Ashok Kumar Agarwal, Chhatarpur V. Income Tax Officer, Chhatarpur

ITA 103/AGR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6342 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Loose papers
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH: AGRA BEFORE S HRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 (ASSESSMENT YEAR - 20 0 7 - 0 8 ) ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL S/O SHRI JAGESHWAR PRASAD AGARWAL, CHOWK BAZAR, CHHATARPUR (M.P.) PAN NO. A COPA4424E (ASSESSEE) V S .. IT O , CHHATARPUR . (M.P.) (R EVENUE ) ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA , AR. REVENUE BY SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR.DR. ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE LD. CIT(A) S ORDER DATED 09.01.2014 SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,77,809/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF RS.17 LACS SURRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY AND THAT OF RS.4,22,191/ - DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BY CREDIT TO HIS TRADING ACCOUNT. 2. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THAT DURING SURVEY, NUMEROUS LOOSE PAPERS HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE SHOP OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH PAPERS WERE MOSTLY RELATED WITH SA LE, IN WHICH, K UCHCHA WORK HAD BEEN DONE, WHICH HAD NOT BEEN DATE OF HEARING 09 .0 3 .2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 .0 5 .2017 I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 2 ENTERED IN THE ACCOUNTS, AMOUNTING TO CREDIT OR CASH SALE OF ABOUT RS.10 LACS TO RS.12 LACS; THAT IN HIS RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 30, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THAT HIS ACCOUNTS WERE NOT FULLY WRITTEN AND THAT AS SUCH, HE ADMITTED THE SALE FOUND FR OM THE LOOSE PAPERS TO BE UNRECORDED SALES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THAT HE WAS SURRENDERING TOTAL F IVE L AKH R UPEES ON ACCOUNT OF THE LOOSE PAPERS, AS UNDECLARED INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION AND THAT HE WOULD DEPOSIT DUE TAX THEREON AS ADVANCED TAX; THAT LIKEWISE, IN THE PHYSICAL INSPECTION AT THE SHOP AND GODOWN OF THE ASSESSEE , ON 19.09.2006, TOTAL STOCK OF RS.41,30,510/ - WAS FOUND, WHEREAS ACCORDING TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPA RED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PRODUCED DURING THE SURVEY, THE TOTAL STOCK WAS OF RS.30,50,000/ - GIVING RISE TO A DIFFERENCE OF RS.10,80,510/ - ; THAT BESIDES, INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN AND FACTORY HAD BEEN STATED TO BE OF RS.2.50 LACS; THAT IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 32, THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT THE TRADING ACCOUNT PRODUCED DURING THE SURVEY, WHICH HAD BEEN PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE, HAD BEEN GIVEN ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS; THAT AS SUCH, A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 12 LACS HAD BEEN SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE OF HIS OWN VOLITION; THAT IN THIS MANNER, AN OVERALL SURRENDER OF RS.17 LACS HAD VOLUNTARILY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE LOOSE PAPERS AND THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK FOUND; THAT OUT OF THIS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,22,191/ - HAD BEEN SHOWN MORE IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT; THAT CONSIDERING THESE AMOUNTS, A N AMOUNT OF RS.12,77,809/ - REPRESENTING UNDECLARED INCOME REMAIN ED , WHICH OUGHT TO BE ADDED I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 3 TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE; THAT AS PER THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO DEPARTMENTAL INSTRUCTIONS DATED 10.03.2004 ISSUED BY THE CBDT, IF SOME DISCREPANCIES ARE FOUND DURING THE SURVEY, THE AO CANNOT FORCE THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE A SURRENDER ; AND THAT THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SATISFACTORY, BECAUSE DURING THE SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.17 LACS REPRESENTING THE LOOSE PAPERS AND DIFFERENCE IN STOCK AND INVESTMENT IN FACTORY AND GODOWN. IT WAS IN THIS MANNER THAT THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.12,77,809/ - . 3. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: 5.5 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WRITTEN SUBMISSION, REMAND REPORT, REJOINDER INCLUDING ORAL ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH DURING COURSE OF HEARING. IN THIS CASE, A SEARCH U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 19.09.2006, DURING COURSE OF SU RVEY, VARIOUS PAPERS / DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND. INVENTORY OF THE STOCK FOUND WAS PREPARED FOR RS.41,30,510/ - . TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT WAS ALSO PREPARED WITH THE CLOSING STOCK OF RS.30,50,000/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE EXCESS STOCK OF RS. 10,80,510/ - (41,30,510/ - L ESS 30,50,000/ - ) WAS FOUND. STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECORDED, IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 2.5 LAKHS WAS MADE IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AND GODOWN BY HIS WIFE AND SON RESPECTIVELY. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXCESS STOCK AND INVES TMENT IN CONSTRUCTION, THE APPELLANT HAD SURRENDERED TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 12,00,000/ - . IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE APPELLANT HAD ALSO MENTIONED THE FACT OF UNRECORDED SALES OF RS. 5,00,000/ - IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 4 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS ALSO NOT WRITTEN UP TO THE DATE OF SURVEY. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT HAD SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED SALES ALSO. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HAD SURRENDERED TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 17,00,000/ - AS ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING COURSE OF SURVEY. WHERE AS, THE APPELLANT HAD DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.4,22,191/ - AGAINST THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING COURSE OF SURVEY BY CREDITING IT TO THE TRADING ACCOUNT WHICH FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAS MA DE THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,77,809/ - (RS.17,00,000/ - SURRENDERED DURING COURSE OF SURVEY LESS RS.4,22,191/ - DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME). ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A.R. OF THE APPELLANT VEHEMENTLY CONTESTED THE ADDITION OF RS.12,77,809 / - MENTIONING THAT THE ADMISSION OF RS.17,00,000/ - AS ADDITIONAL WAS ERRONEOUS ADMISSION AND ACCORDINGLY RETRACTED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME IN VIEW OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF MAHESHWARI INDUSTRIES VS. ACIT (2003) 81 TTJ (JOD) 914 AND DECLA RED THE CORRECTED INCOME OF RS.4,22,191/ - DISCLOSED IN THE RTURN OF INCOME WHICH WAS ARRIVED AT AFTER CONSIDERING THE PAPERS AND RECORDS, FOUND DURING COURSE OF SURVEY. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE / DISCREPA NCY IN THE INCOME OF RS.4,22,191/ - DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT EXCEPT RELYING UPON THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING COURSE OF SURVEY REGARDING INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION DURING COURSE OF SURVEY. THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R HIS COMMENTS, WHO HAS SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 5 MENTIONING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THE TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT DURING COURSE OF SURVEY. AS PER TENTATIVE TRADING ACCOUNT THE STOCK WAS WORKED OUT RS.30,50,000/ - AS AGAINST INVENTORY OF PHYSICAL STOCK PREPARED FOR RS.41,30,510/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND FOR RS 10,80,510/ - . THE A.O. HAS FURTHER MENTIONED IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS STATED THE FACT OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 2.5 LAKHS IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE AND GODOWN. THE APPELLANT, HAS CATEGORICALLY OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12,00,000/ - AS ADDITIONAL INCOME DURING COURSE OF SURVEY. APART FROM THAT, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO OFFERED RS. 5,00,000/ - AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR UNRECORDED .SALES. ACCORDINGLY, THE TOTAL A MOUNT OFFERED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS RS.17,00,000/ - . A COPY OF REMAND REPORT HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT WHO HAS SUBMITTED THE REJOINDER REITERATING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED EARLIER. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE, I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CATEGORICALLY OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.17,00,000/ - DURING COURSE OF SURVEY CONSIDERING THREE ITEMS CATEGORICALLY I.E. EXCESS STOCK OF RS.10,80,510/ - FOUND DURING COURSE OF SURVEY, INVESTMENT OF RS. 2.5 LAKHS IN CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSEAND GODOWN A ND RS.5,00,000/ - AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR UNRECORDED SALES. WHEREAS, THE APPELLANT HAD DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.4,22,191/ - ONLY TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK AS MENTIONED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT. HE HAD NOT DECLARED ANY ADDITIONAL INCOME TOWARDS INVESTMENT I N CONSTRUCTION AND TOWARDS UNRECORDED SALES, WHICH WAS CATEGORICALLY ADMITTED, WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT DURING COURSE OF SURVEY. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 6 VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT ALL THESE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION / SUBMISSION FOR DECLARING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.4,22,191/ - IN THE RETURN OF INCOME IN PLACE OF RS.17,00,000/ - OFFERED FOR TAXATION D URING COURSE OF SURVEY EXCEPT THE FACT OF ERRONEOUS ADMISSION. WHEREAS THE ADMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING COURSE OF SURVEY WAS NOT ADHOC ADMISSION BUT IT WAS SUPPORTED AND CO - RELATED SPECIFICALLY WITH REFERENCE TO EXCESS STOCK FOUND WORTH RS.10,80, 510/ - , INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF RS.2.5 LAKHS AND UNRECORDED SALES OF RS.5,00,000/ - AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT HIMSELF DURING COURSE OF SURVEY. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE, 1 AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.12,77,809/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUSTAINABLE AND, IS, HEREBY, CONFIRMED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION WRONGLY MADE B Y THE AO; THAT DURING THE SURVEY, THE INVENTORY OF CLOSING STOCK AS PREPARED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS OF RS.41,30,510/ - ; THAT ON THE OTHER HAND, THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK AS WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH AMOUNTED TO RS.30,50,000/ - , WAS BASED ON INCOMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT; THAT POST THE SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED HIS P & L A/C ALONG WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME, WHEREIN, THE VALUE OF STOCK HAD BEEN SHOWN AT RS.40,06,782/ - ; THAT THIS FIGURE HAD BEEN ARRIVED AT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE PURCHASES AND I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 7 SA LES, OF WHICH, THE VOUCHERS WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, BUT THEY HAD NOT BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND IN THE SURVEY; THAT IN THE RETURN FILED, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,22,191/ - AS EXTRA INCOME TOWARDS STOCK; T HAT THE AO HAD MADE A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 14,01,537/ - ; THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.18,30,510/ - ; THAT OUT OF THIS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,00,000/ - HAD BEEN SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL INCOME; THAT FROM THIS, THE AO HAD DEDUCTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,22,191/ - OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME; AND THAT THUS, THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE AND CONFIRMED AMOUNT TO RS.12,77,809/ - ; THAT THE AO HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE; THAT THE VALUE AS PER THE I NVENTORY OF THE DEPARTMENT WORKED OUT TO RS.41,30,510/ - , WHEREAS THAT ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AMOUNTED TO RS.40,06,782/ - ; THAT THE FINAL DIFFERENCE IN THE STOCK, THEREFORE, WAS OF ONLY TO RS.1,23,728/ - ; THAT THIS DIFFERENCE WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE AO; THAT AS SUCH, THE SURRENDER OF RS.5 LACS TOWARDS UNRECORDED SALES IS COVERED OF THE TOTAL SALES DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME; THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE AO ACCEPTED THE SALES AND PURCHASES AND STOCK AND THE ADDITION MADE WAS BASED ON THE TRADING ACCOUNT PREPARED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY; THAT HENCE, THE TOTAL ADDITION WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN MADE WAS OF RS.1 , 23 , 7 28/ - , REPRESENTING THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF THE STOCK AS CA LCULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND AS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SALE AND PURCHASE I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 8 VOUCHERS AVAILABLE DURING THE SURVEY , BUT NOT INCORPORATED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , RS.2.50 LACS REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN AN D SHOP THE TOTAL AMOUNT ING TO RS.3,73,728/ - ; THAT AS AGAINST THIS, THE AMOUNT OF RS.4,22,191/ - WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS HIS ADDITIONAL INCOME , AS CONTAINED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, IN WHICH, NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUN D BY THE AO ; AND THAT ACCORDINGLY, NO FURTHER ADDITION IS SUSTAINABLE, CALLING FOR THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.12,77,809/ - WRONGLY MADE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT A S RIGHTLY OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF VOLUNTARILY CATEGORICALLY OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.17,00,000/ - DURING THE SURVEY; THAT THIS COMPRISE D OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.10,80,510/ - FOUND IN THE SURVEY, INVESTMENT OF RS.2.50 LACS A N D UNRECORDED SALES OF RS.5 LACS; THAT IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.4,22,191/ - ONLY TOWARDS EXCESS STOCK; THAT NO ADDITIONAL INCOME TOWARDS INVESTMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AND TOWARDS UNRECORDED SALES HAD BEEN DECLARED; THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE PROFFERED THE E XPLANATION OF ERRONEOUS ADMISSION TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.4,22,191/ - ONLY IN PLACE OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.17,00, 000/ - OFFERED DURING THE SURVEY, THE ADMISSION OF RS.17,00,000/ - WAS NOT AN IMAGINARY ADDITION, BUT IT HAD DIRECT REFERENCE TO THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND OF RS.10,80,510/ - , INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF RS.2.50 LACS I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 9 AND UNRECORDED SALES OF RS.5 LACS, ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF; THAT TH ERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHICH ORDER IS ENTITLED TO BE UPHELD; AND THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CARRIES NO MERIT, FOR WHICH REASON, IT BE DISMISSED. 6 . I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL O N RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT AS AGAINST THE VALUE OF STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, AT RS.41,30,510/ - , THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THE VALUE OF STOCK AT RS.40,06,782/ - . THIS VALUE, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, WAS ARRIVED AT AFTER INCORPORATING ALL THE ENTRIES OF S ALES AND PURCHASES MADE, BASED ON RESPECTIVE SALES AND PURCHASE VOUCHERS, WHICH WERE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, BUT HAD NOT BEEN HITHERTO INCORPORATED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO, IT REMAINS A FACT, H AS ACCEPTED THE SALES AND PURCHASES AND SALES STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DISCREPANCY WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN POINTED OUT TO EXISTENCE THEREIN. THE TRADING ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED POST THE SURVEY CO NDUCTED, HAS NOT BEEN FOUND FA ULT WITH BY THE AO. T HAT BEING SO, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO AMOUNT S IS WHAT COULD , AT THE MOST , HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGSIDE THE AMOUNT OF RS.2.50 LACS REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF GODOWN AND SHOP. THE SAID DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE ON STOCK COMES TO RS.1 , 23 , 728/ - . THIS ADDED TO THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.2.50 LACS GIVES THE FIGURE OF RS.3,73,728/ - . THE ADDITION AL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS DEPICTED IN THE IRREFUTED TRADING I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 10 ACCOUNT FURNISHED ALONG THE RETURN OF INCOME, IS OF RS.4,22,191/ - . THIS LATTER FIGURE COVERS THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,73,728/ - AND, ACCORDINGLY, NO OTHER ADDITION SURVIVES. 7 . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER. 8 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED AND IT IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. THE ADDITION OF RS.12,77,809/ - IS DELETED. THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS REVERSED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT ON 15 / 0 5 /2017. SD/ - (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 15 /0 5 /2017 *AKV* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A NO. 103 /AGRA/201 4 11 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED (DNS) 09 .0 5 .2017 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11 .0 5 .2017 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS PS/PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 10. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.