DCIT, Kanpur V. M/s Kishori Lal Joginder Lal, Kanpur

ITA 395/LKW/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 39523714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-05-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKAS GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: K M DIXIT
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Fair market value
• Section: 69C; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 395 /LKW/ 2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 DY. C.I.T., VS. M/S KISHORI LAL JOGINDER LAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, 123/1, KALPI ROAD, KANPUR. KANPUR. PAN:AAEEK8929L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIKAS GARG, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K. M. DIXIT, CIT, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 31 /0 5 /201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCE MENT : - 7/08/2013 ORDER PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 1,29,02,558/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS AN ACT) WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. BRIEF FACTS, CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009 THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM WITH EFFECT FROM 10/09/2007 AS UNDER: 2 PARTNERS UPTO 09/09/2007 PARTNERS FROM 10/09/2007 -------------------------------- -------------------------------- 1 . A.K. BHATIA 30% A.K. BHATIA 10% 2 . RAHUL BHATIA 15% RAHUL BHATIA 10% 3 . R. K. MIRHRA, HUF 25% PULKIT KAPOOR 20% 4 . ROHIT MISHRA 30% 2.1 THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS DEALER OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PETROL PUMP AND TRADING IN PETROLEUM PRODUCT. BESIDES, THE FIRM WAS ALSO DEALING IN GENERAL MERCHANDISE GOODS AND ALSO EARNED SOME INCOME FROM JOB OF WASHING OF CARS. SHRI R AJ KUMAR MISHRA IS KARTA OF R AJ K UMAR MISHRA, HUF AND ROHIT MISHRA RETIRED FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WITH EFFECT FROM 9 TH SEPTEMBER, 2007 AND A NEW PARTNER PULKIT KAPOOR ENTERED INTO THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM VIDE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 10/09/2007. THIS CHANGE IN CONSTITUTION ON ACCOUNT OF RETIREMENT OF R. K. MISHRA AND ROHIT MISHRA WAS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS RELINQUISH MENT OF RIGHTS/STAKE UNDER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT. BY TREATING SHARE OF RETIRING PARTNERS AS RELINQUISHMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATE D THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSETS OF THE FIRM AND CORRESPONDING SHARE OF RETIRING PARTNERS AT ` 1,29,02,558/ - AS NOTIONAL SALE OF THEIR SHARE IN THE ASSETS OF THE FIRM FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE FIRM MADE PAYMENT, WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS TREATED TO BE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE FIRM AND WAS SUBJECTED TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 3. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FILED THE DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS THROUGH WHICH IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN A CASE OF CHANGE OF CONSTITUTION OF THE FIRM ARISING OUT OF THE RETIREMENT OF PARTNERS AND INTRODUCTION OF NEW PARTNER, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROPOSITIO N, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: 3 ( I ) CIT VS. R LINGAMALLU RAGHUKUMAR [2001] 247 ITR 801 (SC) ( II ) CIT VS. KUNNAMKULAM MILL BOARD [2002] 257 ITR 544 (KER) ( III ) ADDL. CIT VS. MOHAN BHAI PAMA BHAI [1987] 165 ITR 166 ( IV ) CIT VS. SURESH CHAND JAIN [ 1989] 178 ITR 241 (AP) ( V ) TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED VS. CIT [1997] 228 ITR 399 (MAD) 3.1 BESIDES , IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT AS PER CLAUSE 19 OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED IF ANY PARTNER WISHES TO RETIRE FROM THE FIRM AT ANY TIME, HE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CLAIM HIS STAKE IN ANY PARTNERSHIP ASSET (BOTH TANGIBLE AND INTANGIBLE) OR IN THE NAME, GOODWILL, ANY LIC ENSE, PERMIT OR ANY GOVERNMENT ORDER/REGISTRATION OF THE FIRM AND THE FIRM SHALL CONTINUE TO GO ON AS SUCH WITHOUT ANY STRUCTURAL CHANGE. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS SPECIFIC PROVISION OF THE PARTNERSHIP DEED, RETIRING PARTNER HAS NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER IN THE ASSE TS, GOODWILL, LICENSE, PERMIT ETC. OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM . THEREFORE, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 2(47) OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED. THE CIT(A) REEXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND HAVING CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND PLACED HEAVY RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. P. B. SOCIETY JEWELLERS, I.T.A. NO.548/LKW/2011 IN WHICH IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED OR PRESUMED THAT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID TO THE RETIRING PARTNER BY 4 THE ASSESSEE FIRM. WHATEVER BENEFIT WAS A CCRUED , IT WAS ACCRUED TO THE SURVIVING PARTNERS AND NOT THE FIRM. BESIDES, IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE ASSUMED THAT SOME AMOUNT, OVER AND ABOVE THE SHARE OF RETIRING PARTNER CALCULATED AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET ETC., HAS BEEN PAID BY THE FIRM TO THE RETIRING PARTNERS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY EVIDENCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE FIRM TO THE RETIRING PARTNER. 6. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE INVOLVED. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: 7. LEARNED COUN SEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION U/S 69C CAN BE MADE UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE. RETIRING PARTNERS COULD NOT LAY ANY CLAIM IN THE ASSETS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN VIEW OF CLAUSE 19 OF PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 1 ST SEPTEMBER, 2003 NOR THERE IS ANY TRANSFER U/S 2(47) OF INCOME TAX ACT. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,29,02,558.00 U/S 69C OF INCOME TAX ACT, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS STATED THAT PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM. THIS IS MERELY A PRESUMPTION OF DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT ONUS LIES ON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT EXPENDI TURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 69C OF THE ACT. PROVISION OF SECTION 69C HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. LUBTEC INDIAN LIMITED (2009) 311 ITR 175. HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT - 5 ' IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT WHAT IS POSTULATED IN SECTION 69 C OF THE ACT IS THAT FIRST OF ALL ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INCURRED THAT EXPENDITURE AND THEREAFTER IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE AM OUNT MAY BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME'. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE IS NOTHING TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE WAS IN FACT INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM. THE APPELLANT HAD DENIED HAVING INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE AND HAD C O NTENDED THAT IT DID NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF M ONE Y TO PA Y OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 8. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNALS HAVE HELD IN VARIOUS DECISIONS THAT UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE ON RECORD , NO ADDITION U/S 69C CAN BE MADE. REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO UNREPORTED DECISION OF TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUNIL KUMAR KHANNA HUF VS. ITO WARD 3(4) KANPUR AND SHANTI RAM MEHATA VS. ACIT (2009) 123 TTJ (KOL) (TM) 12. IN SHANTI RAM MEHATA VS. ACIT (2009 ) 123 TTJ (KOU (TM) 12 HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD AS UNDER : 'IN ORDER TO INVOK E S. 69C IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW , THERE HAS TO BE REASONABLE EVIDENCE TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED AND THE SAME IS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ONUS IS ON THE AO TO DEMONSTRATE THAT SUCH AN EXPENDITURE IS IN CURRED. HOWEVER, FROM THE MATERIAL BEFORE US, IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THERE WERE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF INTEREST PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE OR WHETHER THE ALLEGED INTEREST PAYMENTS ARE COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF WHAT MUST HAVE BEEN, ACCORDING TO THE AO, ASSESSE E'S INTEREST LIABILITY ON THE BORROWINGS WHICH ARE SAID TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE'. 9. IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT ALSO, NO EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT OF EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE OUTSIDE THE B OOKS . NO INCOME OUTSIDE THE BOOKS HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO TAX. THIS IS MERELY PRESUMPTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO ADDITION U/S 69C CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. 6 10. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ARGUED BY LEARNED COUNSEL THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 2(47) A RE NOT ATTRACTED IN MAKING ADDITION U/S 69C. IN TAMIL NADU CIVIL SUPPLY CORPORATION LIMITED VS CIT (1997 ) 228 ITR 399 RELEVANT PAGE 404 /406 13 MODERN RICE MILLS WERE TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEE CORPORATION BY GOVERNMENT ORDER DATED 26 - 10 - 72. PROPER CONVEYANCE DEEDS WERE EXECUTED IN 1978. CORPORATION CLAIMED DEPRECIATION/ DEVELOPMENT REBATE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1978 I.E. 1972 ONWARDS. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION AND OR DEVELOPMENT REBATE IN RESPECT MACHINERIES IN 13 MODER N RICE MILL TAKEN OVER BY THE APPELLANT CORPORATION IN PURSUANCE OF VARIOUS GOVERNMENT ORDERS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1978. IN THIS CONNECTION THE WORD 'RELINQUISHMENT' IN DEFINITION OF TRANSFER U/S 2(47) WAS CONSIDERED. HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHO HAVE HELD AS UNDER ON PAGE 406: 'LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 2(47) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, DEFINES 'TRANSFER' AND TRANSFER INCLUDES RELINQUISHMENT. THROUGH THE EARLIER GOVERNMENT ORDERS, THE GOVERNMENT RELI NQUISHED ITS RIGHT S OVER THIRTEEN MODERN RICE MILLS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSES CORPORATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CORPORATION WOULD BECOME THE OWNER OF THE THIRTEEN RICE MILLS FROM THE YEAR 1972 ONWARDS. IT SHOULD BE REMEMBERED THAT RELINQUISHMENT IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE WORD 'TRANSFER' ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE FOR LEVYING CAPITAL GAINS TAX AND NOT FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT BY RELINQUISHMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS BECOME THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE THIRTEEN RICE MILLS IN THE YEAR 1972. FOR THESE REASONS, WE CONSIDER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE ASSETS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION OVER WHICH DEPRECIATION AND DEVELOPMENT REBATE WERE CLAIMED. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ANSWER QUESTION N O. 1 REFERRED TO US IN THE NEGATIVE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE.' 11. THIS DECISION THEREFORE HOLDS THAT SECTION 2(47) CANNOT BE APPLIED IN CASES OTHER THAN CAPITAL GAIN. HENCE ON THIS GROUND ALSO SECTION 2(47) OF I T ACT 1961 CANNOT BE APPLIED IN MAKING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69C. THE VALID PARTNERSHIP AND 7 ITS TERMS AND CON DITIONS ARE RELEVANT LEGAL DOCUMENTS FOR T HIS PURPOSE, WHICH CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED BY DENYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) MORE SO ALSO BECAUSE THERE IS NO PREREQUISITE FOR APPLYING THEM. IN VIEW OF FACTS OF THE CASE AND AFORESAID CASE RELIED UPON BY APPELLA NT, I HOLD THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 2(47) OF INCOME TAX ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE ADDIT ION RS .1,29,02,558/ - IS D ELETED FOR THE REASONS DETAILED IN PARAS 6, 7, 8 AND 9 AS ALSO ARGUED BY APPELLANT AND LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED LE GALLY, AND ON FACTS ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4 OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 6.1 WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. P. B. SOCIETY JEWELLERS IN WHICH THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS EXAMINED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED OR PRESUMED THAT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ` 2,07,25,297/ - HAS BEEN PAID TO THE RETIRING PARTNER BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 69 C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE . IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD MADE A PAYMENT OF ` 2,07,25,297/ - TO RETIRIN G PARTNER OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN ORDER TO AVAIL THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSETS LEFT BY THE RETIRING PARTNERS FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. RELYING UPON THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF CIT( A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER : 8. HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES & MATERIAL PLACED O N RECORD, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY SHARE OF THE RETIRING PARTNER IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND PROPORTIONATE SHARE IN THE PROFIT WAS WORKED OUT UPTO THE DATE OF RETIREMENT AND WAS PAID OR CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT. THE SHOWROOM WAS OWNED BY THE RETIRING PARTNE R AND THE ASSESSEE - FIRM CONTINUED TO PAY RENT TO THE RETIRING PARTNER AT THE SAME RATE. THE FIRM WAS NOT TAKEN OVER BY ANY 8 OF THE AGENCY. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE QUESTION OF ESTIMATING THE VALUE OF THE GOODWILL. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE BALAN CE SHEET AND PARTNERSHIP DEED, AND WE FIND THAT CORRESPONDING SHARE OF THE RETIRING PARTNER HAS BEEN CREDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT. WE ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IF ANY BENEFIT IS ACCRUED ON ACCOUNT OF RETIREMENT OF THE THIRD PARTNER I.E. M/S PRASANT JAIN (HUF), THE SAME CAN ONLY BE ACCRUED TO THE SURVIVING PARTNERS. IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT HAS EVER BEEN PAID TO THE RETIRING PARTNER EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE - FIRM OR BY THE REMAINING PARTNERS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED OR PRESUMED THAT A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF ` 2,07,25,297 HAS BEEN PAID TO THE RETIRING PARTNER BY THE ASSESSEE - FIRM. WE, THEREFORE, FIND NO MERIT IN THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE. 7. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A PARTICULAR VIEW IN THE SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR TAKING A CONTRARY VIEW. MOREOVER, THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IS SUPPORTED BY VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47) ARE N OT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/08/2013 ) SD/. SD/. ( PRAMOD KUMAR) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DA TED: 07/08/2013 *SINGH 9 COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR