Vijaya Plywoods, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 1123/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68810 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 132; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER S.NO ITA NO. ASSESSMENT YEARS APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 - 7 1120 TO 1126 /MDS/2013 2004-05 TO 2010-11 M/S. SHREE VIJAYA PLYWOODS, NO.70, MADURAI ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPALLI-620 008. PAN:AABFS5083N THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. 8 - 14 1141 TO 1147/ MDS/2013 2004-05 TO 2010-11 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, TIRUCHIRAPALLI. M/S.SHREE VIJAYA PLYWOODS, NO.70, MADURAI ROAD, TIRUCHIRAPALLI PAN:AABFS5083N ASSESSEE BY : MR. S.SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MR. ANIRUDH RAI, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 24 TH OCTOBER, 2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE GROUP OF APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TRICHY DATED 7.1.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010-11 ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WI TH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 2 ITA NOS.1120 TO 1126/MDS/2013 (ASSESSEES APPEALS): 2. THE FIRST COMMON ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ALL THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AT 10% OF THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH UNDER SE CTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 26.8.2009 IN THE GROUP OF THE ASSESSEE M/S.SHREE VIJAY PLYWOODS. THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WE RE COMPLETED ON 30.12.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 04-05 TO 2010-11. WHILE COMPLETING THESE ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWAN CES IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION MA DE TOWARDS SUPPRESSION OF SALES IS CONCERNED, IN THE C OURSE OF SEARCH LOOSE SHEETS WERE SEIZED AND BASED ON THESE LOOSE SHEETS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THESE LOOSE SHEETS ARE ESTIMATES PREPARED ON THE CO MPUTER INDICATING DESCRIPTION OF GOODS SOLD AND THE DETAIL S OF ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 3 PAYMENTS RECEIVED NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS. BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE L OOSE SHEETS ARE ONLY ESTIMATES GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS AN D THEY ARE NOT ACTUAL SALES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT W HENEVER SALES ARE EFFECTED AS PER THE ESTIMATES THEY ARE RE CORDED AND THE ESTIMATES ARE ERASED FROM THE COMPUTERS. HOWEVE R, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AN ANALYSIS MADE ON THESE SEIZ ED ESTIMATES CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE ESTIMAT ES PROVE BEYOND DOUBT THAT THEY ARE NOT JUST ESTIMATES AS CL AIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON SEVERAL ESTIMATE SLIPS, ENTRIES SU CH AS ADVANCES PAID, AMOUNT PAYABLE ARE RECORDED IN PEN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT HAD THESE LOOSE SHEETS BEEN MADE ESTIMATES/QUOTATIONS JUST TO COMMU NICATE THE BUYER QUANTITY AND PRICE, THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY ENTRY ON SUCH ESTIMATES ABOUT THE ADVANCES RECEIVED , AMOUNT DUE FROM BUYER, TRUCK DETAILS ETC. BASED ON THESE EVIDENCES AND NOTINGS MADE BY THE PARTNERS ON THE E STIMATE SLIPS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE EST IMATES ARE NOTHING BUT UNACCOUNTED SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE VOLUME OF BUSINESS AND VOLUME OF ES TIMATES ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 4 AVAILABLE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED 10% OF THE N ET PROFIT RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME TO WARDS SUPPRESSION OF SALES. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS ISSUE. 4. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITS THAT SEIZED MATERIALS FOUND IN TH E FORM OF LOOSE SHEETS ARE ONLY ESTIMATE SLIPS. THE COUNSEL S UBMITS THAT THEY ARE JUST QUOTATIONS GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR PROVIDING FAIR INDICATION OF THE COST AND IT IS A COMMON PRAC TICE PREVALENT IN THIS LINE OF TRADE. THE COUNSEL SUBMI TS THAT WHENEVER SALES ARE EFFECTED BASED ON THESE QUOTATIO NS, SALES ARE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND THESE ESTIMATES ARE DELETED AND ORIGINAL BILLS ARE PREPARED. THEREFORE, HE SUB MITS THAT THERE IS NO SUPPRESSION OF SALES BY THE ASSESSEE WA RRANTING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES. I N ANY EVENT, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ES TIMATE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 10% OF NET PROFIT SHOWN IN ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 5 THE RETURN FILED IS ON HIGHER SIDE. THE COUNSEL SUB MITS THAT 2% COULD HAVE BEEN A REASONABLE ESTIMATE BUT NOT 10% AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE SEIZED MATERIALS IN THE FORM OF ESTIMATES ARE NOTHI NG BUT UNACCOUNTED SALES BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON AN ANALYSIS OF THESE LOOSE SHEETS / ESTIMATES HA D PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEY ARE NOT MERE ESTIMATES GIVEN TO T HE CUSTOMERS. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALES AT 10% OF THE NET PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETU RN IS VERY MUCH REASONABLE. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ANALYZING THE LOOSE SHEETS FOU ND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH ARE IN THE FORM OF ESTIMATE S TO VARIOUS CUSTOMERS AND AFTER EXAMINING THE PARTNERS OF THE A SSESSEE ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 6 FIRM AND COMPUTER PROGRAMMER OF THE ASSESSEE CAME T O THE CONCLUSION THAT LOOSE SHEETS/QUOTATIONS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT MERE ESTIMATES BUT THEY ARE UNACC OUNTED SALES. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LOOSE SHEETS SEIZED ARE ONLY ESTIM ATES GIVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS AND THEY ARE NOT UNACCOUNTED SALES MAY NOT BE CORRECT. ON A CAREFUL READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE NOTINGS ON THE LOOSE SHEETS, IT CANNOT BE BELIEVED THAT THESE QUOTATIONS ARE ONLY ESTIMATES G IVEN TO THE CUSTOMERS FOR PROVIDING FAIR INDICATION OF COST OF THE MATERIALS AND NOTHING ELSE. AT THE SAME TIME, IT CANNOT BE S AID THAT ALL THESE LOOSE SHEETS IN THE FORM OF ESTIMATES/QUOTATI ONS ARE SALES MADE ENTIRELY OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. T HEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS MADE SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE LOOSE SHEETS FOUN D IN THE FORM OF ESTIMATES/QUOTATIONS ARE NOT MERE ESTIMATES GIVEN TO CUSTOMERS INDICATING COST OF MATERIALS ONLY. HOWEV ER, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 10% OF TH E NET PROFIT AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME TOWARDS SUPPRESSION OF SALES APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHE R SIDE. ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 7 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, MATERIALS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT AN D SINCE IT CANNOT BE RULED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY UNACCOUNTED SALES, ESTIMATE OF 5% OF THE NET PROFIT COULD BE JUST AND REASONABLE TOWARDS SUPPRESSION OF SALES IN STEAD OF 10% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, W E DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE REASONABLE ESTIM ATE OF 5% TOWARDS SUPPRESSION OF SALES INSTEAD OF 10% ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 7. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IS IN RESPECT OF AD DITION MADE TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF STOCK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 MADE ADDITION OF ` 37,20,338/- TOWARDS DISCREPANCY IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK IN ARRIVI NG AT THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL B EFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED ITS SUBMIS SIONS ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 8 MADE BEFORE THE ADIT., TRICHY VIDE LETTER DATED 22. 10.2009, WHEREIN VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN STOCK TAKING WERE POINTED OUT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF AT ALL THERE I S ANY DIFFERENCE, IT IS ONLY ` 8,03,736/- BUT NOT ` 37,20,338/- AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 INSTEAD OF 2009-10 AS THE DATE OF SURVEY IS 26.08.2009, ON WHICH DAY PHYSIC AL STOCK WAS VERIFIED RELATES TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. T HE SAID ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK SHOULD BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 8. REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S), THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT EXCESS STOCK WAS ARRIVED AT B Y SURVEY PARTY ONLY ON ESTIMATION. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETRACTED THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE P ARTNER THAT EXCESS STOCK IS AT ` 37.20 LAKHS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 9 SEARCH DEMONSTRATING VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN THE S TOCK VERIFICATION BY LETTER DATED 22.10.2009 FILED BEFOR E THE ADIT., TRICHY. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT AFTER AUDIT OF THE ACCOUNTS, STOCK DIFFERENCE WAS ARRIVED AT ` 8,03,736/- AND RELEVANT WORKING SHEETS WERE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THIS WAS N OT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IN PARA 7 OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 7. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, INVENTORY OF STOCK WAS TAKEN. THE TOTAL VALUE OF PHYSICAL STOCK FOUND AT ` 2,83,47,339/-. BUT THE VALUE OF BOOKS STOCK AT ` 2,46,26,473/-. COMPARING THE VALUE OF THE STOCK WITH THE VALUE OF BOOK STOCK, THE EXCESS STOCK VALUE WAS ARRIVED AT ` 37,20,338/-. SHRI R.CHANDRASEKAR HAS ACCEPTED THE VALUE OF EXCESS CLOSING STOCK OF ` 37,20,338/- VIDE HIS REPLY TO THE SWORN STATEMENT DATED 26.8.2009. HENCE, THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 10 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCY IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK ` 37,20,338/-. 10. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, TH IS ADDITION WAS MADE BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF MR. R. CHANDRASEKAR WHO HAS ACCEPTED THE EXCESS CLOSING ST OCK IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT ON 26.8.2009. THIS STATEMENT WA S LATER RETRACTED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 22.10.2 009 FILED BEFORE THE ADIT., TRICHY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE LETTER FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FORE THE ADIT., TRICHY POINTING OUT VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES IN TAKING THESE PHYSICAL STOCK INVENTORY . THE ASSESSING OFFI CER MADE ADDITION ONLY BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF MR. R.CHAND RASEKAR ON 26.08.2009 WITHOUT GOING INTO THE LETTER FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ON 22.10.2009 RETRACTING THE STATEMENT STA TING THAT THERE IS NO EXCESS STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF ` 37,20,338/- BUT DIFFERENCE IS ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF ` 8,03,736/-. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHILE CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION TOWARDS DISCREPANCY IN CLOSING STOCK VALUA TION RELIED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE MANAGING PARTNER WHO ADMIT TED THE STOCK DIFFERENCE IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THOUGH S UBSEQUENTLY ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 11 IT WAS RETRACTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ADIT., TRICHY BY FILING A LETTER DATED 22.10.2009 POINTING OUT VARIO US DISCREPANCIES IN ARRIVING AT PHYSICAL STOCK INVENTO RY. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIE W THAT AS THE MANAGING PARTNER HIMSELF ADMITTED THE STOCK DIFFERENCE, THE SAME IS TO BE ACCEPTED. THIS, IN OU R OPINION, IS NOT CORRECT. WHEN THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED HIS STATEM ENT WITH PROPER EVIDENCE AND ANALYSIS SHOWING THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WHILE ARRIVING AT PHYSICAL STOCK INVE NTORY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD CONSIDER SUCH OBJECTIONS O F THE ASSESSEE AND SHOULD ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE SUBMISSIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN ORDER OR NOT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DONE THIS EXERCISE. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THIS IS SUE HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFRESH TAKING INT O ACCOUNT THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ADIT., TRICHY AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFER ENCE IN STOCK IS ONLY AT ` 8,03,736/- BUT NOT ` 37,20,338/-. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 12 ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THI S ISSUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS.1141 TO 1147/MDS/2013 (DEPARTMENT APPEALS): 11. THE FIRST COMMON GROUND IN ALL THE APPEALS OF T HE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION. 12. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE FIND T HAT THIS ISSUE ARISES ONLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2006- 07 AND 2009-10. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND WHICH IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2010 -11 IS DISMISSED AS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 200 6-07 AND 2009-10 RESTRICTED THE SALES COMMISSION TO 1% AND ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 13 DISALLOWED THE BALANCE SALES COMMISSION TREATING IT AS UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT IN THIS LINE OF TRADE 1% SALES COMMISS ION TO CARPENTER WHO BRINGS SALES TO THE FIRM IS ALLOWABLE . ON APPEALS, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) D ELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL FOUN D IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT INCURRED THE EXPENSES TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION. 14. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESTRICTING THE COMMISS ION TO 1%. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS, IT IS A REGU LAR PRACTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE ALLOWS COMMISSION TO THE CARPENTE RS UPTO 3% DEPENDING UPON THE VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF PURCH ASES BY THE CARPENTERS. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE COMMISS ION TO 1% AND DISALLOWING THE BALANCE COMMISSION ON ESTIMATE BAS IS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THAT THE ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 14 ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED SUCH EXPENSES TOWARDS SAL ES COMMISSION. HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN THE FINANCIA L YEARS 1995-96 TO 2005-06, WHILE COMPLETING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 143(3) / 143(1) OF THE AC T, SALES COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIM SELF RANGING FROM 1% TO 2.15% AND THEREFORE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN RESTRICTING THE SALES COMMISSION T O 1% ONLY AND DISALLOWING THE BALANCE COMMISSION WHILE COMPLETING THE SEARCH ASSESSMENTS. 16. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE CARPENTERS ARE GIVEN COMMISSION FOR BR INGING THE ORDERS FROM CUSTOMERS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUT E THAT SUCH SALES COMMISSION WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1995-96 TO 2005-06, WHILE COMPLETIN G THE ASSESSMENTS EITHER UNDER SECTION 143(1) OR UNDER SE CTION 143(3) AND WE FIND THAT SUCH SALES COMMISSIONS WERE ALLOWED DURING THESE FINANCIAL YEARS RANGING FROM 1.02% TO 2.15%. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO REASON TO RESTRICT T HE ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 15 COMMISSION ON SALES TO ONLY 1%. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE RECORDS THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COUR SE OF SEARCH SUGGESTING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCUR SUCH SAL ES COMMISSION. THUS, WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANC E MADE TOWARDS SALES COMMISSION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 004-05 TO 2006-07 AND 2009-10. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE DISMISSED. 17. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE APPEALS OF THE RE VENUE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE T OWARDS VAN HIRE CHARGES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPL ETING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED VAN HIRE CHARGES CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER VOUCHERS AND NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND TH AT NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SUGG EST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED SUCH EXPENDITURE. THE REFORE, ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 16 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED TH E DISALLOWANCE TOWARDS VAN HIRE CHARGES. 18. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING DISALLOWANCE TOW ARDS VAN HIRE CHARGES. 19. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT IN THE FINANCIAL Y EARS 1995- 96 TO 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED VAN HIRE CHARGE S AND SUCH CHARGES WERE ALLOWED WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSE SSMENTS EITHER UNDER SECTION 143(1) OR UNDER SECTION 143(3) . THE COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THESE VAN HIRE CHARGES WERE PAID TO THE PARTNERS WHO ARE THE OWNERS OF THE VEHICLES WHICH WERE USED FOR TRANSPORTATION OF MATERIALS. THE PART NERS HAVE OFFERED VAN HIRE CHARGES IN THEIR RETURNS OF INCOM E AND PAID TAXES. THE COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THIS FACT MAY BE VE RIFIED BY ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 17 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOR THAT PURPOSE THE MATT ER MAY BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITS THAT SINCE THE VAN HIRE CHARGES WER E ALREADY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS, DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH HIRE CHARGES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FIRM AMOUNTS TO DO UBLE TAXATION. 20. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN RE PLY SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT SUCH VAN HIRE CHARGE S WERE OFFERED BY PARTNERS IN THE RETURNS IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE SUBMISSIONS MADE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 21. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE VAN HIRE CHARGES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER VOUCHERS AND NO TDS WAS MADE. EXCEPT STATING THAT T HIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER VOUCHERS AN D NO TDS WAS DEDUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 18 NOT EXAMINED THE GENUINENESS AND NATURE OF EXPENSE S. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE DIS ALLOWED VAN HIRE CHARGES WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NATURE OF EX PENSES AND WITHOUT VERIFYING THE RECORDS ESPECIALLY WHEN S UCH VAN HIRE CHARGES WERE CONSISTENTLY ALLOWED WHILE COMPLE TING THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 143(1) / 143(3) IN THE FI NANCIAL YEARS 1995-96 TO 2005-06. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE THAT VAN HIRE CHARGES PAID TO THE PARTNERS WERE OFF ERED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS CANNOT ALSO BE IGNORED . THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE HAS T O BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EX AMINE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT VAN HIRE CHARGES WERE CLAIMED AND ALLOWED IN THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1995-96 TO 2005-06 AND ALSO THAT VA N HIRE CHARGES WERE OFFERED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE PAR TNERS IN THESE YEARS. IN THE EVENT OF VAN HIRE CHARGES ALRE ADY OFFERED IN THE INDIVIDUAL HANDS OF THE PARTNERS, THE DISALL OWANCE OF SUCH VAN HIRE CHARGES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS NOT WARRANTED. WE THEREFORE, DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 19 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE S. 22. THE NEXT ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 TO 20 10-11 IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS FOREIGN TOUR EX PENSES AND GIFT OF GOLD / SILVER COINS RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS MADE ADDITION TOWARDS FOREIGN TOU R EXPENSES AND GIFT OF GOLD/SILVER COINS AS THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO ACCOUNT THESE INCENTIVES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THIS ISSUE IN THE INDIVIDUAL HANDS OF THE PARTNERS FOR ADDITION, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT DISTRIBUTORS (296 ITR 473) AND OTHER DECISI ONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 20 23. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT TH E PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM VISITED FOREIGN COUNT RIES AND THE EXPENSES WERE SPONSORED BY ASSESSEES CLIENTS NAME LY M/S. CENTURY PLYWOODS (INDIA) LTD. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITS THAT PARTNERS OF THE AS SESSEE FIRM RECEIVED GIFTS IN THE FORM OF GOLD/SILVER COIN S FROM THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. HE SUBMITS THAT THE FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES SPONSORED BY M/S. CENTURY PLYWOODS (I NDIA) LTD. AND THE GOLD/SILVER COINS RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE IN DIRECT BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEES FIRM AND ITS CUSTOMERS. BECAUSE OF THE BUSINESS CONNECTION ONLY THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE SPONSORED FOREIGN TOUR EX PENSES AND GIFTED GOLD/SILVER COINS. SO ALL THESE HAVE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS BENEFIT/INCENTIVE ARISING OUT OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE T O BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACES RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BOE ING VS. CIT (250 ITR 667) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 21 24. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT FOREI GN TOUR EXPENSES SPONSORED BY M/S. CENTURY PLYWOODS (I NDIA) LTD. IS ONLY TO THE PARTNERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CA PACITY AND IT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUSINESS CONNECTION OF THE A SSESSEE FIRM. SIMILARLY, GIFT OF GOLD/SILVER COINS WERE RE CEIVED ONLY BY THE PARTNERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND THERE FORE, THEY CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. HE SU BMITS THAT IN ANY CASE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THIS ISSU E FOR ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS IN THEIR INDI VIDUAL CAPACITY AND THEREFORE, PLEADS FOR SUSTAINING THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 25. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES AND THE CASE LAW RELIED ON BY THE PARTI ES. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNACCOUNTED INCENTIVES BY WAY OF GIFTS IN THE FORM OF GOLD/SILVER COINS AND FOREIGN TOUR PACKAGES PROVID ED BY M/S. PAREKH MARKETING P.LTD., M/S. PIDILITE INDUSTRIES L TD. AND SAINT GOBAIN LTD. AND M/S. CENTURY PLYWOODS (INDIA) LTD. THE ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 22 ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE INCENTIVES RECEIVE D BY WAY OF FOREIGN TOURS ARRANGED BY THE GOODS SUPPLIER FOR EN ORMOUS PURCHASES ARE NOT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P ROFITS OF THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THI S FOREIGN TOUR SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 9.12.2011 SUBMITTED AS UNDER:- THE GOLD COINS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS RECEIVED BY US FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION FROM THE SUPPLIERS UNDER VARIOUS BUSINESS PROMOTION SCHEME OVER THE PERIOD OF YEARS EVEN MORE THAN 10 YEARS OR SO. IN FACT, GOLD COIN RECEIVED AS GIFT BY US FOR OUR PERSONAL EFFORT S IN PROMOTING THE BUSINESS AFFAIRS. SINCE THESE COINS WERE RECEIVED OVER THE PERIOD OF YEARS, THE YEAR-WISE RECEIPT NUMBER OF COINS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. THESE COINS ARE KEPT BY THE FAMILY AS IT IS. INASMUCH AS, THE VALUE OF THE GOLD COINS WILL B E CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS INDIVIDUALLY FOR WEALTH-TAX PURPOSES. BUT, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS REQUIRED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM ON THIS ACCOUNT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT INCENTIVES BY THE SUPPLIERS ARE ONLY FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE FIRM AND IT IS NOT FOR THE PERS ONAL BENEFITS ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 23 OF THE PARTNERS OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS OF THE VIE W THAT THESE BENEFITS HAVE TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES. 26. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF BOEING VS. CIT (250 ITR 667) ALMOST ON IDENTICAL SI TUATION HELD AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE ADMITTEDLY CARRIES ON BUSINESS. THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ARE SUBJECT TO TAX. THE AMOUNT OF ` 50,000 RECEIVED BY IT FROM THE MANUFACTURER WHOSE GOODS IT SOLD AS A RETAILER, WAS BY REASON OF THE FACT THAT IT HA D ACHIEVED THE TARGET, FOR ACHIEVING WHICH, INCENTIVES BY WAY OF GIFTS HAD BEEN PROMISED BY THE MANUFACTURER. THE RECEIPT CLEARLY WAS A TRADING RECEIPT. THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE THIS AMOUNT HAD IT NOT BEEN A DEALER FOR THE MANUFACTURER, AND HAD IT NOT PUT IN THE ADDITIONAL EFFORTS FOR WHICH THE INCENTIVE SCHEME HAS BEEN DRAWN UP BY THE MANUFACTURER. THE FACT THAT THE SCHEME WAS FORMULATED AS PART OF THE OBSERVANCE OF THE CENTENARY OF THE MANUFACTURER MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO THE CHARACTER OF THE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE VERY OBJECT OF THE SCHEME WAS TO PROMOTE THE SALES OF THE PRODUCT, AND TO ACHIEVE THOSE HIGHER TARGETS, INCENTIVES WERE OFFERED. THE ASSESSEE HAVING MET THOSE TARGETS BECAME ENTITLED TO THE INCENTIVE. THE INCENTIVE SO RECEIVED IS NOT VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT A WORKMAN IN A MANUFACTURING CONCERN WOULD RECEIVE BY WAY OF PRODUCTION BONUS FOR ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 24 ACHIEVING HIGHER PRODUCTION, OR THE AMOUNT THAT A PREACHER WOULD RECEIVE FROM THOSE WHO WISH TO SUPPORT HIS PREACHING BY MAKING PAYMENTS TO HIM FOR PRACTISING THAT PROFESSION. 10. MOREOVER, S. 28 OF THE ACT IN CL. (IV) PROVIDES THAT THE VALUE OF ANY BENEFIT OR PERQUISITE, WHETHER CONVERTIBLE INTO MONEY OR NOT, ARISING FROM THE BUSINESS OR THE EXERCISE OF A PROFESSION SHALL BE TREATED AS INCOME CHARGEABLE TO INCOME-TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION'. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE WAS CLEARLY A BENEFIT WHICH WAS CONVERTIBLE INTO MONEY ARISING FROM HIS BUSINESS AND CLEARLY CONSTITUTED THE PROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS. 27. AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE, THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD THAT INCENTIVES RECE IVED BY WAY OF GIFTS BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE MANUFACTURER WHOS E GOODS THE ASSESSEE SOLD AS A RETAILER TO ACHIEVE THE TARG ET IS CLEARLY A TRADING RECEIPT. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RECEIVE THIS A MOUNT HAD IT NOT BEEN A DEALER FOR THE MANUFACTURER AND H AD IT NOT PUT IN ADDITIONAL EFFORTS FOR WHICH INCENTIVE SCHE ME HAS BEEN DRAWN UP BY THE MANUFACTURER. THEREFORE, THE HONBL E HIGH COURT CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THIS CASE WAS CLEARLY A BENEFIT WHICH WAS CONVERTIB LE INTO MONEY ARISING FROM HIS BUSINESS AND CLEARLY CONSTIT UTED PROFITS ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 25 AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSEE ALSO AS PER THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 9.12.2011 AS EXT RACTED ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE GOLD COINS FOUND AT THE TIM E OF SEARCH WAS RECEIVED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS PROMOTION FROM THE SUPPLIERS UNDER VARIOUS BUSINESS PROMOTION SCHEMES OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. SIMILARLY, FOREIGN TOUR SPONSORED B Y THE SUPPLIER M/S. CENTURY PLYBOARDS (INDIA) LTD. FOR TH E PARTNERS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS IS ONLY IN BUSINESS CONNEC TION WITH THE FIRM. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT SAID THAT WITHOUT TH ERE BEING ANY BUSINESS CONNECTION THE SUPPLIERS WOULD HAVE SPONSO RED THE PARTNERS AND THEIR FAMILIES FOR FOREIGN TOURS. THIS IS ONLY AN INCENTIVES PROVIDED BY THE SUPPLIERS TO THE ASSESSE E FIRM IN THEIR BUSINESS CONNECTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE.THE CA SE LAW RELIED ON BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GUJARAT DISTRIBUTORS (SUPRA) AND OT HER DECISIONS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS A ND HAVE NO APPLICATION TO THE CASE ON HAND. THEREFORE, RESP ECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF BOEING VS. CIT (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT FOREIG N TOUR ITA NO.1120 TO 1126 & 1141 TO 1147/MDS//2013 26 EXPENSES AND GIFT OF GOLD/SILVER COINS HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADDITION. THUS, TH E ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWARDS FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES AND GIFT OF GOLD/SILVER COINS IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08 TO 2010-1 1 RESPECTIVELY ARE SUSTAINED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE IS REVERSED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVE NUE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 28. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO S.1120 TO 1126/MDS/2013 AND THAT OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.1 141 TO 1147/MDS/2013 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THURSDAY, T HE 14 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI. DATED THE 14 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. SOMU COPY TO: (1) ASSESSEE (4) CIT(A) (2) ASSESSING OFFICER (5) D.R (3) CIT (6 ) G.F.