SHRI ANIL GHATIWALA,JAIPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, JAIPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES ‘A’ JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh foØe flag ;kno] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 845/JP/2018 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year :2015-16 cuke Shri Anil Ghatiwala Dy. Commissioner of Vs. Krishna Bhawan, Income-Tax Nath Optical Building, Central Circle-3, Jaipur Chaura Rasta, Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ACQPG5049K vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. S. R. Sharma (CA) & Sh. Rajnikant Bhatra (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt. Runi Pal (Addl. CIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 12/10/2020 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 11/01/2021 vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld. CIT(A)-04, Jaipur dated 02.04.2018 pertaining to A.Y 2015-16 wherein the grounds of appeal taken by the assessee reads as under:-

“1. That the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,95,189/- imposed by the assessing officer u/s 271AAB of the Act. 2. That the CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming the said penalty of Rs. 4,95,189/- u/s 271AAB of the Act, holding that it is mandatory in nature and not discretionary and so assessing officer is correct in law while imposing penalty on appellant.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 3. That the CIT(A) is wrong and has erred in law in confirming the said penalty of Rs. 4,95,189/- u/s 271AAB imposed by assessing officer although the notice issued by assessing officer for initiating the penalty u/s 271AAB of the I.T. Act, 1961 is not in accordance with law not being specifically pointing out the default for which the ld. AO sought to impose penalty u/s 271AAB. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) is wrong in confirming penalty of Rs. 4,95,189/- u/s 271AAB of the Act in as much the penalty was levied by assessing officer simply on the basis that the assessee admitted the income of Rs. 49,51,885/- and disclosed in the return without proving that the said income was ‘undisclosed income’ of assessee within the meaning of section 271AAB of I.T. Act, 1961.”

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 3. During the course of penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer stated that all the essential requirement of section 271AAB(1)(a) are satisfied in the instant case and given that the assessee had admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 49,51,885/- in its statements u/s 132(4) of the Act, paid the taxes together with interest thereon and filed his return of income before specified date, penalty @ 10% u/s 271AAB on the undisclosed income of Rs. 49,51,885/- amounting to Rs 4,95,189/- was levied on the assessee.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur charge against the assessee, the assessee was not in a position to respond to the show cause notice issued by the AO. It was submitted that though the AO while passing the impugned order has imposed the penalty as per clause (a) of section 271AAB(1) of the Act, however, no such ground was specified in the show casue notice issued u/s 271AAB read with section 274 of the Act. In support, reliance was placed on the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT vs. M/s SSA’s Emerald Meadows reported in 2015 (11) TMI 1620, in case of Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory [2013] 359 ITR 565 (Karnataka) and various decisions of the Co-ordinate Benches of the Tribunal. It was accordingly submitted that notice issued u/s 271AAB is bad in law and therefore, the penalty levy u/s 271AAB(1)(a) deserves to be deleted.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur proceedings and Ld. A.O. made no further enquiry/investigation regarding entries made in the seized papers. The said entries in the seized paper giving advances itself are not an undisclosed income. The revenue authorities have exerted undue pressure and obtained the surrender of income from the assessee. The CBDT in this regard issued a circular F.No.286/2/2003-IT(Inv.) dated 10-03-2003 and has expressed its concern about the practice of confession of additional income during the course of search and seizure proceedings and, therefore, clarified that the confession during the course of search and survey operation do not serve any useful purpose. There should be focus and concentration on collection of evidence of income which leads to information on what has not been disclosed or is not likely to be disclosed before the Income Tax Department. The Board has again issued a Circular dated 18th December, 2014 and advised the taxing authorities to avoid obtaining admission of undisclosed income under coercion/undue influence. It was submitted that the provisions of section 271AAB clearly requires that such undisclosed income to be substantiated and, therefore, the assessee is required to specify the manner in which such income has been derived and further substantiate the same furnishing material available with him. In the absence of any record or material to show any undisclosed source of income, the entire disclosure was on papers is to avoid undue harassment and unwanted litigation and the assessee could not have substantiated such income so declared during the course of search. It was submitted that there is no iota of evidence that surrendered income was undisclosed income of the assessee. It was submitted that said surrender was made to buy piece and avoid long litigation with department on the request that no penalty proceedings etc. be initiated against it. In support, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Bench decision in case of ACIT vs. Marval Associates 92 Taxmann.com 109 wherein it was held that penalty u/s 271AAB is attracted on undisclosed income but not on admission made by the assessee u/s 132(4) of the Act. The AO must establish that there 5

