S. Fateh Singh, Sirhind V. DCIT, Mandi Gobindgarh

ITA 133/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7055 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Depreciation
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 132/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 SH. KESAR SINGH SIRHIND. VS. THE DCIT C/O M/S PATIALA BUS SERVICE (P)LTD. CIRCLE SIRHIND MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN: AGFPS2791B ITA NO. 133/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 SH. FATEH SINGH VS. THE DCIT C/O M/S PATIALA BUS SERVICE (P)LTD. CIRCLE SIRHIND MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN: AGFPS2788G ITA NO. 134/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 SH. HARJIT SINGH VS. THE DCIT C/O M/S PATIALA BUS SERVICE (P)LTD. CIRCLE SIRHIND MANDI GOBINDGARH PAN: AGFPS2790A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE (ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILE D) RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING 11.9.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15.9.2014 ORDER PER T.R. SOOD, A.M. THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSES AND ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2010 OF LD. CIT(A), PATIALA. 2 ITA NO. 132/CHD/2011 KESAR SINGH 2 IN THIS GROUP OF APPEALS AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATI ON HAS BEEN MOVED. THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE OBJECTED TO THE ADJOURNMENT AND POINTED OUT THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL RECENTLY IN CASE OF THESE ASSESSES IN ITAS NO. 931 & 932/CHD/2011, 933 & 934/CHD/2011 AND 935 & 936/CHD/2011 IN THE CASE OF S/SHRI FATEH SINGH, HARJIT SINGH AND KESAR SINGH. IN VIEW OF HIS STATEMENT THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT WAS FELT THAT THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL AND COVERED BY THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL. 3 THE LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 4 IN THIS CASE ALSO AS OBSERVED IN ITAS NO. 931 & 9 32/CHD/2011 THE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL. IN THIS CONNECTION IT WAS OBSERVED IN EAR LIER APPEALS AS UNDER: WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND THEREFORE HE SHOULD SPECIFY WHICH PARTICULAR GR OUND HE WOULD LIKE TO PRESS, IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE GROUNDS WERE GENERAL IN NATURE AND HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THE ISSUES OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT (NO GROUND IS TAKEN UP FOR THIS ISSUE) AND EVEN REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT BEING PRESSED. ONLY ISSUE PRESSED WAS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF RECEIPTS OF TRUCK . 5 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. D.R FOR THE REVENUE AND THE RELEVAN MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DECLARED GROSS INCOME FROM 53 TRUCKS AT RS. 23,40,000 WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDER: I RS. 10,50,000 FROM 42 TRUCKS @ 25,000 PER TRUCK II RS. 8,80,000 FROM 8 TRUCKS @ 1,10,000 PER TRUCK III RS. 2,60,000 FROM 2 TRUCKS @ 1,30,000 PER TRUC K IV RS. 1,50,000 FROM 1 TRUCK @ 1,50,000 PER TRUCK RS. 23,40,000 FROM 53 TRUCKS OUT OF THESE TOTAL RECEIPTS, NET INCOME FROM 53 TRU CKS HAS BEEN DECLARED AT 5,57,663 AFTER DEDUCTING THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES: GROSS RECEIPTS RS. 23,40,000 LESS (I) DEPRECIATION RS. 13,61,547 (II) HIRE CHARGES RS. 3,88,390 3 (III) INTEREST ON LOAN RS. 32,400 RS. 17,82,337 RS. 5,57,663 IN ADDITION TO ABOVE IN THIS YEAR ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 8 LAKHS WHICH WAS THE SURRENDERED INCOME BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THE APPLICATION COULD NOT BE PROCESSED BECAUSE OF THE C HANGES IN LAW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEGREGATED THIS INCOME INTO VARIOUS RECEIPT S AND HELD THAT RS. 7 LAKHS PERTAINS TO TRUCK INCOME. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION TRUCK RECEIPTS WAS RS. 1,13,193 IN EARLI ER YEARS AND AFTER GIVING REBATE FOR OLDER TRUCKS THE RECEIPTS WERE ESTIMATED AT RS. 79, 235 AND THE GROSS RECEIPTS WERE WORKED OUT AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE GROSS RECEIPT S FROM 53 TRUCKS WOULD BE AS UNDER: (I) RS. 33,27,870 FROM 42 TRUCKS @ 79,235 PER TRUCK (II) RS. 8,80,000 FROM 8 TRUCKS @ 1,10,000 PER TRUC K SHOWN BY A (III) RS. 2,60,000 FROM 2 TRUCKS @ 1,30,000 PER TRU CK SHOWN BY A (IV) RS. 1,50,000 FROM 1 TRUCK @ 1,50,000 PER TRUCK SHOWN BY A RS. 46,17,870 FROM 53 TRUCKS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, HIRE CHARGES AND INTEREST ON LOAN AT RS. 17,82,337 AS PER DETAIL GIVEN BELOW: LESS: (I) DEPRECIATION RS. 13,61,547 (II) HIRE CHARGES RS. 3,88,390 (III) INTEREST ON LOAN RS. 32,400 RS. 17,82,337 9 ON APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) ESTIMATED RECEIPTS @ RS . 60,000 PER TRUCK IN RESPECT OF 42 TRUCKS AND RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF OTHER TRUCKS HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. 10 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ADJUDICATED IN THE EARLIER APPEALS VIDE PARA 14 TO 17 WHICH ARE UNDER: 14 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WHATEVER BO OKS WERE PREPARED, WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS . WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 55 TRUCKS AND ALL FAMILY MEMBERS TOGETHER AR E OWNING ABOUT 200 TRUCKS THEN WHAT IS 4 PREVENTING THE ASSESSEE FOR MAINTAINING PROPER BOOK S OF ACCOUNT. ONLY CONCLUSION WHICH WE CAN ARRIVED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS TRYING TO GET AWAY WITH SOME ESTIMATION. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE WHICH DEALS WITH PRESUMPTIVE PROFIT HAVE BEEN INSERTED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SMALL ASSESSES WHO ARE OWNING LESS THAN 10 TRUCKS AND THEREFORE NA TURALLY THE BENEFIT OF THESE PROVISIONS CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FURTHER INTERES TING TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FILING APPLICATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION REGULA RLY FOR VARIOUS YEARS AND IT TRANSPIRED DURING THE HEARING THAT SUCH APPLICATIONS WERE FILED EVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2005-06. CERTAIN SURRENDERS WERE MADE AND ULTIMATELY SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION ASSESSED THE RECEIPTS AT RS. 113193 VIDE ORDER DATED 2.9.2002 FOR EARLIER YE AR. HOWEVER, APPLICATION FOR THE PRESENT YEAR WAS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE OF SOME AMENDMENTS IN THE L AW AND THEREFORE ASSESSEE HAS ITSELF DECLARED A SUM OF RS. 8 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. 15 IN THE BACKGROUND OF ABOVE HISTORY OF THE CASE W E HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA IN CASE OF CIT V HARJIT SINGH, ITA NO. 703 OF 2009 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.1.2010 (COPY OF WHICH HA BEEN FILED AT PAGE 76 TO 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK). FOLLOWING FACTS HAVE BEEN NOTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT PAGE 2 & 3 OF THE ORDER: THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN IN RESPECT OF AS SESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. ON SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 16.1.2004 BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE-RESPONDENT WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 87655/- BY MAKING THE ORDER DATED 2.9.2002 PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-04 TO 1995-96. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ALLOWED DEPRECIATION , HIRE CHARGES AND INTEREST OUT OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND VID E HIS ORDER DATED 1.11.2004, HE ESTIMATED THE INCOME PER TRUCK AT RS. 22,000. FEELING AGGRIE VED, THE REVENUE FILED FURTHER APPEAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.3.2006, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RESTORED THE ISSUE ON THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. ON REMAND, THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 20.3.2008 ASSESSED THE INCOME PER TRUCK AT RS. 45,000. BOTH ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.3.2008. THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED BOTH THE S ETS OF APPEALS BY OBSERVING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE CANNOT BE ANY C UT AND DRY FORMULA TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME PER TRUCK. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) WAS UPHELD. FROM ABOVE IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) VID E ORDER DATED 20.3.2008 ASSESSED THE INCOME PER TRUCK AT RS. 45,000. THEREFORE THERE I S NO FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL ASSESSED THE INC OME AT RS. 22,000 PER TRUCK WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT ALSO. HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH THE CASE WHERE THE INCOME HAD BEEN ASSESSED AT RS. 45,000 PE R TRUCK. THOUGH THIS IS ONLY THE CASE WHICH WENT TO HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND IT PERTAINS TO SHRI HARJIT SINGH WHO IS THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THIS FACT WAS POINTED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HE ADMITTED THAT NO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HON'B LE HIGH COURT . THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AT P AGE 4 & 5 WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AND FURTHER THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY BIFURCATION OF HEAD WISE RECEIPTS AS DECLARED BEFOR E THE HONBLE COMMISSIONS IT WOULD BE FAIR IF THE RECEIPTS ARE TAKEN AT RS. 45,000/- EACH IN RESP ECT OF 50 TRUCKS. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF 2 TRUCKS THE RECEIPTS ARE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSE LF AT RS. 1,50,000/- EACH. THUS THE TOTAL RECEIPTS WOULD WORKOUT TO RS. 25,50,000/- I.E. {45, 000 X 50) + (1,50,000 X 2 ). HOWEVER DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST INCLUDING HIRE CHARGES HA VE TO BE ALLOWED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE TOTAL RECEIPTS ACCORDINGLY. 11. IT MAY BE SUBMITTED THAT TWO OTHER FAMILY MEMBE RS OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY S/SH. KESAR SINGH AND FATEH SINGH WERE ALSO IN THE SAME BUSINES S I.E. THE BUSINESS OF PLYING OF TRUCKS / TRANSPORTATION. THE AVERAGE RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF 42 TRUCKS IN THE CASE OF SH. KESAR SINGH AND 34 TRUCK IN THE NAME OF SH. FATEH SINGH HAS BEEN ADOPT ED @ 55,000/- EACH. HOWEVER FROM THE FIGURE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIMED BY THESE TWO PERSONS (RS. 13,29,244/- IN THE CASE OF KESAR SINGH & RS. 6,90,825/- IN THE CASE OF FATEH SINGH) IT APPEA RS THAT THE TRUCKS OWNED BY THESE TWO FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRUCKS OWNED BY TH ESE TWO FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE COMPARATIVELY OF LOWER AGE AS IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS. 3,99,240/- IN RESPECT OF TOTAL 52 TRUCKS. THIS SHOWS THAT THE VEHICLES OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE OLD AS COMPARED TO THE VEHICLES O WNED BY THE OTHER TWO FAMILY MEMBERS OF 5 THE ASSESSEE NAMED ABOVE. AND THIS IS A BASIS CONSI DERED FOR ADOPTING THE AVERAGE TRUCK RECEIPTS @ RS. 45,000/- PER TRUCK IN RESPECT OF 50 TRUCK IN THE PRESENT CASE. 16 ULTIMATELY HON'BLE HIGH COURT ADJUDICATED THE I SSUE AS UNDER: THE ONLY ARGUMENT RAISED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E REVENUE IS THAT THE RATE OF INCOME PER TRUCK WORKED OUT BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE THE BASIS AS WAS DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AFORESAID ARGUMENT OVERLOOK THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE USED TO DECLARE ADDITIONAL INCOME FROM ALL OTHER SOURCES APART FROM INCOME FROM MAIN SOURCE I.E. PLYING OF TRUCKS. IN THAT REGARD, REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CIT( A) TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOWS THAT INCOME FROM THREE OTHER SOURCES AL SO USED TO BE CLAIMED NAMELY INCOME FROM CONSULTATION SERVICES TO THE OTHER TRANSPORTERS / T RUCK OWNERS, INCOME FROM OTHER TRANSPORTERS FOR THE HELP RENDERED TO PROCURE ROUTE PERMITS AND INCO ME FROM THE HELP RENDERED TO OTHER TRANSPORTERS FOR RUNNING TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. I T WAS ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID FACTORS THAT THE TOTAL INCOME WORKED OUT BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMI SSION WAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND, THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DE VOID OF MERIT. IN A CASE OF THIS NATURE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY LEGAL FORMULA FOR WORKING OUT THE INC OME AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN CORRECT VIEW BY ADOPTING THE OPINION EXPRESSED BY THE CIT(A). FROM ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS CONFIRMED THE INCOME OF PER TRUCK AT RS. 45,000 PER YEAR. THIS ORDER PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHEREAS THE APPEALS BEFORE US ARE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2005-06. I T WAS POINTED OUT THAT NO DISPUTE AROSE IN THE INTERVENING YEAR BECAUSE RETURN FILED BY THE AS SESSEE WERE PROCESSED U/S 143(1) WITHOUT ANY SCRUTINY. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION, IF THE INCOME OF RS. 55,000 PER TRUCK IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND RS. 60,000 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS ESTIMATED THEN IT WOULD BE REASONABLE AND THE SAME WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. 17 AS FAR AS THE ISSUE REGARDING SURRENDERED INCOME IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERY FAIRLY ESTIMATED AND BIFURCATED THE RECEIP TS FROM TRUCKS AND RECEIPTS ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER YEARS LIKE PROVISION OF FINANCIAL HELP, ROUTE PERMI T ETC. AS MENTIONED IN PARA 12 OF HIS ORDER. HE HAS ESTIMATED ONLY RS. 1 LAKH FROM OTHER RECEIPTS A ND RS. 7 LAKHS FROM TRUCK RECEIPTS WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM ESTIMATED RECEIPTS. IN OUR OPINIO N WHEN SURRENDERED INCOME HAS BEEN SEPARATELY ADDED THEN RELIEF FOR WHOLE OF RS. 8 LAK HS SHOULD BE GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO ESTIMATE THE RECEIPTS AS DIRECTED BY US IN PARA 16 OF THIS ORDER IN RESPECT OF 42 TRUCKS. HE SHOULD ALSO REDUCE THE RECEIPTS BY RS. 8 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SURRENDERED INCOME INSTEAD OF RS. 7 LAKHS WHICH HE HAS REDUCED. AS FAR AS RECEIPTS FROM OTHER TRUCKS ARE CONCERNED, NO INTERF ERENCE IS REQUIRED BECAUSE SAME WAS RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH. 11 FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER, IN OUR OPINION, THAT THE INCOME FROM 42 TRUCKS SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT RS. 50,000 PER TRUCK BECAUSE THE SA ME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS. 55,000 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 BY US IN EARLIER APPEALS A ND NOW THE TRUCKS HAVE BECOME OLDER. IN RESPECT OF OTHER TRUCKS THE INCOME DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE APPLIED. FURTHER ON ACCOUNT OF SURRENDERED INCOME AS OBSERVED IN EARLIER YEARS THERE IS NO NEED TO BIFURCATE THE RECEIPTS BECAUSE SURREN DERED AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED SEPARATELY. THEREFORE TOTAL SUM OF RS. 8 LAKHS SHO ULD BE REDUCED FROM GROSS RECEIPTS AND NET INCOME SHOULD BE CHARGED TO TAX. 6 12 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 132/CHD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 133/CHD/2011 FATEH SINGH 13 IN THIS CASE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT S OF ITA NO. 132/CHD/2011 IN CASE OF KESAR SINGH, THEREFORE FOLLOWING THAT ORDER WE ESTI MATE THE INCOME FROM 34 TRUCKS AT RS. 50,000 PER TRUCK. INCOME FROM OTHER TRUCKS DOE S NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF RETURNED MORE RECE IPTS BECAUSE THE TRUCKS ARE NEW. FURTHER FULL RELIEF OF RS. 8 LAKH SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN RESPECT OF SURRENDERED INCOME OUT THESE GROSS RECEIPTS BECAUSE SEPARATE ADDITION FOR RS. 8 LAKHS IS ALREADY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 14 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 133/CHD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 134/CHD/2011 HARJIT SINGH 15 IN THIS CASE THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACT S OF ITA NO. 132/CHD/2011 IN CASE OF KESAR SINGH. HERE ALSO INCOME FROM 36 TRUCKS AND 1 4 TRUCKS IS ESTIMATED AT RS. 50,000 PER TRUCK AND NO INTERFERENCE IS REQUIRED IN RESPEC T OF OTHER TRUCKS AS THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED MORE INCOME. HERE ALSO FULL RELIEF OF RS. 10 LAKHS SHOULD BE ALLOWED FROM GROSS RECEIPTS BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AL READY SEPARATELY ASSESSED THE SAME AT RS. 10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SURRENDERED IN COME. 16 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IN ITA NO. 133/CHD/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 17 IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.9.2014 SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 15.9.2014 SURESH COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/ THE RESPONDENT/ THE CIT/ TH E CIT (A)/ THE DR 7