Mr. Girish Prakash Vernekar, Belgaum V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Belgaum

ITA 159/PAN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 15924114 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NISHANT K LD
• Assessee Lawyers: A S PATIL ITP
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Depreciation
• Section: 143(3); 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI P. K. BANSAL, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.159/PNJ/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10) MR. GIRISH PRAKASH VERNEKAR 264, MAHALASA KRUPA SHASTRINAGAR BELGAUM. PAN: ADNPP5618F (APPELLANT) VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, BELGAUM. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : A.S. PATIL, I.T.P RESPONDENT BY : NISHANT K. LD. DR. DATE OF HEARING : 0 4/09 /2014 DA TE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 /12 /2014 O R D E R PER: D.T. GARASIA THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BELGAUM DATED 1 ST APRIL , 2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS ARE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 1] LEARNED COMMISSIONER [APPEALS] NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADHOC ADDITIONS OF RS.5000001 - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITIONS OF RS.10,04,6481 - MADE BY ITO ON ACCOUNT OF URD PURCHASES WHICH WORKS OUT TO 50% PROFIT IN WHOLE SALE GOLD AND SILVER. HENCE, ADDITIONS SUSTAINED R EQUIRES TO BE DELETED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE BE EQUITABLY REDUC ED. 2] LEARNED COMMISSIONER [APPEALS] NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINI NG ADHOC ADDITIONS OF RS.200000/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITIONS OF RS.374355/ - MADE BY ITO ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES. HENCE, ADDITIONS SUSTA INED REQUIRES TO BE DELETED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE BE EQUITABLY REDUCED. 3] LEARNED COMMISSIONER [APPEALS] NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITIONS OF RS.65773/ - OUT OF TOTAL ADDITIONS OF RS.109618/ - MADE BY ITO OUT OF CAR, PHONE EXPENSES & TRAVELLING EXP ENSES ON ACCOUNT OF AN ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE. HENCE, ADDITIONS SUSTAINED REQUIRES TO BE DELETED OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE BE EQUITABLY REDUCED. 4] LEARNED COMMISSIONER [APPEALS] NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING ADDITIONS OF RS.933851 - MADE BY ITO ON ACCOUNT OF HO USE HOLD EXPENSES. NO SUCH ADDITIONS MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. HENCE, ADDITIONS SUSTAINED REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 2 . ITA NO.159/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10) 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL FILED THE RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2009 10 ON 29/09/2009 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 5,52,570/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS A JEWELLER AND TRADING IN BULLION AND ORNAMENTS. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALISED AT THE ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.21,31,576/ - AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS. I) URD PURCHASES RS.10,01,648/ - II) LABOUR CHARGES RS. 3,74,355/ - III) OUT OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, DEPRECIATION, INSURANCE, INTEREST ON CAR LOAN, TELEPHONE, TRAVELLING. RS. 1,09,618/ - IV) DRAWINGS RS. 93,385/ - DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING THE AO NOTICED THAT THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN UR D PURCHASES. BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF THE URD PURCHASES WERE CALLED FOR AND VERIFIED BY THE A.O . ON VERIFICATION OF PURCHASE VOUCHERS , IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE FOLLOWING VOUCHERS DOES NOT HAVE CORRECT AND FULL PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM U RD PURCHASES HAD BEEN MADE IN CAS H . SL. NO. NAME AMOUNT I ASHOK A ITI 58 , 325 2 HANMA NT B PA TIL 55,887 3 KAMAXI JEWEL LERS 84,003 4 RAJESH B PI RALKA R 96,741 5 RG HU RAIKAR 19,591 6 MOHA MMED MUJAWAR 18 ,822 7 MADHUKAR MANDOLKAR 18 , 917 TOTAL 3 , 52 , 286 URD PURCHASES MADE IN CASH (SILVER) - 1 SATERI GUNDU PAKARE 62,195 2 JITENDRA