A.C.I.T., Circle-3(1), Gwalior V. M/s Osho Associates, Gwalior

ITA 272/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7694 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences; Revised return
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VS. M/S OS HO ASSOCIATES, CIRCLE-3(1), GWLIOR. 30, SATYADEO NAGAR, GWALIOR (M.P.) (PAN : AABFO 4964 C) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. REVENUE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.04.2012 ORDER PER A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.04.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :-. ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 2 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 8,99,712/- OUT OF ` 9,31,617/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN GROSS R ECEIPTS AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AND GROSS RECEIPTS AS PER P&L ACCOU NTS. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 18,79,280/- OUT OF ` 20,79,280/- ( ` 15,74,420/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF MACHINERY HIRING CHARGES) ? 2. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AFT ER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE T HE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF GROUND NO.1 ARE THAT THE ASSE SSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. ORIGINAL RETURN FILED WA S PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER) . HOWEVER, SUBSEQUENTLY ON PERUSAL OF TDS CERTIFICATE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER N OTICED THAT THE GROSS RECEIPT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE WAS RS.5,60,46,263/- WHEREAS AS PER PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THE GROSS RECEIPT WAS RS.5,51,14,646/-. THUS, THERE WA S A DIFFERENCE OF RS.9,31,617/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 OF THE ACT ON 10.08.2009. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURN ON 22.10.2010 INCORPORATING PROFIT ELEMENT OF RS.34,146/-. THE D IFFERENCE IN TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPT NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BETWEEN TDS CERTIFIC ATE AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE WHY THE EN TIRE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 3 RS.9,31,617/- SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ENTIRE DIFFERENC E AMOUNT OF RS.9,31,617/-. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 31,905/- AS UNDER :- 5.2 THERE IS NO DENYING THE FACT THAT IN THE ORIGI NAL RETURN, THERE IS INDEED DIFFERENCE OF ` 9,31,617/- IN THE RECEIPTS DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AS COMPARED TO TDS CERTIFICATES ENCLOSED ALONGWITH IT. HOWEVER, ON RECEIPT OF NOTICE U/S.148 WHICH IS FOUN D TO BE ISSUED SOLELY ON THIS GROUND AS PER THE REASONS RECORDED O N 10.8.09, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED RETURN ON 22.10.10 DECLARING IN COME OF ` 6,49,380/- AFTER DEDUCTING PARTNERS SALARY OF ` 4,97,656/- FROM ORIGINAL RETURN INCOME OF ` 11,12,890/-. AS PER THE APPELLANT, PROFIT ELEMENT ON THE DIFFERENCE OF RECEIPTS HAS ALREADY B EEN INCLUDED IN THE REVISED TOTAL INCOME OF ` 6,49,380/-, SINCE ACTUAL NET PROFIT COMES TO ` 6,15,234/- AFTER DEDUCING PARTNERS SALARY FROM ORI GINAL RETURN INCOME. THIS MEANS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS INCORPOR ATED NET PROFIT OF ` 34,146/- ONLY ( ` 649380 615234) ON TOTAL RECEIPTS OF ` 9,31,617/- WHICH COMES TO 3.6%. AS PER THE REVISED RETURN, TH E APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY REVISION IN ITS GROSS RECEIPTS. APPELLANT HAS DECLARED GROSS PROFIT @ 7.09% AS PER ITS ORIGINAL RETURN, SINCE ON RECEIPTS OF ` 5,51,14,646/-, GROSS PROFIT OF ` 39,11,436/- HAS BEEN EARNED. BY APPLYING THE SAME G.P. RATE OF 7.09% ON DIFFERENCE IN GROSS RECEIPTS, IT COMES TO ` 66,051/-. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY INCORPOR ATED PROFIT OF ` 34,146/-, BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 31,905/- IS CONFIRMED AS ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E, WE NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN CONTRACT RECEIPT BETWEEN TDS CERTIF ICATE AND CONTRACT RECEIPT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF RS.9,31,617/-. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 4 OF RS.9,31,617/- I.E. THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED. THE C IT(A) ACCORDINGLY APPLIED PROFIT RATE @ 7.09% AS DECLARED IN ORIGINAL RETURN AND CAL CULATED AMOUNT OF PROFIT RS.66,051/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCORPORATED P ROFIT OF RS.34,146/- IN THE REVISED RETURN, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.31,905/-. AFTER CONSIDERING TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE , WE FIND THAT THE APPROACH OF THE CIT(A) IS REASONABLE AS ON DIFFERENCE OF CONTRACT R ECEIPT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT IS TO BE TAXED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE, THER EFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL TAKE THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REVISED RETURN INST EAD OF PROFIT DECLARED IN ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS TAKING INCOME FROM ORIGINAL RETURN THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD E NSURE THAT THERE MUST BE AN ADDITION OF RS.66,051/- AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS TAKING REVISED RETURN AS BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME, THEN ONLY ADD ITION OF RS.31,905/- IS REQUIRED TO BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE REV ISED RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL ACCORDINGLY CALCULATE OTHER PART OF CALCULATION OF TOTAL INCOME AS CALCULATED ORIGINALLY. WITH THIS MODIFI CATION THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED. ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 5 5. THE BRIEF FACTS IN RESPECT OF SECOND GROUND ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS BUT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE WHY 5% OF EXPENSES MAY NOT BE DISALLOWED F OR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY RATHER DISALLOWANCE WAS ADMI TTED. THE RELEVANT FACT NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT ANSWER SATISFACTORILY RATHER HE DULY ADMITTED THESE FACTS. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE OF 10% ON MACHINERY HIRING CHARES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT ANSWER SATISFACTORILY, RATH ER HE AGREED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY MADE T HE ADDITION OF RS.15,74,420/- OUT OF TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF BRICKS, GITT I, STONE MORAM & SAND AND LABOUR EXPENSES AND 10% OUT OF MACHINERY HIRING CHARGES OF WHICH CALCULATION COMES TO RS.50,48,600/-. THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,00,000/- AS UNDER :- 6.2 APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH ASSESSMENT R ECORDS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. AS PER ORDER SHEET ENTR Y DTD. 3.12.2010, WHEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BILLS AND VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION, IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY STATED BY THE A.O. THAT IN RESPECT OF BRICKS, GITTI, STONE, MORAM AND SAND EXP ENSES AND LABOUR EXPENSES, NO BILLS AND VOUCHERS ARE FOUND MAINTAINE D NOR ANY LABOUR SHEET PRODUCED. THE A.R. COULD NOT ANSWER SATISFAC TORILY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOW CAUSE REGARDING THE DISALL OWANCE @ 5% RATHER HE HAS AGREED WITH THE A.O. SIMILAR IS THE NOTING AND FINDING ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 6 IN RESPECT OF MACHINERY HIRING CHARGES EXPENSES. T HOUGH THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. BU T IN VIEW OF CATEGORICAL FINDING REGARDING SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS FOR THE EXPENSES AND CONSIDERING THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH PAST HISTORY THAT FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND 20 06-07 ` 1,00,000/- HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED AS DISALLOWANCE BY THE THEN CIT (A) AND ITAT ON TURNOVER OF ` 2,73,70,360 AND ` 1,31,21,047/-, SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE UNDER BOTH THE HEADS IS FOUND JUSTIFIED. ACCORDING LY, FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND TURNOVER OF MORE THAN ` 5 CRORE, ADDITION OF ` 2,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF ` 20,79,280/- MADE AS PER PARA 7 & 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 6. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E, IT IS NOTED THAT THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS IN RESPECT OF DELET ION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AGREED BASIS WHICH HAS BEEN RE DUCED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,00,000/- ON THE BASIS OF PAST HISTOR Y. IN THIS REGARD, WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. THE RELEVAN T HEAD-NOTE OF THE JUDGMENTS ARE AS UNDER :- 7. A) THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JIVATLA L PURTAPSHI VS. CIT, BOMBAY, 65 ITR 261 (BOMBAY) HELD AS UNDER :- HELD, THAT THE DEPARTMENT, HAVING AGREED TO DELETE THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSMENT AND HAVING CONCEDED THE DELETIO N BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CANNOT BE HELD TO BE AGGRIEVED BY THIS PART OF THE ORDER TO ENABLE IT TO FILE AN APPE AL TO THE TRIBUNAL; THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THE DELETION OF THE AMOUNT WAS NEITHER COMPETENT NOR CAPABLE OF BEING ENTERTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 7 B) THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VAM ADEVAN BHANU, 330 ITR 559 261 (KER) HELD AS UNDER :- HELD, ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THAT ASSESSMENT WAS MAD E ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSEES AGREEMENT THAT INTEREST INC OME IN THE FINANCING BUSINESS COULD BE ADOPTED AT 27 PER CENT. AS AGAINS T 20 PER CENT. BORNE OUT BY THE ACCOUNTS. IN THE PRECEDING YEAR V IZ., FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97, THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR AS SESSMENT OF INTEREST INCOME IN THE FINANCING BUSINESS AT 27 PER CENT. AS AGAINST 20 PER CENT. THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT HAD GIVEN THE C OMMITMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AGREEING FOR ASSESSMENT OF I NTEREST INCOME AT 27 PER CENT. FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 AND 1998-99 SPECIFICALLY ON CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDIN GS WOULD BE INITIATED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). HENCE IT WAS N OT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. C) THE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B ANTA SINGH KARTAR SINGH VS. CIT, 125 ITR 239 (P&H) HELD AS UNDER :- HELD, THAT IT WAS ON THE AGREEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE , WHICH AGREEMENT MENTIONED THE RATE AS WELL AS THE FIGURE, THAT PENALTY HAD BEEN LEVIED. THE ASSESSEE HAD NO RIGHT TO AGITATE THIS QUESTION IN APPEAL. THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN NOT GOING INTO THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PENALTY WAS IN LAW THE MINIMUM PENALTY LEVIABLE UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. D) THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMESHCHAND RA AND COMPANY VS. CIT, 168 ITR 375 (BOMBAY) HELD AS UNDER :- WHERE AN ASSESSEE HAS MADE A STATEMENT OF FACTS, H E CAN HAVE NO GRIEVANCE IF THE TAXING AUTHORITY TAXES HIM IN A CCORDANCE WITH THAT ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 8 STATEMENT. IF HE CAN HAVE NO GRIEVANCE, HE CAN FIL E NO APPEAL. THEREFORE, IT IS IMPERATIVE, IF THE ASSESSEES CASE IS THAT HIS STATEMENT HAS BEEN WRONGLY RECORDED OR THAT HE MADE IT UNDER A MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACT OR LAW, THAT HE SHOULD MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION TO THE AUTHORITY WHICH PASSED THE ORDER BASED UPON THA T STATEMENT. UNTIL RECTIFICATION IS MADE, AN APPEAL IS NOT COMPETENT. THE ASSESSEE-FIRM DERIVED INCOME BY TRADING IN OIL SEEDS AND OTHER ITEMS. IT DECLARED IN ITS RETURN, INCOME BAS ED ON PROFITS SHOWN IN ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT HAD KEPT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SEPARATE TRADING ACCOUNTS WITH A QUANTITATIVE DETAI LS IN RESPECT OF ITS BUSINESS IN DIFFERENT COMMODITIES. IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER CAME ACROSS A D ISCREPANCY IN THE SARKI ACCOUNT. HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD P URCHASED 467 BAGS OF THIS COMMODITY BUT ITS SALES AND CLOSING STOCK A MOUNTED ONLY TO 117 BAGS. IN RESPONSE TO THE INCOME-TAX OFFICERS LETT ER ASKING FOR AN EXPLANATION, A PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED IN WRITING THAT THE DISCREPANCY COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED AND THE VALUE TH EREOF COULD BE ADDED TO THE FIRMS INCOME. IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDE R, THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER REFERRED TO THIS AND ADDED A SUM OF ` 18,052 ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALE OF SARKI. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL TO THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. IN THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL IT DID NOT CHALLENGE THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.18, 052/-. AT THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL, NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE TAXING AUTHORITY. AT THIS STAGE, THE ASSESSEES REPRESENT ATIVE RAISED THREE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS BEFORE THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT C OMMISSIONER ONE OF WHICH WAS THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 18,052 WAS IMPROPER AND ILLEGAL. THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ADMITTED THIS GROUND AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE A PPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WAS WRONG IN ENTERTAINING THE ADDITION AL GROUND IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 18,052 AND FURTHER IN DELETING THIS ADDITION. ON A REFERENCE : HELD, THAT THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER THE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAIN ST THE ADDITION OF ` 18,052 RELATING TO ALLEGED SUPPRESSED SALE OF SARK I. ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 9 8. FROM THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, WE FIND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AGREED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESP ECT OF PROPOSAL MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWING CERTAIN PERCENTAG E OF THE EXPENDITURE AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION IN ACCORDANCE W ITH ASSESSEES AGREEMENT, UNDER THAT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT H AVE ANY GRIEVANCE AND IN CASE IF THE ASSESSEE CAN HAVE NO GRIEVANCE, HE CAN FILE NO APPEAL UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY RECORDED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE UNDERTAKING WAS GIVEN OR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A DECLARATION TO AGREE WITH THE PROPOSITION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER UNDER A MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACT OR LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHOULD MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WILL BE PASSING THE ORDER BASED UPON THAT STATEMENT. UNTIL RECTIFICATION IS MADE, THE APPEAL IS NOT COMP ETENCE. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS OBSERVATION. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE AGREED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISALLOWANCE OF 5% OUT OF VARIOUS EXPEN SES AND 10% OUT OF MACHINERY HIRING CHARGES. SINCE NO CASE HAS BEEN MADE OUT TH AT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER A MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACT OR LAW AND AS H AS BEEN HELD ABOVE, THE STATEMENT BEING VOLUNTARY ONE, THERE IS NO SCOPE FO R THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ASSESSMENT AS HAS BEEN DONE IN T HIS CASE. WE, THEREFORE, FIND THAT THE CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS VITAL FACT RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE ITA NO.272/AGR/2011 A.Y. 2007-08 10 EXTENT OF RS.2,00,000/-. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED ON THE ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.04.2012) SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A.L. GEHLOT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 20 TH APRIL, 2012 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT RESPONDENT CIT CONCERNED CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED D.R., ITAT AGRA BENCH, AGRA GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY