Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Panji
Mahesh Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs Assistant Commissioner Of Wealth Tax, ... on 31 July, 2017
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh dqy Hkkjr] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM
vk;dj vihy [email protected]. No.01/JP/17
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2006-07
Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, cuke The ACWT,
211-212, Shalimar Complex, Vs. Circle-2,
Church Road, Jaipur Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN No.: AAXPG7461N
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrhdh vksj ls@Assessee by : Shri Vijay Goyal (C.A.)
jktLo dh vksj ls@Revenue by : Shri S.L. Chandel (Addl. CIT)
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 05/07/2017
?kks"k.kk dh r kjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 31/07/2017.
vkns'k@ORDER
PER: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CWT(A)-I, Jaipur dated 09.01.2017 for A.Y. 2006-07 wherein the assessee has taken following grounds of appeal:-
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,60,06,563/-in returned wealth of the assessee by treating unapproved/agriculture plots/lands as taxable assets having market value of Rs. 1,60,06,563/- and which was claimed exempted by assessee on the ground that construction was not permissible on those assets.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of ld. AO whereby he has not allowed deduction of debts of Rs. 73,56,129/- claimed to be utilized W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT for acquiring the taxable assets included in the net wealth of the assessee."
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his wealth tax return on 01.05.2013 declaring wealth of Rs. 39,19,500/-. The assessment was completed by assessing officer vide his order dated 28.03.2014 assessing the total wealth of assessee at Rs. 1,99,26,063/- as against returned wealth of Rs. 39,19,500/- by making addition of Rs. 1,60,06,563/- treating unapproved/agriculture plots/lands as taxable assets which was claimed exempt by assessee u/s 2(ea)(v) explanation 1(b) of the wealth tax Act on the ground that construction was not permissible on those assets as per rules and regulations of Jaipur Development Authority. Further the ld. AO not deducted the loans/debt of Rs. 73,65,129/- claimed to be utilized for acquiring the exempted assets. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld CIT(A) who has confirmed the action of the AO and now, the assessee is in appeal before us.
3. Firstly, we refer to the findings of the AO in his assessment order which are reproduced as under:-
"For land to become exempt, either it should be classified as agricultural and used for agricultural purposes or construction should not be permitted under any law in force. Law means statutory law and does not include rules and regulations of JDA. For construction not permitted, there should have been some stay order by central govt or state govt or court and merely non allotment letter by JDA or non approval by JDA does not classify it under the category of 'construction not permitted'. If assessee is allowed benefit of this exemption, then most of the city of Jaipur would come under the ambit of 'construction not permitted' and the entire spirit of wealth tax act would be defeated.
Similarly in cases of farmhouse at Dhanakya, although they are classified as agricultural lands, but no agricultural activity as such is carried out of them. The act uses the word 'and' when defining 2 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT exemption clearly stating that both classification as agricultural land and carrying out of agricultural activity is necessary. Hence it is also treated as a taxable asset.
Subject to the discussion held above, the entire lands shown above are treated as taxable wealth for the purpose of wealth tax act."
4. We now refer to the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which are reproduced as under:-
"(iv) I have duly considered the submission of the appellant, assessment order and the material placed on record. It is seen from the assessment order that there were 3 farm houses and a number of plots situated at Shalimar Nagar, Ramagariya, Sri Ram Vihar and Shiv Nagar, Jaipur. It would be appropriate to reproduce here the provisions of Explanation b to section 2(ea)(v) of the Wealth Tax Act as under:
"urban land" means land situate-
(i) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the valuation date; or
(ii) in any area with such distance, not being more than eight kilometres from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the official Gazette, But does not include land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and used for agricultural purposes or land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from 3 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT the date of its acquisition by him or any land held by the assessee as stock-in trade for a period of ten years from the date of its acquisition by him."
