SHRI JITENDRA BEHL,SRIGANGANAGAR vs. ITO, WARD-3(2), JAIPUR
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBkSM+ deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. No. 1080/JPR/2024
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2017-18
Shri Jitendra Behl
House No. J-07, Ridhi Sidhi
Ward-3(2),
Jaipur.
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AGKPB4084F vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Mrs. Raksha Birla, C.A.
(through V.C.).
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT a lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 17/09/2025
mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement : 30/10/2025
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM
By way of the present appeal, the assessee challenges the findings of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ for short
“CIT(A)] recorded in order passed as per provision of section 250
of the Income Tax Act 1961 [ for short Act ] dated 17.04.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. Ld. CIT(A) passed that order because the assessee had challenged assessment order dated
16.12.2019 passed under section 143(3) of the Act by ITO, Ward-
3(2), Jaipur [ for short AO] before him.
2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: -
“1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld
CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the validity and legality of order passed by the Ld AO which is bad in law and bad in facts.
That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the juridication of ITO ward,3(2) Jaipur whereas the legal & valid juridication lies with ITO sriganganagar. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the addition made by Id AO without analzying the fact and legal position in true and correct perspective and judicious manner. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 14,47,500/-in respect of cash deposit in bank account as unexplained money. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in not considering the explanation of the appellant supported from documentary evidences in right prespective and judicious manner. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in upholding the provision of section 69A of the Act. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Id CIT(A), NFAC grossly erred in recording the various observations which are contrary to the real & material facts. 8. That the petitioner may kindly be permitted to raise any additional or alternative ground at or before the time of hearing. 9. The petitioner prays for justice & relief.” 3. We find that the appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 64 days. The assessee has filed an application submitting therein the reasons for delay in filing the appeal and prayed to condone the delay in filling the present appeal therein raising the following contention:- “1. That on 05.08.2024, the assessee had received the mail from CPC in respect of adjustment of I.T. Refund against demand for the year under consideration. The assessee had informed about such mail to the authorised representative and the authorised representative after verifying the mail had informed that the CIT(A), NFAC had dismissed the appeal filed and confirmed the demand created by Id AO, therefore CPC had send mail for adjustment of IT Refund against due demand. 2. That the appellate order u/s 250 passed by CIT(A), NFAC had neither received through mail nor any information to me in this regard. I came to know first time on 05.08.2024 that our appeal had been dismissed by CIT(A). Thereafter, I collect the order and approach Adv Rajendra Jain for filing of appeal before Hon'ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, 107 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the expression 'Sufficient Cause employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner to sub-serves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. It was further held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that such liberal approach is adopted on one of the principles that refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this, when delay is condoned, the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. Another principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. It was also held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of male fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact, he runs a Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO 4 serious risk. In the instant case, applying the same principles, we find that there is no culpable negligence or malafide on the part of the assessee in delayed filing of the present appeal and it does not stand to benefit by resorting to such delay more so considering the fact that it has applied for settlement of present dispute and payment of appropriate taxes. Therefore, in the factual matrix of the present case, we find that there exists sufficient and reasonable cause for condoning the delay in filing the present appeal and as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred.
In light of above where substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserved to be preferred as settled by Hon'ble Courts.”
1 In support of the application, the assessee has also filed an Affidavit duly sworn in before the Notary, Public Jaipur dated 21.01.2025 for condonation of delay, which is being reproduced hereunder :-
“Affidavit in support of condonation of delay in filing of appeal
I Jitendra Behl S/o Brij Kumar Behl, aged 59, permanently residint at House No. J-07 Ridhi Sidhi, Sri Ganganagar state on solemn affirmation as under:-
1. That I have move an application for condonation of delay in filing of appeal before Hon’ble ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur for the Asstt.
Year 2017-18. 2. That facts narrated in the application and reasons for delay in filing of appeal are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief
[Jintendra Behl]
Deponent
Whatever stated above are true and correct as per my information and belief. Nothing has been hided or concealed. So God help me.
Place: Sri Ganganagar
[Jitendra Behl]
Dated: 21.01.2025
Deponent”
5. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee has filed his original return of income on e-filing portal for the A.Y. 2017-18 on 29.03.2018 declaring total income at Rs.2,92,300/-. The case was selected for Limited SCRUTINY assessment under CASS. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued on 09.08.2018 by the ld. AO. Further notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 30.05.2019. Thereafter, due to change of incumbent further notice u/s 142(1) and questionnaire was issued on 04.09.2019 for compliance on or before 11.11.2019. On 11.11.2019 again assessee was written letter for compliance by 13.11.2019. All the statutory notices issued by the ld. AO remained uncompiled with. In the meanwhile, vide letter dated
01.11.2019, the Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax-I, Jaipur was requested for transfer of PAN of the assessee to transfer the assessment records to the ITO, Ward-2, Sri Ganganagar.
However, PAN in the case of the assessee was not transferred. On 02.11.2019, notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act, 1961 were issued to the Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hanumangarh, the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Sukhadia Circle,
Sriganganagar and Branch Mangager, Bank of Baroda, Padampur
Branch, Sriganganagar to submit requisite details/copy of bank alc statement in respect of the assessee Shri Jitendra Behl.
11.09.2019. Copy of bank a/c statement has been received from the State Bank of India, Sukhadia Circle, Sriganganagar on 15.11.2019, copy of bank a/c statement received from the Branch
Mangager, Bank of Baroda, Padampur Branch, Sriganganagar on 03.12.2019 and copy of bank a/c statement received from the Branch Manager, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hanumangarh on 29.11.2019 which was placed on record. On perusal of the bank a/c statement so received from the banks it is found that there is a total cash deposit of Rs. 14,47,500/- was found to be made in the bank A/c No.34010788166 maintained with the SBI, Sukhadia
Circle, Sriganganagar which reads as under-
SBI, Sukhadia Circle, Sriganganagar, A/c No.34010788166
S. No.
Date
Amount(Rs.)
1. 30.04.2016
25000/-
2. 04.10.2016
30000/-
3. 16.11.2016
1392500
Total
1447500/-
Show cause dated 04.12.2019, the assessee was requested to submit the documentary evidence regarding the deposit of cash made during the demonetization period by 09.12.2019. In reply to the show cause notice dt. 04.12.2019, assessee filed his reply along with copy of VAT Registration Certificate, copies of ledger a/c of debtors, copy of balance sheet as on 31.12.2016 etc. On perusal of the VAT Registration Certificate, it is found that the assessee is the sole proprietor of the Firm M/s Kanishka Agro
Chemicals w.e.f. 20.07.2014 and used to purchase and sale fertilizer seeds and other agro products. Assessee in his submission stated that during the F.Y. 2015-16 (Α.Υ. 2016-17), he closed his business and at the end of the F.Y. 2016-17 there was a balance of Rs.22.88 lacs in respect of Sundry Debtors. During the year of assessment, i.e. in F.Y. 2016-17 (A.Y. 2017-18), recoveries were made from the Sundry Debtors and the cash collected were Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO
8
deposited in the bank account. The assessee also mentioned that the recoveries were made during the period 01.04.2016 to 30.11.2016 and the cash so recovered were deposited in the bank.
On perusal of the ITRs and reply of the assessee, it was found that the assessee tried to create a fimlsy scenario to establish his malafide intention and mislead the department. On perusal of the ITR for A.Y. 2016-17, it was found that there is balance of sundry debtors of Rs.22.88 lacs but it is hard to believe that a businessman, who closed his business during F.Y. 2015-16, collected due amounts from the Sundry Debtors from 01.04.2016
to 30.11.2016 and deposited the collected amount of Rs.25,000/- on 30.04.2016, Rs.30,000/- on 04.10.2016 and Rs.13.92,500/- on 16.11.2016. On perusal of the bank accounts it was noticed that the major part of amount was deposited in the bank during the demonetization period. A general person will never keep such huge amount lying idle in his home and deposit the same on a later date and the assessee is a businessman, and a businessman certainly will not do such mi eed. The assessee submitted that out of total due from sundry debtors of Rs.22.88 lacs an amount of Rs. 14,47,500/- was recovered. Then, there would have been a balance of Rs.8,40,500/- to be recovered from the debtors. There is no mention regarding sundry debtors in the return of income of the assessee for A.Y. 2018-19. In view of the above the submission made by the assessee was not found to be acceptable.
Therefore, after taking into account all the above facts and material on record, ld. AO noted that the assessee was not able to prove the immediate source of cash of Rs.14,47,500/- found deposited in his bank accounts. Since submission made by the assessee was not found to be plausible, the source of cash deposits of Rs.
14,47,500/- is required to be treated as income of the assessee from undisclosed sources. Accordingly, the cash deposit in his bank accounts total of Rs.14,47,500/- was added to the assessee's total income as undisclosed money from undisclosed sources u/s 69A of the I.T. Act, and tax is charged u/s 115BBE of the IT. Act.
6. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A) is reiterated here below:-
“5.1 Assessees main plank is that business remained closed from the year 2015-16 Ay onwards, there was recovery from sundry debtors totalling Rs 22.88 lakhs. Total recovery effected is Rs 1447500. But no evidence whatso ever was produced to prove this point. The possible evidences are - bank statement showing credit of the amount, cheque details, Balance sheet showing reduction in debtors in the subsequent year, credit in the Computation sheet, P and L account, disclosure in the R/I in the schedules, confirmation from the debtors, party wise ledger account to prove that recovery of Rs 1447500 was affected. In the absence of these details it is difficult to accept the contention of the assessee. Moreover there should be proof that the payment made by debtors went directly to the bank account as deposits. In the absence of these details it is concluded that the cash deposits found in bank A/c
No.34010788166
maintained with the SBI,
Sukhadia
Circle,
Sriganganagar is to be brought to tax as unexplained money u/s 69A.
The assessee failed to prove before the assessing authority as well as the appeal authority the nature and source of cash deposits satisfactorily and the addition at Rs 1447500 which is unexplained money is upheld. What is pertinent is this information is gathered under section 133(6).
5.2 In the present case, assessee deposited cash in its bank accounts, various credit entries appearing in the bank accounts but such credits are not recorded in the books of accounts. Further the nature and source of such deposits made in the bank accounts were not at all explained, leave alone satisfactory explanation. Further for invoking deeming provisions u/s 69A, there should be clearly identifiable asset or unexplained money. It is amply proved beyond doubt that the assessee has deposited cash and other credits appearing in bank accounts stands unexplained and the sum of Rs 1447500 are identifiable unexplained assets. All three limbs of section 69A stands qualified in the case of the Assessee was found to be the owner of the money:
Such money was not recorded in the books of accounts; and The nature and source is not identifilable.
5.3 When the assessee has failed to prove that in his normal business or otherwise, he was possessed of so much cash, it is to be held that the money by virtue of cash deposits represents the earning of the assessee during the year from undisclosed sources within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act. Section 69A of the Act deals with money, etc, owned by the assessee and found in possession including in the bank accounts of the assessee which remained unexplained. The relevant portion of the same is reproduced herein under:
"Section 69A-Where in any financial year the assessee is found to be the owner of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article and Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO
11
such money, bullion, jewellery or valuable article is not recorded in the books of accounts, if any. maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of acquisition of the money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article, or the explanation offered by him is not, in the opinion of the Income-tax
Officer, satisfactory, the money and the value of the bullion, jewellery or other valuable article may be deemed to be the income of the assessee for such financial year."
5.4 In the instant case, the assessee was having huge cash deposits in his bank accounts which remained unexplained. The assessee is found to be the owner of the money appearing in the bank account but has failed to offer any acceptable and cogent explanation regarding the source of such huge cash deposits appearing in the bank accounts.
The scheme of Section 69A of the Act would show that in cases where the nature and source of acquisition of money, etc. owned by the assessee is not explained at all, or not satisfactorily explained, then the value of such money is deemed to be the income of the assessee. This provision of the Act treats unexplained money as deemed income where the nature and source of acquisition of cash deposits in the banks remains unexplained or not satisfactorily explained. No doubt, the assessee has deposited huge cash in his bank accounts but the nature and source of such cash deposits were not at all explained.
Hence, the limbs of Section 69A of the Act stands qualified in the case of the assessee i.e., the assessee was found to be owner of the money and source remained unidentifiable. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 27-03-1963 in the case of Smt. Srilekha Banerjee and Others reported in 1964 AIR 697 (SC) wherein it was held that, the source of money not having been satisfactorily proved, the Revenue was justified in holding the same as assessable income of the assessee from undisclosed sources.
Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chuharmal Vs. CIT (1988) reported in 172 ITR 250 in which similar issue was adjudicated in favour of the Revenue.
While affirming the view of MP HC held that the expression
'income' as used in section 69A, has a wide meaning which meant anything which came in resulted in gain and on this basis concluded that assessee had income which he had invested in purchasing article and he could be held to be the owner and the value could be deemed to be his income by virtue of section 69A."
The hon SC in the case of Srilekha Banerjee and others vs CIT,
Bihar and Orissa reported in 1964 AIR 697, dt 27/3/1963 held that the source of money has not been satisfactorily proved, the dept was justified in holding it to be assessable income of the assessee from some undisclosed source.
"the fact of the case was that assessee had encashed 51 high denomination notes of Rs 1000 each in January. Assessee's explanation in his application for encashment of notes was that he was a colliery proprietor and contractor, that for conducting the business and for payment to labour which came to about Rs
30000 every week to Rs 40000 every week he had to keep large sums of money to meet emergency and that sum of Rs 50000
In view of the detailed discussions, it is held that the cash deposits of Rs 1447500 made during the financial year remained unexplained. The assessee has not responded to the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act and also to the showcause notice issued during the appeal proceedings. As the assessee failed to offer any explanation about the nature and source of cash deposits appearing in the banks, the sum of Rs 1447500 is deemed as unexplained money within the meaning of Section 69A of the Act and is assessed as such. The addition so made is taxed u/s 115BBE of the Act at the specified rate.
Since the taxable income of the assessee is determined after making an addition referring to the income in section 69A of the Act, penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC of the Act was initiated separately.
Addition upheld: 1447500/-
5.5
In the result the appeal is dismissed.”
7. Feeling dissatisfied from the above order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred the second appeal before this tribunal. In support of the contention so raised in the oral arguments the ld. AR of the assessee relied upon the following evidence / records:-
S. No.
Particulars
Page No.
1. Copy of Written submission before the Ld. CIT(A).
1-6
2. Copy of VAT certificate
7-8
3. Copy of ITR, computation and Financial statement etc.
9-14
4. Copy of notice issued u/s 143(2) of the Act and letter of transfer of juri iction.
15-16
5. Reply dated 09.12.2019 furnished by assessee during assessment proceeding.
17-18
6. Copy of cash book, details of sundry debtors along with ledger accounts etc.
19-35
In addition, the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that he wishes to take up the legal ground in addition to the facts narrated on the merits of the dispute. As per the legal grounds so raised by the assessee he referred page 14 of his paper book being the copy of the Aadhar Card of the assessee, Page 9 being the copy of the ITR submitted by the assessee for the year consideration on 29.03.2018, page 8 being the copy of the registration issued by the Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO 14 Commercial Tax department. All these records shows the address of the assessee is Ganganagar. Whereas the notice was issued by the ITO, Ward 3 (2) Jaipur and in response the assessee vide letter dated 09.12.2019 already stated that the ld. AO has not juri iction to issue the notice based on that set of facts [ para 1 of reply page 17 of the paper book ]. This matter was argued by the ld. AR of the assessee on 16.04.2025. Thereafter the ld. DR seek time to counter these contention and prayed that he want to take the report of the ld. AO and with the consent of the parties the time was given to the ld. DR to have the status report from the AO. 9. When the matter finally kept for hearing on 17.09.2025 the ld. 10. In the rejoinder the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the decision cited by the ld. DR has different facts there the issue did not challenge the juri iction but in this case the assessee [ page 17 ] vide letter dated 09.12.2019 challenged the juri iction and therefore that decision is not applicable. 11. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In this appeal vide Ground no. 2 the assessee challenges that ld. CIT(A), grossly erred in upholding the juri iction of ITO ward,3(2) Jaipur whereas the legal & valid juri iction lies with ITO Sri Ganganagar. Since this ground goes into the root of dispute, we take up this ground first. Apropos to this ground the bench noted that the assessee drawn our attention to the following evidence so far as the issue of juri iction of the AO is concerned; a. Certificate of Registration issued by the Commercial Tax Department [ page 8 of the paper book ] b. Return of income filed by the assessee on 29.03.2018 [ page 9] c. Computation of income [ page 10-11] d. Aadhar Card [ page 14 ] assessee has raised the issuance of notice stating that it lacs juri iction stating that he regularly residence in Sri Ganganagar vide letter dated 09.12.2019 [ page 17 of the paper book ]. The bench noted that this aspect of the matter was argued by the ld. AR of the assessee on 16.04.2025. Thereafter the ld. DR seek time to counter this contention and prayed that he want to take the report of the ld. AO and with the consent of the parties the time was given to the ld. DR to have the status report from the AO. This report of the ld. AO not received when the matter finally heard on 17.09.2025 and the ld. DR fairly admitted that the report of the ld. AO did not received by him. On the aspect of the juri iction he relied upon the decision of Kalinga Institure (Supra). Against that decision the ld. AR submitted that in that case before the Apex Court the assessee did not challenge the juri iction here the assessee has vide letter dated 09.12.2019. Therefore, on this issue there is binding precedent of our own Rajasthan High Court in the case of Deep Channel Kothari vs. CIT [ 35 Taxman 223(Rajasthan) ] where in the court held that ; 4. It is not in dispute that the juri iction of the ITO was duly challenged by the assessee before the ITO himself and also in the memoranda of appeals filed before the AAC. It is not disputed that the AAC did not touch this point in his common order dated 17-8-1972 and decided the appeals on merit in favour of the assessee. As such it Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO 17 would be deemed that the AAC decided the point of juri iction against the assessee. Admittedly, the said point of juri iction was duly raised before the learned Tribunal by the learned counsel for the assessee before the close of his arguments. Even application was moved by him at that time. Rule 27 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963, provides that the respondent, though he may not have appealed, may support the order appealed against on any of the grounds decided against him. Thus, the assessee was entitled to support the order of the AAC for not clubbing the said two incomes on the said ground of lack of juri iction. The assessee could submit his arguments and raise the said pleas only after the conclusion of the arguments of the learned representative of the department as he was the respondent in all the appeals. It has been observed in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan AIR [1954] SC 340 as under: "...It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a Court without juri iction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of juri iction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the Court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. ..." (p. 342) It has also been held in CIT v. S. Nelliappan [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC) and CIT v. Delhi Sanitary Stores [1981] 127 ITR 822 (Raj.), that the Tribunal may allow new grounds to be urged before it. 5. In view of these facts, circumstances and authoritative observations, we have no hesitation to hold that the Tribunal was legally not right in not allowing the objections as to the juri iction of the ITO to initiate the notice and as to the validity of the proceedings taken in pursuance there of, to be raised. The question is accordingly answered in the affirmative and against the department. 6. It is well settled law that the objection regarding lack of juri iction is decided first. Only after its decision holding that the Court or Tribunal has juri iction, other questions relating to the merits of the case arise for decision otherwise not. 7. The Tribunal has power to take additional evidence. After taking evidence which is considered necessary, the said point regarding lack of juri iction can well be decided by the Tribunal. As such it is neither necessary nor expedient for this Court to decide the remaining questions. The case observes to be sent back to the learned Tribunal for first deciding the said point regarding the lack of juri iction. 8. Question No. 1 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee. Remaining questions need not be answered because of our answer to question No. 1. Shri Jitendra Behl vs. ITO 18 Respectfully following that binding precedent we consider the ground no. 2 raised by the assessee. The other grounds of appeal becomes academic as we have considered the juri ictional aspect in this case. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30/10/2025. ¼Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh½
¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½
(Dr. S. Seethalakshmi)
(Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai)
U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kklnL;@Accountant Member
Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 30/10/2025
*Santosh
आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Jitendra Behl, Sriganganagar.
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward- 3(2), Jaipur. .
2. 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.1080/JPR/2024 }
vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत