Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
23023714 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-06-2015
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
22-04-2015
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
27-04-2012
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.230/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 RICH CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. 7/125, (C-2), 2 ND FLOOR SWAROOP NAGAR, KANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2) KANPUR TAN/PAN:AACCR4640N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.284/LKW/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2) KANPUR V. RICH CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. 7/125, (C-2), 2 ND FLOOR SWAROOP NAGAR, KANPUR TAN/PAN:AACCR4640N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.369 & 370/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 & 2004-05 RICH CAPITAL & FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. 7/125, (C-2), 2 ND FLOOR SWAROOP NAGAR, KANPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2) KANPUR TAN/PAN:AACCR4640N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI. AJAY WADHVA, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY: DR. ANANT KUMAR AGRAWAL, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 22 04 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 06 2015 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THESE APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). :- 2 -: 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. WE, HOWEVER, PREFER TO ADJUDICATE THEM ONE AFTER THE OTHER. I.T.A. NOS. 369 & 370/LKW/2014: BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THESE APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. BESIDES CHALLENGING THE ADDITION MADE ON MERIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PRELIMINARY OBJECTION WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED IN SHORT THE ACT'). 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURNS ACCOMPANIED WITH COPIES OF AUDITED BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WITH TAX REPORT FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. LATER ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION/REPORT FROM THE DDIT (INVESTIGATION)-II, KANPUR AND ON THE BASIS OF THE REPORT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AFTER RECORDING THE FOLLOWING REASONS:- FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-2, KANPUR VIDE HIS LETTER F. NO. DDIT(INV.)2/KNP/GIFT/RCFSI/07-08/1860 DATED 21.3.2008, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,03,72,500/- ON DIFFERENT DATES IN BANK A/C NO.62205046398,BANK A/C NO.2633 AND BANK A/C NO.31126 MAINTAINED WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, KANPUR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SHASTRI NAGAR, KANPUR AND STATE BANK OF INDIA, NAVEEN MARKET, KANPUR RESPECTIVELY DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS:- BANK A/C NO.622-0-5046398 (STANDARD CHARTERED BANK) :- 3 -: DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT MODE OF DEPOSIT 02-04-2002 600000 CASH 06-04-2002 210000 CASH 10-04-2002 5000 CASH 11-04-2002 30000 CASH 12-04-2002 525000 CASH 17-04-2002 15000 CASH 17-04-2002 1015000 CASH 23-04-2002 100000 CASH 23-04-2002 300000 CASH 4-5-2002 15000 CASH 6-5-2002 135000 CASH 7-5-2002 15000 CASH 7-5-2002 30000 CASH 9-5-2002 200000 CASH 16-5-2002 6000 CASH 16-5-2002 215000 CASH 19-6-2002 250000 CASH 21-6-2002 20000 CASH 22-6-2002 100000 CASH 1-7-2002 250000 CASH 3-7-2002 10000 CASH 3-7-2002 250000 CASH 9-7-2002 450000 CASH 13-7-2002 25000 CASH 22-7-2002 100000 CASH 24-7-2002 75000 CASH 26-7-2002 168000 CASH 29-7-2002 15000 CASH TOTAL 5129000 BANK A/C N0.2633 (PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SHASTRI NAGAR, KANPUR :- 4 -: DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT MODE OF DEPOSIT 8-4-2002 500000 CASH 8-4-2002 400000 CASH 12-4-2002 300000 CASH 14-5-2002 500000 CASH 2-7-2002 600000 CASH 20-9-2002 105000 CASH 17-12-2002 475000 CASH 9-1-2003 485000 CASH 14-1-2003 110000 CASH 24-3-2002 410000 CASH 29-3-2002 450000 CASH 4-2-2003 425000 CASH TOTAL 4760000 BANK A/C N0.31126 (STATE BANK OF INDIA, NAVEEN MARKET, KANPUR) DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT MODE OF DEPOSIT 5-4-2002 100000 CASH 23-4-2002 500000 CASH 24-4-2002 750000 CASH 30-4-2002 350000 CASH 6-5-2002 500000 CASH 10-5-2002 400000 CASH 10-5-2002 380000 CASH 15-5-2002 285000 CASH 22-5-2002 400000 CASH 4-6-2002 1000000 CASH 6-6-2002 400000 CASH 6-6-2002 600000 CASH 7-6-2002 400000 CASH 10-6-2002 500000 CASH 25-6-2002 20000 CASH :- 5 -: 8-7-2002 1000000 CASH 12-7-2002 250000 CASH 17-5-2002 500000 CASH 17-5-2002 5000 CASH 20-8-2002 1500 CASH 19-9-2002 10000 CASH 30-10-2002 500000 CASH 8-10-2002 150000 CASH 9-10-2002 10000 CASH 20-1-2003 52000 CASH 20-1-2003 1 000000 CASH 20-1-2003 340000 CASH 16-12-2002 80000 CASH TOTAL 10483500 THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.)-2, KANPUR IN HIS REPORT HAD STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED BANK ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ABOVE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,03,72,500/- IN ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH A SHOWN CAUSE LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 2.3.2009, FIXING DATE FOR COMPLIANCE ON 9.3.2009. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE SHOWN CAUSE LETTER THAT FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD ENTAIL THE UNDER SIGNED TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR CONCEALING THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,03,72,500/-. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR COMPLIANCE, NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE UNDERSIGNED, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ABOVE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,03,72,500/- MADE IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, STANDS UNEXPLAINED AND THUS TE :- 6 -: ASSESSEE CAMPANY HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,03,72,500/-. I, THEREFORE, HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.2,03,72,500/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. SD/- (V.C. MISHRA) INCOME TAX OFFICER 6(2) KANPUR 5. THE RETURN WAS FILED IN RESPONSE THERETO AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,03,72,500/-, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT HAVING OBSERVED THAT CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANKS WERE NOT DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SHY AJAY WADHWA, ADVOCATE THAT FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS THE ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO REOPENED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01, 2001-02 AND 2002-03 AND THE VALIDITY OF THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT WAS QUESTIONED AND THE MATTER WAS REACHED UPTO THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT SOLELY ON THE DIRECTION OF THE ADIT (INVESTIGATION) IS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCORDINGLY KNOCKED DOWN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT TO THE SAID REOPENING. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS AVAILABLE AT PAGES 38 TO 103 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CONCLUDING PART OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS EXTRACTED HEREUNDER:- 16. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FADS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, RIVAL SUBMISSION AND SETTLED PREPOSITION OF LAW BY VARIOUS HON'BLE HIGH COURT (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SO FAR AS PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN INITIATED SOLELY ON THE DIRECTIONS OF ASSTT. DIT (INVESTIGATION) /ADDL DIT (INVESTIGATION) AND WITHOUT THERE BEING APPLICATION OF MIND OF THE AC) ON ANY MATERIAL EXCEPT THE DIRECTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 ON THE BASIS OF FACTS THAT ADDL DIT (INVESTIGATION) AND ASSTT. DIT :- 7 -: INVESTIGATION HAVE CONSIDERED THE, CASH DEPOSITS IN ASSESSEES'S BANK ACCOUNT AS OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 17. FROM THE REASONS RECORDED IN THIS RESPECT IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 'A PERUSAL OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV.), KANPUR VIDE HIS LETTER F.NO. ADD. DIT (INV.)/ENQUIRY/RICH CAPITAL/06-07/1135 DATED 22.03.2007, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH ON DIFFERENT DATES IN RANK A/C NO. C.A.-2633 WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SHSTRI NAGAR, KANPUR DURING THE F.Y. 1999-2000 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2000-01 TO THE TUNE OF RS.12914000/-. AS SUCH, THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.12914000/- LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL THESE CASH DEPOSITS ARE UNEXPLAINED'. 18. THE NOTING, THOUGH IT WAS NOT COMPLETE VERSION OF REPORT RECEIVED FROM ADDL. DIT, YET RAISES AN IMPORTANT ISSUE WHEN HE SAYS 'SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE CREDITS WERE UNEXPLAINED' AND THE ISSUE SO ARISES IS AS WHAT WAS THE MATERIAL WITH RESPECT TO SOURCE WITH THE AO (IF, AT ALL THERE WAS ANY), H WAS ONLY DOUBT BUT NOT TO HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE, MEANING THERE BY THAT EVEN IF THERE WAS SOME MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF SOURCE, IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEPOSITS REPRESENTED UNEXPLAINED INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS THE AO HAD JUST SUSPICION IN HIS MIND AND SINCE IT IS TRITE LAW THAT AN ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THIS ASPECT ALSO WAS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW. 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT, SO FAR AS ALLEGATION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK IS CONCERNED, WAS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. :- 8 -: 19.1 FROM THE ABOVE NOTING IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THIS ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS LATER ON FOLLOWED IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 WHERE THE REOPENING WAS DONE FOR THE SAME REASONS AND THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN HELD THE REOPENING TO BE INVALID AND QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT TO THE BAD REOPENING. THESE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 104 TO 128 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, LD.CIT(DR) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW-B, LUCKNOW DATED 18.11.2009 PASSED IN ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ID. D.R. POINTED OUT THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE TRIBUNAL HAS IGNORED THE DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN BRIJ MOHAN AGARWAL VS. ACIT (2004) 268 ITR 400(ALL), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. VS. ITO (1999) 236 ITR 34(S.C.) AND THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. ABDUL KHADER AHAMED (2006) 285 ITR 57 (KER.). WE FIND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS QUASHED THE RE-ASSESSMENT ORDER ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND THEREFORE, THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IS DIRECTLY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE REASONS FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT ARE ALMOST SIMILAR FOR BOTH THE YEARS. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ARE AS UNDER : :- 9 -: 'A PERUSAL OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX(INV.), KANPUR HIS LETTER F. NO. ADDL.DIT(INV.)/ENQUIRY/RICH CAPITAL/06-07/1135 DATED 22.3.2007, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH ON DIFFERENT DATES IN BANK A/C NO. 13 WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SHASTRI KANPUR DURING THE F.Y. 1999-2000 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2000-01 TO THE TUNE OF RS. 12914000/-. AS SUCH, THE SOURCE OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.12914000/- LEADS TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ALL THESE CASH DEPOSITS ARE UNEXPLAINED. FROM THE PERUSAL OF P/L ACCOUNT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST AT RS.500575/- AS AGAINST THE INTEREST SHOWN AT RS.1573555/- IN THE A.Y. 1999-00. THE LOANS & ADVANCES SHOWN ARE MORE THAN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. RS.67163442/- IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2000-2001 ANDRS.66288442/- IN A.Y. 1999-00. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORT RECEIPT OF INTEREST OF APPROXIMATELY RS. 1100000/-IN THE A.Y. 2000- 2001. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE UNDERSIGNED, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.14014000/-(12914000 + 1100000/-)CHARGEABLE TO TAXFORA.Y. 2000-01 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, ISSUE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX, ACT, 1961 FOR THE A. F. 2000-2001. THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT 2002-03 ARE AS UNDER: FROM THE PERUSAL OF RECORDS AND INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)-2, KANPUR VIDE HIS LETTER F NO. DDIT(LNV)-2/KNP/ GIFT/RCFSL/0708/1860 :- 10 -: DATED 24.03.08, IT IS TRANSPIRED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,16,07,800/- ON DIFFERENT DATES IN BANK A/C NO.622-05046398, BANK A/C NO.2633 AND BANK A/C NO.31126 MAINTAINED WITH STANDARD CHARTERED BANK, KANPUR, PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, SHASTRI NAGAR, KANPUR AND STATE BANK OF INDIA, NAVEEN MARKET, KANPUR RESPECTIVELY DURING THE F.Y: 2001-02 'RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2002-03 AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS:- DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT MODE OF DEPOSIT THE DY. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV)-2 KANPUR IN HIS REPORT HAD STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED BANK ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BY THE UNDERSIGNED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ABOVE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,16,07,800/- IN ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS FOR WHICH A SHOW CAUSE LETTER WAS ISSUED ON 02-03-2009 FIXING DATE FOR COMPLIANCE ON 9-3- 2009. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE LETTER THAT FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WOULD ENTAIL THE UNDERSIGNED TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR CONCEALING THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,16,07,800/-. ON THE DATE FIXED FOR COMPLIANCE, NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED NOR ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND THE INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE UNDER SIGNED, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ABOVE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.3,16,07,800/- MADE IN THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, STANDS UNEXPLAINED :- 11 -: AND THUS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,16,078,8007-. I, THEREFORE HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME OF RS.3,16,07,800/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR A.Y. 2002-03 HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT.' 6.2 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT EXCEPT THE AMOUNTS, REASONS ARE ALMOST SIMILAR FOR BOTH THE YEARS. WHILE QUASHING THE RE-ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: 18. THIS NOTING, THOUGH IT WAS NOT COMPLETE VERSION OF REPORT RECEIVED FROM ADDL. DIT, YET RAISES AN IMPORTANT ISSUE WHEN HE SAYS SOURCES OF THESE CASH DEPOSITS LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE CREDITS WERE UNEXPLAINED' AND THE ISSUE SO ARISES IS AS WHAT WAS THE MATERIAL WITH RESPECT TO SOURCE WITH THE AO (IF, AT ALL THERE WAS ANY). IT WAS ONLY DOUBT BUT NOT TO HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE, MEANING THERE BY THAT IF THERE WAS SOME MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF SOURCE, IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DEPOSITS REPRESENTED UNEXPLAINED INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS THE AO HAD JUST SUSPICION IN HIS MIND AND SINCE IT IS TRITE LAW THAT AN ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REOPENED SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THIS ASPECT ALSO WAS NOT VALID IN THE EYES OF LAW. 19. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT, SO FAR AS ALLEGATION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK IS CONCERNED, WAS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 19.1 FROM THE ABOVE NOTING IT IS CLEAR THAT THERE WAS NO APPLICATION OF MIND BY ASSESSING OFFICER. :- 12 -: 20. SO FAR AS SECOND REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 IS CONCERNED THE SAME AS NOTED FOR REASONS RECORDED IS AS UNDER:- 'FROM THE PERUSAL OF P/L ACCOUNT, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INTEREST AT RS. 500575/- AS AGAINST THE INTEREST SHOWN AT RS. 1573555/- IN THE A.Y. 1999-00. THE LOANS & ADVANCES SHOWN ARE MORE THAN THE PRECEDING YEAR I.E. RS.67163442/-IN THE YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2000- 2001 AND RS.6628S442/- IN A.Y. 1999-00. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORT RECEIPT OF INTEREST OF APPROXIMATELY RS.1100000/- IN THE A.Y. 2000-2001'. 21. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HERE AGAIN, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO HAVING NOT REFERRED TO ANY MATERIAL WHICH COULD JUSTIFY HIS CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE EARNED MORE INTEREST THAN INTEREST IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE INITIATION CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE VALID, THERE BEING ANY DETAIL AS TO THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ADVANCES/LOANS WERE GIVEN OR HOW MUCH INTEREST WAS RECEIVED OR COULD HAVE RECEIVED AS PER AGREEMENTS, SIMPLY TO DOUBT THAT INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS YEAR, BEING LESS THAN THE INTEREST RECEIVED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR AS RESULTED IN ESCAPEMENT OF INTEREST INCOME OF APPROXIMATELY 11 LAKHS AND THAT TOO ONLY, BECAUSE, TOTAL AMOUNT OF ALLOWANCE AND ADVANCES AT THE END OF THIS YEAR WAS A LITTLE MORE THAN THE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING AT THE END OF PREVIOUS YEAR. HERE AGAIN, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON SUSPICION AND FOR MAKING ROVING ENQUIRIES AND SINCE IT IS TRITE LAW THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE :- 13 -: ACT CANNOT BE INITIATED EITHER ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION OR FOR MAKING FISHING OR ROAMING ENQUIRIES THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT ON THIS GROUND WAS ALSO ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. AFORESAID VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN FOLLOWING CASES. (I) 'CF. CST V. MODI INDUSTRIES LTD., (1987) 67 STC 341(ALL), (II) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OF INDIA LTD. V, STO (1974) 33 STC108 (ALL) (III) M.L. SHUKLA V. STO, (1981) UPTC 396 (ALL) (IV) KANHAIYALAL DAMODAR DAS V. CST,(1989) 73 STC 404, 406 (ALL), (V) SMT. KANTAMANI VENKATA SATYAVATHI V. ITO, (1967)64 ITR 516, 521 (AP); (VI) MADHYA PRADESH INDUSTRIES LTD. V. INCOME TAX OFFICER (1965) 57ITR 637(SC) (VII) BHIMRAJ PANNA LAL V. CIT, (1957) 32 ITR 289 (PAT), AFFIRMED, (1961) 41 ITR 221(SC) (VIII) M. VARADARAJULU V. ITO, (1974) 97 ITR 476 (MAD) (IX) SIESTA STEEL CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD. V. K.K. , (1985) 154 ITR 547 (BOM); (X) CHUNNILAL SURAJMAL V. CIT, (1986) 160 ITR 141(PAT)} 22. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF DECISIONS REFERRED THEREIN WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INITIATION PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT HI PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTLY ALL 'SUBSEQUENT PROCEEDINGS, INCLUDING REASSESSMENT FRAMED ON 20.12.2007, GOT VITIATED. THE REASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON 20.12.2007 IS THEREFORE QUASHED BEING BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO.' :- 14 -: 6.3 AS WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE REASONS RECORDED FOR RE-OPENING THE ASSESSMENT ARE ALMOST SIMILAR FOR BOTH THE YEARS, THEREFORE, THE ID.CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO ABOVE. 6.4 NOW, WE WILL DISCUSS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ID. D.R. 6.4 (I) IN THE CASE OF BRIJ MOHAN AGARWAL (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT AT THE STAGE OF ISSUING OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, IT IS REQUIRED THAT THE BELIEF OF THE AO MUST BE THAT OF 4 AN HONEST AND REASONABLE PERSON BASED UPON REASONABLE GROUND AND NOT ON MERE SUSPICION, GOSSIP OR RUMOURS. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED ON SUSPICION AND FOR MAKING ROVING ENQUIRIES AND SINCE IT IS TRITE LAW THAT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 CANNOT BE INITIATED EITHER ON THE BASIS OF MERE SUSPICION OR MAKING FISHING OR ROVING ENQUIRIES, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON THIS GROUND WAS ALSO ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THUS, THE ABOVE DECISION SUPPORTS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 6.4(II) SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR, ID.D.R. ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS LTD. VS. ITO THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT THE SUFFICIENCY OR CORRECTNESS OF THE MATERIAL IS NOT A THING TO BE CONSIDERED AT THIS STAGE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COURT CANNOT STRIKE DOWN THE REOPENING OF THE CASE IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IT WILL BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF FACTS MADE IN THE NOTICE WAS ERRONEOUS. THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO PROVE THAT NO NEW FACTS CAME TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER AFTER COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING ANY OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THE QUESTIONS OF FACTS AND LAW ARE OPEN :- 15 -: TO BE INVESTIGATED AND DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE APPELLANT WILL BE ENTITLED TO TAKE ALL THE POINTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY.' IN THIS CASE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE COMMENCEMENT OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS VALID. HOWEVER, NO DECISION WAS GIVEN ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING. THE QUESTIONS OF FACT AND LAW WERE LEFT OPEN TO BE INVESTIGATED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE AO HAD NOT REFERRED TO ANY MATERIAL WHICH COULD JUSTIFY HIS CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE EARNED MORE INTEREST THAN INTEREST IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. THE TRIBUNAL CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE INITIATION COULD NOT BE SAID TO BE VALID. IN OUR OPINION, THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RAYMOND WOOLLEN MILLS (SUPRA) IS OF NO HELP TO THE REVENUE. 6.4 (III) SHRI. PRAVEEN KUMAR, ID. D.R. ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ABDUL KHADER AHAMED (SUPRA). THIS DECISION IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THAT CASE, THE AO INDEPENDENTLY APPLIED HIS MIND TO FACTS AND RECORDED PRIMA FACIE BELIEF AND REASONS BEFORE ISSUING NOTICE. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF ACTING UNDER DICTATES OF SUPERIOR OFFICER. THE HON'BLE COURT FURTHER HELD THAT IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER THAT HE PRIMA FACIE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OMITTED TO DISCLOSE FULLY AND TRULY THE MATERIALS FACTS AND THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. ON THESE FACTS, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE REASSESSMENT WAS VALID. THUS, THE FACTS ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND THEREFORE, THIS DECISION IS ALSO OF NO HELP TO REVENUE'S CASE. 6.4 IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ID.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED IN THE ASSESSEE'S CASE FOR :- 16 -: ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE ID.CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELIVERED ITS ORDER ON 18.11.2009 AND THIS ORDER WAS FOLLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03 HAVING NOTED THAT THE REOPENING WAS DONE ON THE SAME FACTS AND REASONS IN THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. BUT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN ALL TOGETHER A DIFFERENT VIEW HAVING NOTED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE IN INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. CIT(A) EVEN DID NOT AGREE TO THE PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT IN INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IS TO BE FOLLOWED. WHEREAS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHERE THE REOPENING MADE ON SAME FACTS AND REASONS WAS HELD TO BE INVALID AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO WAS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE SAME ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, AS THE REOPENING WAS DONE ON THE BASIS OF SAME FACTS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THE REOPENING MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS INVALID AND THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 8. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 9. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 ON THE BASIS OF THE ADIT AND DDIT REPORT IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THERE ARE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. HAVING RELIED UPON THE SAID REPORT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE. :- 17 -: IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2002-03, WHERE THE REOPENING WAS DONE ON THE SAME FACTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THE REOPENING TO BE BAD AND INVALID AND QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO. THEREFORE, IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. 10. SO FAR AS THE APPLICABILITY OF PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA IN INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, WE AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT PRINCIPLE OF RES-JUDICATA ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS AND EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS INDEPENDENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, BUT IT HAS BEEN REPEATEDLY HELD THROUGH VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS THAT RULE OF CONSISTENCY MUST INVARIABLY BE FOLLOWED IN INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. IF A PARTICULAR VIEW IS TAKEN IN ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE SAME SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR OR SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNLESS AND UNTIL CONTRARY FACTS ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEARS, WHERE THE REOPENING MADE ON THE SAME FACTS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS HELD TO BE INVALID BY THE TRIBUNAL REPEATEDLY IN THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, SHOULD BE FOLLOWED IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, HOLD THAT THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED CONSEQUENT THERETO DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY WE ANNUL THE ASSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 FRAMED CONSEQUENT TO THE BAD REOPENING. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IS ANNULLED, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERIT. ACCORDINGLY THESE TWO APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OF. I.T.A. NO. 230/LKW/2012: 11. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,58,72,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ADDITION :- 18 -: WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE EVEN COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 12. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT WHEREVER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE LOST OR NOT AVAILABLE FOR ANY REASON, THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ESTIMATED. 1. P.K. NOORJAHAN, 155 CTR (SC) 509 ( 237 ITR 570). 2. NAIM ALI KHAN VS. ACIT, 86 TTJ 721 (AGRA). 3. JINDAL UDYOG VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 78 TTJ 820 (CHD). 4. PRAGATI ENGINEERING CORPORATION VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, 225 TAXMAN 231. 5. CIT VS. JAY ENGG. WORKS, 113 ITR 389. 13. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE COMPUTER IN WHICH THE ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY AND IN 2007 IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE EMPLOYEE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY, SHRI. RAMSEVAK HAD PERHAPS STOLEN SOME JEWELLERY AND IN ORDER TO COVER UP THE TRAIL, HE DESTROYED/WASHED OUT THE RECORDS IN THE COMPUTER. AN FIR WAS LODGED WITH THE POLICE STATION ON 22.11.2007. SHRI. RAMSEVAK WAS FOUND MISSING FROM THE OFFICE SINCE 22.11.2005 AND A REPORT WAS ALSO LODGED WITH THE POLICE STATION ON 22.11.2005. COPIES OF THE REPORTS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 310 AND 311 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI. MUKESH RAJANI, AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHO HAS DEPOSED THAT HE HAS AUDITED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN HIS STATEMENT HE HAS DEPOSED THAT HE HAS AUDITED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY WHERE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY ARE :- 19 -: PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IN THE FORM OF COMPUTER PRINT OUT. IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATEMENT OF THE AUDITOR OF THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAVING MAINTAINED ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF COMPUTER PRINTOUT IN ADDITION TO MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON COMPUTER SYSTEM AND HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTENTIONALLY PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE SHRI. MUKESH RAJANI, THEREFORE, HIS STATEMENT CANNOT BE RELIED ON AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING FINANCIAL SERVICES, MONEY LENDING, LEASING AND HIRING AND WAS EARNING INCOME THEREFROM. THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE VERGE OF CLOSURE OF ITS BUSINESS AND WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED IN EARLIER YEARS, IT WAS RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK AND NO FURTHER LENDING WAS DONE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NOW THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS COMPLETELY CLOSED. THESE FACTS WERE EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT AVAILABLE, THE AUDIT REPORT SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME BE ACCEPTED AND ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 15. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IF ANY ADDITION IS CALLED FOR, IT CAN BE ONLY FOR INCOME TO BE GENERATED ON MONEY LENDING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. 16. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR :- 20 -: THOUGH THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH ON ITS RECEIPT FROM THE EARLIER BORROWERS, IT COULD HAVE FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF THE BORROWERS FROM WHOM CASH WAS RECEIVED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AFFORDED NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE DID NOT PRODUCE THE SAME. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS OF THE BORROWERS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. 17. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE CASH BOOKS WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR OR IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHEN THE REOPENING WAS DONE. BUT IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR THE REOPENING WAS HELD TO BE BAD, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, BUT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BY FRAMING REGULAR ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT CASH DEPOSITS IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS. IN THIS REGARD, QUERIES WERE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED REPLIES. BUT NO DETAILS OF THE BORROWERS, FROM WHOM MONEY WAS RECEIVED BACK IN CASH, WERE FILED NOR THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLEA THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED IN THE COMPUTER AND THE COMPUTER WAS DESTROYED BY ITS EMPLOYEE, SHRI. RAMSEVAK AND IN THAT REGARD HE HAD LODGED A COMPLAINT WITH THE POLICE STATION. COPY OF THE SAME IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 310 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. BESIDES, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO MADE A COMPLAINT TO THE POLICE STATION WITH REGARD TO HIS CONTINUOUS ABSENCE FROM THE OFFICE. THE SAID COMPLAINT DATED 22.11.2005 IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 311 OF THE COMPILATION OF THE ASSESSEE. :- 21 -: 18. IT IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF THE AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT AND IN HIS STATEMENT SHRI. MUKESH RAJANI HAS DEPOSED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IN THE FORM OF COMPUTER PRINTOUT FOR ITS AUDIT IN THE OFFICE OF THE COMPANY. ON THE BASIS OF THIS STATEMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF COMPUTER PRINTOUT IN ADDITION TO MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON THE COMPUTER SYSTEM. THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS SHIFTED FROM ONE PLACE TO OTHER, BUT IT IS NOT A CASE OF LOSS OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 19. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A PLEA THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE AUDITOR, SHRI. MUKESH RAJANI WAS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF COMPUTER PRINTOUT IN ADDITION TO MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON COMPUTER SYSTEM. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND FROM ITS PERUSAL WE FIND THAT CERTAIN CREDIT ENTRIES ARE RELATED TO THE TRANSFER ENTRIES AND CANNOT BE PART OF CASH DEPOSITS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE THAT WHENEVER CASH DEPOSITS ARE IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS, THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND NATURE OF DEPOSIT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE STATEMENT OF LOAN AND ADVANCES AND INTEREST RECEIVED DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. BUT FROM THE DETAILS IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ACTUAL RECEIPTS FROM THE EARLIER BORROWERS. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ONCE THE :- 22 -: BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REJECTED, THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ESTIMATED ON THE GROSS TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO HOW MUCH LOAN WAS ADVANCED AND HOW MUCH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET IS PLACED ON RECORD. THOUGH IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS ON THE VERGE OF CLOSING OF ITS BUSINESS AND WHATEVER AMOUNT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE DEBTORS, IT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. BUT FROM A CARFUL PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET, THE FACTS ARE OTHERWISE. 20. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING PLACED STRONG RELIANCE UPON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI. MUKESH RAJANI, AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WHO DEPOSED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM IN THE FORM OF COMPUTER PRINTOUT. BUT THIS STATEMENT WAS NEVER CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI. MUKESH RAJANI CANNOT BE RELIED ON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS/DEBTORS FROM WHOM HE RECEIVED CASH FOR ITS DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. FROM THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS PERSONS FROM WHO CASH WAS RECEIVED, BUT IT REQUIRES A PROPER VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES A FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY AND PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM AND THE :- 23 -: DEPOSITS MADE IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THIS APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF. I.T.A. NO. 284/LKW/2012: 21. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAINLY ON TWO GROUNDS ONE IS WITH REGARD TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.5 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON DEPOSIT OF EARNEST MONEY WITH THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE. THE OTHER GROUND RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.15.40 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF ITS APPEARANCE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ADVANCE AS ON 31.3.2006 AND DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR. 22. WITH REGARD TO FIRST GROUND, THE FACTS BORNE OUT FROM THE RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD APPLIED FOR MEMBERSHIP FOR TRADING WITH BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE BY DEPOSITING AN EARNEST MONEY OF RS.5 LAKHS. AS PER PROVISIONS OF BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE, IT WOULD MAKE MEMBERS WITH ONLY TRADING RIGHTS FOR WHICH IT WOULD TAKE DEPOSIT OF RS.1 CRORE. THE SAID APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED BY THE BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE AND ACCORDINGLY TO THE RULES, THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WAS GIVEN TWO MONTHS TO DEPOSIT THE BALANCE AMOUNT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS, BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE FORFEITED THE EARNEST MONEY AND COMMUNICATED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY IN JULY, 2006. THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY ACCORDINGLY WRITTEN OFF THE SAID AMOUNT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER TREATING IT TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 23. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR THE MEMBERSHIP OF BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE FOR LIMITED RIGHTS OF TRADING IN SHARES WHICH WAS IN PURSUIT OF ITS OBJECTS ENSHRINED IN ITS MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SUCH PAYMENT WAS IN NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE :- 24 -: ASSESSEE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PAY THE BALANCE AMOUNT, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS FORFEITED AND THE SAID ACTION WAS TAKEN IN THE INTEREST OF THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE FORFEITURE WAS AN ACT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 24. BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION HAVING OBSERVED THAT FORFEITURE OF EARNEST MONEY WAS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF REFERENCE:- HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO & THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. A.R. IN THIS REGARD, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE SAID FORFEITURE OF RS.5 LAKH WAS AN ACT OF 'BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY'. IT IS NOT UNCOMMON IN THE BUSINESS WORLD TO BID FOR SOME PROJECT OR TO START A VENTURE IN THEIR EXISTING BUSINESS SET-UP. THE BUSINESS ALSO PAY ADVANCES/EARNEST MONEY IN THEIR PURSUIT TO BIGGER BUSINESS & PROFITS. SOMETIMES SUCH ADVANCES/EARNEST MONEY PAID ARE FOREGONE IF THE BUSINESS GETS A FEELING THAT IT WOULD NOT BE A LOSS MAKING PROPOSITION TO GO AHEAD WITH THE SAID VENTURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, APPLYING TO GET A RIGHT TO TRADE IN THE BSE WAS NOT A NEW LIE OR A SEPARATE BUSINESS, BUT PART OF THE SAME BUSINESS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT FOREGOING OF 'EARNEST MONEY' BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACCOUNT OF 'BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY'. ACCORDINGLY, I DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE. 25. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). HE, HOWEVER, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 26. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). :- 25 -: 27. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE DECISION IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS TO ALLOW BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE TO FORFEIT ITS EARNEST MONEY, AS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO DEPOSIT THE BALANCE AMOUNT IN THE INTEREST OF BUSINESS. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED A LOSS OF RS.5 LAKHS AND THE SAME SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. 28. SO FAR AS THE OTHER GROUND RELATING TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.15.40 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED FROM THE SCHEDULE-6 FORMING PART OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED A SUM OF RS.16.40 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.80,000/-CLAIMED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE RENT. FROM THE PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET AND REPLY DATED 28.10.2009, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN SCHEDULE-3 OF THE BALANCE SHEET, AN AMOUNT OF RS.7.70 LAKHS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ADVANCE TO BE RECOVERED IN CASH OR IN KIND OR FOR VALUE TO BE RECEIVED AS ON 31.3.2006. LIKEWISE, ANOTHER AMOUNT OF RS.7.70 LAKHS HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RENT PAID UNDER PROTEST AS ON 31.3.2006. HOWEVER, UNDER THESE TWO HEADS, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS NIL ON 31.3.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IT APPEARS THAT THESE TWO AMOUNTS OF RS.7.70 LAKHS EACH (RS.15.40 LAKHS) APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2006 UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD RENT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD RENT AND EXPENSES THEREOF. IN RESPONSE IT WAS STATED THAT RS.15.40 LAKHS BEING THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE PAYMENT ON RENT PAID TO SHRI. L.C. AGARWAL AND RENT PAID UNDER PROTEST DEPOSITED WITH THE COURT AS A RESULT OF ITS ORDER AS APPEARING UNDER THE HEAD LOANS AND ADVANCES OF BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.3.2009 AND THEREAFTER :- 26 -: THE AMOUNT WAS TRANSFERRED UNDER THE HEAD RENT ACCOUNT AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS A RESULT OF ORDER OF THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WHICH WAS PASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT PAID TO SHRI. L.C. AGARWAL WAS TRANSFERRED TO RENT ACCOUNT AND IS A LIABILITY TO PAY GOT CRYSTALISED IN THE EVENT OF FINAL ORDER HAVING BEEN DELIVERED BY THE HIGH JUDICIAL FORUMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONCLUDED THAT IT IS APPARENT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.15.40 LAKHS WHICH WAS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ADVANCE AS ON 31.3.2006 HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION UNDER THE HEAD OFFICE RENT WHEREAS THIS AMOUNT UNDER THE CATEGORY OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WHICH CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. HE ACCORDINGLY ADDED BACK THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 29. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT IN REPLY DATED 11.12.2009 IT WAS STATED THAT THERE WAS AN ONGOING LITIGATION BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE LANDLORD OF THE PREMISES, SHRI. L.C. AGARWAL, IN WHICH OFFICE OF THE APPELLANT WAS SITUATED EARLIER AND DURING THE COURSE OF LITIGATION THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS.15.40 LAKHS TOWARDS RENT WITH THE COURT AND ULTIMATELY THE SAID LITIGATION WENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE TRANSFERRED THE SAID AMOUNT FROM LOANS AND ADVANCES TO RENT AND CLAIMED THE SAME AS EXPENDITURE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 30. BEING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION HAVING OBSERVED THAT IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN MAKING DEPOSITS OF THE INCREASED AMOUNT OF RENT AS PER THE EARLIER DIRECTIONS OF THE COURT, BUT THAT WAS ONLY A DEPOSIT AND NOT A CRYSTALISED LIABILITY. THE LIABILITY OF INCREASED RENT WAS CRYSTALISED ONLY :- 27 -: DURING THE YEAR WHEN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED THE CASE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 31. NOW THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, BUT COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 32. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE LIABILITY WAS CRYSTALISED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DEBITED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO INFIRMITY THEREIN. HAVING AGREED WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE CONFIRM THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 33. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A. NO. 369 & 370/LKW/2014 ARE ALLOWED AND I.T.A. NO. 230/LKW/2012 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND REVENUES APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 284/LKW/2012 IS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTIONED PAGE. SD/- SD/- [A. K. GARODIA] [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2015 JJ:171806 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT :- 28 -: 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