(v) Thus, the plots which are within the city of Jaipur are exempt if construction is prohibited on such land. It is noted that section 17(1) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act require the permission of JDA for any development activities on such plots but it does not prohibit the construction thereof. The permission could be granted by the JDA subject to fulfilment of prescribed terms and conditions and it cannot be said that the JDA has prohibited construction activities on such lands. It may be mentioned that in the case of Mars Hotels & Resorts (P.) Ltd. Vs DCWT [2012] 21 taxmann.com168 (Mum.), it was held by the Hon'ble ITAT that (head note):
"Section 2(ea), read with section 7, of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957- Assets- Assessment years 1996-97 to 1998-99-Assessee hotel acquired 12 acres of land in 1995-said land was classified as reserved land on which development and construction was barred under State Town Planning Act - Later on, by a notification, 50 per cent of land was allowed to be reserved for park and remaining 50 per cent was allowed to be developed into a hotel - Assessee claimed that since construction was barred under a law, land in question fell under statutory exception from being treated as an asset and, therefore, not chargeable to Wealth tax - Whether since conditions provided in notification were not in nature of prohibition but permission which was subject to fulfilment of certain conditions, such notification did not render land fall under exception as encumberated under clause
(b) of Explanation 1 of section 2(ea) - Held, yes [in favour of revenue]"(emphasis supplied)
(vi) In the case of Sunil Kumar Vs WTO [2012] 21 taxmann.com 36 (Delhi), it was held by Hon'ble ITAT that:
"There is no dispute about the fact that the impugned lands were within the Municipal limits of Shamli. Under section 2(ea), Urban land is liable to wealth tax.
With effect from 1-4-1993, the definition of asset has changed. Prior to it, the agriculture lands were exempt from wealth tax. However, from 1-4-1993, any urban land whether it is agriculture land or 4 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT otherwise is liable to wealth tax if it falls under the definition of urban land. The contention of the assessee that construction of a building is not permissible on agriculture land is devoid of any merit. There is no bar for constructing farm house on agricultural land and agriculturist normally keeps some structure in order to store agriculture implements, for keeping animals, storage of food grains and also residential purposes. The construction of building is 'not permissible under any law' does not mean that agricultural land will fall under such category. There are certain prohibitions under which construction on urban lands like lands near airport, air base or military cantonment area etc. where construction is not permitted, will fall under this exception and not the agricultural land. Such lands will not be liable to wealth tax. Since agricultural land is liable to wealth tax as urban land, Commissioner Wealth tax (Appeals) was justified in upholding the stand of the Assessing Officer though for different reasons. Accordingly, there is no infirmity in the order of Assessing Officer treating the agricultural land liable to wealth tax as urban land. [Para 10] (emphasis supplied) In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.[para11]"
(vii) it was another contention of the appellant that the agriculture lands were used for agriculture purposes by the appellant itself but the appellant has not supported its contention with any documentary evidence. Further, the reliance placed by the appellant on section 17(1) and 17(5) of the JDA Act is also found to be devoid of any merit as these do not prohibit the construction activities on such lands/plot, as discussed earlier in this order. Therefore, in view of the above discussion, it is held that the AO was justified in making addition of wealth amounting to Rs. 1,60,06,563/- to the net wealth of the appellant and thus the same is hereby sustained. Hence, these grounds of appeal are hereby rejected."
4. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the plots/lands which are claimed as exempted assets are either agriculture lands or the plots for which JDA allotment letter were not issued or colonies were not approved by JDA. Since as per rules and regulations of the JDA the construction are only permissible on the lands/plots for which the JDA 5 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT has issued the allotment letter and in absence of that no construction can be carried out on such lands/plots and if any construction is carried out thereon without obtaining the approval from JDA/permission of JDA, the same will be illegal construction and JDA may demolish it. Since as per the explanation 1(b) to the section 2(ea)(iv) of Wealth Tax Act, 1957 provide that urban land does not include land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and used for agricultural purposes or land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated.
4.1 It was further submitted that the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 was enacted under the Rajasthan State Legislature and received the assent of the President on 12th Day October, 1982 and hence become the statutory law. The section 17(1) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 related to taking permission from JDA before making development in Jaipur region is reproduced herewith:
"Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, except with the previous permission of the Authority, no authority or person shall undertake any development within the Jaipur Region of the type as the Authority may from time to time specify, by notification published in the Official Gazette, and which is likely to adversely affect the overall development of the Jaipur Region."
In case any person undertakes construction/development without taking proper approval, the JDA shall have power to demolish or remove such construction/development. The section 17(5) of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982 is reproduced herewith:-
"In case any person or authority does anything contrary to the decision given under this section, the Authority shall have power to pull down, demolish or remove any development undertaken contrary to such decision 6 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT and recover the cost of such pulling down, demolition or removal from the persons or authority concerned."
It is clear from above submission that in unapproved schemes or where JDA Patta has not been issued no construction work can be carried out by any person.
Since the assessee's plots/lands are not approved by JDA or JDA patta has not been issued, these plots are not permissible for construction. Further, the JDA patta is not issued, the ownership of the land is vest in Government. This may be seen from following:-
Category of land Owner Assessee's status
Agricultural Land Government The assessee has lease
right to cultivate.
90B completed Government. As per The assessee has
section 90B/90A for possession holder.
Rajasthan Land
Revenue the land vest
in Government and in
revenue records the
name of JDA is entered
as owner
JDA Patta issue Owner assessee
Therefore, the assessee cannot raise construction in first two categories of land and the first two category of land are not permissible for construction. The construction of storage, and other utilities and facilities in agricultural land have direct nexus with agricultural activities. In agricultural land the 7 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT independent construction either residential or commercial cannot be allowed.
4.2 The legislature used the word "not permissible" and it cannot be understood as "prohibited". When the stay is granted on land or the land is under acquisition, then the construction is prohibited. But when the land is unapproved, the construction is not permissible.
4.3 The ld CIT(A) has relied on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Mumbai in the case of Mars Hotels & Resorts (P) Ltd vs DCWT. The facts of this case are not applicable to the case of assessee. In this case construction of Hotel building was permissible if the condition of development and maintenance of park is complied with. In this regard, it is worthwhile to reproduce the findings of Hon'ble ITAT in para 7.2 and 7.3 as under:-
"7.2 vide notification dated 12.11.1992 under the MRPA 1966, the land in question was reserved to the extent of 50% for park and the remaining 50% of the land to be deleted and included in C-I zone for specific purpose of development of hotel subject to the conditions that the parties should develop and maintain the park and shall keep them for general public during restricted hours.
7.3 Thus, vide the said notification, 50% land was kept as reserved for park to be developed and maintained by the assessee and subject to the said conditions, the remaining 50% of the land was deleted from the reserved category and allowed to be developed for hotel. It is to be noted that the assessee acquired the land in question vide order of the Company law Board dated 30.01.1995 which means that the assessee acquired the land in question after the notification dated 30.11.1992 and therefore, the prohibition against the development and construction of the land in question was not in existence when the assessee acquired the land in question."8
W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT 4.4 As regard agricultural land mentioned at S.No. 1 to 3 in table at page 2 of Assessment Order total value 10,45,191,+5,54,060+2,85,000 total 18,84,251/- we submit that these were agricultural land and was used for agricultural activities. There was no construction over these lands and the assessee was cultivating these lands through the help of other neighbouring farmers but he could not earn income from these lands. For being the agricultural activities, the generation of income is not necessary. Further, on these lands construction is not permissible and these were not converted into residential. The ld. CWT(A) relies on the decision of Hon'ble ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Sunil Kumar vs. WTO. The facts of this case are not applicable to the case of assessee as this land falls in UP where the provisions of Rajasthan Land Revenue Act and JDA Act are not applicable.
4.5 The assessee relies on the decision of Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Amrit Lal Jindal & Sons HUF vs WTO reported in 327 ITR 161 (P&H) wherein it has been held that once no construction is permissible in law then such land would not be "Urban Land".
Therefore the lower authorities have erred in making addition/confirming the addition of Rs. 1,60,06,563/- in returned wealth of the assessee by treating unapproved/agriculture plots/lands as taxable assets having market value of Rs. 1,60,06,563/-.
5. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The limited issue under consideration relates to whether the assessee's having various pieces of land/plots falls under the exclusion clause of section 2(ea)(v) read with explanation (b) so as to not fall within the definition of urban land which is otherwise exigible for wealth 9 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT tax. The explanation (b) to clause of section 2(ea)(v) defines urban land as under:
"urban land" means land situate-
(i) in any area which is comprised within the jurisdiction of a municipality (whether known as a municipality, municipal corporation, notified area committee, town area committee, town committee, or by any other name) or a cantonment board and which has a population of not less than ten thousand according to the last preceding census of which the relevant figures have been published before the valuation date; or
(ii) in any area with such distance, measured aerially, not being more than eight kilometres from the local limits of any municipality or cantonment board referred to in sub-clause (i), as the Central Government may, having regard to the extent of, and scope for, urbanisation of that area and other relevant considerations, specify in this behalf by notification in the official Gazette, But does not include land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and used for agricultural purposes or land on which construction of a building is not permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated or the land occupied by any building which has been constructed with the approval of the appropriate authority or any unused land held by the assessee for industrial purposes for a period of two years from the date of its acquisition by him or any land held by the assessee as stock-in trade for a period of ten years from the date of its acquisition by him."
6. The exclusion clause to definition of urban land as relevant for present purposes contains two limbs. Firstly, it talks about land classified as agricultural land in the records of the Government and used for agricultural purposes, thus both the conditions need to be satisfied cumulatively. Secondly, it talks about land on which construction of a building is not 10 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT permissible under any law for the time being in force in the area in which such land is situated.
7. The language of both the limbs is plain and simple and since the assessee is seeking the invocation of the exclusion clause, the initial onus lies on him to demonstrate through verifiable evidence that the specified pieces of land/plot satisfies the requirement of both these limbs. The contention advanced by the ld AR in this regard is that the plots/lands which are claimed as exempted assets are either agriculture lands or the plots for which JDA allotment letter were not issued or colonies were not approved by JDA. Since as per rules and regulations of the JDA the construction are only permissible on the lands/plots for which the JDA has issued the allotment letter and in absence of that no construction can be carried out on such lands/plots and if any construction is carried out thereon without obtaining the approval from JDA/permission of JDA, the same will be illegal construction and JDA may demolish it. In our view, these are merely contentions and however strong these contentions may be, unless and until these contentions are supported by demonstrable evidence which brings out the actual facts and circumstances, the same cannot be accepted. Therefore, we are presently not going into the debate of prohibition vs permission for carrying out construction on these assets as sought by both the parties and various decisions cited in support thereof. There are number of pieces of land/plots which are under consideration. However, there is no material on record to support these contentions in respect of any of these pieces of land/plots. In absence of that, we are constrained to set aside the matter to the file of the AO to examine the same a fresh in accordance with law. The assessee is directed to file necessary information/documents specifying the correct position in respect of each of the pieces of land/plots in the land revenue records, and basis that, let the AO verify with the JDA the status of these land assets and the position 11 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT regarding possibility of construction on these land assets as on the valuation date in terms of either total prohibition or permitted after following prescribed rules and regulations as per the JDA Act and related regulations in force and taking the same into consideration, decide as per law. In the result, the matter is set-aside to the file of AO and the ground of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
8. In ground no.2, the assessee has challenged the action of ld CWT(A) in not allowing the benefit of debt of Rs 73,56,129 claimed to be utilised for acquiring the exempted assets.
9. During the course of hearing, the ld AR submitted that the assessee owned total debts as under:-
Secured Loan = 77,46,148 Unsecured Loan = 80,78,769 Sundry Creditors= 7,08,000 Other Liabilities = 84,13,457 Total 2,49,46,374
The assessee claimed deduction under section 2(m) of the Act for debts incurred in relation to taxable assets and exempted assets on proportionate basis. The assessee claimed debt of Rs. 12,64,665/- against the taxable assets and debt of Rs. 73,56,129/- against the exempted assets. The debt claimed against the taxable assets was allowed by ld. AO. However, the ld. AO treated the exempted assets as taxable wealth but debt claimed against these assets were not allowed as deduction u/s 2(m) of Wealth Tax Act. The ld. CWT(A) held that the assessee has not filed any documentary evidence to suggest that the debts undertaken by the appellant were directly linked to the acquisition of taxable assets so he held that deduction on account of debt is not allowable.
12W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT
10. The ld AR submitted that without prejudice to earlier submission, if immovable property which were claimed as exempt by assessee is held as taxable to Wealth Tax then from the aggregated of all assets, the value of debt of Rs. 73,56,129/- owned on the valuation date in relation to those assets which are included in net wealth of the assessee should be allowed as deduction u/s 2(m) of Wealth Tax Act.
11. In support, reliance was placed on the following decision:-
a) ITAT Jodhpur Bench in WTA No. 1/JU/2008 order dated 20.03.2009 in the case of The Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Pvt. Ltd. Vs ACIT Circle-2, Udaipur for AY 1998-99. In this case the assessee owned a land which was given on lease and the assessee received security deposit from East India Hotels Ltd. The security deposit was held as debt and deduction u/s 2(m) of Wealth Tax Act was allowed.
The department filed appeal before Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the above case listed as Wealth Tax Appeal 1 of 2008 titled as CIT Udaipur Vs. Lake Palace Hotels & Motels Ltd. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court held that the security deposit received by the assessee against lease is allowable deduction as debt u/s 2(m) of Wealth Tax Act.
b) Hon'ble ITAT Jodhpur Bench in M/s Salasar Overseas Pvt Ltd. in WTA No. 2 & 3/JP/2012 (Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 08-09) has held as under:-
"We have heard parties with reference to material on record and case laws brought to our notice. The Ld. CWT(A) in appeal has returned a finding of fact that the advances received against plot booking and JDA charges have been utilized for acquisition of gold and car. This finding of fact has neither been assailed by the revenue nor shown to be perverse on facts. The same, therefore, attains finality. We also find and the record reveals that the 13 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT amount of advances raised by the assessee against plot booking and JDA charges were repayable in cash or kind on the relevant valuation date and is a debt incurred nor were assessed as assessee's income of the years under consideration in framing income tax assessment for respective years in appeal. Having utilized the amount of debt for creation of the assets i.e. motor car and jewellery/bullion, it is palpable that the debt incurred has a direct nexus with the acquisition of such assets under consideration. Going by the language of section 2 (m) of the WT Act, such debts outstanding on the valuation dates are required to be deducted from the value of assets declared by the assessee in the returns of wealth for both the years under consideration.
We, therefore, modify the decision of Ld. CWT(A) in both the years under appeal and remit the matter back to the Assessing Authority so that the assessable wealth as on valuation date is recomputed afresh after deducting the debts so payable on the valuation date in the light of discussions as contained herein before from the value of assets held by the assessee in both the years under consideration."
Therefore, in view of the decision of jurisdictional ITAT on same facts, debts incurred by the assessee for acquisition of these properties should be allowed as deduction.
12. We now refer to the relevant findings of the Ld. CIT(A) which are under challenge before us. The same are reproduced as under:-
" (ii) I have duly considered the submissions of the appellant and the relevant provisions of the Act. As per section 2(m) of the Wealth tax Act, "net wealth" means the amount by which the aggregate value computed in accordance with the provisions of Wealth Tax Act of all the assets, wherever located, belonging to the assessee on the 14 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT valuation date, including assets required to be included in his net wealth as on that date under this Act, is in excess of the aggregate value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date which have been incurred in relation to the said assets;
(iii) The appellant has not filed any documentary evidence to suggest that the debts undertaken by the appellant amounting to Rs.
73,56,129/- were directly linked to the acquisition of assets which are liable to be included in the net wealth of the appellant. It is trite law that mere statements without any documentary evidence to support such statements are of no use. Therefore, looking to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that since the appellant failed to prove the nexus of the debts amounting to Rs. 73,56,129/- with the assets which are to be included in the net wealth of the appellant, the deduction on account of debt amount cannot be allowed to the appellant. Hence, this ground of appeal is hereby rejected."
13. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. The requirement of law to determine the net wealth is to reduce the value of all the debts owed by the assessee on the valuation date which have been incurred in relation to the said assets which are exigible to wealth tax. The emphasis is therefore on "debt in relation to the said assets". The assessee would therefore be required to substantiate with demonstrable evidence that the debt has been incurred in relation to such assets. In other words, the proximity or connection with the asset is sine qua non for the purposes of claiming the deduction of debt. The decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in case of Lake Palace hotel and Motels, relied upon by the ld AR, also lays down a similar proposition where it was held that the amount (refundable security deposit bearing rate of interest) has a direct nixus with the land in question and was accordingly excluded in terms of section 2(m) of the Act. Having said that, there is again no material on 15 W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17 Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta Vs. ACWT record to support the contentions raised by the ld AR which satisfies the above requirement of establishing the necessary nexus between the debt and the assets in question. Since we have set-aside the matter relating to determination of pieces of land/plot as exigible to wealth tax and the applicability of the exclusion clause, this issue is also set-aside to the file of the AO to examine the same afresh as per law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31/07/2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
¼dqy Hkkjr ½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½
(Kul Bharat) (Vikram Singh Yadav)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member
Jaipur
Dated:- 31/07/2017
Santosh
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf"kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Mahesh Kumar Gupta, 211-212, Shalimar Complex, Church Road, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@The Respondent- The ACWT, Circle-2, Jaipur.
3. vk;dj vk;qDr@CIT
4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A)
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT,
6. xkMZ QkbZy@Guard File (W.T.A. No. 01/JP/17) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar.16