Smt. Sunita Goel, Rohtak V. CIT, Rohtak

ITA 1201/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 120120114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Salary income; Corroborative evidences; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 80C; 54F; 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI BENCH BENCH BENCH BENCH G GG G : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G. BEFORE SHRI G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY, ,, , JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO ITA NO. .. .1201/DEL/2013 1201/DEL/2013 1201/DEL/2013 1201/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2008 2008 2008 2008- -- -09 0909 09 SMT. SUNITA GOEL, SMT. SUNITA GOEL, SMT. SUNITA GOEL, SMT. SUNITA GOEL, HOUSE NO.170, HOUSE NO.170, HOUSE NO.170, HOUSE NO.170, SUBHASH NAGAR, SUBHASH NAGAR, SUBHASH NAGAR, SUBHASH NAGAR, ROHTAK ROHTAK ROHTAK ROHTAK 1 1 1 124 001. 24 001. 24 001. 24 001. PAN : PAN : PAN : PAN : AAAPG0761C. AAAPG0761C. AAAPG0761C. AAAPG0761C. VS. VS. VS. VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, ROHTAK. ROHTAK. ROHTAK. ROHTAK. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. PREM LATA BANSAL AND SHRI RAVI AGGARWAL, ADVOCATES. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER G. PER G. PER G. PER G.D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, D.AGRAWAL, VP VPVP VP : : : : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT, ROHTAK DATED 28 TH DECEMBER, 2012 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE AY 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS ELEVEN GROUND S. HOWEVER, THEY ARE ALL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CI T UNDER SECTION 263 AND THEREBY SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 9 TH DECEMBER, 2010. IN ALL THESE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIM ED THAT THE CIT ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER S ECTION 263. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE LEARNED CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED AT LENGTH. SHE STATED THAT THE CIT HAS SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY INQUIRY. SHE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT HAS POINTED OUT FOLLOWING THREE ASPECTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH HE ALLEGED THAT NO INQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER :- ITA-1201/DEL/2013 2 (I) APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WITH REFERENCE TO ALLEGED LOAN OF ` 37.40 LAKHS FROM THE COMPANY M/S ANKUSH CREDIT INDIA LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS ACIL). (II) CLAIM OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F AMOUNTING TO ` 61,71,020/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN RESIDE NTIAL HOUSE. (III) ALLOCATION OF INCOME UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS SO AS TO CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F, 111A AN D 88E. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL STATED THAT THE ALLEGATION O F THE CIT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ABOVE THREE POINTS IS WRONG. SH E REFERRED TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND POINTED OUT THE REPLIES FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE THERETO. WITH REFERENCE TO THE LOAN FROM ACIL, SHE REFERRED TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LE TTER DATED 22.7.2010 WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 27 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. SHE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO QUERY NO.3, 4, 6, 7 ETC. S O AS TO POINT OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN AND SQUARED UP DURING THE YEA R, NAME, ADDRESS AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF ALL THE SUNDRY CRED ITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUC E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS, BANK ACCOUNTS ETC. SHE SUBMITTED THAT VI DE LETTER DATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2010, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 30 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF U NSECURED LOANS ETC. AND ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, SUPPORTING EVIDENCE, VOUCHERS AS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE RE FERRED TO ANOTHER REPLY DATED 11 TH AUGUST, 2010 FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH SH E POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO THE S ALE OF 82,000 EQUITY SHARES OF SWASTIK KHATHA PVT.LTD. TO ACIL. IN THE SAID LETTER, IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF ACIL AND CERTIFI ED COPY OF THEIR ACCOUNT IN ASSESSEES BOOKS IS ENCLOSED. FROM THOS E DOCUMENTS, SHE ITA-1201/DEL/2013 3 CONTENDED THAT ALL FACTS RELATING TO SALE OF SHARES TO ACIL AND THE AMOUNT RECEIVED AGAINST SUCH SALE PROCEEDS WAS WELL WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ALLEGATION OF THE LEARNED CIT THAT NO INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE LOAN FROM ACIL IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT . REGARDING ALLOWING OF DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F, SHE AGAIN REFERRED TO THE QUERY LETTER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 22 ND JULY, 2010 VIDE QUERY NO.11 & 12 IN WHICH A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED WHETHER THE ASSES SEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITIONS UNDER SECTION 54F. SHE REFERRED TO ASSESSEES REPLY DATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2010 PARAGRAPH 11 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HA S EXPLAINED HOW THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. 5. WITH REGARD TO ALLOCATION OF INCOME UNDER THE VA RIOUS HEADS FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F, 111A AND 88E, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT IT IS THE MANDATE OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT TO DISCLOSE THE INCOME UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS OF INCO ME TO WHICH THEY PERTAIN. THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS CRED ITED ALL THE INCOME I.E., INCOME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM BUSINESS ETC. IN ONE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THAT DO ES NOT MEAN THAT THE INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED IN ONE HEAD OF INCOME. TH E INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS OF INCOME TO WHICH THEY PERTAIN AND HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY ALLOCATED AND DISCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. THE LEARN ED CIT HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN SUCH ALLOCATION. SHE, T HEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT IS FACTUALLY AND LEGA LLY BOTH INCORRECT. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, A DETAILED INQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT, NOW, IT IS A SETTLED POSITIO N OF LAW THAT EVEN IF SOME INQUIRY IS MADE, THOUGH INADEQUATE, SECTION 26 3 CANNOT BE INVOKED. SECTION 263 CAN BE INVOKED WHEN NO INQUIR Y IS MADE AT ALL. BUT, MERELY BECAUSE IN THE OPINION OF THE CIT THE I NQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INADEQUATE, WOULD BE NO GROUN D FOR INVOKING THE ITA-1201/DEL/2013 4 PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263. IN THIS REGARD, SHE REL IED UPON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (I) CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. [2007] 295 ITR 282 (SC). (II) CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. ITA NO.1399 OF 2006 DAT ED 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009 (DELHI HIGH COURT). (III) DIT VS. JYOTI FOUNDATION [2013] 357 ITR 388 (DELH I). (IV) CIT VS. VODAFONE ESSAR SOUTH LTD. [2012] 28 TAXMANN.COM 273 (DELHI). (V) CIT, DELHI-V VS. NEW DELHI TELEVISION LTD. [2013] 39 TAXMANN.COM 135 (DELHI). 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHEN A QUERY IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A REPLY IS GIVE N, MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT DISCUSS THE SAME IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WOULD NOT BE A GROUND TO PRESUME THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. THAT IT IS NOT IN THE CONTRO L OF THE ASSESSEE HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER WRITES THE ORDER. NORMALLY, WHEREVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION, THE SAME IS NOT DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE DE TAILED DISCUSSION IS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE ITEMS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS MAKING THE ADDITION. THAT THE REVISIONARY POWER BY THE CI T IS NOT FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT FOR CONDUCTING ROVING AND FISH ING ENQUIRIES. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, SHE RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VI KAS POLYMERS [2010] 194 TAXMAN 57 (DELHI). SHE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT I N THE CASE OF MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CO.LTD. VS. CIT [2000] 243 ITR 0083 THAT WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH WHICH THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT AGREE, IT CANN OT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAI NABLE IN LAW. ITA-1201/DEL/2013 5 7. SHE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LEAR NED CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 IS UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH ON LAW AS W ELL AS ON FACTS. THE SAME SHOULD BE QUASHED. 8. LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE O RDER OF LEARNED CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263. HE STATED THAT THERE IS NO QUARREL WITH THE LEGAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURI SDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SERIES OF DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY T HE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 CANNOT BE PASSED F OR INADEQUATE INQUIRY. HE STATED THAT IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO INQUIRY AT ALL WITH REFERENCE TO THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E). HE AGAIN REFERRED TO THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL A S REPLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 22 ND JULY, 2010 ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAIL S OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN AND SQUARED UP DURING THE YEAR AND VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T. HE ALSO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NAME, ADDRESS AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF ALL T HE SUNDRY CREDITORS/DEBTORS EXCEEDING ` 10 LAKHS. HOWEVER, IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THAT SHE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM ACIL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS RECEI VED UNSECURED LOAN FROM HER HUSBAND SHRI R.P. GOEL. EXCEPT THE A BOVE, THE ASSESSEE DENIED TO HAVE RECEIVED ANY OTHER LOAN. THAT THE C OPY OF ACCOUNT OF ACIL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY WITH REFER ENCE TO THE CLAIM OF STT AND SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE TO ACIL. HE REFERRED TO THE COPY OF ACCOUNT OF ACIL AT PAGE 56 OF THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE PAYMENT F ROM ACIL IN THE MONTH OF MAY, JUNE, SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER ETC. AND THE SAME WAS SQUARED UP AGAINST THE SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESS EE TO ACIL ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008. THEREFORE, THE SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBSEQUENT TO THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT NEITHER THERE IS ANY QUERY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY EXPLANAT ION WITH REGARD TO ITA-1201/DEL/2013 6 APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) IN RESPECT OF LOA N TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ACIL WHICH IS SQUARED UP SUBSEQUENTLY AGAINST THE SALE OF SHARES. 9. WITH REGARD TO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 54F, THO UGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAISED THE QUERY AND ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE EXPLANATION, BUT, THEREAFTER, THERE IS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED. THE LEARNED C IT-DR REFERRED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 9 TH DECEMBER, 2010 AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS JUST OF NINE LINES IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY ACCEPTED THE INCOME RETURNED WHICH CLEARLY P ROVES TOTAL NON- APPLICATION OF MIND. WITH REGARD TO THE ALLOCATION OF INCOME UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS, THE LEARNED CIT-DR STATED THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT INCOME IS TO B E DISCLOSED UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS OF INCOME BUT HE STATED THAT WHEN THERE IS ONLY ONE TRADING ACCOUNT FOR SHARES, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR HOW THE ASSESSEE HAS ALLOCATED IT WITHIN THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND BUSINESS INCOME. AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, NET PROFIT IS ` 81,86,608/-. HOWEVER, IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME , THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT A T TWO PLACES, AT ONE PLACE, IT IS ` 4,50,329/-, AT ANOTHER PLACE IT IS ` 73,74,663/-. IT IS ADMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS PREPARED ONLY ONE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THEN HOW IN THE COMPUTAT ION, THE NET PROFIT HAS BEEN TAKEN AT TWO PLACES CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN A S PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND MOREOVER, THE FIGURE OF SUCH NET PROFIT DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ASSESSEES PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. NO INQUIRY I S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. HE, THEREFORE, S UBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 IS FU LLY JUSTIFIED. THE SAME SHOULD BE SUSTAINED. 10. IN THE REJOINDER, IT IS STATED BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL THAT IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, ALL INCOMES OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE SALARY ITA-1201/DEL/2013 7 INCOME, BANK INTEREST, DIVIDEND AS WELL AS INCOME F ROM CAPITAL GAIN, INCOME FROM SALE OF SHARES HAVE BEEN CREDITED TOGET HER BUT, IN THE COMPUTATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE INCOME FROM SALARY SEPARATELY, INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING SEPARATELY, I NCOME FROM SPECULATION SEPARATELY, INCOME FROM SHORT TERM CAPI TAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SEPARATELY. DURING ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH ARE EX AMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO THE ALLOCATION OF INCOME UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS. SHE REITERATED HER CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 MAY BE QUASHED. 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. TH AT IN THE CASE OF VIKAS POLYMERS (SUPRA), HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- IT IS ALSO TRITE THAT THERE IS A FINE, THOUGH SUBT LE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LACK OF INQUIRY AND INADEQUATE INQUIRY. IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT THE COMMISS IONER IS EMPOWERED TO EXERCISE HIS REVISIONAL POWERS BY CALL ING FOR AND EXAMINING THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT AND PASSING ORDERS THEREON. 12. IN THE CASE OF SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. (SUPRA), HON'B LE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- DISMISSING THE APPEAL, (I) THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALLOWED THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HIS O RDER HE DID NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGARD . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CALLED FOR EXPLANATION ON THE VERY ITEM FROM THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISH ED ITS EXPLANATION. THIS FACT WAS CONCEDED BY THE COMMISS IONER HIMSELF IN HIS ORDER. THIS SHOWED THAT THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD UNDERTAKEN THE EXERCISE OF EXAMINING AS TO WHETHER THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ITA-1201/DEL/2013 8 REPLACEMENT OF DIES AND TOOLS WAS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE OR NOT. THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE SAI D THAT IT WAS A CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY. THE ACCOUNTING PRAC TICE FOLLOWED FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS HAD THE APPROVAL OF THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. EVEN FOR FUTURE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE VERY SAME ACCOUNTING PRACTICE WAS ACCEPTED. 13. IN THE CASE OF JYOTI FOUNDATION (SUPRA), THEIR LORDSHIPS OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT INQUIRIES WERE CERTAIN LY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS NOT A C ASE OF NO INQUIRY. THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 ITSELF RECORD ED THAT THE DIRECTOR FELT THAT THE INQUIRIES WERE NOT SUFFI CIENT AND FURTHER INQUIRIES OR DETAILS SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLE D FOR. THE INQUIRY SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE DIREC TOR HIMSELF TO RECORD THE FINDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT O RDER WAS ERRONEOUS. HE SHOULD NOT HAVE SET ASIDE THE OR DER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONDUCT THE INQUI RY. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURIS DICTIONAL HIGH COURT, NOW IT IS A SETTLED POSITION THAT THE CIT CA NNOT INVOKE HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT FOR INADE QUATE INQUIRY. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS ONLY W HEN THERE IS TOTAL LACK OF INQUIRY ON ANY POINT. LET US NOW EXAMINE T HE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO OF THE DE CISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CA SES. 15. REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E). T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, VIDE LETTER DATED 22 ND JULY, 2010, RAISED THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO LOAN/SUNDRY CREDITORS:- 3. DETAIL OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN AND SQUARED UP DURING THE YEAR AND VIOLATION OF 269SS & 269T OF IN COME TAX ACT, 1961. 4. NAME, ADDRESS AND PAN OF ALL THE SUNDRY CREDITORS/DEBTORS EXCEEDING RS.10 LACS MAY PLEASE B E FURNISHED. ITA-1201/DEL/2013 9 16. THE REPLY THERETO BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER D ATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2010 READS AS UNDER:- PARA NO.3 DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNSECURE D LOANS FROM HER HUSBAND, SH. RAJ PARKASH GOEL. COPY OF THE ACCOUNT DULY SIGNED AND VERIFIED MENTIONING PAN NO. IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR PERUSAL AND KIND CONSIDE RATION. THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. PARA NO.4 AT THE END OF THE YEAR THERE ARE NO SUNDRY DEBTORS AND CREDITORS. 17. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE QUERY NO .3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE UNSECURED LOAN WAS WITH R EFERENCE TO SECTION 269SS AND 269T AND IN REPLY THERETO, THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED THAT SHE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN ONLY FROM HER HUSBAND SHRI RAJ PARKASH GOEL AND FROM NO OTHER PERSON. THE SECOND QUERY I. E. QUERY NO.4 WAS REGARDING SUNDRY CREDITORS/DEBTORS WHICH THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED THAT IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY SUNDRY CREDITORS/DEBTORS AT THE E ND OF THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED FURTHER REPLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAME LETTER DATED 22 ND JULY, 2010 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS REPLY I S DATED 11 TH AUGUST, 2010. IT READS AS UNDER:- I AM PLEASED TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING FOR YOUR KIND CONSIDERATION OR PERUSAL:- 1) A SELF CERTIFIED COPY OF CERTIFICATE/CONFIRMATIO N UNDER FORM NO.10 DB (STT CONFIRMATION) ISSUED BY VARUN CA PITAL SERVICES LTD, SHARE BROKER, IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE ORIGINAL CONFIRMATION/CERTIFICATE HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WITH YOUR OFFICE. ALSO ENCLOS ED IS A COPY OF MY ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF VARUN CAPITAL SE RVICES LTD, FOR THE SHARE TRADING DONE BY ME DURING THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. ITA-1201/DEL/2013 10 2) 82000 EQUITY SHARES OF SWASTIK KHATHA PVT.LTD. W ERE SOLD TO ANKUSH CREDIT INDIA LTD, NEW DELHI. THESE SHARES WERE HOLD FOR MORE THAN 5-10 YEARS. A CONFIRMATION FROM ANKUSH CREDIT INDIA LTD AND A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE IR ACCOUNT IN MY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS ENCLOSED HEREWIT H. 3) AS STATED ABOVE, THE SALE PROCEEDS FOR SALE OF E QUITY SHARES WAS RECEIVED ON 31 ST MARCH 2008. I HAVE PURCHASE A RESIDENTIAL FLAT FROM PACL INDIA LTD, NEW DELHI A ND A COPY OF THE SALE DEED/LEASE DEED IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE LEASE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 29 TH JULY 2009. THUS THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE HAS BEEN PURCHASED WELL WITHIN TH E STIPULATED TIME OF TWO YEARS FROM THE DATE OF RECEI PT OF SALES PROCEEDS. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT MY SELF & MY HUSBAND, MR. RAJ PARKASH GOEL, ARE CO-OWNERS OF SAI D FLAT AND BOTH HOLD 50% SHARE IN THE RESIDENTIAL FLAT. 18. THE REPLY VIDE PARAGRAPH 1 IS PERTAINING TO TRA DING IN SHARES. THE REPLY AT PARAGRAPH 2 IS ALSO WITH REGARD TO SAL E OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE TO ANKUSH CREDIT INDIA LTD. AND THE REPLY AT PARAGRAPH 3 IS FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 54F. THUS, THIS REPLY ALSO DOES NOT HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH THE LOAN TAKEN FROM ACIL AND WHETHE R SECTION 2(22) IS APPLICABLE THERETO. THOUGH IN PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE A BOVE REPLY THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED THAT CONFIRMATION FROM ACIL IS ENCLOSED, WE FIND THAT THE SAID CONFIRMATION IS AT PAGE 49 WHICH READS AS UNDER:- MADAM, WE CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE PURCHASED 82000 EQUITY SHAR ES (FACE VALUE OF RS.10 EACH) OF SWASTIK KATHA PVT.LTD ., VILL- ISMAILLA, DELHI ROHTAK ROAD, DISTT ROHTAK (HARYANA) @ 90 PER SHARE. WE FURTHER CONFIRM THAT A SUM OF RS.73,80,000.00 (R S. SEVENTY THREE LACK EIGHTY THOUSAND ONLY) HAS BEEN PAID/CREDITED TO YOU ON 31 ST MARCH 2008. WE ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX VIDE PAN NO.AAACA8390G. 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED DR THAT THERE WAS NO INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER W ITH REFERENCE TO ITA-1201/DEL/2013 11 THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WITH REGARD T O LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM ACIL. ON THE OTHER HAND, IN FACT, WITH REFERENCE TO THE QUERY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS DE NIED TO HAVE TAKEN ANY LOAN EXCEPT THE LOAN FROM HER HUSBAND SHRI RAJ PARKASH GOEL. IT IS ONLY BEFORE THE CIT THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ACIL ON VARIOUS DATES WAS AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARES. THE SAID COPY OF ACCOUNT IS AT PAGE 56 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- STATEMENT OF A/C (FROM 1-4-2007 TO 31-3-2008) DATE PARTICULARS DEBIT CREDIT 19-05-2007 BANK PAYMENT 20,00,000.00 CH.NO.01111249 11-06-2007 BANK PAYMENT 3,00,000.00 CH.NO.0111250 12-06-2007 BANK PAYMENT 50,000.00 CH.NO.237726 12-06-2007 BANK PAYMENT 1,00,000.00 CH.NO.237727 28-09-2007 BANK PAYMENT 12,00,000.00 CH.NO.237737 10-10-2007 BANK PAYMENT 4,90,000.00 CH.NO.0237739 31-03-2008 SHARES SWASTIK KATTHA 82000@ 9 73,8 0,000.00 TOTAL 41,40,000.00 73,80,000.00 CREDIT BALANCE 32,40,000.00 -------------------------------------------- ----------- GRAND TOTAL 73,80,000.00 73,80,000.00 -------------------------------------------- ----------- ITA-1201/DEL/2013 12 20. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEI VED THE AMOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES FROM MAY, 2007 TO OCTOBER, 2007 WH ICH TOTALED TO ` 41,40,000/-. THE SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE TO ACIL WAS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008. IN ORDINARY COURSE, THE SALE PROCEED OF THE SHARES WOULD BECOME DUE ONLY ON SALE OF SHARES AND NOT PRIOR THE RETO. THEREFORE, MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO SALE OF SHA RES WOULD BE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID PARTY. IT IS CONTENDE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT THAT AS PER AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE AS SESSEE AND ACIL, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE THE PAYMENT IN ADVANCE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ACIL AND THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT NO SUC H MATERIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT AT ALL EXAMINED THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)( E) WITH REFERENCE TO THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ACIL. IN FACT, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE DENIED TO HAVE TAKE N ANY LOAN. IT IS ONLY BEFORE THE CIT THAT THE ASSESSEE CAME WITH THE EXPLANATION THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ACIL WAS AGAINST THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE SHARES. ON THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT AT ALL EXAMINED THE APPLICABILITY O F SECTION 2(22)(E) AND, THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF LACK OF INQUIRY WIT H REFERENCE TO APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND, T HEREFORE, THE ABOVE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WOUL D NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 54F, THE QUERY NO.11 RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 22 ND JULY, 2010 IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE:- GIVE THE DETAILS OF INCOME CLAIMED EXEMPTION AND P ROVE THAT IF FULFILLED ALL THE CONDITION U/S 54F OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. ITA-1201/DEL/2013 13 22. THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE L ETTER DATED 9 TH AUGUST, 2010 READS AS UNDER:- PARA NO.11 DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI NS ON SHARES AND THE SAME WAS CLAIMED EXEMPTED UNDER SECT ION 54F. ALL THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F WERE COMPLI ED WITH WHICH ARE EXPLAINED BELOW:- CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F :- 1. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL OR A HINDU UNDIVID ED FAMILY. 2. THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED IS ANY LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET BUT OTHER THAN A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED, WITHIN ONE YEAR BEFO RE THE DATE OF TRANSFER OR 2 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF T RANSFER OR CONSTRUCTED WITHIN 3 YEARS AFTER THE DATE OF TRANSF ER (OR FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPTS OR COMPENSATION IN THE CA SE OF COMPULSORY ACQUISITION), A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. COMPLIANCE OF CONDITIONS IS GIVEN BELOW:- 1. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IT IS VERY MUCH CLEA R FROM THE RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH YOUR OFFICE. 2. ALL THE ASSETS TRANSFERRED WERE EQUITY SHARES OF THE COMPANY AND AS PER INCOME TAX ACT, EQUITY SHARES AR E TREATED AS LONG TERM ASSETS IF HOLDING PERIOD IS MO RE THAN ONE YEAR. ALL THE SHARES WERE HOLD FOR 5 TO 10 YEA RS. HENCE, ALL ASSETS TRANSFERRED WERE LONG TERM ASSETS AND PROFIT ARISING THEREON IS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. 3. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 5 4F BY INVESTING THE SALE PROCEEDS IN BUYING A NEW RESI DENTIAL HOUSE FOR RS.73,54,875/- AGAINST SALE PROCEEDS OF RS.73,80,000/- FROM SALE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL ASSET S. 23. FROM THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DID RAISE THE QUERY WITH REFERENCE TO SECTION 54F AND THE ASSESSE E GAVE REPLY THERETO. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID RAISE THE QUERY IN THIS REGARD AND IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT THERE WAS NO ITA-1201/DEL/2013 14 INQUIRY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REFERENCE TO ALLOWABILITY OF SECTION 54F TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO EMPOWER THE CI T FOR INVOKING HIS JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263. 24. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ALLOCATION OF THE INCOME UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF INCOME, WE FIND THAT THE TRADING ACCOUNT A S WELL AS THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- TRADING ACCOUNT (FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31-03-2008) DEBIT CRED IT TO PURCHASE BY SALE PURCHASE BUSINESS 514674231.10 SALES BUSINE SS 515048893.90 PURCHASE CAPITAL GAIN 25,77,810.79 51,7 2,52,041.98 SALES CAPITAL 32,35,441.89 51 ,82,84,335.69 TO GROSS PROFIT 10,32,293.71 ---------------------- TOTAL 51,82,84,335.69 TOTAL 51,82,84,335.69 PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT (FOR THE PERIOD ENDING 31-03-2008) DEBIT CREDIT TO EXPENSES(INDIRECT/ADMN.) BY GROSS PROFIT 10,32,293.71 BANK CHARGES 168.36 BY INCOME (INDIRECT) INCOME TAX 34,140.00 BANK INTEREST 1 ,104.12 INTEREST ON LIC LOAN 36,836.00 DIVIDEND 400.00 OTHER EXPENSES-BUS. 47,093.05 INCOME FROM MUTUAL ROUNDED OFF 0.83 FUND 1,32,328.58 STT-CAPITAL PURCHASE 787.00 INTEREST ON PPF 52, 243.00 STT BUSINESS 2,39,906.00 INTEREST ON RELIANCE STT ON CAPITAL SALES 10,068.00 INFRA 22.00 TRAVELLING EXPENSES 88,500.00 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WEALTH TAX 4,613.00 4,62,11 2.24 ON SHARE 65,60,000 .00 TO NET PROFIT 81,86,608.58 SALARY SUN STAR 2,40,000.00 TOTAL 86,48,720.82 SALARY INCOME 1,80,000.00 VARUN CAPITAL SERVICES M TO M 4,50,329. 41 76,16,427.11 TOTAL 86,48,720.82 25. THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- ITA-1201/DEL/2013 15 INCOME FROM SALARY (CHAPTER IV A) 420000 SALARY RECEIVED FROM ANKUSH CREDIT INDIA LTD. 18 0000 SALARY 180000 SUNSTAR PRECISION FORGE LTD. A-86, DEFENCE COLONY, SALARY 240000 240000 GROSS SALARY 420000 INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION (CHAPTER IV D) PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS A/C 450329 TOTAL 450329 INCOME FROM SPECULATION BUSINESS PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS A/C 374663 TOTAL 374663 INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN (CHAPTER IV E) 67907 0 SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN CAPITAL GAIN AS PER DETAILS ATTACHED (STT) 65798 9 LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SHARES 31/03/2008 SALES CONSIDERATION 7380000 LESS : INDEXED COST COST PRICE 505391 F.Y. 2002-03 410000/447*551 COST PRICE 682508 F.Y. 1997-98 410000/331*551 ------------ 1187899 6192101 DEDUCTION U/S 54F 6171020 6171020 21081 INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY U/S 54F RS.7354875/- INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES (CHAPTER IV F) 1126 INTEREST FROM BANK 1104 INTEREST ON RELIANCE INFRA 22 1126 GROSS TOTAL INCOME 1925188 ITA-1201/DEL/2013 16 LESS : DEDUCTIONS (CHAPTER VI-A) U/S 80C L,I.P. 310743 P.P.F. 80000 TOTAL 390743 100000 100000 TOTAL INCOME 1825188 ROUND OFF U/S 288A 1825190 26. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THERE IS ONL Y ONE TRADING ACCOUNT IN WHICH SALES AND PURCHASES ARE GIVEN IN T WO DIVISIONS ONE AS SALES BUSINESS AND ANOTHER IS SALES CAPITAL. THE GROSS PROFIT IS TAKEN TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THERE IS CREDIT OF VARIOUS OTHER INCOMES AND NET PROFIT IS A T ` 81,86,608/-. NOW, IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N INCOME AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT TWICE. FIRST UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS ` 4,50,329/- IS SHOWN WITH THE NARRATION PROFIT AS P ER PROFIT & LOSS A/C. SECOND UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM SPECULATION BUSIN ESS, AGAIN, THE PROFIT OF ` 3,74,663/- IS SHOWN WITH THE NARRATION PROFIT AS P ER PROFIT & LOSS A/C. NOW, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR HOW THIS WO RKING IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND FROM THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH QUERY RELATING TO THE ALLOC ATION OF THE INCOME UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS BY THE ASSESSEE. NORMALLY, WHEN THE COMPUTATION IS PREPARED, THE NET PROFIT AS PER PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT IS TAKEN FROM WHICH THE ADJUSTMENT IS SHOWN IN THE COM PUTATION ITSELF WITH REGARD TO INCOME WHICH IS CONSIDERED SEPARATEL Y UNDER OTHER HEADS. IN THE COMPUTATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SOME AMOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, SOME AMOUNT OF LONG TERM C APITAL GAIN. AGAIN, FROM THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS, WE COULD NOT UNDERSTA ND HOW SUCH WORKING IS MADE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NO T RAISED ANY SUCH QUERY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE AGREE WITH THE FIN DING OF LEARNED CIT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND , MADE NO INQUIRY AT ALL WITH REFERENCE TO THE ALLOCATION OF INCOME UNDE R VARIOUS HEADS AND ITA-1201/DEL/2013 17 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND NET PROFIT SHOWN UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS IN THE COMPU TATION OF INCOME. 27. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY TH E LEARNED COUNSEL, MODIFY THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT PARTLY. HIS FINDIN G WITH REGARD TO NO INQUIRY UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) AND THE DIFFERENCE B ETWEEN THE NET PROFIT AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE NET PRO FIT SHOWN UNDER VARIOUS HEADS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME IS UPHEL D AND THE CITS FINDING WITH REGARD TO SECTION 54F OF THE ACT IS VA CATED BECAUSE WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID MAKE NECESSARY INQUIRY WITH REGARD TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 54F CLAIMED BY THE ASSES SEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 IS PARTLY MODIFIED AS A BOVE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO INQUIRE INTO AND R EADJUDICATE THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 2(22)(E) AND ALSO THE ALLO CATION OF INCOME UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COMPUTATIO N OF INCOME, AND THEREAFTER, MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. 28. BEFORE WE PART WITH THE MATTER, WE MAY CLARIFY THAT OUR OBSERVATIONS WITH REGARD TO SECTION 2(22)(E) AND AL SO THE ALLOCATION OF INCOME UNDER THE VARIOUS HEADS OF INCOME WERE LIMIT ED TO THE DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL AND WILL NOT PREJUDICE OR AFFECT IN ANY WAY THE FINAL OUTCOME IN THIS REGARD WHICH WILL BE DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING ADEQUATE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 29. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST MARCH, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( (( (ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY ABY T. VARKEY) )) ) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) (G.D.AGRAWAL) JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 21.03.2014 VK. ITA-1201/DEL/2013 18 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT : SMT. SUNITA GOEL, SMT. SUNITA GOEL, SMT. SUNITA GOEL, SMT. SUNITA GOEL, HOUSE NO.170, SUBHASH NAGAR, HOUSE NO.170, SUBHASH NAGAR, HOUSE NO.170, SUBHASH NAGAR, HOUSE NO.170, SUBHASH NAGAR, ROHTAK ROHTAK ROHTAK ROHTAK 124 001. 124 001. 124 001. 124 001. 2. RESPONDENT : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, AAYKAR BHAWAN, OPP. MANSAROVER PARK, ROHTAK. ROHTAK. ROHTAK. ROHTAK. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR