ITO, New Delhi V. Sh. Mahesh Chand Sharma, Delhi

ITA 1284/DEL/1999

• Counselvise Citation: 128420114 RSA 1999
• Duration Of Justice: 16 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1989-1990
• Appeal Filed On: 17-03-1999
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Search and seizure; Accommodation entries
• Section: 40A(3); 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. N. K. SAINI, AM AND SH. I. C. SUDHIR , JM ITA NO. 1284 /DEL /1999 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1989 - 90 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(5), NEW DELHI VS S H. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, PROP. JAI TRADING COMPANY, C/O M/S PRIYA INTERNATIONAL, 489, KATRA ISHRE BHAWAN, KHARI BAOLI, DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 37/DEL/2004 : ASSTT. YEAR : 1989 - 90 INCOME TAX OF FICER, WARD 29(2 ), NEW DELHI VS M/S JAI TRADING COMPANY, PROP. SH. MAHESH CHAND SHARMA, WZ - 934 - A, SADH NAGAR, PALAM COLONY, NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. ASSESSEE BY : SH. M. P. RASTOGI , ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. GAURAV D UDEJA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.04 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .05 .2015 ORDER PER N. K. SAINI, AM: THESE APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT WERE EARLIER DISPOSED OFF BY THE ITAT DELHI BENCH D , NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER DATED 12.08.2 005. LATER ON, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL S OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA NO S . 319/2006 AND 324/ 2006 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.07.2008 DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO COMPUTE THE APPROPRIATE RATE OF PROFIT IN RESPECT OF TURNOVER OF ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 2 RS. 3,99,97,585/ - WHI CH HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPUTED BY THE AO. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARAS 3 & 4 OF THE ORDER DATE 29.07.2008 WHICH READ AS UNDER: 3. ON THE ASPECT OF QUANTUM, NONE OF THE OTHER FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE AND ONLY THE ISSUE OF RATE OF PROFIT TO BE APPLIED NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL BEFORE IT. TO THIS LIMITED EXTENT, WE REMAND THE MATTER TO THE TRIBUNAL TO COMPUTE THE APPROPRIATE RATE OF PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THE TURNOVER OF RS. 3,99,97,585/ - WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. BECAUSE WE ARE DIRECTING THAT THE MATTER BE REMANDED FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTING THE APPROPRIATE RATE OF PROFIT, IT WOULD ALSO BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THE MATTER WITH REGARD TO PENALTY TO THE TRIBUNAL. CONSEQUENTLY, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHALL HAVE A RELOOK INTO THE RATE OF PROFIT TO BE APPLIED AND SHALL PASS AN ORDER ON THAT ASPECT ALONE BASED ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE IT. ALL THE OT HER FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO THE QUANTUM APPEAL ARE TO BE RETAINED. THE TRIBUNAL, AFTER RETURNING A FINDING ON THE RATE OF PROFIT, WOULD CONSIDER THE REVENUE S APPEAL WITH REGARD TO PENALTY AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS THEREON. WITH THESE DIRECTIONS, THESE A PPEALS STAND DISPOSED OF. 2. ON THE DIRECTION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT WE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THESE APPEALS. ITA NO. 1284/DEL/1999 RELATES TO THE PENALTY WHILE THE APPEAL IN ITA ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 3 NO. 37/DEL/2004 RELATES TO THE QUANTUM ADDITION. IN THI S APPEAL FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,99,169/ - IN RESPECT OF COMMISSION INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES, MERELY RELYING IN THE DECISION OF ITAT FOR THE A.YS. 1990 - 91 AND 1991 - 92. THE DECISION FOR THE A.Y. 1990 - 91 AND A.Y. 1991 - 92 IS ITSELF ERRONEOUS AS ITAT HAD NOT DECIDED THE CASE FOR A.Y. 1989 - 90 BUT MERELY SET ASIDE AND FOR WHICH THE DEPARTMENT IS FIL ING APPEAL U/S 254(2). 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,10,000/ - IN RESPECT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT SHOWN IN THE CASH RECEIPTS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S KRISHNA STORE AND THE AMOUNT ENTERED IN ASSESSEE S CASH BOOK. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT WOULD RAISE DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL FOR AMENDING, DELETING, MODIFYING OR ADDING AND OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 64,676/ - ON 27.02.1991. LATER ON, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALE OF DRY FRUITS TO THE TUNE OF RS . 4,70,21,476/ - . OUT OF WHICH S ALE OF RS. 4,70,04,650/ - WAS ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 4 MADE IN CASH TO THREE PARTIES NAMELY, M/S KRISHNA STORES, M/S PILCO SYSTEMS AND M/S SATISH SALES AGENCIES . THE AO CONDUCTED THE ENQUIRY AND FOUND THAT THE AFORESAID PARTIES WERE NOT TRACEABLE AT T HE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE PROCEEDS OF CASH SALES HAD BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE IMMEDIATELY BEFORE ISSUING ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OF MORE OR LESS EQUIVALENT AMOUNT TO HIS SUPPLIERS , FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE PURCHA SED THE GOODS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT IT WAS QUITE IMPROBABLE THAT ANY PARTY LOCATED AT DELHI WOULD BUY GOODS WORTH SEVERAL CRORES IN CASH INFRINGING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) . ACCORDIN G TO THE AO THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WAS ACTING AS A CONDUIT FOR LAUNDERING OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF THE SUPPLIERS AND THERE WAS NO ACTUAL PURCHASE OR SALES AND THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE REPRESENTE D THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY OF SUPPLIERS WHO HAD CONCERTED THE SAME INTO ACCOUNTED MONEY WITH THE HELP OF THE ASSESSEE BY FIRST DEPOSITING THE CASH IN HIS ACCOUNT AND THEN GETTING BACK THE MONEY THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AS SALE PROCEEDS OF THEIR GOODS. TH E AO POINTED OUT THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THIS CASE ON 29.11.1988. THE AO MENTIONED CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 5 ORDER DATED 28.02.1992 (FOR THE COST OF REPETITION T HESE ARE NOT REPRODUCED HEREIN ) . THE AO WA S OF THE VIEW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPICT ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS AND WERE JUST A CAMOUFLAGE TO DISGUST THE ACTUAL NATURE OF TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SUPPLIERS. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO ACTUAL PURCHASE AND SALE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAD ONLY PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE SUPPLIERS IN THE CONVERSION OF UNACCOUNTED CASH INTO ACCOUNTED MONEY BY THEM. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TOTAL CASH OF RS. 3,99,97,585/ - WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IN LIEU OF WHICH CHEQUES HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE SUPPLIERS. THE AO IN VOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 14 5 OF THE ACT AND REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , HE ESTIMATED TH E INCOME @ 1.25% ON THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 3,99,97,585/ - WHICH W AS WORKED OUT OF RS. 4,99,969/ - . THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT THE CASH RECEIPTS SEIZED AND INVENTORIES A T ANNEXURE - A - 5 PAGE 64 INDICATED RECEIPTS OF RS. 4,00,000/ - ON 10.11.1988 WHEREAS IN THE CASH BOOK AND LEDGER ONLY RS. 40,000/ - HAD BEEN SHOWN AS RECEIPTS FRO M M/S KRISHNA STORES AND THAT THE ANOTHER CASH RE CEIPTS AT PAGE NO. 168 INDICATED RECEIPTS OF RS. 5,00,000/ - ON 16.11.1988 AS AGAINST RS. 5,50,000/ - . THE AO HELD THAT IF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO RECEIPTS WERE ADJUSTED THE NET DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,10,000/ - (RS. ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 6 3,60,000/ - - RS. 50,000/ - ) REMAINED FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION , THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SU CCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR S SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO WHICH HAD BEEN DELETED BY THE THAN CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 03.03.1994 AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2001 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 AND ORDER DATED 14.09.2001 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO WARRANT FOR ESTIMATING THE ASSESSEE S INCOME BY APPLICATION OF 1.25% RATE TO THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO ORDERS OF THE ITAT AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO ACCEPT THE ASSESSEE S BOOK RESULTS FOR THIS YEAR AS WELL. AS REGARDS TO THE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 3,10,000/ - , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE CASH AMOUNTS RECEIVED WERE WRONGLY SCRIBED IN THE RECEIPT BOOK DUE TO CLERICAL MISTAKE WHICH WAS VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGURES SHOWN IN THE PRIMARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I.E. THE CASH BOOK AND LEDGER WERE ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 7 CORRECT AND THAT THE ASSESSEE S BANK STATEMENT ALSO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE CORRECT AMOUNT S RECEIVED FROM THE BUYER M/S KRISHNA STORES WERE AT RS. 40,000/ - AND RS. 5,50,000/ - WHICH HAD BEEN DULY DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS M/S KRISHNA STORES WERE REGISTERED WITH THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF DELHI SALES TAX ACT, 1975, IF ONE REGISTERED DEALER SELLS GOODS TO ANOTHER REGISTERED DEALER, THE PURCHASING DEALER HAS TO BE GIVEN A DECLARATION IN FORM NO. ST - 35 AGAINST ALL SUCH PURCHASES. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT HAD DULY ISSUED ITS VERIFICATION REPORT OF ST - 35 FORMS ISSUED BY M/S KRISHNA STORES , GIVING DETAILS OF THE BILL NUMBERS AND THE AMOUNTS OF RESPECTIVE BILLS, THUS, CONFIRMING THE CORRECT AMOUNTS WHICH WERE INVOLVED IN THE TWO TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENTLY PROVED THAT THE AMOUNTS IN RESPECT OF THE TWO TRANSACTION S WERE WRON GLY ENTERED IN THE RECEIPT BOOK AND THAT THE CORRECT FIGURES WERE INCORPORATED IN THE MORE RELIABLE PRIMARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I.E. THE CASH BOOK AND LEDGER. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE VERY SUMS SHOWN IN THE PRIMARY BOOK WERE, IN FACT, DEPOSITE D IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 8 REFERRED TO THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS AND DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION: CIT VS BHARAT GENERAL INSURANCE CO. LTD. (1970) 81 ITR 303 (DEL) SATINDER KUMAR (HUF) VS CIT (1977) 106 ITR 64 (HP) NTPC VS CIT (1 998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) 6 . NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. DR REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE AO AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 7 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND IN THE SUBSEQUENT YE AR SIMILAR TYP E OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND LATER ON, THE ITAT CONFIRM ED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL THE DEPARTMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2001 AND 14.09.2001 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1990 - 91 AND 1991 - 92 RESPECTIVELY ( COPIES OF THE SAID ORDERS WERE FURNISHED WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NOS. 31 - 32 AND 41 - 42 RESPECTIVELY O F THE ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK) . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO DID NOT POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC EFFECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 9 ARBITRARILY APPLIED THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 1.25% AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 8 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN THE PR ESENT CASE , IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEF ECT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. IT IS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE SALES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS VIS - - VIS ACCEPTED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHO RITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO WHILE APPLYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF 1.25% HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC CASE WHEREIN SIMILAR NET PROFIT RATE HAS BEEN SHOWN BY ANY COMPARABLE CASE. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1990 - 91 AND 1991 - 92 SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WERE DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER ON THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA NO. 3471/DEL/1994 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990 - 91 AND ITA NO. 6063/DEL/1994 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991 - 92, T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE SIMILAR ADDITIONS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE ITAT VIDE ORDERS DATED 12.10.2001 AND 14.09.2001 RESPECTIVELY. WE, THEREFORE, CONSID ERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND ARE OF THE ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 10 VIEW THAT THE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE ON THE TURNOVER OF RS. 3,99,97,585/ - DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY MODIFICATION ON OUR PART . AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF APPLICATION OF NET PROFIT RATE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT COMPARABLE WITH THE PROFIT RATE DECLARED FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS WHICH HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ITAT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. AS REGA RDS, TO THE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 3,10,000/ - IS CONCERNED. IT APPEARS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) VERIFIED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED IN THE PRIMARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I.E. CASH BOOK AND IN THE BANK STATEMENT WAS THE SAME BUT THOSE WERE WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE RECEIPTS BOOK. THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,10,000/ - AFTER PROPER VERIFICATION ON THE BASIS OF VERIFICATION REPORT OF ST - 35 FORMS ISSUED BY M/S KRISHNA STORES GIVING DETAIL S OF THE BILL NUMBERS AND THE AMOUNTS OF RESPECTIVE BILLS WHICH CONFIRMED THAT THE CORRECT AMOUNTS INVOLVED IN THE TWO TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED IN THE PRIMARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS I.E. CASH BOOK & LEDGER. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NOS. 1284 /DEL / 1999 & 37/DEL/2004 MAHESH CHAND SHARMA 11 IN ITA NO. 1284/DEL/1999 9 . THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE DEPARTMENT RELATES TO THE DELETION OF PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF TRADING ADDITION. SINCE IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA NO. 37/DEL/2004, WE HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE QUANTUM ADDITION. THE SAID ADDITIONS WERE THE ONLY BASIS FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND AS THE ADDITIONS HAS BEEN DELETED, THERE REMAINS NO BASIS FOR LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. A CCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT I N THIS A PPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND UPH O LD THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 10 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEAL S OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED. ( ORDER PRON OUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15 /0 5 /2015 ) SD/ - SD/ - (I. C. SUDHIR ) (N. K. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 15 /05 /2015 *SUBODH* COPY FO RWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR