Md. Abu Salam, Jajpur V. ITO, Cuttack

CO 61/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9685 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S C MOHANTY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 539/CTK/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), CUTTACK (APPELLANT) VS. MD. ABU SALAM, PROP: EKRAM FILING STATION, NEULAPUR, CHANDIKHOL, JAJPUR PAN:AFRPA9854Q (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO. 61/CTK/2012 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 539/CTK/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09) MD. ABU SALAM, PROP: EKRAM FILING STATION, NEULAPUR, CHANDIKHOL, JAJPUR PAN:AFRPA9854Q (OBJECTOR) VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), CUTTACK (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.C. MOHANTY, DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL MISHRA, AR DATE OF HEARING : 23/04/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27/06/2014 O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-CUTTACK, DATED 02.08.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND C.O. HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL : 01. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ADOPT THE GP RATE AS DISCLOSED IN FORM NO.3CB AND ESTIMATE PROFIT ON THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.11,22,649/-DETECTED BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. ITA NO.539 /CTK/2012, (A.Y.2008-09) C.O. NO.61/CTK/2012 02. WHETHER THE LD.CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS BILLS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS.37,94,347/- AS AGAINST RS.26,71,698/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCOUNT CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX FOR A/Y:2008-09 - WHEN THE TDS FOR RS.40,634 HAS BEEN GIVEN CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE TOTAL BILLS OF RS. 37,94,347/- AND DIFFERENCE OF SUCH BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS.11,22,649/- HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P & L A/C WHICH CLEARLY VIOLATES THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED SUB-SECTION (1) OF THE SECTION 199 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961. 03. WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT WHERE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH HIS BOOKS RESULTS AS CORRECT AND RELIABLE - IT IS MANDATORY FOR THE A.O. TO DETERMINE THE GROSS PROFIT OF UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. 2.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS INDIVIDUAL WHO DERIVES INCOME FROM RETAIL OUTLET OF PETROLEUM PRODUCT UNDER INDIAN OIL CORPORATION(IOCL) OIL TANKER AND TRUCK PLYING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES THE INCOME FROM TWO NOS. OF TANKER AND FOUR NOS. OF TRUCKS PLYING. THE AO FOUND THAT IN P&L A/C TOTAL TRANSPORTATION CHARGES HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AT RS.26,71,708/- IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ABOVE VEHICLES. HOWEVER, AS PER THE 26AS STATEMENT THE RECEIPT STANDS AT RS.34,53,535/-. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 10.12.2010 TO RECONCILE THE ABOVE DIFFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS REPLIED THAT THE RECEIPT FROM THE OTHER TRANSPORTERS WAS IN SHAPE OF CASH THROUGH VARIOUS EMPLOYEES/DRIVERS. SOMETIMES THE SAID EMPLOYEES/DRIVERS/SUPERVISORS TRANSPORT THEIR CONSIGNMENT WITHOUT INTIMATING THE ASSESSEE. AS THE TRANSPORTING PLACES ARE ALMOST 300-400 K.M. AWAY FROM ASSESSEES OFFICE, THE ASSESSEE SINGLE-HANDEDLY FAILED TO CONTROL THE MOVEMENT OF THE TRUCKS. THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE TRANSPORTING HOUSE HAVING MADE THE PAYMENT IN THE NAME OF THE CONCERNED TRUCKS DEDUCTED TAX APPROPRIATELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.11,22,649/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. {{{ 2.2. THE MATTER CARRIED TO CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIM BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 3. ITA NO.539 /CTK/2012, (A.Y.2008-09) C.O. NO.61/CTK/2012 6.1 AFTER AN EXAMINATION OF THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 10.12.2010 AND THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE REMAINS AN UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS. 11,22,646/-. HOWEVER, THE FULL AMOUNT MAY NOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX. IN BALASORE SYNTHETIC PVT. LTD. DCIT, THE HONBLE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK IN ITA NO.141/CTK/2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,74,589/- I.E. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS RECEIPT AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE AND THE ONE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.73,609/- WHICH WAS RECEIVED FROM M/S. INDIAN RAYAN AND INDUSTRIES LTD. WAS SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE LEARNED CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.2,00,980/-. THE HONBLE ITAT DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ON RS.2,00,980/-. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT THE GP RATE AS DISCLOSED IN FORM NO. 3CB AND ESTIMATE THE PROFIT ON THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS. 11,22,649/-. 2.3. THE DEPARTMENTS IS IN APPEAL AGAINST ADOPTING THE G.P. RATE ON THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS OF RS.11,22,649/-WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED C.O. SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 2.4. LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TWO NOS. OF TANKER AND FOUR NOS. OF TRUCKS PLYING. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGES FROM VARIOUS TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND WE HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE AND TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AT RS.34,53,535/- AS PER 26AS STATEMENT WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED WHILE IN THE RETURN HE HAS SHOWN THE RECEIPT OF RS.26,71,698/-WHICH ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED AS UNDERSTATEMENT OF THE RECEIPT. THEREFORE, THIS INCOME IS NOT DISCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED THE EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSPORT RECEIPT IN P&L A/C, THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJRAT HIGH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRESIDENT INDUSTRIES 258 ITR 654. 2.5. THE LEARNED AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH IN THE CASE OF R.R. CARRYING CORPORATION VS. ACIT 126 TTJ (CTK) 240 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE GP RATE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE RECEIPT WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE P&L A/C. 4. ITA NO.539 /CTK/2012, (A.Y.2008-09) C.O. NO.61/CTK/2012 2.6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE ITAT, CUTTACK BENCH IN THE CASE OF R.R. CARRYING CORPORATION VS. ACIT. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE SAID CUTTAK BENCH WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THERE IS UNDISCLOSED GODOWN SALES WERE FOUND BUT THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD THAT INVESTMENT WAS MADE FROM SOURCES OUTSIDE BOOKS IN ACQUIRING GOODS SOLD. THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE FOR ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS. ONLY PROFITS EMBEDDED IN SALE PROFITS CAN BE TAXED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE TRANSPORT RECEIPT OF RS. 11,22,649 /- IN HIS P&L A/C. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED THE EXPENDITURE IN HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR EARNING THE SAID TRANSPORT RECEIPT OF RS.11,22,649/-. IF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT DEMONSTRATE BEFORE US THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS ACCOUNTED IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE HAVE COME TO THIS CONCLUSION ON THE FACTS THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS TREATED THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPT SUM OF RS.11,22,649/- AS THE UNDERSTATEMENT OF RECEIPT WHICH ASSESSEE, BONAFIDELY FAILED TO DISCLOSED FOR THE REASON THAT SAID RECEIPTS WERE POCKETED BY THE DRIVERS/ SUPERVISORS/ THEIR EMPLOYEES WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CONTROL BECAUSE OF HIS SINGLE HANDED BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND INTERIOR DISTANCE OF THE WORK SITE. AS SUCH, IN THE FITNESS OF FACTS RECEIPTS AS WELL AS EXPENDITURE TO EARN SUCH RECEIPT HAVING NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE P&L A/C. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED THE EXPENDITURE FOR EARNING THE SAID TRANSPORT RECEIPT, THEREFORE, ENTIRE RECEIPT TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED THIS TRANSPORT RECEIPT UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE, THEREFORE, WE REVERSE THE FINDING OF CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE AO. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED. 5. ITA NO.539 /CTK/2012, (A.Y.2008-09) C.O. NO.61/CTK/2012 C.O NO.61/CTK/2012 FOR A.Y.2008-09 4. FOLLOWING GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CROSS OBJECTION AS UNDER: 1. FOR THAT, THE GROUNDS AGITATED BY THE APPELLANT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND MAY NOT BE INTERFERED BY THIS FORUM AND AS SUCH ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 2. FOR THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED TO ADOPT G.P RATE ON THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS BY TAKING THE RATIO OF THIS HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF BALASORE SYNTHETIC PVT. LTD. VRS. DCIT IN ITA NO-141/CTK/2008, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE RECEIPT AS WELL AS THE TDS THEREON IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DUE TO THE UNAVOIDABLE REASONS. 3. FOR THAT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS CRIED IN LAW BY NOT ALLOWING CREDIT OF TDS WHILE DIRECTING TO ADOPT THE GP RATE ON THE UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT OF RS.11,22,649/- AS BOTH THE RECEIPT AS WELL AS CONSEQUENTIAL TDS HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED FOR THE REASON THAT THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE POCKETED BY THE DRIVERS/SUPERVISORS/THEIR EMPLOYEES WHICH THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO CONTROL BECAUSE OF HIS SINGLE HANDED BUSINESS MANAGEMENT AND INTERIOR DISTANCE OF THE WORK SITE. 4. FOR THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS.38,036/- ON THE GROUND OF UNRECORDED SALES IS OUT AND OUT ILLEGAL, SINCE, THE QUESTION OF EVAPORATION LOSS CANNOT BE RULED OUT AND IN AS MUCH AS EVEN ASSUMING THAT THERE IS DISCREPANCY IN THE CLOSING STOCK THEN ALSO THE ENTIRE DIFFERENTIAL CANNOT BE TAXED BUT ONLY THE PROPORTIONATE RATE OF PROFIT ON SUCH DIFFERENTIAL CAN BE ADDED AS PER THE SETTLED LAW. 5. FOR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.52,649/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ARISING OUT OF ACCRUAL OF INTEREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT IS AGAINST THE SCHEME OF CHARGING SECTION OF INCOME TAX ACT IN SO FAR AS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TO EARN SUCH INCOME ARE NOT ALLOWED TO BE DEDUCTED WHICH THE APPELLANT HAS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING SUCH INTEREST INCOME AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 57(III) OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. FOR THAT, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AMOUNTING TO RS.1,93,919/- OUT OF VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE IS OUT AND OUT ILLEGAL, SINCE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO RECORD THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS ON THE SPECIFIC VOUCHERS TO HIS KNOWLEDGE WERE FOUND TO BE SELF MADE AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. AS SUCH, THE SAID ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED BEING MADE ON ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS AND IN VIOLATION OF THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS. (A) AYSHAKTIAYURVEDP.LTDV. ACIT[20]0] 4 ITRS TTR 537 (MUMBAI) (B,) OM PRAKOSH JOSHI V. ITO (2009) 123 TTJ 0246. CC,) LAVRIDS KNUDESEN MASKINFABRIK(INDIA,) LTD. VS. ADDI. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 102 TTJ882. 4.1. GROUND NO.2, 3 & 4:- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED CLOSING STOCK OF HSD ACCOUNT AT 895 LITRES AND HSD (EXTRA) 199 LITRES. AS PER THE QUANTITY DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE CLOSING STOCK OF HSD (PLAIN) WAS 8803 LITRES, HSD (EXTRA) 10,684 LITRES AND MS 1321 LITRES. THE AO DETECTED FROM THE DAILY SALES REGISTER OF THE ABOVE ITEMS AS PRESCRIBED BY THE OIL COMPANY THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF HSD (PLAIN) WAS 9686 LITRES, HSD (EXTRA) 10,883 LITRES AND 6. ITA NO.539 /CTK/2012, (A.Y.2008-09) C.O. NO.61/CTK/2012 MS 1321 LITRES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE HE TOOK THE SALE PRICE OF THE MONTH OF MARCH @ RS. 34.64 PER LITRE FOR HSD (PLAIN) AND RS. 35.34 PER LITRE FOR HSD (EXTRA) AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS. 38,036/-. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME. 4.2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT IN RESPECT OF THIS DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 38,036/-, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT ENTIRE DIFFERENCE IS TO BE TAXED AND HAS TO BE ADDED WHILE THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THE ENTIRE DIFFERENTIAL CANNOT BE TAXED BUT ONLY THE PROPORTIONATE RATE OF PROFIT ON SUCH DIFFERENTIAL CAN BE ADDED AS PER THE SETTLED LAW. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE GP RATE @ 8%, THEREFORE, AO IS DIRECTED TO TAKE THE GP RATE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE @ 8% ON AMOUNT OF RS. 38,036/-. 4.3. GROUND NO.5:- THE AO FOUND FROM THE BALANCE SHEET THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FD OF RS. 5,00,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN PLACED AGAINST CC A/C IN SBI, CHANDIKHOL BUT THE SAID FD HAS BEEN RE-INVESTED AFTER MATURITY FOR RS. 5,41,348/- WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y.2007-08. THE ACCRUED INTEREST ON THE SAID FD OF RS. 5,41,348/- ON HALF YEARLY BASIS @ 9.5% COMES TO RS. 52,649/-. THEREFORE, IT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THAT THE CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FD OF RS. 5,00,000/- IN CC A/C IN SBI, CHANDIKHOL BUT THE SAID FD WAS RE-INVESTED AFTER MATURITY FOR RS.5,41,348/- WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED IN A.Y. 2007-08. WE FIND THAT THE INTEREST AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR 2007-08. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THIS FD MATURED THE ENTIRE TAX HAS TO BE BROUGHT IN THE YEAR OF MATURITY. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE SAME. 7. ITA NO.539 /CTK/2012, (A.Y.2008-09) C.O. NO.61/CTK/2012 4.5. GROUND NO. 6:-THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ALL THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS BEFORE HIM WITH REGARD TO CLAIM OF EXPENSES ON VEHICLE RUNNING OF RS.14,20,360/- AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE OF RS. 5,18,885/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ONLY SOME SELF MADE DEBIT VOUCHERS WHICH WERE NOT VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED 10% OF IT WHICH COMES TO RS.1,93,919/-. THE CIT(A) CONFIRM THE SAME. 4.6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS WITH REGARDS TO VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES OF RS.14,20,360/- AND VEHICLE MAINTENANCE OF RS.5,18,835/-. THEREFORE, AO HAS DISALLOWED 10% OF SUCH EXPENSES. IN OUR OPINION, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION AND OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT REQUIRED. IN THE RESULT, THE C.O IS DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS ALLOWED AND C.O FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN PURSUANCE OF RULE 34(4) OF ITAT RULES, 1963 BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD OF THE BENCH AT CUTTAK IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.06.2014 SD/- SD/- ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 27.6.2014 P.S.- *PK* COPY TO : (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT CONCERNED (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R (6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER