NARESH KUMAR ARORA,JAIPUR vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

1 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 259/JP/2022 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2013-14 cuke Shri Naresh Kumar Arora The DCIT C-242, Malviya Nagar Vs. Circle-6 Jaipur – 302 016 Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AAYPA 5970 H vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri C.L. Yadav, CA shri Rajendra Sisodia,Adv Shri Vikas Yadav, Adv. jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by: Shri Sanajy Dhariwal, CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 13/09/2022 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 21 /09/2022 vkns'k@ ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 26-05-2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2013-14. The ld. AR in his written submission has raised two grounds which are as under:-

2 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR ‘’1. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order when the reopening was based on identical facts as in original scrutiny assessment and thus amounted to change of opinion which is not a valid ground for reopening of assessment. 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.5,15,24,365/- and Rs.32,24,702/- u/s 68 & 69C which is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.’’ 2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed original return for A.Y. 2013-14 on 19-09-2013 disclosing an income of Rs.8,52,450/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and assessment was completed u/s 143(3) on 17- 12-2015 accepting the returned income. Later on, Notice u/s 148 was issued on 26-09-2016 on the basis of information that the assessee had taken accommodation entry in the form of exempt income u/s 10(38) for bogus long term capital gain in Penny stock Dhenu Buildcon and has introduced his unaccounted cash in regular books of accounts. The return was scrutinized u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 and was accordingly passed on 27-12-2017 at Rs.5,56,01,517/- creating a demand of Rs.2,65,83,480/-. Addition aggregating Rs.5,47,49,067/- was made as unexplained cash credit u/s 68/ unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on account of LTCG claimed as exempt and commission paid for arranging LTCG. It is noted from the records that the assessee is an individual who derived income from the interest from firms in which he is partner and rent from BPCL. He is a regular investor in shares and also enjoyed exempt income u/s 10(38). During the year the

3 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR assessee sold 3,50,000 shares of Dhenu Buildcon Infra Ltd. and earned long term capital gain of Rs.5,15,24,365/- which had been claimed as exempt u/s 10(38) of the Act. The AO disallowed the LTCG holding it to be bogus and added the same to the assessee’s income. He also presumed that the assessee might have paid commission for arranging the bogus LTCG and added an amount of Rs.32,24,702/- . Thus the total addition was amounting to Rs.5,47,49,067/-. 2.2 In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding as under:- ‘’6.8 In view of the facts and respectfully following the judgements outlined inpara 6.3 to 6.7 of this order ,it is hereby held that reopening of assessment by the AO u/s 147 and assessment made by the AO u/s 147 of the Act is valid and it satisfies the requirement of the law that prior to reopening of the assessment the AO has to apply his mind to the tangible material available and conclude that he has the reason to believe that income has escaped assessment. Copy of reason recorded were duly provided by the AO and objections raised by appellant were disposed off by the AO in writing vide order dated 19-09-2017. Thus, the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act in the present case is fully justified. Thus, all the mandatory pre-conditions before reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act were duly complied and met with by the AO. The Ground of appeal No. 1 is dismissed. ‘’7.15 In view of the above mentioned facts, the material brought on record by the AO and the decision of CIT vs Durga Prasad More (1971) 82 ITR 540 and the case of Sumati Dayal vs CIT (supra) 214 ITR 801 (SC), the test of human probabilities needs to be applied and true nature of the transaction has to be ascertained in light of the surrounding circumstances. Considering the facts and circumstances of the

4 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR case, I find that the appellant has indulged in dubious share transaction meant to account for the undisclosed income in the garb of Capital Gain. In view thereof, additions of Rs.5,15,24,365/- and Rs.32,24,702/- made by the AO u/s 68 and 69C of the I.T. Act are hereby upheld. The action of the AO in disallowance of LTCG claimed of Rs.5,15,24,365/- as exmpt u/s 10 (38) is upheld.’’ 2.3 During the course of hearing, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that notice issued u/s 148 of the Act dated 26-09-2016 is not valid to reopen the assessment as all the details were furnished before the AO who made the assessment vide his order dated 17-12-2015 (PB-52-53). To this effect, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed a detailed submission as under:- ‘’Re: Gr. No. 1 The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the order when the reopening was based on identical facts as in original scrutiny assessment and thus amounted to change of opinion which is not a valid ground for reopening of assessment: 1. The appellant very humbly submits that pursuant to filing of ITR on 19.09.2013, notice u/s 143(2) was issued in the case. During the course of assessment all the documents called for by the AO were submitted. The details of all the exempted income claimed by the appellant, and in particular claimed exempt u/s 10(38) were duly filed. Complete details relating to purchase and sale of the shares of Dhenu Buildcon Infra Ltd. were produced, which were examined by the then AO. The AO, having satisfied himself with the genuineness of the exemption claimed u/s 10(38), finalized the assessment on 17,12,2015, accepting the returned income. 2. Almost nine months later, a notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee alleging that the assessee has taken accommodation entry in the form of exempt income u/s 10(38) from bogus long term capital gain in penny stock Dhenu Buildcon and has introduced its unaccounted cash in regular books of accounts. 3. Existence of the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment is a jurisdictional condition for invoking the power under section 147 of the Act, 1961, both within and beyond a period of four years from the end of relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer is enjoined to record reasons before a notice to reopen the assessment under section 148 of the Act is issued. In case, the assessment is

5 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR reopened beyond the period of four years, where the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act, an additional condition that the income must have escaped assessment on account of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment is required to be fulfilled. The existence of reason to believe is further qualified by the fact that it should be based on tangible material. Firstly, it cannot be the product of mere ipse dixit of the Assessing Officer. Secondly, it should not par take the character of a mere change in opinion as regards the same material and facts, which were considered at the time of original assessment. For the power is of reassessment and not review. Once the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed and the Assessing Officer takes a conclusive view thereon, it is not permissible to reopen the assessment based on the very same material on the premise that it is susceptible to a different opinion favorable to the revenue. 4. In this case, during the original assessment proceedings, a notice dated 15.01.2015 was issued under Section 142(1) of the Act by which appellant was called upon to furnish contract notes for FY 2012 13(Q.No.8) and details of all items of receipts which are claimed as exempt from income tax(Q.No.10). However, the AO did not discuss this fact in his assessment order. It is not an immutable rule that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion on such query. Therefore, it is abundantly clear that the issue relating to long term capital gains mentioned in the reasons for reopening was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. 5. It may be mentioned that in the reasons provided by the AO for reopening the case, it is mentioned - Information is available with the Department regarding accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG, etc. Many assesses introduced their unrecorded income by way of such bogus exempt LTCG entry in their books of accounts without paying tax. Survey/search operations were conducted in the cases of syndicate members (promoter of penny stock companies) share brokers and entry operators to unearth the business of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG. etc. ……… On the basis of information collected during survey/search operations beneficiaries of such bogus LTCG were beneficiary identified. The assessee is one of such beneficiary ………. The assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. By such accommodation entry, the assessee has introduced unaccounted income in his books of accounts without paying tax. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of Rs.5,15,24,365/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax act, 1961. 6. It is stated that the Information referred to in the reasons for reopening is the report of the Investigation wing. Calcutta dated 27.04.2015 which was circulated to all the CCIT regions, CCIT Rajasthan being one of them. This report was very much available with the

6 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Department and the AO eight months prior to the completion of original assessment u/s 143(3) on 17.12.2015. The Department failed to make use of it while completing the original assessment. It is not a case of the Department that some new tangible material post completion of original assessment u/s 143(3) on 17.12.2015 came into its possession. In such circumstances, there being no new tangible material with the AO, the case of the appellant could not have been reopened, as the same would amount to revision. Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainam Investments vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax decided on 24 August, 2021. The Hon'ble Court has held - 14. Therefore, there is no tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment. Moreover, if one considers the opening paragraphs of the reasons for reopening, it says "A search/survey action w/s. 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 25/10/2016 in the cases of JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd., EMI Transmission Ltd. & Karamtara Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and other related group entities (together referred to as JEK group)..... During the course of Survey action us. 133A conducted on 25.10.2016 at the premises of M/s. Jainam Investments accommodation entries in the form of bogus loans in its books from various Bhanwarlal Jain ....". These were group material available even before the first order was passed because the first order was passed on 20th December 2016. Nowhere in the of entities reasons for reopening, it is mentioned that these tangible materials were obtained or received much after the original assessment order was passed. Moreover, the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain recorded on 11 th October 2013 has been relied upon, whereas the original assessment, after considering the statement and all other material, was completed on 20th December 2016. We repeatedly asked Mr. Suresh Kumar to identify the fresh tangible material that was available with the department and the date on which it was received to which there was no answer because it is not stated in the reasons for reopening. Therefore, we cannot accept the reason for reopening with regard to the entries regarding these five entities. 7. It would be pertinent to mention that the issue relating to exempt income was already examined at the time of regular scrutiny assessment. Issuing a notice for re-assessment on the same issue, amounts to change of opinion by the AO. The assessee relies on the decision in the case of Aaroni Commercials Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income- tax-2(1) (2014) 44 taxmann.com 304 (Bombay) wherein it was observed - 12) Therefore the power to reassess cannot be exercised on the basis of mere change of opinion i.e. if all facts are available on record and a particular opinion is formed, then merely because there is change of opinion on the part of the Assessing Officer notice under Section 147/148 of the Act is not permissible. The powers under Section-147/148 of the Act cannot be exercised to correct errors/mistakes on the part of the Assessing Officer while passing the original order of assessment. There is a sanctity bestowed on an order of assessment and the same can be disturbed by exercise of powers under Sections 147/148 of the Act only on satisfaction of the jurisdictional requirements. Further, the reasons for

7 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR reopening an assessment has to be tested/examined only on the basis of the reasons recorded at the time of issuing a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment. These reasons cannot be improved upon and/or supplemented much less substituted by affidavit and for oral submissions. Moreover, the reasons for reopening an Officer alone who is issuing the notice and he cannot act merely on assessment should be that of the Assessing the dictates of any another person in issuing the notice. Moreover, the tangible material upon the basis of which the Assessing Officer comes to the reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment can come to him from any source, however, reasons for the reopening has to be only of the Assessing Officer issuing the notice. At the stage of issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act to reopen a concluded assessment the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer issuing the notice is of primary importance. This satisfaction must be prima facie satisfaction of having a reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 13) Keeping in view the above broad parameters of the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments completed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the impugned notice and order have to be examined. Counsel for the parties proceeded on the basis that the impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 seeking to reopen the assessment for A.Y 2008-09 was a notice within a period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year. Therefore, in such a case the test of failure to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment during the original assessment proceedings does not arise for consideration. In the present facts the notice to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 2008-09 was issued on 28 March 2013 and the reasons seeking to reopen the assessment is that the petitioner had so written manipulated its account that the normal business profits in share trading was claimed as short term capital gain so as to attract the lower rate of tax. 14) We find that during the assessment proceedings the petitioner had by a letter dated 9 July 2010 pointed out that they were engaged in the business of financing trading and investment in shares and securities Further, by a letter dated 8 September 2010 during the course of assessment proceedings on a specific query made by the Assessing Officer, the petitioner has disclosed in detail as to why its profit on sale of investments should not be taxed as business profits but charged to tax under the head capital gain. In support of its contention the petitioner had also relied upon CBDT Circular No.4/2007 dated 15 June 2007. (The reasons for reopening furnished by the Assessing Officer also places reliance 2007). It would therefore, be noticed that the very ground on which upon CBDT Circular dated 15 June the notice dated 28 March 2013 seeks to reopen the assessment for assessment year 2008-09 was considered by the Assessing Officer while originally passing assessment order dated 12 October 2010. This by itself demonstrates the fact that notice dated 28 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen assessment for A.Y 2008-09 is based on mere change of opinion. However, according to Mr.

8 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Chhotaray, learned Counsel for the revenue the aforesaid issue now raised has not been considered earlier as the same is not referred to in the assessment order dated 12 October 2010 passed for A.Y 2008-09. We are of the view that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised. If an Assessing Officer has to record the consideration bestowed by him on all issues raised by him during the assessment proceeding even where he is satisfied then it would be impossible for the Assessing Officer to complete all the assessments which are required to be scrutinized by him under Section 143(3) of the Act. Moreover, one must not forget that the manner in which an assessment order is to be drafted is the sole domain of the Assessing Officer and it is not open to an assessee to insist that the assessment order must record all the questions raised and the satisfaction in respect thereof of the Assessing Officer. The only requirement is that the Assessing Officer ought to have considered the objection now raised in the grounds for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act, during the original assessment proceedings. There can be no doubt in the present facts as evidenced by a letter dated 8 September 2012 the very issue of taxability of sale of shares under the head capital gain or the head profits and gains from business was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings leading to an order dated 12 October 2010. It would therefore, follow that the reopening of the assessment by impugned notice dated 28 March 2013 is merely on the basis of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceeding leading to the order dated 12 October 2010. This change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 8. The gist of the above decision is that once a query is raised during assessment proceedings and assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject matter of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised. Issuing notice of reassessment on the same issue, would amount to change of opinion which is not sustainable in law. 9. In the case of Oracle Financial Services Software Limited Vs DCIT, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held For the foregoing reasons, we are satisfied that, in the peculiar facts of the case, the impugned notice under section 148, of the Act, 1961 can be said to be based on a mere change of opinion. In view of the settled legal position that mere change of opinion does not furnish a justification for formation of reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, we find the impugned action legally unsustainable.

9 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 10. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ACIT vs. Marico Ltd. decided on 01.06.2020 has held - S. 147: The reasons in support of the s. 148 notice is the very issue in respect of which the 40 had raised a query during the assessment proceedings and the Petitioner had responded justifying its stand. The non-rejection of the explanation in the Assessment Order amounts to the AO accepting the view of the assessee, thus taking a view/forming an opinion. In these circumstances, the reasons in support of the notice proceed on a mere change of opinion and would be completely without jurisdiction. 11.In Bhavani Gems Private Limited Vs ACIT, Writ Petition No. 804 of 2022 decided on 27.04.2022, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has held - Change of opinion does not constitute reason to believe forIncome escapement. The relevant portions of the judgement are reproduced as under 91 In our view, the reason to reopen is purely on the basis of change of opinion. Indisputably queries have been raised during the assessment proceedings regarding large share premium received during the year, the details of investors and petitioner has provided all details sought for. While providing the workings, petitioner also explained that the Goodwill of Rs. 26 Crores has been factored while arriving at the share premium. Even in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has referred to notice issued under section 143(2) as well as 142(1) of the Act and the Assessing Officer has also confirmed having received all information. 10] As held by this Court time and again and particularly in Aroni Commercials Ltd Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax -2 (1) that once a query is raised during the assessment proceedings and the assessee has replied to it, it follows that the query raised was a subject of consideration of the Assessing Officer while completing the assessment. It is not necessary that an assessment order should contain reference and/or discussion to disclose its satisfaction in respect of the query raised 11] Having considered the reasons and documents annexed to the petition and as no reply has been filed, there can be no doubt in the present facts that very issue of share premium and Goodwill was a subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer during the original assessment proceedings. In our view, the reopening of assessment by impugned notice dated 30.03.2021 is merely on the basis of change of opinion of the Assessing Officer from that held earlier during the course of assessment proceedings and this change of opinion does not constitute justification and/or reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment 12. Without prejudice to the above, the reassessment notice is invalid as it is merely based on Investigation Wing information. In the assessee's case, the AO received information from the Investigation Wing. Kolkata who had carried out survey/ search operations wherein it was established that in large number of penny stock companies share prices were artificially raised/manipulated on the Stock Exchanges in

10 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR order to book bogus claims of Long Term Capital Gain/Loss. On the basis of the information received from another agency, there cannot be any reassessment proceedings, However, after considering the information or material received from other source, the Assessing Officer is required to consider the material on record in case of the assessee and thereafter is required to form an independent opinion on the basis of the material on record that the income has escaped assessment. In the assessee's case, the assessing officer has failed to do so. Without forming such an opinion, solely and mechanically relying upon the information received from other source, there cannot be any reassessment for the verification, and particularly when the issue has already been examined in the original assessment u/s 143(3). From the reasons recorded, it is clear that the impugned reopening proceedings were on the borrowed satisfaction. No independent opinion was formed by Assessing Officer in the assessee's case under consideration. Under the circumstances, the assumption of the jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act is bad in law and needs to be quashed. 13. The Hon'ble ITAT, Surat in the case of Sandipkumar Parsottambhai Patel vs. ITO in ITA Nos. 08 & 09/SRT/2019 vide its judgement dated 29.11.2021, in exactly identical circumstances, following their earlier decision in the cases of Nishant Kantilal Patel & Muktaben Nishantbhai Patel has quashed the reassessment proceedings. 14. The Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case Principal Commissioner of Income- tax-5 v. Shodiman Investments (P.) Ltd. reported in 422 ITR 337 holding that reopening notice on the basis of intimation from DDIT (Investigation) about a particular entity entering into suspicious transactions, was clearly in breach of the settled position of law that reopening notice has to be issued by the Assessing Officer on his own satisfaction and not on borrowed satisfaction. In view of the above submission and case laws, the reopening of the case and the consequent reassessment order may kindly be quashed.’’ 2.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and argued the case and provided the copy of compilation of case laws favouring the Revenue on 13-09-2022. While taking the case as heard, the Bench directed the ld. DR to provide the copy of the same to the assessee as well for his comments if any on the submission made by the ld.DR. The case laws relied upon by the ld. DR are as under:-

11 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 1. Pr. CIT, Kolkata vs Swati Bajaj (IA No. GA/2/2022 in ITAT/6/2022 (HC) 2. Suman Poddar vs ITO [2019] 112 taxmann.com 330 (SC) 3. Sanjay Bimalchand Jain vs CIT-1, Nagpur[2018] 89 taxmann.com 196 (Bombay) 4. Sanjay Kaul vs PCIT, Delhi-8 [2020] 119 taxmann.com 470 (Del) 5. Ram Niwas Gupta vs DCIT, Central Circle, Dehradum (ITA No. 481 to 4883/Del/2018,- Delhi Bench F) 6. AGR Investment Ltd. vs Addl. CIT [2011] 197 Taxman 177 (Del) 2.5 The ld. AR in his counter reply stated on the legal issue taken up in ground No. 1 of the appeal is with regard to change of opinion. The ld. DR made a bald statement that at the time of original assessment, the AO did not have the investigation report and it was received by the AO after completion of the assessment. He however, failed to substantiate his point. It is an undisputed fact that the said report was available in the public domain at https:/taxguru.in/wp- content/uploads/2017/12/Investigation-Report-5.pdf. The said report has been circulated to all the DGIT by DIT(Inv), Kolkata vide his letter dated 27-04-2015. The Office of DGIT, Rajasthan is in the same building in which the AO’s office is situated. Even assuming that the report had come through proper channel, it could not have taken more than 08 months to reach the AO. It may also be added that then AO who completed the original assessment had sought all details of the transactions in the share of Dhenu Buildcon which were duly provided to him. Further, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the reopening of the case and the

12 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR consequent reassessment order passed by the AO is in valid in the eye of law and it must be quashed. 2.6 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. In this case, it is noted that two assessment orders dated 17-12-2015 by the AO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur accepting the return of income of the assessee at Rs.8,52,450/- and other assessment order dated 27-12-2017 by DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur confirming the addition of Rs.5,15,24,365/- and Rs.32,24,702/- u/s 68 and 69C of the Act were passed. In the second time assessment, it was noticed that the case was reopened on the basis of information that the assessee has taken accommodation entry in the form of exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act from bogus Long Term Capital Gain in penny stock ‘Dhuenu Buildcon’ and has introduced his unaccounted cash in regular books of account. From the available records, it is found that during the course of original assessment, all the documents called for by the AO were supplied by the assessee. The details of all the exempted income claimed by the assessee and in particular claimed exempt u/s 10(38) were duly filed by the assessee and complete details relating to purchase and sale of shares of Dhenu Buildcon Infra Ltd. were produced by the assessee before the AO who examined them. The AO having satisfied himself with the genuineness of the exemption claimed u/s 10(38) finalized the assessment on 17-12-2015 accepting the return income. It is also surprising to note that after a period of 9 months, a

13 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR notice u/s 148 was issued to the assessee alleging that the assessee has taken the accommodation entry in the form of exempt income u/s 10(38) of the Act from bogus long term capital gain in penny stock ‘’Dhenu Buildcon’’ and has introduced its unaccounted cash in regular books of account. It is imperative to understand that once the primary facts necessary for assessment are fully and truly disclosed and the AO takes a conclusive view thereon then it is not permissible to reopen the assessment based on the very same material on the premises that it is susceptible to a different opinion favour to the Revenue. It is noteworthy to mention that in the reasons provided by the AO for reopening the case wherein it is mentioned that.. ‘’Information is available with the Department regarding accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG, etc. Many assesses introduced their unrecorded income by way of such bogus exempt LTCG entry in their books of accounts without paying tax. Survey/search operations were conducted in the cases of syndicate members (promoter of penny stock companies) share brokers and entry operators to unearth the business of providing accommodation entries in the form of bogus LTCG. etc. ……… On the basis of information collected during survey/search operations beneficiaries of such bogus LTCG were beneficiary identified. The assessee is one of such beneficiary ………. The assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment. By such accommodation entry, the assessee has introduced unaccounted income in his books of accounts without paying tax. In view of the above facts, I have reason to believe that income of Rs.5,15,24,365/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax act, 1961.’’ It is also strange to observe that the Information referred to in the reasons for reopening is the report of the Investigation wing. Calcutta dated 27.04.2015 which was circulated to all the CCIT regions, CCIT Rajasthan being one of them. This

14 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR report was very much available with the Department and the AO eight months prior to the completion of original assessment u/s 143(3) on 17.12.2015. The Department failed to make use of it while completing the original assessment. It is not a case of the Department that some new tangible material post completion of original assessment u/s 143(3) on 17.12.2015 came into its possession. In such circumstances, there being no new tangible material with the AO, the case of the assessee could not have been reopened, as the same would amount to revision. To this effect, reliance is placed on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Jainam Investments vs. Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax decided on 24 August, 2021. The Hon'ble Court has held - 14. Therefore, there is no tangible material which has come to the knowledge of the Assessing Officer while reopening the assessment. Moreover, if one considers the opening paragraphs of the reasons for reopening, it says "A search/survey action w/s. 132/133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was carried out on 25/10/2016 in the cases of JSK Industries Pvt. Ltd., EMI Transmission Ltd. & Karamtara Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and other related group entities (together referred to as JEK group)..... During the course of Survey action us. 133A conducted on 25.10.2016 at the premises of M/s. Jainam Investments accommodation entries in the form of bogus loans in its books from various Bhanwarlal Jain ....". These were group material available even before the first order was passed because the first order was passed on 20th December 2016.

15 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Nowhere in the of entities reasons for reopening, it is mentioned that these tangible materials were obtained or received much after the original assessment order was passed. Moreover, the statement of Bhanwarlal Jain recorded on 11 th October 2013 has been relied upon, whereas the original assessment, after considering the statement and all other material, was completed on 20th December 2016. We repeatedly asked Mr. Suresh Kumar to identify the fresh tangible material that was available with the department and the date on which it was received to which there was no answer because it is not stated in the reasons for reopening. Therefore, we cannot accept the reason for reopening with regard to the entries regarding these five entities’’. We also noticed that exempt income was already examined by the AO at the time of regular scrutiny assessment and then issuance of notice for reassessment on the same issue amounts to change of opinion by the AO which is not sustainable in law. In first appeal, the ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the AO as to issue of reopening of assessment and also confirmed the addition made by the AO after reopening the assessment. The Bench feels that without forming such an opinion solely and mechanically relying upon the information received from other sources, there cannot be any reassessment for the verification and particularly when the issue has already been examined in the original assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. Hence, it appears that impugned reopening proceedings were on the borrowed satisfaction and assumption of the jurisdiction

16 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR to reopen the assessment u/s 147 of the Act is bad in law and needs to be quashed. The Bench has taken into consideration that similar type of issue had arisen in the case of Shri Manohar Lal Chugh vs ITO, Ward 6(1), Jaipur (ITA No. 312/JP/2021 dated 31-08-2022) which was disposed off by observing as under:- ‘’6. We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the lower authorities. The AO has doubted the transactions of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee of M/s. Nouvea Multi Media Ltd. on the basis of information received from the Directorate of Investigation that an organized racket of generating bogus entries of LTCG in penny stock has been unearthed as a result of investigation carried out through-out the country, wherein certain persons were found indulged in providing accommodation entries, inter-alia bogus Long Term Capital Gains which is claimed as exempt under section 10(38) of the IT Act by the beneficiaries in order to facilitate the beneficiaries to convert their black money into white without paying Income-tax. The AO has narrated the modus operandi of various entry providers which is a general statement so far as the indulgence of certain persons in providing the accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gains as well as other transactions. However, in the said narration of modus operandi there is nothing against the particular transaction of purchase and sale of shares by the assessee. The AO has specifically mentioned that during the course of enquiry in certain cases it has come to light that large scale manipulation has been done in the market price of shares of certain companies listed on Stock Exchange by a group of persons working as a syndicate for the purpose of providing entry of tax exempt bogus long term capital gains to large number of beneficiaries in lieu of unaccounted cash. These observations of the AO in the assessment order cannot constitute any tangible material or evidence to show that the transaction of the assessee is bogus being an accommodation entry. The AO in the show cause notice though referred the statements of Directors/entry operators, who have operated as entry providers/brokers, however, neither any documentary reference is made in the show cause notice or any such reference is made in the finding of the AO while holding the transaction as bogus by availing the accommodation entry of long term capital gain. The AO has either discussed the modus operandi of entry providers or the judgments on the issue but has not made any reference of any material or documentary evidence which reveals that the assessee has indulged in availing the accommodation entry of bogus long term capital gain. There is no dispute that once the assessee has claimed the long term capital gain from purchase and sale of shares which is exempt under section 10(38) of the Act, the primary onus is on the assessee to substantiate his claim by producing the supporting

17 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR evidence. We find that the assessee is a regular investor in shares. We also find that in the case in hand the assessee purchased 20,000 equity shares of M/s. Nouvea Multi Media Ltd. through Mawerick Share Broker Pvt Ltd. who is registered in BSE for a sum of Rs. 6,33,124/- which includes STT, Stamp Duty etc. vide Bill No. 546 dated 09.01.2008 and 0036 dated 15.01.2008. The shares were deposited in DMAT A/c with M/s. Alankit Assignment Ltd., Jaipur and the quantities of 20000 shares were credited on 24.01.2008. M/s. Nouvea Multi Media Ltd. was listed in stock exchange and the shares were purchased at the rates prevailing on the date of purchase in BSE. The assessee received 40000 Right Shares issued by the company later on. We find that the assessee has duly reflected all these shares in the Books of accounts as an Investment and on sale of shares, the assessee has claimed exempt LTCG in the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11. Thus it is clear that 20,000 shares acquired by the assessee on 15.01.2008 in Demat format as it is evident from the Demat Account and reflected in the Books of account for the year under consideration. We further note that the assessee produced the copy of purchase bills of these shares along with the bank statement showing the purchase consideration paid by the assessee through cheque along with copy of Transaction statement/Demat account, Contract note issued by the broker, copy of ledger account. The shares acquired by the assessee are duly reflected in the Demat account of the assessee. Once the shares are dematerialized and credited in the Demat account of the assessee, the holding of the shares by the assessee cannot be disputed. It is also not in dispute that assessee sold 20,000 shares held in the Demat account of the assessee during the year under appeal for a consideration of Rs. 20,03,929/- which was credited in Bank on 22.03.2010. The AO has treated the transaction of sale of 20,000 shares as bogus being accommodation entry but has not doubted the holding of the shares by the assessee to the tune of 20,000 shares in the Demat account of the assessee. Once the assessee has produced all the supporting evidences which include purchase bill, bank statement showing the payment of purchase consideration, Demat account, holding of shares in the Demat account, sale of the shares through Stock Exchange which are also reflected in the Demat account of the assessee and receipt of the sale consideration in the bank account of the assessee as it is evident from the bank account, statement of the assessee, then in the absence of any contrary material or evidence brought on record by the AO, the transaction of purchase and sale of the shares in question cannot be held as bogus merely on the basis of the investigation carried out by the Department in some other cases where some persons were found indulged in providing accommodation entry. The AO in the entire assessment order has not made reference to single documentary evidence which can be said to be an incriminating material against the assessee to show that the assessee has availed accommodation entry of bogus Long Term Capital Gain. Therefore, the mere suspicion cannot be a ground for treating the transaction as bogus in the absence of any evidence or material on record by the AO. In the case in hand

18 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR the assessee produced all the relevant documentary evidence to establish the genuineness of the transaction. Even if the AO doubted the transaction, then to establish that the transaction is bogus, the AO is required to produce the contrary material evidence so that the evidence produced by the assessee can be controverted. In the absence of such contrary material or evidence brought on record by the AO and the evidence produced by the assessee is otherwise independently verifiable being the documents in the shape of bank statement, Demat account, books of account and bills for which the assessee has no control or say, therefore, the said evidence cannot be manipulated by the assessee. Once the evidence produced by the assessee is not prepared or beyond the scope of any manipulation by the assessee, then the assessee has discharged his onus to prove the transaction of purchase and sale of shares and consequential capital gain. The Ld. A/R has filed all the possible documentary evidence relating to purchase and sale of the stock on which the LTCG was earned. All the details are filed in assessee’s Paper Book and the same were filed before the Ld. AO. The details filed are as under: S.No. Particulars Paper Book Page No. 1. Copy of Contract note of the Broker through 102 whom the shares were sold. 2. Copy of Ledger Account maintained by him with 103-105 the Broker 3. Copy of transaction statement with Prabhat 106 Financial Services Ltd. 4. Copy of Bank statement of the assessee 107-109

In short, after the AO confronted the appellant with circumstantial evidences the Ld. A/R filed all possible documentary evidences in his possession. It is clear that AO has based his addition u/s 68 of the Act on the basis of statement of the entry operator and information received from the Investigation Wing of the Department. However in the statement of entry operator no question was ever put to the entry operator regarding transaction through the companies, through which alleged cash of appellant was routed. On one hand the AO has oral statements/oral evidences in the form of statement of entry operator (never confronted to the appellant); the appellant has rebutted these oral evidences by filing documentary evidences listed above. It is a settled law that documentary evidences will always carry more weight than the oral statements. After the oral statements were available to the AO, the appellant proved the oral statements to be incorrect by filing documentary evidences. Thereafter the AO did not prove the documentary evidence to be untrue/ bogus/ non genuine. The AO never confronted the documentary evidence to the person whose oral statement was recorded & relied upon. Therefore the oral statement losses

19 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR their evidentiary value in light of the documentary evidences placed by appellant. Even the oral statement is general and does not pin point or mention appellant name anywhere. Neither does it mention anywhere that cash from appellant was received & it was same cash which was routed back to the appellant through bank account. Considering the above documentary evidences, it clearly out weight the oral evidences relied upon. 6.1. It is settled position of law that addition cannot be made simply on the basis of statement alone. The same has to be substantiated and corroborated either by enquiries or by linking it with tangible material/ evidence. It is a settled law that statement, that too of 3rd person, alone cannot be treated as incriminating material for the purposes of making addition for assessment completed u/s 143(3). It has been held in many judgments that mere statement u/s 132(4) or u/s 131 is not sufficient to make an addition. A statement made must be relatable to some incriminating material or the statement must be made relatable to material by subsequent inquiry/investigations. Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of Mantri Share Brokers PL ( 96 taxmann.com 279) have held as under:

Section 69B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Undisclosed investments (Burden of proof) - Whether where except statement of director of assessee-company offering additional income during survey in his premises, there was no other material either in form of cash, bullion, jewellery or document or in any other form to conclude that statement made was supported by some documentary evidence, said sum could not be added in hands of assessee as undisclosed investments - Held, yes Paras 10-11] [In favour of assessee] Further, Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of Harjeev Agarwal (2016) 70 taxmann.com 95 (Delhi) held thus:

"...A plain reading of Section 132 (4) of the Act indicates that the authorized officer is empowered to examine on oath any person who is found in possession or control of any books of accounts, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article or thing. The explanation to Section 132 (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, further clarifies that a person may be examined not only in respect of the books of accounts or other documents found as a result of search but also in respect of all matters relevant for the purposes of any investigation connected with any proceeding under the Act. However, as stated earlier, a

20 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR statement on oath can only be recorded of a person who is found in possession of books of accounts, documents, assets, etc. Plainly, the intention of the Parliament is to permit such examination only where the books of accounts, documents and assets possessed by a person are relevant for the purposes of the investigation being undertaken. Now, if the provisions of Section 132(4) of the Act are read in the context of Section 158BB (1) read with Section 158B (b) of the Act, it is at once clear that a statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act can be used in evidence for making a block assessment only if the said statement is made in the context of other evidence or material discovered during the search. A statement of a person, which is not relatable to any incriminating document or material found during search and seizure operation cannot, by itself, trigger a block assessment. The undisclosed income of an Assessee has to be computed on the basis of evidence and material found during search. The statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act may also be used for making the assessment, but only to the extent it is relatable to the incriminating evidence/material unearthed or found during search. In other words, there must be a nexus between the statement recorded and the evidence/material found during search in order to for an assessment to be based on the statement recorded...." The Hon’ble High Court in the above case has also observed that statements recorded under Section 132 (4) of the Act do not by themselves constitute incriminating material. 6.2. Further, the Ld. A/R has also taken a legal plea that no cross examination of the person, whose statement was relied upon, was granted despite specific request made to the AO. The aspect of not granting cross examination has specifically been answered by the Hon'ble ITAT Jaipur in the case of Shri Pramod Jain & Others in ITA Nos. 368 to 372/JP/2017 dated 31.01.2018. The relevant extract on the issue at page 24 to 28 are as under:

"As regard the non grant of opportunity to cross examine, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE (supra) while dealing with the issue has held in para 5 to 8 as under:-

"5. We have heard Mr.KavinGulati, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee, and Mr. K. Radhakrishnana, learned senior counsel who appeared for the revenue.

21 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR 6.According to us, not allowing the assessee to cross-examine the witness by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements of those witnesses were made the basis of the impugned order is a serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch as it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. It is to be borne in mind that the order of the Commissioner as based upon the statements given by the aforesaid two witnesses. Even when the assessee disputed the correctness of the statements and wanted to cross-examine, the Adjudicating Authority did not grant this opportunity to the assessee. It would be pertinent to note that in the impugned order passed by the Adjudicating Authority he as specifically mentioned that such an opportunity was sought by the assessee. However, no such opportunity was granted and the aforesaid plea is not even dealt with by the Adjudicating. As far as the Tribunal is concerned, we find that rejection of this plea is totally untenable. The Tribunal has simply stated that cross-examination of the said dealers could not have brought out any material which could not be in possession of the appellant themselves to explain as to why their ex-factory prices remain static. It was no for the Tribunal to have guess work as to for what purposes the appellant wanted to cross-examine those dealer and what extraction the appellant wanted from them.

22 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR Therefore, the statement of witness cannot be sole basis of the assessment without given an opportunity of cross examination and consequently it is a serious flaw which renders the order a nullity. The Mumbai Special of the Tribunal in case of GTC Industries vs. ACIT (supra) had the occasion to consider the addition made by the AO on the basis of suspicion and surmises and observed in para 46 as under:-

"46. ln situations like this case, one may fall into realm of 'preponderance of probability' where there are many probable factors, some in favour of the assessee and some may go against the assessee. But the probable factors have to be weighed on material facts so collected. Here in this case the material facts strongly indicate a probability that the wholesale buyers had collected the premium money for spending it on advertisement and other expense and it was their liability as per their mutual understanding with the assessee. Another very strong probable factor is that the entire scheme of 'twin branding' and collection of premium was so designed that assessee-company need not incur advertisement expenses and the responsibility for sales promotion and advertisement lies wholly upon wholesale buyers who will borne out these expenses from alleged collection of premium. The probable factors could have gone against the assessee only if there would have been some evidence found from several searches either conducted by DRI of by the department that Assessee- company was beneficiary of any such accounts. At least something would have been unearthed from such global level investigation by two Central Government authorities. In case of certain donations given to a Church, originating through these benami bank accounts on the behest of one of the employees of the assessee company, does not implicate that GTC as a corporate entity was having the control of these bank accounts completely. Without going into the authenticity and veracity of the statements of the witnesses Smt. NirmlalaSundaram, we are of the opinion that this one incident of donation through bank accounts at the direction of one of the employee of the Company does not implicate that the entire premium collected all throughout the country and deposited in Benami bank accounts actually belongs to the assessee-company or the assessee- company had direct control on these bank accounts. Ultimately, the entire case of the revenue hinges upon the presumption that assessee is bound to have some large share in so-called secret money in the form of premium and its circulation. However, this presumption or suspicion how strong it may appear to be true, but needs to be corroborated by some evidence to establish a link that GTC actually had some kind of a share in

23 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR such secret money. It is quite a trite law that suspicion howsoever strong may be but cannot be the basis of addition except for some material evidence on record. The theory of 'preponderance of probability' is applied to weigh the evidences of either side and draw a conclusion in favour of a party which has more favourable factors in his side. The conclusions have to be drawn on the basis of certain admitted facts and materials and not on the basis of presumption of facts that might go against assessee. Once nothing has been proved against the assessee with aid of any direct material especially when various rounds of investigation have been carried out, then nothing can be implicated against the assessee."

Therefore, in the absence of any contrary material or evidence brought on record by the AO, the transaction of purchase and sale of the shares in question cannot be held as bogus merely on the basis of Report of the Investigation Wing of the Department in some other cases where some persons were found indulged in providing accommodation entry, and further it cannot be held that the assessee has introduced his own unaccounted money by way of bogus long term capital gain.

6.3. The issue of penny stock and consequent additions made has elaborately dealt with by ITAT Jaipur Bench in the case of Pramod Jain & Others (supra) and relying on the decision of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of CIT vs. Pooja Agarwal, 160 DTR 0198 (Raj.) deleted the addition by observing as under :-

"In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made by the AO is based on mere suspicion and surmises without any cogent material to show that the assessee has brought back his unaccounted income in the shape of long term capital gain. On the other hand, the assessee has brought all the relevant material to substantiate its claim that transactions of the purchase and sale of shares are genuine. Even otherwise the holding of the shares by the assessee at the time of allotment subsequent to the amalgamation/ merger is not in doubt, therefore, the transaction cannot be held as bogus. Accordingly we delete the addition made by the AO on this account." On further appeal by the department to the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court, the Hon’ble High Court by referring to the decision of CIT vs. Pooja Agarwal in DB IT Appeal No. 385/2011 dated 11.09.2017 (Raj)(HC) held that no substantial question of law arise in this case.

24 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR

6.4. Thus in view of the above discussion and taking into consideration various documentary evidences produced by the assessee in support of his claim and further relying upon various decisions of this Tribunal as well as the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court including the decision in case of CIT vs. Pooja Agarwal (supra) as well as in case of PCIT vs. Pramod Jain & Others (supra), we allow the claim of exemption under section 10(38) of the Act and accordingly delete the addition made by the AO. The order of ld. CIT (A) is set aside.’’

It is also noted that Hon’ble Jursidictional High Court in the case of Pr. CIT vs Sanjay Chhabra (DBIT Appeal No. 22/2021 pronounced on 6-04-2022) upheld the order of ITAT, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur whereby in exactly identical circumstances, the Hon’ble Court held that there was no perversity in the order of the Tribunal and no substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Taking into consideration the above decisions (supra) and also the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels that when during the course of assessment the asseessee has submitted all the required information/ details before the AO and the AO has made the assessment by passing an order then it is not permissible to reopen the assessment based on the very same material on the premises that it is susceptible to a different opinion favourable to the Revenue. We feel that the reopening of the case is not valid in law. Without prejudice to the above, even on facts, as discussed in detail in the preceding paragraphs, the reassessment order is quashed. Since the reassessment order dated 21-12-2017 is quashed, therefore, the addition made by

25 ITA NO. 259/JP/2022 NARESH KUMAR ARORA VS DCIT , CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR the subsequent AO has become infructuous. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed. 3.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open court on 21 /09/2022 Sd/- Sd/- ¼ jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ ½ ¼lanhi xkslkbZ½ (Rathod Kamlesh Jayantbhai) (Sandeep Gosain) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 21 /09/2022 *Mishra आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू 1. The Appellant- Shri Naresh Kumar Arora, Jaipur 2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The DCIT, Circle-6, Jaipur 3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ The ld CIT 4. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The ld CIT(A) 5. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 259/JP/2022) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेजज. त्महपेजतंत