Basant Bansal , Alwar vs Department Of Income Tax

Jh vkj-ih-rksykuh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JM & SHRI T.R. MEENA, AM

vk;dj vihy la-@ITA Nos. 610 & 611/JP/2012 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2007-08 & 2008-09

D.C.I.T. cuke Basant Bansal, Central Circle, Alwar. Vs. C-13, Sushant Lok-1, Gurgaon, Haryana. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: AHYPB 1937 A vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent

jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Mrs. Rolee agarwal (CIT) fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Rakesh Gupta & Shri Milap Chaturvedi (Adv)

lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 06/04/2015 ?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 23/04/2015

vkns'k@ ORDER

PER: T.R. MEENA, A.M.

These are the appeals filed by the department against the order

dated 30/03/2012 passed by the learned CIT(A), Central, Jaipur for A.Y.

2007-08 & 2008-09. The respective grounds of both the appeals are as

under:-

2 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

Grounds in revenue's appeal ITA No. 610/JP/2012

"1(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case of CIT(A) (Central), Jaipur has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amount of Rs. 25,25,000/- paid by M/s Mistry Meadows Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee was holding 18.8% and 50% shares respectively, do not fall within the purview of section 2(22)(e) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 25,25,000/- made by the A.O. by invoking provisions of sec 2(22)(e) of the Act.

1(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) (Central), Jaipur has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amount advanced by M/s Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., to M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd., where the assessee was one of the directors holding more than 10% shares respectively do not fall within the purview of section 2(22)(e) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 7,85,559/- representing 50% of the accumulated profit of P&L a/c.

Grounds in revenue's appeal ITA No. 611/JP/2012

"1(i) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case of CIT(A) (Central), Jaipur has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amount advanced by M/s Mistry Meadows Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., where the assessee was one of the directors holding more than 10% shares respectively do not fall within the purview of section 2(22)(e) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 13,76,629/-.

1(ii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) (Central), Jaipur has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amount advanced by M/s Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd., to M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee was one of the directors holding more than 10% shares respectively do not fall 3 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

within the purview of section 2(22)(e) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 16,71,302/- representing 50% of the accumulated profit of P&L a/c.

1(iii) Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case the CIT(A) (Central), Jaipur has erred in law and on facts in holding that the amount advanced by M/s B&B Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., to M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. where the assessee was one of the directors holding more than 10% shares respectively do not fall within the purview of section 2(22)(e) and thereby deleting the addition of Rs. 40,23,050/- representing 50% of the total advance of Rs. 80,46,100/-.

2. In both the assessment years, the revenue is challenging the

deleting addition of Rs. 25,25,000/- and Rs. 7,85,559/- in A.Y. 2007-08

and Rs. 13,76,629/- , 16,71,302/- and Rs. 80,46,100 in A.Y. 2008-09,

the additions made U/s 2(22)(e) of the Income tax Act, 1961

(hereinafter referred as the Act) as deemed dividend. The ld Assessing

Officer observed that from HDFC Book for the period 01/4/2006 to

31/3/2007 submitted alongwith reply dated 10/08/2010 during the

course of assessment proceedings in the case of M/s Benchmark

Infotech Pvt. Ltd. that an amount of Rs. 25.25 lacs had been received

by it from M/s Misty Meadows Pvt. Ltd., which has been repaid on

22/03/2007. Shri Basant Bansal held 18.80% shares of M/s Misty

Meadows (P) Ltd. and 50% shares of M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

during the year 2006-07. Shri Basant Bansal held more than 10% 4 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

shares in M/s Misty Meadows (P) Ltd., which had given the loan and

held more than 20% shares of M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd., which

had received the advance. Accumulated profit on the M/s Misty

Meadows (P) Ltd. as on 31/3/2007 was Rs. 1,85,91,329.39. Therefore,

the amount of Rs. 25.25 lacs paid by M/s Misty Meadows (P) Ltd. to M/s

Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was considered to be dividend paid to Shri

Basant Bansal in view of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e) of the Act.

