Shri Durjendra Tiwari, Indore V. THE ITO-4(1), Indore

ITA 265/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5987 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.265/IND/2016 A.Y.2008-09 DURJENDRA TIWARI INDORE PAN AFKPT 7090L ::: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(1) INDORE ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 7.6.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 8.6.2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 8.12.2015 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A )-22, NEW DELHI, HAVING CONCURRENT JURISDICTION OF CIT(A)- I, INDORE. DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 2 2. THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAINTAIN ING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,41,000/- AS MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNT OF RS.13,41,000/- IN BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.13,41,000/- . IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.9 LACS WAS RECEIVED WAS RECEIVED AS CASH GIFT FROM HIS MO THER AND RS. 3,50,000/- FROM HIS BROTHER, TOTALING TO RS.12,50,000/- AND THE REST OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.91,00 0/- WAS CLAIMED BY HIM TO BE FROM HIS OWN SOURCES. AFTER RECORDING THE STATEMENT OF HIS BROTHER, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAME. HOWEVER, TH E ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE MOTHER FOR EXAMINATION BU T DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 3 CLAIMED THAT AFTER THE DEATH OF HIS FATHER, ALL HIS SAVING S REMAINED WITH THE MOTHER. APART FROM THIS, SHE WAS ALSO MANAGING AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. HER MOTHER ALSO SOLD JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 4,90,509/- TO M/S RAJSHREE JEWE LLERS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE WITHDRAWALS FRO M THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE MOTHER FROM TIME TO TIME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.13,41,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AGAINST THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT (A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. BEFORE ME, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS FUL LY BY GIVING ALL THE NECESSARY EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE SOUR CE OF DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 4 DEPOSIT OF CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS LAY UPON HIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENQUIRING ABOUT SOURCE OF SOURCE AND MAKI NG ADDITION THEREON. IN ADDITION TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE ME :- IN COMPLIANCE TO DIRECTION GIVEN DURING HEARING ON 25.05.2016 IN RELATION TO GIFT OF RS. 3,50,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS BROTHER SHRI AKHILESH TIWARI : 1. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED INTER ALIA, THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS . 3,50,000/- WAS RECEIVED IN CASH AS GIFT FROM HIS BROTHER, SHRI AKH ILESH TIWARI ON 01.10.2007 WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS. 3,5 0,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, GIFT DEED FROM SHRI AKHILE SH TIWARI WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO. [PB 12 13] 3. A STATEMENT OF HIS BROTHER SHRI AKHILESH TIWARI WAS RECORDED U/S 131 ON 15.11.2010 BY THE LD. AO. [AO PAGE 4 5 - 6] 4. BROTHER OF ASSESSEE, AKHILESH TIWARI, HAS STATED IN HIS STATEMENT CONFIRMED GIVING OF GIFT OUT OF HIS PAST SAVINGS OF SEVERAL YEARS. [AO PAGE 5, ANSWER TO Q 11, 12 & 15] 5. LD. AO TREATED THE IMPUGNED CASH DEPOSIT AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME AND MADE ADDITION U/S 69 ON THE FOLLOWING BASIS [AO PAGE 6 PARA 4] DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 5 A. CAPACITY OF SHRI AKHILESH TIWARI IS NOT PROVED B. FACT FROM STATEMENT RECORDED IS SUFFICIENT TO CONCL UDE THAT NO GIFT COULD BE GIVEN BY HIS BROTHER AS HE HAS NO CAPACITY TO KEEP RS. 3,50,000 OUT OF SAVINGS OF MANY YEARS C. THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAKE GIFT D. GIFT RECEIVED FROM BROTHER APPEARS TO BE AN AFTERTH OUGHT 6. ON FACTUAL MATRIX, REGARDING GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, FOLLOWING FACTS ARE UNDISPUTED : A. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE GIFTS DEED CONFIRMING TH E GIFTS. B. STATEMENT OF SHRI AKHILESH TIWARI WAS RECORDED BY T HE LD. AO U/S 131 WHO CONFIRMED GIVING OF GIFT OUT OF HIS OWN FUNDS. C. LD. AO DID NOT DISPUTE THE IDENTITY OF DONORS. D. THERE WAS NO POSITIVE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. AO TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT GIFTED WAS THE MONEY GIVEN BY THE DONEE (ASSESSEE) IN ANY FORM AT ANY TIME. IN OTHER WORDS, LD. AO DID NOT ESTABLISH THAT MONEY RECEIVED AS GIFTS EMANATED FRO M THE COFFERS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL [1973] 87 ITR 349 (SC) HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT REAL WAS ON THE PARTY WHO CLAIMED I T TO BE SO. 7. TO SUPPORT THE ABOVE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, I N ADDITION TO THE EARLIER SUBMISSION ALREADY ON RECORD, RELIANCE IS P LACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS FOR WHICH A CASE LAW PAPER BOOK [CLPB] MAY PLEASE BE REFERRED A. JUSTICE PD DINAKARAN [2015] 55 TAXMANN.COM 374 (CHE NNAI) [REFER CLPB 10] 13.6 THE NEXT ISSUE IN APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO CA SH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF DAUGHTERS OF THE ASSESSEE, MS. AMUDHA D INAKARAN (RS. 2,25,000/-) AND MS. AMIRTHA DINAKARAN (RS. 3,50,600/-). THE DAU GHTERS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT FROM SHRI JA COB WILLIAMS. IT IS AN UN- DISPUTED FACT THAT THE DONOR AND DONE ARE CLOSE REL ATIVES. THE DONOR HAS CONFIRMED THE GIFT AND THE DONOR HAS ALSO BEEN ABLE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR MAKING SUCH GIFTS. SINCE, THE GIFTS AND THE SOU RCE OF GIFTS HAVE BEEN FULLY ESTABLISHED, WE FIND NO REASON TO ADD GIFT AMOUNTS IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMIS SED BEING WITHOUT MERIT. DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 6 B. N. SUNITHA [2001] 118 TAXMAN 110 (BANG)(MAG) [REFER CLPB 14] HELD - IN RESPECT OF THE UNEXPLAINED GIFTS, THE COMMISSI ONER (APPEALS) HAD HELD THAT THE DONEE COULD NOT BE ASKED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE GIFT AND MERELY BECAUSE THE DONORS HAD DEPOSITED CASH INTO THE BANK COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE CONCLUSIVE OF THE FACT THAT GIFTS IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE WERE UNEXPLAINED. WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED GIFTS, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, SINCE THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT BRING IN MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE MONEYS THAT WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE DONORS W ERE MONEYS THAT FLOWED FROM THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS TO BE HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE DID NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. C. RAJ STORE [1991] 58 TAXMAN 237 (DELHI TRIB)(MAG) [R EFER CLPB 1] HELD - FROM THE STATEMENT OF B IT WAS CLEAR THAT SHE HA D RECEIVED CASH GIFTS AT THE HOUSE OF HER PARENTS AND AT HER IN-LAWS HOUSE. FROM HER STATEMENT, IT APPEARED THAT SHE COULD HAVE DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 7,000 WITH THE ASSESSEE- FIRM. FURTHER, IT WAS TRUE THAT S WAS DRAWING A SAL ARY OF RS. 900 P.M. ONLY, BUT CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT, IT COULD B E SAID THAT HE WAS IN A POSITION TO DEPOSIT A PETTY SUM OF RS. 1,500 OUT OF PAST SAVINGS. THE ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS. 6,500 WAS, THEREFORE, DELETED. D. ASHWANI KUMAR GARG [1998] 97 TAXMAN 271 (AMRITSAR)( MAG) [REFER CLPB 2] SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 - CASH CREDI TS - ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988-89 - ASSESSEE RECEIVED CASH GIFTS AS WELL AS LOAN FROM HIS FRIENDS M & A BY CHEQ UES - BOTH DONORS AND CREDITOR WERE PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER - ACCORDING TO A SHE WAS AN INCOME-TAX ASSESSEE AND DERIVED INCOME FROM STITCHING AS WELL AS SHARE INCOME FROM A COMPANY - M AND HIS WIFE WERE EMPLOYEES OF SBI - WHETHER ON FACTS, ASSESSEE HAD PROVED GENUINENESS O F GIFTS AND LOAN AS ALSO CREDITWORTHINESS OF M AND A, AND ABSENCE OF REL ATIONSHIP BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND DONORS WAS NO GROUND TO REJECT ASSESSEES CLAIM - WHETHER ADDITION COULD BE SUSTAINED UNDER SECTION 68 - HELD, NO 8. SECTION 69 REQUIRES THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN NATURE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. AS EXPLAINED, THE GIFTS RECEIVED ARE TH E NATURE AND SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH ARE COV ERED BY SECTION DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 7 122 AND 123 OF THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 ACCORDING TO WHICH FOLLOWING ARE THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A VALID GIF T : A. DONORS INTENTION TO MAKE A GIFT; B. THE GIFT SHOULD BE MADE VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT CONSIDERATION, BY THE DONOR; C. DELIVERY OF ACTUAL OR CONSTRUCTIVE POSSESSION; D. ACCEPTANCE OF THE GIFT BY THE DONEE OR ON HIS BEHALF. INTENTION OF THE DONOR TO GIVE GIFT IS OUT OF NATUR AL LOVE AND AFFECTION AND ALSO WITHOUT ANY CONSIDERATION. LD. AO COULD NO T BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE GIFT WAS FOR SOME CONSI DERATION. ALL THE ABOVE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS HAVE BEEN SATISFIED IN CAS E OF GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. HONBLE ITAT INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KUMAR BAJAJ [2007] 9 ITJ 604 (IND) DEALT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 122 AND 123 OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882 IN RELATION TO GIFTS AND HELD IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. SPECIFIC PARA 13 MAY PLEASE BE REFERR ED. ...................ALL THE ABOVE CONDITIONS OF A V ALID GIFT ARE, THEREFORE, SATISFIED IN THE AFORESAID CASE. MERELY BECAUSE THE DONOR HAS LOWER FINANCIAL POSITION TO THAT OF THE DONEE WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT THE GIFT AMOUNT HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE DONOR OUT OF HIS OWN FUNDS..... 10. ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS FULLY BY GIVING AL L THE NECESSARY EXPLANATIONS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. LD. AO PROC EEDED TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SOURCE AND TOOK AN ADVE RSE VIEW BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. STRONG RELIANCE IS PLA CED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH IN THE CASE OF METACHEM INDUSTRIES [2001] 245 ITR 160 (MP) WHO HAS HELD [PARA 4 & 5] - ONCE IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN INV ESTED BY A PARTICULAR PERSON, BE HE A PARTNER OR AN INDIVIDUAL, THEN THE RESPONSI BILITY OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS OVER. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM CANNOT ASK THAT PERSON WHO MAKES INVESTMENT, WHETHER THE MONEY INVESTED IS PROPERLY TAXED OR NOT. THE AS SESSEE IS ONLY TO EXPLAIN THAT THE INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE PARTICULAR INDI VIDUAL AND IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT INDIVIDUAL TO ACCOUNT FOR TH E INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM. IF DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 8 THAT PERSON OWNS THAT ENTRY, THEN THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS DISCHARGED. IT IS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO UNDERTAKE F URTHER INVESTIGATION WITH REGARD TO THAT INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS DEPOSITED THIS AMOUNT. S O FAR AS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS SATISFACTORILY DIS CHARGED. WHETHER THAT PERSON IS AN INCOME-TAX PAYER OR NOT OR FROM WHERE HE HAD BRO UGHT THIS MONEY, IS NOT THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE FIRM. THE MOMENT THE FIRM HAS GIVEN A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND PRODUCED THE PERSON WHO HAS DEPOSIT ED THE AMOUNT, THEN THE BURDEN OF THE FIRM IS DISCHARGED AND IN THAT CASE T HAT CREDIT ENTRY CANNOT BE TREATED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE FIRM FOR THE PURPOS ES OF INCOME-TAX. IT IS OPEN FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION UN DER SECTION 69 AGAINST THE PERSON WHO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTM ENT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE, DETAILED S UBMISSIONS MADE, DOCUMENTS ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO BE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD . AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE DELETED. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTTERLY FAILED TO PROVE HIS CASE. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ONLY ISSUE IS THAT THER E WAS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.13,41,000/- IN THE BANK. THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12,51,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM HIS MOTHER (RS. 9 LACS) AND RS. 3,50,000/- FROM HIS BROTHER. THE STATEMENT OF THE BROTHER, SHRI AKHILESH KUMAR DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 9 TIWARI, WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE STATED THAT HE WAS A SCHOOL TEACHER EARNING RS. 2500/- PER MONTH BESIDES HAVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT AND PAN. SHRI AKHILESH KUMARS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON OATH WHO HAS CONFIRMED BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT HE HAS GIFTED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,50,000/- TO HIS BROTHER. HIS BROTHER HAS GIFTED THIS AMOUNT AND TH E GIFT WAS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR WAS ESTABLISHED. THE ASSESSEE IS THE REAL BROTHER OF SHRI AKHILESH TIWARI. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON TO DIS BELIEVE THE STATEMENT OF HIS BROTHER. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE DONOR BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHEN THE GIFT IS FROM CLOSE RE LATIVES AND WHEN THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE GIFT, THERE IS NO RE ASON TO ADD SUCH GIFT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN RESPECT OF RS. 9 LACS, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THIS GIFT FROM HIS MOTHER, SMT. DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 10 ROOPSHRI TIWARI, AGED 73 YEARS RESIDING AT ITAWA, UP. T HIS GIFT IS SUPPORTED BY THE DONOR. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS CARRIED OUT INVESTIGATION AND FROM THE INVESTIGATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER DIED IN 1999 AND MOTHE R HAS SOLD JEWELLERY OF RS. 4,90,509/- TO M/S RAJSHREE JEWELLERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF M/S RAJSHREE JEWELLERS WHEREIN IT WAS ADMITTED THAT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD JEWEL LERY WORTH RS. 4,90,509/-. THEREFORE, TO THIS EXTENT, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH THE MOTHER IS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE MOTHER WAS HAVING THE JEW ELLERY WORTH RS. 4,90,509/-. IN RESPECT OF RS. 5 LACS IT I S THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAS GIVEN THIS AMOUNT OUT OF H ER PAST SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENC E BEFORE HIM TO SHOW THAT THE MOTHER WAS HAVING RS. 9 LAC S WHICH HAS GIVEN TO HIS SON. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE VI EW THAT OUT OF RS. 9 LACS, RS. 4,90,509/- IS EXPLAINED AND RES T OF DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 11 THE AMOUNT IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 8 JUNE, 2016 SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER 8 TH JUNE, 2016 DN/- DURJENDRA TIWARI ITA NO. 265/IND/2016 12