M/s Maa Bhagwati Rice Mill, Kaithal V. Addl. CIT, Kurukshetra

ITA 361/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63890 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIL GOEL
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Unexplained investment
• Section: 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 361/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S MAA BHAGWATI RICE MILL, VS THE ADDL. CIT, KHUSHAL-MAJRA ROAD, CHEEKA KURUKSHETRA DISTT. KAITHAL (HARYANA) PAN NO. AAOFM5002C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ROHIL GOEL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K. SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.08.2012 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), KARNAL DATED 16.9.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN CONFI RMING AN ADDITION OF RS. 10,87,230/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER RE ALIZATION OF GROSS PROFIT ON SALE OF RICE ON CONSIGNMENT FROM VALUATION OF SAME STOCK ON CONSIGNMENT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY ON 6.2.2008. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING A RICE MILL IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S MAA BHAGWATI RICE MILL AT KHUSHAL-MAJRA 2 ROAD, CHEEKA, DISTT. KAITHAL AND THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE BUSINESS. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 6.2.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ADDITIONAL INCOME OF R S. 60 LACS WAS DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION O F BUILDING, UNEXPLAINED CASH AND UNEXPLAINED STOCK. THE SURRENDER MADE INCL UDED A SUM OF RS. 45,60,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND D URING THE SURVEY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE GP RATE FOR THE PRE SURVEY PERIOD WAS 7.05% AND THAT O F POST SURVEY PERIOD WAS 2.98%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR THE FALL IN GP RATE IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD. THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 4.11.2010 EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS A GROSS LOSS OF RS. 6,07,113/- IN BARDANA ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ENTIR E LOSS WAS ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD INSTEAD OF DIVIDING IT ACCOR DING TO THE SALE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE LOSS IN BARDANA AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,91,669/- RELATED TO PRE SURVEY PERIOD WHILE REMAINING OF LOS S OF RS. 2,15,444/- RELATED TO POST SURVEY PERIOD. ANOTHER REASON GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE FOR LOW GP RATIO DURING THE POST SURVEY PERIOD WAS STATED TO BE ON A CCOUNT OF LESS REALIZATION OF GOODS SENT FOR SALE ON CONSIGNMENT BASIS. ACCORDIN G TO ASSESSEE, THE STOCK OF CONSIGNMENT WAS INADVERTENTLY VALUED AT RS. 2355/- PER QTL ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. OUT OF THE TOTAL STOCK OF CONSIGNMENT GOOD S WEIGHING 1358.11 QTLS, ULTIMATELY REALIZED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,01,786/- IN STEAD OF RS. 31,98,349/-. THUS THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 11,96,563/-. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ABOVE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASO NS MENTIONED IN PARAS 11, 12 & 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE STOCK OF THE CONSIGNMENT WAS NOT PHYSICALLY AVAILAB LE AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE BUT WAS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AND 3 DOCUMENTS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND THE RATE OF SUCH STOCK HAVE ALSO BEEN TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHERMORE, THE INVENTORY OF STOCK AND THE VALUATI ON WORKED OUT WAS DULY CERTIFIED TO BE CORRECT BY THE ASSESSEE BY PUTTING HIS SIGNATURE ON THE INVENTORY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AGAINST THE DIFFERENCE OF 11,96,563/-, THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED RS. 1,09,333/ - ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN GP INCLUDED IN THE SURRENDER OF RS. 2,50,000/-. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF BARDANA WAS REASONABLE BUT THE LOWER REALIZATION FROM THE STOCK WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN AD DITION OF RS. 10,87,230/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED FALL IN GP IN THE POST SURVE Y PERIOD. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CI T(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 1.2 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE VALUE OF STOCK OF GOODS S ENT ON CONSIGNMENT RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT RS. 1,3 9,59,045/ - AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS THE APPROXIMATE VALUE OF 5471.25 QTLS. OF STOCK AND VALUED AT AVERAGE RATE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BEI NG RS. 2.355/- PER QTL. THE SAME WAS COMPUTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ITSELF WHEN THE ASSESSES WAS UNDER HEAVY PRESSURE AND TENSION AND I T WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO COMPUTE THE ACTUAL COST BASED ON THE PRI NCIPLES OF VALUATION ADOPTED FOR CLOSING STOCK AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR . FURTHER, OUT OF TOTAL STOCK OF GOODS SENT ON CONSI GNMENT BEING THE OPENING STOCK IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD, 1360 QNTL OF STOCK WAS REALIZED AT A RATE LOWER THAN THE SAID AVERAGE RATE THEREBY GIVING LOSS ON THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 12,01,014/- (CLAIMED BEFORE THE LD. AO AS RS.11,96,563.05/-) AND THUS BRINGING DOWN THE G.P RATE TO 2.98% IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD. THE FACT WAS DULY SUBMITTED BEF ORE THE LD. AO VIDE 4 SUBMISSIONS DATED 03-11-2010 ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF COPIES OF ESTIMATED INVOIC E SENT BEFORE THE DATE OF SURVEY AND SALE CONFIRMATION RECEIVED AFTER SURVEY (COPY ENCLOSED. P. NO. 13-29). HOWEVER, THE FACT WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. AO AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. 1.3 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ESTIMATED INVOICE VALU E OF 1360.00 QTLS OF RICE, SENT ON SALE ON CONSIGNMENT BASIS VIDE BIL LS NOS. 45, 259, 260, 262, 264 BEFORE THE DATE OF SURVEY, WAS RS. 19,68,000.00. THE FINAL REALIZATION FROM SALE OF THESE GOODS (THE GOODS WERE SOLD AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY) AFTER DEDUCTING ALL THE RELATED XPENSES WAS RS. 20,01,786.00 I.E. MORE THAN WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD E XPECTED. SO, THERE IS NO MANIPULATION BY THE ASSESSEE. 1.4 IN THIS REGARD, A CHART IS ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSIONS FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL AS PAGE NO. 30, SHOWING THE DETAILS OF 1360 QTLS. OF STOCK .OF GOODS ON CONSIGNMENT BASIS DURIN G THE PRE SURVEY PERIOD AND REALIZATIONS THEREUPON IN THE POST SURVE Y PERIOD. FURTHER RELEVANT BILLS / CONSIGNMENT NOTES ALREADY PUT ON R ECORDS WITH THE LD. AO ARE ALSO ENCLOSED AT P.NO. 13-29. ON PERUSAL OF THE CHART, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT 1360 QNTL. OF GOODS WERE INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK AS PER THE ESTIMATED AVERAGE RATE AT RS. 32,02,800/- (@ RS. 2355.00) WHILE THE GOODS REALIZE D AT A NET VALUE OFRS. 20,01,786/- (AFTER ADJUSTING THE PROPORTIONATE DIRE CT EXPENSES) . THUS, THERE WERE LOWER REALIZATION OF RS. 12,01,014/- IN POST SURVEY PERIOD. FURTHER, IT ALSO SHOWS THAT IN POST SURVEY PERIOD, G.P WENT DOWN ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF NOTIONAL COST. AS SUCH THE LD. AO'S CONT ENTION IS INCORRECT. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 1.05 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE CONS IDERED. THE APPELLANT ENCLOSED THE COPY OF BILLS AND BIKRI PARC HA OF GOODS SENT ON CONSIGNMENT TO DELHI AND SALE THEREOF. THE DETAILS THEREOF ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 5 DETAILS OF GOODS SENT ON CONSIGNMENT BILL NO. DATE WEIGHT AMOUNT DATE SALES AS PER BIKRI QTL RS. PURCHASE RS. 245 11.1.08 310 3,88,000 28.1.08 3,99,444 259 15.1.08 280 3,00,000 - 2,93,638 260 15.1.08 200 2,60,000 05.2.08 2,67,8000 262 16.1.08. 300 5,10,000 16,19 & 25.1. 08 5,41,070 264 17.1.08 300 5,10,000 25.1.08 5,42,980 1.06 FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE E NTIRE GOODS WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO BE SENT FOR CONSIGNMENT SALES WERE SOLD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E 6 TH FEB.2008 EXCEPT THE ONE TRANSACTION SENT PER BILL NO.259 ON 15.1.2008. IT IS THE BILL OF ONE SH. MAHAVIR AGRO F OODS, NAYA BAZAR, DELHI. THE DETAILS THEREON ARE NOT LEGIBLE. IN ANY CASE, D ETAILS OF DISPATCH OF GOODS IN THIS CASE ALSO IS SAME, I.E., 15.1.2008, W HICH WAS IN OTHER CASES ALSO AND AS SUCH, RICE IN THIS CASE ALSO WOULD HAVE BEEN SOLD PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SURVEY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE APPEL LANT SHOULD BE AWARE OF THE EXACT REALIZATION OF SALE OF THESE GOODS SENT ON CO NSIGNMENT ON THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E 6.2.2008 AND HENCE, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT IN THE NOTICE OF THE DEPTT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. FROM TH ESE FACTS, THE ONLY INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE APPELLANT LATER ON, I.E., AFTER SURVEY MANAGED THE UNDER-REALIZATION OF SALE VALUE JUST TO REDUCE ITS TAX LIABILITY OCCURRED DUE TO DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.60 LA CS DURING SURVEY. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ADDRESS / TO REB UT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, MADE IN PARA 11 & 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED ABOVE. 1.07 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HE LD THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF UNDER REALIZ ATION OF SALES OF GOODS SENT ON CONSIGNMENT AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS REGARD AND THE ADDITION OF RS.10,87,230/-MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. GROUND NO. L & 2 OF APPEAL ARE AS SUCH REJECTED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI N.K. SAINI, LD. DR WHO STRONG LY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI ROHIT GOEL, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS SEEN THAT THE VALUE OF STOCK OF GOODS SENT ON CONSI GNMENT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS 6 OF ACCOUNT WAS AT RS. 1,39,59,045/- AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WHICH WAS THE APPROXIMATE VALUE OF 5471.25 QTLS OF STOCK VALUED A T AVERAGE RATE OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE BEING RS. 2,355/- PER QUINTAL. THE C ASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT IN THE POST SURVEY PERIO D, 1360 QUINTALS OF STOCK WAS REALIZED AT A RATE LOWER THAN THE AFORESAID AVERAGE RATE THEREBY GIVING LOSS ON THE TRANSACTION OF RS. 12,01,014/- ( CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS. 11,96,563.05) AND THUS BRINGING DOWN THE GP RATE TO 2.98% IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD. FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS CLEAR THAT ESTIMAT ED INVOICE VALUE OF 1360 QUINTALS OF RICE SENT ON SALE ON CONSIGNMENT BASIS VIDE BILL NOS. 245, 250, 260, 262 AND 264 BEFORE THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS RS. 19,68 ,000/-. THESE COPIES OF BILLS SENT ON CONSIGNMENT ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 27 TO 31 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT AT THE TIME OF S URVEY ACTION, THE ABOVE BILLS WERE PRODUCED AND CHECKED BY THE SURVEY PARTY. IN FACT, THE SURVEY PARTY AS WELL AS THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THESE BILLS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT 1360 QUINTALS OF STOCK OF GOODS WERE SENT TO DIFFERENT CONSIGNEES DURING THE PRE SURVEY PERIOD AND REALIZA TION THERE UPON WERE MADE IN THE POST SURVEY PERIOD. THIS FACT HAS ALSO NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. SALES (BIKRI) STATEMENTS RECEIVED FRO M DIFFERENT CONSIGNEES ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 32 TO 36 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. ADMITTEDLY, THESE SALE STATEMENTS WERE RECEIVED AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF ACTUAL SALE WAS EXPLAINE D TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BASED UPON THE SALE BILLS OF REGISTERED PARTIES WHI CH WERE NEVER DOUBTED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED COM PLETE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE DULY AUDITED BY THE AUDITOR. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS NOT STATED ANYWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE SALE VALU E REALIZED AGAINST THE GOODS SENT ON CONSIGNMENTS WERE LESS THAN THE MARKET PRIC E OF THE RICE ON A PARTICULAR DATE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN M ADE MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT 7 THE GP RATE OF 2.98 % SHOWN IN THE POST SURVEY PERI OD WAS LOWER THAN THE GP RATE DECLARED IN PRE SURVEY PERIOD. 7. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE GROUND OF LOW GP RATE SHOWN IN THE POST SURVEY PERI OD AS COMPARED TO THE PRE SURVEY PERIOD. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT MERELY LOW P ROFIT MAY PROVOKE AN ENQUIRY, BUT THAT BY ITSELF WITHOUT MORE CANNOT JUSTIFY AN A DDITION TO THE PROFITS SHOWN. ADMITTEDLY, IN THIS CASE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGUL ARLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE BILLS OR STOCK OF GOODS SENT ON CONSIGNMENT BASIS DURING THE PRE SURVEY PERIOD. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE SALES STATEMENTS RECEIVED FORM CONSIGNEES AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY. IN THE CASE OF CIT V AMITBHAI GUNVANTBHAI (1981) 129 ITR 573 (GUJR AT), THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER:- THE BASIC PRINCIPLE IS THE SAME IN THE LAW RELATI NG TO INCOME-TAX AS WELL AS IN CIVIL LAW NAMELY, THAT IF THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TO THE TRANSACTION REPRESENTED BY THE ENT RIES OR TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE ENTRIES, THEN IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE OTHER SIDE - IN THIS CASE THE REVENUE - TO CONTEND THAT WHAT IS SHOWN BY THE ENTRIES IS NOT REAL STATE OF AFFAIR S. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS OVERLOOKED ONE IMP ORTANT FACT, NAMELY THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT OF G (HUF) WERE NOT CHALLENGED BY THE DEPARTMENT AS A DE VICE OR AS A CLOAK TO EVADE THE TAX. NOWHERE ON RECORD THE DEPARTMENT CHALLENGED THAT THE ENTRIES DID NOT REFL ECT THE REAL TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE PARTIES. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY SUCH CHALLENGE, IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE TRIBUNAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT RECEIVED BY G IN HIS CAPACITY OF HUF BUT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN HIS CAPA CITY AS THE GUARDIAN OF A. THIS IS PARTICULARLY SO IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO FURTHER ATTEMPT WAS EVER MADE BY THE 8 DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT, IN FACT, THOUGH THE ENTRIE S WERE MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE HUF, THE MONEYS WERE RECEIVED OR PASSED ON TO A OR THAT THE MONEYS WERE RECEIVED BY G IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE GUARDIAN OF A. 8. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT ISSUED LETTER TO ANY CONSIGNEE IN CASE OF ANY DOUBT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, ENTRIES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE TO BE ACCEPTE D AS REAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE CONTENTI ON OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO CHALLENGE ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE REGARDING TH E SALES STATEMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE CONSIGNEES. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AFTER SURVEY MANAGED THE UNDER REALIZATION OF SALE VALUE JUST TO REDUCE ITS TAX LI ABILITY. THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW BECAUSE THE SAME ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN FACT, THERE IS NO CHALLENGE TO THE GENUINENESS O F THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INTER ALIA ALLEGING THAT THE ENTRIES WERE A CLOAK TO REDUCE TAX LIABILITY. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW, THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,87,230/- AND ACCORDINGLY, WE DELETE THE SAME. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2012 SD/- SD/- (T. R. SOOD) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 29 TH AUGUST, 2012 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT TRUE COPY 4. THE CIT(A) BY ORDER 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR