Sh. Gurlal Singh Grewal, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 1208/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63891 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PG A
• Assessee Lawyers: S R CHHABRA SHRI N K SAINI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Loose papers; Retrospective amendment; Question of law; Block assessment
• Section: 133A; 69; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, VP AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, AM ITA NO. 1208/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 GURLAL SINGH GREWAL V A.C.I.T. C-VI, LUDHIANA 655, GURDEV NAGAR LUDHIANA ABYPG 9328 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.R. CHHABRA DEPARTMENT BY: SHRI N.K. SAINI DATE OF HEARING: 22.08.201 2 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.08.2012 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD, A.M IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE: (A) BY ARBITRARILY AND WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE REASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, 19 61. (B) BY ARBITRARILY AND WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 64 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN LOANS. (C) BY ARBITRARILY AND WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITI ON OF RS.396725/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOANS OF RS. 64 LAKHS, ALLEGED TO BE EARNED BUT NOT DISCLOSED. 2. GROUND NO. 1(A) THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S UPPER INDIA STEEL MA NUFACTURING & ENGINEERING COMPANY LTD., LUDHIANA. ON 22.2.2006 A SURVEY WAS UNDERTAKEN IN THE PREMISES OF THE COMPANY AND DURING THE SURVEY AN O LD PAPER WITH SOME WRITING WAS FOUND FROM THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF THE ASSES SEE. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY, IT WAS STATED THAT IT WAS A N OLD PIECE OF PAPER ABOUT WHICH HE DID NOT KNOW / REMEMBER ANYTHING. HOWEVER , SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO DESTROY THAT PAPER WHICH WAS RETRIEVED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE PAPER PERTAINS TO SOME UNDISCLOS ED INVESTMENT ON WHICH SOME INTEREST HAS ALSO BEEN RECEIVED. ULTIMATELY A N ADDITION OF RS. 64 LAKHS ON 2 ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AND RS. 396725/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON SUCH INVESTMENT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE COMP ANY. 3. THIS ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FILED BY THE COMPANY BY HOLDING THAT SINCE THE PAPE R WAS FOUND FROM THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MAINTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE COMPANY. THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A). 4. THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS GROUND BY OBSERVIN G THAT THE LOOSE PAPER DEFINITELY CONSTITUTED INFORMATION SINCE THE ISSUAN CE OF NOTICE WAS BEFORE FOUR YEARS FROM THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS VALID. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFER RED TO PAGE 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS CLEARLY SHOW THAT EARLIER ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THE SAME ISSU E AGAINST THE COMPANY AND SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY NO FURTHER ACTION WAS POSSIBLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE S UBMITTED THAT THE PIECE OF PAPER WHICH WAS FOUND FROM THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO DESTROY DURING SURVEY MENTIONED V ARIOUS FIGURES WHICH WOULD DEFINITELY CONSTITUTE INFORMATION LEADING THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE REASONS THAT THE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSES SMENT. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 WAS VALID. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY AN D FIND THAT REASON FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER:- DURING SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON 22.2.2006 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S UPPER IND IA STEEL MANUFACTURING & ENGG COMPANY LTD., ONE DOCUMENT INV OLVING INVESTMENT OF RS. 64 LAKHS ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS. 396725/- WAS BEING EARNED WAS FOUND IN THE PERSONAL CUSTODY OF SHRI GU RLAL SINGH GREWAL, JOINT MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S UPPER INDIA STEEL MA NUFACTURING & ENGG COMPANY. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 64 LAKHS WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HAN DS OF COMPANY ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND IN THE HAND OF SHRI GURLAL SI NGH GREWAL ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 3 2. AS THE DOCUMENT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE PERSONAL CUSTODY OF SHRI GURLAL SINGH GREWAL, ADDITION IN THE HAND OF COMPAN Y HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SINCE THE COMPANY DISOWNED THE DO CUMENT RECOVERED FROM SHRI GURLAL SINGH GREWAL. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT INVESTMENT OF RS. 64 LAKHS AND INTEREST OF RS. 3967 25/- THEREON HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 06-07. ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. SD/- (PRAJNA PARAMITA) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE VI, LUDHIANA THOUGH IT MENTIONS THAT PROTECTIVE ADDITION WAS MAD E IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE DURING HEARING THAT NO PROTECTIVE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN COMP ANYS APPEAL NO. 130- IT/CIT(A)-II/LDH/08-09 BY OBSERVING:- IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT, AS POINTED OUT IN T HE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO, THE ASSESSING O FFICER WHO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COMPANY HAS ALSO INTIM ATED THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHRI GURLAL SINGH GREWAL WITH REG ARD TO TAKING ACTION ON THE BASIS OF IMPUGNED DOCUMENT. FROM HIGH-LIGHTED PORTION, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN TH E ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT INFORMATION REGARDING THIS PIECE OF PAPER FOUND DUR ING SURVEY WAS INTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE COMPANY TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH REGARD TO THE TAKING ACTION. THIS MEANS THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAD INDEPENDENT INFORMATION. THIS FACT HAS TO BE FURTHER CONSIDERE D ALONG WITH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO DESTROY THE PAPER DURING SURV EY AND THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN DENIED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS AP PEAL. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAD PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE TO BELIEVE THAT T HE SOME INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE END OF ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS WELL SETTLE D POSITION OF LAW THAT AT THE TIME OF REOPENING WHAT IS REQUIRED IS ONLY PRIMA FA CIE MATERIAL AND NOT THE CONCLUSIVE MATERIAL REGARDING ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN CORRECTLY REOPENED IN VIEW OF PIECE OF PAPER F OUND DURING THE SURVEY FROM THE PERSONAL POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 8 GROUNDS NO. 1(B) & (C) DURING SURVEY A PIECE OF PAPER WAS FOUND. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THIS PAPER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS MAINLY S TATED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SURE WHETHER THIS DOCUMENT WAS IN HIS HAND-WRITING OR NOT. HE EVEN DID NOT REMEMBER WHAT IT CONTAINED AND THEREFORE, SAME SHOULD BE TREATED AS DUMB DOCUMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THESE SUBMISSIONS AND REFERRED TO TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C AND HELD THAT THE DOCUMENT DEFINITELY CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF LOANS GIVEN TO VARIOUS PARTIES. SHE ALSO MENTIONED THAT WHILE ADJ UDICATING COMPANYS APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT GURLAL SINGH GREWA L I.E. THE ASSESSEE WAS CARRYING ON HIS INDEPENDENT BUSINESS AND EVEN HAS A CCEPTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RETURN. THEREFORE, IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT VARIOUS FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING SURVEY WERE IN TERMS OF LAKHS OF RUPEES. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE WAS PAYING INTEREST T O THE BANK @ 11%. IT WAS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE BEEN CHARGING 12% INTEREST ON SUCH LOANS. ON APPEAL THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REFER RED TO PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS A COPY OF THE DOCUMENT FOUND DU RING SURVEY AND SUBMITTED THAT BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THE FIGURES WRITT EN IN SUCH DOCUMENT CAN BE INTERPRETED AS LOAN GIVEN ON VARIOUS DATES. THE RE VENUE DID NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THESE AMOUNTS REPRESENT ONLY LOANS. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLEARLY STATED DURING SURVEY THAT IT IS A DUMB DOCU MENT AND HE DID NOT REMEMBER WHAT IT WAS. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. GIRISH CHAUDHARY, 296 ITR 6 19 (DELHI) WHEREIN A DOCUMENT WAS FOUND WHICH DID NOT CONTAIN ANY SPECIF IC DETAILS AND THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF OTHER MATERIAL, THE FIGURE 48 COULD NOT BE INTERPRETED AS RS. 48 LAKHS. 5 9 (I) SIMILARLY HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. ATAM VALVES (P) LTD., 332 ITR 468 (PH) WHEREIN AN M ADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SLIPS WAS DELETED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE S UBMITTED THAT MERE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOW THAT PAPER FOUND DURIN G SURVEY CONTAINED DETAILS REGARDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME BECAUSE INITIALLY HE T RIED TO DESTROY THE PAPER. THE DOCUMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT LOANS HAVE BEEN REC ORDED IN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS PERSONS AND THEN 2 OR 3 DATES HAVE BEEN GIV EN WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVABLE ON QUARTERLY BASIS. THE FIGURES OF 5,510,5 HAVE BEEN WRITTEN REPRESENTED 5 AND 10 LAKHS. IN A NY CASE SECTION 292C WHICH HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE ACT BY FINANCE ACT, 2007 W ITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1.10.1975 WHICH MAKE CERTAIN PRESUMPTIONS. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE PRESUMPTIONS THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CORRECTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE . 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFULLY. THE DOCUMENT WHICH IS FOUND DURING SURVEY HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN PARA 5.1.1. OF THE ORDER AND READS AS UNDER:- 5 CHANDA 18/7, 15/10, 12/1 5 ROLES 28/6, 26/9, 23/12 10 IMPRET 24/6, 20/9, 18/12 5 SANT 25/8, 25/11 5 SANT 30/6, 30/9, 27/12 4 LB 15/6, 11/9, 12/12 4 LB 11/6, 11/9, 12/12 4 MOHINI 5/5, 2/8 5 LB 9/5, 48, 28/10, 28/1 5 CHANDA 4/5, 4/8, 28/10, 28/1 5 MRG 4/5, 4/9, 1/1, 26/1 2 CHANDA 7/6, 4/9, 1/12 5 LB 25/6, 25/9, 26/12 THE ABOVE DOCUMENT DOES NOT SHOW ANYTHING AND ITS V ERY DIFFICULT TO SAY THAT THIS DOCUMENT REPRESENTS CERTAIN LOANS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO VARIOUS 6 PERSONS. FOR EXAMPLE IF WE READ FIRST COLUMN OF TH E DOCUMENT THEN CHANDA CAN BE POSSIBLY READ WITH THE NAME OF PERSON TO WHO M LOAN HAS BEEN GIVEN THEN IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IN THE SECOND ROW OF R OLES IS ALSO A NAME. SIMILARLY IN THIRD ROW THE WORD IMPRET THIS ALSO DOES NOT SEEM TO BE A NAME. SAME IS THE CASE WITH THE WORD LB AND MRG. SIMILARLY A GAINST CERTAIN ENTRIES THREE OR FOUR DATES ARE MENTIONED. THIS DOES NOT SHOW AN YTHING. 11 (I) THE DEPARTMENT HAS VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C WHICH READS UNDER:- [(1)] WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 [OR SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A ], IT MAY, IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, BE PRESUMED ( I ) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MON EY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONG S TO SUCH PERSON; ( II ) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND O THER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND ( III ) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SUCH B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRIT ING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE B EEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, AR E IN THAT PERSON'S HANDWRITING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED, THAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED B Y THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED.] PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SUB-SECTION SHOWS THAT U NDER CLAUSE (1) IT CAN BE PRESUMED THAT SUCH DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWEL LERY OR OTHER VALUABLES ETC. BELONG TO SUCH PERSON FROM WHOM THE RECOVERY W AS MADE. CLAUSE (2) MAKES A PRESUMPTION THAT THE CONTENTS ARE TRUE. CL AUSE (3) REFERS TO SIGNATURE WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE BEFORE US AS TH E DOCUMENT IS UNSIGNED. EVEN IF IT IS ASSUMED THAT DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTS ARE TRUE SUCH CONTENTS DO NOT LEAD TO INFERENCE THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ADVANCED CERTAIN LOANS. AS SEEN ABOVE ON THE PLAIN READING OF THE DOCUMENT, NO SUCH INFERENCE CAN BE MADE. 11 (II) IT IS TRUE THAT THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT V. GIRISH CHAUDHARY (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 7 158B AND MAY NOT BE STRICTLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER SI TUATION BECAUSE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT THE POSITION WAS TOTALLY DIFFERENT. IN CASE OF CIT V. ATAM VALLVES (P) LTD. DURING COURSE OF SURVEY SOME LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE CONTAINING BILL OF PAYMENT OF WAGES . THE EMPLOYEE AND A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY EXPLAINED THE POSITION HOW THE SLIP WAS WRITTEN. THEY DID NOT REPRESENT THE PAYMENT OF WAGES. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION AND MADE THE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL PARTLY SET ASIDE THE ADDITION. ON THI S FACT IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THAT ALTHOUGH A FALS E EXPLANATION OF AN ASSESSEE COULD BE A CIRCUMSTANCES TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT FOR RECORDING A FINDING OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SOME DEGREE OF GUESS WORK WAS ALSO PERMISSIBLE IN SUCH A SITUATION, IT DEPENDED UPON T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AS TO WHAT WAS TO BE A F AIR ESTIMATE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ESTIMATE OF AD DITION, TO THE EXTENT ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WAS NOT CALLED F OR AND IT WAS PARTLY LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE FOR CONSIDERATION. FROM ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT IT DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHAT THINGS CAN BE TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS. IN CASE OF CIT V. ATAM VALVES (P) LTD. THOUGH THE ADDITION WAS PARTLY DELETED BY THE LD. C IT(A) AND CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THAT PART WAS CONFIRMED BY HON'BLE HIG H COURT ALSO. THEREFORE, THIS DECISION IS NOT STRICTLY APPLICABLE BECAUSE TH E ADDITION WAS PARTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THIS DECISION IS TOTALLY APPLICABLE ON THE OBSERVATION THAT IT WOULD DEPEND ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR RECOR DING THE FINDING AS WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT ABOV E. IN FACT AFTER DISCOVERY OF THE DOCUMENT DURING SURVEY THE REVENUE SHOULD HA VE EITHER OBTAINED FURTHER INFORMATION OR IN ANY CASE SHOULD HAVE CONDUCTED MO RE ENQUIRIES TO PROVE THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT. WITHOUT SUCH ENQUIRY OR ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SIMPLY SAY THAT THE FIGURES MENTION ED ARE IN TERMS OF LAKHS AND LEAD TO ADDITION. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DELETE THE ADDITION. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29.08.2012 SD/- SD/- (H.L. KARWA) (T.R. SOOD) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 29 .08.2012 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT/THE C IT(A)/ THE DR 8