenge the arbitrary rejection of books of accounts by applying the provisions of section 145 (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 and trading addition by estimating the GP on declared sales. No incriminating material was found during the course of alleged illegal search. There is neither reference to any incriminating material nor reliance on any inquiry consequent to search in the entire length and breadth of orders of ld. AO or ld. CIT(A). The arbitrary approach of lower authorities is apparent from the fact that while framing the impugned 153A assessments ld. AO has only increased the GP already declared by assesse in original returns based on audited accounts. The rejection of books and higher estimation of GP being not based on any incriminating material, cogent reasons or application of mind are grossly unsustainable in post search assessment. It is a settled law that in 17 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur 153A assessment additions cannot be made in the absence of any incriminating material found during the course of search any inquiry consequent to search. 153A are not enacted so as to be used as an arbitrary means to review own orders and unsettle the issues which are settled. The impugned additions are bereft of any basis and purely products of a perception that since there is a search, then even if no incriminating material in found the additions are somehow or other to be made in 153A assessments as a matter of right. Such perception is untenable, illegal and denounced by higher courts. Without quoting any specific defect in the books, ld. AO arbitrarily rejected them and simply by increasing the declared GP, made following trading additions which are confirmed by CIT(A):-
AY GP rate declared Estimation of GP addition
by Assessee GP by AO made by AO
and confirmed
by CIT(A)
2003-04 28.74% 30% 52726
2004-05 23.75% 25% 65213
2005-06 23.77% 25% 59711
2006-07 16.72% 20% 276545
2007-08 17.20% 20% 205698
2008-09 -13.12% 17% 2141926
2009-10 19.41% 20% 60746
(Up to
27.08.08)
6.2 Ld. Counsel further contends that:-
18 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur The books of accounts of the assessee rejected and estimation of GP was made by the assessing officer for following main reasons: -
(i) Stock register not maintained.
(ii) The assessee is indulged in unaccounted sales/purchases.
(iii) Variance in GP The submission on the point to point defects pointed by the AO is as under: -
(i) Stock register not maintained: -
a) The assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing/job work and trading of granites and it is practically not possible for the assessee to maintain the day to day stock register because of number of quality and varieties and colours. Each lot contains the different quality, verity, colour, therefore it is practically not possible for assessee to maintain stock register. However, even if separate record is not maintained the Books of Accounts can't be rejected on this ground. Reliance is placed on following decisions: -
• CIT Vs Jas Jack Elegance Exports 324 ITR 95 (Delhi) :-
Hon'ble Delhi High Court held that no provision either in the Act or in the rules requiring an assessee carrying business of this nature, to maintain a stock register, as a part of its accounts.
• Haridas Parikh Vs ITO 113 TTJ 274 (ITAT Jodhpur):- Hon'ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench has held that unless the AO is able to point out certain transactions which have been left to be entered in the books of account or that the assessee has sold some of the items at a price higher than what is disclosed in the books of account or if proper particulars, bills, vouchers, are not forthcoming etc., the books of account cannot be rejected without assigning specific reasons. In the instant case merely because different range and nature of items are being dealt with 19 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur by the assessee and the maintenance of quantitative stock of each and every item is not practically possible, the books of account maintained by the assessee which are free from any defect cannot be rejected merely because the average GP rate was slightly lower than the average GP rate of the earlier year.
• Vishal Infrastructure Ltd Vs ACIT 104 ITD 537 (ITAT Hyderabad) :- Hon'ble ITAT Hyderabad A Bench held that the undisputed fact is that the assessee which is a limited company has been consistently following a particular method of accounting. Its accounts are audited both under the Companies Act as well as under s. 44AB. Such audited accounts are being filed with the Registrar of Companies as well as with the IT Department for more than 7 years. The Revenue has scrutinized the accounts and the method of accounting regularly employed and adopted by the assessee year after year have not been found fault with. Auditors of the company both under the Companies Act and the IT Act have been consistently certifying that the assessee has been regularly following the method of accounting and that the annual profits can be properly deduced from such method of accounting employed by the assessee. The auditors over the years have also been certifying that the accounts are regularly maintained and are complete in the sense that there is no significant omission therein. This finding has been accepted by different AOs over a period of seven years. Though the principles of res judicata do not apply to income-tax proceedings, each assessment year being a unit by itself, yet in cases, when a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have been allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it may not be appropriate to allow that position to be changed in a subsequent year. For rejecting the view taken for the earlier assessment years, there must be a material change in the fact situation. Hon'ble ITAT placed reliance on --Radhasoami Satsang 20 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur vs. CIT (1991) 100 CTR (SC) 267 : (1992) 193 ITR 321 (SC), CIT vs. A.R.J. Security Printers (2003) 183 CTR (Del) 323 : (2003) 264 ITR 276 (Del) and CIT vs. Neo Poly Pack (P) Ltd. (2000) 245 ITR 492 (Del).
• Ashok Refractories Pvt Ltd Vs CIT 279 ITR 475 (cal) • Avdesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman & Bros Vs CIT (1994) 210 ITR 406 In all these cases a clear proposition has been laid that absence of stock register per se may not lead to an inference that books are incomplete, unreliable or false so as to be rejected without any cogent reasons:-
• Pandit Bros Vs CIT (1954) 26 ITR 159 (Pun) Held that absence of stock register is not sufficient ground to reject the books of account.
6.3 It is contended that assessee's books are audited as per law, purchases/sales/trading expenses are duly supported by bills and vouchers and are duly verifiable. Therefore, the correctness of account books and trading results cannot be arbitrarily questioned or interfered. Law does not envisage to vest the assessing officers with such unbridled powers to arbitrarily review their own orders only because search is conducted.
Therefore the provisions are well qualified with sufficient riders in the form of words on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search or information received based on search proceedings and other words. 21 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur Besides by a plethora of judgments Hon'ble Supreme Court and various High Courts, including the jurisdiction Rajasthan High Court has interpreted these exigencies and in unison held that additions cannot be made unless they are based incriminating material found during the course of search or information received based on search proceedings. The books of account can be rejected only where the correct profits cannot be deduced from the regular books of account of the assessee and even if books are rejected additions in search assessments u/s 153A cannot be made in the absence of incriminating material. In the case of the assessee, the taxable profits are ascertainable from the completed, duly closed audited record and books of account regularly maintained by the assessee.
7.1 Apropos the arbitrary estimation of GP, it is vehemently contended that, for each year GP cannot remain same which is recognized by accounting practices also. Besides the assessee is engaged in the purchase of granites block whose quality, strength varies from block to block. The same is processed by cutting machines and polishing machines. The quality of product varies from block to block due to various reasons including Cracks, Defects, Colour, Shape etc. All these defects and imperfections cause huge variation in the yield and profitability from the trading. Thus its futile to assume that assessee will be always able to show same or better GP year 22 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur after year. Besides acute competition in this trade, it makes difficult to maintain consistent GP. The ld. AO estimated the GP of the assessee 30% to 17% tabulated as under:-
AY Estimation of GP rate declared by
GP by AO Assessee
2003-04 30% 28.74%
2004-05 25% 23.75%
2005-06 25% 23.77%
2006-07 20% 16.72%
2007-08 20% 17.20%
2008-09 17% -13.12%
2009-10 20% 19.41%
(Up to
27.08.08)
7.2 Ld AO himself estimated the GP at different rates for different years thus contradicting his own observations and indicates how shaky is the basis to reject books of accounts and estimate GP on patent guess work. Ld. AO has not even endeavored to provide any comparable case to justify the estimation. In these circumstances apart from being not based on any incriminating material the estimation of GP is only a work of wild estimation utterly lacking on cogency It was imperative on the part of ld. To give cogent and tenable reasons for rejection of books and if GP was to be estimated to give any reliable comparable case or reasons to demonstrate that the GP declared by the assessee was lower in comparison to other 23 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur traders or other valid grounds. It is settled position of law that the, rejection of audited books of accounts and record is a serious act and cannot be resorted to by assessing authorities in casual and slip shod manner. Further even if they are rejected the estimation of profits cannot be based on wild estimation and without comparable cases. Ld. AO without citing any comparative cases for every year estimated different GP rate without offering any iota of justification. Reliance is placed on following decisions: -
i. Dhankeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v/s CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) ii. Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram v/s CIT 37 ITR 288 (SC) iii. Omar Salary Mohamad v/s CIT 37 ITR 151 (SC There being no search, department realized the fallacy in their proceedings and therefore, carried out a survey on assessee on 27.08.2008 and during the course of survey prepared the inventory of physical stock at Rs. 13,73,232/-.
Taking the physical stock found to the department at the time of survey as closing stock of 27.08.2008 the consolidated GP of the assessee for the period 01.04.2003 to 27.08.2008 can be computed and the same can be compared from the total gross profit declared by the assessee. The calculation is as under: -
a) Year to year trading results declared by the assessee in regular books of accounts and AO's action in estimation of GP was as under:-24 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur AY PB Opening Purchases Gross Total Sales + Closing Total % GP GP rate GP pg Stock & Exp Profit Debit Side Job Work Stock Credit Declared Estimated Addition side by by AO made by Assessee AO (In Rs.) (In Rs.) 2003-04 24,31 47500 3527821 1204732 4780053 4191525 588528 4780053 28.74 30% 52726 2004-05 44,47 588528 4950077 1236763 6775368 5207905 1567463 6775368 23.75 25% 65213 2005-06 60,63 1567463 4450764 1151361 7169588 4844287 2325301 7169588 23.77 25% 59711 2006-07 76,79 2325301 6911738 1411624 10648663 8440846 2207817 10648663 16.72 20% 276545 2007-08 93, 2207817 6060773 1262825 9531415 7342616 2188799 9531415 17.20 20% 205698 96 2008-09 110; 2188799 8906413 -932956 10162256 7111586 3050670 10162256 -13.12 17% 2141926 113 2009-10 (Up 3050670 1943903 734860 5729433 3787948 2664366 6452314 19.40 20% 60746 to 27.08.08) Weighted 6069209 40926713 14.83 Total GP Average GP addition by AO 2862565
b) Consolidated trading a/c for the period from 01.04.2003 to 27.08.2008 considering the closing stock found to the survey party as closing stock: -
Particulars Amount Particulars Amount
To Opening Stock 47,500 By Sales + Job 4,09,26,713
(As on 01.04.03) Charges
To Purchases 2,70,51,663 AY Amount
AY Amount 03-04 41,91,525
03-04 16,18,043 04-05 52,07,905
04-05 28,63,591 05-06 48,44,287
05-06 28,36,648 06-07 84,40,846
06-07 54,32,810 07-08 73,42,616
07-08 47,59,059 08-09 71,11,586
08-09 75,97,609 09-10 37,87,948
(Up to
27.08.08
09-10 19,43,903 By Closing Stock 13,73,232
(Up to (as found to survey
27.08.08 party)
25 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur To Mfg. Exp. 1,04,22,707 AY Amount 03-04 19,09,778 04-05 20,86,486 05-06 16,14,116 06-07 14,78,928 07-08 13,01,714 08-09 13,08,804 09-10 7,22,881 (Up to 27.08.08 To Gross Profit 47,78,075 (11.67%) Total 4,22,99,945 Total 4,22,99,945 These figures are self explanatory, as per this consolidated trading account assessee's total GP for the period from 01.04.2003 to 27.08.2008 comes to Rs. 47,78,075/- resulting in GP @ 11.67%.
compared to this assessee's GP declared in books comes to Rs. 60,69,209/- i.e. GP (@ 14.82%, from this parameter also assessee in fact has offered better GP. Looking from any angle i.e:
i. In the absence of search in assessee's premises, impugned assessments u/s 1532A are ab initio void as held by judicial precedents including those cited above.
ii. Books of accounts have been rejected without citing any specific defects. Only defect cited is a sweeping observation that quality wise stock register is not maintained. Various courts have clearly held that the absence of stock register cannot be the sole ground for rejection of books. This is so because Hon'ble supreme court in the case of CIT vs. Excel industries Ltd., 358 ITR 295 has held that valuation of stock is basically revenue neutral as the excess value if any determined is to be allowed as deduction in next year as opening stock.
iii. No cogent reason has offered by ld. AO for holding that declared GP is inappropriate, no comparable case has been cited and 26 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur different % of GP estimation has been resorted to in different years by ld. AO. Thus there is clear self-contradiction in AOs estimate and proposition that declared GP should be ideally same. The GP estimate being baseless, illogical, overlooking the realities of granite stone trade and without citing any comparable is liable to be deleted on merits also.
iv. assuming but not agreeing that AO's action is correct even then the additions are unjustified in as much as these additions would result in the increase in opening and then closing stock of successive year. This would overall increase the book stock of assessee as on the date of search by 28,62,565/-. In Assessment for AY 2009-10, the ld AO has taken book stock at Rs. 26,64,366/- and compared it from stock physically found by survey party at Rs. 13,73,232/- and arrived at short stock of Rs. 12,91,134/-. If the GP is increased by Rs. 28,62,565/-, the book stock at the time of survey would come at Rs. 26,64,366+28,62,565= Rs.55,2.6,931/- This calculation also demonstrates that the impugned GP addition apart from the above mentioned factors are unwarranted.
v. In the name of alleged search which is void ab initio, intensive survey operation which is claimed to be successful and resulted in extracting an alleged surrender from a Director, departmental authorities have not relied on any scrap of incrimination material which can substantiate their allegations. This is so because during the alleged operations no incriminating material whatsoever was found to even remotely suggest justification for rejection of books of accounts or suppression of GP in any manner by the assessee.
7.3 Ld. DR on merits relied on the orders of ld. CIT(A). 7.4 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. First we should advert to the main grounds of the assesse on merits and thereafter we shall deal with the additional ground of the assesse.27 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur
(i) Apropos merits the record reveals that the addition in question have been made only by rejecting the assessee's audited books and estimating the GP. Ld. AO also has not adopted any uniform standard of estimation. In some years it has been estimated at higher rates and in some at lower rates, thus the methodology of estimation is neither scientific nor objective but a product of conjectures and self contradictory. No specific reasons have been ascribed as to the defects in the books of accounts, there effect on ascertaining the correct income and reasons for rejection of books. Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the rejection of books however, accorded some relief by reducing GP estimate. No cogent reasons are again given by ld. CIT(A) in this behalf.
(ii) Apropos Stock register, assesse has explained that in the business of manufacturing/job work and trading of granites and it is practically not possible for the assessee to maintain the day to day stock register because of number of quality and varieties and colours However, even if separate record is not maintained the Books of Accounts can't be rejected on this ground based on its reliance on the above cited cases of - Jas Jack Elegance Exports,Haridas Parikh (ITAT Jodhpur):- Hon'ble ITAT Jodhpur, Vishal Infrastructure (ITAT Hyderabad), Radhasoami Satsang Neo Poly packs, Ashok Refractories, Avdesh Pratap Singh Abdul Rehman & Bros.
In all these cases a clear proposition has been laid that absence of stock register per se may not lead to an inference that books are incomplete, unreliable or false so as to be rejected without any cogent reasons. In the given facts and circumstances we are of the view that ratio of these judgments is applicable to the case of the assesse, therefore, we uphold the books of accounts of the assessee. Besides assessee's books are audited as 28 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur per law, purchases/sales/trading expenses are duly supported by bills and vouchers and are duly verifiable. Therefore, the correctness of account books and trading results cannot be arbitrarily questioned or interfered and profits estimated for no cogent reasons. Apropos the estimation of GP it cannot remain same year after year which is a recognized commercial proposition. The quality of granite varies from block to block due to various reasons including Cracks, Defects, Colour, Shape etc. Assessee's contention about acute competition in this trade as a factor for variation in GP% has also not been disputed. Ld AO himself estimated the GP at different rates for different years, thus the estimation of GP on by ld. AO is based on only guess work. Ld. AO has not provided any comparable case to justify the estimation. Reliance on the judgments of - Dhankeshwari Cotton Mills, Lal Chand Bhagat Ambica Ram, Omar Salary Mohamad (supra) is well placed. The assessee has provided a detailed consolidated working as mentioned above based on inventory of physical stock at Rs. 13,73,232/- taken during the course of survey. Physical stock found at the time of survey as closing stock of 27.08.2008 and the consolidated GP of the assessee for the period 01.04.2003 to 27.08.2008 as mentioned above. The consolidated trading account reveals assessee's total GP for the period from 01.04.2003 to 27.08.2008 comes to Rs. 47,78,075/- resulting in GP @ 11.67%. compared 29 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur to this assessee's GP declared in books comes to Rs. 60,69,209/- i.e. GP (@ 14.82%, this parameter indicates that at the end of the day, assessee has offered better GP. Looking from all these angles, in all the impugned years, we see no justification in rejection of the books of the assesse u/s 145(3) which are upheld. Besides based on our above observations, case laws and the facts that books of accounts stand upheld we delete the additions of GP as retained by Ld. CIT(A).Assessee's grounds in this behalf are allowed. 8.1 Adverting to the additional ground raised by the assessee, though the impugned additions have been deleted on merits, however being a legal ground duly admitted by us, its adjudication becomes necessary. The assessee is part of a group which is primarily engaged in Pharma Trade as C/F agent. Assessee company is in a totally different field i.e. granite manufacturing and trading and having registered office at 18 Chomu Road and its factory i.e. VKI Indl. Area. Search operations u/s 132 are admittedly not carried out in these premises and only survey proceedings u/s 132A were carried out on 27/08/2008 at VKI area factory premises. It has not been disputed by the department that though assessee's name appears in search authorization, as a group search director's residence was searched. Actually no premises of the assesse company were searched which is evident as there is no Panchnama or inventory in assesse company's name. Department's 30 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur reliance is mainly on the search on the residence of Director, his admission for disclosure of assesse's income and a plea to construe the record harmoniously to hold that search was there on assessee. Assessee has raised serious objections to the effect that search is a sever action and invasion of personal rights and such actions must stand the strict scrutiny of relevant provisions. It is contended that superior courts in no of judgments have held that jurisdictional issue are to be seriously viewed and the executive action must conform to the strict interpretation and not harmonious assumptions. Survey party recorded the statement of Shri Subhash Gupta on 27/08/2008 who clearly stated in answer to question no 8 that the apart from factory at VKI area, MG assessee's Head Office is situate at B-18, C-Scheme; Chomu House, Jaipur and does not have any other office, godown or branch at any other place. Thus assesse claims that its proper address was duly communicated to the department. It should have been vigilant about their action and if there was need there was no bar to conduct a legal search. Failure of department to take proper legal steps cannot result in jeopardy for assesse. This statement is accepted by the department, with full disclosure it was for the department to take a call. Department should not be rewarded for its jurisdictional mistakes. Chomu house is a big complex housing group companies have distinct spaces occupied by them. Assessee has pleaded that 31 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur each company is an incorporated entity and search on one company cannot be assumed to be deemed to be a search u/s 132 on a concern who has no connection whatsoever with these premises. The residential portions used by various directors of the group companies mentioned above were also searched and consequent Panchanama and inventories were prepared, there is no reference to assessee's name. B-19, Chomu House, Sardar Patel Road, Jaipur, is residential premises of various directors. In none of panchanama and inventory assessee's name appears. The common panchanama and inventory of all the group concerns was prepared by the search party for the premise situated at C-1, Mittal Chambers, Heera Path Chomu House, Jaipur but this premise also does not belong / occupied by the assesse. This is so as from this premise, only pharmaceutical business of other group concerns i.e. M/s. Mittal Enterprises and M/s. Associates are carried out. This premise does not belonging to or is occupied or shared by assesse dealing in granite business only. These facts are uncontroverted. 8.2 Appreciating all these rival contentions, facts and material available on record it is apparent that though assessee's name appears on authorization but the same was not executed on the asssessee's premises and no Panchnama or Inventory was prepared. Now we advert to the vehement 32 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur contention of ld. DR that director is assesse company's representative and search on his premises should be harmoniously construed as a valid search in terms of sec. 132. We are unable to agree with this proposition, various courts have held that search actions are in the nature of enforcement which involves invasion in the privacy of asssessee; such action has to be in full conformity with relevant legal provision. Such jurisdiction or action cannot be validated in casual manner. In the absence of any search u/s 132 and no action u/s 153C as mentioned above the assessments in question cannot be validated on assumptions to fall under these provisions. Thus sec. 153C cannot be deemingly applied in the absence of mandatory recording of statutory satisfaction and requisite notice u/s 153C, thus what has not been done directly cannot be done indirectly. We fully appreciate the mandate of superior courts while considering the validity of assessment consequent to search. Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in the case of J.M. Trading Corporation vs. ACIT', 20 SOT 489 (Mum) held that where a search is carried out at the premises owned by the assessee, but rented to other concern, the same does not result into a valid search u/s 132 on the assessee. Revenue appeal has been dismissed in this case by hon'ble High Court of Bombay ( ITA No.589 of 2009) by following observations: 33 ITA No. 761/JP/2013
M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur " ... The Tribunal has categorically recorded a finding of fact of initiation of the search that non compliance to the provisions of the Act by the Authorised Officer, such searches are invalid and illegal. No search was conducted against the assessee as the premises occupied by the assessee were not entered upon and searched by the Authorised Officer..."
Further vide order dated 06.09.2010, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in 'CIT, Mumbai vs. M/s J.M. Trading Corporation Ltd.' in CC No.13456/2010, has dismissed the departmental SLP against the Hon'ble Bombay High Court order. Similar view has been taken by ITAT Delhi Bench in ACIT Vs Sarmangalam Builders & Developers Pvt Ltd ITA No 196 to 198/Del/2011 order dated 14th March 2014 which is reproduced above. Siksha Vs CIT (2011) 336 ITR 112 (Orissa HC). CIT Vs Smt Vashoda Shetty (Karnataka High Court) (2015) 371 ITR 75 (Karn), search assessments u/s 153a or 153C cannot be made on the basis of survey. In view of the foregoing we are of the view that there being no valid execution of search authorization on assesse in terms of sec. 132 and there being only valid survey proceedings, no assessments can be framed u/s 153A by AO. The plea of the department that a harmonious construction of record and provisions shall be made which is an implied reference to sec. 292B also cannot be accepted. This is so because jurisdictional errors cannot be cured by such indirect means. A search on director cannot be deemed to be a search on distinct and separate incorporated entity i.e. company. Since assessments are bad in law any 34 ITA No. 761/JP/2013 M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd. vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur admission of undisclosed income by director cannot make any relevance.
Consequently we hold that the impugned assessments framed u/s 153A are bad in law not being in consequence to provisions of sec 132.
However we may hasten to add that assesse will not be eligible for any taxes paid towards the returns of income for these assessments. Various courts have held that tax paid along with returns whose assessments are held as bad in law cannot be refunded to assessee.
9.0 In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 16 /03/2016.
Sd/- Sd/- ¼ foØe flag ;kno ½ ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (R.P.Tolani) ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 16/03/ 2016 *Mishra
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- M/s. Mittal Granite (P) Ltd., Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- The DCIT, Central Circle- 3, Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy ) @ CIT(A)
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No.761/JP/2013) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar