A.Prakasam, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 1099/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77311 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAMOD NANGIA
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Capital asset
• Section: 153A; 54; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , !' # , $ % BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO S . ASSESS- MENT YEARS / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 2004-05 TO 2010-11 MR. A.PRAKASAM 27, NEW STREET, TARANALLUR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI-8 PAN: AAEPP8567H ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II TIRUCHIRAPALLI. 1148 TO 1151/MDS/2013 2007-08 TO 2010-11 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II TIRUCHIRAPALLI. SMT. P.SURESH KUMARI 27, NEW STREET, TARANALLUR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI-8. PAN:ALKJPS6867L 1152 TO 1156/MDS/2013 2005-06 TO 2009-10 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II TIRUCHIRAPALLI. MR. A.PRAKASAM 27, NEW STREET, TARANALLUR, TIRUCHIRAPALLI-8 PAN: AAEPP8567H ASSESSEE BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MR.PRAMOD NANGIA, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH APRIL, 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 RD MAY, 2014 & / O R D E R PER BENCH: ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI A.PRAKASAM AND THE REVENUE AGAINST COMMON ORDER PA SSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 7.1.2013 FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 2004-0 5 TO 2010- 11 IN THE CASE OF MR. A.PRAKASAM AND ASSESSMENT Y EARS ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 2 2007-08 TO 2010-11 IN THE CASE OF SMT. P.SURESH KUMARI. AS THE ISSUES ARE COMMON, ALL THESE APPEALS ARE CLU BBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON OR DER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE ASSESSEE MR. A.PRAKASAM RAISED SEVERAL GROU NDS IN THE APPEALS AND ALL THESE GROUNDS ARE DIRECTED A GAINST TWO ISSUES. THE FIRST ISSUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN PARTLY SUSTAINING ADDITION TO TH E EXTENT OF 40% OF NET PROFIT ADMITTED AND SHOWN FROM OIL BUSIN ESS AS THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF OIL AND CRUSHING CHA RGES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010-11. THE SECOND ISS UE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ` 14,33,620/- AS DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT ON SALE OF PLOT S RELATING TO THREE PERSONS AS AGAINST ASSESSEES CLA IM OF DEVELOPMENT CHARGES INCURRED IN RELATION THERETO FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME . THE SECOND ISSUE AROSE ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 IN ITA NO.1096/MDS/2013. ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 3 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON OIL BUSINESS. A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 13 2 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON26.08.2009 IN THE PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT ON 30.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004 -05 TO 2010-11. WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITI ON TOWARDS SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF OIL / CRUSHING CHAR GES. THIS ADDITION WAS MADE AT 50% OF NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SALES ACCOUNTED. ON APPEAL, COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REDUCED THE ADDITION TO 40% OF THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SUPPRES SION OF SALE / CRUSHING CHARGES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE NOT ACCOUNTED. 4. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD COMPARED THE SALES BASED ON THE DAILY S ALES STATEMENTS AND THE SALES ACCOUNTED AS PER BILL BOOK S ON ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 4 SELECTED FIVE DAYS FALLING BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARC H AND FOUND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALES FIGURE NOTED AND DAILY SALE STATEMENT AND SALE FIGURE AS PER BILL BOOKS . WHEN IT WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN REASONS FOR DIFFERENCE IN SALES AS PER DAILY SALES STATEMENT AND THE SALES AS PER BILL BOOKS, AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SALES AS PER BILL INCLUDED BOTH OWN SALES AND THE SALES MADE BY ASSESSEE AS AGENT ON BEHALF OF F ARMERS, WHEREAS IN THE BILL BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, OWN SALE S OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ARE REFLECTED AND THE SALES MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE AS AGENT ON BEHALF OF THE FARMERS ARE NOT REFLECTED. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE SAID REASON DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALES AS PER DAILY STATEMENT AND THE SALES AS PER BILL BOOKS ARE OCCURRED. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITS THAT SALES MADE IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON BEHAL F OF THE FARMERS ARE NOT TO BE TREATED AS SALES OF THE ASSES SEE AS SUCH SALES ARE NOT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE REFORE THEY WERE NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS. THEREFORE COU NSEL SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO SALES SUPPRESSION INASMUC H AS PROFIT FROM SALE OF CUSTOMERS OIL WHICH WAS EXTRACT ED / ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 5 PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RAISING CRUSHING CHARGE S AT AN ENHANCED RATE WITH A VIEW TO COVER SALES COMMISSION . THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE ASS ISTED SOME OF THE CUSTOMERS AFTER PRODUCING/ EXTRACTING O IL FROM OIL SEEDS SUPPLIED BY THEM IN MARKETING THE SAID FINAL PRODUCT ON THEIR BEHALF AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOR THE FOUR D AYS HAD REFLECTED SUCH TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, IT IS SUBM ITTED THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY PRESUMPTION OF SALE SUPPRES SION SO AS TO ESTIMATE NET PROFIT FROM THE ACTIVITIES OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE SAID ACTIVITY, APART FROM THE ACTIVITY OF OIL P RODUCTION AS WELL AS CRUSHING OIL SEEDS FOR CUSTOMERS WAS FOR E ARNING CRUSHING CHARGES. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN ANY CASE ESTIMATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 50% OF NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AT 40% IS UNREASONABLE AND ON HIGHER SIDE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT REASONABLE ESTIMA TE MAY BE MADE BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE EVENT OF SUSTAINING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES. ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 6 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN MAKING ADDITION TOWARDS SUPPRE SSION OF SALES. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT AD DITIONS WERE MADE BASED ON THE MATERIALS SEIZED IN THE COUR SE OF SEARCH SUGGESTING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECORDED SA LE OF OIL AND CRUSHING CHARGES. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. THE ASSESSEE IS INTO THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASING OF OILSEEDS DIRECTLY AND CRUSHES INTO OIL ON ITS OWN. THE CRUSH ED OIL AND BYE-PRODUCT OIL CAKES ARE SOLD AND SUCH SALES OF OI L AND OIL CAKES ARE ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS. APART FROM THE ABOVE, FARMERS FROM VILLAGES BRING SEEDS FOR CRUSHING, AFT ER OIL IS EXTRACTED OIL CAKES DERIVED FROM THE ABOVE CRUSHING ARE SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE FARMERS AND IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, ASSESSEE PURCHASES SUCH EXTRACTED OIL AND OIL CAKES FROM THOSE FARMERS BY MAKING BOUGHT NOTES. SOME FARMERS WHO BRING SEEDS FOR CRUSHING REQUEST THE ASSESSEE TO HE LP IN SELLING THE EXTRACTED OIL AND OIL CAKES ON THEIR B EHALF. IN SUCH ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 7 CIRCUMSTANCES, ASSESSEE COLLECTS CRUSHING CHARGES A T ENHANCED RATE. OIL SO EXTRACTED AND OIL CAKES SO DE RIVED ARE SOLD IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF T HE FARMERS AND SALE PROCEEDS ARE HANDED OVER TO THE FARMERS. SUCH SALES ARE NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE BE CAUSE THEY ARE NOT THEIR SALES AND THOUGH SALES ARE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE FARMERS, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT COLLETING ANY COMMISSION FROM THOSE FARMERS BECAUSE OF THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE IS COLLECTING H IGHER CHARGES FROM THEM WHEN COMPARED TO NORMAL CRUSHING CHARGES COLLECTED FROM OTHER FARMERS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR SUCH TYPE OF SALES WHICH WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE FARMERS IN THE PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE CRUSHING CHARGES ARE SAID TO HAV E BEEN COLLECTED MORE FROM THE FARMERS. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTA NCES AND BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIALS, ASSESSING OFFICER AN ALYZED AND WORKED OUT DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS SUPPRESSION OF OIL SALE AND CRUSHING CHARGES BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 5 & 6 OF ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 8 THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND RESTRICTED DISALLOWANCE TO 4 0% OF NET PROFIT INSTEAD OF 50% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. TH E N P A D MI T T E D B Y TH E A PP E LL A NT F R O M O IL BU S IN ESS I S ` 3 , 46, 1 26. H O W EVE R , TH E A SSE S S I N G OF F I CE R H AS CA L C UL A T E D 5 0 % OF THI S N ET PR OF IT A ND A DDED B AC K T O T H E IN CO M E OF TH E A PPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF S AL E S S UPPRE SS ION A T ` 1 , 73 , 063. TH E A SSES SIN G OFFICER HAD MADE AN ESTIMATED DI S ALLO W ANCE ON THE B AS I S OF NET PR O FIT ADM I TTED B Y THE ASSESSEE HIM S ELF AT 50 %. THE ANALY S IS WORKED OUT BY THE A SS E SS IN G OFFIC E R BA S ED ON TH E IMPOUNDED MATERIAL IN TH E FORM OF SAL E BILL BOOKS P E RTAININ G TO SRI KRI S HNA OIL MILL A V AILABL E FROM 19 . 08. 2 009 TO 2 5 .08.2009. IN F A CT THE MAT E RIAL AVA IL A BL E W ITH THE A S SESSIN G OFFICER PERTAIN S TO TH E PRE V IOU S Y EAR RELATIN G TO 2 009-10 R E LE V ANT TO THE AY 2010-11 BASED ON THE MAT E RIAL AV AILABL E FOR F O UR DA Y S I. E. 19.08 . 2009 , 23.08 . 2009 24.08.2009 & 25.08.2009 ONL Y . THI S FACT HA S B EE N A DMITTED BY THE A SS E SS ING O F FIC E R HIMSEL F IN HI S A S S ES SM E NT O RDER O N P AGE NO. 2 & 3 AND A RRI V E D A T S U PPR E S S I O N OF S A L ES F R O M UN A C CO UNT E D PUR C H A SES AS W E LL AS SA L E S . T H E S A ME WORKIN G O UT R E L EVA NT T O T H E A Y 20 1 0 - 11 H AS BE E N E X TR A PO L A T E D B AC K W A R D S FOR T H E YE AR U ND E R CO N S ID E R AT I O N S TA R T IN G F R O M 2004 -05 O N W ARD S. K EEP IN G I N V I EW OF T H E CA S H FO UND DURIN G T H E CO UR S E O F S EA R C H A S W E LL AS S UP P R E S S I O N OF S A L ES IN T H E O IL BU S IN E SS TH E R E I S EV E R Y P O SS I B ILI T Y TH A T TH E A PP E LL A NT H A S R ESO R T E D T O U N AC CO UN TE D PUR C H AS E S A ND S A L E S . 6. THE OBJECTION S RAI S ED B Y TH E A UTH O RI S ED REPRE S ENTAT I VE O F TH E A PP E LL A NT C ANNOT B E ACCEPTED IN T O T O EVE N TH O U G H TH E A SS E SS I N G OF F IC E R W AS N O T AB L E T O QUANTIF Y TH E S UPPRE SSE D SA L ES TURN O V E R YEA R- W I SE IN THE CA SE O F TH E A P PEL L ANT S TA RTIN G F R O M TH E A Y 2004 - 0 5 T O 20 10 - \\ AS WE LL AS S UPPR ESS I O N O F ADMI SS I O N OF CR U S HIN G CH A R GES B Y THE APPELLANT . H E I S JU S TIFI E D IN ES T I MATIN G UN A CCOUNT E D PR OF IT O N TH E N E T PROFIT ADMITTED B Y TH E A PP E LL A NT . H OWE VER , K E EPIN G I N VIEW OF TH E G R O UND S OF APPEA L A S WE LL AS L A CUN A ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 9 O N TH E P A RT OF THE A S SE SS ING OFF I CE R IN QU A NT I FY IN G T H E S U PPRES S E D SA L E S , CR U S HI N G C H AR GES , THE PERCE N TAGE OF E S T IM AT I O N OF NET PROF I T (NP) A T 5 0 % O N TH E A DMITT E D N E T P ROF IT OF TH E A PP E LL A NT I S O N TH E HI G H ER S I DE. KEE PIN G IN V I EW O F TH E VA RI O U S CASE L AWS I N FAVO UR OF TH E A PP E LL A NT A N D EXP L A N A TI O N F IL ED B Y T H E A UTH O RI SED R E PR ESE N TAT I VE OF TH E A PP E LL A NT V ID E HI S WR ITT E N S UB MI SS I O N S, AS WE LL AS GRO UND S OF A PP EA L , T H E N P CA L C UL A T E D B Y TH E ASSESSI N G OFFICE R A T 5 0 % AP P EARS T O B E ON TH E HI G H ER SI D E AND T H EREFO R E TH E ASSESS IN G O FF I CE R I S D I REC T E D T O ADOPT TH E SA M E A T 4 0 % W HICH WORKS O UT T O ` 1 ,3 8 , 4 5 0 W HI C H I S CONFIR M E D O UT OF TH E A DDI T I O N M A D E B Y TH E ASSESS IN G OFF IC E R . AS FAR AS OIL BUSINESS IS CONCERNED THE DECISION TAKEN IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR ADOPTING AN ESTIMATING DISALLOWANCE AT 40% ON T HE NP I NS TEAD OF 50 PER C E NT ADOP TE D B Y TH E ASSE SS IN G O F FI CER IS VALID FOR OTHER ASSESS M E N T YEA R S 2 005-06 , 2006-0 7 , 2 007-08 , 2008-09 A ND 20 10-11 AS WE L L (AS P E R T A BL E B E LOW) , SI NC E TH E M ATERIA L ON W HI C H TH E ASS ES S ING O FF I CE R RELI E D UPON I S THE S AM E . 7. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT BASED ON THE MATERIALS SEIZED IT CANNOT BE RULED OU T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, THE ADDITION OF 40% OF NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND THEREFOR E, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RESTRICT THE ADDITI ON TO 25% OF NET PROFIT INSTEAD OF 50% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 10 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THI S ISSUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED . 8. THE ONLY GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MR . A.PRAKASAM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 REMAININ G IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING ` 14,33,620/- AS DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT ON SALE OF PLOTS RELATING TO THREE PERSONS TREATING AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMEN T MADE ADDITION OF ` 14,33,620/- AS DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT BEING PRICE IN THE SALE DEED AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SALE PRICE AS ADMITTED BY THE PURCHASERS IN THE SWO RN STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E THIS ADDITION BASED ON STATEMENTS RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THREE PERSONS NAMELY DR. EZHIL, K.MANON MANI AND K.SANGAPILLAI TO WHOM ASSESSEE SOLD PLOTS. THE SALE PRICE RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED WAS AT ` 200/- PER SQ.FT. ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 11 HOWEVER, IN THE SWORN STATEMENTS THE PURCHASERS NAM ELY DR. EZHIL, K.MANONMANI AND K.SANGAPILLAI, HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE PURCHASED PLOTS AT ` 406/-, ` 280/- AND ` 275/- PER SQ.FT. RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT EXTRA AMOUNT COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TOW ARDS DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES ON BEHALF OF THE PURCHASERS. HOWEVER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTE D INCOME UNDER CAPITAL GAINS AND NO DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WERE CLAIMED AS EXPENSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF THE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSE SSEE SHALL BE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN CORRESPONDING DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES SHOULD ALSO BE A LLOWED WHEN THE ASSESSEES CAPITAL GAIN IS TREATED AS BUSI NESS RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY DEVELOP MENT CHARGES IN COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS, THEREFORE BILLS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED, SAID TO HAVE BEEN SPENT ON BEHAL F OF THE BUYERS, WERE REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON APPEAL, ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 12 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE AGREEING WITH THE VIE W OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 10. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT REPRESENTS ONLY DEVELOPMENTAL C HARGES COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF THE PURCHASERS AND SPENT ON BEHALF OF THEM, THEREFORE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTING THE ORD ERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES SUBMITS THAT THIS ADDITION WAS MA DE BASED ON CERTAIN STATEMENTS MADE BY THE PURCHASERS OF PLO TS WHEREIN THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE PAID SO M UCH OF SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS AND IT IS NOT DEVELOPMENT CHARGES AND THERE IS NO CLAIM OF THE AS SESSEE THAT IT HAS MADE DEVELOPMENT CHARGES WHEN THE ASSE SSEE ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 13 COMPUTED CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF PLOTS AND THEREFO RE ADDITION MADE HAS TO BE SUSTAINED. 12. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHO RITIES. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DETAIL IN PARA 7 & 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDE R:- T H E A PP E LL A NT DU R IN G TH E YEAR CO N VE RT E D 1 .6 ACRES OF L A ND INT O 1 8 PL O T S A ND SO LD T H E SAME FO R ` 9 1 , 71 ,800 . T H E APPE LL AN T H AD A D M ITT E D L O N G T ER M CA PIT A L GA IN FO R SA L E OF L A ND AS U N D E R: SA L E OF L A ND A T TAR AN A LLUR - TH E T OTA L SA L E CO N SI D E R AT I O N S H OW N A T ` 9 1 ,7 1 , 800 O N SA L E OF 4 85 57 S Q FT . - SF NO . 46 / 4 A(2) SALE OF L AND AT TARA N A LL UR - S A L E CON S IDERATION S HOWN AT ` 420000 ON S ALE OF 2820 S QFT. - SF NO . 46 / 2B SAL E OF L A ND AT TARANAL L UR - S AL E CON S I DERATION S HOWN AT ` 422700 ON S ALE OF 28 1 8 S QFT . - SF NO. 46 / 2B DURIN G TH E COUR S E O F SE ARC H AND PO S T SEA RCH ENQUIRIES IT I S R EVEA L E D TH A T TH E A PP E LL A NT H A S S O L D P L O T S M O R E TH A N TH E AD MIT TE D PRIC E IN TH E S A L E D EED A S UND E R : 1. D R . EZ HIL - P L O T NO. 19 & 20 - 5 0 4 0 S Q F T A T 2 00 PER S Q F T . A DM I TT E D I N TH E S A L E D EE D 2. K M ANO NM A N I - P L O T NO . 3 0 - 2 5 0 0 SQF T A T 200 P E R S QF T ADMI T TE D I N T H E S A L E D EE D . 3. K SA N GA PIL L AI - PL O T NO . 2 9 - 2 5 4 0 S Q FT AT : 20 0 ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 14 P E R SQF T AD MI T T ED IN T H E S A L E D EE D. T H E D I FFE R E NT I A L S A L E P RI C E WAS AD MI T T E D B Y T H E C O NC E RN E D P ER SO N TH R O U G H SWO RN S T ATE M ENT A R E AS U N D E R : DR . EZ HIL : ` 206 (40 6 - 200 ) K M A N O NM A NI ` 80 ( 2 80 - 2 0 0) K SA N GA PILL A I ` 75 ( 2 75 - 2 0 0 ) T H E A B OVE THR E E PER SO N S W H O HA VE A DMITT E D TH E A DDITI O N A L SA L E CO N S ID E R A TI O N IN TH E I R S T A T E M E NT R E C O RD E D H AS BE E N PUT FOR WA RD B Y THE A S S E S S IN G O FF IC E R T O TH E A P P E LL A NT W H O IN TURN A DMITT E D IN TH ESE THREE CA S ES V ID E HI S L E TT E R D A T E D 2 7 . 1 2 . 2 011 O N T H E G R O UND TH A T TH ESE A DDITI O N A L AM O UNT P E R S Q.F T HA S B E EN C O LL E CT E D IN TH E F O RM OF D EVE L O PM E NT A L CH A R GES A ND TH E SA M E WA S N O T A DMITT E D IN TH E ACCO UNT S A S TH E S A M E A M O UNT WE R E S P E NT F OR D EVE L O PM E NT O F L EVEL LIN G TH E G R O UND IN TH E IR R E S P E C T I VE INDI V IDU A L PL O T . T H E S AM E W AS ADMITTED IN HI S LETTER AND INC O RP O R A T E D B Y TH E A SSE SS IN G O FF I C E R IN HI S A S S ESSMENT O RD E R FOR TH E ASS T YE A R UN DE R C O N S ID E R A T IO N O N P AG E N O. 6 . IN HI S S A M E E X PL A N A TI O N TH E A PP E LL A N T H AS S T ATE D TH A T TH E DEV E L OP M E N T C H A R GES F R O M TH E A B OVE THR EE P L OT PURCH ASE R S WE R E C O LL E CT E D A ND S P E NT A S D E VE L OP M E NT A L CH A R GES FOR PLOT S O N B E H A L F OF T H E S E T H R E E B U Y ER S AND H E N C E N O C L A I M OF D EVE L OPM E N T A L CH A R GES S P E NT B Y T H E A SS E SSEE O N B E H A L F A B OVE T HR EE B U YE R S WA S M A D E B Y T H E A PP E LL A N T . T H E A SS E SS E E H AS A D MI TT E D INCOM E UN DE R C A P I T A L GA IN S, N O D EVE LOPM E NT A L C H A R GES W ER E C L A I M E D A S EX P E N S ES. T H E A U T H O R I SE D R E PR E S E NT A T I VE OF T H E A PP E L L A NT A R G U E D IN THI S CON N EC TI O N I F TH E DEVE L O PM E NT A L CH AR G E S C L A IM E D BY THE APPE LL A NT S H A LL B E A DD E D BACK T O THE I NCOME OF T H E AP P E LL A NT TH EN TH E CO R R E S PO ND I N G D EVE L O PM E N TA L EXPE N S E S S H O U L D A L S O BE A LL OWED W H EN TH E APPELLA N T 'S CA PIT A L GAI N S I S T R EAT E D A S BU S I N ESS R E CEIPT S BY THE ASSE SS IN G OFFICER . H O WEV E R T H E ASSESSI N G O FF I CER H AS N O T A CC EPTED THE VE R S IO N OF T H E A U T H ORI S ED R E PRE S E N TA T IVE OF TH E A PP E LL A NT A ND BILL S A N D VOUC H E R S PR O DU CE D FO R D EVE L OP M ENTA L CH A R GE S S P E N T O N B E H A L F OF ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 15 BU YER S WA S REJECTED A ND TH E D EVE L O PM E NT A L C H A R G E S C O LL E CTED BY T H E A PP E LL A NT H AS B EE N AD D ED A S IN CO M E O F TH E A PP E LL A NT IN R E S P EC T OF T H E A B OVE THRE E P E R SO N S A S W E LL AS O TH ER PUR C H ASE R S OF 15 PLOT S AL S O ON A N E S TIMAT E D B A S I S. 8. A S F A R AS THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT ADMITTED B Y THE ABOVE THREE PER S ONS A S P E R TH E I R OWN S WORN S TATEMENT WORKS OUT TO ` 14 , 33,620 ON ACCOUNT OF THE DIFF E R E NTI A L A M O UNT P A ID OVER AND ABO V E THE ADMITTED RATE AS P E R THE SALE DE E D IS CONFIRM E D R E JE C TIN G THE G ROUND S OF APPEAL RAI S ED B Y TH E AUTHORIS E D REPRESENTATIVE O F THE A PP E LL A NT THAT THESE ARE NOTHING BUT DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES COLLECTED B Y THE ASSES S EE AND S PENT FOR THE SAME PURPOSE. THUS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ` 14,33,620 IS CONFIRMED. 13. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID REAS ON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS FINDINGS AS THE ADDITION WAS MAD E BASED ON THE CERTAIN STATEMENTS OF PURCHASERS WHO ADMITTED T HAT THEY HAVE PURCHASED THE PLOTS FOR SALE CONSIDERATION OVE R AND ABOVE THE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEEDS. THEREF ORE, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAIS ED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 16 ITA NOS. 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 (REVENUE APPEALS): 14. IN ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FILED IN TH E CASES OF MR. A.PRAKASAM AND SMT. P.SURYA KUMARI, THE FIRS T ISSUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASS ESS INCOME ON SALE OF PLOTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPIT AL GAINS AS AGAINST INCOME FROM BUSINESS . THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS ASSESSED INCOME FR OM SALE OF PLOTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT RECEIPTS HAV E TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE IS DOING REAL ESTATE BUSINESS AND THEREFORE THE RECEIPTS FROM SUC H SALE OF PLOTS ARE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITIO N @ ` 40/- PER SQ.FT IN RESPECT OF PLOTS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN THOSE WERE BUYERS FROM WHOM THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECO RDED STATEMENTS I.E. DR.EZHIL, K.MANONMANI AND K.SANGAPI LLAI ON ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 17 THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE COLLECTED DEVEL OPMENTAL CHARGES FROM OTHER BUYERS. ON APPEAL, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTO BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPEC T OF THE PLOTS ARE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL G AINS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 15. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED LANDS IN THE YEARS 1985 AND 1989 I.E. MOR E THAN FIFTEEN YEARS BACK FOR THE PURPOSE OF KEEPING AS IN VESTMENT AND WAS CARRYING ON AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. HE SUB MITS THAT AFTER CONVERTING SUCH AGRICULTURAL LANDS INTO NON-A GRICULTURAL LANDS, LAND WAS SOLD BY MAKING PLOTS. THE SURPLUS R ESULTED ON SALE OF LANDS IS ASSESSABLE AS CAPITAL GAINS ONLY S INCE IT IS RESULTED FROM THE SALE OF CAPITAL ASSET AND IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LANDS LONG BACK, H E HAD INTENTION TO UNDERTAKE ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF T RADE BY BECOMING DEALER IN LAND. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT A T THE TIME OF GETTING LAND, CONVERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL LA ND, THE ONLY ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 18 INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO HAVE MAXIMUM REALI ZATION FROM THE DISPOSAL OF THE CAPITAL ASSET AS ADMITTED IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT AND THEREFORE SURPLUS EARNED ON SALE OF L AND HAS RIGHTLY OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN HOLDING THA T SALE PROCEEDS HAVE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOM E FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. 16. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT SALE CONSIDERATIO N FROM PLOTS HAVE TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUS INESS. 17. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHO RITIES. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS I SSUE CONSIDERED IN DETAIL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E AND HELD THAT SUCH SALE PROCEEDS HAVE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AND THERE IS NO BUSINESS CARRYING O N BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 19 13. AP A RT FR O M TH E AB OVE, TH E DECI S I O N TAKEN B Y TH E A SSE S S IN G OFFI CE R IN TAX IN G TH E PROFIT ON SA L E O F LAND UNDER THE H E AD PR OF IT AND G AIN S OF BU S IN E S S I S CO N C ERN E D , THE AUTHORI S ED REPRE S ENTATI VE OF THE APPELLANT S UBMITT E D A S D E T A IL E D EX PLAN A TION IN HI S GROUNDS OF APPEAL A S WE LL IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMI S S ION S, TH A T TH E A PP E LL A NT I S H O LDIN G TH E L A ND S FOR M O R E TH A N 2 0 YEA R S A ND C ARRI E D AG RI C ULTUR A L OPE R A TI O N S A N D AD MITT E D AGR I C ULT U R AL I N CO M E F R O M THI S L A N D IN HE R RE TURN OF I NCO M E ACCE P TE D B Y TH E D E P A RTM E N T . T H E AU TH ORI S ED R E P RE S E NT A TI V E OF T H E A PP E LL A NT H AS FU R TH E R S TA T E D T H AT AT T H E T IM E OF G ETTIN G THE L A ND C ON VE RT E D INT O NO N - A G RI C ULTU RA L L A ND , T H E ON L Y IN T EN TI ON OF T H E AP P E LL A NT WAS T O HA V E M AX IM U M R EA LI S A T I O N F R O M T H E D I S P O S AL OF T H E CA P I T A L AS S E T AS A LR E AD Y A DMITT E D B Y TH E A P PE LL A N T 'S HU S BA ND IN HI S O W N S T ATE M E NT S UB MI TTE D T H A T TH E S URPLU S EA RN E D O N TH E S A L E OF LAN D BE I N G A CAPI T A L AS S E T H A S RI G H T L Y B EE N OFFE R E D UND E R THE HE A D C APIT A L GA IN S. H OWEVE R , TH E AS S E SS I N G OFF I CE R H AS T AKE N TH E S T A T E M E NT OF TH E A PPELL A NT 'S HU S B A ND S HRI PR AKA S A M , W H O IN A D VE R TE NTL Y W ITH O UT KN O WIN G THE R E AL A ND T E CHNICAL DIFF E RENC E A B O UT TH E CAP IT A L GA IN S A ND BU S IN ESS INCOM E S TATED IN HI S S WORN S T A TEMENT THAT H E WAS C A RR Y IN G ON R EA L ES TATE BU S INE SS WHICH I S FACTUALLY NOT CORRECT . THUS THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED TH E IN CO ME FROM SALE OF PLOT S A S CAPITAL GAIN S A S THE APPELLANT HELD THE LAND S O NL Y A S CAPITAL ASSET AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE . THE FINDING WILL BE ONE OF FACT DEPENDIN G UPON THE INTENTION A ND CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT SUPPORTED B Y DIRECT A ND CI R CUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. IN THIS REGARD , THE AUTHORI S ED REPRE S ENTATIVE OF TH E APPELLANT HAS DRAWN TH E ATTENTION TO VARIOUS CA S E LAWS MENTIONED ON PA G E NO. 5 T O 7 - PARAGRAPH NO . 14 TO 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR AY 2007-08. 14 . AFTER HA V IN G G ON E THROUGH TH E VA RIOU S C AS E LAW S, IT IS AMPL Y CL EA R TH AT TH E PRO FIT O N SA L E O F L A N D AF T E R PL O TTIN G IT O U T I S T O S EC UR E B E TT E R PRI CE CA N NOT B E TAXED A S PR OF IT ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 20 F R O M AD VE NTUR E IN TH E N A TUR E O F TR A D E A ND IT S H A LL B E T A X E D ON L Y ON C AP IT A L G AIN S. SIMIL A RL Y TH E A PP E LL A NT H AS PUR C HA SE D TH E LAND FO R AG RI C ULTU RA L PURP OSE S A ND C A RR Y IN G O N AG RI C ULTUR A L O P E R A TI O N S F O R M A N Y YEA R S A ND S UB SE QU E NTL Y D EVE L O P E D TH E L A ND A ND S O LD A S HE WA S N O T AB LE T O U SE TH E L A ND S F O R AG RI C U L TUR A L OPERAT I O N S . T H E L A ND WA S S O LD AFTE R CO N VE RTIN G INT O T H E PL O T S W ITH A V I EW T O SE C UR E T H E BETTE R P RI CE TH E R EFORE , THE I S O L A T E D ACT I V IT Y CAN N O T CO M E W I T HIN TH E P UR V I EW O F A D V E NTUR E IN TH E NATU R E OF TRADE A ND THE S URPLU S ON SA L E OF L A ND WA S I N TH E N A TUR E OF CAP I T A L GA IN S . KE E PIN G IN VI EW O F TH E VAR I O U S CA S E S L AW S IN S UPP O RT OF TH E C O N T E NTI O N S OF A PP E LLANT A N D A L SO R E S P E CT F ULL Y F O LL OW IN G TH E CA SE L AW S M E NTI O N E D S U P R A TH E A S S E SS IN G OFFIC E R I S D I R E C T E D T O TR EA T T H E PR OF IT O N S A L E O F L A ND AS C A PIT A L G A IN S A ND N O T A S BU S INE SS I NCOME . THU S TH E A PP E L L A NT S UCCEED S O N BOTH TH E G R O U ND S OF A PP EA L . 18. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IT CAN BE SEEN THAT ASSESSEE WITH A VIEW TO MAXIMIZE THE RETURN FROM SALE OF AGRICULTUR AL LANDS, HAD CONVERTED SUCH LANDS INTO PLOTS FOR BETTER MARK ETABILITY AND SALABILITY AND THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY IN FERENCE ON ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE AND FOR TAXING SU RPLUS EARNED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS. WHILE COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSION, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) NO TICED THAT CHARACTER OF SUCH LANDS, HOLDING PERIOD, INTEN TION AND ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 21 CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, NATURE OF INCOME GENERATED AND ALSO THE FACT OF DEPARTMENT ACCEPTING AGRICULTURAL INCOME GENERATED FROM SUCH LANDS WAS CONSIDERED. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID REASON TO R EVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) IN HOLDING THAT INCOME ON SALE OF PLOTS HAVE TO BE CON SIDERED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS. THEREFO RE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISS UE ARE REJECTED. 19. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELET ING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELATING TO DIFFERENCE IN SALE OF PLOTS I.E. ` 40/- PER SQ.FT AS DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH ILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS ADDED ` 40/- PER SQ.FT IN RESPECT OF BUYERS OF PLOTS OTHER THAN THE THREE PERSONS NAM ELY DR. EZHIL, K.MANONMANI AND K.SANGAPILLAI STATING THAT A SSESSEE ADMITTED THE DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES RECEIVED FROM TH E THREE ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 22 BUYERS WHEREIN IT WAS PROVED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT ON AND ABOVE THE ADMITTED VALUE, THE ASSESSEE COLLECTED MO NEY FROM THE BUYERS HENCE CHANCE OF COLLECTION OF DEVELOPMEN TAL CHARGES FROM OTHER BUYERS ARE NOT OBJECTED BY THE A SSESSEE. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE A BSENCE OF ANY SEIZED MATERIALS, THERE CANNOT BE ESTIMATED ADD ITION ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE RECEIVED ` 40/- PER SQ.FT TOWARDS DEVELOPMENTAL CHARGES FROM THE BUYERS OF THE PLOTS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION AS THERE IS NO MATERIAL EVIDENCE FOUND REG ARDING ANY DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT AS ADMITTED BY THE THREE PURCHA SERS AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO SINCE T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM ALL TH E PLOT PURCHASERS CONFIRMING SALE CONSIDERATION AS ADMITTE D IN THE SALE DEED IS THE CORRECT ONE AND NO EXTRA CONSIDERA TION OTHER THAN THE ONE MENTIONED IN SALE DEED WAS PAID. IN SU CH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING TH E ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 23 ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE REJECTED. 20. THE THIRD ISSUE IN THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I N CASE OF SMT. P.SURESH KUMARI IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONDITIONS MENT IONED IN SECTION 153C ARE NOT SATISFIED. AS WE HAVE DECIDED THE OTHER ISSUES ON MERITS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY T HE REVENUE BECOMES ACADEMIC AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS DISMISSE D. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY , TH E 23 RD DAY OF MAY, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGEN DRA PRASAD ) . ( !'#$ % ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / ' %& JUDICIAL MEMBER/ # ' %& '# /CHENNAI, (% /DATED, 23 RD MAY, 2014 SOMU ITA NOS. 1095 TO 1101/MDS/2013 & 1148 TO 1156/MDS/2013 24 )%'* '+, -', /COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE C/O. SHRI S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE NEW NO.14 OLD NO.82, FLAT NO.5 1 ST AVENUE, INDIRA NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI-600 020. 2. ASSESSING OFFICE R 3. ) ) . () /CIT(A) 4. ) ) . /CIT 5. ,1! ''23 /DR 6. !45 6 /GF.