The DCIT, Central Circle-2, Surat V. Amar Jewellers Ltd., Surat

ITA 2872/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1944 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 69; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT , , BEFORE SHRI C.M.GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15 DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, SURAT. VS. M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD., 67-69, MIRANAGAR SOCIETY, OPP. PATEL SAMAJ WADI, VARACHHA, SURAT 395 006. [PAN: AACCA 9180A] ( ' / APPELLANT) ( #$' /RESPONDENT) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RASESH SHAH, C.A /REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. SINGH, SR. D.R /DATE OF HEARING : 22-10-2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31-10-2018 / ORDER PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-4, SURAT (CIT (A) FOR SHORT) DATED 05.08.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y) 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS FOLLOW S: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.5,00,00,000/- MADE U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED IN VESTMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NAME OF THE ASSE SSEE 'AMAR 2 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. JEWELLERS' WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCU MENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, LEDGER OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. AMAR JEWE LLERS WAS ALSO FOUND FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF DILIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VE NTURE SUBMITTED BY SHRI PIYUSH MODI DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN TO DILIP SOJI TRA'S JOINT VENTURE IN CASH. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S.1,17,76,250/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON LOAN AND TR EATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE 'AMAR JEWELLERS' WAS CLEARLY MENTIO NED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, LEDGER OF THE ASSESS EE I.E. AMAR JEWELLERS WAS ALSO FOUND FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF DILIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VENTURE SUBMITTED BY SHRI PIYUSH MODI DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S GIVEN LOAN TO DILIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VENTURE IN CASH AND INTERE ST ON SUCH LOAN WAS GIVEN TO AMAR JEWELLERS BY DILIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VE NTURE IN CASH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE C IT (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. GROUND NO.1 OF THE REVENUE: 3. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON THE RECORD OF THE T RIBUNAL. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,00,000/- MADE U/S.69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON ACCOUN T OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE 'AMAR JEWELLERS' WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCU MENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, LEDGER OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. AMAR JEWELLERS WAS ALSO FOUND FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF DILIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VENTURE SUBMITTED BY SHRI PIYUSH MODI 3 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CLEARLY SHO W THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN TO DILIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VENTURE IN CASH. THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN PARA 4 TO 4.3 AT PAGE 5 & 6 OF TH E ORDER, THE AO WAS RIGHT IN MAKING ADDITION BY HOLDING THE LOAN AS UNA CCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS RI GHTLY ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANT ED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY BASIS THEREFORE, IMPUGNED ORDE R MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY RESTORING THAT OF THE AO. 4. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. ASSESSEES REPRESENT ATIVE (AR) SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY CONSIDERING ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND BY FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. ANIL KHANDELWAL REPORTED IN 93 CCH 42 (DEL) AND DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MISS LATA MANGESHKAR REPORTED IN 97 ITR 696 (BOM.). THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED ELABORATE AND REASONABLE FINDINGS IN PARA 7.2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH ARE SUSTAINABLE THEREFORE, APPEAL OF R EVENUE MAY KINDLY BE DISMISSED. 5. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE ACT O N THE STRENGTH OF THE SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF 4 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT CONDUCTED ON 18.02.2014 AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI PIYUSH G. MODI, WHICH INDICATED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 4,00,000/- & RS. 5,00,00,000/- WERE RECEIVED BY THE PERSON FORM AMA R JEWELLERS IN CASH DURING THE AY 2013-14 & AY 2014-15 AND REPAYMENTS W ERE MADE AND INTEREST WAS CREDITED AND THUS, ASKED ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH LOAN GIVEN TO DILIP SOJITRAS JOINT VENTURE AN D TO EXPLAIN THE ACCOUNTING OF INTEREST EARNED FROM THE SAID LOAN. IT IS ALSO PERTAINING TO NOTE THAT SUBSEQUENTLY SHRI PIYUSH G. MODI APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND EXPLAINED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGED TO SHRI DILIP C. SOJITRAS JOINT VENTURE AND HE WORKED AS ACCOUNTANT ONLY. ACCORDIN G TO THE AO, SHRI DILIP C. SOJITRA ALSO APPEARED AND ACCEPTED THAT DO CUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI PIYUSH G. MODI BELONGED TO HI S JOINT VENTURE WHICH WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CASH FINANCE AND LAN D DEALING. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO OBSERVED THAT SHRI DILIPC. SOJITRA IS APPARENTLY WILLFULLY SHIELDING THE ASSES SEE AND HE HAS GONE ON TO HOLD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE NAME OF AMAR J EWELLERS APPEARING IN THE SEIZED PAPERS AND LEDGERS PERTAINED TO THE APPE LLANT, AND WENT ON TO ADD ADVANCES AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF T HE ACT AND INTEREST ON THE ADVANCES AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. FROM RELEVA NT PARA 7.2 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, WE CLEARLY OBSERVE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH EVEN A SEMBLANCE OF A CA SE AGAINST THE 5 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. ASSESSEE. IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE DOCUMENTS RELI ED BY THE AO ARE PRINT OUTS TAKEN OUT FROM THE COMPUTER AND COPIES OF ENTR IES IN THE DOCUMENTS RECOVERED FROM THE THIRD PARTY, WHICH DO NOT BEAR A NY SIGNATURE OR HAND WRITING ON BEHALF OF APPELLANT AND THE SAME CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. ANALYZING THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE SAID DOCUMEN T THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVE THAT EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF DOCUMENT RECOVERE D FROM A THIRD PARTY IS MUCH LESS AND REQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL CORROBORATIVE EV IDENCE AND PRESUMPTION OF US/. 132(4A) AND S. 292C OF THE ACT ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE CASE OF A THIRD PARTY, MEANING THEREBY THE PRES UMPTION UNDER SAID PROVISIONS CANNOT BE MADE APPLICABLE TO THE CASE WH ERE THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SEIZED FROM THE THIRD PARTY. IN SUPPORT O F THESE CONTENTIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE HI GH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KAHNDELWAL (SUPRA) AND DECISIO N OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF MISS LATA MANGESHKAR (SUPRA) AND CONCLUSION DRAWN BY HIM ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF F ACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF MANDATE O F THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AS WELL AS RATIO OF THE RELEVANT DECISIONS OF H ON'BLE HIGH COURT CARRIES NO AMBIGUITY OR PERVERSITY AND WE HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME. 7. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATION OF EN TIRE DOCUMENTARY AND FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE RIGHTLY HELD TH AT THE ADDITION MADE BY 6 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. THE AO FAILS ON THE OTHER COUNT THAT THE PARTY FROM WHOM IT HAS BEEN RECOVERED HAS NOT EVEN IDENTIFIED THE APPELLANT AS BEING THE PART, WITH WHOM THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED HAD TAKEN PLACE. NO T A SINGLE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PROVED THROUGH INDEPENDENT ENQ UIRIES, TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND EITHER SHRI P IYUSH G. MODI OR SHRI DILIP C. SOJITRA OR AUM AND THUS, ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS RIGHTLY HELD AS NOT SUSTAINABLE. FURTHERMORE, THE LD. CIT( A) ALSO RIGHTLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO PERSON NAMED AMAR AMONGST THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEES COMPANY OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS AND THIS ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED OR CONTROVERTED IN ANY MANNER. 8. IN VIEW OF ABOVE NOTED DISCUSSION, WE CLEARLY OB SERVE THAT THE AO MADE A CASE ON THE STRENGTH OF PRINT OUTS/DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT CONDUCTED ON 18.02.2014 AT THE REASONS OF SOME SHRI PIYUSH G. MODI AND THE DOCUMENTS RELIED U PON BY THE AO FOR MAKING ADDITION WERE PRINT OUTS TAKEN OUT FROM COMP UTER AND COPIES OF ENTRIES IN DOCUMENTS RECOVERED FROM A THIRD PARTY, WHICH DON NOT BEAR ANY SIGNATURE OR HANDWRITING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR MAKING ADDITION. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO NOTE T HAT THE DOCUMENT RECOVERED FROM THE THIRD PARTY, WHO IS NOT EVEN IDE NTIFYING THE ASSESSEE AS A PARTY WITH WHOM THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION HAVE B EEN TAKEN PLACE, AND NOT EVEN A SINGLE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PROVED TO HA VE UNDERTAKEN BY THE 7 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. ASSESSEE BY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AND EVEN PRIMA FACIE THE APPELLANT COMPANY COULD NOT BE LINKED WITH THE ENTRIES AS MEN TIONING THE NAME AMARBHAI HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED AS THIS FACT HAS REMAINED UN-REBUTTED THAT THERE IS NO PERSON NAMED AMAR AMONGST THE DIRE CTORS OF THE COMPANY OR THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. HENCE, THE AO FAI LED TO ESTABLISH ANY LIVE NEXUS OR LINK WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WITH T HE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM SHRI PIYUSH G. MODI AND ENTRIES NOTED THEREIN WITHOUT ANY HANDWRITING AND SIGNATURE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE BEING BASED ON MERE SURMISES AND CONJEC TURES WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE ACT IS UNJUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT AND SUSTAINABLE AND THERE IS NO VALID REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE SAME AND THUS, WE UPHOLD THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THIS COUNT. CO NSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. GROUND NO.2: 9. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ER RED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,76,250/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INT EREST RECEIVED ON LOAN AND TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACT THAT NAME OF THE ASSESSEE 'AMAR JEWELLERS' WAS CLEA RLY MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. SUBSEQUENTLY, LEDGER OF THE ASSESS EE I.E. AMAR 8 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. JEWELLERS WAS ALSO FOUND FROM THE ACCOUNTS OF DILIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VENTURE SUBMITTED BY SHRI PIYUSH MODI DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN TO DI LIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VENTURE IN CASH AND INTEREST ON SUCH LOAN WAS GIVEN TO AMAR JEWELLERS BY DILIP SOJITRA'S JOINT VENTURE IN CASH. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE LOAN OF RS. 5 CRORE HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ADDED AS UNACCOUNTED & UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT AND HAS B EEN ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, INTEREST RECEIVED THEREFROM I.E, FROM UNSECURED LOAN LENDER DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM THE OTHER SOURCES AND T HE SAME WAS RIGHTLY ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS DELET ED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT JUSTIFIED REASON AND BASIS. THEREFORE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE BY RESTO RING THAT OF THE AO. 10. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY P OINTED OUT THAT SINCE IN PARA 7 TO 7.2 OF THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS DIRE CTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROVIDING UNSECURED LOAN BY THE ASSES SEE THEREFORE, CONSEQUENT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVE D THEREFROM DOES NOT SURVIVE AND THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 9 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. 11. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CASE OF THE AO IS BASED ON JUST PRINT OUT/DOCUMENTS RECOVERED FROM THE COMPUTER OF A THIRD PARTY WITHOU T ANY SIGNATURE OR HANDWRITING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE CON TENTS OF THESE DOCUMENTS, IT IS ALSO AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE HAS NOT BEEN IDENTIFY AS THE PARTY WITH WHOM ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS OF UNSECURED L OAN HAVE BEEN TAKEN PLACE AND SUCH ALLEGATION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED OR SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY OTHER INDEPENDENT ADVERSE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THERE IS NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE T O ESTABLISH EVEN PRIMA FACIE THAT THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE IS LINKED WITH THESE T RANSACTIONS OF UNSECURED LOAN IN ANY MANNER ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIE S MENTIONED THEREIN IN THE NAME AMARBHAI AND NO LINK HAS BEEN ESTABLI SHED OR EXPLAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE WITH THESE TRANSACTIONS THEN, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN CONCLUDING THAT TH E CASE OF THE AO HAS BEEN BASED OR BUILT ON THE BASIS OF MERE SURMISES A ND CONJECTURES WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THUS, CONCLUSI ON DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT(A) CARRIES NO PERVERSITY, AMBIGUITY AND HENCE, WE HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 69 OF THE ACT ON TH E ALLEGATION OF UNACCOUNTED AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOAN. THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENT ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST FROM SUCH UNSECURED LOAN DOES N OT HAVE ANY LEGS TO 10 ITA NO.2872/AHD/2016/SRT (A.Y: 2014-15) M/S. AMAR JEWELLERS LTD. STAND ON THE SOUND LEGAL FOOTINGS AND THE SAME CANN OT BE HELD AS SUSTAINABLE AND THUS, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATE BUT TO A GREE AND CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IN THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AND WE HOLD SO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUN D NO.2 OF REVENUE ALSO STANDS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS DAY OF 3 1 ST OCTOBER, 2018. / SURAT ; DATED : 31 ST OCTOBER, 2018 EDN # & / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT ; 3. $ ( ) / THE CONCERNED CIT(A); 4. THE CONCERNED PR. CIT; 5. , , / DR, ITAT, SURAT; 6. / GUARD FILE . // TRUE COPY // SD/- SD/- ( ) ( O.P.MEENA ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (C.M.GARG) /JUDICIAL MEMBER