DCIT, Chandigarh V. Sh. Raj Kumar Jalan, Sirsa

ITA 1006/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8736 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Loose papers; Document seized; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Documents seized
• Section: 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1006/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 THE DCIT, VS. SH. RAJ KUMAR JALAN CENTRAL CIRCLE I E-140 NGM CHANDIGARH SIRSA PAN NO. ACPPJ0350H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. M.R. SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 10-02-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13/02/2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 05-09-2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)(CENTRAL) GURGAON. 2. IN THIS APPEAL REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 1. WHETHER IN LAW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN DELETING PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,00,000/- IMPOSED BY A.O. U/S 271 AAA OF THE I.T. ACT ON ACCO UNT OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SPECIFY AND SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME SO SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS EARNED ? 2. WHETHER IN LAW ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN SHIFTING THE ONUS ON THE DEPA RTMENT BY HOLDING THAT IT IS FOR THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER TO RECORD THE STAT EMENT (OF THE PERSON) ON HIS OWN WAYS & IT WAS NOT EXPECTED FROM PERSON TO SUBST ANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED IN CONT RAVENTION OF SUB SECTION 2(II) OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961? 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT A SE ARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE. DURING THE SEARCH SOME INCRIM INATING DOCUMENTS WERE 2 FOUND AND CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE ALSO FOUND IN JEWELLERY ETC. THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE SUM OF RS. 60,00,000/- CONSISTING O F RS. 35,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND AND COMMISSION EARNED AND RS. 25,0 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY, HOUSE RENOVATION, CASH FOUND AND INVESTMENT IN THE LOOSE PAPERS ETC. THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE AMOU NT BY INCLUDING THE SAME IN TAXABLE INCOME AND FILED A RETURN OF INCOME OF R S. 2,27,14,830/- , TAXES WERE ALSO PAID. HOWEVER, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE WAY SURRENDERED INCOME HA S BEEN EARNED THEREFORE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED UNDER SECTION 27 1(1)(C). IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT IN THE INCOME DECLA RED AND HAS ALSO PAID THE TAX, THEREFORE, NO PENALTY WAS ATTRACTED. THE AO DI D NOT FIND FORCE IN THESE SUBMISSIONS BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED AND ACCORDINGLY LEVIED THE P ENALTY @10% AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,00,000/-. 4. ON APPEAL IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT ORIGINALLY P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) AND LATER ON SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 271AAA WHICH IS NOT CORRECT. FURTHER SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SURRENDERED THE INCOME UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND HAS INCLUDED THE SAME IN THE RETURNED INCOME AND HAS PAID TAXES THEREFORE NO PEN ALTY COULD BE LEVIED. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CHANDIGARH B ENCH IN CASE OF ACIT PATIALA VS. MUNISH KUMAR GOYAL, PATIALA 45 TAXMANN. COM 563. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND FORCE IN THESE SUBMISSIONS AND DELETED THE PE NALTY. 5. BEFORE US LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF A CIT, PATIALA VS. MUNISH KUMAR GOYAL IN ITA NO. 1003/CHD/2013. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULL Y WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 5.1 WHICH IS A S UNDER : 5.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESEES SUBMISSION AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATE MENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS. 60 LAKHS I.E RS. 35 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND AND COMMISSION EARNED AND RS. 25 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT O F UNEXPLAINED GOLD JEWELLERY, HOUSE RENOVATION, CASH FOUND AND INVESTM ENT IN LOOSE PAPERS AND DIARIES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN FOR THE YEAR OF RS. 2,27,14,830/- DECLARED 3 INCOME FROM SALARY, BUSINESS & PROFESSION, CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT T HE SURRENDER OF RS. 60 LAKHS WAS REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HEA D BUSINESS & PROFESSION. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED AT RS. 2,27,82,300/- AND PENA LTY OF RS. 6 LAKHS WAS LEVIED U/S 271AAA ON THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 60 LAKH S. HOWEVER IT IS THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA.R.W.S. 271(1)(C). IT W AS CONTENDED FROM THE STATEMENT OF SH. RAJ KUMAR JALLAN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SIMPLY STATED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED BY HIM FROM THE COMMISSION FROM SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES FOR MANY PARITIES, WITHOUT G IVING THE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES FOR WHOM HE TRANSACTED. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTE D OUT THAT THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271AAA WAS ISSUED F OR THE FIRST TIME ON 22.6.2010, PRIOR TO WHICH ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RESPONDING TO THE PENALTY NOTICE U/S 271(1) R/W SEC. 274. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD NO T ISSUED NOTICE U/S 271AAA AS HE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE VOLUNTARY SURRENDER OF RS . 60 LAKHS EARNED FROM COMMISSION ON SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES. HE A LSO STATED THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE SUCCEEDING AO WITHOUT CONS IDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER (DATED 29.12.2009 AND COPY FURNISHED) AND THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4). HE FURTHER REITERATED THAT THE SUM OF RS. 60 LAKHS DIS CLOSED IN HIS RETURN FILED FOR THE YEAR STOOD ACCEPTED BY THE AO. AS FOR THE ALLEGATIO N THAT THE MANNER OF EARNING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED, THE AS SESSEE AGAIN DREW MY ATTENTION TO THE STATEMENTS RECORDED (ALSO EXTRACTE D IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER) TO SHOW THAT NO FURTHER QUESTION WAS PUT TO HIM AS REG ARDS SOURCE OR MANNER OR SUBSTANTIATION OF THE SURRENDER AMOUNT. RELIANCE WA S MADE TO THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. RADHA KISHAN GOEL (2 005)278-ITR, 454 ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, COPY OF WHIC H WAS PROVIDED TO ME, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAD NOT INITIATED PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA WHILE DISPOSING THE CASE. PENALTY WAS INITIATED U/S 271(1 )(C). THE NOTICE U/S 271AAA WAS ISSUED DURING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) WHICH THE AO HAD INITIATED. PROVISION FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY HAS BEEN INSERT ED BY THE FINANCE ACT 2007 IN SECTION 271AAA IN RESPECT OF SEARCHES CONDUCTED ON OR AFTER 1.7.2007, TO TACKLE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YE AR RECKONED BY THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 25.03.2008. HEN CE FOR NON-INITIATION OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ITSELF IS REASON ENOUGH TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. NOW AS REGARDS THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 60 LAKSH IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4), IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SAME WAS INCLUDED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE INSTANT YEAR AND TAXES PAID THEREON. THE AO, AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAS ALSO NOT DRAWN ANY FURTHER ADVERSE INFERENCE ON THE MATTER. THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHA KISHAN GOEL (2005)278 ITR 454 (ALL). A COPY OF THE STATEMENT U/ S 132(4) WAS ALSO PROVIDED TO SHOW THAT NO SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR SUBSTANTIATING T HE MANNER OF DERIVING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAD BEEN ASKED. BE THAT AS IT MAY, I FIND THAT THE FACTS OF THE CA SE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF ACIT VS. MUNISH KUMAR GOYAL REPORTED IN 45 TAXMANN. COM 563, WHEREIN THE HONBLE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, HELD AS U NDER: 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSION CARE FULLY ..THE PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE DETAILED DEFINITION SH OWS THAT IT IS EXHAUSTIVE DEFINITION AND THERE IS CLEAR IDENTIFICATION OF THE INCOME REPRESENTED EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUM ENTS OF TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE IS CLEAR AND DIRECT ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE INCOME ON ONE HAND AND ASSE TS/DOCUMENTS ON THE OTHER HAND FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT FO LLOWS THAT IF CERTAIN INCOME IS NOT REPRESENTED BY ANY ASSETS/DOCUMENTS/ENTRY FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, THE SAME WOULD NOT BE COVERED UNDER THE DEFINITION OF U NDISCLOSED INCOME BUT WOULD INVITE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ON T HE FULFILLMENT OF OTHER REQUISITE CONDITIONS. THIS MEANS THAT ENTIRE DISCLOSURE OF IN COME AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OPERATION MAY NOT FALL UNDER THE DEFINITION OF UNDI SCLOSED INCOME IF IT COULD NOT BE RELATABLE TO SOME ASSETS/DOCUMENTS/ENTRY FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. IT ALSO MEANS THAT IF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. IT ALSO MEANS THAT IF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MAKES CERTAIN ADDITIONS INDEPENDENT OF THE INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL/DOCUMENTS 4 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION THEN SU CH AN ASSESSED INCOME WOULD NOT INVITE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA BUT UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). IT ALSO MEANS THAT INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS W OULD DEPEND UPON THE NATURE OF THE INCOME ASSESSED AND THERE COULD BE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA AS WELL AS 271(1)(C) FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, HOW EVER IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENT INCOME. THE AO IN THE PENALTY ORDER HAS CLEARLY ACC EPTED THAT DISCLOSURE OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 3,80,12,5 00/- IS NOT REPRESENTED BY ANY ASSETS/DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WAS PART OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME JUST BECAUSE THIS DISCLOSURE HAD COME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND WAS THEREFORE AS A RESULT OF THE SEARCH. THERE IS A CLEAR ACCEPTANCE OF THE FACT THAT THE SAID DISCLOSURE IS NOT WITH REFERENCE TO ANY ASSETS/DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT IS ONLY BECAUSE THE SAID DISCLOSURE HAPPENED DURING TH E SEARCH THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN CLUBBED IN THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOM E REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FULFIL THE CONDITION AS SPECIFIED IN SUB-SECTION(2) OF 271AAA. I AM OF THE CLEAR VIEW THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,80,12,500/- DOES NOT COME UNDER THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DEFINED UNDER SECTION 271A AA AND THEREFORE NO PENALTY U/S 271AAA COULD BE LEVIED. THE SECOND ASPE CT OF THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD FULFILLED THE REQUISITE CONDITIONS AS SPECIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D MADE THE DISCLOSURE UNDER SECTION 132(4) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N AND SPECIFIED THE MANNER OF EARNING SUCH INCOME AND IT ALSO SUBSTANTIATED THE S AME ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 19,87,500/-. THE AO'S VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE QUANTUM OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DOES NOT SEEM LOGICAL FROM THE BARE READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271A OF SUB SECTION (2). THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD STATE THE MANNER OF EARNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ALSO SUBSTANTIATE TH E SAME. IT WOULD NOT BE CORRECT INTERPRETATION OF THE PROVISIONS TO STRETCH THE REQUIREMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE THE QUANTUM AS WELL. THERE IS NO DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES MANNER OF EARNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME BEING FINANCIN G ACTIVITIES HAS BEEN SUBSTANTIATED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE REQUIREM ENT OF THE LAW HAS THEREFORE BEEN FULFILLED AS THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THE MANNE R OF EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME, SUBSTANTIATING THE SAME AND ALSO PAID THE D UE TAXES ALONG WITH THE INTEREST WITHIN THE SPECIFIED TIME LIMIT. EVEN IF T HE ENTIRE INCOME BY ANY LOGIC IS INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME TH E PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA WOULD NOT BE LEVIABLE BECAUSE OF FULFILLMENT OF REQUIREMENT OF SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA. 9 10. PLAIN READING OF SUB-SECTION WOULD SHOW THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN A STATEMENT ADMITS TO SOME UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND PAY TAXES ON THE SAME THEN PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED IN TERMS OF SUB-SEC(1) OF THIS SECTION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 4 CRORE WHICH WAS SURRENDERED DURING SEARCH, HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RE TURN AND TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS NORMALL Y ENTITLED FOR THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED IN SEC 271AAA ITSELF. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FURTHER DISPUTE THAT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED. IN THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOLLOWING QUESTION AND ANSWERS HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED: Q. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ? ANS. I VOLUNTARILY SURRENDER A SUM OF RS. 4.00 CROR E (RS. FOUR CRORE) FOR CURRENT FINANCIAL YEARS I.E. 2009-010 RELEVANT TO A .Y. 2010-11 IN ANY (SHOULD BE MY) INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THEY COVER ALL THE DI SCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED PAPER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING S. 11. THEREFORE CLEARLY THE REVENUE HAS NOT ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO DISCLOSE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS EARNED. IN ANY CASE ONCE THE INCOME IS SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132(4) IT CAN BE SAFELY ASSUMED THAT DURING DISCUSSION THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE DISCLOSED THE MANNER. IN ANY CASE WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN AC CEPTED FOR A SUM OF RS. 5 19,87,500/- OUT OF TOTAL SURRENDER OF RS. 4 CRORE T HEN SAME MANNER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED FOR THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT. IT IS NO T CLEAR FORM THE PENALTY ORDER HOW EXPLANATION FOR RS. 19,87,500/- WAS ACCEPTED. I N ANY CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED ALL THESE ISSUES IN DETAIL AND THE D.R. FOR THE REVENUE HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY MATERIAL OR DECISION WHICH CAN CONTROVERT TH E FINDING OF THE CIT(A). IN THE FOLLOWING CASES WHICH HAVE BEEN RELIED ON BY THE LD . LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CLEARLY HELD THAT PENALT Y IS NOT LIVEABLE. 12. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWIN G DECISIONS: KANAKIA SPACES (P)LTD. (SUPRA) A.N. ANNAMALAISAMY (HUF) (SUPRA) PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN (SUPRA) SMT. RAJ RANI GUPTA (SUPRA) 13. THE LD. D.R. FOR THE REVENUE WAS NOT ABLE TO PL ACE BEFORE US ANY DECISION WHICH SUPPORTS HIS CASE, THEREFORE WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1003/CHD/2013 IS DISMISSED. FROM THE ABOVE IT BECAME CLEAR THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLLOWED THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL. THE REASON FOR DELETION OF PENALTY HAS BE EN RECORDED IN DETAIL BY THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF ACIT PATIALA VS. MUNISH KUMAR G OYAL, PATIALA (SUPRA). SINCE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN OUR OPINION THE LD. CIT( A) HAS CORRECTLY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THEREFORE WE FIND NOTHING WRONG IN THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/02/2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13/02/2015 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR