Ankit Deposits and Advances P. Ltd., Parwanoo V. DCIT, Parwanoo

ITA 1096/CHANDI/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80809 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Business income
• Section: 80G

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 1096 & 1097/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 ANKITA DEPOSITS AND ADVANCES P. LTD., VS. THE DCI T PARWANOO PARWANOO PAN NO. AABCA5524J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI. SURINDER BABBAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 23/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/08/2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 10/9/2009 OF CIT(APPEALS), SHIMLA. 2. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS SIMILAR GROUNDS BEEN RAISE D, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DECIDED WITH COMM ON ORDER. 3. FIRST WE SHALL DEAL WITH ITA NO. 1096/CHD/2009 WHEREIN THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SHIMLA, HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS. 1,26,98,414/- IMPOSED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PARWANOO, U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 . 2 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT DU RING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. IT WAS FURTHER NOTI CED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF INVESTMENT AS WELL AS TRADING OF SHARES. AFTER DETAILED DISCUSSION, THE INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN WAS HELD T O BE ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION BECAUSE ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED FOR TRADING PURPO SES. FURTHER IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80G AMOUNT ING TO RS. 5,05,000,00/- BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING E XEMPTION U/S 80G AND, THEREFORE, THIS DEDUCTION WAS DENIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE INCOME WAS COMPUTED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO INITIATED. 5. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED THROUGH WHICH IT WAS MAINLY EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED ALL THE DETAILS TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM WHICH WA S NOT ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT T HIS DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME. I T WAS FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONVERTED THE STOCK IN TRADE INTO INVE STMENTS ON 31.3.1999 AND THIS POSITION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02 AND, THEREFORE, WAS UNDER THE BONAFIDE BELI EF THAT TREATMENT BY THE ASSESSEE WAS CORRECT. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THIS EXPLANATION THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE SAME AND OBSERVED THAT IN THE PRECEDIN G THREE YEARS THERE WAS NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 14 3(1) AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE POSITI ON DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT REJECTION OF THE CLAIM BY THE DEPARTMENT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL ALSO AND, THEREFORE, PENA L PROVISION ARE CLEARLY 3 ATTRACTED AND ACCORDINGLY HE LEVIED MINIMUM PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,26,98,414/-. 8. ON APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REITERATED AND IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT IN FACT NO DEDUCTION U/S 80G WAS CLAIMED BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF DONATION WAS ADDED BACK IN THE COMPUTATION BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. CERTAIN CASE LA WS WERE ALSO RELIED. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S DID NOT FIND FORCE IN THE SAME AND CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT BEFORE 31.3.1999, THE ASSESSEE WAS DOING THE BUSINESS OF SALE AND PU RCHASE OF SHARES AND SHARES WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS STOCK IN TRA DE AND THE INCOME WAS RETURNED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND P ROFESSION. ON 31.3.1999, ALL THE SHARES WERE CONVERTED INTO INVESTMENT AND THERE AFTER THE PROFITS WERE DECLARED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS . THERE IS NO BAR ON CONVERSION OF STOCK IN TRADE INTO INVESTMENT AND TH IS IS RECOGNIZED EVEN UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT. MERELY BECAUSE INCOME FROM CA PITAL GAIN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN EARLIER YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999- 2000, 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WAS ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) I.E. WITHOUT SCRUTINY DOES NOT MEAN THAT TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS WRONG. IN FACT ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND DECLARATION OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CA PITAL GAIN WAS AS PER THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE MANAGEMENT TO TREAT THE SHARE S AS INVESTMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY PARTICULARS OF INCOM E AND ALSO NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, THEREFORE, PENAL PROVISIONS CANNOT BE APPLIED AND IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON 'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT LTD. 322 I TR 158. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT MERE CHANGE IN THE HEAD OF INCOME DOES NOT LE AD TO PENALTY CONSEQUENCES 4 AND IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF D ELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT V JMT ADVISORS P LTD (2010) 124 ITD 223(DELH). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V AMIT JAIN 351 ITR 74 (DELHI) WHERE THE ASS ESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN BUT THE SA ME WAS ASSESSED TO THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME, THE PENALTY WAS HELD TO BE NOT J USTIFIED. 11 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESSMENT TO GAINS FROM THE SHARES WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AND THIS DECISION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH. HE THE N REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH IN ASSESS EE OWN CASE REPORTED AT 235 CTR (HP) 273 AND PARTICULARLY INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 19 WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY OBSERVED THAT IT WAS ONLY ASSESSEE WHO REAL LY CAN TELL THE FACTS WHETHER SHARES WERE HELD AS INVESTMENT OR STOCK IN TRADE. O NCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE THE PROPER PARTICULARS, THE PENAL ACTION I S JUSTIFIED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY AND FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES WAS DECLARED UN DER THE HEAD INCOME FROM LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WAS HELD TO BE INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. ULTIMATELY, THE MATTER TRAVELED TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AND THE HIGH COURT OBSERVED AT PAR A 19 AS UNDER:- 19.THE LAW IS VERY WELL SETTLED THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT HIS INVESTMENT IS A LONG-TERM INVESTMENT. WHETHER A PARTICULAR HOLDING OF SHARES IS BY WAY OF LONG-TERM INVESTMENT OR IS A STOCK-IN-TRADE IS A MATTER SOLELY WITHIN TH E KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE WHO HOLDS THE SHARES. NORMALLY, IT IS THE ASSESSEE ALONG WHO WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO PRODUCE EVIDENC E WHETHER HE HAS MAINTAINED ANY DISTINCTION BETWEEN THOSE SHA RES WHICH ARE STOCK-IN-TRADE AND THOSE SHARES WHICH ARE LONG- TERM 5 INVESTMENT. ANOTHER IMPORTANT PRINCIPLE OF LAW IS T HAT THE INITIAL INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHETHER HE HOLDS TH E SHARES AS STOCK IN-TRADE OR HIS INVESTMENT IS RELEVANT AND HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DECIDING THE NATURE OF HOL DING OF THE ASSESSEE. NORMALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUYING AND SELLING THE SHARES, THE PROFIT OR LOS S ON SUCH SHARES WOULD BE THE PROFIT AND LOSS OF SUCH BUSINES S UNLESS THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT THE SHARES IN QUESTION WE RE BOUGHT AS A LONG-TERM INVESTMENT. IN THE P&L A/C IN THE YEAR EN DING 1995-96 THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED LOSS OF RS. FIVE LACS ON THE SHARES. IT HAD ALSO RECEIVED SOME INCOME. THE LOSS IN THE SALE OF SHARES WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE INCOME BY TREATING IT AS A LOS S FROM BUSINESS. THE ENTIRE HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE COMPAN Y IN VARIOUS SHARES INCLUDING THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY SALE OF WHICH LED TO THE PROFIT WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED WERE VALUED AND REFLECTED AS STOCK-IN-TRADE. SIMILAR IS THE POSITIO N FOR THE ASST. YRS. 1996-97, 1997-98 AND 1998-99. IT IS ONLY THERE AFTER THAT THE ASSESSEE STARTED REFLECTING THE STOCK OF SHARES OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY UNDER THE HEAD OF INVESTMENT. EARLIER IN THE YEAR 1998-99 THE PROFIT MADE FROM THE SALE OF SHARES OF THIS VERY COMPANY (INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY) WAS REFLECTED IN T HE P&L A/C. IT IS APPARENT THAT DUE TO ISSUANCE OF BONUS SHARES AND SPLITTING OF SHARES THE VALUE OF THE SHARES OF INFORMATION TE CHNOLOGY ROSE SHARPLY AND REALIZING THAT THE COMPANY WOULD BE LIA BLE TO PAY 30 PER CENT TAX, THE ASSESSEE STARTED CLAIMING THE PRO FITS REALIZED FROM SALE OF THESE SHARES AS LONG-TERM CAPITAL GAIN S. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE RECORD THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES H AVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SHARES OF INFORMATION TECHN OLOGY WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE NOT BY WAY OF ASSESSMENT (SIC- INVESTMENT) BUT BY WAY OF TRADING. THIS IS A PURE F INDING OF FACT AND NOT OF LAW. IT IS TRUE THAT THE PRINCIPLES OF L AW HAVE TO BE APPLIED AND THE QUESTION AS TO WHETHER CERTAIN SHAR ES HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY WAY OF TRADE OR BY WAY OF INVESTMENT M AY BE A MIXED QUESTION OF FACT AND LAW BUT IF THE AUTHORITI ES HAVE PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE LEGAL POSITION THEN THE RES ULTANT FINDING IS BASICALLY A FINDING OF FACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE S, WE FIND NO ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, WE A NSWER THE SECOND QUESTION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. 6 13. FROM THE ABOVE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT IT WAS A FINDING OF FACT THAT SHARES WERE NOT HELD AS INVESTMENT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TOME WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO BAR IN THE COMPANIES ACT TO CONVERT THE STOCK IN TRADE INTO INVESTMENTS. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS TREATED A PARTICULAR ITEM OF INCOME AND THE REVENUE HAS CHANGED THAT TREATMENT WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE PENAL ACTION. THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CEMENT MARKETING CO. OF INDIA LTD V ASSISTANT COMMI SSIONER OF SALES TAX 124 ITR 15 OBSERVED AS UNDER:- IF THE VIEW CANVASSED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE WER E ACCEPTED, THE RESULT WOULD BE THAT EVEN IF THE ASSE SSEE RAISES A BONAFIDE CONTENTION THAT A PARTICULAR ITEM IS NO T LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TAXABLE TURNOVER, HE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW IT AS FORMING PART OF THE TAXABLE TURNOVER, HE WOULD H AVE TO SHOW IT AS FORMING PART OF THE TAXABLE TURNOVER IN HIS RETURN AND PAY TAX UPON IT ON PAIN OF BEING HELD LIABLE FO R PENALTY IN CASE HIS CONTENTION IS ULTIMATELY FOUND BY THE COU RT TO BE NOT ACCEPTABLE. THAT SURELY COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INTEN DED BY THE LEGISLATURE. FROM THE ABOVE, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT WHEREVER THE ASSESSEE HAS A BONAFIDE EXPLANATION TO TREAT AN ITEM IN A PARTICULAR FASHIO N AND IF THAT VIEW IS NOT ACCEPTED THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE FASTENED WITH PEN AL CONSEQUENCES. THIS POSITION FURTHER BECOMES CLEAR FROM THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS (P) LTD W HEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER;- A GLANCE AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SUGGESTS THAT IN ORDER TO BE COVERED BY IT, THERE HAS TO BE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULA RS OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE MEANING OF THE WORD PARTICULARS USED IN SECTION 271(1)(C) WOULD EMBRACE THE DETAILS OF THE CLAIM MADE. WHERE NO INF ORMATION GIVEN IN THE RETURN IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR INA CCURATE, 7 THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD GUILTY OF FURNISHING IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS. IN ORDER TO EXPOSE THE ASSESSEE TO PEN ALTY, UNLESS THE CASE IS STRICTLY COVERED BY THE PROVISIO N, THE PENALTY PROVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED. BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION CAN MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM TANTAMOUN T TO FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THERE CAN BE NO DISPUTE THAT EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, BECAUSE THAT IS THE ONLY DOCUMENT WHERE T HE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. WHEN SUCH PARTICULARS ARE FOUND TO BE INACCURATE, THE LI ABILITY WOULD ARISE. THE ATTRACT PENALTY, THE DETAILS SUPPL IED IN THE RETURN MUST NOT BE ACCURATE, NOT EXACT OR CORRECT, NOT ACCORDING TO THE TRUTH OR ERRONEOUS. 14 IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DIS CLOSED THE FACTS REGARDING SALE OF SHARES BUT THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THAT SINC E SHARES WERE TREATED AS INVESTMENT, THEREFORE, GAINS WERE DECLARED UNDER TH E HEAD CAPITAL GAIN WHEREAS SAME WERE ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROF ESSION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS CANNOT BE CALLED TO BE A CASE OF CON CEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 15. IN ANY CASE MERELY THE CHANGE IN THE HEADS OF I NCOME WOULD NOT LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THIS R EGARD THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V AMIT JAIN 351 ITR 74 (D ELHI) WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 2,60,73,558/- FROM SHORT -TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AN INTERPRETATION OF THE RELEV ANT PROVISIONS AND HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS ASSESSED IT AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. HE ALSO LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961, TO THE TUNE OF RS. 58,45,899/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEAL S) CANCELLED THE PENALTY. THIS WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 16. ON APPEAL, THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- 8 HELD, DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT THE AMOUNT IN QU ESTION, WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO LEVY PENALTY, WAS IN FACT TRUTHFULLY REPORTED IN THE RET URNS. IN VIEW OF THIS CIRCUMSTANCE, THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CHOSE TO TREAT THE INCOME UNDER SOME OTHER HEAD COULD NOT BE CHARACTERIZE THE PARTICULARS OR REPORTED IN THE RET URN AS INACCURATE PARTICULARS OR AS SUPPRESSION OF FACTS . THEREFORE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS NOT IN ERROR IN DELETIN G THE PENALTY. 17. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF CLAIM ON AC COUNT OF DONATION U/S 80G, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF ADDED BACK HIS CLAIM OF DONATION IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN ANY CASE THIS CLAIM WAS DENIED SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE T HE CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY FOR EXEMPTION U/S 80G AND AS FAR AS PAYMENT IS CONC ERNED, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISC USSION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE IN THIS CASE AND ACCOR DINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE PENALTY. ITA NO. 1097/CHD/2009 18. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE ARE I DENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 WHICH WE HAVE ADJUDICATED ABOVE IN ITA NO. 1096/CHD/2009 IN THE ABOVE NOTED PARAS AND FOLLOWING THAT ORDER THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/08/2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 8 TH AUGUST, 2014 RKK 9 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR