Shri Madan Mohan Joshi, Bhopal V. The ITO 2(1), Bhopal

CO 62/IND/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8927 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESH
• Keywords: Fair market value
• Section: 54

Judgement Text

1 INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.193/IND/2013 A.Y. 2008-09 ITO-2(1), BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS MADAN MOHAN JOSHI, BHOPAL PAN AAUPJ 1067 G :: RESPONDENT AND, CROSS-OBJECTION NO.62/IND/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.193/IND/2013) A.Y. 2008-09 MADAN MOHAN JOSHI, BHOPAL PAN AAUPJ 1067 G :: APPELLANT VS ITO-2(1), BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI R.A. VERMA ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE DATE OF HEARING 31.7.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 . 8 .2013 2 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 24.12.2012 OF THE LD. CIT(A), BHOPAL, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE AFORESAID DECISI ON. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WHEREI N THE FIRST GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.55,578/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RENT RECEIVED FROM M/ S TRUBA ADVANCE SCIENCE KOMBINE. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER BY FURTHER SUBMITTING THAT THE PROPERTY IN QUES TION FROM WHICH THE RENT IS RECEIVED IS NOT A JOINT PROPE RTY. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE ARE BOTH SALARI ED PERSONS, INVESTED JOINTLY IN THE PROPERTY AND ARE GET TING THE RENTAL RECEIPT IN A FIXED RATIO. IT WAS PLEADED THAT FOR THE LAST ABOUT 20 YEARS THE RENTAL INCOME WAS DECLARED IN THE SAME RATIO BY BOTH THE PERSONS, I.E. ASSESSEE AND HIS W IFE 3 AND THE DEPARTMENT HAD BEEN ACCEPTING THE SAME. THE FACTUM OF ACCEPTANCE OF RENTAL INCOME IN BOTH THE HANDS WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. 1.1.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED RENTAL INCOME OF RS.79,662/- IN ITS RETURN AFTER CLAIMING STANDARD DEDUC TION FROM THE GROSS RENT, AMOUNTING TO RS.1,93,200/-, REC EIVED FROM M/S TRUBA ADVANCE SCIENCE KOMBINE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED, TDS CERTIFICATE ARE IN THE N AME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE RENTAL INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.1,35,240/- (RS. 1,93,200/- (-) RS. 57,960/-) (STANDARD DEDUCTION) WAS HELD TO BE TAXABLE I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ADDITION OF RS.55,57 8/- (RS.1,35,240/- (-) RS. 79,662/-) WAS MADE. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE 4 THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTED HOUSE WAS MADE OUT OF JOINT FUNDS AND THE INCOME WAS ALSO SHARED IN TH E FIXED PROPORTION OF THE FUNDS SO INVESTED AND THE SAM E PATTERN HAD BEEN FOLLOWED FOR THE LAST MORE THAN 20 YEAR S. THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO FILING INCOME TAX RE TURN IN THE SAME TAX SLAB AND THE PROPORTIONATE RENTAL INCOME WAS OFFERED AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY THE DEPARTMENT. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS NOT CONTROVERTED B Y THE REVENUE. THE ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH VARIOUS PAGE S OF THE PAPER BOOK EVIDENCING THE CLAIMED FACTUM. THE FILING OF RETURN BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND OFFERING TH E RENTAL INCOME IN THE FIXED PROPORTION WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. EVEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISBELI EVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN SINGLE NAME MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE 5 PROPERTY JOINTLY AND MORE SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE DEPART MENT HAD BEEN ACCEPTING THE RETURN CONSTANTLY YEAR AFTER YEAR. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED. 2. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,96,142/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM INT EREST ON FIXED DEPOSIT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT TO THE ADDITION WHEREAS THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER . 2.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOWED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 4,29,197/- WHICH INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,81,136/ - RECEIVED AS INTEREST ON FDRS. AS PER THE REVENUE, T HE GROSS INTEREST FROM FDR IS RS. 4,77,278/- (A/C NO. 383702050000108 WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA) IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG 6 OFFICER ON THE PLEA THAT THE ACCOUNT, IN QUESTION, IS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TDS CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BANK IS ALSO IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE FIXED DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF JOINT FUNDS AND A JOINT ACCOUNT IS MAINTAINE D. NO INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EVIDEN CING THAT IT WAS NOT A JOINT ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXAMINED THE FACTS AND ON THE BASIS OF A CERTIFICATE ISSU ED BY THE BANK THAT THE ACCOUNT IN QUESTION IS A JOINT ACCOU NT I.E. IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND THE F DRS ARE ALSO IN THE JOINT NAME, DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER PERUSING THE COPIES OF FDRS. THIS FACTUAL MATRIX WAS N OT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THESE UNCONTROVERTED FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE CO NCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT IS AFFIRMED. 3. THE NEXT GROUND PERTAINS TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.27,00,036/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXEMPTION CLAIMED U/ S 7 54 OF THE ACT. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS IN SUPPORT OF THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S 54 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF THREE HOUSES FR OM M/S NEW LAKE BUILDERS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EXEMPTION IS ALLOWABLE ONLY IN RESPECT OF ONE HOUSE. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS NO BAR U/S 54 OF THE ACT IN ACQUIRING MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE FOR WHICH RELIANCE WAS P LACED UPON THE DECISION IN D. ANAND BASAPPA V. ITO (2004) 91 ITD 53 (BANG.); ITO VS. P.C. RAMKRISHNA (2007) 108 ITD 8 251 (CHENNAI); PREMPRAKASH BHUTANI VS. CIT (2007) 110 TTJ (DEL) 440, CIT VS. ANAND BASAPPA (2009) 180 TAXMAN 4 (KARN.). THE LEARNED CIT(A) FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT W IFE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SEPARATELY ENTITLED TO CLAIM EXEMPT ION U/S 54 OF THE ACT. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS IS ANALYSE D, BEFORE US THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SHARING OF RENTAL INCOME IN THE RATIO OF 43 : 30, IF ACCEPTED THEN SHARING OF CAPITAL GAIN MAY ALSO BE ALLOWED IN THE SAME RATIO AS THE PROPERTY WAS CREATED OUT OF JO INT FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. BROADLY WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS PROPOSITION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED SENIOR DR THAT THE WORD A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE USED IN SECTION 54 WOULD MEAN ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, IN OUR VIEW, IS NOT A CORRECT PROP OSITION BECAUSE WHEN A PROPERTY OF HUF (RESIDENTIAL HOUSE) IS SOLD THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CAPITAL GAIN SHOULD BE INVESTED FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ON LY AS 9 THE HUF PROPERTY IS HELD BY MEMBERS OF UNDIVIDED FAM ILY. IF THE MEMBERS, KEEPING IN VIEW THE FUTURE NEEDS, I N THE EVENT OF SEPARATION, PURCHASES MORE THAN ONE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE BENEFIT OF EXEM PTION IS TO BE DENIED U/S 54(1). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE IN VESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY WAS MADE JOINTLY, THEREFORE, THE INVE STMENT MADE BY THEM IN THE UNITS WILL BE ALLOWABLE U/S 54 OF THE ACT. THE ONLY CONDITION ENVISAGED U/S 54 IS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SHOULD BE SOLD AND THE SALE PROCEEDS SHOULD BE UTILISED FOR PURCHASE OF ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHICH IS FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE RAT IO LAID DOWN IN CIT VS. SMT. JYOTI K. MEHTA (2011) 201 TAXMAN 79 (MAG) SUPPORTS OUR VIEW. THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THE EXPRESSION A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IS USED IN SECTION 5 4 MAKES IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO CONVEY THE MEANING THAT IT REFERS TO A SINGLE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. IF THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE INTE NTION, 10 THE LEGISLATURE WOULD HAVE USED THE WORD ONE. AS I N THE EARLIER PART, THE WORDS USED ARE BUILDINGS OR LAND WHI CH ARE PLURAL IN NUMBER AND THAT IS REFERRED TO A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THE ORIGINAL ASSET, AN ASSET NEWLY ACQUIRED AFTER T HE SALE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSET CAN BE THE BUILDINGS OR LAND S APPURTENANT THERETO, THEREFORE, THE LETTER A IN THE CONTEXT IT IS USED SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS MEANING SINGUL AR. BUT BEING AN INDEFINITE ARTICLE, THE SAID EXPRESSION S HOULD BE READ IN CONSONANCE WITH THE OTHER WORDS BUILDINGS AND LANDS AND, THEREFORE, THE SINGULAR A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ALSO PERMITS USE OF PLURAL BY VIRTUE OF SECTIO N 13(2) OF GENERAL CLAUSES ACT. THE DECISION FROM HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. D. ANAND BASAPPA (SUPRA) SUPPORTS OUR VIEW. THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 54 IS THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY SHOULD BE INVESTED IN ACQUIRING THE ANOTHER PROPERTY WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD. IF THE WHOLE AMOUNT IS INVESTED, THERE IS 11 NO CAPITAL GAIN LEFT WITH THE SELLER OF THE RESIDENTI AL PROPERTY. AS PER SUB-CLAUSE (II) TO SECTION 54(1) I F THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL NOT BE CHARGED U/S 45 OF THE ACT AND AS PER SUB-CLAUSE (1) IF THE AMOUNT OF C APITAL GAIN IS GREATER THAN THE COST OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SO PURCHASED OR CONSTRUCTED THEN THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN AND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED U/S 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR F OR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF NEW ASSET ARIS ING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN THE STIPULATED PERIOD. IN TH E PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE JOINTLY INVE STED IN ACQUIRING THE ORIGINAL ASSET/RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN A FIXE D PROPORTION AND INVESTED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE JOIN T PROPERTY IN THE SAME PROPORTION FOR ACQUIRING THE NEW ASSET/RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, BOTH THE PERSONS ARE ENTITLED TO ACQUIRE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE 12 INDIVIDUALLY OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE JOINT PR OPERTY AND THUS SUCH INVESTMENT IS PERMISSIBLE U/S 54 OF TH E ACT TO BOTH OF THEM IN THE SAME PROPORTION AND AS SUCH NO CAPITAL GAIN ARISES TO THAT EXTENT/PROPORTION, THEREFORE , THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO HAVING NO MERIT. 4. THE LAST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE PERTAINS T O DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 45,19,680/- MADE ON ACCO UNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEH ALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD THE RESIDENT IAL HOUSE FOR RS. 1 CRORE VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 1.8.2007 AND DID NOT OFFER ANY CAPITAL GAIN IN HIS RETU RN. ON QUESTIONING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSE E VIDE REPLY DATED 25.6.2010 FURNISHED THE DETAILS. IT WAS AL SO ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CONSTRUCTION/ALTERATION THUS THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,19,680/- WAS RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE 13 ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT GOVERNMENT REGISTERED VALUER REPORT WAS DULY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ARRIVING AT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 1.4.1981. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE RE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTING THE VALUER REPORT AND THE ESTIMATION OF FAIR MARKET VALUE WAS ON THE BASIS OF GUIDELINE RATES PRESCRIBED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES. 4.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY NO. E2/84, ARERA COLONY, BHOPAL, FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 CROR E VIDE REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 1.8.2007. THE DETAILS , SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, ARE SUMMARISED AS UNDER :- PARTICULARS FINANCIAL YEAR AMOUNT RS. COST INFLATIO N INDEX COST OF PLOT 1966 - 67 4,10,025 100(AS AT 81 - 82) CONSTRUCTION 2000 SQ.FT. 1971 - 72 1,05,000 100(AS AT 81 - 82) CONSTRUCTION - 2000 SQ.FT. 1981 - 82 1,05,000 100(AS AT 81 - 82) 14 CONSTRUCTION 2000 SQ.FT. 1986 - 87 2,05,000 140 (AS AT 86 - 87) ALTERATION 1998 - 99 1,93,000 351 (AS AT 98 - 99) TOTAL INDEXED COST 45,26,132 SALE CONSIDERATION 1,00,00,000 CAPITAL GAIN 54,73,868 INVESTED IN NEW HOUSE (COST RS. 56.95 LACS + 3 LACS ADDITIONAL) CAPITAL GAIN NIL IF THE OBSERVATION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, ASSERTION M ADE BY THE LEARNED RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND THE DETAILS PRO VIDED IN THE AFORESAID TABLE ARE KEPT IN JUXTAPOSITION AND ANALYSED, WE FIND THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER BASED H IS FAIR MARKET VALUE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AS ON 1.4.1998 ON TH E GUIDELINE RATES PRESCRIBED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES WI THOUT BRINGING ANY COMPARABLE CASE OF THE RELEVANT PERIOD. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS 15 DISREGARDED THE VALUATION OF RS. 50/- PER SQ. FT., ESTI MATED BY THE REGISTERED VALUER, WITHOUT MENTIONING ANY COGE NT MATERIAL. THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER IS EXPECTED TO BE HAVING TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY NOT POSSESS SUCH KNOWLEDGE, THUS THE VAL UER REPORT CANNOT BE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE THAT TOO WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. IF THE ABOVE TABLE IS ANALYSED, RS. 54,73,868/- REMAINED AS CAPITAL GAIN BUT TH E ASSESSEE INVESTED RS. 59,95,000/- IN THE NEW HOUSE, THEREFORE, NOTHING REMAINED AS SURPLUS IN THE FORM OF CAPITAL GAIN. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO INFIRM ITY IN THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS G ROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO HAVING NO MERIT, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 5. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ONLY GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO NO T 16 CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.3,98,000/- INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE HOUSE BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ARRIVING AT THE INDEXED COST OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION FOR COMPUTING THE C APITAL GAIN AND MERELY RELYING UPON THE VALUATION BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE ADVANCED HIS ARGUMENT WHICH IS IDENTICAL TO THE GROUND RAISED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED SENIOR D R DEFENDED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER . 5.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS VERY ST RANGE THAT ON THE ONE HAND, THE ASSESSEE HEAVILY PLACED RELIANC E ON THE REPORT OF HIS OWN APPROVED VALUER WHILE ARGUING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE (SUPRA) AND IN THE SAME BREATH, WHILE ARGUING THE CROSS OBJECTION DISPUTING THE SAME REPORT AT LEAST TO THE ISSUE IN HAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CLAIMED ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION IN THE 17 ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. EVEN OTHERWISE WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD THE STAND OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN VIE W OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WI TH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DISMISSED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.7.2013 SD/- SD/- (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 02.8.2013 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-31.7&1&2.8