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur is undisclosed income on the basis of incriminating material. Further, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Bench in decision in case of Ajay Sharma vs. DCIT [2013] 30 taxmann.com 109 wherein it was held that addition on account of alleged receivables as per seized paper cannot be made as there is no direct material which leads and establishes that any income received by the assessee which has not been declared by the assessee. The facts of the assessee’s case shows that there was no undisclosed income found during the course of search and no incriminating material was found, hence there is no case for imposing penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act. Further, reliance was placed on the Co-ordinate Bench decisions in case of Sh. Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs. DCIT, CC-2, Jaipur (ITA No. 359/JP/2017 dated 18.01.2019) and Suraj Mal Bansal HUF and other cases vs DCIT, CC-3, Jaipur (ITA No. 124-127/JP/18 dated 8.04.2019), it was submitted the facts of the said case squarely applies in case of assessee and therefore, the penalty so levied should be deleted.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur of Rs.4,51,885/- as his additional business income on account of profit earned on alleged unaccounted sale. In this connection in the course of search, the departmental valuer valued the total value of stock at his business premises at Rs.99,37,587/- whereas investigation team calculated/arrived the figure of closing stock as per books at Rs.1,49,88,578/- by applying the G.P. rate of preceding year i.e. 8.95% on his total sales. Accordingly investigation team concluded that the stock is short by Rs.50,48,991/- (1,49,88,578 – 99,37,587). The search team applied the G.P. rate of 8.95% on said alleged short stock of Rs.50,48,991/- and taken the surrender of Rs.4,51,885/- as undisclosed profit element on unrecorded sales from assessee in the statement recorded during the course of search. The said alleged profit of Rs.4,51,885/- offered by assessee as his additional business income is nothing but the difference in valuation of stock. Thus no short stock found during the course search. It is only difference in valuation of stock valued by registered valuer. It is submitted that there is no short stock found during the course of search. No documentary evidence or papers relevant to unrecorded sales were found during the course of search. More particularly, assessee has no unexplained purchases or sales. There is no real income and no short stock. Without establishing real income, no penalty can be imposed presuming the hypothetical income. Accordingly it was submitted that said alleged profit element on alleged unaccounted sales does not met the definition of undisclosed income given in Section 271AAB. The assessee in his statement to avoid the protracted and imposed litigation and to buy peace of mind, made surrender and disclosed the same in his return of income. The Ld AO has also not determined it as income from other sources u/s 69 of Income Tax Act in the assessment but accepted as income of current year. Therefore merely on the basis of surrender made in the search statement, this cannot be held as “Undisclosed Income” for the purpose of levy of penalty u/s 271AAB.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 10. Per contra, the ld. DR heavily relied on the findings of the lower authorities. It was submitted by the ld DR that the assessee has surrendered the undisclosed income of Rs. 49,51,885/- in its statement recorded during the course of search u/s 132(4) of the Act and the said surrender is clearly an admission on the part of the assessee that there is undisclosed income which has been found during the course of search. Once the surrender of undisclosed income has been made by the assessee, there is no cause of action which lies with the Assessing Officer to establish further that there is any undisclosed income so earned by the assessee. In this case, the search was conducted on 5.02.2015 wherein the statement of the assessee was recorded u/s 132(4) wherein he has surrendered the amount of Rs 49,51,885/-. Subsequently, the assessee has disclosed the same in its return of income filed on 27.09.2015. Therefore, the assessee was having ample time to retract from said surrender, however there is no such retraction during post-search proceedings and even the assessee has included the same in its return of income. Even from the perusal of the assessee’s statement, there is nothing which demonstrates that there is any forced surrender by the assessee. The contention of the ld AR therefore has thus no basis where he contends that the search party have exerted undue pressure and obtained surrender of income and therefore, there was no undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. It was further submitted that the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB is mandatory is nature and reference was drawn to provisions of section 271AAA which provides for immunity from levy of penalty as against the provisions of section 271AAB wherein there is no such provision providing from immunity. It was accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order of the Assessing Officer wherein he has levied the penalty @ 10% of the undisclosed income as per the provisions of section 271AAB and order of the ld. CIT(A) who has confirmed the said levy should be upheld.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 11. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. Regarding various legal contentions raised by the ld AR, we find that the Coordinate Bench in case of Rajendra Kumar Gupta (supra) has exhaustively dealt with each of these contentions and we deem it appropriate to refer to its findings which read as under: “6. Heard both the parties. The penalty proceedings are separate from assessment proceedings, which are initiated with the issue of notice u/s. 274 and culminate with passing of the penalty order u/s. 271AAB of the Act. Further, there cannot be any dispute that the assessee should be confronted with the charge against him which is sine qua non for any valid penalty proceedings. It is only when the assessee is made aware of such a charge against him that he can present his contentions. Thus prescribing the charge in the penalty notice and penalty order is must. Absence of a charge in the penalty notice and not finding the assessee guilty of a clear offence in the penalty order vitiates the penalty order.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur Assessing officer has to examine the satisfaction of ancillary conditions as specified under clause (a), clause (b) or clause (c) to sub-section (1) to Section 271AAB. Merely because the quantum of penalty varies from 10% to 30% subject to compliances with the ancilliary conditions, it cannot be said that where the AO has initiated the penalty under section 271AAB, there is any ambiguity in the charge or there is any lack of application of mind on part of the Assessing officer. Further, the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB is not based on addition made and investigation/enquiry conducted during the course of assessment proceedings, rather it is based on search conducted on the assessee on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, in such a situation, where the penalty show-cause notice is issued u/s 271AAB, the Assessing officer is making the assessee aware of the charge against him in terms of undisclosed income found during the course of search and thus, the assessee is granted an opportunity to refute such charge and file his explanations/submissions. Unlike provisions of section 271(1)(c) which provides for separate charge of “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, there is a singular charge under section 271AAB i.e, of the existence of undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. Therefore, in the instant case, where the notice dated 23.02.2015 is issued to the assessee to show-cause why penalty should not be levied u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of undisclosed income of the specified previous year, the assessee is made aware of the specific charge against him and an opportunity has thus been given to him to rebut such charge and therefore, we donot see any infirmity in the initiation of the penalty proceedings and consequent penalty order so passed by the AO. A similar view has been taken by the

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur Co-ordinate Bench in case of Mahesh Kumar Jain & others (ITA No. 630/JP/17 & others dated 27.11.2017) wherein it was held as under:

“10. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is the nature of penalty provisions as contained in section 271AAB(1)(a) and 271AAB(1)(c). In other words, whether these provisions provide for levy of penalty on account of separate and independent charges or these provision provide for levy of penalty for the same charge under section 271AAB, however, subject to satisfaction of the prescribed conditions, the quantum of penalty may vary as specified in the respective sub- clauses of 271AAB of the Act.

“271AAB. (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him,—

(a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee— (i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived; (ii) substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and (iii) on or before the specified date— (A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and (B) furnishes the return of income for the specified previous year declaring suc

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur undisclosed income therein; (b) a sum computed at the rate of twenty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee— (i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, does not admit the undisclosed income; and (ii) on or before the specified date— (A) declares such income in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year; and (B) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; (c) a sum which shall not be less than thirty percent but which shall not exceed ninety percent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b).

(2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A).

(3) The provisions of sections 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,—

(a) "specified date" means the due date of furnishing of return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 or the date on which the period specified in the notice issued under section 153A for furnishing of return of income expires, as the case may be; (b) "specified previous year" means the previous year— (i) which has ended before the date of search, but the date of furnishing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 for such year has not expired before the date of search and the assessee has

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur not furnished the return of income for the previous year before the date of search; or (ii) in which search was conducted; (c) "undisclosed income" means— (i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has— (A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner before the date of search; or (ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and satisfies other conditions as provided in 271AAB(1)(a). It further provides that where the declaration of undisclosed income is not made by the searched person in the course of search but is declared in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year and subject to satisfaction of other conditions, penalty @ 20% is payable by him. It further provides that where the declaration of undisclosed income is neither made by the searched person in the course of search nor declared in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year and additions are made during the course of assessment proceedings, penalty which can vary from 30% to 90% is payable by him.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 271AAB(1)(c) provides for levy of penalty for an identical charge i.e, undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012. Therefore, we are unable to accede to the contention of the ld AR that the ld CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271AAB(1)(a) which provides for a separate and independent charge and comes under different section than the provisions of section 271AAB(1)(c) which has been specifically invoked by the AO.”

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

“15. The moot question is that what should be the nature of specification of a charge by the AO at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings and at the time of passing the penalty order. Is the AO required to specify in the penalty notice/order as to whether it is a case of 'concealment of particulars of income'; or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income'; or both of them, which can be expressed by using the word 'and' between the two expressions. When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of concealment of particulars of income, he must specify it so in the notice at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and also in the penalty order. The AO cannot initiate penalty on the charge of 'concealment of particulars of income', but ultimately find the assessee guilty in the penalty order of 'furnishing inaccurate particulars of income'. In the same manner, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', he must again specify it so in the notice at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings and also in the penalty order. After initiating penalty on the charge of 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', he cannot impose penalty by finding the assessee guilty of 'concealment of particulars of income'. Again, he cannot be uncertain in the penalty order as to concealment or furnishing of 16

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur inaccurate particulars of income by using slash between the two expressions. When the AO is satisfied that it is a clear-cut case of imposition of penalty u/s. 271(l)(c) of the Act on two or more additions/disallowances, one or more falling under the expression 'concealment of particulars of income' and the other under the 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', he must specify it so by using the word 'and' between the two expressions in the notice at the time of initiation of penalty proceedings. If he remains convinced in the penalty proceedings that the penalty was rightly initiated on such counts and imposes penalty accordingly, he must specifically find the assessee guilty of 'concealment of particulars of income' and also 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' in the penalty order. If the charge is not levied in the above manner in all the three clear-cut situations discussed above in the penalty notice and also in the penalty order, the penalty order becomes unsustainable in law.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur are initiated on one ground, the penalty should also be imposed on the same ground. Where the basis of the initiation of penalty proceedings is not identical with the ground on which the penalty was imposed, the imposition of penalty is not valid'.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income), the penalty cannot be sustained.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 'concealment of particulars of income/furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income' etc., but the assessee is ultimately found to be guilty of a specific charge of either 'concealment of particulars of income' or 'furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income', then no fault can be found in the penalty order.

'We find from the order of the IAC, in the penalty proceedings, that is, the final conclusion as expressed in para. 4 of the order: "I am of the opinion that it will have to be said that the assessee had concealed its income and/or that it had finished inaccurate particulars of such income". Now, the language of "and/or" may be proper in issuing a notice as to penalty order or framing of charge in a criminal case or a quasi-criminal case, but it was incumbent upon the IAC to come to a positive finding as to whether there was concealment of income by the assessee or whether any inaccurate particulars of such income had been furnished by the assessee.'

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur penalty order. In any case, existence of a clear-cut charge in penalty order is a must so as to validate any penalty order.”

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur 12. Now, coming to the main ground of appeal. In this regard, the ld AR has raised the contention challenging the findings of the AO that penalty U/s 271AAB is mandatory in nature and there is no discretion with the Income tax authorities. It was submitted by the ld AR that in section 271AAB, the word ‘may’ is used instead of ‘shall’ so it is not mandatory but same is discretionary. It was submitted that it is settled position of law that penalties are not compulsory, not mandatory but are also discretionary considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case. In support, reliance was placed on provisions of section 158BFA(2) wherein similar phraselogy has been used by the legislature and the decisions of the Coordinate Benches in case of DCIT vs Manish Agarwal 92 taxmann.com 81 and ACIT vs Marvel Associates 92 taxmann.com 109.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur assessee and the assessee shall pay the penalty as per clause (a) to (c) so satisfied in sub-section (1) to Section 271AAB. Further, as per sub- section (3) of Section 271AAB, the provisions of section 274 and section 275 as far as may be applied in relation to penalty under this section which means that before levying the penalty, the Assessing officer has to issue a show-cause granting an opportunity to the assessee. Thus, the levy of penalty is not automatic but the Assessing officer has to decide based on facts and circumstances of the case. Similar view has been taken by the various Co-ordinate Benches and useful reference can be drawn to the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in case of ACIT vs Marvel Associates (supra) wherein it was held as under: “5. We have heard both the parties, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. During the appeal hearing, the Ld. A.R. vehemently argued that the A.O. has levied the penalty under the impression that the levy of penalty in the case of admission of income u/s 132(4) is mandatory. The Ld. A.R. further stated that penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but discretionary. The provisions of section 271AAB of the Act is parimateria with that of section 158BFA of the Act relating to block assessment and accordingly argued that the levy of penalty under section 271AAB is not mandatory but discretionary. When there is reasonable cause, the penalty is not exigible. The Ld. A.R. taken us to the section 271AAB of the Act and also section 158BFA(2) of the Act and argued that the words used in section 271AAB of the Act and the words used in section 158BFA(2) of the Act are identical. Hence, argued that the penalty section 271AAB of the Act penalty is not automatic and it is on the merits of each case. For ready

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur reference, we reproduce hereunder section 158BFA (2) of the Act and section 271AAB of the Act which reads as under: 271AAB [Penalty where search has been initiated]: (1) The Assessing Officer may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act, direct that, in a case where search has been initiated under section 132 on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, the assessee shall pay by way of penalty, in addition to tax, if any, payable by him— (a) a sum computed at the rate of ten per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee—

(i) in the course of search, in a statement under sub-section (4) of section 132, admits the undisclosed income and specifies the manner in which such income has been derived.

(ii) Substantiates the manner in which the undisclosed income was derived; and

(iii) On or before the specified date—

(A) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income; and

(B) furnishes the return of income for the specified previous year declaring such undisclosed income therein;

(b) a sum computed at the rate of twenty per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if such assessee—

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

(i) in the course of the search, in a statement under sub- section (4_) of section 132, does not admit the undisclosed income; and

(ii) on or before the specified date-

(A) declares such income in the return of income furnished for the specified previous year; and

(B) pays the tax, together with interest, if any, in respect of the undisclosed income;

(C) a sum which shall not be less than thirty per cent but which shall not exceed ninety per cent of the undisclosed income of the specified previous year, if it is not covered by the provisions of clauses (a) and (b). (2) No penalty under the provisions of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 shall be imposed upon the assessee in respect of the undisclosed income referred to in sub-section (1). Section 158BFA(2): (2) The Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) in the course of any proceedings under this Chapter, may direct that a person shall pay by way of penalty a sum which shall not be less than the amount of tax leviable but which shall not exceed three times the amount of tax so leviable in respect of the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC: Provided that no order imposing penalty shall be made in respect of a person if— 25

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

(i) such person has furnished a return under clause (a) of section 158BC;

(ii) the tax payable on the basis of such return has been paid or, if the assets seized consist of money, the assessee offers the money so seized to be adjusted against the tax payable.

(iii) Evidence of tax paid is furnished along with the return; and

(iv) An appeal is not filed against the assessment of that part of income which is shown in the return: Provided further that the provisions of the preceding proviso shall not apply where the undisclosed income determined by the Assessing Officer is in excess of the income shown in the return and in such cases the penalty shall be imposed on that portion of undisclosed income determined which is in excess of the amount of undisclosed income shown in the return. 6. Careful reading of section 271AAB of the Act, the words used are 'AO may direct' and 'the assessee shall pay by way of penalty'. Similar words are used section 158BFA(2) of the Act. The word may direct indicates the discretion to the AO. Further, sub section (3) of section 271AAB of the Act, fortifies this view. Sub section (3) of section 271AAB: The provisions of section 274 and 275 shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to the penalty referred to in this section. 7. The legislature has included the provisions of section 274 and section 275 of the Act in 271AAB of the Act with clear intention to consider the imposition of penalty judicially. Section 274 deals with the procedure for levy of penalty, wherein, it directs that no order imposing penalty shall be made unless the assessee has been

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. Therefore, from plain reading of section 271AAB of the Act, it is evident that the penalty cannot be imposed unless the assessee is given a reasonable opportunity and assessee is being heard. Once the opportunity is given to the assessee, the penalty cannot be mandatory and it is on the basis of the facts and merits placed before the A.O. Once the A.O. is bound by the Act to hear the assessee and to give reasonable opportunity to explain his case, there is no mandatory requirement of imposing penalty, because the opportunity of being heard and reasonable opportunity is not a mere formality but it is to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Hon'ble A.P. High Court in the case of Radhakrishna Vihar in ITTA No.740/2011 while dealing with the penalty u/s 158BFA held that 'we are of the opinion that while the words shall be liable under sub section (1) of section 158BFA of the Act that are entitled to be mandatory, the words may direct in sub section 2 there of intended to directory'. In other words, while payment of interest is mandatory levy of penalty is discretionary. It is trite position of law that discretion is vested and authority has to be exercised in a reasonable and rational manner depending upon the facts and circumstances of the each case. Plain reading of section 271AAB and 274 of the Act indicates that the imposition of penalty u/s 271AAB of the Act is not mandatory but directory. Accordingly we hold that the penalty u/s 271AAB is not mandatory but to be imposed on merits of the each case.”

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur penalty or non-levy thereof and the same will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the present case which we shall discuss in subsequent paragraphs.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur well. There was no money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article or thing or entry in the books of accounts or documents transactions were found during the course of search indicating the assets not recorded in the books of accounts or other documents maintained in the normal course, wholly or partly. The Revenue did not find any undisclosed asset, any other undisclosed income or the inflation of expenditure during the search/ assessment proceedings. Though a diary was found that does not indicate any suppression of income. Similarly, no discrepancy was found in the books of accounts. The AO was happy with the disclosure given by the assessee and did not verify the factual position with the books of accounts and other documents. The Tribunal in the case of Ajay Sharma vs. DCIT (2012) 32CCH 334 held that “with respect to the addition on account of alleged receivables as per seized paper, there is no direct material which leads and establishes that any income received by the assessee has not been declared by the assessee. An addition has been made on the basis of loose document, which did not closely prove any concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars by the assessee. Hence penalty u/s 158BFA (2) of the Act is not leviable.” The facts of the assessee's case shows that there was no undisclosed income found during the course of search and no incriminating material was found, therefore the penalty levied by the Learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Learned CIT(A) deserves to be deleted.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur course of search u/s 132(4) and the relevant extract thereof is reproduced as under for sake of reference:-

“iz'u 14 lpZ dh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku vkids fuokl LFkku ls :i;ksa ysu&nsu dh dPph ifpZ;kWa ikbZ xbZ] d`i;k bu ifpZ;ksa ds ckjs esa Li’V djsa\ mŸkj eSusa esjs fuokl LFkku ij ikbZ xbZ lkrksa ifpZ;ksa dks Hkyh Hkkafr iwoZd i<+ fy;k gS] ;s :i;sa eSusa fofHkUu yksxks dks m/kkj fn;sa gS ftudk mYys[k esjh Regular Books of Accounts esa ugh gSA bu ifpZ;ksa dk tksM+ 82 yk[k 80 gtkj :i;sa gS pwWafd bu :i;ksa dk mYys[k esa esjh Books esa ugh gSA vr% eSa mijksDr 82 yk[k 80 gtkj dks viuh v?kksf’kr vk; ekurs gq, bls djkjksi.k gsrw lefiZr djrk gwWa lkFk gh eSa 17 yk[k 20 gtkj dh vfrfjDr vk; dks tksM+rs gq, dqy 1 djksM+ dh vk; dks djkjksi.k gsrq lefiZr djrk gwWaA mijksDr 17 yk[k 20 gtkj :i;sa dh vfrfjDr v?kksf’kr vk; eSa viuh ekufld 'kkafr ds fy, djkjksi.k ds fy, lefiZr fd;sa gSA ;fn esjh ys[kk cfg;ksa esa dksbZ deh ikbZ tkrh gSA rks bls bl 17 yk[k 20 gtkj ls lek;ksftr dj fn;k tk;saA blds Åij le;kuqlkj eSa vfxze dj tek djok nwWaxkA iz'u 15 D;k vkidks vkSj dqN dguk gS\ mŸkj dguk gS fd mijksDr 1 djksM+ :i;s eu dh 'kkafr ds fy, Surrender fd;k gSA esjk vkils fuosnu gS fd mDr ij fdlh izdkj dk Penalty, Prosecution ,oa C;kt u yxk;k tk;sa-------------^^

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur the assessee. The contention of the ld AR therefore has no legal leg to stand where he contends that the Revenue authorities have exerted undue pressure and obtained surrender of income and therefore, there was no undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. In any case, the assessment proceedings have attained finality where such undisclosed income has been offered and brought to tax. For the purposes of levy of penalty, what has to be seen is whether the surrender so made, in terms of statement of the assessee recorded u/s 132(4) during the course of search, falls in the definition of “undisclosed income” which has been specifically laid down in terms of clause (c) of explanation to section 271AAB which reads as under: “(c) "undisclosed income" means—

(i) any income of the specified previous year represented, either wholly or partly, by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132, which has—

(A) not been recorded on or before the date of search in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to such previous year; or (B) otherwise not been disclosed to the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner before the date of search; or

(ii) any income of the specified previous year represented, either

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur

wholly or partly, by any entry in respect of an expense recorded in the books of account or other documents maintained in the normal course relating to the specified previous year which is found to be false and would not have been found to be so had the search not been conducted.”

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur an advance and income thus connotes different meaning and connotation and thus cannot be used inter-changeably. In the definition of undisclosed income, where it talks about “income by way of any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132”, what perhaps has been envisaged by the legislature is an inflow of funds in the hands of the assessee which has been found by way of any entry in the books of accounts or other documents, and which has not been recorded before the date of search in the books of accounts or other documents maintained by the assessee in the normal course and not vice-versa. We are also conscious of the fact that there are deeming provisions in terms of section 69 and 69B wherein such amounts may be deemed as income in absence of satisfactory explanation. In our view, the deeming fiction so envisaged under Section 69 and Section 69B cannot be extended and applied automatically in context of section 271AAB. It is a well-settled legal proposition that the deeming provisions are limited for the purposes that have been brought on the statute book and have therefore to be applied in the context of provisions wherein they have been brought on the statue book and not otherwise. In the instant case, the deeming provisions contained in section 69 and section 69B could have been applied in the context of bringing to tax such investments to tax in the quantum proceedings, though the fact of the matter is that the AO has not even invoked the said deeming provisions in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, even on this account, the deeming fiction cannot be extended to the penalty proceedings which are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings and more so, where the provisions of section 271AAB provide for a specific definition of undisclosed income. Where a specific definition of undisclosed income has been provided in Section 271AAB, being a penal provision, the same must be strictly 34

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur construed and in light of satisfaction of conditions specified therein and it is not expected to examine other provisions where the same has been defined or deemed for the purposes of bringing the amount to tax. In light of the same, the undisclosed investment by way of advances can be subject matter of addition in the quantum proceedings, as the same has been surrendered during the course of search in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and offered in the return of income, however the same cannot be said to qualify as an undisclosed income in the context of section 271AAB read with the explanation thereto and penalty so levied thereon deserved to be set-aside.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur has initiated the penalty under section 271AAB, there is any ambiguity in the charge or there is any lack of application of mind on part of the Assessing officer. Further, the levy of penalty under Section 271AAB is not based on addition made and investigation/enquiry conducted during the course of assessment proceedings, rather it is based on search conducted on the assessee on or after the 1st day of July, 2012, in such a situation, where the penalty show-cause notice is issued u/s 271AAB, the Assessing officer is making the assessee aware of the charge against him in terms of undisclosed income found during the course of search and thus, the assessee is granted an opportunity to refute such charge and file his explanations/submissions. Unlike provisions of section 271(1)(c) which provides for separate charge of “concealment of particulars of income” or “furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income”, there is a singular charge under section 271AAB i.e, of the existence of undisclosed income for the specified previous year which is found during the course of search in the case of the assessee. We entirely agree with the said findings and observations so made by the Coordinate Bench and in the instant case, where the notice dated 28.12.2016 was issued to the assessee to show-cause why penalty should not be levied u/s 271AAB of the Act in respect of undisclosed income of the specified previous year, the assessee was made aware of the specific charge against him and an opportunity has thus been given to him to rebut such charge and therefore, we donot see any infirmity in the initiation of the penalty proceedings and consequent penalty order so passed by the AO.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur the time of initiation of penalty proceedings, such uncertain charge at the stage of initiation of penalty proceedings can be made good with a clear-cut charge in the penalty order. In the instant case, we find that while passing the penalty proceedings, the Assessing officer has given a clear finding as reflected in the penalty order that the assessee is liable for penalty U/s 271AAB(1)(a) which provides for levy of penalty @ 10% of the undisclosed income. As held by the Coordinate Bench (supra), the uncertain charge at the time of initiation of penalty has been made good and substituted with a conclusive default at the time of passing the penalty order and that in such a case, no fault can be found in the penalty order. Therefore, the contentions advanced by the ld AR in this regard cannot accepted.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur The contention of the ld AR therefore has no basis where he contends that the Revenue authorities have exerted undue pressure and obtained surrender of income and therefore, there was no undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee. In any case, the assessment proceedings have attained finality where such undisclosed income has been offered and brought to tax.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur in context of section 271AAB which contains a specific definition of undisclosed income. Similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench in case of Suraj Mal Bansal (supra) where it was held as under:

“13. In the instant case, during the course of search, a diary has been found wherein there are notings relating to advance given to certain persons towards purchase of land. The notings describe the name of certain persons, the amount advanced which ranges from Rs 25 lacs to Rs 70 lacs and the date of such advance is from 16.12.2014 to 28.01.2015 before the date of search on 5.02.2015. Therefore, what has been found during the course of search is certain entries relating to undisclosed advances/investment in purchase of land. Besides the said entries, there are no other documents/material in terms of full particulars and address of the person to whom the advance has been given, any agreement to sell, the description and location of the property etc, which has been found during the course of search. The assessee HUF is a partner in two partnership firms and derives income from share in the profit and interest from such partnership firms which it has reported in its return of income and therefore, as far as maintenance of books of accounts is concerned, the assessee HUF not carrying on any business is thus not required to maintain regular books of accounts. The diary found during the course of search and seizure at the premises of the assessee contains the entries of advances given for purchase of land and therefore, the said amount of advance given for purchase of land can be recorded in the capital account of the assessee. Thus the transactions found recorded in the diary are to be recorded in the capital account of the assessee as well as in the balance sheet prepared as on 31.03.2015 and not on the date of search as on 5.02.2015. These transactions are recorded in a diary which is nothing but “other documents” maintained in 39

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur the normal course, then it cannot be presumed that the assessee would not have disclosed the same in the return of income to be filed after the date of search. Another question that arise for consideration is whether the advances so given for purchase of land qualify as “undisclosed income” as per definition given in the explanation to section 271AAB of the Act. An advance represents an outflow of funds and what has been envisaged by the legislature while defining “undisclosed income” in section 271AAB is an inflow of funds which has not been recorded in the books of accounts or other documents on or before the date of search and not an outflow of funds. Further, the deeming fiction so envisaged in section 69 and 69B cannot be extended and applied automatically in context of section 271AAB which contains a specific definition of undisclosed income. An identical matter has come up for consideration before the Tribunal in case of Rajendra Kumar Gupta vs DCIT (Supra) wherein it was held as under: “21. During the course of search, a note book (diary) has been found referred to as Ann. AS wherein there are certain notings relating to cash advances given to various persons totaling to Rs 82,80,000. Referring to the statement of the assessee in respect of these notings recorded u/s 132(4), ld CIT(A) has given a finding that the assessee has given a generalized statement without specifying the complete particulars of persons to whom loans were given and also failed to substantiate the same. The said findings have not been disputed by the Revenue and therefore, merely based on surrender and generalized statement of the assessee, in absence of anything specific to corroborate such entries, can it be said that such entries/notings represent undisclosed income of the assessee. As per the definition of undisclosed 40

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur income u/s 271AAB, the said cash advances cannot be stated to be income which is represented by any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing. Whether it can then be said that such undisclosed cash advances represents income by way of any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132. A cash advance per se represents an outflow of funds from the assessee’s hand and an income per se represents an inflow of funds in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, once there is an inflow of funds by way of income, there can be subsequent outflow by way of an advance to any third party. Giving an advance and income thus connotes different meaning and connotation and thus cannot be used inter-changeably. In the definition of undisclosed income, where it talks about “income by way of any entry in the books of account or other documents or transactions found in the course of a search under section 132”, what perhaps has been envisaged by the legislature is an inflow of funds in the hands of the assessee which has been found by way of any entry in the books of accounts or other documents, and which has not been recorded before the date of search in the books of accounts or other documents maintained by the assessee in the normal course and not vice-versa. We are also conscious of the fact that there are deeming provisions in terms of section 69 and 69B wherein such amounts may be deemed as income in absence of satisfactory explanation. In our view, the deeming fiction so envisaged under Section 69 and Section 69B cannot be extended and applied automatically in context of section 271AAB. It is a well-settled legal proposition that the deeming provisions are limited for the purposes that have been brought on the statute 41

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur book and have therefore to be applied in the context of provisions wherein they have been brought on the statue book and not otherwise. In the instant case, the deeming provisions contained in section 69 and section 69B could have been applied in the context of bringing to tax such investments to tax in the quantum proceedings, though the fact of the matter is that the AO has not even invoked the said deeming provisions in the quantum proceedings. Therefore, even on this account, the deeming fiction cannot be extended to the penalty proceedings which are separate and distinct from the assessment proceedings and more so, where the provisions of section 271AAB provide for a specific definition of undisclosed income. Where a specific definition of undisclosed income has been provided in Section 271AAB, being a penal provision, the same must be strictly construed and in light of satisfaction of conditions specified therein and it is not expected to examine other provisions where the same has been defined or deemed for the purposes of bringing the amount to tax. In light of the same, the undisclosed investment by way of advances can be subject matter of addition in the quantum proceedings, as the same has been surrendered during the course of search in the statement recorded u/s 132(4) and offered in the return of income, however the same cannot be said to qualify as an undisclosed income in the context of section 271AAB read with the explanation thereto and penalty so levied thereon deserved to be set-aside.”

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur the Act on cash advances of Rs 37,00,000/- as the same doesn’t satisfy the requirement of undisclosed income as so defined U/s 271AAB of the Act.

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur “28. In the instant case, stock of gems, gold, silver and studded jewellery, precious and semi-precious stones, wooden articles, ivory items, marble items, other handicraft items and textile and readymade good were found during the course of search. These are goods which are regularly traded by the assessee and are thus stock-in-trade of the assessee firm. In this regard, what has to be determined is the income of such previous year which is represented by such stock of goods which is not found recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee in the normal course relating to such previous year. The valuation of such excess stock is required to determine the investment which has been made in such excess stock and which has remained undisclosed to the Revenue authorities. The investment in stock is thus the function of price or cost at which stock has been purchased by the assessee and therefore, what is to be determined at the cost price of such stock and not the market price. Where such stock is ultimately sold, any profit arising therefrom would be brought to tax in regular course and the determination of market price would be relevant at that point in time. In other words, the value at which such stock has been acquired by the assessee and not the value which such stock can fetch in the market or the fair market value of such stock. 29. In the instant case, it is noted that the assessee in the penalty proceedings before the Assessing officer and thereafter during the appellate proceedings before the ld CIT(A) has contended that the valuation of the goods classified as “Valuable items” has been done at market rate as on the date of search and in respect of goods classified as “other than valuable items”, besides the fact that valuation has been done on the basis of market value, the valuation so done is tentative and on lump-sum basis. It has been contended that valuation has been done without considering the cost disclosed in the regular books of accounts 44

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur and without considering the well-accepted accounting policy which has been followed by the assessee firm where it values its stock at lower of cost and net realizable value. We find that in the penalty proceedings, there is no such exercise which has been undertaken by the Assessing officer to determine the cost of the goods so found during the course of search. The Assessing officer has merely gone by the surrender made during the course of search and such surrender has been made based on market value as on the date of search. In our view, given that the assessee has disclosed the whole of the amount surrendered during the course of search in its return of income, the amount so surrendered and disclosed in the return of income is subject matter of assessment and has rightly been brought to tax in the quantum proceedings. However, as far as present penalty proceedings u/s 271AAB are concerned which is solely based on the search proceedings and anyways independent of the assessment proceedings, the Assessing officer is required to give a specific finding that there is an undisclosed income found during the course of search in terms of undisclosed stock and which has not been recorded in the books of account. The undisclosed stock could be in terms of physically identifiable stock not found recorded in the books of accounts or the stock not found recorded at the appropriate value so determined by the Assessing officer. In the instant case, we find that the Assessing officer has merely gone by the surrender statement where the stock has been valued at market price prevailing as on the date of search and has not examined the matter from the perspective of determining separate identifiable stock not found recorded in the books of accounts and also the cost of such stock which is not recorded in the books of accounts. There is no finding that there is any excess stock which has been physically found and which has not been recorded in the books of accounts as on the date of search. In light of above discussions, it is 45

ITA No. 845/JP/2018 Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Jaipur thus clear that difference in stock of goods as per books and as found at the time of search is on account of valuation of such stock at the market value instead of cost and the same cannot be a basis to hold that it represent undisclosed income so defined in explanation to section 271AAB of the Act and the penalty levied thereon is liable to be set- aside. In the instant case as well, we find that the department valuer has carried out the valuation of stock as per the market value as on the date of search and the same has resulted in difference in valuation which cannot be a basis to hold that it represent undisclosed income so defined in explanation to section 271AAB of the Act and the penalty levied thereon is hereby deleted.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 11/01/2021.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼ lanhi xkslkbZ ½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Sandeep Gosain) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 11/01/2021 *Ganesh Kr. आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Sh. Anil Ghatiwala, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- DCIT, Central Circle-03, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत. 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File {ITA No. 845/JP/2018} vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत