Sh. Kapil Kumar Garg, Ghaziabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3145/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87044 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GAURAV DUDEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHWANI TANEJA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 234B; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH D NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI J.S. REDDY ITA NO. 3145/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 KAPIL KUMAR GARG, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, 12-NAYA GANJ, WARD 1(3), GHAZIABAD. NEW DELHI. (PAN: ACGPG5196F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI GAURAV DUDE JA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 07.01.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: :03.2015 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED FIRST APPELLATE ORDER O N SEVERAL GROUNDS RUNNING INTO FIVE PAGES. THE EFFECTIVE ADDITIONS/DI SALLOWANCES WITH WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED ARE (I) DISALLOWANCE OF R S.2,65,195 ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES MADE FROM SISTER CONCERN M/S. HARI STEEL & CRANE SERVICES UNDER SEC.40A(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( GROUND NO. 3); (II) ADDITION OF RS.9,97,429 ON ACCOUNT OF PROCEEDS BY SALE OF JEWEL LERY( GROUND NO.4); (III) ADDITION OF RS.2,10,000 RECEIVED BY WAY OF SALE OF PLOT AT 297-LOHA MANDI UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT( GROUND NO. 5); (IV) ADDIT ION OF RS.2,85,000 ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO SHOURYA DEVELOPERS FOR PURCHASING OF PLOTS 2 (GROUND NO.6) ; (V) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22,500 (30% OF RS.75,000) ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME HOUSE PROPERTY AND FURTHER THE TAXING THE RENTAL INCOME F ROM PLOT UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES( GROUND NO.7); (VI) DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.47,037 ON ACCOUNT OF CAR INSURANCE( GROUND NO. 8); (VII) D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.37,550 (10% OF RS.3,75,498) ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USER OF CAR( GROUND NO.9); & (IX) CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SEC. 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT( GROUND NO.12). 2. HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY T HE PARTIES IN VIEW OF ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD AND THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON. 3. GRIEVANCE NO.3 : THE ASSESSEE DEALS IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF M.S. SHEETS AND M.S. STRUCTURE . DURING THE YEAR, THE AS SESSEE HAS PURCHASED M.S. SHEETS ETC. FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. HARI STEEL S. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DENIED THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN MARKET RA TE DUE TO SIZE OR QUALITY ETC. AND HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE OR DISTING UISH AS TO WHICH BILLS PERTAINS TO WHICH GAZE AND ALSO FAILED TO PROVE TH AT PURCHASES MADE FROM SISTER CONCERN WERE AT PREVAILING MARKET RATES. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) 3 HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN THIS REGARD AT RS.2,65,195. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS DI SALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF UNREASONABLE VALUE OF PURCHASES AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC.40A(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. IN SUPPORT OF THE RELATED GROUND OF THE GRIEVANC E, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT WHILE MAKING AND SUSTAINING THE DISA LLOWANCE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO M OTIVE FOR INFLATION OF ITS PURCHASES BY RS.2,55,195 AS PROFIT SHOWN BY M/S. HA RI STEELS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO FA LLS INTO THE TAX @ 30%. IN SUPPORT, HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF H ON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GLAXO SMITH KLINE ASIA (P) LTD. , (2010)- 236 CTR S.C. 113. HE ALSO REFERRED PAGE NOS. 21 TO 34 AND 25 TO 37 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.E. THE DETAILED CHART OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF IRON AND STEEL BY THE FIRM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH OTHERS. 4. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WITH THIS CONTENTION THAT BEFORE THEM THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH QUALITY-WISE DETAILS OF IRON AND STEEL (M.S. SHEETS) SOLD TO ITS SISTER CONCERN TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE RATE OF THOSE 4 GOODS PREVAILING IN THE MARKET IN COMPARISON TO THE RATES ON WHICH THE GOODS WERE SOLD TO ITS SISTER CONCERN. 5. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GLAXO SMITH KLINE ASIA (P) LTD. (SU PRA), WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT WHILE MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER SEC. 40A(2) REGARDING PAYMENT TO RELATED CONCERNS, THE AUTHORITIES ARE OUGHT TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THER E IS ANY LOSS OF REVENUE IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION AND TO FIND OUT THAT THE EXERCISE IS A REVENUE NEUTRAL EXERCISE THEN THERE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THIS RATIO OF THE DECISION, WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE IT AFRESH AFTER AFFORDI NG OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CITED DE CISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THE GROUND NO.3 IS THUS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.9,97,4 29 ON ACCOUNT OF PROCEEDS BY SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE LEARNED CIT(APPE ALS) HAS UPHELD THE SAME. 5 7. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITT ED THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF JEWELLERY WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY RECORDING INCORRECT FACTS AND FIND INGS WITHOUT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS/EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD JEWELRY WEIGHING 1249.55 GMS. OUT OF WHICH JEW ELLERY OF 1198.77 GMS. WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER AND B ALANCE 96 GMS. WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM TIME TO TIME. THE SO URCE OF THE SAME AND EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SALE WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AR REFERRED PAGE NOS. 47 TO 61 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE COPIES OF THE BILLS DATED 26.3.1995 SHOWING THE PURCHASE O F JEWELLERY BY THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE; BILLS SHOWING THE SALE OF JEWELLER Y BY THE ASSESSEE; STATEMENT OF MR. PRINCE GOEL OF M/S. SHANTI SWAROOP MAHESH CH AND TO WHOM JEWELLERY WAS SOLD IN WHICH MR. GOEL ADMITTED TO HA VE PURCHASED THE JEWELRY FROM THE ASSESSEE; STATEMENT OF MR. NITIN G OEL OF M/S. SHANTI ABHUSHAN BHANDAR WHO PURCHASED JEWELRY FROM THE ASS ESSEE CONFIRMING THE FACT OF SALE OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION WITH THIS FURTHER OBSERVATION T HAT AS PER REPLY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, AS SESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY FURTHER JEWELLERY LEFT BY HIS FATHER AND, THERE FORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT 6 HAVE SOLD SUCH NON-EXISTING JEWELLERY. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REPLY THE ABOVE FACTS OBSERVED B Y THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, CORRECTLY IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07, BUT THE FACT OF MATTER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE JE WELLERY AS EVIDENT FROM THE COPIES OF THE SALES BILLS AND STATEMENT OF THE PURC HASERS. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT THOUGH THE STATEMENTS WERE R ECORDED ON OATH AND IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE PURCHASERS DID NOT STATE THE TRUTH IN THEIR STATEMENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT COPIES OF SALES BILLS ARE ALSO EVIDENCE OF THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AVAILABILITY OF JEW ELLERY IN THE HANDS OF THE FATHER WAS ESTABLISHED WITH THE HELP OF PURCHASE BI LLS OF 1995 STANDING IN THE NAME OF HIS FATHER. 8. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. M/S. ANKUR JEWELLERS FROM WHOM THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE JEWELLERY IN THE YEAR 1995 WAS NOT FOUND ON THE GIVEN ADDRESS. SOURCE AND CREDITWORTHI NESS OF THE FATHER HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIMED SA LES. 9. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW, WE FIND THAT THEY HAVE DEALT WITH THE ISSUES IN DETAIL. THE RE IS NO DISPUTE THAT MR. 7 PRINCE GOEL AND MR. NITIN GOEL OF M/S. SHANTI ABHUS HAN BHANDAR IN THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE C ONFIRMED THE CLAIMED SALES OF JEWELLERY BY THE ASSESSEE TO THEM BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT ON 18.11.2001 I.E. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HA VE INHERITED 185 GMS. OF JEWELLERY ONLY FROM HIS FATHER BUT NOW THE ASSES SEE IS CLAIMING TO HAVE ACTUALLY INHERITED 1198.77 GMS. FROM HIS FATHER. TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW BY FURNISHING ANY PROOF REGARDING INHERITANCE OF 1198.77 GMS. OF JEWELLERY FROM HIS FATHER. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH REBUTTAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS PREP ONDERANCE OF THE PROBABILITIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY UPHELD THE ADDITION. GROUND NO. (IV) IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. GROUND NO.5 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,10, 000 CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF SALE OF PLOT NO. 297, LOHA MANDI, UNDER SEC. 68 OF THE ACT. THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LEAR NED CIT(APPEALS). 8 10.1 IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE ABOVE SAID PLOT FOR RS.1 ,80,000 ON 18.1.2005 FROM ONE SHRI RAJ KUMAR KAKKAR AND WITHOUT GETTING IT REGISTERED RESOLD IT TO ONE SHRI RIKKI JAIN FOR RS.2,10,000. HE SUBMITTE D THAT PAYMENT FROM SHRI RIKKI JAIN WAS RECEIVED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. SI NCE THE PLOT WAS NOT REGISTERED EVEN IN THE NAME OF MR. RAJ KUMAR KAKKAR AND WAS ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF MR. BISHAN DAYAL BY THE UPSIDC, WHICH T HROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENTATION REMAINED THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.2,10,000 REPRE SENTED THE SALE PROCEEDS. HE REFERRED PAGES NO.65, 66 AND 74 OF THE PAPER B OOK WHICH ARE COPIES OF CONFIRMATION FROM MR. RIKKI JAIN THAT HE HAD PURCHA SED THE SAID PLOT FOR RS.2,10,000 FROM THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE; AND CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI RAJ KUMAR KAKKAR CONFIRMING THAT THE HE HAD SOLD THIS VERY PLOT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.1,80,000 AND THAT THE PLOT WAS STANDING IN THE NAME OF ITS ORIGINAL ALLOTTEE I.E. MR. BISHA N DAYAL. 11. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND PLACED RELIANC E ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF MR. VIKKI JAIN, HE NCE, GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMED TRANSACTION REMAINED UNPROVED. 9 12. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE AGREE THA T THERE IS PREVAILING PRACTICE OF TRANSFER OF SUCH PLOT ALLOTT ED BY SOME GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES/DEPARTMENT FOR SOME SPECIFIC PURPOSE WI THOUT GETTING IT REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF PURCHASER FROM THE ORIGI NAL ALLOTTEE ON THE RECORD OF SUCH AUTHORITIES/DEPARTMENT BUT AT THE SAME TIME SOME AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE SELLER AND PURCHASER FOR S UCH TRANSACTION. IN ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE RIGHTLY DENIED THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIMED TRANS ACTION. THE GROUND NO. 5 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. GROUND NO. 6: 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE RS.2 ,85,000 ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIMED ADVANCE GIVEN TO M/S. SHORYA DEVELOPERS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND RECEI VED BACK FROM ONE MR. PREM PRAKASH PARTLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND PARTLY IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 14. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN AN ADVANCE OF RS.2,85,000 BY ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUE TO 10 M/S. SHORYA DEVELOPERS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 W HICH WAS RECEIVED BACK WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD TO SHRI PREM PRAKAS H. THE LEARNED AR REFERRED PAGE NOS. 75 TO 84 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE COPIES OF EXTRACT OF S/B ACCOUNT SHOWING AMOUNT OF RS.2,85,000 WAS GIVEN ON 30.11.2005 TO M/S. SHORYA DEVELOPER, BANK STATEMENT SHOWING THE P AYMENT OF RS.2,85,000; CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI PREM PRAKASH TH AT HE HAD MADE FIVE INSTALLMENTS OF PAYMENTS AGGREGATING TO RS.2,85,000 TO THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS ACCOUNTS; BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE RECEIPT OF THE VERY AMOUNTS. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT THE BAN K STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE NOS. 83 AND 84 IS S HOWING THAT RS.34,000 RS.40,000 AND RS.1,85,000 WERE CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND HENCE COULD NOT BE ADDE D IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. HE SUBMITTED FURTHER THAT PAN OF MR. PREM PRAKASH WAS ALSO FURNISHED ALONG WITH HIS CONFIRMATION. 15. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTI FY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGARD. 16. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE GENUINENESS OF CLAIMED REFUND OF ADVANCE M ONEY FOR PURCHASE OF 11 LAND FROM SHORYA DEVELOPERS HAS BEEN DENIED ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE CRE DIT ENTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,85,000. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DENIED THE CLAIMED REFUND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE VERACITY OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE IT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. WE, THUS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E, SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. GROUND NOS. 7 & 8: 17. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AR DI D NOT PRESS THESE GROUNDS. THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED AS WITHDRAWN. GROUND NO. 8 : 18. THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 37,550 SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OUT OF THE CL AIMED INTEREST ON CAR LOAN, VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE AND DEPRECIAT ION. 19. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND, THE LEARNED AR SUBMIT TED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE IN QUESTION HAS BEEN UPHELD WITHOUT AN Y PERSONAL ELEMENT OF USE OF CAR. THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMIT TED THAT SUFFICIENT RELIEF HAS ALREADY BEEN GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). 12 20. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTERES T ON CAR LOAN, VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE AS WELL AS DEPRECATION CLAI MED ON CAR @ 25% OF THE CLAIM ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FU RNISHED EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF CAR FOR BUSINESS PUR POSES. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE BY APPLYI NG 10% OF THE CLAIMED AMOUNT OF RS.3,75,498 RESULTING INTO DISALLOWANCE O F RS.37,550 ONLY. WE DO NOT FIND INFIRMITY IN THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER AS IN ABSENCE OF MAINTENANCE OF PROPER LOG BOOK ETC. THE POSSIBILITY OF PERSONAL USER OF THE CAR CANNOT BE TOTALLY RULED OUT. THE GROUND NO. 9 IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 21. THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE GENERAL AND CONSEQUEN TIAL IN NATURE, HENCE, DO NOT NEED INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. THESE GROUNDS ALSO INCLUDE THE CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER SEC. 234B AND 234C OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 22. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 .03.201 5 SD/- SD/- ( J.S. REDDY ) ( I.C. SUDHIR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25 /03/2015 MOHAN LAL 13 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR DATE DRAFT DICTATED ON COMPUTER 25.03.2015 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 25.03.2015 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. 25.03.20 15 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 25.03.2015 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 25.03.2015 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER.