Sh. Devinder Singh Lamba, Paonta Sahib V. ITO, Nahan

ITA 265/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9775 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Retraction

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 265/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI DEVINDER SINGH LAMBA, VS THE ITO, PROP.M/S MODERN TENT HOUSE & NAHAN. GLASS PALACE, MAIN ROAD, PAONTA SAHIB. PAN: AAVPL4082A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINEET KRISHAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 12.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), SHIMLA DATED 22.12.2 011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND NOS. 1, 2 , 5 AND 8 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE SAME ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED BEING NOT PRES SED. 2 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DATED 22.12.2011 REMAINED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA 266 A ND 267 OF 2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-0 8 AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DECI DED VIDE ORDER DATED 08.03.2016. COPY OF THE ORDER IS P LACED ON RECORD. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EXCEPT GROUND NO. 3, THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE COVERED BY EARLIER ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 08.03.2016. THE REMAINING GROUN DS ARE DECIDED AS UNDER. 5. ON GROUND NO. 3, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 6,46,300/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 9,46 ,000/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN COST OF LAND PURCHASED FOR RESORT. 6. BRIEFLY THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS A PARTNER IN LAMBA CELEBRATIONS RESORT. DURING THE COURSE OF A SURVEY ACTION ON U/S 133A(1) ON 9.3.200 7, IT WAS GATHERED THAT A PIECE OF LAND MEASURING 2 BIGHA S 10 BISWAS WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ONE SMT. DWARKA DEVI W/O SH. ROSHAN LAI FOR 9,25,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE HAD PURCHASED THE SAID LAND FOR RS.1,50,000/-. THE STATEMENT OF S H. ROSHAN LAL, HUSBAND OF SMT. DWARKA DEVI WAS RECORDE D DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH HE CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT THE LAND WAS SOLD FOR RS.9,25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY CONFRONTED IN 3 THIS REGARD BY THE A.O., BUT HE MAINTAINED THAT THE DEAL OF PURCHASE OF LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.9.25 LACS DID NOT MATURE AS THE LAND WAS FOUND TO BE ADJACENT TO PANCHYAT SHAMSHANGHAT, THEREFORE, THE ORIGINAL DEED WAS CANCELLED AND THE SELLER OFFERED THE SAME, LAND FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.5 LACS ONLY. HOWEVER, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND FAVOUR WIT H THE A.O. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF SH, ROSHA N LAL AND OTHER FACTS GATHERED THROUGH ENQUIRIES, THE A.O . MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.9,46,000/- IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION FEE OF RS.21,000/-. 7. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW AS TO WHEN THE ALLEGED OWN MONEY WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND THROUGH WHAT MODE. FURTHER, IF AT ALL ANY LEGAL PRESUMPTION WAS TO BE RAISED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, IT HAD TO BE LINKED TO THE DATE OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL WHICH IS DATED 26/5/2003 RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2004-05. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION COULD HAVE MADE IN THE A.Y.2004-05. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT IF ANY OWN MONEY IS PAID, IT IS ALWAYS PAID AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SE LL AND NOT AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SH. ROSHAN LA L WAS RECORDED AT HIS BACK AND NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROS S EXAMINE HIM WAS AFFORDED. THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON TH E 4 AFFIDAVIT DATED 26/3/2007 FROM SMT. DWARKA DEVI AFFIRMING THAT THE STATEMENT OF HER HUSBAND RECORDE D IN HER ABSENCE WAS NOT BASED ON FACTS AND THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 1,50,000/-. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS PER SH. ROSHAN LAL'S STATEMENT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM OUT OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED RELATED TO THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2004-05 AND NOT THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 8. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, REDUCED THE ADDITION TO RS. 2,99,700/ - AND UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,46,300/-. THE FIN DINGS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN PARA 4 TO 4.7 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 4. THE. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSI DERED WITH REFERENCE TO THE RELEVANT -RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. I T IS NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION, THE APPELLANT M ADE A STATEMENT THAT THE LAND FOR LAMBA CELEBRATIONS RESORT WAS PURCHASE D FOR A CONSIDERATION OF '1 TO 1-1/2LACS RUPEES'. ON THE SA ME DATE THE STATEMENT OF SH.ROSHAN LAL, HUSBAND OF SMT. DWARKA DEVI (THE SELLER OF THE LAND) WAS RECORDED IN THE PRESENCE OF THEIR SON SH. DEEPAK. SH. ROSHAN LAL CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SOLD TO THE APPELLANT FOR RS.9.25 LACS. HE ALSO STA TED THAT THE LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT, DWARKA DEVI AND THE DE AL REGARDING THE SALE OF THE LAND WAS MADE BY HIM ONLY. HE ALSO CLAR IFIED THAT HE WAS MAKING THE STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF HIS WIFE WHO WAS ILLITERATE. SH. ROSHAN LAL ALSO GAVE THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES / INVESTM ENT MADE OUT OF THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,25,000/-AS FOLLOWS:- I) REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN TO LAND MORTGAGE BA NK RS.4,00,000 II) PURCHASE OF 'OLD HOUSE FROM KEH AR SINGH ADV. 2,80,000/- 5 II) EXPENDITURE ON DAUGHTER'S MARRIAGE RS. 2 LACS IV) TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF WAGON R-CAR RS.4 0, 000/- 4.1 THE SAID STATEMENT OF SH. ROSHAN LAL WAS DULY CONFR ONTED TO SH. D. S. LAMBA DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAID DISCREPANCY, THE APPELLANT STATED ON PAGE 19 OF HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THAT HE WISHED TO OFFER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED OF THE LAN D AND THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION STATED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE SELLER F OR TAXATION. HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY THE APPELLANT RETRACTED FROM THE SAID OFFER OF SURRENDER OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 4.2 THE ID. A. O. ALSO RECORDED A STATEMENT OF SH. KEHA R SINGH ADV. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHO CON FIRMED THAT HE HAD SOLD A HOUSE TO SH. ROSHAN LAL FOR RS.2,80,000/-. THE ID. A.O. A/SO MADE ENQUIRIES FROM THE HP STATE CO OP. AGRICULTURE AND RURAL BANK DEVE LOPMENT LTD. PAONTA SAHIB TO SEEK THE CONFIRMATION REGARDING THE RE-PAYMENT OF L OAN BY SH. ROSHAN LAL. IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE BANK IN WRITING THAT SH. ROSHAN LA L HAD DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 299700/- IN THE BANK IN MAY JUNE 2003 TOWARDS R E-PAYMENT OF LOAN. 4.3 ON FURTHER ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ID. A.O., IT EMERGED FROM THE STATEMENT OF A. K. SARIN ADV. / NOTARY AND FROM THE REGISTER OF RECORDS PRODUCED BY HIM THAT A WRITTEN AGREEMENT BE TWEEN THE APPELLANT AND SMT DWARKA DEVI WAS EXECUTED WHEREIN THE SALE CONSI DERATION FOR THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS MENTIONED AT RS.9.25 LACS. THE ID. A.O . DULY CONFRONTED THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE ALSO BY PROVIDING THE COPY OF ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED DOCUMENTS. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE APPELLANT STATE D THAT THE DEAL OF PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.9.25 LACS DID NOT M ATURE AS LATER ON IT CAME TO HIS NOTICE THAT THE SAID PLOT WAS ADJACENT TO TH E PANCHATY SHAMSHAN GHAT AND THAT THE SAID FACT WAS NOT BROUGHT TO HIS NOTIC E AT THE TIME OF THE SAID DEAL. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF CANCEL LATION OF THE SAID DEAL BEFORE THE ID. A.O. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SELLE R AGAIN OFFERED THE SAME LAND WITH A REALISTIC CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.5 LACS WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT AS A VIABLE OFFER. ACCORDINGLY THE SALE D EED WAS EXECUTED ON 6/5/2004. 4.4 THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT, ON THE F ACE OF IT, IS NOTHING BUT A COCK AND BULL STORY. IT IS TOTALLY IM PROBABLE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FINALIZED A DEAL FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND ON WH ICH A RESORT WAS TO BE 6 CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT INSPECTING THE SITE AND WITHOUT MAKING ALL RELEVANT ENQUIRIES REGARDING THE LOCATION, CONDITION, TITLE ETC. A SALE AGREEMENT WAS DUTY EXECUTED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE SELLER, BUT THE SAID FACT WAS CONCEALED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES FO R THE OBVIOUS REASON. WHEN THE APPELLANT'S BLUFF WAS CALLED BY THE A.O, THE AP PELLANT CONCOCTED A STORY REGARDING THE UNDESIRABLE LOCATION OF THE LAND. THE FALSEHOOD OF THIS STORY IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PURCHA SED THE SAME LAND AND BUILT A PLUSH RESORT THEREON. THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT T HE SELLER WAS DESPERATE TO SELL THE LAND AND THAT SHE WAS NOT GETTING ANY CUST OMER AND, THEREFORE, SHE OFFERED HIM THE SAME PROPERTY FOR A MEAGRE CONSIDER ATION OF RS, 1.5 LACS IS PRIMA-FACIE FALSE AND FRIVOLOUS, SH. ROSHAN LAL HAD MADE IT CLEAR IN HIS STATEMENT THAT HIS WIFE WAS ILLITERATE AND THAT HE HAD STRUCK THE DEAF WITH THE APPELLANT. SMT. DWARKA DEVI ALSO, IN HER STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, REPEATEDLY STATED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW ANYTHING AND THAT IT WAS HER HUSBAND WHO KNEW EVERY THING. SH. ROSHAN LAL A/SO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS-OF UTILIZATION OF THE AM OUNT OF RS.9.25 LACS RECEIVED BY HIM ON THE SALE OF THE LAND BELONGING TO HIS WIF E. ON A TEST CHECK, THE SAID DETAILS HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE CORRECT BY THE ID. A. O. 4.5 IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ENQUIRIES WERE A/SO CONDUCTED TO ASCERTAIN THE VALUE OF LAND IN THE GIVEN AREA AND THE STATEMENT OF A FEW PERSONS WHO OWNED THE LAND ADJOI NING THE LAND OF THE RESORT WERE RECORDED. AS PER THE STATEMENT OF THOSE PERSONS, NAMELY SH. BHIM SINGH AND SH. JOGINDER SINGH, THE VALUE OF LAND IN THE GIVEN AREA WAS QUITE HIGH AND COULD FETCH ANYWHERE BETWEEN RS. 12 LACS P ER BIGHA TO RS.40-50 LACS PER BIGHA. BY THAT STANDARD, EVEN THE-CONSIDERATION OF RS.9.25 LACS FOR LAND MEASURING 2 BIGHAS 10 BISWAS IS RATHER MEAGRE. THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT IT COST HIM JUST RS. 1.5 LAC S IS, THEREFORE, NOT AT ALL CONVINCING. 4.6 IT HAS FURTHER BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE ID. A.O. THAT THE SO-CALLED AFFIDAVIT FROM THE SIDE OF SMT DWARKA DEVI REGARDIN G THE CANCELLATION OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT HAS BEEN TYPED OUT IN ENGLISH. S MT. DWARKA DEVI IS ADMITTEDLY AN ILLITERATE WOMAN. THE CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT IS ONLY AN AFTERTHOUGHT ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO COVER UP THE CONCEALMENT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM IN THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND. IN THE SAID AFFIDAVIT IT HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY SMT. DWARKA DEVI THAT THE STATEMEN T OF HER HUSBAND, SH. ROSHAN LAL RECORDED IN HER ABSENCE IS NOT BASED ON FACTS AS HE WAS NOT AWARE 7 ABOUT THE TRUE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1.5 LACS. EVEN T HIS AFFIRMATION IS FALSE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SH. ROSHAN LAL IS A WITNESS T O SO-CALLED CANCELLATION OF THE AGREEMENT EXECUTED ON 26/5/2003. HAD THE AGREEM ENT BEEN GENUINELY CANCELLED, SH. ROSHAN LAL WOULD HAVE STATED SO. THE RE IS ALSO NO STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE WAS NOT AFFOR DED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SH. ROSHAN LAL. THE FACT OF THE MATTE R IS THAT THE STATEMENT OF SH, ROSHAN LAL WAS CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT RIGH T DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN RESPONSE TO WHICH HE HAD OFFE RED TO SURRENDER THE DIFFERENCE FOR TAXATION. 4.7 THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT IF ANY OWN MONEY IS PAID, IT IS ALWAYS PAID AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL AND NOT AT THE TIME OF THE SALE DEED, IS ALSO DEVOID OF ANY LOGIC. IT IS AN OPEN SE CRET THAT A LARGE PART OF THE CONSIDERATION IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS IS PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN THE REGISTRATION DEED AN D THE SAID AMOUNT IS PAID AS PER THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS SETTLED BETWEEN THE PURCHASER AND THE SELLER. AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE AGREEMENT, ONLY A FRACTION OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION IS GENERALLY PAID AS ADVANCE MONEY, K NOWN AS 'BAYANA' IN POPULAR PARLANCE. THE SAME THING APPEARS TO HAVE HA PPENED IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE AS WELL. A PART OF THE CONSIDERATI ON APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE APPELLANT AT THE TIME OF THE EXECUTION OF THE SALE AGREEMENT AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE DETAILS OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY SH . ROSHAN LAL. A SUM OF RS,299700/- WAS PAID BY SH. ROSHAN LAL TO THE BANK IN THREE INSTALLMENTS PAID ON 26/5/2003, 10/C/2003 AND 10/6/2003. TO THIS EXTENT THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CONSIDERATION PAID IN THE F. Y. 2003-04 COULD BE ASSESSED IN THE A. Y. 2004-05 IS ACCEPTABLE. SINCE IT IS HELD THAT THE CONSIDERATION AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE AGREEMEN T DATED 26/5/2003 WAS THE AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN T HE PURCHASE OF LAND WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY SH.ROSHAN LAL, IT IS ALSO ACCEPTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.299700/- UTILIZED BY SH.ROSHAN LAI IN THE YEAR 2 003 COULD NOT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE A.Y, 2005-06. TO THAT EXTENT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ID. A.O. IS DIRECTE D TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT'S ARGUMENT THAT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSI DERATION SHOULD BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID AT THE TIME OF THE EXECU TION OF THE SALE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE F ROM HIS SIDE. IT WAS FOR THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDE RATION WAS PAID BY HIM IN MAY, 2003. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS.946000 - RS.299700 8 =RS.6,46,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN LAND FRO M UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IS UPHELD. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT SMT. DWARKA DEVI FILED AFFIDAVIT AFFIRMING THEREIN THAT LAND IN QUESTION WAS SOLD FO R A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1,50,000/- AND SHRI ROSHAL LAL ALSO MADE A STATEMENT LATER ON THAT THE STATEMENT WAS FORCIBLY TAKEN BY INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. HE HAS REFERRED TO CANCELLATION AGREEMENT DATED 05.09.2003 THROUGH WHICH EARLIER AGREEMENT DATED 26.05.2003 THROUGH WHICH PROPERTY IN QUESTION OF RS. 9,25,000/ - WAS CANCELLED ON THE REASON THAT ADJACENT TO THE LA ND IN QUESTION, THERE IS A CREMATION GROUND. THE ASSESSE E AGAIN LATER ON PURCHASED THE SAME PROPERTY FROM THE OWNER SMT. DRAWKA DEVI FOR RS. 1,50,000/- VIDE SALE DEED DATED 06.05.2004. HE HAS, THEREFORE, SUBMITTE D THAT ENTIRE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 9(I) ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PURCHA SER AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO THE AGREEMENT WOULD VE RIFY ALL THE FACTS AND LAND AT THE SPOT BEFORE PURCHASIN G THE SAME. THE THEORY OF CANCELLATION AGREEMENT ON ACCO UNT OF CREMATION GROUND SITUATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPER TY IS INCORRECT AND CONCOCTED STORY. THE ASSESSEE NEVER PRODUCED ORIGINAL AGREEMENT DATED 26.05.2003 AND TH AT 9 THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION INITIALLY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE PRIC E AND AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED BUT SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED FROM OFFER OF SURRENDER. HE HAS RELIED U PON DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BACHITTAR SINGH V CIT 328 ITR 400 IN WH ICH THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED FROM STATEMENT MADE IN SURVE Y ABOUT TWO MONTHS WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED VALID RETRACTION FROM THE STATEMENT MADE DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS FOUND THAT LAND FOR LAMBA CELEBRATION RESORT WAS PURCHASED FOR A CONSIDERATIO N OF RS. 1.50 LACS. ON THE SAME DAY, STATEMENT OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL, HUSBAND OF SMT. DWARKA DEVI ( SELLER OF THE LAND) WAS RECORDED ON 09.03.2007 IN THE PRESENCE OF HIS SON SHRI DEEPAK, IN WHICH SHRI ROSHAN LAL CATEGORIC ALLY STATED THAT THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SOLD T O THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 9.25 LACS. SHRI ROSHAN LAL ALSO EXPLAINED THAT LAND WAS IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE AND THE DEAL REGARDING SALE OF LAND WAS MADE BY HIM ONLY. HE HAS ALSO CLARIFIED THAT HE HAS MADE THE STATEMENT O N BEHALF OF HIS WIFE WHO IS ILLITERATE AND HIS STATEM ENT IS CORRECT. SHRI ROSHAN LAL ALSO GAVE THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES/INVESTMENTS MADE OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9.25 LACS. THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ROSHAN LA L WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE WAS ASKED TO EXPL AIN 10 THE DISCREPANCY. THE ASSESSEE, ON GOING THROUGH TH E STATEMENT OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL WISHED TO OFFER THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRICE SHOWN IN THE SALE DEED OF THE LAND AND THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION STATED BY THE HUSBAND OF THE SELLER FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER, LATER ON, HE HAS RETRACTED FROM HIS STATEMENT. THESE FINDING S OF FACTS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IN THE IMPUG NED ORDER HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS. 10(I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE FURTHER ENQUI RIES WITH REGARD TO AMOUNT UTILIZED BY SHRI ROSHAN LAL A ND FOUND THAT STATEMENT OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL IS CORROBOR ATED BY FURTHER ENQUIRIES. THE SAME FACTS HAVE BEEN NOT ED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO IN HIS FINDINGS IN PAR A 4.2 AND 4.3 OF THE ORDER, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, CORRECTLY FOUND THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE FACE OF IT IS NO THING BUT A MADE-UP STORY. IT WAS FUND THAT IT WAS TOTAL LY IMPROBABLE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FINALIZED A DEAL FOR T HE PURCHASE OF LAND ON WHICH THE RESORT WAS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHOUT INSPECTING THE SITE AND WITHOUT MAKING OF RELEVANT INQUIRIES REGARDING THE LOCATION , CONDITION, TITLE ETC. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BO OK FILED A CANCELLATION AGREEMENT DATED 05.09.2003 IN WHICH IT IS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT VIDE AGREEM ENT DATED 26.05.2003, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 9,25,000/-. THE ASSESSEE NEVER PRODUCED COPY OF TH E 11 AGREEMENT DATED 26.05.2003 BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND WHEN THE TRIBUNAL ASKED THE LD. COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 26.05.2003, THE SAME WAS NOT PLACED ON RECORD. THEREFORE, ADVERSE INFERENCE SHALL HAVE TO BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE AGREEMENT IS IN PO WER AND POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN DELIBER ATELY PRODUCED FOR PERUSAL. THE PRODUCTION OF ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS NECESSARY BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE CONTAINED THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY UNDER SAL E. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LATER ON SAYING THAT DUE TO CREMATION GROUND SITUATED ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY, ORIGINAL AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED. 10(II) IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT AS PER EXPL ANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, DESPITE THE CREMATION GROUND REMAI NED SITUATED ON THE SAME PLACE, ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO PURCHASE THE SAME PROPERTY UNDER SALE FOR A LESSER CONSIDERATION WITHOUT ANY REASONS. THE CANCELLATIO N OF AGREEMENT BEARS THE SIGNATURES OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL WHICH ALSO SUPPORTS HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON THE D AY OF SURVEY THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS. 9,25,000/ -. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL WAS NEVER DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE OFFERED TO SURRENDER THE REMAINING AMOUNT FOR TAXATION, WOULD SHOW THAT ASSESSEE NEVER ASKED FOR THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF T HE STATEMENT OF SHRI ROSHAN LAL RECORDED DURING THE CO URSE OF SURVEY. THEREFORE, SUFFICIENT MATERIAL IS AVAIL ABLE ON 12 RECORD WHICH PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 9,25,000/- BUT LATER ON SALE D EED DATED 06.05.2004 WAS EXECUTED FOR A LESSER AT OF RS . 1,50,000/- WHICH FALLS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APP EAL AND AS SUCH AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE CORRECTLY MADE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ALSO MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES DURING THE COURSE OF SU RVEY AND FOUND THAT SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY I N QUESTION WAS NEAR ABOUT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF R S. 9,25,000/-. THEREFORE, THE THEORY OF CANCELLATION AGREEMENT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED BY ASSESS EE JUST TO AVOID THE PAYMENT OF TAXES ON THE CONCEALED INCOME. IF THE CANCELLATION AGREEMENT WOULD HAVE E XIST ON THE DAY OF SURVEY, SHRI ROSHAN LAL WOULD HAVE EXPLAIN THE SAME TO THE SURVEY PARTY TO WHICH HE WA S ALSO A WITNESS. THE FILING OF AFFIDAVIT BY SMT. DW ARKA DEVI OR HER MAKING A STATEMENT LATER ON CLEARLY PRO VED THAT AN AFTER THOUGHT STORY HAS BEEN CREATED TO RED UCE THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. IT IS GENERALLY A PARTIES TO PAY FULL AMOUNT AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED. ADDITION IN THE YEAR OF APPEAL IS JUSTI FIED. 11. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF DURGA PRASAD MORE 82 ITR 540 AND SUMATI DAYAL 214 ITR 801 HAVE HELD THAT THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAVE TO JUDGE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM BY APPLYING TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY AND THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES. THE SURVEY PARTY FOUND SPECIFIC MATERIAL AGAINST THE 13 ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT DENIED BY ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF SURVEY ITSELF. RATHER THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE AMOUNT FOR TAXATION BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNT OF RS. 9,25,000/- AS PER AGREEMENT AND RS. 1,50,000/- AS P ER SALE DEED. THESE FACTS WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED FOR A LESSER AMOUNT, THEREFORE, EVIDENCES COLLECTED BY THE SURVEY PARTY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE RIGHTLY SUPP ORT THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE IS WHOLLY JUSTIFIED. 12. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WIT H THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS GROUND NO. 3 OF AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 13. ON GROUND NO. 4, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 2,22,238/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FIGURES OF PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK AS DISCLOSED TO THE BANK FOR OBTAINING OF LOAN. IT WA S NOTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THROUGH THE INFORM ATION OBTAINED FROM THE BANK THAT THERE WAS A HUGE DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE FIGURES OF PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK AS REFLECTED IN THE SET OF FINAL ACCOUNTS SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK FROM THOSE FILED ALONGW ITH THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE SAID DISCREPANCIES WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH HE 14 SUBMITTED THAT INFORMATION SUBMITTED TO THE BANK WA S HALF COOKED AND WAS ONLY FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF RENEWAL, RAISING OF LOAN FROM THE BANK AND WAS SUPP LIED ON THE DEMAND OF THE BANK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FINAL AND WAS GOOD FOR ALL PURPOSES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT ACCEPT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE ASSESSEE ADMITTED DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY THAT HE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADOPTED A FIGURE SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE TO THE BANK AS CORRECT FIGURE AND ADDED THE GP @ 16.25% ON THE DIFFERENCE OF SALES AN D MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,22,238/-. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND TH AT THIS ISSUE IS SAME AS HAD BEEN CONSIDERED BY ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF SAME ASSESSEE FOR SUBSEQU ENT YEARS VIDE ORDER DATED 08.03.2016. THE FINDINGS IN PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 5 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND FILED WITH THE BANK FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAKING LOAN. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, PROFIT HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.75,546/- AND IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE BANK, THE NET PROFIT HAS BEEN 15 SHOWN AT RS. 1,06,980/-. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS FIGURE IS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE SALES OR OPENING STOCK AND THE CLOSING STOCK, BUT ULTIMATELY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PROFIT IS VERY SMALL AND THE EXPENSES SHOWN IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK HAVE NOT BEEN DISBELIEVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE FACTS WOULD CLEARLY SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY IMAGINARY FIGURES IN THE TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK BECAUSE THERE COULD NOT BE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE OPENING STOCK. THE ENTIRE TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, WHEN CONSIDERED FOR FILING WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THAT THE BANK WOULD CLEARLY INDICATE THAT ULTIMATELY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PROFIT WAS IN THE STATEMENT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALL THE FIGURES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT WHEN HE HAS BELIEVED TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FILED WITH THE BANK AS CORRECT AS PER THE FIGURES GIVEN THEREON, THEN THE PROFIT DECLARED THEREIN SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO FURTHER CALCULATION SHOULD BE MADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT NET PROFIT OF RS. 1,06,980/- AS DECLARED IN THE TRADING AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SUBMITTED TO THE BANK INSTEAD OF RS. 75,546/- DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE FINDING OF 16 AUTHORITIES BELOW TO THAT EXTENT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE PROFIT OF RS. 1,06,980/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ULTIMATELY THE PROFIT RATE AS PER DIFFERENCE OF SAL ES HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 1,62,238/-, THEREFORE, ADDITION MAY BE RESTRICTED T O THIS AMOUNT. WE FIND CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO BE CORRECT AS THIS FIGURE IS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS. 2,22,2 38/- IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 1,62,238/- BY FOLLOWING EARLIE R ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 08.03.2016 (SUPRA). THIS GROU ND IS, THEREFORE, PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. ON GROUND NO. 6, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 27,326/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF COLLEGE FEES IN RESPECT OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONDUCTED INQUIRIES FROM THE COLLEGE IN WHICH SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA, SON OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS STUDYING DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IT WAS CONFI RMED BY THE PRINCIPAL OF THE COLLEGE THAT FEES OF RS. 27,326/- WAS PAID TO THE COLLEGE I N ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE IS 17 COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 08.03.2016 (SUP RA) IN WHICH IN PARA 7, THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER : 7. AFTER HEARING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT SON OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA WAS DEPENDANT AND THAT NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRODUCED TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. SINCE THE SOURCE OF FEE DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA AND SOURCE OF BANK DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI NAVNEET SINGH LAMBA HAVE NOT BEEN EXPLAINED WHO IS ADMITTED TO BE MINOR SON OF THE ASSESSEE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AND CONFIRMING BOTH THE ABOVE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, NO EVIDENCE OR COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN MAKING THE ADDITION. WE CONFIRM THESE ADDITIONS AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL ABOVE, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. ON GROUND NO. 7, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 2,03,260/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,72,360/- IN BANK ACCOUNT OF SON SHRI AVNEET S INGH AND PAYMENT OF RS. 30,900/- AS FEES TO THE LAW COLL EGE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON INQUIRY CONDUCTED FROM THE 18 STATE BANK OF INDIA, PAONTA SAHIB DISCOVERED THAT T HERE WAS DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE'S SON SHRI A VNEET SINGH LAMBA IN A SUM OF RS. 1,72,360/- WHICH IS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, LAW COLLEGE FE ES AT DEHRADOON WAS PAID IN A SUM OF RS. 30,900/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, MADE THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISS UE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY ORDER OF THE TRIBUN AL DATED 08.03.2016 (SUPRA) IN WHICH IN PARA 9, IT IS HELD AS UNDER : 9. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT SON OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DEPENDANT UPON ASSESSEE AND NO SOURCE. THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF THE FEES IN THE LAW COLLEGE IN THE NAME OF SON OF THE ASSESSEE AND BANK DEPOSIT WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, PAONTA SAHIB. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS THEREFORE, AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US TO EXPLAIN BOTH THESE ADDITIONS THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD, WE CONFIRM BOTH THE ADDITIONS AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 19 20. ON GROUND NO.9, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE UPHOLDING OF DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES IN A SUM OF RS. 18,665/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF M/S MODERN TENT HOUSE REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE DEBITED CERTAIN EXPENS ES, PERSONAL USE OF THE SAME CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED 30% OUT OF THE EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 18,665/-. THE LD . CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AND DISMISSED T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 08.03.2016 (SUPRA) IN THE CAS E OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME GROUND RESTRICTED THE ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO 10% AS PE R PARA 14 OF THE ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : 14. AFTER CONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW ADDITION IS EXCESSIVE. THE PERSONAL USER OF THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE, 30% OF EXPENSES IS ON HIGHER SIDE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE AND MODIFY THE DISALLOWANCE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF THESE EXPENSES. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 22. FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 08.03.2016 (SUPRA), WE SET ASIDE THE 20 ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO MAKE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 23. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNESH SA INI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH JULY, 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD