Ram Sagar Pandey, Lucknow V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

ITA 381/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4780 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Tax effect; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 147; 131; 68; 56; 15

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.381 & 382/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 DY.C.I.T., RANGE-1, LUCKNOW. VS SHRI RAM SAGAR PANDEY, 351/1, INSAF NAGAR, INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AGKPP0856H (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) ITA NO.383/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 SHRI RAM SAGAR PANDEY, 351/1, INSAF NAGAR, INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNOW. PAN:AGKPP0856H VS INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1(3), RANGE-1, LUCKNOW. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI YOGESH AGRAWAL, ADVOCATE ASSESSEE BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. REVENUE BY 11/12/2015 DATE OF HEARING 03/02/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF THREE APPEALS FOR THE SAME A SSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 2007-08, THERE ARE TWO APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE, OUT OF WHICH ONE IS ARISING OUT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AND THE SE COND IS ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE AC T. THE THIRD APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE P ROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE ARISING OU T OF A COMMON ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 02/03/2015 AND ALL THESE TH REE APPEALS WERE HEARD 2 TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARI SING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) I.E. I.T.A. NO.38 2/LKW/2015. GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE INTER-CONNECTED, WHICH READ AS UNDER: I. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- I, LUCKNOW [HERE-IN-AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE LD. CIT ( A)'S] ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFORMING THE ADDITIO N RS.81,29,522/- WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO BY TAKING 20% OF ALL ASSETS AS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT RS.4,06,47,614/- BEING INVESTMENT IN LAND AND BUILD ING RS.2,94,65,000/-, FIXED ASSETS RS.13,85,984/- CURRE NT ASSETS LOANS AND ADVANCES RS.97,96,630/- WHOLLY ON NOTIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. II. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE PECULIAR CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. CIT (A)'S WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTI FIED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS.81,29,522/- WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD OR DEMONSTRATING AS TO HOW OR ON WHAT BASIS THE SAME HAVE BEEN TREATED TO BE NOT EXPLAINED AND FURTHER IN HOLDING THAT THE OPENI NG CAPITAL IS NOT EXPLAINED AND THUS THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED ON IRRELEVANT CONSIDERATIONS IS BAD-IN-LA W AND VOID-AB-INITIO AND THUS THE ADDITION SO CONFIRMED M AY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31/03/2007 IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS PER WHICH, THERE ARE TOTAL ASSETS OF RS.4,06,47,615.67, WHICH ARE FINANCED BY CAPITAL OF RS.2,17,94,698.20, UNSEC URED LOAN OF RS.1,80,74,552.47 AND SUNDRY CREDITORS AND PROVISIO NS OF RS.7,78,365/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE SOURCE OF ALL THE ASSETS IS AVAILABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET ITSELF, MAKING ADDITION OF 20% OF ASSETS ON A D HOC BASIS IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 5. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 3 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT IN PARA NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT UNDER VARIOUS HEADS, SUCH AS LAND AND BUILDING RS.294.65 LAC, FIXED ASSETS OF RS.13,85,948/- AND CURRENT ASS ETS AND LOANS & ADVANCES RS.97,96,630/- IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/200 7. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET, AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 23 ALSO, THE SAME THRE E INVESTMENTS ARE APPEARING, TOTAL OF WHICH COMES TO RS.4,06,47,615.6 7. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SAYS IN PARA NO. 5 OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THAT ON BEING ASKED TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION REGARDING INVESTME NT UNDER THESE HEADS, THE ASSESSEE REPLIED TO HAVE SHOWN THESE FIGURES ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION AND STATED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS IN A DAY OR TWO, WHICH HE FAILED TO FURNISH. AFTER MAKING THIS OBSERVATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE ADDITION OF 20% OF TOTAL INVESTMENT AND IN THIS MANNER, HE MADE ADDITI ON OF RS.81,29,500/-. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT IS STATED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PURCHASING THE PROPERTIES AT FRACTION OF MARKET VALUE AND IN S OME CASES, BY MAKING PAYMENT OF TOKEN ADVANCE. HE HAS NOTED DOWN SOME I NSTANCES ON PAGE NO. 23 OF HIS ORDER, AS PER WHICH A PROPERTY AT HYDERGA RH BARABANKI WAS PURCHASED AS PER DEED OF AGREEMENT TO SELL/SALE DEE D DATED 24/06/2005 AND THE MARKET VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PU RPOSES IS STATED TO BE RS.48.71 LAC, ON WHICH STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID OF RS.3.90 LAC BUT ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS PU RPOSE IS ONLY RS.3.19 LAC. SIMILARLY, ANOTHER PROPERTY IN INDIRA NAGAR, LUCKNO W WAS PURCHASED ON 27/03/2006 ON WHICH STAMP DUTY WAS PAID OF RS.1,32, 100/- AND THE MARKET VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES IS S TATED TO BE RS.33 LAC AND THE AMOUNT PAID IS RS.21,000/-. THESE TWO PROPERTI ES WERE PURCHASED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THEREFORE, IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO PROPERTIES, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE PRESENT YEAR, BEING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE THIRD PRO PERTY AT BHILAWAN, LUCKNOW IS SAID TO BE ACQUIRED ON 17/04/2006 AND ST AMP DUTY FOR THIS 4 PROPERTY IS STATED TO BE RS.1,74,500/- AND THE MARK ET VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES IS STATED TO BE RS.43,55,20 0/- BUT THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY PAID IS RS.3 LAC ONLY. THE COMPLETE DETAI LS OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES OF RS.2,94,55,000/- IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REF ERENCE: 6.1 FROM THE ABOVE DETAILS, REPRODUCED FROM PAGE NO . 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK, IT IS SEEN THAT THE PROPERTY AT BHILAWAN, LUC KNOW HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS.3 LAC + STAMP DUTY RS.1,74,500/- AND LEGAL FEES RS.10,000/-, TOTAL RS.4,84,500/- AND WE DO NOT KNOW FROM WHERE THE CIT (A) HAS NOTED THE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.43,55,200/- IN HIS CHART ON PAGE NO. 23 OF HIS S. NO. PROPERTY DETAILS DATE OF DEED AMOUNT STAMP DUTY LEGAL FEES CONSTRUCTION COST G. TOTAL 1 10/114 INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW 09.03.2004 2000000 203600 10000 2200000 4413600 2 10/116 INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW 06.11.2001 1200000 120000 10000 2191200 3521200 3 6-267 INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW 16.08.2005 3600000 360000 10000 3970000 4 DEVA ROAD 17.01.2005 1600000 0 1600000 5 HAIDERGARH BARABANKI 24.06.2005 310000 390000 10000 710000 6 SARVODAYA NAGAR LUCKNOW 04.02.2006 1200000 120000 10000 1330000 7 C-256 INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW 27.03.2006 21000 132100 10000 163100 3 S-47 INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW 02.09.2004 650000 65600 10000 725600 9 PLOT- 103SA BHILAWAN LUCKNOW 17.04.2006 300000 174500 10000 484500 10 11/792 INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW 28.03.2006 255000 33400 10000 298400 11 14/01 INDIRA NAGAR LUCKNOW 18.11.2001 2200000 220000 10000 1900000 4330000 12 3A HABIBULLAHA ESTATE HAZARTGANJ 19.10.2006 2050000 1268500 10000 1100000 4428500 13 PLOT-01 MAHANAGAR LUCKNOW 29.07.2006 500000 480100 10000 990100 14 PRAG NARAIN ROAD 17.11.2006 2500000 0 2500000 I TOTAL 29465000 5 ORDER. REGARDING A PROPERTY AT HABIBULLAH ESTATE, HAZARATGANJ, LUCKNOW SAID TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 19/10/2006 , THE VALUE APPEARING IN THE ABOVE CHART IS RS.20.50 LAC + STAMP DUTY RS. 12,68,500/- + LEGAL FEES RS.10,000/- AND COST OF CONSTRUCTION RS.1 LAC, TOTA L RS.44,28,500/- BUT CIT(A) HAS STATED IN THE CHART ON PAGE NO. 23 OF HIS ORDER THAT MARKET VALUE OF THIS PROPERTY IS RS.1,26,84,600/-. IT MAY BE THAT MARKE T VALUE OF THE PROPERTY FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE IS HIGHER THAN THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BUT SECTION 50C IS NOT APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ACQ UISITION OF PROPERTY AND AMENDMENT IN SECTION 56(1) HAS BEEN MADE BY THE FIN ANCE ACT, 2015 WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/2014 AS PER WHICH, IF ANY IMMOVAB LE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED FOR A CONSIDERATION WHICH IS LESS THAN THE STAMP DU TY VALUE OF THE PROPERTY BY AN AMOUNT EXCEEDING RS.50,000/-, ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE AS INCOME IN RESPECT OF STAMP DUTY VALUE OF SUCH PROPERTY IN EXC ESS OF THE STATED CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56 (1)(VII)(B) ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT YEAR BECAUSE THE SAME ARE APPLICABLE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. IN THE SIMILAR MANNER, FO R THE REMAINING PROPERTIES ALSO, THE BASIS OF CIT(A) IS THAT MARKET VALUE FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSES IS HIGHER THAN THE VALUE OF CONSIDERATION PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER PURCHASE DEED BUT SUCH AN ADDITION IN THE PRESE NT YEAR IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW UNLESS EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RE CORD TO SHOW THAT EXTRA PRICE WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO ACQUIRE THE PROPE RTY IN QUESTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. TO SHOW THAT EXTRA PRICE WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO A CQUIRE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. HENCE, WE DELETE THIS ADDITION. ACCORDI NGLY, GROUND NO. 1 & 2 ARE ALLOWED. 7. GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ARE INTER-CONNECTED, WHICH READ AS UNDER: III. THE LD. CIT (A)'S FURTHER GROSSLY ERRED ON F ACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,25,000/- MADE B Y THE AO BY DISALLOWING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SO CL AIMED 6 AND IN TREATING THE SAME TO BE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOU RCES AND ADDING IT UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES ONLY ON NOTIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. IV. IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,25,000/-, T HE LD. AO CHOSE TO IGNORE THE FACT THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS DULY FI LED BEFORE THE LD.AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF AND THAT THE DOCUMENTS ITSELF SH OW THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE BEING PERFORMED O N THE LAND AND THAT THE SAME WAS OWNED BY THE APPELLANT A ND THUS THIS ADDITION SO CONFIRMED BEING BASED ON WHIM S AND FANCIES MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSE E THAT THE ASSESSEE IS OWNER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 11.737 HECTARES AND I N THIS REGARD, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 381 TO 413 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE COPY OF AGREEMENT AND PURCHASE DEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE KAMLAPUR, HAIDARGARH BARABANKI IS AVAILABLE. HE ALSO SUBMITT ED COPY OF FASLI OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 414 TO 415 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF IT IS FELT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS EXCESSIVE, REASONABLE ESTIMATE MAY BE MADE IN THIS REGARD. 9. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT THIS IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE IS HAVING AGRICULTURA L LAND OF 11.737 HECTARES. THIS CLAIM IS SUPPORTED BY PURCHASE DEED ALSO. NOW THE QUESTION IS ABOUT THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THIS LAND. IN T HIS REGARD, IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PART OF LAND WAS GIVEN ON BATAI T O TWO PERSONS AND ON THIS ACCOUNT, HE RECEIVED RS. 52,000/- PER MONTH FROM RA M KARAN AND RS. 50,000/- PER MONTH FROM MAIKU LAL TOTAL RS. 12.24 LACS. AGREEMENT WITH BOTH THESE PERSONS ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 416 TO 41 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE OBJECTION WAS THIS THAT LAND AREA GIVEN ON BATAI TO THESE PERSONS IS NOT MENTIONED IN THESE AGREEMENTS. IN REMAND PROCEEDING S, THE A.O. SUMMONED THESE PERSONS U/S 131 AND AS PER REMAND REPORT AVAI LABLE ON PAGES 421 TO 7 425, IT IS REPORTED BY THE A.O. THAT SRI VIRENDRA K UMAR GRANDSON OF SHRI MAIKU LAL AND SHRI RAM KARAN APPEARED BEFORE HIM. T HE A.O. ALSO REPORTED THAT SRI VIRENDRA KUMAR GRANDSON OF SHRI MAIKU LAL CONFIRMED THAT AS PER HIS KNOWLEDGE, THERE WAS AGREEMENT BETWEEN LATE SHRI M AIKU LAL AND THE PRESENT ASSESSEE TO PAY RS. 50,000/- PER MONTH FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ABOUT 17 18 BIGHAS. REGARDING THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAM KARAN, THE A.O. REPORTED THAT HE STATED THAT HE PAID ONLY RS. 52,00 0/- PER ANUMN TO THE PRESENT ASSESSEE FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 12 BIGHAS . IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AM OUNT OF RS. 52,000/- IS CORRECT BUT THE SAME IS PER MONTH AND NOT PER ANUMN AND ON THIS ASPECT, THERE IS EITHER A MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT OR BY SHRI RAM KARAN WHILE RECORDING HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE A.O. BECAUSE HE IS AN ILLITERATE PERSON. WE FIND FORCE IN THIS CONTENT ION BECAUSE WHEN THE AGREEMENTS ARE FOR PER ANUMN PAYMENT AND ONE PARTY IS CONFIRMING PAYMENT OF RS. 50,000/- PER MONTH FOR 17 18 BIGHAS, THE P AYMENT BY SECOND PARTY OF RS. 50,000/- FOR 12 BIGHAS CANNOT BE PER ANUMN A ND IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS PER MONTH. HENCE THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 12.24 LACS R ECEIVED FROM THESE TWO PERSONS DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. NOW THE QUESTION I S HOW MUCH OUT OF THIS AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THEM CAN BE ACCEPTED AS AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. AS PER THE STATEMENTS OF THESE TWO PERSONS, THE LAND GIVEN TO THEM ON BATAI IS ABOUT 30 BIGHAS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, AN AMOU NT OF RS. 20,000/- PER BIGHA PER ANUMN CAN BE CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL I NCOME AND ON THIS BASS, OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THESE TWO PERSONS OF RS. 12.24 LACS, AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6.00 LACS SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. THE BALANCE LAND IS ABOUT 40 BIGHAS BECAUSE ONE HECTARE IS EQUAL TO ABOUT 6.2 BIGHAS. HENCE TOTAL 11.737 HECTARES OF LAND IS ABOU T 70 BIGHAS. AFTER EXCLUDING 30 BIGHAS FROM IT, THE BALANCE LAND IS AB OUT 40 BIGHAS. FROM THIS BALANCE LAND, INCOME OF RS. 8.00 LACS SHOULD BE CON SIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME ON THE SAME BASIS OF RS. 20,000/- PER BIGHA PER ANUMN. IN THIS 8 MANNER, TOTAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 14.00 LACS OUT OF THE CLAIM OF RS. 35.25 LACS DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. WE ORDER ACCORD INGLY. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 3 & 4 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP THE SECOND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E WHICH IS ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT I.E. I.T.A. NO.381/LKW/2015. 13. GROUND NO. 1,2 & 3 ARE REGARDING VALIDITY OF TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WA S SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE GROUNDS ARE NOT PRESS ED AND ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. GROUND NO. 8 IS REGARDING CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.48,650/- AS PROVISIONS & EXPENSES PAYABLE. IT W AS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS GROUND IS ALSO NOT PRESSED AND ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 8 IS ALSO REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 15. GROUND NO. 4 & 5 ARE IN RESPECT OF SAME ISSUE I .E. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.39.50 LACS IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN FROM SHRI C. P. GOEL. REGARDING THIS GROUND, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSE E FROM SHRI C. P. GOEL HAS BEEN REPAID IN LATER YEARS BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PA YEE CHEQUES OF RS.45.40 LAC AS PER DETAILS AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO SUBMITTED COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE RELEVANT P ERIOD, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON PAGES 27 TO 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT WAS CONTENDED BY HIM THAT SINCE THE REPAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE LATER BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED U/S 68 OF THE AC T. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN DET AILS ABOUT MODE OF RECEIPT OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM SHRI C. P. GOEL. HE SUBMIT TED THAT IN THIS REGARD, ON PAGE NO. 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE DETAILS ARE GIVE N REGARDING CHEQUE 9 NUMBER, AMOUNT AND NAME OF BANK ALONG WITH DATE OF RECEIPT OF LOAN OF RS.7 LAC. IN ADDITION TO THIS, HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF B ANK STATEMENT OF THE LENDER SHRI C. P. GOEL FOR THE PERIOD FROM 20/05/2006 TILL 25/03/2013 AND IN THAT, HE POINTED OUT THAT ON 22/07/2006, HE HAD ISSUED A CHE QUE OF RS.35,000/- AND ON 28/06/2006, HE HAD ISSUED A CHEQUE OF RS.2.40 LA C. HE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF TOTAL LOAN OF RS.39.50 LACS, THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO PROVIDE DETAILS OF CHEQUE NUMBER ETC. TO THE EXTENT OF RS.9,75,000/-. REGARDING THE BALANCE AMOUNT ALSO, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME IS ALSO BY WAY OF CHEQUES BUT THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND LENDERS ARE NOT TRACEABLE AND THE LENDER IS SICK. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REMAND REPORT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 421 TO 425 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE RELEVANT PAGE IS 422. E POINTED OUT THAT IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. ISSUED A SUMMON U/S 131 TO SHRI C. P. GOEL ASKING FOR HIS PERSONAL APPEARANCE. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF HIS REPLY DATED 18.09.2014 SUBMITTED TO THE A.O. I.E. DCIT RANGE 1, LUCKNOW ON 18.09.2014 AND POINTED OUT THAT IN TH IS LETTER, SHRI C. P. GOEL HAS CONFIRMED THE LOAN OF RS. 39.50 LACS GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR 2006 ON VARIOUS DATES. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT IS STATED BY HIM IN THIS LETTER THAT HE IS BED RIDDEN AND THEREFORE CANNOT COME FOR PERSONAL APPEARANCE BUT IF HIS STATEMENT IS REQUIRED, SOME BODY MAY DEPUTED FOR RECORDING THE STATEMENT AT HIS RESIDENCE BUT THIS WAS NOT DONE BY THE A.O. HE SUBMITTED THAT THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE IDEN TITY OF SHRI C. P. GOEL STANDS ESTABLISHED BECAUSE SUMMON U/S 131 WAS SERVE D ON HIM AND HE CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION BY WRITING A LETTER DIREC TLY TO THE A.O. REGARDING IS CREDIT WORTHINESS, HE SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF BAN K OVERDRAFT OF RS. 40,85,584.29 ON 26.03.2007 AS PER BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI C. P. GOEL FROM BANK OF INDIA, INDIRA NAGAR BRANCH, IT SHOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTED THAT HE WAS HAVING CREDITWORTHINESS TO GIVE LOAN OF RS. 39.50 L ACS TO THE ASSESSE. 16. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT IN PARA 6.4 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS STATED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THREE AMOUNTS OF RS.4 LAC, RS.1.50 LAC AND RS.1.50 LAC, WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLEGEDLY TAKEN BY CHEQUES AND CREDITED IN THE BANK OF INDIA ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, HE HAS STATED THAT EVEN THES E DETAILS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE FROM THE BANK STATEMENT BUT WE FIND THAT IN THE BAN K STATEMENT OF THE LENDER FURNISHED BEFORE US, ALL THESE ENTRIES ARE A PPEARING IN ADDITION TO TWO MORE CHEQUES. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THIS IS AL SO NOT KNOWN WHETHER SHRI C. P. GOEL IS ASSESSED TO TAX OR NOT AND HENCE, HIS CAPACITY TO GIVE SUCH HUGE LOAN IS DOUBTFUL. ASSESSMENT OF TAX IS NOT CONCLUS IVE ABOUT CREDITWORTHINESS. A PERSON ASSESSED TO TAX MAY BE WITHOUT CREDITWORTH INESS TO GIVE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION AND A PERSON NOT ASSESSED TO TAX MAY BE HAVING CREDIT WORTHINESS TO GIVE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION. THEREAFT ER, HE HAS STATED THAT IN ABSENCE OF THE DETAILS OF DATE, AMOUNT AND MODE OF RECEIPT OF LOAN AMOUNTS, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE. HE HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT EVEN IF THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED , HE IS LIABLE TO IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271D FOR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS OF THE ACT AND MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF RS.45.40 LAC HAS B EEN REPAID TO SHRI C. P. GOEL BY CHEQUES OF VIJAYA BANK BETWEEN 25/11/2010 T O 08/05/2013, IT IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PROVE THAT THE IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE LENDER AND GENUINENESS OF LOAN TRANSACTION OF RS.39.50 LAC IS ESTABLISHED. ON THIS BASIS, CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THIS ADDITION OF RS.39.50 LAC. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH LEARNED CIT (A) THAT SUBSEQUENT REFUND IS IMMATERIA L FOR DECIDING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 68 BUT ABOUT NON FURNISHIN G OF DETAILS SUCH AS CHEQUE NOS. ETC., WE FEEL THAT ONLY BECAUSE DETAILS OF CHE QUE NOS. ETC. COULD NOT BE PROVIDED BY THE LENDER BECAUSE OF HIS BAD HEALTH PO SITION, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN. THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD COPY OF ONE BANK STATEMENT OF THE LENDER BEING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 685225100200092 WITH BANK OF INDIA, INDIRA NAGAR BRANCH AND WE FIND THAT BEFORE CLEARING OF 11 CHEQUE OF RS.2.40 LAC ON 28/06/2006, THERE IS DEPOS IT OF RS.3.90 LAC ON THE SAME DATE BY WAY OF CLEARING, RESULTING INTO REDUCT ION IN OVERDRAFT BALANCE FROM THE BANK TO RS.15.60 LAC AS AGAINST RS.19.50 L AC OVERDRAFT. SIMILARLY, ON 22/07/2006 ALSO, AFTER CLEARING OF THE CHEQUE OF RS .35,000/-, THE BANK IS SHOWING OVERDRAFT BALANCE OF RS.19.28 LAC TO SHRI C . P. GOEL. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT THAT THESE CHEQUES ARE GIVEN BY SHRI C. P. GOE L TO THE ASSESSEE OUT OF OVERDRAFT FROM BANK AND THE BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI C. P. GOEL IS MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE SHOWING A HUGE AMOUNT OF OVERDRAFT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE IDENTITY OF THE LOAN CREDIT OR AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS STAND ESTABLISHED BECAUSE THIS MUCH AMOUNT GIVEN BY THE LENDER SHRI C. P. GOEL TO THE ASSESSEE IS OUT OF HIS BORROWING FROM T HE BANK BY WAY OF BANK OVERDRAFT AND NO BANK WILL PROVIDE OVERDRAFT TO A P ERSON UNLESS HIS IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS IS ESTABLISHED. MOREOVER, IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, SUMMON U/S 131 ISSUED BY THE A.O. WAS SERVED ON SHR I C. P. GOEL AND REPLY WAS FILED BY HIM DIRECTLY TO THE A.O. IN WHICH HE H AS CONFIRMED THAT THIS AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS GIVEN BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE. TH IS ALSO ESTABLISHES HIS IDENTITY. HE ALSO REQUESTED THE A.O. TO DEPUTE SOME BODY FOR RECORDING HIS STATEMENT AT HIS RESIDENCE BUT THE A.O. DID NOT DO SO BUT UNDER THESE FACTS, HIS IDENTITY CANNOT BE DOUBTED. REGARDING HIS CREDI TWORTHINESS, THIS FACT THAT HE WAS ENJOYING OVERDRAFT OF RS. 40,85,584.29 ON 26 .03.2007 AS PER BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI C. P. GOEL FROM BANK OF INDIA, IN DIRA NAGAR BRANCH, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, HIS CREDIT WORTHINESS FOR ADVAN CING LOAN OF RS. 39.50 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE ALSO DESERVES TO BE ACCEPTED. REGARDING NON PROVIDING OF DETAIL OF CHEQUE NOS. ETC., IT IS WORTH NOTING T HAT IT IS STATED BY SHRI C.P. GOEL IN HIS LETTER DATED 18.09.2014 THAT HE IS SUFF ERING FROM GLAUCOMA AND HERNIA AND WAS ADVISED COMPLETE BED REST. MEDICAL C ERTIFICATE IS ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THIS LETTER AND THEREFORE ONLY BECAUS E DETAILS OF CHEQUE NOS. ETC. COULD NOT BE PROVIDED BY HIM BECAUSE OF HIS BA D HEALTH POSITION, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN. THEREFORE, UNDER T HESE FACTS, IT HAS TO BE 12 ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLI SH THE IDENTITY OF THE LENDER AND HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AS WELL AS GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION U/S 68 IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACC ORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 4 & 5 ARE ALLOWED. 18. GROUND NO. 6 IS AS UNDER: VI. THE LD. CIT (A)'S GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN PARTLY CONFORMING THE UNSECURED LOANS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,41,524/- AND IN NOT ACCEPTING THE LOANS OUTSTANDING OF STATE BANK OF INDIA FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.9,60,000/- AND STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF RS.2,81,000/- DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE DULY FILED AND THE BALANCES ARE DULY VERIFIABLE AND THUS THE CONFIRMATION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,41,524/- IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AGAINST ALL SETTLED PRINCIPLES O F LAW AND JUSTICE MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 19. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM OTHERS OF RS.1,41,24,552.47 SH OWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 23 OF THE PAPER BOOK AN D AS PER THE SAME, THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,41,524/- FOR WHICH ADDITION HAS BEE N UPHELD BY CIT(A) IS IN RESPECT OF LOAN FROM STATE BANK OF INDIA, ASHOK MAR G BRANCH OF RS.9.60 LAC AND STANDARD CHARTERED BANK OF RS.28,15,370/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THESE TWO LOANS, THE ADDITION UPHELD BY CIT(A) IS NOT JUS TIFIED. 20. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 21. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 6.5 OF HIS ORDER THAT OUT OF TOTAL U NSECURED LOAN OF RS.1,41,24,552/-, THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT A N AMOUNT OF RS.1,28,83,028/- IS FROM BANK AND ON THIS BASIS HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,28,83,208/- AND CONFIRMED THE BALANCE ADDI TION OF RS.12,41,524/-. NOW IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT THAT THIS BALANCE AMO UNT OF RS.12,41,524.70 IS ALSO FROM TWO DIFFERENT BANKS, WE HOLD THAT THIS PA RT ADDITION SUSTAINED BY 13 CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HENCE, WE DELETE THE SA ME. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 22. GROUND NO. 7 IS AS UNDER: VII. THE LD. CIT(A) AGAIN ERRED ON FACTS AND IN L AW IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.5,30,765/- AS SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR EXPENSES BY STATING THAT THE LIABILITIES ARE NOT PROPERLY VERIFIABLE FROM THE ST ATEMENTS DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF EXPENSE S PAYABLE IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THUS THE ADDITIO N SO MADE MAY KINDLY BE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 23. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESS EE THAT THE DETAILS OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.5,30,715/- IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 6.6 OF HIS ORDER. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE FIRST AMOUNT IS RS.1,37,217/- PAYABLE TO VIJAYA BANK, RSM NAGAR. THEREAFTER, HE POINTED OUT THAT THE BAN K STATEMENT FOR THIS BANK IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 43 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. REGARDING THE OUTSTANDING BALANC E OF RS.86,500/- TO HDFC BANK, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE STATEMENT OF HDFC IS AVAILABLE SHOWING OUTSTANDING OF RS.84,455.84. REGARDING OUTSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS.93,594/- FROM ST ANDARD CHARTERED BANK, HE DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE NO. 45 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE STATEMENT OF THIS BANK IS AVAILABLE SHOWING OUTSTAN DING AMOUNT OF RS.97,355.96. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF TH ESE EVIDENCES, THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 24. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 25. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT IN PARA 6.6, THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED DOWN THREE OUTSTANDING AMOUNTS OF RS.1,37,217/- FROM VIJAYA BANK, RS.86,500/- FROM HDFC BANK AND RS.96,9 54/- FROM STANDARD CHARTERED BANK. THE RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS ARE A VAILABLE IN PAPER BOOK TO WHICH OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN AND THEREFORE, THE SE THREE CREDIT AMOUNTS 14 HAS TO BE ACCEPTED AS EXPLAINED. REGARDING THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2.10 LAC, IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS STA TED TO BE NOT TRACEABLE. HENCE, WE CONFIRM THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2.10 LAC AND DE LETE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,20,715/-. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 26. GROUND NO. 9 IS AS UNDER: IX. THE LD. AO FURTHER GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS.35,25,000/- BY DISALL OWING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SO CLAIMED AND IN TREATING THE SAME TO BE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDING IT U NDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES ONLY ON NOTIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. 27. THIS GROUND IS SAME AS GROUND NO. 3 & 4 IN I.T. A. NO.382/LKW/2015. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT IN THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE STAR TED WITH THE AMOUNT OF INCOME ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STARTED WITH THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, AS ON DATE THERE ARE TWO ASSE SSED INCOME; ONE AS PER ORDER U/S 143(3) AND OTHER AS PER ORDER U/S 147 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS NOT PROPER. HE SUBMITTED THAT PROPER DIRECTION SHOULD BE GIVEN THAT THE INCOME SHOULD BE COMPUTED IN THE ORDER U/S 147 STARTING WI TH THE FIGURE OF INCOME ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) AND IF THAT IS DONE, THERE IS NO NEED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.35.25 LAC. 28. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE THAT W HEN THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3), IN THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM U/ S 147, HE SHOULD HAVE STARTED THE COMPUTATION WITH THE AMOUNT OF INCOME A SSESSED AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3). BUT THIS IS NOT AN IL LEGALITY IN THE ORDER U/S 147 15 AND IT IS A MERE IRREGULARITY AND THEREFORE, WE HOL D THAT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO OUR ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD MAKE COMPUT ATION IN THE ORDER U/S 147 BY STARTING THE INCOME AS PER THE ASSESSMENT OR DER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT. FROM THAT HE SHOULD ALLOW RELIEF ALLOWED BY U S AND CIT(A) IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AND THEREAFTER, H E SHOULD MAKE THE ADDITION, WHICH WERE NOT MADE IN PROCEEDINGS U/S 14 3 (3) AND ARE MADE IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT AND WHICH STANDS CONFIRMED BY US. ONCE THIS PROCESS IS ADOPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER, THEN ADDITION OF RS.35.25 LAC WILL NOT FIGURE AGAIN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 1 47 OF THE ACT AND HENCE, NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR REGARDING TH IS GROUND NO. 9 BECAUSE THIS ISSUE IS ALREADY DECIDED BY US PARTLY IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 3 & 4 IN I.T.A. NO.382/LKO/2015 . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISPOSED OF IN THIS MANNER. 30. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAND S PARTLY ALLOWED. 31. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E. I .T.A. NO.383/LKW/2015. 32. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNSEC URED LOAN FROM OTHERS OF RS.1,28,83,028/- ONLY ON THE BA SIS OF HIS OPINION AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL FACT ON RECORD WHEREAS HE HIMSELF HAS NOTED IN HIS ORDER THAT THES E LIABILITIES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE WITH REFERENCE TO BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2. TAX EFFECT AFTER GIVING APPEAL EFFECT IS MORE TH AN RS.4,00,000/-. 33. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 16 34. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE F IND THAT OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.1,41,24,552/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM OTHERS, CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED REL IEF OF RS.1,28,83,028/- BECAUSE HE FOUND THAT TO THIS EXTENT, THE LOANS WER E FROM VARIOUS BANKS. WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 6 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEA L IN I.T.A. NO.381/LKW/2015, WE HAVE DELETED THE BALANCE ADDITI ON OF RS.12,41,524/- BECAUSE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ALSO OUTSTANDING FROM T WO DIFFERENT BANKS. SINCE THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY CIT(A) IS IN RESPECT OF THOSE LOANS WHICH ARE FROM VARIOUS BANKS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE SAME ON THIS ISSUE. 35. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARO DIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED:03/02/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. RE GISTRAR