M/s. Khurana Construction, UDAIPUR V. ACIT, UDAIPUR

ITA 25/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1562 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K KHANDELWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DEVENDRA MEHTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL: JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 25/JU/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) M/S. KHURANA CONSTRUCTION VS ACIT, CIRCLE-1 C/O. ANIL SHAH & ASSOCIATES UDAIPUR. 1-C, MADHUBAN, UDAIPUR. PAN NO. AABFK6710G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. DEVENDRA MEHTA. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. A.K. KHANDELWAL, CIT(DR). DATE OF HEARING : 21/02/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/03/2013. PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 30/11/2012. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CIVIL-CONSTRUCTION. FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IT FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME (ROI) ON 30.09.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2 1,82,06,000/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S 143 (3) AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4,25,36,492/- FOLLOWING ADDITIONS HAV E BEEN MADE :- (I) INTEREST INCOME RS. 540369/- (II) GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS RS. 6118585 /- (III) RETENTION MONEY AND SECURITY DEPOSIT RS. 17671538/- 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THESE ADDITION , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CAME UP IN SECOND APPEAL BY RAISING TH E FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF ALLEGED UNREPORTED / UNACCOUNTED INTERE ST INCOME: A. INTEREST INCOME IN RESPECT OF SARDAR SAROVAR NARMAD A NIGAM FDS : RS. 85768 B. INTEREST INCOME IN RESPECT OF RS. 90000 LAXMAN MAKHIJA 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF FOLLOWING ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED CONTRACTU AL RECEIPTS : A. ALLEGED RECEIPTS FROM M/S. FABTECH RS. 10 15830 PROJECT & ENG. LTD. B. ALLEGED RECEIPTS FROM INORBIT MALL RS. 47858 0 (INDIA) P. LTD. C. ALLEGED RECEIPTS FROM JINDAL DRUGS LTD. RS. 46 24175 3 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 17671538/- ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITY / RETENTION MONEY DEDUCTED / RETAINED BY THE CONTRACTEES AS INC OME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, DISREGARDING THE CONTINUO US AND REGULAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESS EE AS ALSO THE SYSTEM OF THE INDUSTRY WHICH HAS BEEN JUDICIALL Y RECOGNIZED AS THE CORRECT AND PERMISSIBLE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING . 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT SIN UPHOLDING THAT THE SECURITY / RETENTION MONEY DEDUCTED / RETAINED BY THE CONTRACTEES OUT OF BILLED AMOUNTS TOWARDS POST CON STRUCTION SERVICES AND RESPONSIBILITIES DURING DEFECT LIABI LITY PERIOD WERE LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION EVEN THOUGH THE RECEIPTS OF SUCH AMOUNTS WERE WHOLLY CON TINGENT ON SUCCESSFUL / SATISFACTORY RENDITION OF POST CONSTRU CTION SERVICES AND LAPSE OF DEFECT LIABILITY PERIOD WITHOUT ANY LI ABILITY ARISING DURING DEFECT LIABILITY PERIOD. 5.THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS BAD IN LA W AND ON FACTS SO FAR AS IT PERTAINS TO THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED IN PRECEDING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 4. GROUND NO. (1) WAS NOT PRESSED AT THE TIME OF TH E HEARING, THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4 5. THE FACTS APROPOS GROUND NO. (2) ARE THAT ON THE BASIS OF FORM NO. 26AS VIS-Z-VIS VERIFICATION OF P&L A/C FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDERSTATEMENT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS FROM THE FOLLOW ING PARTIES ARE NOTICED:- (I) FROM M/S. FABTECH PROJECT & ENGINEERING LTD. (II) FROM INORBIT MALL (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (III) M/S. JINDAL DRUGS LTD. THE REASONS EXPLAINED FOR THE ABOVE WERE EXAMINED B OTH BY AO AND LD. CIT(A); BUT THEY WERE NOT CONVINCED. 6. BEFORE US BOTH PARTIES HAVE REITERATED THERE ORI GINAL STAND. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE HAVE BEEN SO JUMBLED AND LABYRIN TH THAT IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR US TO EVEN UNDERSTAND THE BASIS OF THE REAL CONTROVERSY IN THIS REGARD. THE EXPLANATION HAVE TAKEN ROUNDS THRO UGH REMAND REPORTS BUT STILL THE CLEAR FACTS HAVE NOT EMERGED. THERE W AS A REQUEST ON THE SIDE OF LD. AR THAT THIS ISSUE NEED DE NOVO CONSIDE RATION AND THIS REQUEST WAS SUPPORTED BY LD. D.R. AS WELL. THEY BOT H WERE ALSO NOT IN POSITION TO LINEATE THE REAL ISSUE WITH THEIR SPECI FIC FACTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE ALSO OF THE SIMILAR OPINION. ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTORE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION THAT :- 5 (1) HE SHALL CLEARLY SPELL OUT THE FACTS OF THIS I SSUE; (2) HE SHALL EXAMINE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E IN ITS CORRECT PERSPECTIVE AND (3) HE SHALL GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DECIDING THIS GROUND, AFRESH. AS A RESULT, WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED FINDING OF T HIS ISSUE AND ALLOW THIS GROUND FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 7. GROUND NOS. 3 AND 4 RELATE TO UPHOLDING THE ADDI TION OF RS. 17671538/-. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE WE HAVE RECENTLY TAKEN A VIEW WHILE DECIDING THE CA SE OF AMRIT LAL KHATRI & ORS. IN ITA NO. 19/JU/2013 & OR. ORDER DAT ED 25.02.2013. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE, IN PRINCIPLE, ARE EXACTLY IDENT ICAL TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN AMRIT LAL KHATRI [SUPRA]. IN THAT CASE WE H AVE HELD AS UNDER :- WE HAVE CIRCUMSPECTED THE RECORD AVAILABLE BEFORE U S. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ENTIRE PRECEDENTS RELIED BEFORE US AND WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. IN SO FAR AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE CONCERNED, THER E IS NOT MUCH DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE IS A CIV IL CONTRACTOR WHO OBTAINED CONTRACT FROM THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMEN T. 6 CONTRACTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS ARE STANDARD AGREEMENTS. A COPY OF ONE OF THE AGREEMENTS IS FOUND ENCLOSED IN THE RECO RDS. THE RELEVANT TERMS OF THE CONTRACT WITH REFERENCE TO PE RFORMANCE GUARANTEE IS CONTAINED IN CLAUSE 43.4, WHICH READS AS UNDER: 43.4 THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY EQUAL TO THE FIVE P ERCENT OF THE CONTRACT PRICE AND ADDITIONAL PERFORMANCE SE CURITY FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE AS DETAILED IN CLAUSE 51 OF TH CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT IS REPAID TO THE CONTRACTOR WHEN THE PERIO D OF FIVE YEARS FIXED FOR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE IS OVER AND THE ENGINEER HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE CONTRACTOR HAS SATISFACTORILY CA RRIED OUT THE ROUTING MAINTENANCE OF THE WORKS. IF THE ROUTINE MAINTENANCE PART OF THE CONTRACT IS NOT CARRIED OUT BY THE CONTRACTOR AS PER THIS CONTRACT, THE EMP LOYER WILL BE FREE TO CARRY OUT ROUTINE MAINTENANCE WORK AND THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR THIS WORK WILL BE RECOVERED FROM THE A MOUNT OF PERFORMANCE SECURITY AVAILABLE WITH THE EMPLOYER AN D/OR FROM ANY AMOUNTS OF THE CONTRACTOR WHATEVER IS DUE. 9. THERE IS NO DISPUTE BETWEEN THE PARTIES REGARDIN G THIS FACT AS WELL. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT, TH IS IS A RETENTION MONEY AND NOT PERFORMANCE SECURITY AS H AS BEEN PLEADED. BUT AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, IT IS EVI DENT THAT THIS IS A PERFORMANCE SECURITY. IT IS IMMATERIAL AS TO WHAT NOMENCLATURES IS GIVEN TO THIS AMOUNT SO DED UCTED WHICH IS TO BE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE CONTINGENT ON C ERTAIN 7 CONDITIONS AND IS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE TERMS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THE NATURE OF THIS AMOUNT WILL NOT CHANGE WHETHER WE CALL IT A RETENTION-MONEY OR PERFORMANCE SECURITY OR WITH ANY OTHER NAME. THIS IS A PERFORMANCE SECURITY AS PER THE AGREEMENT. IT MAY BE CALLED AS A SECURITY DEPOSIT ALSO. BUT ADMITTEDLY, THIS AMOUNT IS A PART OF TOTAL GROS S RECEIPTS FROM THE CONTRACTEE. THE HON'BLE MADRAS H IGH COURT IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE ABOVE MENTIO NED DECISIONS HAVE HELD THAT SINCE THIS RECEIPT CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN EITHER ACCRUED OR ARISEN TO THE ASSESS EE, THIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS RECEIPT OF THAT PARTICULAR YEAR TO THE EXTENT THE AMOUNT RETAINED ARE SUBJECT TO FULFI LLMENT OF SOME CONDITIONS LIKE A CERTIFICATE FOR INSPECTIO N OF SATISFACTORY COMPLETION ETC. AND TILL SUCH TIME THI S AMOUNT HAS NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE IS NOT IN CLUDIBLE IN ASSESSEES INCOME. VARIOUS CLAUSES OF THE CONTR ACT TOWARDS WHICH THE LD. A.R. HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTIO N TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE MONEY RETAINED BY THE CONTRACTEE AS PER TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT BE IT CALL ED A RETENTION MONEY OR PERFORMANCE SECURITY IT CANNOT B E INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THIS YEAR. IN THOSE CASES THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED THE ENTIRE BILLS WHICH HAVE BEE N PASSED AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CAREFULLY TREADING THROUGH DECISIONS WE HAVE FOUND THAT ALL THESE DECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD. A.R. HAS RELIED AR E DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THOSE CASES, THE REVE NUE HAD BEEN RECOGNIZED IN ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND TAX HAD 8 BEEN DEDUCTED ON THE FULL AMOUNT WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF RETENTION MONEY. IN THOSE CASES, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED BANK GUARANTEE AS A MEASURE OF PERFORMANC E. LIKEWISE, THE CASE ON WHICH THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED I.E. THE CASE OF AMAR SHIV CONSTRUCTIONS [SUPRA] THE ENTIRE CONTRACT RECEIPT HAD BEEN REALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE ON FURNIS HING OF BANK GUARANTEE. IN THAT FACTUAL MATRIX, IT HAS BEE N HELD THAT IT CANNOT BE NOW SAID THAT THE AMOUNT HAS NOT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE RELEVANT A.YS IN WHICH BILLS WERE RAISED. THUS, THIS DECISION IS ALSO NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS. LIKEWISE, AS WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE D ECISIONS ON WHICH THE LD. A.R. HAS RELIED ALSO SEEM TO BE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS IN AS MUCH AS IN THOSE CAS ES, THE ASSESSEES HAD COMPLETE RECORDS OF THIS RETENTION MO NEY FOR THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY AND IN SOME OF THE CASES T HE ASSESSEE HAD EVEN GOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AGAINST BAN K GUARANTEE. IN THE GIVEN CASES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SATISFY THE DEPARTMENT AS TO WHAT HAPPENED OF THE PERFORMANCE SECURITY IN WHICH ALREADY FIVE YEARS HA VE EXPIRED. IN A.Y. 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSE D THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS AS ITS CONTRACTUAL-RECEIPTS EVEN WHEN FIVE PERCENT WAS RETAINED AND PAID TAX BY APPLYING PER G ROSS PROFIT RATE APPLICABLE IN THAT YEAR. THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 PERTAINING TO APPEAL ARIS ING U/S 263 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A PRECEDENT ON THE ISSUE. THE PARAMETERS TO UPHOLD OR SET ASIDE PROCE EDINGS TAKEN U/S 263 ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. THEREFORE, IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE 9 OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT RETAINED BY THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT WHICH IS SUBJECT TO SATISFAC TORY PERFORMANCE AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE AGREEMENT CAN BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL GROSS RECEIP TS AND HAVE TO BE TREATED AS ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE YEAR. HOWEVER, SINCE BOOKS HAVE BEEN REJECTED, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THE SAME, GROSS PROFIT HAS TO BE ARRIVED AT ON THIS AMOUNT BY APPLYING SAME FIGUR E GROSS PROFIT RATE WHICH HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSE E AND HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN CASE THIS AMOUNT IS RETAINED IN ANY SUBSEQUENT YEAR TO THAT EXTENT, THE ASSESSEE CAN CLAIM DEDUCTION AS PER THE LAW. 10. TO UNDERSTAND THIS TANGLE, LET US TAKE A HYPOT HETICAL EXAMPLE. SUPPOSE, THE CONTRACTOR-ASSESSEE, AS CONT RACTOR, HAS RAISED BILLS OF RS. 100/-, IN A GIVEN YEAR. OUT OF THIS RS. 100/-, THE DEPARTMENT-CONTRACTEE HAD RETAINED RS. 5/- AS P ERFORMANCE GUARANTEE OR SECURITY DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO PAY TAX ON RS. 95% AFTER APPLYING GROSS PROFIT RATE TO ARRIVE AT ITS ACTUAL INCOME. THE REVENUE WANTS TO TAX 95% BY APPLYING G ROSS PROFIT RATE BUT WANTS TO ADDITION RS. 5/- AS IT IS IN ASSE SSEES TOTAL INCOME OF THE YEAR. THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE IS T OTALLY UNCALLED FOR AND CANNOT BE APPROVED UNDER THE PROVI SIONS OF THE ACT BEING UNJUSTIFIABLE. THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO FOR GET ABOUT THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 5% RETAINED BY DEPARTMENT AND HAS PAI D TAX BY APPLYING GROSS PROFIT RATE ON THE REMAINING 95%. I N THIS WAY, BOTH THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT D ONE A CORRECT THING IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AS THE LAW DOES NOT PERMIT THEM 10 TO DO SO. IN CASE RS. 5/- IS TREATED A ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED BIL LS FOR THE ENTIRE RS. 100/- AND THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTEE HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT INCLUDING RS. 5/- ALSO AND THE TDS CREDIT CAN BE GIVEN IN THE YEAR IN WHICH TDS IS DED UCTED. IT WOULD BE SAFER AND CORRECT AS PER LAW TO TAX RS. 10 0/- BY TREATING IT AS ENTIRE RECEIPT OF THE YEAR ALTHOUGH RS. 5/- ARE SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS WHICH HE MAY NOT RECEIVE AT ALL OR MAY RECEIVE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OR PART THEREOF IN TERMS OF THE CONTRACT SUBSEQUENTLY. SINCE THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINING ANY RECORD IN THIS REGARD AND THE CONTRACTEE ALSO COULD NOT HELP THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD, THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT WOULD BE A JUST AND CORRECT ACTION, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, TO TA X THE ENTIRE RS. 100/- BY TREATING IT AS TOTAL GROSS RECEIPT OF THE YEAR AND IF BOOKS ARE REJECTED AND THE A.O. APPLIES A PARTICULA R FIGURE OF GROSS PROFIT RATE AND THE SAME IS NOT DISPUTED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE ACTUAL INCOME ON THE CONTRACT RECEIPT OF RS. 10 0/- CAN BE ARRIVED AT BY APPLYING THAT FROM THE FIGURE OF GROS S PROFIT RATE TO THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 100/-. NOW THE QUESTIO N ARISES AS TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN CASE THAT RS. 5/- IS ENTANGLED IN TERMS OF THE CONTRACT AND IS RECEIVED SUBSEQUENTLY OR IS REC EIVED AT ALL IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS OR THAT SOME PART OF IT IS REC EIVED AFTER THE SATISFACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IN VIEW OF THE T ERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. WE MAY FURTHER MENTION THAT AS PER THIS AGREEMENT, IF THE GOVERNMENT CONTRACTEE HAS TO INCUR SUMS MORE THAN THE SUM OF RS. 5/- RETAINED BY IT, THEY MAY CLAIM FROM THE ASSESSEE AND RECOVER THE SAME AS PER LAW. IN THAT EVENTUALI TY, AGAIN 11 SOME AMOUNT OF THE RECEIPT OUT OF THE CONTRACT RECE IPTS MAY HAVE TO BE REDUCED IF MORE THAN RS. 5/- IS TAKEN AW AY BY THE DEPARTMENT. THUS, IN THIS WAY, IT BECOMES AN ANOMA LOUS SITUATION. THEREFORE, THE BEST COURSE IS TO TREAT THE ENTIRE RS. 100/- AS CONTRACT RECEIPT, PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING 'MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND APPLIED GROSS PROFIT RATE TO ARRIVE AT TAXABLE INCOME. WIT H THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A) AND ORDER THAT THE A.O. SHALL TREAT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT RECEI PTS OF THE YEAR AND APPLY GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE YEAR DISCLOSED O R AGREED TO ARRIVE AT TAXABLE INCOME. THE A.O. CANNOT TAX RETE NTION MONEY BY ADDING IT IN TOTO BY TREATING IT AS NET INCOME. THIS IS A WRONG PROCEDURE AND CANNOT BE APPROVED OF AS IT IS UNKNOW N TO ANY LEGAL PROCEDURE UNDER THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED.' ACCORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE VIEW, IN ORDER TO KEEP CONSISTENCY AND BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER, WE A LLOWED GROUND NO. 3 AND 4, IN SAME OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO DELETE THE ENTIRE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. 12 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED AND IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH MARCH, 2013. SD/- SD/- [N.K. SAINI] [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 7 TH MARCH, 2013. VL/ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR