ITO, Malerkotla V. Sh. Gagandeep Bhardwaj, Malerkotla

ITA 1355/CHANDI/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 135521514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2012
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: TEJ MOHAN SINGH
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 131; 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BEN CH A BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, V.P. AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, AM ITA NO. 155/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 I.T.O. IV(3), MALERKOTLA V. GAGANDEEP BHARDWAJ S/O SHRI MADAN LAL GURU NANAK COLONY OPP GOVT COLLEGE, MALERKOTLA ITA NO. 1355/CHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 I.T.O. IV(3), MALERKOTLA V. GAGANDEEP BHARDWAJ S/O SHRI MADAN LAL GURU NANAK COLONY OPP GOVT COLLEGE, MALERKOTLA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K. SAINI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 6.3. 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 .04.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2004-05 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARA TE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 5.11.2009 AND DATED 17.9 .2010 U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT (IN SHORT THE ACT). ITA NO. 155/CHD/2010 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,09,080/- MADE BY TH E AO BY TREATING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AS BUSINESS INCOME. 2 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30,00,000/- MADE ON AC COUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUISITION OF LAND AT GILL ROAD, LUDHIANA WHICH WAS HELD TO BE MADE OUT OF ASS ESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE IT IS FINALLY DISPOSED OFF. 3. GROUND NO. 4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO S EPARATE ADJUDICATION. HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 4. THE REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 1 CONTENDED THAT THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,09,080/- MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPIT AL GAINS AS BUSINESS INCOME. 5. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. 'DR', FOR THE REVENUE EXTENSIVELY REFERRED TO RELEVANT PART OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO CONTAINED THER EIN. THE LD 'AR', FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE LD 'AR', FOR THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER, PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION(S) IN THE CASE OF INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD V. CIT, 195 ITR 386; CIT V. SMT. BILKISHBAI, 225 ITR 570; CIT V. SU SHILA DEVI JAIN, 259 ITR 671 AND JINDAL STRIPS LTD. V. ITO, 116 ITR 825 (P&H)(FULL BENCH). BOTH THE LD. 'DR', FOR THE REVENUE AND THE LD 'AR', FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF ITA NO. 155/CHD/2010 BE CONSIDERED, IN RESPECT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1355/CHD/2010. THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN THE ISSUES AND GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE SIMILAR IN N ATURE AND CONTENTS. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASE, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK AND CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE 3 CONTENDING PARTIES. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO AS RECO RDED IN PARA 4 TO 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 4 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A STATEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 30.10.2008 IN WHICH HE WAS ASKED TO STATE SINCE WHEN HE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF P URCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. HE REPLIED THAT HE IS DOING THIS BUSINESS SINCE 2005-06 AY. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT HE DELIBERATELY MADE A WRONG STATEMENT ON THIS ACCOUNT BECAUSE IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT HE HAS BEEN MAKING HUGE INVESTMENTS IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES SINCE THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1995-96. IN HIS STATEMENT HE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO GIVE DETAILS OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES HELD BY HIM AS ON 31.3.2006 TO WHICH HE REPLIED THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN A T THIS STAGE. FURTHER, HE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COMPLETE PARTICULA RS OFO THE PROPERTIES SOLD BY HIM DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2 004-05 ON WHICH CAPITAL GAIN HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE WILL GIVE C OMPLETE DETAILS ON 3 RD OF NO., 2008 WHICH WAS THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING BU T TILL DATE NO SUCH INFORMATION HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COMPUTATION STATEMENT FILED WITH THE RETURN HE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES OF RS. 4.00 LAKHS AND RS. 5.00 LAKHS ON AC COUNT OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO PLOTS DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 1996-97. AGAIN THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO EXPLA IN THE SOURCE OF THE EXPENSES AND STATED THAT HE WILL GIVE THE DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON 3.11.2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTIES DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEARS 1995-96 AND 1996-97 AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE LAND CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MA DE IN THE YEAR 1996-97. IN HIS STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS CL EARLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF AC COUNT IN RESPECT OF HIS BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO STA TE IF HE HAD GOT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE EXPENSES HAVI NG BEEN ACTUALLY INCURRED ON THE ABOVE TWO PLOTS OF LAND TO WHICH HE REPLIED IN NEGATIVE. IN THE COPY OF HIS PERSONAL A CCOUNT FILED DURING INVESTIGATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A LUMP SUM WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS FOR THE MARRIAGE OF H IS SISTER WHICH WAS SOLEMNIZED SOMETIMES IN FEB., 2005, BUT HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS OF THE MARRIAGE EXPENSE S OR THE MANNER IN WHICH THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS WAS S PENT OR OTHERWISE UTILIZED. IN PARA 3 OF HIS LETTER DATED 22.12.2008 HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAD ONLY CONTRIBUTED A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS FOR THE MARRIAGE OF HIS SISTER. AS REGARDS T HE DETAILS OF MARRIAGE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HIS PARENTS ONLY KNOW ABOUT IT. AS REGARDS THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RELATION TO THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON THE TWO PLOTS PURCHASED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1995-96 AND 1996-97 AND DISPOSED OF DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, IN PARA 8 OF HIS LETTER D ATED 2/8.12.2008 THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AS UNDER: REGARDING THE EXPENDITURE ON DEVELOPMENT OF TWO PROPERTIES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS RESPECTFU LLY SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS INCURRED IN THE FINANCI AL YEAR 4 1996-97 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AS MENTIONED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME ENCLOSED WIT H THE RETURN AND IS ON ACCOUNT OF LAND LEVELING AND BOUND ARY WALLS ETC. FOR FETCHING MORE CONSIDERATION, FOR WHI CH NO QUERY CAN BE PUT AS THE MATTER HAS BECOME BARRIED B Y LIMITATION. 5. AS REGARDS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE EX PENDITURE ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO PLOTS WAS INCURRED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97 RELEVANT TO AY 1997-98 IT STAND CLEARLY NEG ATIVED FROM HIS OWN BALANCE-SHEETS AND PERSONAL ACCOUNTS FOR TH E ACCOUNTING YEARS ENDING 31.3.2004 AND 31.3.2005 FILED DURING I NVESTIGATION AS PURCHASE PRICE ONLY OF THOSE TWO PLOTS HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE-SHEETS. AS REGARDS THE BUSINESS PROFIT FOR THE ACCOUNTING YEAR ENDING 31.3.2005, THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED THE ENTIRE PROFIT ON THE SALE OF THESE PROPERTIES AS RE DUCED BY THE ORIGINAL PURCHASE PRICE FROM THEIR SALE VALUE. IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ANY DEVELOPMENT OF THESE PLOTS OF LAND BY MAKING ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 9.00 LAKHS, WHI CH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE ORIGINAL COST OF THESE PROPERTIES, TH E SAME SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2004 AND FURTHER REDUCED FROM THE PROFIT, WHILE CREDITIN G IT TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDING AS ON 31.3.2005. EVE N THOUGH, THE BALANCE SHEETS HAVE BEEN DRAWN IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED, BUT IN THE CASE THE DEVELOPMENT HAD ACTUALLY BEEN MADE THERE IS NO REASON WHY IT SHOULD NOT HAVE APPEARED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2004. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TWO PROPERTIES WHICH COMPRIS ED OF VACANT PLOTS ONLY, IS ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND HEN CE NOT ACCEPTED. IT IS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT MADE ANY DEVELOPMENT AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ONLY AND HE IS NOT A D EVELOPER OR BUILDER AND THEREFORE, THE CLAIM ON THIS ACCOUNT IS ABSOLUTELY BASELESS AND, BY NO MEANS, ACCEPTABLE. 6. IN THE NOTICE U/S 143(3) ISSUED BY THIS OFFICE O N 19.11.2008 IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE PROFIT ARISING ON THE SALE OF DIFFERENT IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES DECLARED IN THE RETURN BE NOT ASSESSED AS BUSINESS PROFIT SINCE HE HAD BEEN REGULARLY DEALING IN THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. IN REPL Y TO THIS QUERY, IN PARA 3 OF HIS LETTER DATED 8.12.2008 THE ASSESSEE HAS STATE THAT HE IS NOT REGULARLY ENGAGED IN THE PURCH ASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT SI NCE MOST OF THE LANDS WHICH HE HAD PURCHASED LONG BACK WERE NOT YIE LDING SUITABLE RETURNS IT WAS DECIDED TO BE SOLD IN PIECE MEALS AFTER MAKING IMPROVEMENTS BY EARMARKING PLOTS BUT NONETHE LESS IT WOULD REMAIN A CAPITAL ASSET AND NOT A TRANSACTION OF ANY STOCK IN TRADE. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT T HAT IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES COMPRISING OF COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL PLOTS NEVER YIELD ANNUAL RETURNS AND THE PROFIT FROM THESE PROP ERTIES ARISES ONLY AS AND WHEN THE SAME ARE DISPOSED OF. THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT ADMITTEDLY MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN R ESPECT OF HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IT CAN NOT BE ASCERTAINED AS TO AT WHAT POINT OF TIME HE HAD 5 CONVERTED HIS CAPITAL ASSETS INTO STOCK IN TRADE. IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I HAVE TO GO B Y THE FACTS ON RECORD RELATING TO THE FREQUENCY OF THE TRANSACTION S OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES TO DETERMINE THE NATURE OF BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, WHETHER CAPITAL ASSET OR STO CK IN TRADE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE H AD FIELD BEFORE ME A STATEMENT OF CASH-FLOW FOR THE ACCOUNTI NG YEAR 2004- 05 RELEVANT TO AY 2005-06 IN WHICH THE RECEIPT OF C ASH IN RESPECT OF 16 TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF LAND HAVE BEEN SHOWN. THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED TO HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS ON 31.3.2004 A SUM OF RS. 13,87,872/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON THE SALE OF LAND AT QILA REHMATGARH FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 17,06,400/- WHICH WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 3,18,528/-. INTERESTINGLY, THIS PROPERTY HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AS ON 31.3.2 003 FILED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FIELD PHOTO COPIES OF VARI OUS SALE DEEDS EXECUTED BY HIM FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN DIFFERENT YEARS STARTING FROM THE ACC OUNTING YEAR 2000-01 WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS B EEN CARRYING ON THIS BUSINESS FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS IN THE PAST AND, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THERE IS NO REASON WHY THE P ROFIT ARISING ON THE SALE OF THESE PROPERTIES BE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF PROFESSION. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE PROFIT ON TH E SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IS ASSESSED TO TAX UNDER THE H EAD BUSINESS PROFIT AND THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WITH REG ARD TO THE EXPENDITURE ON DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND IS REJECTED AS IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE INCLUDING HIS BALANCE SHEETS AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS FOR THE ACCOUNTING YEAR S ENDING 31.3.2004 AND 31.3.2005 FILED DURING INVESTIGATION BY THE DEPARTMENT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) FOR CONCEALMENT/FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAVE ALREADY BEEN INITIATED. 7. IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS TO REPRODUC E THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WITH A VIEW TO APPRECIATING THE SAM E, IN THE CONTEXT OF FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE AO: 8 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF T HE LD. COUNSEL AND THE AO AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE PROFITS ARISING FROM THE SALE OF PROPERTIES TO THE APPELLANT WAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINE SS OR PROFESSION TAKING INTO ACCOUNT MAINLY THE FACT THA T DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD ITSELF THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN 16 T RANSACTIONS OF SALE OF LAND. HOWEVER, AS EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL THE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS CAME TO BE HIGH BECAUSE THE SAME LAND WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT IN PARTS TO A NUMBER OF PERSONS. IT IS EXPLAINED BY THE LD. COUN SEL THAT IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED 16 PIE CES OF LAND BY EXECUTING SEPARATE DEEDS AND SOLD THE SAME AGAIN TO 16 PERSONS. THE LAND PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN ON E TRANSACTION IN THE YEAR 1995 IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD IN SM ALL PARTS TO DIFFERENT PERSONS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I AGREE WI TH THE LD. 6 COUNSEL THAT JUST BECAUSE THERE HAPPENED TO BE 16 T RANSACTIONS OF SALE OF LAND THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE CONSIDER ED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF PR OPERTIES. 8.1 AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL IN TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALSO, AS PER SETTLED POSITION OF LAW BY NOW THAT FOR DECIDING AS TO WHETHER SUCH SALE TRANSACTION IS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS OF AN ASSESSEE OR SIMPLY SALE OF A CAPITAL ASSET ATTRACTING CAPITAL GAINS, THE INTENTION OF THE ASSE SSEE AT THE TIME OF PURCHASING THE LAND IN QUESTION IS PARAMOUNT. T HE AO HAS NOT DISCUSSED AS TO WHETHER THE INTENTION OF THE APPELL ANT AT THE TIME OF PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY COULD BE SAID TO BE FOR DEALING IN THIS PROPERTY AS BUSINESS OR NOT. RATHER THE AO HAS MEN TIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS THE APPELLANT HAD NOT MAIN TAINED ANY BOOKS IT COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED AS TO AT WHAT POI NT OF TIME HE HAD CONVERTED HIS CAPITAL ASSETS INTO STOCK IN TRAD E. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RATHER HIMSELF OBSERVED THAT THE CAPITAL ASSETS OF THE APPELLANT WAS OTHERWISE PURCHASED AS CAPITAL ASSETS AND NOT AS STOCK IN TRADE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED ABOVE THAT TH E LAND WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR 1995 AS CAPI TAL ASSETS ONLY. THE LAND WAS RATHER PURCHASED AS AGRICULTURA L LAND AND SOLD AFTER GAP OF 9 YEARS. I AGREE WITH THE LD. CO UNSEL THAT THE VERY FACT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD AFTER SUCH A LONG GAP OF 9 YEARS WOULD INDICATE THAT IT WAS NOT PURCHASED AS STOCK IN TRADE WHICH IS GENERALLY NO HELD FOR SUCH LONG PERI ODS. IT IS FURTHER EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THAT T HE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THIS LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND TH AT RATHER AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE SAME WAS DULY DISCLOSE D IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS BETWEEN RS. 50,000/- TO RS . 80,000/- PER ANNUM. COPIES OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED B Y THE APPELLANT FOR FEW OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS INCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 WERE ALSO FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL. IN THESE COMPUTATIONS THE APPELLA NT HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 50,000/-, RS. 50,000/- A ND RS. 80,000/- RESPECTIVELY. FURTHER IN THE STATEMENT OF THE APPE LLANT RECORDED BY THE AO., AS ALSO EXPLAINED IN THE WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT HE WAS DOING THIS BUSINES S SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION S IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED THIS LAND IN THE YEAR 1995 WITH THE INTENTION TO HOLD IT AS A CAPITAL ASSET. THEREFORE, AS PER SETTLED POSITION OF LAW ON THE BASIS OF RATIO OF VA RIOUS DECISIONS IT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED THAT THE SAID LAND WAS HELD BY THE APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY AS A CAPITAL ASSET AND THAT THE INCOME ARISING ON THE SALE OF THE SAME WAS TO BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. 8.2 IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO DISCUSSED AS TO HOW EVEN INSPITE OF THE APPELLANT S ELLING THE LAND IN PIECE MEAL IN ORDER TO FETCH MORE PRICE THE SAME YIELDED INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS. TH E APPELLANT IS NOT A DEALER FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTIES ON REGULAR BASIS. EVEN MAIN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELL ANT ARE NOT SHOWN TOBE THE SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES. AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYA NA IN THE CASE OF SUSHILA DEVI JAIN (SUPRA), WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE 7 LD. COUNSEL ALSO LAND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT IN PARC ELS BECAUSE THE ENTIRE AREA COULD NOT BE SOLD IN ONE GO, CANNOT BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. TH E DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CAS E OF RAJESH KUMAR AGGARWAL IN ITA NO. 538/CHD/2006 WHICH HAS FU RTHER BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO ADVANCED THE CA SE OF THE APPELLANT ONLY. 8.3 KEEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE POSITION AND PARTICUL ARLY THE FACT THAT INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF PURC HASE OF THE LAND IN QUESTION IN THE YEAR 1995 IS SHOWN TOBE THAT OF HOLDING IT AS AN ASSET BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN CONSIDERING THE PROFITS FROM THE SALE OF THE LAND AS BUSINESS P ROFITS JUST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT SOLD THIS LAND IN PARTS TO DI FFERENT PERSONS CANNOT BE UPHELD. THE AO IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE PROPERTIES UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS AS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 8. THE LD 'AR', FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE AT THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: (I). IN INDIAN HUME PIPE CO. LTD V. CIT, 195 ITR 38 6 (BOM) IN THE HEAD NOTE, HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED A S UNDER: BUSINESS-ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE-TESTS-AS SESSEE- COMPANY CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE AND SAL E OF HUME PIPES, RCC PIPES, ETC.-IN 1936 BCC A SISTER CONCERN PURCHASING LAND AND LEASING OUT SAME TO ASSESSEE IN 1937 FAC TORY OF ASSESSEE SHIFTED TO THAT AREA PURCHASES OF LAND I N SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND LEASING OUT SAME TO ASSESSEE DURING 194 2 TO 1957, ASSESSEE PURCHASING FROM BCC ENTIRE AREA LEASED OUT TO IT ASSESSEE ALSO MAKING PURCHASES OF LAND IN 1942, 194 5 AND 1953 ASSESSEE SELLING SMALL PLOTS OF LAND IN 1951-52 T O 1955-56 ASSESSEE NOT A DEALER IN REAL ESTATE OR DEVELOPER O F LAND BULK OF LAND PURCHASED FROM BCC REPRESENTED AN ISOLATED TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND ASSESSEE INVESTING ITS OWN SU RPLUS FUNDS IN ACQUIRING LAND NO DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS PLOTTING OF LAND CARRIED OUT NO IMPROVEMENT MADE ON LAND TO MAKE IT READIL Y MARKETABLE AREA OF PLOT OF LAND SOLD DURING DIFFERENT YEARS IN SMALL QUANTITIES AS NO NORMAL TRADER IN LAND WOULD HAVE D ONE LANDS WERE PURCHASED WITH NO INTENTION TO TRADE BUT MEREL Y AS INVESTMENTS OF SURPLUS INVESTIBLE FUNDS TRANSACTI ON NOT AN ADVENTURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE SURPLUS REALIZED ON SALE OF LAND NOT ASSESSABLE AS BUSINESS PROFITS. (II) IN CIT V. SMT. BILKISHBAI, 225 ITR 570 (MP HIG H COURT) IN HEAD NOTE HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: REFERENCE INCOME FROM BUSINESS ADVENTURE IN T HE NATURE OF TRADE TRIBUNAL FINDING THAT REPEATED SALES AND PU RCHASES IN AGRICULTURAL LANDS NOT ADVENTURE IN NATURE OF TRADE NO SYSTEMATIC BUSINESS ACTIVITY INVOLVED SURPLUS ON SALE OF LAND NOT TO BE ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME FINDINGS BA SED ON 8 APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE ARE OF FACT NO QUESTION OF LAW ARISES INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, SEC 256(2). (III) IN CIT V. SUSHILA DEVI JAIN, 259 ITR 671, HON 'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: THAT WHAT WAS NECESSARY WAS TO FIND OUT THE INTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE PURCHASE OF LAND. IN T HE INSTANT CASE, THE LAND WAS NEVER PURCHASED BY HER. SHE ACQUIRED T HE SAME ON THE BASIS OF A WILL ON THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. S HE SOLD THE SAME IN PARCELS BECAUSE THE HUGE AREA COULD NOT BE SOLD IN ONE TRANSACTION. SUCH AN ACTIVITY COULD NOT AMOUNT TO TRADE OR BUSINESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE ACT. NO SUBSTAN TIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE. (IV) IN JINDAL STRIPS LTD. V. ITO AND ANOTHER, 116 ITR 825, THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT HAS HELD IN THE HEAD NOTE AS UNDER: VALUATION OF PROPERTY JURISDICTION OF ITO TO RE OPEN VALUATION OF PROPERTY OF WHICH ASSESSMENTS ALREADY COMPLETED R IGHT TO GET VALUATION DONE BY VALUATION OFFICER SEC 55A APPLI ES ONLY TO CAPITAL GAINS ITO CAN RESORT TO SEC 133(6) FOR RE VALUATION MENTION OF WRONG SEC IN REQUISITION SENT TO VALUATI ON OFFICER DOES NOT VITIATE VALUATION VALUATION OFFICERS VALUATI ON IS NOT BINDING ON ITO ASSESSEE HAS ITS SAY IN THE MATTER INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961, SS. 55A, 133(6). 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE GENERAL PROPOSITIO NS LAID DOWN IN THESE CASE LAWS. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATI ON OF THE CASE, RELEVANT CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT T HE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY THE GENERAL PROPOSITION LAID DOWN IN THESE CASE LAW. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE M ATTER ARE UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. 10. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1355/CHD/2010 FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS RAISED GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 CONTENDING THA T THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF R S. 13,97,872/- AND RS. 8 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GA INS INSTEAD OF INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AS ASSESSED B Y THE AO. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO . 1 ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 4.1 OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE REPRODUCED HER EUNDER:- 9 4.1 FACT OF THIS ADDITION IS THAT THE APPELLANT HA S CREDITED HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR RS. 13,97,872/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND IN VILLAGE QILA REHMATGARH, TEHSIL MALERKOT LA, DISTT. SANGRUR. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED IT AS EXEMPT BY TA KING THE PLEA THAT IT IS RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND WHICH NOT LIABL E TO TAX BUT DURING THE DISCUSSIONS IT EMERGED THAT THIS LAND COMES WIT HIN 8 KILOMETERS OF THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF MUNICIPAL/TEH SIL AREA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AO FOR LEVIED THE TAX ON RS. 13,97,872/- UNDER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 B UT UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS NOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FRO M BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AS THE APPELLANT NOT DEALING IN THE BUSINESS OF PROPERTY DEALER. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10(I) SIMILARLY THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN R ESPECT OF GROUND NO. 2 ARE CONTAINED, IN PARA 6, OF THE ORDER PASSED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE COUNSEL FO R THE APPELLANT AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE AO HAS R IGHTLY DONE BY COMPUTING ESTIMATING COST OF ACQUISITION AT RS. 2,00,000/- AS THE APPELLANT WAS FAILED TO FURNISH ITS REAL COST O F ACQUISITION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS FAR AS THE V ALUATION PART OF THESE LAND IS CONCERNED THE AO HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN AT RS. 10,50,000/- AS REPORTED BY THE ASSISTANT VALUATION OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT. I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AO FOR LEVIED TAX ON RS. 8,00,000/- COMES AFTER REDUCING THE INDEXED COST OF ACQUISITION OF RS. 2,50,000/- FROM TOTAL SALE PRIC E OF RS. 10,50,000/-. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ASSESSED THE SAM E UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF UNDER THE HEAD BUS INESS INCOME. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS A LSO PARTLY ALLOWED. (II) AS THE IDENTICAL ISSUES HAVE BEEN ADJUDICATED BY US, IN THE REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 155/CHD/2010, FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005- 06, THE FINDINGS MUTATIS MUTANDIS SHALL BE APPLICAB LE, IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE, IN ITA NO. 1355/CHD/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, WHIC H ARE IDENTICAL ON FACTS. CONSEQUENTLY, FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS GIV EN BY US, ABOVE IN PARA NO. 9, THESE TWO GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED, 11 IN GROUND NO. 2 (ITA NO. 155/CHD/2010, FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 30 LAKHS,MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF 10 INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACQUISITION OF LAND AT GILL ROAD, LUDHIANA WHICH WAS HELD TO BE MADE OUT OF ASSESSEE S INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 12 WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND RELEVANT RECORDS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS OF THE AO,IN RESPECT OF THIS GROUND AR E REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 8 VIDE SALE DEED REGISTERED ON 8.2.2005, THE ASSES SEE ALONGWITH OTHERS PURCHASED 4250 SQ. YDS OF LAND AT GILL ROAD, LUDHIANA , HAVING 1/5 TH SHARE I.E. 850 SQ. YDS. FOR A TOTAL SUM OF RS. 30,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED A NY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF PU RCHASE AND SALE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. IN THE COURSE OF INVESTIG ATION BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSESSEE DREW UP HIS BALANCE SHEETS AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS AS ON 31.3.2004 AND 31.3.2005, IN WHICH INVESTMENTS IN LANDED PROPERTIE S HAVE BEEN SHOWN AND THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 30,00,000/-, AS AFO RESAID, HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2005 . SINCE THE BALANCE SHEET IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY BOOKS OF ACCO UNT, IT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE EXCEPT AS A MEMORANDA. IT DOES N OT, IN ANY MANNER, HELP THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 30,00,000/- AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 9. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, A NOTICE U/S 143(3) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.11.2008, IN WHICH HE WAS ASKED TO PR ODUCE EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY, AS AFORESAID. IN RESPONSE TO THIS NOTICE THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HIS REPLY DATED 8.12.2008 STATING THEREIN THAT TWO PAYM ENTS OF RS. 14,00,000/- AND RS. 13,67,000/- WERE MADE THROUGH D . DS. BY DEBIT TO HIS S.B. ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF PATIAL A ON 1.2.2005 AND 8.2.2005 RESPECTIVELY. THE BALANCE OF RS. 1,76 ,020/- WAS PAID IN CASH OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE AS PER CASH FLOW STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT BANK CERTIFICA TES TO THIS EFFECT ARE ENCLOSED. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE BANK STATEMENT AND CERTIFICATE. THERE ARE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN MADE FROM CASH FLOW STATEMENT. IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, OPENING CASH IN HAND AS ON 1.4.2004 IS SHOWN AT RS. 7,63,252.22 P. THIS IS ALTOGETHER WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR BASIS. IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT THER E ARE 16 INSTANCES OF SALE OF LAND WITHOUT GIVING COMPLETE P ARTICULARS OF THE LANDS SOLD. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY BE POIN TED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN MOST NON CO-OPERATIVE THROUGH OUT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FILED THE ENTIRE INFORMA TION INCLUDING COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS UNDER HIS LETTERS ON 10.12 .2008, 22.12.2008 AND 24.12.2008, WHEN THERE WAS VIRTUALLY NO TIME LEFT FOR FURTHER ENQUIRIES OR INVESTIGATION OR EVEN PROP ER APPRECIATION OF THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO DO UBT THE BANK 11 DRAFTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF TH E ASSESSEE BUT I AM NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF HUGE DEP OSITS ITSELF IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE MARR IAGE OF ASSESSEES SISTER WAS PERFORMED FOR WHICH A SUM OF RS. 10,00,000/- IS SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM HI S CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ON BEING ASKED TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF MAR RIAGE EXPENSES, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THESE ARE KNOW T O HIS FATHER SHRI MADAN LAL. LATER ON, SUMMONS U/S 131(1) WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SHRI MADAN LAL AND SERVED UPON HIM, BUT HE DID NOT MAKE ANY COMPLIANCE TO THE SUMMONS ON THE GROUND OF ILL HEALTH. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN MY OPI NION, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO TAKE UNDUE BENEFIT FO R HIS NON CO- OPERATION DURING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO FOR NON-MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF H IS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AT THE RELEVANT TIME. SUMMONS U/S 131(1 ) OF THE ACT, 1961 WERE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEES FATHER P RIMARILY TO INVESTIGATE INTO THE HUGE INVESTMENTS IN THE NAME O F HIS MINOR SON, THE ASSESSEE UNDER REFERENCE, PARTICULARLY IN THE YEARS 1995-96 AND 1996-97 AS WELL AS THE MARRIAGE EXPENSE S OF HIS DAUGHTER. HE DID NOT MAKE COMPLIANCE OF THE SUMMON S FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. SHRI MADAN LAL BHARDWAJ AND HIS T WO SONS, REAL ESTATE DEALERS, ARE FINANCIALLY VERY WELL OFF AS IS APPARENT FROM THE HUGE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THEM IN LANDED PR OPERTIES. IN VIEW OF THEIR FINANCIAL STATUS THE MARRIAGE EXPENDI TURE OF RS. 10,00,000/- IS TOO INSIGNIFICANT TO BE ACCEPTED AS REASONABLE. I, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH, IF ANY, AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS FULLY CO NSUMED/SPENT IN THE MARRIAGE OF HIS SISTER WHICH WAS PERFORMED I N FEBRUARY 2005 AND THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 30,00,000/- IN THE P URCHASE OF LAND AT GILL ROD, LUDHIANA WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT GILL ROAD, LUDHIANA, THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 30,00,00 0/- IS HELD AS HAVING BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WHICH IS ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INC OME AND ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. 13 SIMILARLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), IN DE LETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, F OR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE SAME. 10 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AO AND PE RUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. THE AO HAS MADE THIS ADDITION MAI NLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT SHOWN TO BE AVAILABLE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE OPENING CASH BALANCE IN THE CA SH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 30.00 LAKHS FOR THE PURCHASE OF SAID LAND WAS ACTUALLY CONSUMED FOR THE MARRIAGE CE REMONY OF HIS SISTER. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAD S TATED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE HAD CONTRIBUTED RS. 10.00 LAKHS FOR THIS MARRIAGE. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF TH E LD. COUNSEL THAT PERFORMING THE MARRIAGE OF APPELLANTS SISTER WAS PRIMARILY 12 THE DUTY OF HIS FATHER SHRI MADAN LAL. THE APPELLAN T ALSO EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO ACCORDINGLY. IF TO THE SUM MONS ISSUED U/S 131 OF THE ACT BY THE AO. SHRI MADAN LAL DID N OT ATTEND, IT COULD NOT BE PRESUMED THAT EXPENDITURE OF MORE THAN RS. 30.00 LAKHS WAS MADE ON THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY OF APPELLAN TS SISTER AND FURTHER THAT IT WAS HE WHO HAD INCURRED THE ENT IRE EXPENSES. THE AO HAS SOUGHT TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE FOR APPELLANTS FATHER NOT ATTENDING IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISS UED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE AOS APPROACH IN THIS REGARD. FOR SUCH NON-COMPLIANCE BY APPELLANT S FATHER ADVERSE VIEW COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN AGAINST HIS FATH ER AND NOT AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS ALSO OBSERVED TH AT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE APPELLANT WAS CON SUMED IN THE MARRIAGE OF HIS SISTER. FIRST OF ALL THERE IS NOTH ING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT HOW MUCH EXPENSES WERE INCURRED ON THE MA RRIAGE. SECONDLY IF THERE WAS SUCH EVIDENCE THAT EXPENDITUR E IN EXCESS OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS HAS BEEN INCURRED ON THIS MARRIA GE, IT WAS FOR APPELLANTS FATHER TO EXPLAIN THE REMAINING AMOUNT. IN CASE HE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES, ADVERSE VIEW COULD H AVE BEEN TAKEN IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANTS FATHER. HOWEVER, NO ADDITION ON THE ABOVE BASIS COULD BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED IN TH E HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. EVEN OTHERWISE, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY TH E APPELLANT THAT ANOTHER RS. 10.00 WAS CONTRIBUTED FOR THIS MAR RIAGE BY HIS BROTHER SHRI SANJIV BHARDWAJ. EVEN THE NAME OF THE BANQUET HALL WAS GIVEN TO THE AO WHERE MARRIAGE CEREMONY WAS PER FORMED. IN THE FACE OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL POSITION AND IN TH E ABSENCE OF NECESSARY INQUIRIES THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE AO C AN BE TAKEN TO BE JUST ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND PRESUMPTION S WHICH ARE NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. KEEPING IN VIE W THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 30.00 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS HELD TO BE NOT JUSTIFIED AND IT IS ACCORDINGLY DELE TED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFORE, ALLOWED. 14. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IN Q UESTION IS REQUIRED TO BE APPRECIATED IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENCES FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 30.0 0 LAKHS, IN THE PURCHASE OF IMPUGNED LAND. THE LD. CIT(A) MERELY P ROCEEDED TO DRAW INFERENCES, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT BRI NGING COGENT AND CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT(A), OBSE RVED THAT NON- COMPLIANCE, ON THE PART OF SHRI MADAN LAL WOULD NOT ENTITLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO DRAW INFERENCE AGAINST THE AS SESSEE. HERE, WE ARE DEALING WITH A CASE WHERE IT IS INCUMBENT ON TH E ASSESSEE, TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE, SOURCE AND GENUINENESS OF THE I NVESTMENT OF RS. 30.00 LAKHS, MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THE LD. CIT(A), MERELY 13 PROCEEDED ON THE PREMISE THAT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS WERE NOT INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, ON THE MARRIAGE OF HI S SISTER. THIS ITSELF WOULD NOT EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE IMPU GNED INVESTMENT. THE LD. CIT(A), REPEATEDLY OBSERVED THAT NO ADDITIO N CAN BE MADE, IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IF HE FAILS TO EXPLAIN T HE EXPENDITURE OF RS. 10.00 LAKHS INCURRED ON HIS SISTERS MARRIAGE. TH ERE IS NO WHISPERING IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A), IN RESPECT OF E VIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, TO JUSTIFY SUCH INVESTMENT. IT IS PERTIN ENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT MUST PRODUCE THE EVIDEN CE, IN SUPPORT OF HIS RETURN OF INCOME, AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 143(3)(II ) OF THE ACT. THE AO IN PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SOUGHT EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF SUCH INVESTMENT BY WAY OF PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE REGARDING THE INVESTMENT, IN THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THE ASSESSEE MERELY MENTIONED THAT TWO PAYMENT OF RS. 14.00 LAKHS AND RS. 13,67,000/- WERE MADE THROU GH DDS BY DEBIT TO HIS SB ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA ON 1.2 .2005 AND 8.2.2005 RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE, FURTHER, STATED THAT R S. 1,76,020/- WAS PAID IN CASH OUT OF CASH AVAILABLE, AS PER CASH FLO W STATEMENT. THE AO HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED THAT THE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE AS PART OF GENERATION OF CASH, IN THE CASH FLO W STATEMENT REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THE OPENING CASH IN HAND, AS ON 1.4.2004, WAS SHOWN AT RS. 7,63,254/ -. THE AO GAVE CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT SUCH CASH IN HAND AS SHOWN , IN CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. IT IS, FURTHER, OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT 16 INSTANCES OF SALE OF LAND HAS BEEN INCORPORATED, WITHOUT FURNISHING COMPLETE PARTICULARS OF SUCH LANDS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF SALE DEEDS, ON 10.12.2008, 20.2.2008 AND 24.12.2008, WHI CH RENDER THE 14 ASSESSING OFFICER, INCAPABLE TO MAKE PROPER AND REA SONABLE INQUIRIES, IN THE MATTER, IN VIEW OF TIME CONSTRAINTS PRESCRIB ED FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF IMMOVAB LE PROPERTIES. IT IS, FURTHER, RECORDED BY THE AO THAT NO BALANCE SHE ET OR STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS EVIDENCING COMPLETE PICTURE OF THE TRANSACT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ANNEXED TO THE RELEVANT RETURNS OF INCOME FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND 2005-06. THE ASSESS EE FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, IN THE COU RSE OF INVESTIGATION PROCEEDING BEFORE THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEP ARTMENT. SUCH DOCUMENTS MUST BE CORROBORATED BY COGENT AND CREDI BLE EVIDENCES, TO RENDER CREDIBILITY TO THE VERACITY OF SUCH DOCUMENT S, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED SUCH DOCUMENTS, WITH THE RETURN OF IN COME, AS INDICATED EARLIER. IN SUCH A FACT-SITUATION, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PROVIDE ANY OPPORTUNITY, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF REM AND REPORT, IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE HIM. MERE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE COURSE OF APPELLANT PROCE EDINGS IS NOTHING BUT A MERE FORMALITY, TO COMPLY SUPERFICIALLY, THE CONC EPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 15. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASH IN HAND, IT WAS INCUMBENT ON THE LD. CIT(A), TO OFFER EFFECTIVE, PR OPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO MA KE MEANINGFUL ENQUIRIES AND GATHER MATERIAL AS ALSO EXAMINE THE D OCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF SAID LANDS . THE LD. CIT(A), HAS NEITHER HIMSELF CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRIES NOR SUC H ENQUIRIES WERE GOT CONDUCTED THROUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BY WAY OF REMAND REPORT IN THE MATTER. THE COMPLIANCE WITH THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHICH EMBODIES MANY FACETS IS NOT AN EMPTY RITUAL. THE C ONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE EMBODIES PROPOSITION THAT JUSTICE SHOULD BE RENDERED AND 15 MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE SHOULD BE PREVENTED. THE CO RE OF ALL THE RULES IS FAIRNESS IN DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND EFFECTIVE C OMPLIANCE WITH THE CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE NATURAL JUSTICE IS POTENT WEAPON FOR SECURING JUSTICE WHICH IS NOT FETTERED BY TECHNICAL ITY, GRAMMATICAL PEDANTRY OR LOGICAL PREVARICATION. THE DOCTRINE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ITS FIRST PRINCIPLE WAS FIRSTLY PLANTED IN THE GARD EN OF EDEN. NATURAL JUSTICE MEANS FAIR PLAY IN ACTION COUPLED WITH AGE OLD MAXIM THAT NONE SHOULD BE CONDEMNED UNHEARD. SUCH PRINCIPLES ARE I NGRAINED INTO THE CONSCIENCE OF MAN. A QUASI-JUDICIAL OR ADMINISTRATI VE DECISION RENDERED IN VIOLATION OF THE AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM RULE IS NUL L AND VOID. IT IS A PART OF PUBLIC POLICY AND IS A GUARANTEE FOR JUSTICE TO THE CITIZENS. THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE MUST BE READ INTO THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS UNLESS EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED. 16. THE LD. CIT(A), MERELY ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT EXAMINING THE SAME, WITH A VIEW T O ASCERTAIN THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH EXPLANATION AND VERACITY OF SUC H EVIDENCES. IN SUCH A FACT-SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPI NION THAT THE ISSUE DESERVES, TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING O FFICER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATING THE SAME AFRESH, IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW, AFTER MAKING NECESSARY ENQUIRIES AS DEEMED FIT IN ACCORDA NCE WITH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AFTER PROVIDING REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUE IS RESTORED T O THE FILE OF AO. 17. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE G ENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. HENCE, T HE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 155/CHD/2010 IS ADJUDICATED IN THE ABOVE TERMS. IN ITA NO. 1355/CHD/2010 THE REVENUE HAS RAISED T HE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL 16 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSESS THE INCOM E OF RS. 13,97,872/- UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AS ASSESSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-II HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF RS. 8,00,0 00/- UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS INSTEAD OF UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND PROFESSION AS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BEING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM REAL ESTATE BUSIN ESS. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 763254/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH-IN HAND. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-II BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 19. THE GROUND NO. 1 & 2 OF THIS APPEAL HAVE BEEN A DJUDICATED ABOVE IN PARA 10 OF THIS ORDER. 19(I). IN GROUND NO. 3, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.00 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BEING THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS. 20. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ESTIMATED RS. 2 LA KHS ON ACCOUNT OF HIS DEALING IN REAL ESTATE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 11 THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLALRED INCOME FROM AGRICULT URAL AT RS. 80,000/- FOR WHICH NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN AGRICULTURAL BEING A PROMINENT REAL ESTATE DEALER. THIS IS HELD AS HIS INCOME FORM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION AND COVERED BY THE ESTIMATED BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 2,00,000/-. NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS THEREFORE, MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 21. THE LD. CIT(A) ON APPRECIATION FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) A RE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 17 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT S COUNSEL AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. AS SUBMITTED BY T HE APPELLANTS COUNSEL VIDE HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED ABO VE THAT THE APPELLANT IS NEITHER ANY PROPERTY DEALER NOR HAVE A NY INTENTION TO BECOME SO. JUST SALE OF PROPERTY MEANS NOT THAT IT IS BUSINESS DEALING. MOREOVER THE AO NOT PLACED ANY FACT, EVID ENCE/MATERIAL ON RECORD FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF RS. 2,00,000 /- AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN DEALINGS IN REAL ESTATE. DUE TO L ACK OF CONCRETE EVIDENCES/FACTS THIS ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE, T HEREFORE, IT IS DELETED. 22. FROM THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY BOTH THE LOWER AU THORITIES, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AO PROCEEDED TO MAKE AN ADDITION P URELY ON ESTIMATE BASIS, WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY COGENT AND CO RROBORATIVE MATERIAL. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A ) ARE UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 23. IN GROUND NO. 4, THE REVENUE CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A), ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 763254/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILE D TO EXPLAIN THE CASH IN HAND SHOWN, IN THE STATEMENT OF FUND FLOW S TATEMENT. 24. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF T HE CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO REFER T O THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE MATTER, HENCE, THE SAME I S REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: AS REGARDS THE CONCEALED AMOUNT OF RS. 782754/- SH OWN IN HIS STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS, AS ON 31.3.2004, ON ACCOUNT O F INVESTMENTS AND CASH IN HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS THEREOF AS UNDER: SHRI HEMRAJ SHARMA, MALERKOTLA RS. 19,500/- CASH IN HAND RS. 763254/- NO DOUBT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED HE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHAT SO E VER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH IN HAND OF RS. 763254/- AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH IT WAS KEPT AT HOME AND N OT DEPOSITED IN ANY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH HE HAS BEEN MAINT AINING REGULARLY. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND NON-C OOPERATIVE AND FILED THIS INFORMATION ON 24.12.2009 ONLY IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH IN HAND THE A MOUNT OF RS. 763254/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE AND ASSESSED ACCORDINGLY. I AM THEREFORE, SATISFIED T HAT THE 18 ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF H IS INCOME ON THIS ACCOUNT FOR WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271( 1)(C) HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY INITIATED. 25. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE ALSO REPRODU CED HEREUNDER:- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORD. AS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS F ILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO AND ALSO D URING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT RS. 763254/- IS A CLOSIN G BALANCE AS 31.3.2004. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. COUNS EL THAT THERE IS NO PROVISIONS UNDER INCOME TAX ACT WHERE THE CLO SING CASH BALANCE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE AO HAS NOT DOUBTED TO ANY OF TH E NARRATIONS IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT THUS HE IS AGREEING TO T HE CASH TRANSACTIONS HELD DURING THE YEAR, SO THERE IS NO Q UESTION OF ADDING THE CLOSING CASH BALANCE TO THE INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT. 26. A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A), REVEALS THAT HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION, WITHOUT BRINGING COGENT M ATERIAL ON RECORD, AS ALSO WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE MATTER. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EVEN ANNEX ANY ACCOUNTING STATEMENT, WITH HIS RETURN OF INCOME, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE PREPARED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSE SSEE, WHILE FACING INVESTIGATION CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING O F THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. SUCH SELF-CREATED EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE REMAINS TO BE SUPPORTED BY WAY OF COGENT AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN OPENING CASH BALANCE, IN THE CAS H FLOW STATEMENT, AS ON 1.4.2004, AT RS. 763254/-, AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS OPENING BALANCE INCORPORATED, IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE, IN THE FORM OF BANK WITH DRAWALS, IN THE PRECEDING YEAR. 27. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADDUCE SPEC IFIC EVIDENCES REGARDING GENERATION, UTILIZATION AND AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN HAND, IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY GENERATED CASH IN HAND BY 19 WAY OF SELF-GENERATED CASH, INDICATING HUGE OPENING CASH BALANCE, WHICH CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUCH, HAVING REGARD TO THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADDUCED OR ANNEXED ANY EVIDENCE INDICATING TRUE STATE OF AF FAIRS OF HIS BUSINESS, ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE IS S HOWING CASH IN HAND, IN THE VICINITY OF 6-7 LAKHS, AS CARRY FORWAR D FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO 2004-05, WHICH WAS NEITHER USED BY THE ASSESSEE NOR IT WAS DEPOSITED, IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. IN V IEW OF THIS, EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF SU CH CASH IN HAND, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE FOUNDED MERELY ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE ASSESSEES SELF-CREATED VERSION OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH, IS NOT FACTUALLY A ND LEGALLY TENABLE. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, IN THE MATTER ARE UPHELD. 28. GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE GEN ERAL, IN NATURE, AND, HENCE, NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. HENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1355/CHD/2010 IS ADJUDICATED, IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 17 .04.2012 SD/- SD/- (H. L. KARWA) (M EHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNANT MEMBER CHANDIGARH, THE 17 .04.2012 SURESH COPY TO: 1 THE APPELLANT 2 THE RESPONDENT 3 THE CIT 4 THE CIT(A) 5 THE D.R 20