ACIT, Ghaziabad V. M/s Shree Ganpati Education Society, Ghaziabad

ITA 2655/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 265520114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 08-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SURJANI MOHNANTY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Non compliance
• Section: 133A; 133(6); 80G; 12A; 12AA; 69; 12; 11

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2655/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 ACIT, SHREE GANPATI EDUCATION SOCIETY, RANGE-2, SHRI GANPATI KNOWLEDGE PARK, GHAZIABAD. V. NH-24, PARSON MASURI, GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO. PAN /GIR/NO.AAETS AAETS AAETS AAETS- -- -7326 7326 7326 7326- -- -R RR R APPELLANT BY : SMT. SURJANI MOHNANTY, SR. DR. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.S. SINGHVI, C.A. ORDER PER TS KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD CIT(A) DATED 30.3.2011. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE RE VENUE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE A.O. AMOUNTING TO RS.80,00,000/-- IN RESPECT O F DONATIONS, TREATING IT AS GENUINE AND IGNORING THE FACT THAT TH ERE IS FREQUENT CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE COMPANY AND THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT ABLE TO PRODUCE CORRECT PAN AND THE DETAIL OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER. THE FREQUENT CHANGE IN THE NAME OF THE COM PANY ALSO CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 2 2. WHILE ACCEPTING THE DONATION A GENUINE HON'BLE C IT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT HUGE DONATION OF RUPEES 10 LACS TO 20 LACS WAS SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED FROM EACH COMPANY WHOSE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED IS VERY MEAGER. THE GENUINENESS OF SU CH A HUGE DONATION FROM A MEAGER INCOME OF DONORS IS BEYON D HUMAN PROBABILITY AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMTI DAYAL VS. CIT(1955) 125 CT R 124 AND CIT VS. P. MOHANKALA (2007) 210 CTR 20. 3. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE DONATIONS AS GENUINE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF BANK ENTRIES IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DONORS WERE HAVING MEAGER INCOME AS SHOWN IN THEIR TRA DING ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY IGNORING THE DECISIO N OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH IN THE CASE OF KU SHAL PRASHAD MANAHAR VS. CIT (2010) 236 CTR 193. 4. LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN RELYING ON PAN AND BALANCE SHEET FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE DONORS WHICH ARE N OT SUFFICIENT IN ITSELF WITHOUT SUPPORTING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES AND IGNORING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH C OURT IN .CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE (P) LTD. (1994) 208 ITR 465 WHE REIN IT WAS HELD THAT MERE FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS IS NOT ENOUGH , MERE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES IS NOT SACROSANCT, NO R CAN IT MAKE A NON-GENUINE TRANSACTION GENUINE. 5. LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACTS IN T OTALITY, AND NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT PROBABILITY OF SELF COOKE D DOCUMENTS TO CHANNELIZE ITS OWN BLACK MONEY IN DIFFERENT NAME THR OUGH THIS DEVICE CANNOT BE RULED OUT BY IGNORING THE RATIO LA ID DOWN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS DURGA PRA SAD MORE ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 3 (1971) 82 ITR 540 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE TAXIN G AUTHORITIES WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTAN CES TO FIND OUT THE VALIDITY OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. 6. LD. C!T(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS BY IGNORING THAT THE C!T(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS.2,59,274/- IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF LT. ACT MADE IN BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS BASED ON THE DVO'S WHO IS THE TECHNICAL EXPERT FOR THIS PUR POSE. 2. FROM THE CRUX OF GROUNDS OF APPEALS, IT APPEARS THA T REVENUE HAS ONLY ONE GRIEVANCE I.E. IN RESPECT OF DONATION AMOUN TING TO ` .80 LAKHS ACCEPTED FROM 19 PARTIES NAMELY AS DETAILED BELOW:- A) OSTWAL TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ` .2,00,000/- B) FASTSTONE TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. ` .3,00,000/- C) CAPETOWN MERCANTILE CO. PVT LTD ` .3,00,000/- D) JPK TRADING (INDIA) PVT. LTD. ` .3,00,000/- E) HEMA TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. ` .2,00,000/- F) KUSH INTERNATIONAL ` .2,00,000/- G) YASH V JEWELS LTD. ` .2,00,000/- H) MOHIT INTERNATIONL. ` .3,00,000/- I) ALKA DIAMOND INDUSTRIES LTD. ` .2,00,000/- J) REAL GOLD TRD. CO. PVT. LTD. ` .2,00,000/- K) JAVDA INDIA IMPEX LTD. ` .2,00,000/- L) KUSH HINDUSTAN ENTERTAINMENT LTD. ` .2,00,000/- M) NATASHA ENTERPRISES. ` .3,00,000/- N) NEW PLANET TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. ` .3,00,000/- O) VAN GUARD JEWELS LTD. ` .2,00,000/- P) LEXUS INFOTECH LTD. ` .2,00,000/- ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 4 Q) KUNAL JAMES. ` .2,00,000/- R) KARE ELECTRONICS & DEVELOPMENT LTD. ` .20,00,000/- S) PRANAVA ELECTRONICS PVT. LTD. ` .20,00,000/- ---------------------------- ` .80,00,000/- ---------------------------- 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SOCIETY REGISTERED WITH REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES OF UTTER PRADESH . THE SOCIETY HAS BEEN GRANTED REGISTRATION U/S 12AA OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND IS ALSO ENJOYING EXEMPTION U/S 80G OF THE ACT. THE SOCIETY I S ENGAGED IN THE RUNNING OF ENGINEERING AND PHARMACEUTICAL COLLEGE I N VILLAGE, PARSONA, HAPUR ROAD, GHAZIABAD UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF SH REE GANPATI INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FIL ED ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING NIL INCOME. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y AS PER GUIDELINES ISSUED BY CBDT. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NECESSARY DETAILS/EXPLANATION AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WERE SUBMITTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED DONATIONS AMOUNTING TO ` .1,80,87,000/- FROM 134 DONORS. THE LETTERS REGARDIN G CALLING FOR INFORMATION U/S 133(6) WERE ISSUED ON 11.5.2009 IN RESP ECT OF DONORS HAVING DONATED AMOUNT OF ` .1 LAKH AND ABOVE IN 25 CASES. OUT OF THE ABOVE 25 CASES, 8 PARTIES INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF ` .18,00,000/- DID NOT REPLY AND FIVE PARTIES INVOLVING AN AMOUNT OF ` .13,00,000/- REPLIED BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE REPLY WAS NOT COM PLETE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSE VIDE NOTICE DATED 1 7.12.2009 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE WAS APPRAISED OF THE FACT OF HAVING RECEIVED INCOMPLETE INFORMATION AND OR HAVING RECEIVED NOTIC E UN-SERVED. IN VIEW OF THE NON COMPLIANCE AND PART INFORMATION AVA ILABLE WITH ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO DONOR S WERE PRODUCED ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 5 BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HARBORED A BELIEF THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF DONATIONS WERE BOGUS AND IN FACT HE FORMED AN OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD CONVERTED ITS BLACK MO NEY INTO WHITE MONEY THROUGH THE PROCESS OF DONATIONS. HOWEVER, BEFOR E MAKING ANY ADDITION THE ASSESSING OFFICER USED THE SIGHT OF MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS FOR VERIFYING THE CREDENTIALS OF DONORS AS P ROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM THE SIGHT A S ENUMERATED AT PAGES 5,6 & 7 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OUND NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES RANGING FROM DIFFERENCE IN PA N, DIFFERENCE IN ALLEGED AMOUNT OF DONATION GIVEN BY THE DONOR AND A MOUNT OF DONATION DEBITED IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT AND IN SOME CASES T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ALLEGED DONOR HAD NOT SHOWN ANY AMOUNT OF DONATION IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF ` .80 LAKHS U/S 115BBC OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITH RESPECT TO ALLEGED DONATIONS RECEIVED FROM THESE 19 PARTIES. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING BY THE ASSESSEE THE MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN REFERRED TO THE VALUATION OFFICER OF DEPARTMENT BEC AUSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT TIL L JULY, 2007 THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE AMOUNTING TO ` .24,03,636/- BETWEEN AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT DECLARED BY ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS AND THAT OF V ALUATION DONE BY VALUATION OFFICER. OUT OF THIS ` .5,18,547/- BELONGED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRO NTED AND WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE. THE A SSESSEE REPLIED TO THE QUERIES OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIO NS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PO INT OF DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TOTALLY IGNORED AN D MADE AN ADDITION OF ` .2,59,274/- BEING 50% OF ` .5,18,547/- ON ACCOUNT OF ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 6 DIFFERENCE IN THE ESTIMATION OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUC TION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 5. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) AND MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS:- A) THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT CORRECTLY COMPUTED THE INCOME CHARGE ABLE TO TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11 & 12 OF TH E ACT. B) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF ` .80 LAKHS ON THE ALLEGED GROUNDS OF UN-EXPLAINED DEPOSIT WITHOU T PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS OR OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. C) THAT IN ANY CASE THE ASSESSEE APPLIED THE FUNDS OF THE SOC IETY INCLUDING THE DONATION RECEIVED THE BENEFIT OF APPL ICATION U/S 11 OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND ALLOWED. D) THAT IN ANY CASE EVEN IF THE ISSUE OF SUCH DONATION IS C ONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED, THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY ADDITION IN TH E CASE OF SOCIETY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FINDING THAT THE SAME RE PRESENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SOCIETY. E) THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE INCOME ON MECHAN ICAL BASIS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE STATUTORY BENEFIT U/S 11 O R TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION EXCESS OF EXPENDITURE OVER INCOME, THE CORRECTNESS OF WHICH IS NOT DISPUTED EVEN BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. F) THAT REPORT OF VALUATION CELL IS MERELY IN THE NATUR E OF ESTIMATE AND SAME IS OF NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. G) THAT CONTRIBUTION RECEIVED WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS W AS PART OF CORPUS OF THE TRUST WHICH WERE UTILIZED FOR THE PURP OSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AND WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE RECEIPT OF TRUST. ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 7 H) THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE FUNDS USED IN ACQUISITION OF FIXED ASSETS WERE ` .2,99,91,810/-. I) THAT OUT OF TOTAL DONATION OF ` .80 LAKHS, DONATION TO THE EXTENT OF ` .40 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM TWO PARTIES ITSELF NAMELY K ARE ELECTRONICS & DEVELOPMENT PVT. LTD. AND M/S PRANAVA E LECTRONICS PVT. LTD. 6. THE LD AR FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS INCLUDING BALANC E SHEET AND P&L ACCOUNT OF THE TWO COMPANIES ALONG WITH COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF 17 OTHER PARTIES FROM WHICH THE DONATIONS WERE ACCEPTED. 7. THE LD CIT(A) AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER OBTAINING COMMENTS FROM THE LD AR ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND GAVE RELIEF AMOUNTING TO ` .80 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF DONATION. 8. AS REGARDS DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION, THE LD CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ESTIMATED BY VALUATION OFFICER WAS INSIGNIFICANT AND WORKED OUT TO AROUND 2.5% AND THEREFORE, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 9. AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THIS TR IBUNAL./ 10. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD DR VERY FORCEFULLY ARGUED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DOWN LOADED COPIES OF BALANCE SHEET AND P &L ACCOUNT FROM THE SIGHT AND FOUND THAT IN SOME CASES DONATION WAS NOT DEBITED IN THEIR P&L ACCOUNT AND IN CERTAIN CASES THE PAN NUMBER FURNISHED BY THE DONORS WERE FOUND TO BE BOGUS. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE INCOME OF ALLEGED DONORS ITSELF WAS VERY LESS AND FROM THE FIGU RE OF PROFIT ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 8 EARNED BY THESE COMPANIES IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE ENTITIES WERE EVER ABLE TO GIVE DONATION TO THIS EXTENT. HE FURTHE R ARGUED THAT LD CIT(A) HAS TAKEN A VERY GENERIC VIEW AND HAS DISCUSSED O NLY THREE CASES TO ALLOW FULL BENEFIT OF APPEAL MADE BY THE ASSESSE E. 11. IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R REGARDING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THE LD AR RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD AR ARGUED THAT ASSESSMENT DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 . HE ARGUED THAT SOCIETY IS A REGISTERED SOCIETY U/S 12A A OF THE ACT AND IS ELIGIBLE FOR BENEFIT U/S 11 OF THE ACT. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAPER BOOK PAGE 1 WHEREIN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WAS PLACED. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 11, THE SOCIE TY HAD INCURRED A DEFICIT OF ` .2,15,63,393/- EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE DONATION A S INCOME OF THE SOCIETY. IN RESPECT OF LD DRS OBJECTION THAT ONLY THREE PARTIES WERE DISCUSSED, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF ` .80 LAKHS, ` .40 LAKHS WERE RECEIVED FROM TWO PARTIES WHICH WAS PAR T OF THREE PARTIES DISCUSSED BY THE LD CIT(A) THEREFORE HE HAD CO VERED THE MAJOR AMOUNTS TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION. HE FURTHER ARGUE D THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAD AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONSIDERED ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. HE ARGUED THAT EVEN IF THE WH OLE AMOUNT OF ` .80 LAKHS IS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF SOCIETY EVEN THEN TAXAB LE INCOME OF SOCIETY WILL REMAIN NIL AND THE WHOLE ADDITION IS OF ONLY ACADEMIC NATURE. 13. AS REGARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BUILDING, THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF HAD ALLOWED BE NEFIT OF 50% ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 9 AND HENCE THERE REMAINS VERY LITTLE DIFFERENCE. HE SU BMITTED THAT COMPLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSE E AND ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FOUND ANYTHING INCRIMINATING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT EMPOWERED TO R EFER TO VALUATION OFFICER WITHOUT FINDING ANY FAULT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE FURTHER BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT IN THE NEXT ASSESSME NT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WITH RESPECT TO SAME BUILDING. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, HE ARGUED THAT LD CIT(A) HAD RIG HTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAD RECEIVED GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER INCOME & EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT PLACED AT PAGE 9 OF PAPER BOOK AMOUNTING TO ` .2,45,14,907/- AND HAS APPLIED THE ABOVE INCOME IN T HE FORM OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO ` .3,04,96,354/- THEREBY MAKING A DEFICIT OF INCOME OVER EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO ` .59,81,447/-. THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN FIXED ASSETS AMOUNTING TO ` .4,,47,64,551/- AS PER PAPER BOOK PAGE 11. THEREFOR E, TAKING THE TOTAL APPLICATION OF FUNDS TO THE TUNE OF ` .5,07,45,998/-. SO EVEN IF THE AMOUNT OF ` .80 LKAKHS IS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF SOCIETY EVEN THEN THERE WILL REMAIN EXCESS OF APPLICATION OVER THE INCO ME OF SOCIETY. MOREOVER, THE LD CIT(A) HAD ELABORATELY INVESTIGATED THE ACCOUNTS OF TWO PARTIES FROM WHOM THE AMOUNT OF ` .40 LAKHS WAS ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LD CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN THE FORM OF DIFFERENCE I N BUILDING AS PER ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS PER ESTIMATE MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IS VERY SMALL AND IT ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 10 CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR MAKING ADDITION BECAUSE 10% OF DIFFERENCE IS ALWAYS JUSTIFIED BETWEEN PHYSICAL VALUATION OF A BUILD ING AND THE AMOUNT APPEARING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT LD CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDI TIONS AND WE DO NOT FIND MERITS IN THE APPEAL OF REVENUE. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. 16. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DT. 28.9.2012. HMS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). DATE OF HEARING 8.8.2012 DATE OF DICTATION 25.9.2012 DATE OF TYPING 26.9.2012 DATE OF ORDER SIGNED BY BOTH THE MEMBERS & ITA NO2655/DEL/2011 11 PRONOUNCEMENT. DATE OF ORDER UPLOADED ON NET 28.9.2012 & SENT TO THE BENCH CONCERNED.