The ITO, 3(1), Indore V. SHRI HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA (HUF), Indore

ITA 374/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5678 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH VAIDYA
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 1 OF 17 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1) INDORE VS. SHRI HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA, HUF PROP.SIMRAN HATCHERY INDORE PAN AABHH 4329E APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O. NO. 40/IND/2014 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.374/IND/201 4 SHRI HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA, HUF PROP.SIMRAN HATCHERY INDORE VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(1) INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED ASSESSEE BY SHRI MANISH VAIDYA & SMT. PREETI PATWA DATE OF HEARING 27.7.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 .7.2016 O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA ACCOUTANT MEMEBR THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, INDORE, [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 3.2.2 014 I.T.A. NO. 374/IND/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 2 OF 17 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) DATED 31.12.2007 OF THE ITO, WARD 3(1), INDOR E, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE A.O.). THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER :- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,99,590/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUED CLOSING STOCK. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASE LEDGER AND THE CLOSING STOCK WAS NOT EXPLAINED PROPERLY AND NEEDED TO BE ADDED. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,64,436/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALE BY SIMPLY ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. 3. DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES OF RS.25,68,986/- BY SIMPLY ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR. ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 3 OF 17 THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I, ERRED IN DISALLOWING CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.8,18,475/- TO SISTER CONCERNS WHICH RESULTED IN ADDITION OF RS.1,63,695/- U/S 40A(3) UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I, ERRED IN LAW IN DISALLOWING RS.18,700/- OUT OF LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194J 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I, ERRED IN DISALLOWING RS.2,23,589/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AS MENTIONED HEREUNDER AND THE DISALLOWANCES ARE TOO EXCESSIVE LOOKING TO THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. (I) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES CLAIMED AT RS.3,60,333/- (II) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.75,000/- OUT OF VEHICLES SUMMARY EXPENSES OFRS.6,22,519/- (III) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.48,589/- OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.2,42,946/- (IV) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF TRAVELLING & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES OF RS.3,93,649/- ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 4 OF 17 3. NOW WE SHALL DEAL WITH GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 4. GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,99,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. THE FACTS APROPOS TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE PURCHASES OF RS. 44,97,813/- ON 30.30.2005 AND 31.3.2005. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CLOSING STOCK OF HATCHING EGG AT RS.35,98,223/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO SALE OF HATCHING EGG AS PER THE TRADING ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME BUT NO SATISFACTORY REPLY WAS FURNISHED. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE IS A NORMAL PROCESS FOR HATCHING EGG WHICH REQUIRES 21 DAYS TO CONVERT BROILER TO CHICKS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.8,99,590/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF PURCHASES MADE ON 30.3.2005 AND ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 5 OF 17 31.3.2005 (RS.44,97,813 (-) RS. 35,98,223) AND CLOSING STOCK DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, TOWARDS UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THIS ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO EXAMINE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BILLS OF 30.3.2005 AND 31.3.2005 THEMSELVES SHOW THAT SUCH PURCHASES WERE MADE FROM IST MARCH, 2005 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2005 AND ONLY THOSE HATCHING EGGS PURCHASED AND DELIVERED AFTER 10.3.2005 ARE SHOWN IN THE CLOSING STOCK. HOWEVER, THE EGGS PURCHASED BETWEEN 1.3.2005 TO 10.3.2005 HAVE ALREADY BEEN HATCHED AND THEY ARE NO MORE PART OF THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED STOCK CALCULATION CHART ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) . IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ADDITION OF RS.8,99,590 /- ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 6 OF 17 WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND STOCK CALCULATION AT PAGE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL HATCHED EGGS ARE PART O F THE CLOSING STOCK. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF THIS YEAR WOULD BE THE OPENING STO CK OF NEXT YEAR. THEREFORE, THERE WILL BE NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE AS THE TAX RATE REMAINS THE SAME. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIAN CE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF V.K.J BUILDERS AND CONTRACTORS P. LTD. VS. CIT; 318 ITR 204 (SC) WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAD CLEARLY LAID ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 7 OF 17 DOWN THAT IT IS THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTANCY THAT THE FIGURE OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE EARLIER YEAR HAS TO FORM THE OPENING STOCK OF T HE NEXT ACCOUNTING YEAR. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. IT IS SEEN FROM THE BILLS DATED 30.3.2005 AND 31.3.2005 THAT THESE CONTAIN PURCHASES OF HATCHING EGG FOR THE PERIOD FROM IST MARCH TO 31 ST MARCH AND THE EGGS HATCHED UPTO 10 TH MARCH ARE CONVERTED INTO BROILER CHICKS WHICH WERE ALREADY SOLD. THEREFORE, THERE REMAINS THE CLOSING STOCK OF RS.35,98,223/- AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN ORDER. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.4,64,436/- AND GROUND NO. 3 RELATES ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 8 OF 17 TO ADDITION OF RS.25,68,986/- BEING THE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED CHICKEN FROM M/S SIMRAN HATCHERIES LTD., DHULIA, OF RS.55,30,554/- AND FROM M/S SINGH HATCHERIES OF RS.67,88,282/- AGGREGATING TO RS.1,23,18,636/- AND AS PER THE AUDITED TRADING ACCOUNT, TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.95,60,261/- ARE SHOWN. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNACCOUNTED SALE TO THE TUNE OF RS.32,23,011/- DURING THE YEAR ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT GP @ 14.41% AS DISCLOSED IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND, ACCORDINGLY, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.4,64,436/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES AT RS.27,58,575/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE OF TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.1,23,18,836/- FROM THE AFORESAID ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 9 OF 17 TWO PARTIES AND PURCHASES OF CHICKEN SHOWN IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AT RS.95,60,261/-. 11. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRO R OCCURRED IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT IN THE OFFICE OF T HE AUDITOR, DETAILS OF WHICH, AS PER THE CERTIFICATE G IVEN BY THE CA, ARE AS UNDER :- S.NO. NAME OF PARTY PURCHASES AS PER TAX AUDIT REPORT PURCHASES AS PER P&L A/C 1. PURCHASES FROM M/S SIMRAN HATCHERIES LTD. 55,30,554 52,36,008 2 PURCHASAES FROM M/S SINGH HATCHERIES 67,88,282 6,47,291 THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REBUTTED SUCH EVIDENCE OF ENTRIES IN BILLS/LEDGER/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, IN SUCH A CASE, ADDITION MADE MERELY ON TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR WHEREBY HIGHER FIGURE S WERE SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT, THE ADDITION ON ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 10 OF 17 ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFIT OF RS.4,64,436/- AND UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES OF RS.27,58,575/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT ABLE TO BRING OUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE ENTRIES IN AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT CORRECT. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WILL NOT SHOW HIGHER FIGURE IN THE AUDIT REPORT. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THERE IS A TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE IN THE AUDIT REPORT ALONE WHICH CANNOT BE MADE THE SOUND BASIS FOR SUCH ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ARE UPHELD IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. 13. NOW WE SHALL TAKE UP THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 11 OF 17 14. GROUND NO. 1 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,63,695/- U/S 40A(3) OF THE AC T BEING 20% OF TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.8,18,475/-. 15. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.8,18,475/- IN CASH TO M/S SIMRAN HATCHERIES LIMITED, M/S SIMFA LABS PVT. LTD., INDORE, M/S PUREGEN BIOTECH LTD., INDORE AND M/S SIMRAN FEEDS PVT. LTD., INDORE , WHEREIN PAYMENT IN CASH EXCEEDED RS.20,000/- EACH. THEREFORE, 20% OF RS.8,18,475/- WAS DISALLOWED U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 16. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSE E DID NOT CONTEST THE FACTS OF THE CASE BUT STATED TH AT THE CASH AMOUNT WAS PAID TO THESE SISTER CONCERNS IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- BECAUSE THEY WERE IN URGENT NEED OF FUNDS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHAT WAS SUCH URGENT NEED, WHEREAS ALL THE SISTER CONCERNS AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE WERE HAVING ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 12 OF 17 BANK ACCOUNTS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN CROSS OBJECTION BEF ORE US. 17. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OVERLOOKED TH E BASIC INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE BEHIND ENACTING SECTION 40A(3) AND IT WAS STATED THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE WERE NEVER DEBITED TO P&L ACCOUNT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. 18. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND NOTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/-. THEREFORE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 13 OF 17 ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. 20. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.18,700/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT OUT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSIO NAL EXPENSES. 21. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.83,580/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS ON CONSULTANCY AND LEGAL & PROFESSIONAL CHARGES. SINCE OUT OF THIS AMOUNT, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 50,400/- WAS PAID TO DR. VIJAY SHARMA AFTER DEDUCTING TDS, HENCE THIS ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT OF RS.18,700/- MADE TO ADVOCATE GAURAV CHABRA, BEING THE PROFESSION FEE, ON WHICH TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAME U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 14 OF 17 22. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.33,400/- PAID ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL AND PROFESSION CHARGES, RS.18,700/- WERE PAID TO ADVOCATE GOURAV CHABRA FOR WHICH THE TDS PROVISIONS HAVE NO APPLICATION AND AS SUCH THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DID NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AS THE TOTAL PAYMENT UNDER THE HEAD LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARGES FELL WITHIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A )(IA) OF THE ACT, HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A) IS UPHELD. 24. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO AGGREGATE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,23,589/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES BEING TELEPHONE EXPENSES, VEHICLE EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION, TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE EXPENSES. ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 15 OF 17 25. WE FIND THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE UNDER THE HEAD TELEPHONE, VEHICLE, DEPRECIATION, TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE ARE DISCUSSED IN PARAS 10 TO 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WERE MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF NON-MAINTENANCE OF CALL REGISTER, PERSONAL USE OF TELEPHONE, NON-MAINTENANCE OF PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS, LOG BOOK FOR PERSONAL US E OF VEHICLES AND MOTOR-CARS. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT THIS IS A CASE OF HUF WHERE PERSONAL USE UPTO SOME EXTENT OF TELEPHONE, VEHICLES, TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HENCE, THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED. 26. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REPEATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AND VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT OR INSTANCE, HENCE SUCH DISALLOWANCE NEED TO BE DELETED. ON THE OTHER ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 16 OF 17 HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 27. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE UPHELD. GROUND NO. 3 IS THUS DISMISSED. 28. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSE D. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (O.P. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 27 TH JULY, 2016. DN/- ITANO.374/IND/2014 & CO NO.40/IND/2014 : AY:2005-0 6 ITO VS. HARENDRAPAL SINGH BHATIA HUF PA GE 17 OF 17 COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE ASSESSEE/2. THE AO CONCERNED/3. THE LD. PCIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(A)/5. THE LD. DR, INDORE/6. THE GUAR D FILE BY ORDER A.R. ITAT, INDORE