DHARMENDRA KUMAR BANSAL, Jaipur V. CIT, Kota

ITA 350/JPR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 35023114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBHASH CHANDRA
• Keywords: Charitable institution; Opportunity of being heard; Prejudicial to interest
• Section: 143(3); 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JAIPUR BENCH : JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 350/JP/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) SHRI DHARMENDRA KUMAR BANSAL, VS. THE CIT, KOTA. OLD TRUCK UNION, KARAULI. PAN NO. AMLPB 4448 E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SUBHASH CHANDRA - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22/01/2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/02/2014. O R D E R PER N.K. SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 05/03/2013 OF LD. CIT, KOTA. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE ID. CIT, KOTA, IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND HENCE, KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2 THE ID. CIT, KOTA ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CT OF THE CASE IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.263 OF THE ACT. THER EFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2 3 THE ID. CIT, KOTA ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CT OF THE CASE IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY WRONGLY AND INCORRECTLY HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECTED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PA SSED ON DATED 29.10.2010 WAS WITHOUT MAKING PROPER ENQUIRIES. SUC H FINDING AND THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION, BOTH ARE CONTRARY T O THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON RECORD. HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INI TIATED U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 05.03.2013 KINDLY BE QUASHED. 4. THE ID. CIT, KOTA ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CT OF THE CASE IN IGNORING THE VARIOUS FACTS, SUBMISSIONS WITH REGARD TO FIVE CASH CREDITORS AND THE DECISION/S BINDING UPON HIM AND HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER KINDLY BE QUASHED. 5. THE ID. CIT, KOTA ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FA CT OF THE CASE IN HOLDING THAT THE SUBJECTED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 2 9.10.2010 U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS AND HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER KINDLY BE QUASHED. 6. THE APPELLANT PRAYS YOUR HONOURS INDULGENCE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ON OR BEFORE TH E DATE OF HEARING. 2 THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29/10/2010 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CONSIDERING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICI AL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28/09/2008 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 2,7 5,550/-, WHICH WAS 3 PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT, ON 20/0 5/2009. LATER ON CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS . 3,33,150/-. THEREAFTER, ITO WARD-3, SAWAI MADHOPUR VIDE LETTER NO. 3737 DATED 02/09/2011 PROPOSED THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE FOLLOWING POINTS DECIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER C ONSIDERING THE SAME AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE:- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN FOLLOWING CASH CREDITORS : 1. SHRI GHANSHYAM LAL GUPTA RS. 90000/- 2. SHRI RUPESH MITTAL RS. 50000/- 3. SHRI YOGESH BANSAL RS. 100000/- 4. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA RS. 90000/- 5. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL RS. 100000/- THOUGH THE STATEMENTS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CREDIT ORS WERE RECORDED BY THE AO AND COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN OBTAIN ED BUT IT WAS FOUND THAT BEFORE TRANSFERRING THE AMOUNT IN ASSESSEE'S B ANK ACCOUNT, SIMILAR AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN CASH WITHIN 2-3 DAYS B EFORE BY THESE CREDITORS, THEREFORE, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE CRE DITORS NOT PROVED. THE AO WAS EXPECTED TO MAKE CONCRETE INQUIRIES ABOUT SO URCE OF CASH DEPOSIT BEFORE FINALIZING THE CASE KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACT WHICH IS VITAL TO DETERMINE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS. 4. ON RECEIPT OF PROPOSAL UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE A CT FROM THE ITO, WARD 3, SAWAI MADHOPUR, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED 09/01/2013 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO VIDE WRI TTEN SUBMISSION SUBMITTED ON 22/01/2013 AS UNDER:- 4 THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF ALL TRANSA CTIONS RELATING TO ALL THE FRESH CREDITS NARRATED IN YOUR SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE ID. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOANS (MENTIONING COM PLETE NAMES, ADDRESSES AND PAN), CONFIRMATIONS, COPIES OF BANK A CCOUNTS, COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, AFFIDAVITS ETC. OF THE DEPOSITO RS REQUIRED BY THE ID. AO FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ACCORDI NGLY. STATEMENTS OF ALL THE CREDITORS MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WE RE DULY RECORDED BY THE ID.AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS AS HAS BEEN STATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ITSELF. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AGRAWAL & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA ARE REGULARLY ASSESSED WITH ITO, WARD-3 AND COPIES OF I.T. RETURNS OF THEM WERE FILED DURING ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS. WITH REGARD TO SHRI YOGESH BANSAL, THE ID. AO REQUIRED T O FILE COPY OF HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR F.Y.2008-09 ALONGWITH COPY OF CAS H BOOK FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2007 TO 07.04.2007 (SHOWING AVAILABLE CA SH BALANCE WHICH WAS DEPOSITED INTO BANK ON DIFFERENT DATES) WHICH W AS DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR ALL OTHER CREDITORS NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FURNISHED AS REQUIRED BY THE ID. AO. AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF THE ID.AO TREATED THE CASH CREDITORS AS GENUINE. SINCE THE MATTER WAS DUL Y EXAMINED BY THE ID.AO, THE REVISION OF THE ORDER ON THIS ACCOUNT SH OULD NOT BE CALLED FOR. FURTHER, SINCE THE MATTER NARRATED BY YOUR HONOUR W AS DULY EXAMINED BY THE ID. AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE ID.AO IS NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTER EST OF THE REVENUE. THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 CANNOT BE INITIATED SIMPLY TO C AUSE ENQUIRIES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE SUBSTANTIATED FRO M THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- CIT VS. GANPAT RAM BISHNOI (2005) 198 CTR (RAJ) 546 FROM THE RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS, IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO PRESUMPTION CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE AO HAD NOT APPLIED ITS MIND T O THE VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE MATTER. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WITHO UT EVEN PRIMA FACIE LAYING FOUNDATION FOR HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO INTEREST IN ANY MATTER MERELY ON SPA CIOUS GROUND THAT THE AO WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE AN ENQUIRY, CANNOT BE HELD TO SATISFY THE TEST OF EXISTING NECESSARY CONDITION FOR INVOKING JURISDICT ION U/S 263. JURISDICTION U/S 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED FOR MAKING S HORT ENQUIRIES OR TO GO INTO THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT AGAIN AND AGAIN M ERELY ON THE BASIS THAT MORE ENQUIRY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED TO F IND SOMETHING. CIT VS. VIKASH POLYMERS (2010) 194 TAXMAN 57 (DEL) IF A QUERY IS RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY BY THE AO, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE ANSWER WAS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS WOULD NOT BY ITSELF LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO CAL LED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. CIT VS. SUNBEAM AUTO LTD. (2009) 227 CTR (DEL) 133 5 IF THERE IS AN ENQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE, THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE CIT TO PASS ORDER U/S 263. ANTALA SANKEY KUMAR RAVJIBHAI VS. CIT (2012) 135 IT D 506 (RAJKOT) (TRIB) THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 263 DOES NOT VISUALIZE A CASE OF SUBSTITUTION OF THE JUDGMENT OF CIT FOR THAT OF ITO WHERE ITO IN EX ERCISE OF ITS QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT EXAMINES THE ACCO UNTS, MAKES ENQUIRY, APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME BY EITHER ACCEPTING OR MAKING CHANGES IN ACCOUNTS. SUCH ORDER CANNOT BE CALLED AS ERRONEOUS. LOOKING TO THE ABOVE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE IT IS REQUESTED YOUR HONOUR TO PLEASE DROP THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATE D U/S 263 AND OBLIGE.' 5 LD. CIT DID NOT FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE SAID SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CO MPLETED THE ASSESSMENT IN A ROUTINE MANNER AND THERE WAS NOT ON LY LACK OF VERIFICATION BUT ALSO MISTAKEN VIEW OF LAW WHICH HA D MADE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE. LD. CIT(A) REITERATED THE OBSERVATION OF THE ITO WARD(3) SWAI MADHOPUR IN HIS LETTER DATED 02.09.2011 VIDE WHICH ACTION U/S 263 WAS PROP OSED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE FOLLOWING CASH CREDITORS:- 1. SHRI GHANSHYAM LAL GUPTA RS. 90000/- 2. SHRI RUPESH MITTAL RS. 50000/- 3. SHRI YOGESH BANSAL RS. 100000/- 4. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR GUPTA RS. 90000/- 5. SHRI ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL RS. 100000 /- 6 HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH STATEMENTS OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED CREDITORS WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE COPIES OF BANK 6 ACCOUNTS HAD BEEN OBTAINED, BUT IT WAS FOUND THAT B EFORE TRANSFERRING THE AMOUNT IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT, SIMILAR AMOUNT H AD BEEN DEPOSITED IN CASH WITHIN 2-3 DAYS BY THESE CREDITORS. THEREFORE , CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE CREDITORS WAS NOT PROVED. LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT DUE AND PROPER ENQUIRY AND CALLS FOR FURTHER ENQUIRY. HE, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME IT DENOVO AFTER MAKING PROPER VERIFICATION AN D ENQUIRY. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE A CT. THEREAFTER, ASSESSING OFFICER MOVED A PROPOSAL UNDER SECTION 26 3 OF THE ACT DATED 02/09/2011 TO THE LD. CIT FOR REVISION OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER AND A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09/01/2013 WAS THEN ISSUED BY THE ITO (TECH.) TO THE ASSESSEE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO 2 ND & 3 RD PARAS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT CONSEQUENTLY, TH E LD. CIT PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) OF THE ACT WAS WITHOUT DUE AND PROPER ENQUIRY AND WAS MISTAKEN VIE W OF LAW WHICH HAD MADE THE ORDER ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. 7 IT WAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IS THAT THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX IS TO CALL RECORD FOR EXAMINATION OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDE R THIS ACT BEFORE FRAMING HIS OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ERRONEOUS SO FAR AS IT WAS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS EVIDENT FROM PARA 2 & 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT INITIATED THE PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY NOT CALLING AND EXAMINING THE RECORDS AND ON THE PROPOSAL MOVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REVISE THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED 29/10/2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS AGAINST THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BECAUSE TH E SUGGESTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS:- 1) MALABAR INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (S C.) 2) CIT VS. MAX INDIA LTD. (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SUPRE ME COURT) 3) CIT VS. PADAM SINGH CHAUHAN (2008) 215 CTR 303 ( RAJ). 4) ARAVALI TRADING CO. VS ITO (2008) 8 DTR 199 (RAJ .) 5) LIBHCHAND BOHRA VS ITO (2008) 8 DTR 44 (RAJ.) 6) KANHAILAL JANGID VS. ACIT (2008) 217 CTR 354 (RA J.) 7) CIT VS. VIKAS POLYMERS (2010) 47 DTR 348 (DEL) 8) CIT VS. HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (2010) 23 5 CTR 336 (DEL) 9) PAWAN KUMAR VS. ASSESSING OFFICER (2007) 106 TTJ 494 (JODHPUR) 8 10) KULBIR SINGH VS. ACIT (2009) 124 TTJ 1. 11) GANESH BUILDERS VS. CIT (2013) 158 TTJ 801 (JOD HPUR) 12) CIT VS GANPAT RAM BISHNOI (2005) 198 CTR (RAJ) 546. 13) CIT VS. RAJASTHAN FINANCIAL CORPORATION (1996) 134 CTR 145 (RAJ) 14) CIT VS VIKAS POLYMERS (2010) 47 DTR 348 (DEL) 15) BALWANT SINGH VS ITO (1996) 54 TTJ 560 (JAIPUR) 16) KAMAL KUMAR GUPTA (2011) 142 TTJ 9 (JAIPUR) (UO ) 17) CIT VS HINDUSTAN MARKETING & ADVERTISING CO. LT D. (2010) 46 DTR 109 (DEL) 18) CIT VS TRUSTEES ANUPAM CHARITABLE TRUST (1987) 167 ITR 129 (RAJ) 19) CIT VS SNUBEAM AUTO LTD. (2009) 227 CTR 133 (DE L) 20) CIT VS LEISURE WEAR EXPORTS LTD. (2010) 46 DTR 97 (DEL) 21) GEE VEE ENTERPRISES VS. ADDL. CIT 99 ITR 375 (D EL) 22) CIT VS.F HONDA SIEL POWER PRODUCTS LTD. (DEL.) (2010) 235 CTR 336. 23) EMERGY STONE MANUFACTURING. & CO. 213 ITR 843 ( RAJ). 8 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT AND FURTHER SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE PROPER ENQUIRIES WHI LE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT ONLY ERRONEOUS BUT ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF T HE REVENUE. 9 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PA RTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT 9 CASE, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR FROM PARA 2 OF THE IMP UGNED ORDER THAT THE ITO, WARD-3, SAWAI MADHOPUR VIDE LETTER NO. 3737 DA TED 02/09/2011 PROPOSED ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT AND IT WAS NOT THE LD. CIT, WHO HIMSELF CALLED RECORD AND EXAMINED THE SAME FOR ANY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE LD. CIT HAD NOT APPLIED HIS MIND BUT THE MATTER WAS REFERRE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, FROM PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE NOTICE DATED 09/01/2013 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE AC T WAS ISSUED ONLY ON RECEIPT OF THE PROPOSAL UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE AC T FROM THE ITO, WARD- 1(2), KOTA AND THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED, VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA 4 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, EA CH AND EVERY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ITO, WARD-2, SAWAI MADHOPUR . IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT THE LD. CIT WHILE EXERCISING THE REVISIONARY P OWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT MAY CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTER IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED TH EREIN IS ERRONEOUS INSOFAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY, AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD A ND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSA RY, PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, BEFORE 10 TAKING ANY ACTION, LD. CIT HIMSELF SHALL APPLY HIS MIND AFTER EXAMINING THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS AND HIS SATISFACTION IS MUST. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SATISFACTION WAS OF THE ITO ( TECH.) WHO PROPOSED ACTION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, BUT NOT OF THE LD. CIT. THEREFORE, ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF THE PROPOSAL MADE BY THE ITO WAS VOID AB INITIO . WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE SAME. FOR THE AFORESAID VIEW, WE ARE FORTIFIED BY THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2014). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2014. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JAIPUR.