IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM ITA No. 826/JP/2015 Assessment Year : 2005-06 M/s Zuberi Engineering Co., cuke Dy. Commissioner of 2835, Jogiyon Ka Tiba Phuta Vs. Income Tax, Khurra, Jaipur. Circle-2, Jaipur. PAN/GIR No.: AAAFZ 2103 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Shri Anil Sharma (CA) Revenue by : Shri R.A. Verma (Addl.CIT) Date of Hearing : 09/08/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 28/09/2016 ORDER PER: LALIET KUMAR, J.M. This is appeal filed by assessee against order dated 01/10/2015 passed by ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur for A.Y. 2005-06, confirming penalty of Rs. 9,61,000/- imposed U/s 271(1)(c) of Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short Act) on account of addition of Rs. 9,61,000/- made U/s 68 of Act. 2 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT 2. brief facts of present case are that assessee filed return of income on 25/5/2006 declaring total income of Rs. 4,97,868/-. notice U/s 142(1) of Act alongwith questionnaire were issued to assessee and assessee was given opportunity to file response. However, after considering reply etc. and material on record, assessment order dated 28/12/2007 was passed whereby following four additions were made: (i) Unsecured loan U/s 68 of Act for Rs. 14,61,000/-. (ii) Addition U/s 69 of Act as explained in fixed asset of Rs. 29,04,656/- (iii) Trading addition of Rs. 43,99,937/- and (iv) disallowance out of P&L account expenses of Rs. 10.00 lacs. Thus, total addition of Rs. 97,65,593/- were made in original return of income thereby total income of assessee was assessed at Rs. 1,02,63,461/-. 3. Against said assessment order dated 28/12/2007, assessee has filed appeal before ld. CIT(A) on following grounds:- 1 That ld. Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs. 14,61,000/- by treating same as un explained cash credit U/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. 3 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT 2. That ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making addition of Rs. 29,04,656/- incurred on purchase of Hydra Cranes, by treating same as unexplained expenditure U/s 69 of IT Act, 1961. 3. That ld. Assessing Officer has erred in making trading addition of Rs. 43,99,937/- by applying GP rate of 11%. 4. That ld Assessing Officer has erred in making lump sum addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of disallowance of expenditure debited in Profit and Loss account. 5. That ld Assessing Officer has erred in passing order U/s 144 of It Act 1961 without considering facts and details of case. 6. That additions made by ld Assessing Officer are bad in law as well as on facts, without prejudice to above additions made by Assessing Officer are very much excessive. ld. CIT (A) after considering material on record has partly allowed appeal of assessee to following effect: (i) Out of addition of Rs. 14,61,000/- made by Assessing Officer U/s 68, ld. CIT(A) has only sustained addition of Rs. 9,61,000/- and has thereby granted relief for remaining amount of Rs 5,00,000/. 4 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT (ii) Similarly, ld. CIT(A) has deleted entire addition of Rs. 29,04,656/- made U/s 69C (as expenditure of fixed assets and has also deleted entire trading addition of Rs. 43,99,937/-. (iii) ld. CIT(A) has also deleted lump sum addition of Rs. 10.00 lacs and only sustained lump sum addition of Rs. 5.00 lacs on account of disallowance of expenditure debited in P&L account. Thus, against total addition of Rs. 97,65,593/-, addition of Rs. 9,61,000/- and Rs. 5.00 lacs were only sustained and remaining addition made by Assessing Officer were deleted. 5. Feeling aggrieved by order passed by ld. CIT(A), revenue has filed appeal before Tribunal for following grounds:- 1. CIT(A), although upheld applicability of provision of section 144 vide last ground of appeal (Page No. 4), yet admitted following facts/documents arbitrarily and without affording opportunity to A.O. to examine them, thus deletion of various additions basing on such material is bad 5 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT in law, not only on ground of principle of natural justice but also on account of violation of provision of Rule 46A. (i) claim of maintenance of books of accounts (in ground No. 3- Page No. 3). Whereas no such books of accounts were produced before A.O. in spite of ample opportunities. In fact there is no books of accounts. (ii) genuineness of cash credit of Rs. 5,00,000/- out of Rs. 14,61,000/- without confronting A.O. (iii) genuineness of expenditure of Rs. 29,04,656/- only on basis of certain statement given by assessee. 2. CIT(A), since assessment being framed U/s 144, ought to have considered defiant attitude of assessee before A.O. in not cooperating and furnishing information before A.O.. Admission in this manner may make institution of A.O. ineffective in so far as his power to enquiry and investigation is concerned. 3. In above bank ground, following grounds relating to specific deletion are taken:- a. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ld. CIT(Appeals)-I, Jaipur has erred in reducing addition of Rs. 14,61,000/- to Rs. 9,61,000/- made by A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit U/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. b. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur has erred in deleting addition of Rs. 29,04,656/- made by A.O. on account of unexplained expenditure U/s 69 of IT Act, 1961. 6 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT c. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur has erred in deleting entire trading addition of Rs. 43,99,937/- made by A.O. by applying GP rate of 11% instead of 9% declared by assessee. d. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur has erred in reducing addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 5,00,000/- made by A.O. by disallowance of expenditure debited in P&L account. 6. Tribunal vide composite order dated 28/8/2009 had passed following order: After having gone through orders of lower authorities, we find substance in above contention of ld. D/R. Under these circumstances, we are of view that remanding matter to file of A.O. will meet ends of justice. We thus while setting aside first appellate order in question remand matter to file of A.O. top decide issues raised in grounds of appeals afresh after verifying correctness of documents filed before ld. CIT(A) on behalf of assessee and after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee on those issues. appeals are thus allowed for statistical purposes. Assessing Officer has completed remand proceedings pursuant to direction of Hon ble Tribunal on 01/10/2010. In respect of issue No. 1 i.e. disallowance of Rs. 14,61,000/-, which was set aside by 7 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT Tribunal, Assessing Officer has only upheld amount of Rs. 9,61,000/- only. order of Assessing Officer in this regard is as under:- assessee has shown unsecured loan of Rs. 14,61,000/-, Rs.5 lac from M/s Bakliwal & Brothers and Rs.9,61,000/- from M/s Property Pvt. Ltd. assessee was asked to file confirmation during course of original assessment proceedings but no confirmation was filed and therefore same were considered as unexplained cash credits and addition of Rs.14,61,000/- was made. As per order of Id.CIT(A), assessee has filed confirmation from M/s Bakliwal and Brothers who has admitted that Rs.5 lacs was given by cheque dated 20-07- 2004 to assessee. Copy of account of Mr. Bakliwal in books of assessee was also given. However, no confirmation was filed in respect of other creditor M/s Property Pvt. Ltd. Hence, only 5 lacs is considered by Id.CIT(A) as explained and balance amount of Rs.9,61,000/- appearing in name of M/s Property pvt.ltd remains unexplained. Hence, addition of Rs.14,61,000/- made u/s 68 is reduced to Rs.9,61,000/- by Id.CIT(A). assessee submitted copy of confirmation of M/s Bakliwal & Brothers produced before CIT(Appeal). On perusal of same it was noticed that confirmation has been signed by signatory of M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd. whereas 8 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT assessee has shown loan from M/s Bakliwal & Brothers. In this regard, it was submitted by assessee that loan was given by M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd but due to mistake of accountant, it was shown in name of M/s Bakliwal & Brothers. To verify genuineness of confirmation produced before CIT(Appeal) and to verify correctness of submission of assessee, information was called u/s 133(6) from cash creditor. M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd. submitted confirmation vide letter dated 6- 09-2010. It submitted copy of its income-tax return for relevant assessment year and also filed copy of bank account showing payment of Rs.5 lac to assessee on 21-07-2004 vide cheque no. 372252. Since, amount of Rs. 9,61,000/- shown in name of M/s Property Pvt. Ltd. remains unexplained, addition of Rs. 9,61,000/- is made U/s 68 of IT Act. 1961. However, for other amounts, Assessing Officer has agreed for deletion of Rs. 29,04,656/- and has further made addition of Rs. 8,00,000/- on account of trading addition of Rs. 43,99,937/- and has further sustained amount of Rs. 5.00 lacs on account of lump sum disallowance of expenditure debited in P&L account. 7. Assessing Officer had also issued penalty proceedings against assessee by issuing show cause notice on 31/3/2011. assessee 9 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT filed written submissions on 24/2/2011, Assessing Officer was not convinced by explanation given by assessee and has confirmed penalty of Rs. 8,27,357/- and calculation made by Assessing Officer was as under:- Minimum penalty works out @ 100% Rs. 8,27,357/- (Tax on Rs. 22,61,000/- (9,61,000 + 8,00,000 + 5,00,000) @ 35% plus surcharge & E.C.) Maximum penalty works out @ 300% Rs. 24,82,071/- Hence, penalty of Rs. 8,27,357/- @ 100% is imposed U/s 271(1)(c) This penalty order is passed with prior approval of Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-2, Jaipur communicated vide his letter No. 174 dated 28/04/2011. 8. Feeling aggrieved by order, assessee filed appeal before ld. CIT(A). ld. CIT(A) had deleted penalty imposed on account of trading addition of Rs. 8.00 lacs and disallowances of expenses of Rs. 5.00 lacs. However, has sustained addition of penalty of Rs. 9,61,000/- U/s 68 of Act. 9. Against said order passed by ld. CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us. ld AR of assessee has submitted that assessee did not file any appeal against order of ld. CIT(A) dated 23/09/2008, therefore, addition of Rs. 9,61,000/- sustained by 10 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT ld. CIT(A) reached to finality. It was further contended that Tribunal while remanding matter on 28/8/2009 has not disturbed addition sustained by ld. CIT(A) and has only directed to decide issue raised by department in respect of addition deleted by ld. CIT(A). Further it was submitted that as per proviso to Section 275(1)(a) of Act, penalty order is liable to passed within one year from end of financial year in which order of ld. CIT(A) has been received by Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. On basis of above, said legal clause, it was contended that order dated 23/09/2008 was received in office of Commissioner on 31/3/2010 and therefore, penalty order passed by Assessing Officer on 29/7/2011 was clearly barred by limitation. Lastly, AR of assessee relied on decision of this Tribunal in case of Grass Filed Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., ITA No. 415/JP/2015 on issue that order passed by Assessing Officer is barred by limitation U/s 275 (1)(a) of Act. On merit, it was submitted that addition of Rs. 9,61,000/- was not disproved and has submitted that there is distinction between facts not proved, facts disproved and facts proved. It was submitted that in quantum proceedings, authorities have not come to conclusion that fact has not been proved and therefore, 11 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT assessee is entitled to benefit of explanation to Section 271(1)(c) of Act. Ld. AR has further relied on decision of Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in case of CIT Vs Vidhyagauri Natver Lal (1999) 238 ITR 91 (Guj). It was prayed that penalty order may kindly be quashed. 10. On other hand, ld DR has relied on order passed by authorities below and has further submitted that judgment passed by this Tribunal in case of Grass Filed Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., (supra), is not applicable to facts and circumstances of present case and has further submitted that said judgment was passed by Tribunal, ignoring binding judgment of Hon ble Third Member in case of said assessee itself. 11. We have heard rival contentions of both parties and perused material available on record. ground of appeal for assessment year 2005-06 have been reproduced hereinabove, which we are reproducing same hereinbelow for purposes of clarity: a. On facts and in circumstances of case and in law, ld. CIT(Appeals)-I, Jaipur has erred in reducing addition of Rs. 14,61,000/- to Rs. 9,61,000/- made by 12 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT A.O. on account of unexplained cash credit U/s 68 of IT Act, 1961. reading of ground alongwith order passed by Tribunal, clearly suggest that entire ground has been set aside by Tribunal vide its order dated 28/8/2009. ground as framed by revenue before this Tribunal, clearly indicate that addition of Rs. 14,61,000/- was made and out of said amount of Rs. 9,61,000/- was confirmed by ld. CIT(A) and for remaining amount, revenue was in appeal but ground as framed before Tribunal and as per facts, both i.e sustained addition and deleted addition were forming part and parcel of same transaction and are interwoven and interconnected with each other. Therefore, Assessing Officer in remand proceedings had adjudicate entire amount of Rs. 14,61,000/- and had after elaborate order had again reiterated addition of Rs. 9,61,000/-. Assessing Officer has not restricted scope of Tribunal order to remaining amount rather , he had elaborately discussed ground afresh and thereafter had come to conclusion that amount of Rs. 9,61,000/- shown in name of M/s Property Pvt. Ltd. remained unexplained. said order of Assessing Officer adjudicating and reaffirming addition of Rs. 9,61,000/-, was 13 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT passed on 01/10/2010, therefore, to say that penalty order which was passed on 29/4/2011 was barred by limitation U/s 275(1)(a) of Act, in our view, was incorrect as remand order, which again reiterated/reaffirmed and discussed addition of Rs. 9,61,000/- was passed on 01/10/2010. contention of ld AR of assessee that Tribunal has not disturbed addition sustained by ld. CIT(A), in our view, was wholly incorrect and without any merit. Tribunal and authorities below were conscious of fact that addition sustained by ld. CIT(A) for sum of Rs. 9,61,000/- was part and parcel of total addition of Rs. 14,61,000/- on account of unexplained investment and, therefore, penalty order is not barred by limitation. 12. judgment cited by ld AR in case of Grass Filed Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., (supra), in which one of us (JM) was Member, in our view, has not laid down correct law as neither assessee nor revenue in said matter, has brought to Bench notice binding judgment in case of Grass Filed Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 176 (Jaipur - Trib.) (TM) of Third Member where by Third member has elaborately discussed scope of 14 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT Section 275 and period of limitation in completing assessment proceedings. Since facts of present case are not similar to facts of Grass Filed Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., (supra), therefore, we are not elaborately discussing other aspects of said judgment, on basis of which Grass Filed Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd., (supra) is not binding and was not correct law. For sake of completeness, we would like to reproduce relevant paragraph of Third Member s judgment in case of Grass Filed Farms and Resorts Pvt. Ltd. [2016] 70 taxmann.com 176 (Jaipur - Trib.) (TM) which clearly settled law with respect to application of Section 275(1)(a) of Act, which reads as under:- 31. It was also contended by learned Counsel for assessee that levy of penalty u/s 271(l)(c) is barred by limitation, because Assessing Officer has initiated penalty proceeding vide notice u/s 271(l)(c) dated 31.03.2008 and finally, penalty is imposed on 26.03.2010. He contended that provision of Section 275(l)(a) would not be applicable because in appeal filed before CIT (A), assessee has not disputed quantum of addition made by Assessing Officer and therefore, period of limitation would be covered by Section 275(l)(c), by which penalty is to be levied within six months from end of month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated. Section 275(1) reads as under: "275 [(1)] No order imposing penalty under this Chapter shall be passed - 15 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT [(a) in case where relevant assessment or other order is subject matter of appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 [or section 246A] or appeal to Appellate Tribunal under Section 253, after expiry of financial year in which proceedings, in course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from end of month in which order of Commissioner (Appeals) or, as case may be, Appellate Tribunal is received by [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, whichever period expires later: [Provided that in case where relevant assessment or other order is subject matter of appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) under section 246 or section 246A, and Commissioner (Appeals) passes order on or after 1st day of June, 2003 dispsing of such appeal, order imposing penalty shall be passed before expiry of financial year in which proceedings, in course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or within one year from end of financial year in which order of Commissioner (Appeals) is received by [Principal Chief Commissioner or] Chief Commissioner or [Principal Commissioner or] Commissioner, whichever is later;] (b) in case where relevant assessment or other order is subject matter of revision under section 263 [or section 264], after expiry of six months from end of month in which such order of revision is passed; (c) in any other case, after expiry of financial year in which proceedings, in course of which action for imposition of penalty has been initiated, are completed, or six months from end of month in which action for imposition of penalty is initiated, whichever period expires later.]" 32. From above, it is evident that as per Section 275(1)(a), Assessing Officer can levy penalty within six months from end of month in which order of CIT (A) is received provided assessment order was subject matter of appeal to CIT (A) u/s 246/246A of Income-tax Act. As per proviso to clause (a) which is 16 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT inserted by Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 01.06.2003, where relevant appellate order is passed by CIT (A) on or after first day of June 2003, then Assessing Officer can levy penalty within one year from end of financial year in which order of CIT (A) is received by Commissioner. Admittedly, order of CIT (A) is dated 16.10.2008. exact date of receipt of this order of CIT (A) in office of CIT is not furnished before me, but it has to be after date of order of CIT (A). Therefore, presuming service of order within reasonable time, same would be received in office of CIT (A) during Financial Year 2008-09 and one year from end of this financial year ended on 31.03.2010. penalty order is dated 26.03.2010. Thus, same is within period of one year from end of financial year in which order of First Appellate Authority was received in office of CIT. contention of learned Counsel for assessee was that sub-section (a) to Section 275(1) is not applicable on ground that in appeal filed by assessee, it has not disputed addition made by Assessing Officer. However, condition for applicability of clause (a) to Section 275(1) is filing of appeal against relevant assessment order before CIT (A) u/s 246/246A. What is in dispute before CIT (A) is not relevant. Admittedly, assessee had filed appeal against relevant assessment order before CIT (A) u/s 246 of Income-tax Act. Therefore, I reject contention of learned Counsel for assessee that clause (a) to section 275(1) was not applicable. ( emphasis supplied by us) 13. Now coming to merit of case in assessment proceedings, assessee submitted copy of confirmation of M/s Bakliwal & Brothers, which was produced before ld. CIT(A). It was noticed that confirmation was signed by M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd. whereas loan was shown from M/s Bakliwal & Brothers. It was sought to be clarified that due to mistake of accountant, loan 17 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT was shown to be in account of M/s Bakliwal & Brothers instead of M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd. and said Anamika Conductors Ltd. had also submitted confirmation letter in this regard. However, assessee in assessment proceedings and remand proceedings have failed to explain amount of Rs. 9,61,000/- from M/s Property Pvt. Ltd. and some amount remained unexplained. 14. It was case of assessee that amount of Rs. 9,61,000/- was taken through account payee cheque and full particulars of lenders were provided by assessee. It was submitted that assessee has provided one of its explanation in respect of loan of Rs. 9,61,000/- and, therefore, explanation given by assessee comes within purview of law as bonafide explanation and therefore, penalty should not be imposed for furnishing incorrect particulars thereof. We have also gone through penalty order as well as order of ld. CIT(A). in penalty order of Assessing Officer, has noticed that assessee was given fresh opportunity of being heard and assessee again failed to explain source of unexplained source of cash credit of Rs. 9,61,000/-. Thereafter, Assessing Officer had only discussed about conduct of assessee to explain genuineness 18 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT of expensed claimed by him. Assessing Officer in penalty order has mentioned as under:- 6. above provisions of section 271(l)(c) read with its Explanation-1 make it clear that if Assessing Officer is satisfied that any person has concealed particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income or where in respect of any facts material to computation of total income of any person under this Act. such person fails to offer explanation or offers explanation which is found by Assessing Officer to be false, or such person offers explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bonafide and that all facts relating to same and material to computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then case of assessee comes within purview of section 271(1)(c). In this case assessee failed to establish genuineness of cash credits which tantamount to furnishing of wrong particulars and hence concealment of income. Further, assessee also failed to establish trading results shown by him, nor could he prove genuineness of expenses claimed by him despite repeated opportunities provided to him. Since expenses claimed leads to reduction of income and consequent diminution of tax liability. Therefore any non genuineness expenses tantamount to furnishing of wrong particulars and concealment of income. Therefore non genuineness cash credits as well as expenses 19 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT tantamount to furnishing of wrong particulars and concealment of income, thereby attracting penal provisions by virtue of section 271 (1)(c). Further, explanation put forth by assessee in his defense have not been found satisfactory and in this way also case of assessee falls in category of Explanation-1 to section 271(1)(c). same was reiterated by ld. CIT(A) while confirming penalty order. In our view, assessee has given name of cash creditor, assessee has also provided details of bank account and bank name through which amount was received by him. assessee had also submitted details of amount, which was received by him through banking channel. However, we have failed to find that neither in assessment proceedings nor in remand proceedings, Assessing Officer, has called upon M/s Property Pvt. Ltd. by issuing notice U/s 133(6) of Act to seek confirmation from it. It is case where Assessing Officer or ld. CIT(A) has not brought on record that M/s property Pvt. Ltd. was fake company or its address was not real and summons could not have been served upon it. It is case where assessee has discharged its initial burden of giving name, account number and name of bank of cash creditors. However, Assessing Officer has failed to exercise its power bestowed on him 20 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT under Act. In our view, explanation given by assessee, in our view is bonafide explanation and therefore, for failure of Assessing Officer to bring on record sufficient material to substantiate levy of penalty is not called for. We also fail to appreciate rational behind recording statement of M/s Anamika Conductors Ltd. only with view to satisfy Assessing Officer for unexplained investment of Rs. 5.00 lacs. However, there is no such notice was issued U/s 133(6) of Act to M/s Property Pvt. Ltd.. No explanation has been given or furnished for not issuing notice to other party by Assessing Officer. We, therefore, delete penalty sustained by ld. CIT(A). 15. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in open court on 28/09/2016. Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGCHAND) (Laliet Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial Member Jaipur Dated:- 28th September, 2016 Copy of order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- M/s Zuberi Engineering Co., Jaipur. 2. Respondent- DCIT, Circle-2, Jaipur. 21 ITA 826/JP/2015_ M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. Vs DCIT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Jaipur 6. Guard File (ITA No. 826/JP/2015) By order, Asst. Registrar M/s Zuberi Engineering Co. v. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Jaipur