Sri. Beni gopal Choudhary, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

CO 7/BANG/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7578 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE BENCH C BEFORE SHRI N BARATHVAJA SANKAR, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.927/BANG/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 15(4), BANGALORE. VS SHRI BENI GOPAL CHOUDHARY, C/O RADHA FURNISHINGS, #42, DICKENSON ROAD, BENGALURU-42. PA NO.ACOPC4311Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 (BY ASSESSEE) DATE OF HEARING : 02.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2012 REVENUE BY : SHRI SUNDAR RAJAN, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S R KIRON, C.A. ORD ER PER GEORGE GEORGE K : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-V, BANGALORE DATED 4.8.2011. THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION SUPPORTING THE STAND OF CIT (A). THE REL EVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. PAGE 2 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 2 I. ITA NO.927/B/11 BY THE REVENUE : 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED EIGHT GROUNDS IN ITS ME MORANDUM OF APPEAL. GROUND NOS.1 AND 8 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE A ND, HENCE, NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. THE REMAINING GROUNDS RELATE TO THE FOLLOWING ISSUES, NAMELY: (2) THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,500/- ON PRODUCTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF COMPLET ION OF ASSESSMENT; (3) THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,55,000/- ON PRODUCTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF COMPLET ION OF ASSESSMENT; (4) THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,80,000/- ON PRODUCTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF COMPLET ION OF ASSESSMENT; (5) THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,00,000/- ON PRODUCTION OF NECESSARY DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF COMPLET ION OF ASSESSMENT; (6) THAT THE CIT (A)S ORDER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE TH E CIT (A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT RENT RECEIVED AT RS.1,87,500/- INSTEAD OF RS.3,00,000/- AND COMPUTE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY ACCORDINGLY AND TO TAKE RS.2,25,000/- AS HIRE CHARGES COMPUTING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES INSTEAD OF RS.3,60,000/- AND ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON FURNITURE AND FIXTURES WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT TREATED THE SAME AS PAGE 3 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 3 BUSINESS ASSETS. NO DEPRECIATION CAN BE ALLOWED IN VIEW OF THE CONDITION LAID IN S. 32(1)(B); & (7) THAT THE CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MA DE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE FR ESH EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH VIOLATES THE SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A. II. C.O NO.7/B/12 BY THE ASSESSEE : 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR CROSS OBJECTIONS IN WHICH CROSS OBJECTION NOS. 1 AND 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND, H ENCE, NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR. THE REMAINING GROUNDS RELATE TO ISSUES WHICH ARE LISTED AS UNDER: (2) THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT (THE DEPARTMENT) ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE SINCE THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT (A) IS BASED ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AS APPLICABLE TO THE CROSS OB JECTORS CASE. HENCE, THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED; & (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FORGOING, THE CROSS OBJECT OR HUMBLY PRAYS THAT GROUND 6 OF THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL I S INCORRECT AND NOT ON FACTS AND, HENCE THE RELIEF AN D DIRECTIONS AS GIVEN BY THE CIT (A) IN PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER DATED 4.8.2011 BE SUSTAINED OR THE INCOME AS RETURN ED BY THE CROSS OBJECTOR BE UPHELD. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE ISSUES ARE AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, HAD FURNISHED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ADMITTI NG A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,82,406/- WHICH WAS, INITIALLY, PROCESSED U/S 14 3(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTI NY. IN THE ABSENCE OF PAGE 4 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 4 ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FOR THE REASONS RECORDED THEREIN, T HE AO HAD CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENT, DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AT RS.45,63,020/- THEREBY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 4.1 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT (A) FOR RELIEF. ACCORDING TO THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE FIL ED WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE A O FOR COMMENTS. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, EXAMINING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO FOR THE REAS ONS RECORDED THEREIN, THE CIT (A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITIONS UNDER VARIOUS HEA DS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH, ARE AS UNDER: (I) LIABILITY OF A LOAN STANDING IN THE NAME OF BENIGOPAL CHOWDHARY (HUF) RS. 17,500 (II)LIABILITY IN THE NAME OF SKBG INVESTMENT PVT LTD. RS. 5,55,000 (III)SECURITY DEPOSIT BEING HIRING CHARGES ON FURNITURE AND FIXTURES RS. 1,80,000 (IV)UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE AT C.V.RAMANNAGAR RS.30,00,000 FURTHER, THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO ADOPT RENT RECEI PT OF RS.1,87,500/- AND COMPUTE THE SAME AS INCOME FROM H OUSE PROPERTY. HE WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO ADOPT RS.2,25,000/- AS HIRE CHARGE S FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON FURNITURE AND FIXTURES AS PER LAW. 4.2 AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE P RESENT APPEAL. PAGE 5 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 5 4.3 THE PRIME GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE WAS THAT T HE CIT (A) HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE FRESH EVIDENCES WITHOUT AFF ORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, VIOLATES THE SUB-RULE OF RULE 46A. IT WAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE STAND OF THE AO REQUIRES TO BE SUSTAINED. 4.4 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED A R SUPPORTED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE CIT (A) AND PLEADED THAT THE SAME BE UPHELD. 4.5 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BEFORE DEALING WITH THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE, WE WOULD LIKE TO ADJUDICATE T HE GROUND NO.7. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE WAS THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE AO BEFORE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE REVENUE, VIOLATION OF SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES 1962. 4.6 FOR APPRECIATION OF FACTS, WE SHALL EXTRACT O F SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A WHICH IS AS UNDER: PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS): 46A.(1) (3) THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNL ESS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY:- PAGE 6 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 6 (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS- EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) 4.6 AT THIS POINT OF TIME, WE WOULD LIKE TO RECAL L THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT (A) AS UNDER: 2..AND FILED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION S AND A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS. THESE WERE SENT TO THE AO AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS CALLED FOR. TH E AO SUBMITTED REMAND REPORT AND THE SAME WAS RECEIVED I N THIS OFFICE ON 03.02.2011. AFTER EXAMINING THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPEAL IS DECIDED. THE AO HAD, IN FACT, FURNISHED HER REMAND REPORT VIDE LETTER DATED 13.1.2011 THROUGH THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE 15, BA NGALORE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DR HAD FURNISHED A C OPY OF THE SAME. THIS BELIES THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE THAT NO OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED BY THE CIT (A) BEFORE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER. 4.7 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE CIT (A) WAS WITHIN HIS REALM TO ADMIT AND CONSIDER THE FRESH EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH, THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A AS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE. OUR ABOVE VIEW IS STRENGTHENED BY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD, IN H IS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 16.11.2010 BEFORE THE CIT (A), SUBMITTED AT P ARA 10 AS UNDER: 10. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE APPELL ANT HAD GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. HENCE, NOTHING NEW IS BEING FURNISHED AT PAGE 7 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 7 THIS STAGE. IF HOWEVER IN CASE ANY OF THE ABOVE IS TAKEN AS NEW EVIDENCE, THEN THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED IN TE RMS OF RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES 1962 AS THE APPELLANT EVE N OTHERWISE PREVENTED FROM REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT CAUSE BY FILING THE DETAILS. 4.8 COPY OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CERTIFIED AS A TRUE COPY BY NONE OTHER THAN THE AO HERSELF IS PL ACED ON RECORD. THIS UNAMBIGUOUSLY MAKES IT EXPLICIT THAT ON A SPECIFIC R EQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, THE EVIDENCES SO ADDUCED HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE C IT (A) AND THE SAME WERE FORWARDED TO THE AO FOR HER COMMENTS, IF ANY. THUS, IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-RULE (3) OF RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES, THE AO HAS BEEN AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE HER SAY. THEREF ORE, THERE IS NO SUBSTANCE IN THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE ON THIS COUNT. THIS GROUND IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 4.9 WE SHALL NOW PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE CHRONOLOGICALLY AS UNDER: (I) DELETION OF RS.17,500/-: 5. IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT BENI GOPAL CHOWDHARY (HUF) WAS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH ITO, W -1(2), BANGALORE WITH PAN AAEHB8409G AND THIS AMOUNT OF RS.17,500/- WAS A LSO DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOK OF THAT ASSESSEE. THE CIT (A) HAD ALSO AC KNOWLEDGED THAT NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED BEFORE H IM. THEREFORE, THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. THIS D ELETION IS UPHELD. PAGE 8 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 8 (II) DELETION OF RS.5,55,000/-: 5.1 IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE CIT (A) THAT SKBG INVESTMENT PVT. LTD IS ASSESSED TO TAX WITH PAN AAFCS4798B AND FU RNISHED A COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF SKGB INVEST MENT PVT. LTD. AS THE CIT (A) HAD SATISFIED HIMSELF THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED. AS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFRINGEMENT IN THE STAND OF THE CIT (A), WE DISMIS S THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. (III) DELETION OF RS.1,80,000/-: 5.2 ACCORDING TO THE CIT (A), IT WAS EXPLAINED BE FORE HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS MOTHER SMT PUSHPA DEVI CHOWDHARY (P AN ACTPC2526J) WERE THE EQUAL CO-OWNERS OF A PROPERTY LOCATED AT KO LKATA. BOTH THE CO- OWNERS HAD ENTERED INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT AS WELL A S HIRING OF FURNITURE FIXTURES AGREEMENT WITH THE TENANT FOR THE SAID PRO PERTY. THEY WERE IN RECEIPT OF INTEREST FREE SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS.1.5 LAKHS FOR LEASING OUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND RS.1.8 LAKHS FOR HIRING FURNITU RE AND FIXTURES AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.3.3 LAKHS WAS EQUALLY SHOWN IN TH EIR BALANCE SHEETS. AFTER SCRUTINIZING THE COPIES OF AGREEMENTS AND ALS O THE ASSESSEE HAD REFLECTED THE SECURITY DEPOSIT IN HIS BALANCE SHEET, THE CIT (A) TOOK A VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADDING A SUM OF RS .1.8 LAKHS ON THIS COUNT. 5.3 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF T HE CIT (A) AND SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE TO CONTRADICT THE CIT(A)S VIEW, WE FIND NO SUBSTANCE IN THE REVE NUES ARGUMENT TO PAGE 9 OF 11 ITANO.927/BA NG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 9 INTERFERE WITH THE CIT (A)S STAND. ACCORDINGLY, WE SUSTAIN THE CIT (A)S ORDER ON THIS COUNT. (IV) DELETION OF RS.30,00,000/-: 5.4 IT WAS THE VIEW OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE O WNING A HOUSE PROPERTY AT C.V. RAMANNAGAR AND IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y DETAILS, HE ESTIMATED THE INVESTMENT IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT RS.30 LAKH S AND THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SUBJECT PROP ERTY, IN FACT, BELONGED TO HIS WIFE SMT. PRERANA CHOWDHARY WHO HAS BEEN ASSE SSED TO TAX WITH PAN ACSPC1099B AND THAT RS.26,28,992/- WAS REFLECTED IN HER BALANCE SHEET FOR THE AY 2007-08 AS VALUE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THE SHAPE OF A SALE DEED DATED 28.5.200 3 WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY, ACCORDING TO WHICH; THE ASS ESSEES WIFE PURCHASED THE LAND ON WHICH THE HOUSE WAS BUILT BY HER. CONS IDERING THE ABOVE EVIDENCES AND DETAILS, THE CIT (A) TOOK A STAND THA T THE AO WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN ADDING THE SAID SUM TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY DOCU MENTARY EVIDENCE TO CONTRADICT THE CIT (A)S STAND, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE CIT (A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5.5 (V) IN REGARD TO TAXATION OF INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY AT KOLKATA, THE AO TOOK THE RENT RECEIVABLE AT RS.3 LA KHS AND AFTER ALLOWING 30% DEDUCTION U/S 24(A) OF THE ACT, THE BALANCE OF RS.2.1 LAKHS WAS ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. THE AO HAD ALSO ASSESSED RS.3.6 LAKHS BEING HIRE CHARGES RECEIVED AS INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES. PAGE 10 OF 11 ITANO.927/B ANG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 10 5.6 IT WAS CLARIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CI T (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF RENT AND HIRE CHARGES FR OM THE TENANT ONLY FOR 7 MONTHS DURING THE YEAR AND THE SAME WAS EQUALLY OFF ERED FOR TAXATION BY HIM AND HIS MOTHER. IT WAS, FURTHER, EXPLAINED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT HIS SHARE WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND HAD OFFERED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.4,12,500 [RS.1,87,500 AS RENT + RS.2,2 5,000/- AS HIRE CHARGES FOR FURNITURE AND FIXTURES]. AFTER DULY EXAMINING T HE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT (A) HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE RENT AT RS.1,87,500 INSTEAD OF RS.3 LAKHS AND ALSO TAKE HIR E CHARGES AT RS.2.25 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.3.6 LAKHS AND, ACCORDINGLY, COMPUTE TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND OTHER SOURCES RESPECTIVEL Y. THE AO WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION ON FURNITURE AND FIX TURES AS PER LAW. 5.7 WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF TH E CIT (A) AND FIND NO INFIRMITY WHICH SEEKS OUR INTERFERENCE IN TH E MATTER. THE AO SHALL EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO DE PRECIATION AND TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION S OF THE ACT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 5.8 BEFORE PARTING WITH, WE WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIG HT THAT THOUGH THE AO HAD ALL ALONG OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF THE F RESH EVIDENCES WHICH, ACCORDING TO HER, CONSTITUTED THE VIOLATION OF RULE 46A, HOWEVER, SHE HAD CHOSEN NOT TO DISPUTE THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (A). THIS AMPLY TESTIFIES THAT THE A O HAD NOT DISPUTED THE BONA FIDE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS, BUT, TRYING TO F IND FAULT WITH THE PAGE 11 OF 11 ITANO.927/B ANG/2011 & C.O.NO.7/BANG/2012 11 ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCES BY THE CIT (A) WHICH, I N OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, HAS NO SUBSTANCE FOR THE REASONS RECORDED SUPRA. II. C.O NO.7/B/12 BY THE ASSESSEE : 6. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT THE REVENUES APPEAL HAS SINCE BEEN DISMISSED (SUPRA), THE ASSESS EE SHOULD HAVE NO GRIEVANCE TO AGITATE AND, THEREFORE, HIS CROSS OBJE CTION BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT , (I) THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED; &. (II) THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJEC TION IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 AT BANGALORE. SD/- SD/- (N BARATHVAJA SANKAR) (GEORGE GEORGE K) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER COPY TO : 1. THE REVENUE 2. THE ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT CONCERNE D. 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED. 5. DR 6. GF MSP/ BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BA NGALORE.