PARAB 37,328 3 SUREKHA V SAGVEKAR 75,536 4 SURESH PATTAR 19,080 5 ASHOK ITI 37,874 6 HANMANT B PATIL 38,935 7 KAMASI JEWELLERS 57,945 8 KISHORE ANNASAB KAMBLE 19,349 9 MA HESH CHINICHIKA R 38,124 10 RAGHU RAIKAR 34,256 11 MAHAMMAD S MUJAWAR 1,33,548 12 MADHUKAR MANDOLKAR 95,196 3 TOTAL 6,49,362 3 . ITA NO.159/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10) THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE CASH TRANSACTIONS AND FURNISH THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE URD DE ALERS OR TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS WHO HAS SOLD THE SAME SO THAT THAT GENUINENESS OF THE URD CASH PURCHASES CAN BE VERIFIED. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNIS H THE CORRECT DETAILS AND PRODUCED THEM FOR VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE MAKE EN TIRE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,01,648/ - WERE BOGUS PURCHASE SHOWN TO INFLATE THE TOTAL PURCHASE WHICH WAS DISALLOWED. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDING THE AO EXAMINED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED IN HIS P& L ACCOUNT EXPENDITURE TOWARDS LABOUR CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,31,250/ - . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE SINGLE BILL & VOUCHER. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN GENERAL, JEWELLERS CHARGE AT RS. 5 PER THOUSAND IN SAME TRADE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAS OUT OF TOTAL TURN OVER ORNAMENTS SALES WAS RS. 7,13,78,951/ - TOTAL LABOUR CHARGES WORKS OUT TO RS. 3,56,894/ - . WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.7,31,250/ - . HENCE, THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,74,355/ - WAS ADDED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO VERIFIED THE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE CHARGES , DEPRECIATION AND INTEREST OF LOAN AND INSURANCE WAS CLAIMED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY LOGBOOK TO PROVE THAT IT WAS EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, 1/3 RD OF THE MAINTENANCE (CAR EXPENSES AND PETROL), 1/3 RD OF DE PRECIATION, 1/3 RD OF THE INSURANCE. THUS, THE AO DISALLOWED RS. 6,363/ - AND RS. 51,526/ - ON THE GROUND THAT IT HAS BEEN USED FOR PERSONAL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF DRAWING BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE VERY LOW AT RS. 37,000/ - I.E., 3,083/ - PER MONTH. THEREFO RE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED RS.20,000/ - PER MONTH AND HE HAS ADDED RS. 93,385/ - . 4. THE MATTER CARRIED TO CIT(A) AND CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM, THEREFORE, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4 . ITA NO.159/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10) 5. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING LEARNED AR HAS FILED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH READ AS UNDER: APPELLANT IS A SOLE PROPRIETOR CARRYING ON WHOLESALE BUSINESS IN GOLD BULLION, GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ARTICLES. APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED DETAILED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DAY - TO - DAY STOCK REGISTER IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 20 10 APPELLANT FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME AT RS.552570/ - ON 29 - 9 - 2010. HOWEVER, ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE ON INCOME OF RS.2131576/ - BY MAKING WILD ADDITIONS OF RS. 1579006/ - . LEARNED COMMISSIONER [APPEALS] IN ITA N O. 167/BGM/20 11 - 2012 DATED 1 - 4 - 2014 GAVE A RELIEF OF RS.7198481 / - AND SU STAINED ADDITION OF RS.8591 58/ - . THE DETAILS AS UNDER: ADDITIONS MADE BY ITO & RELIEF GIVEN BY CIT[A] 2009 - 2010 S. NO. NATURE OF EXPS EXPENSES CLAIMED ADDITIONS BY AO RELIEF BY CIT[A] ADDITIONS SUSTAINED 1] URD - PURCHASES RS.2260505 RS.1001648 RS.501648 RS 500000 2] LABOUR - CHARGES RS. 731250 RS. 374355 RS. 174355 RS. 200000 3] EXPENSES RS. 328363 RS. 109618 RS. 43845 RS. 65773 4] H.H. EXPS RS. 146615 RS. 93385 NIL RS. 93385 TOTAL RS. 3467233 RS.1579006 RS. 719848 RS.859158 THE ADDITION OF RS.859158/ - SUSTAINED IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: THE APPELLANTS APPEAL FOR AY 2009 - 2010 IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONOURABLE MEMBERS ITAT IN ITA NO.7/PNJ/2012 DATED 20 - 04 - 2012. FOR YOUR HONOURS INSTANT REFERENCE APPELLANT IS GIVING BELOW THE CHART SHOWING TOTAL ADDITIONS MADE BY AO, RELIEF GIVEN BY COMMISSIONER [APPEALS] AND RELIEF GIVEN BY HONOURABLE MEMBERS FOR AY 2008 - 09 IN ITA NO.7 AS UNDER: RELIEF GIVEN BY ITAT FOR AY 20 08 - 2009 ITA NO.7/PNJ/2012 PARTICULARS OF INCOME EXPENSES CLAIMED ADDITIONS BY AO RELIEF BY CIT(A) ADDITIONS SUSTAINED RELIEF BY ITAT ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY ITAT ITAT RATIO OF ADDITIONS SUSTAINED URD PURCHASES 1013962 101396 713962 300000 225000 75000 7.40% LABOUR CHARGES 315200 132053 102053 30000 NIL 30000 9.5% TRAVELLING, PHONE, CAR 176400 58800 38800 20000 2360 17640 10% HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 153114 82295 82295 NIL NIL NIL NIL TOTAL 1658676 1287110 937110 350000 227360 122640 5 . ITA NO.159/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10) FROM THE ABOVE COMPARATIVE CHARTS IT IS CLEAR THAT NATURE OF ADDITIONS AND QUANTUM OF ADDITIONS GOES NECK - TO - NECK. ADDITION FOR AY 2008 - 2009 IS RS. 1622404/ - AND FOR AY2008 - 2009 ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY COMMISSIONER [APPEALS] IS RS.350000/ - AS AGAINST ADDITIONS O F RS. 859158/ - SUSTAINED FOR AY 2009 - 2010 WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. LEARNED COMMISSIONER[APPEALS] SUSTAINED ADDITIONS OF RS.859158/ - ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE SUPPLIERS IN RESPECT OF URD PURCHASES AND ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE RECIPIENTS OF LABOUR CHARGES. SAME DEFECT WERE FOR AY 2008 - 2009 ALSO. HONOURABLE MEMBERS OF ITAT CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF URD PURCHASES AND CONSIDERING THE COURT DECISION FILED ITAT RESTRICTED THE ADDITIONS TO RS.122640/ - . HOWEVER, L EARNED COMMISSIONER [APPEALS] TOTALLY LOST SIGHT OF ITA NO.7 OF AY 2008 - 2009. IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANTS CLAI M ENCLOSING THE FOLLOWING ORDER COPY. [1] COPY OF ITA NO.7/PNJ/2012 DATED 20.04.2012. VIDE PAGE NO. 1TO 3 [2] ITO - V/S - LIYAKAT ALI MOHAMAD SADIK VIDE PAGE NO.4 TO 5 [3] SHANTIKUMAR CHORIDIA - V/S - ACIT - ITAT JAIPUR VIDE P.NO.6 TO 7 APPELLANT PRAY TO HONOURABLE MEMBERS TO REDUCE THE ADDITIONS EQUITABLY FOR AY 2009 - 2010 FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITA NO.07/PNJ/2012 DATED 20 - 4 - 2012 OF AY 2008 - 2009. FOR THE INSTANT REFERENCE OF HONOURABLE MEMBERS COPY OF ITAT ORDER ENCLOSED. 6. THE LEARNE D DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN EX AMINED, TEST CHECKED, AND COLLATED WITH THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS A JEWELLER, TRADING IN BULLION AND ORNAMENTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE H AS SHOWN URD PURCHASES. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE URD PURCHASES ARE MADE IN CASH, T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH TRANSACTION S AND FURNISH THE CORRECT ADDRESS OF THE URD PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER FU RNISH ED THE DETAILS NOR PRODUCED THEM FOR VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT HE HAS COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,01,648/ - IS BOGUS PURCHASE SHOWN TO INFLATE THE TOTAL PURCHASE. SIMILARLY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED THE LABOUR CHARGES O N THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BILL S OF CORRECT 6 . ITA NO.159/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10) LABOUR CHARGES. SIMILARLY , ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE GROUND OF PERSONAL USE OF VEHICLES. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION AND HE H AS ALSO MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS VERIFIED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE THE ADDITION ON ESTIMATED BASIS. UNDER SECTION 145(3) REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS A MUST. THE AO MAY PROCEED UNDER SECTION 145(3) UNDER ANY OF THE FOLLOWI NG CIRCUMSTANCES : (A) WHERE HE IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS; OR (B) WHERE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING CASH OR MERCANTILE HAS NOT BEEN R EG ULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE ; OR (C) ACCOUNTING STANDARD S AS NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE BROAD PARAMETERS HAVE BEEN LAID DOWN IN THE SECTION ITSELF UNDER WHICH THE PROVISIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INVOKED FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN A PARTICULAR CASE, YET, A DEFINITE GROUND WORK IS SINE - QUA NON ON PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R BEFORE RESORTING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION. WE FIND THAT THE PRE - C ONDITION FOR ESTIMATING THE INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE, WHERE AN ASSESSEE KEEPS ACCOUNTS , IS THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE UNRELIABLE OR OTHERWISE NOT CAPABLE OF PR OVING THE ASSESSEES INCOME . THEREFORE, IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND WHEN HE HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ESTIMATED BASES. WE ALSO GOT THE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN THE CASE OF G.V.D.I. & CO. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SPECIAL RANGE, COIMBATORE 43 TAXMAN. COM 246 (MADRAS) WHEREIN IT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 7 . ITA NO.159/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10) 11. WHEN WE TEST THE DECIS ION TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE HEREIN, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS EITHER ON THE GROUND OF DIFFERENT INVISIBLE LOSS PROJECTED OR ON THE ACCOUNT OF DAY TO DAY STOCK BOOK NOT BEING MAINTAINED. THE GROUNDS GIVEN B Y THE OFFICER TO SUSTAIN ITS PROPOSAL TO ADOPT THE PROFIT AS EXISTABLE IN IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, DOES NOT REST ON ANY OF THE CONSIDERATION OR MATERIALS, WHICH ARE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REJECTING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, F OLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF R.M.P. PERIANNA P IL LAI & CO. VS. CIT[1961]42ITR 370(MAD.) WE HOLD THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT PROVED THE CASE BY ANY SUBSTANTIVE MATERIALS; THAT THE GROSS PROFITS DISCLOSED WAS LOW, THUS, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y JUSTIFIABLE GROUND TO ACCEPT THE REVENUES CASE. CONSEQUENTLY, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR FALL IN G.P., THE REVENUE SHOULD HAVE TAKEN THE MATTER FURTHER FOR VERIFICATION TO REST ITS DECISION THAT THE G.P. DISCLOSED WAS NOT ACCEPTED TO IT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXERCISE DONE IN THIS REGARD, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, THEREBY ALLOWING THE TAX CASE (APPEAL). NO COSTS. WE ALSO GOT THE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX XII VS. SMT. POONA M RANI 192 TAXMAN. 167 (DELHI) WHEREIN IT HAS HELD AS UNDER: SECTION 145 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 - METHOD OF ACCOUNTING - REJECTION OF ACCOUNTS - ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 - WHETHER IF STOCK REGISTER I S NOT MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE, THAT MAY PUT ASSESSING OFFICER ON GUARD AGAINST FALSITY OF RETURN MADE BY ASSESSEE AND PERSUADE HIM TO CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF ASSESSEE, BUT ABSENCE OF ONE REGISTER ALONE DOES NOT AMOUNT TO SUCH A MATERIAL AS WOULD LEA D TO A CONCLUSION THAT ACCOUNT B OOKS WERE INCOMPLETE OR INACCURATE - HELD, YES - WHETHER SIMILARLY, IF RATE OF GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN A PARTICULAR PERIOD IS LOWER THAN GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY HIM IN PRECEDING YEAR, THA T MAY ALERT ASSESSING OFFICER AND SERVE AS A WARNING TO HIM TO LOOK INTO ACCOUNTS MORE CAREFULLY, BUT A LOW RATE OF GROSS PROFIT, IN ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL POINTING TOWARDS FALSEHOOD OF ACCOUNT BOOKS, CANNOT, BY ITSELF, BE A GROUND TO REJECT ACCOUNT BOOKS UNDER SECTION 145(3) - HELD, YES THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AO AND CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 .12 .2014. SD/ - SD/ - ( P.K. BANSAL) (D.T. GARASIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE : PANAJI / GOA DATED : 19 .12 .2014 P.S. - *PK* 8 . ITA NO.159/PNJ/2014 (ASST. YEAR 2009 - 10) COPY TO: ( 1 ) APPELLANT ( 2 ) RESPONDENT ( 3 ) CIT CONCERNED ( 4 ) CIT(A) CONCERNED ( 5 ) D.R ( 6 ) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY, BY ORDER