The ld Assessing Officer gave show cause notice on it, which was

replied by the assessee and considered by him during the course of

assessment proceedings. It was submitted before him that M/s Misty

Meadows (P) Ltd. had share premium account, which was not available

for any distribution to the company. The ld Assessing Officer found that

accumulated profit as on 31/3/2007 under the head share premium

account at Rs. 99,50,000/- and P&L account at Rs. 86,41,329.39. The

share premium account remained constant, therefore, there was no

question of advancing any amount from this account. During the year,

the assessee held sufficient profit of M/s Misty Meadows (P) Ltd. and

from which it had advanced Rs. 25.25 lacs to M/s Benchmark Infotech

Pvt. Ltd.. The assessee also relied before the Assessing Officer a

decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of ACIT vs. 5 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 118 ITD 1 (Mum) (SB). As per the

Assessing Officer's finding, the case law is not squarely applicable on

the assessee's case as the assessee is a registered share holder in both

the companies having minimum share holding as required by the law to

be held deemed dividend U/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. He further relied on

the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Hiltop, 313 ITR 116 of Hon'ble

Rajasthan High Court wherein it has been held that deemed dividend

would be deemed dividend in the hands of the beneficial owner and not

the concern. The assessee's argument was also not found convincing to

the Assessing Officer that so called loan and advance is not itself a loan

but repayable on demand, the assessee's case is covered U/s 2(22)(e)

of the Act. M/s Misty Meadows Pvt. Ltd. have accumulated profit of Rs.

86,41,329.39 other than share premium reserve of Rs. 99,50,000/-. As

such case of the assessee is within the four corners of section 2(22)(e).

Therefore, the amount of Rs. 25,25,000/- advanced by M/s Misty

Meadows Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. was considered

to be deemed dividend and made the addition of Rs. 25.25 lacs.

It is further held that Rs. 9 crores had been advanced by M/s

Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd.. Shri 6 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

Basant Bansal held 74% shares of M/s Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. and

50% of M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. during the year 2006-07.

Similarly, Roop Bansal also held 12% of M/s Manglam Multiplex Pvt.

Ltd. and 50% shares of M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. during the

said period. Both the persons held more than 10% shares each in M/s

Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. and more than 20% shares in M/s

Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd., which had received the advance of Rs. 9

crores. Accumulated profit of M/s Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. as on

31/3/2007 was Rs. 2,11,71,118.50 against the amount of 9 crores paid

by M/s Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd.

was considered to be dividend paid to Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Roop

Bansal in equal proportion in view of the provisions of Section 2(22)(e)

of the Act. The Assessing Officer also sought clarification from the

assessee, which has been availed by him. The identical reply was also

submitted against this query by the assessee before the Assessing

Officer. The assessee submitted that these are business transactions

between the companies and cannot be treated as deemed dividend U/s

2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessee relied on the following case laws:-

(i) CIT Vs. Badiani P.K. (Bom) 076 ITR 369 7 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

(ii) CIT vs. Rajkumar (Delhi High Court) 318 ITR 426

After considering the assessee's reply, the ld Assessing Officer held that

accumulated profit was Rs. 15,71,118.50/- considered to be advanced

by M/s Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt.

Ltd., which has been considered by the Assessing Officer for deemed

dividend in the hands of the assessee and Shri Roop Bansal equally.

Accordingly he made addition of Rs. 7,85,559/- U/s 2(22)(e) of the Act.

In A.Y. 2008-09, it was noticed by the Assessing Officer that in

case of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. that M/s Misty Meadows Pvt. Ltd

had paid Rs. 8 crores to M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on 08/3/2008,

which has been paid back by M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on

26/03/2008. Shri Basant Bansal held 34% of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt.

Ltd. and 18.80% shares of M/s Misty Meadows Pvt. Ltd. during the year

2007-08, which means that the assessee held more than 10% shares in

M/s Misty Meadows Pvt. Ltd. which has extended the advance and held

more than 20% shares of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., the

accumulated profit as on 31/3/2008 at Rs. 1,13,26,629.58/-.

Accordingly, he treated the deemed dividend to the extent of

accumulated profit in the hands of the assessee. A show cause notice 8 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

was given by the Assessing Officer to the assessee, which has been

replied by him and considered by the Assessing Officer. The assessee

submitted before the Assessing Officer that 99.95 lacs was in the share

premium account, which is not available for dividend. The ld Assessing

Officer held that if the assessee's contention is accepted even after

reducing share premium account from the accumulated profit, the

remaining amount would be Rs. 13,76,629. The assessee's argument

before the Assessing Officer that these transactions does not fall within

the definition of loan and advances as the loan is repayable on demand

by the lender. However, these submissions were not found convincing

to him as these transactions are covered U/s 2(22(e) of the Act. The

submissions before the Assessing Officer is that these transactions are

business transactions between M/s Martial Buildcon (P) Ltd. and M/s

Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. but the Assessing Officer asked to file copy

of the sale deed of land to prove the business transaction made by

these companies were not submitted in either cases. The assessee

party has not advanced any evidence to prove that these transactions

are business transactions between M/s Manglam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. to

M/s Martial Buildcon (P) Ltd. for purchase of land. The assessee also 9 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

relied upon various case laws before the A.O. on deemed

dividend/business transactions. The cases are as under:-

(i) CIT Vs. Badiani P.K. (Bom) (supra)

(ii) CIT vs. Rajkumar (Delhi High Court) (supra)

There was accumulated profit at Rs. 33,42,604/- has been considered

to be advanced by the M/s Mangalam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Martial

Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and as such Rs. 33,42,604/- has been considered as

deemed dividend in the hands of the assessee and Shri Roop Bansal. As

such ½ of Rs. 33,42,604/- i.e. Rs. 16,71,302/- was added to the income

of the assessee as deemed dividend. The ld Assessing Officer further

noticed that in case of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. that M/s B&B

Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. had paid Rs. 80,46,100/- to M/s Martial Buildcon

Pvt. Ltd. as on 04/02/2008, which has been paid back by M/s Martial

Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. on 25/03/2008. Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Roop

Bansal held 34% and 33% shares of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd.

respectively and 50% each of M/s B&B Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. during the

year 2007-08. As such Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Roop Bansal held

more than 10% shares in M/s B&B Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. which has given

the loan and held more than 20% shares of M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt.

10 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

Ltd., which had received the advance. Therefore, the Assessing Officer

held that the amount of Rs. 80,46,100/- paid by M/s B&B Mercantile

Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Martial Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. was considered to be dividend

paid to Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Roop Bansal in equal proportion in

view of the provisions of section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The Assessing

Officer gave reasonable opportunity of being heard and assessee also

replied in response to notice. After considering the assessee's reply, the

ld Assessing Officer held that the assessee had relied upon the decision

of ITAT, Mumbai Bench (SB) in case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt.

Ltd. (supra), which is not squarely applicable in the case of assessee as

the assessee is a registered share holder and beneficial owner of the

share. In Bhaumiks colour Pvt. Ltd. case, the common share holder is a

trust. Share certificates are in the name of the Trustees. Thus the

registered holders are the trustees, whereas the beneficial owners are

the beneficiaries of the Trust. Hence, the primary condition for invoking

section 2(22)(e) is not fulfilled and consequently, section 2(22)(e) does

not apply to the case of ACIT Vs. Bhaumik Colour Pvt. Ltd. (supra) as

held by the Special Bench ITAT, Mumbai. In case of Basant Bansal

(assessee), there is no ambiguity as he is the registered share holder of

both the companies with share holding of 50% in M/s B&B Mercantile 11 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

Pvt. Ltd. and 34% shares holding in M/s Martial Buildcom Pvt. Ltd.. He

is also a beneficial owner. It has more than 20% shares in the advance

recipient company i.e. M/s Martial Buildcom Pvt. Ltd. and the shares

held by Shri Basant Bansal are entitled to dividend. He further relied on

the decision of Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Hotel Hiltop

(supra). He further considered the assessee's argument that sale

proceeds of agricultural land are to be treated capital reserve and not

eligible for distribution of dividend as the appellant in the case of share

premium account but the Assessing Officer held that these proceeds

also part of the profit. Therefore, this is a case of deemed dividend U/s

2(22)(e) of the Act. He further considered the assessee's argument that

these transactions between both the companies were business

transactions and the ld Assessing Officer found that the assessee failed

to file the copy of consultation-cum-development agreement entered

with both the companies to support the claim. He also considered the

case laws submitted by the assessee, which was not found squarely

applicable in the case of assessee particularly CIT Vs. Badiani PK and

CIT Vs. Rajkumar (supra). It has been held that amount of Rs.

80,46,100/- advanced by M/s B&B Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. to M/s Martial

Buildcon Pvt. Ltd. and as such covered U/s 2(22)(e) of the Act in the 12 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

hands of the assessee and Shri Roop Bansal. Being ½ of Rs.

80,46,100/- i.e. Rs. 40,23,050/- has been held as deemed dividend in

the hands of the assessee. The same has been added in the income of

the assessee.

3. Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the

assessee carried the matter before the learned CIT(A), who had allowed

the appeal for A.Y. 2007-08 by observing that the assessee has filed

additional evidence before him, the same has been remanded back and

report has been called for and the ld Assessing Officer has not rebutted

the submission made by the assessee, therefore, the additional

evidence was considered for disposal of appeal before the ld CIT(A). As

regards addition of Rs. 25.25 lacs made U/s 2(22)(e) of the Act on the

ground that M/s Misty Meadows Pvt. Ltd. had made payment of Rs.

25.25 lacs to M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. during the year under

consideration, which has been received back on 22/3/2007. It is

undisputed that Shri Basant Bansal, the appellant is holding more than

10% of share in M/s Misty Meadows Pvt. Ltd. and is also holding more

than 20% shares if M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd.. As per decision of

Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Hotel Hiltop 13 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

(supra), deemed dividend would be added in the hands of beneficial

owner and not in the hands of the concern. The Assessing Officer was

justified in considering it in the hands of appellant. The Assessing

Officer has also appreciated the fact of accumulated profit in remand

report. The ld Assessing Officer considered the MOU between M/s Misty

Meadows Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. and had not

rebutted the submission of the assessee that these transactions were

not made for business purposes. He further relied upon the following

decisions:-

(i) CIT Vs. Creative Dyeing and Printing P. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 476 (Del).

(ii) CIT Vs. Ambassador Travels Pvt. Ltd. (2009) 318 ITR 376 (Del).

(iii) CIT Vs. Raj Kumar (2009) 318 ITR 462 (Del)

(iv) Pradeep Kumar Malhotra s. CIT (2011) 338 ITR 538 (Cal).

The ld CIT(A) held that these payments were not loan or advances

fallen within Section 2(22)(e) of the Act but payment for proposed

purchase of land and are usual business transaction. Therefore, he

deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer to the extent of Rs.

25.25 lacs.

14 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

Regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 7,85,559/-, the ld CIT(A)

has held that after considering the addition evidence filed before him in

form of MOU between M/s Mangalam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s

Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd reflected that M/s Mangalam Multiplex Pvt.

Ltd. entered into collaboration of Joint Development of the land with

M/s Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. under the terms of which a sum of

Rs. 9 cores was paid to M/s benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. for payment

of license fee/scrutiny fee/other charges. The collaboration for joint

development is further evidenced by a copy of form LC-1 filed to

Director Town and Country Planning Development of Haryana

Government which is an application for granting development license.

The A.O. in the remand report, has verified these facts and has

mentioned the same. The A.O. has not given any adverse comments on

these points and also particularly on the claim of the AR that these

documents established that the payment of Rs. 9 cores was made not

as an advance or loan but for the purpose of business i.e. for joint

development of land between M/s Mangalam Multiplex Pvt. Ltd. and M/s

Benchmark Infotech Pvt. Ltd. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) deleted the

addition.

15 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

Regarding deletion of addition of Rs. 13,76,629/-, Rs. 16,71,302/-

and Rs. 40,23,050/- in A.Y. 2008-09 the ld. CIT(A) has held as under:-

"4.10 I have considered the submission of ld. A.R., remand report of present A.O., counter comments of A.R. and further submissions as well as material available on record. In the remand report, after examination of the additional evidences, the A.O. has not made any adverse comments on the argument of the A.R. that the transactions between

(i) M/s Misty & M/s Martial, (ii) M/s Mangalam and M/s Martial and (iii) M/s B.B. Mercantile and M/s Martial are not of lender and borrower which are covered u/s 2(22)(e) and are rather commercial business transactions. In brief, A.O. has not objected to the argument of A.R. that M/s Misty entered into agreement with M/s Martial for purchase of 100 kanals of land at agreed consideration of Rs. 40 crores against which a sum of Rs. 8 crore was given as intial payment by m/s Misty to M/s Martial and thus it was not an advance within the meaning of section 2(22)9e) but was initial payment for purchase of land. Similarly the A.O. has also not made any adverse comments, after considering the additional evidence in the form of agreement, on the argument of the A.R. that M/s Mangalam made initial payment of Rs. 8.4 crore for purchase of 100 kanals of land for total consideration of Rs. 42 crores as per the agreement filed (wherein as Rs. 33.42 lakhs was the

16 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

accumulated profit of M/s Mangalam, Rs. 16.71 lakhs was added in the hands of both the assessees.

4.11 Similarly after examination of additional evidence being an MOU between M/s B.B. and M/s Martial by the A.O., the A.O. has not made any adverse comments on the argument of A.R. regarding payment being in furtherance of business transaction as per the MOU between the two A.O. has also mentioned that the case of M/s Martial was under scrutiny and no adverse inference was drawn by the then A.O. in regard to these payments.

4.12 Considering the facts and in the circumstances of the case as discussed hereinabove, material available on record including the additional evidence and also the remand report of the A.O., it is held that none of these three payments namely (i) payment made by M/s Misty to M/s Martial (leading to addition of Rs. 13,76,629/-), (ii) payment made by M/s Mangalam to M/s martial (leading to addition of Rs. 16,71,302/- in the case of Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Roop Bansal both) and (iii) payment made by M/s B.B. to M/s Martial (leading to addition of Rs. 40,23,050/- in each of the case of Shri Basant Bansal and Shri Roop Bansal) can be treated to be covered U/s 2(22)9e) of the Act in view of the various judicial pronouncements as discussed while deciding the similar issue in A.Y. 2007-08 as above. Accordingly, additions of 17 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

Rs. 13,76,629/-, Rs. 16,71,302/- and Rs. 40,23,050/- made in A.Y. 2008-09 are hereby deleted."

4. Now the Revenue are in appeals before us. The learned C.I.T.

D.R. vehemently supported the order of the Assessing Officer.

5. At the outset, the learned A.R. for the assessee supported the

order of the ld CIT(A). He further submitted that whatever advances

considered by the ld Assessing Officer for the purpose of deemed

dividend were transactions for business purposes. All the evidences had

been filed before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) has called remand

report from the Assessing Officer also on these evidences, which has

not been controverted by him that these transactions were loan and

advances as envisaged in Section 2(22)(e) of the Act. Every debt does

not involve a loan, the principle that has been laid down is that in

Section 2(22)(e) of the Act applies to gratuitous loan or advances. He

further relied the case laws referred by the ld CIT(A) on page No. 26

and 27 of his order and prayed to dismiss the appeal of the revenue.

6. We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties and

perused the material on record. The ld CIT(A) thoroughly examined the

issue in detail after admitted the additional evidence and calling the

remand report from the Assessing Officer. He held that these 18 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

transactions made between the companies for business purposes, which

does not form part of loan and advances as envisages in Section

2(22)(e) of the Act. The ld DR has not controverted the findings given

by the ld CIT(A). The case laws relied upon by the A.R. are squarely

applicable on the case of assessee, therefore, we do not find any

reason to intervene in the order of ld CIT(A). Accordingly, we uphold

the order of ld. CIT(A)

7. In the result, both the revenue's appeals are dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 23/04/2015.

Sd/- Sd/- ¼vkj-ih-rksykuh½ ¼Vh-vkj-ehuk½ (R.P.Tolani) (T.R. Meena) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member

Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated 23rd April, 2015

*Ranjan

vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzsf'kr@Copy of the Order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- The DCIT, Central Circle, Alwar.

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- Basant Bansal, Gurgaon, Haryana.

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 19 ITA 610 & 611/JP/2012_ DCIT Vs. Basant Bansal

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 610 & 611/JP/2012).

vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,

lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar