The Assistant Commissioner of Income tax, Srinagar V. Kohinoor Enterprises, Srinagar

ITA 458/ASR/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73273 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 68; 69; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AAEFK2623F ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER VS. KOHINOOR ENTERPRISES , OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, 7- SHEIKH BAGH, SRINGA R SRINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 12.02.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24.02.2014 ORDER PER BENCH 1. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.09.2010 PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, F OR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15 ,00,000/- {ACTUALLY RS. 1,50,00,000/- AS OBSERVED BY CIT(A)} WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO J USTIFY THE REASONABLENESS AS TO HOW AND WHY SUCH HUGE INTEREST FREE LOAN WAS OUTSTANDING FOR REPAYMENT TO A CONCERN WITH WHICH T HE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING NEITHER ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS NOR AN Y RELATION 2 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT, 1961. II. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THIS ISSUE. III. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS PENDING BEFORE HIM AND T HE OUTCOME OF THAT APPEAL SHALL HAVE A BEARING ON THE ADDITION MADE. IV. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER AN Y GROUND OF APPEAL. 2. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE ARE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME OF RS. 15,26,210/- FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 25. 09.2008 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 27.09.2008 AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEA RED AND REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED STATUTORY NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS 142(1)/129 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS DULY SERVE D UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 05.08.2009. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED H IS REPLY AND THE MATTER WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRADING OF PESTICIDES WITH ITS HEAD OFFICE AT SHEIKH BAGH, SRI NAGAR. 3 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 3. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/- UN DER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AS WELL AS THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS IN PARA NO. 2, PAGE NOS. 2 & 3, IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS/LOAN S OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. VIDE REPLY DATED 03.09.2009 IT WA S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CREDIT BALANCE OF M/S HIMACHAL FU TURISTIC COM. LTD. WAS LYING AS AN OUTSTANDING LIABILITY UNDER THE HEA D UNSECURED LOANS FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. IS NOT A RELATED CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CONCERN M/S HIMACHA L FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. DOES NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS WITH T HE ASSESSEE FIRM IN THE NORMAL COURSE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN HAD BEEN RAISED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001- 02. IT IS AGAINST THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIE S THAT A BUSINESS CONCERN WOULD KEEP SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING WITH AN U NRELATED CONCERN AND WITH WHICH IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 3 YEARS. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT NO INTEREST WAS BEING PAID OR CREDITED TO M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LT D. IN RESPECT OF THIS CREDIT BALANCE. ACCORDINGLY, VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 03.09.2009, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO EXPLAIN AS UNDER: EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR LOAN OF M/S HIMACHAL FUTUR ISTIC COM. LTD. BEING STAGNANT FOR 3 YEARS AND MORE. EXPLAIN - THE YEAR OF LOAN - MODE OF PAYMENT - TERMS OF PAYMENT - REPAYMENT SCHEDULE 4 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 VIDE REPLY DATED 14.09.2009, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE, AS UNDER: REGARDING NON-PAYMENT OF UNSECURED LOAN TO M/S HIM ACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LTD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID COMPANY IS A LISTED COMPANY AND HAVE VERY FRIENDLY RELATIONS WITH THE A SSESSEE FIRM. IN VIEW OF THE LIQUIDITY CRUNCH BEING FACED BY THE ASS ESSEE FIRM FOR LAST SO MANY YEARS. IT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO REPAY THE SAID LOAN. 4. AFTER PERUSING THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A LONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIV EN HIS FINDINGS, WHICH IS AT PAGE 3, IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: NO DETAILS HAD BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE REGA RDING THE REPAYMENT SCHEDULE MODE OF PAYMENT AND THE TERMS OF PAYMENT I N RESPECT OF THE SAID LOAN. IT IS SETTLED POSITION IN LAW THAT WHERE VER THERE ARE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ONUS IS UPON THE A SSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CONFIRMATION OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTAN TIATE THAT THE CONCERN M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. WAS INDEE D HAVING A CREDIT BALANCE OF RS. 15,00,000/- LYING WITH THE ASSESSEE SINCE F.Y. 2001-02. SINCE THE SETTLEMENT OF THIS LIABILITY HAD NOT REAC HED EVEN DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE SAID LIABILI TY OF RS. 15,00,000/- REMAINS UNEXPLAINED AND IS ACCORDINGLY ADDED BACK T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN ITIATE PENALTY U/S 271(A)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSES SEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. 5. AS REGARDS TO THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS. 18,30,0 00/- UNDER SECTION 68C OF THE ACT, THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AS WELL 5 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 AS THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARA NO. 3 AT PAGE NOS. 3 AND 4 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: FROM A PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSE E, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 18,3 0,000/- FROM SOME GHULAM NABI FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. THIS LI ABILITY WAS STATED TO BE REPAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND NO CREDIT BALANCE WAS SHOWN AGAINST SRI GHULAM NABI FOR THE FINANCIAL YEA R ENDING ON 31.03.2007 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS FOR A.Y. 2006- 07, THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE SRI GHU LAM NABI AND ESTABLISH HIS IDENTITY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ST ATED LENDER AND ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THIS CASH CREDIT. ACCO RDINGLY, THE LIABILITY WAS HELD TO BE BOGUS AND IT WAS HELD THAT THIS SUM WAS NOTHING BUT ASSESSEES OWN MONEY INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS IN THE GARB OF UNSECURED LOAN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS F OR A.Y. 2007-08, WHERE THE LIABILITY WAS STATED TO BE REPAID, THE AS SESSEE WAS CALLED UPON VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 21.08.2009 TO SUBMIT: COPY OF A/C OF SRI GHULAM NABI WHOSE A/C HAS BEEN SQUARED UP DURING THE YEAR. SPECIFY THE SOURCE AND MODE OF PAY MENT. 6. AFTER PERUSING THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIV EN HIS FINDINGS REGARDING THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS. 18,30,000/- U NDER SECTION 68C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS AT PAGE 4, IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SRI GHULAM NABI OR SP ECIFY THE MODE OF PAYMENT MADE TO HIM. WHEN THE IDENTITY OF SRI GHULA M NABI ITSELF IS NOT ESTABLISHED, THE ISSUE OF MAKING PAYMENTS TO HIM AG AINST THE STATED LIABILITY IS ALSO OUT OF QUESTION. HOWEVER, A BOGUS LIABILITY CREATED DURING THE EARLIER FINANCIAL YEAR HAS BEEN STATED TO BE RE PAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH IS NOTHING BUT AN EX PENDITURE WHICH IS ALSO UNEXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED 6 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. INITIATE PENAL U/S 27 1(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. 7. WITH THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS IN DISPUTE, THE AS SESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 18.09.2009. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.09. 2009, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.09.2010 DELETED THE AD DITION IN DISPUTE. NOW, THE REVENUE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST T HE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.09.2010. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN ADDITION TO HIS ARG UMENT HE HAS FILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, TH E SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: BEFORE THE HONBLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR M/S. KOHINOOR ENTERPRISES, SRINAGAR ITA NO. 458/AS R/2010 DATE OF HEARING: 27.04.2012 7 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE FIRST GR OUND OF APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS AGAINST THE CIT(A)S DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF FICTITIOUS LIABILITY BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE FACT UAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS LIKE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- FROM M/S. HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD. D URING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 002-03. WHEN THE CASE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSME NT YEAR 2007-08 WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY, THE A.O. HAD PUT THE ASSESSE E TO EXPLAIN: A) THE YEAR WHEN THE LOAN WAS RAISED. B) MODE OF PAYMENT BY THE LENDER. C) TERMS OF PAYMENT. D) REPAYMENT SCHEDULE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY SUCH INFORMA TION AND ONLY CLAIMED THAT THE AFOREMENTIONED COMPANY HAS FRIENDL Y RELATIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND IN VIEW OF THE LIQUIDITY CRUNCH F OR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS IT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO REPAY THE SAID LO AN. THE A.O. HAD ACCORDINGLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD. TO THE EFFECT THAT T HE LOAN WAS STILL OUTSTANDING. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE O NUS CAST UPON IT UNDER THE LAW AND THUS IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE OWES NO SUCH LIABILITY TO THE SAID COMPANY. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE G ROUND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AND IT WAS ALSO NOT A CASE OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 41(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN DELETING THE ADDITION FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS IT HAD RECEIVED LOAN FROM THE SAID COMPANY DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03 AND IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IT HAD SHOWN 8 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS. 1,50,00,000/- IN ITS BALA NCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO PROVE THAT THE LIABILITY IS EXISTING AS ON 31.03.2007. WHEN THE LIABILITY HAD B EEN FOUND TO BE NON-EXISTENT AS ON 31.03.2007, IT HAD ONLY ONE N ATURAL CONSEQUENCE THAT IT BECAME THE ASSESSEES INCOME FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THE GUT ISSUE INVOLVED IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF LOAN CAN BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS A BIG YES. IT IS FOR T HIS REASON THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN THE DISCHARGE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITIES. IT IS THE CASE OF A FIRM AND A FIRM IS CONSTITUTED ONLY WITH A VIEW TO DOING BUSINESS OF PROFESSION. IT WAS FOR DOING BUSINESS IN THE CASE. WHEN A BUSINESS ENTERPRISE RE CEIVES ANY LOAN, THE LOAN IS RECEIVED AS A BUSINESS ENTITY UNL IKE AQ NATURAL PERSON WHO RECEIVES LOAN FOR SOCIAL PURPOSE GENERA LLY AND FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSE IF HE DOES RAISE LOAN FOR COMMER CIAL PURPOSES. THUS, THE HON'BLE BENCH MAY KINDLY APPREC IATE THAT IN THE HANDS OF A FIRM A LOAN RECEIVED BECOME INCOM E WHEN THE LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID LOAN IS FOUND TO B E NON-EXISTENT AS IS THE CASE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION BY INVOKING HIS CO-TERMINUS JURISDICTION WITH THAT OF THE A.O. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE A.O. MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED BY HOLDING THE AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBM ISSION. IT IS VERY RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIBUN AL HAS BEEN VESTED WITH POWERS OF VERY VAST AMPLITUDE AND HAS ALSO BEEN VESTED WITH A FINAL AUTHORITY AS REGARDS APPRECIATI ON OF THE FACTS. IT IS PRAYED THAT IT IS WITHIN THE POWERS OF THE TRIBUNAL TO VARY THE BASIS OF CONFIRMING OR DELETING AN ADDITIO N, IN THIS CASE, IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN LIABILITY ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN WAS FOUND TO BE NON-EXISTENT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, IT BECAME THE ASSESSEE FIRMS INCOME AND IT IS, THEREF ORE, HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRM ED AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE DELETED. 9 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 AS REGARD GROUND NO. 2, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A. O.S INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C IS WELL MERITED AS TH E ASSESSEE HAD NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE THAT IT HAD MADE THE PAY MENT TO SH. GHULAM NABI. THE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE CONFIRMED I N VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. NOTWITHSTANDING, IT IS SUB MITTED THAT THE ADDITION CAN BE SUSTAINED FOR THE VERY SAME REASON AS SUBMITTED IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSION, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE VACATED. SD/./- (AMRIK CHAND) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR 10. ON THE CONTRARY, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), JAMMU, AND IN ADDITION TO HIS ARGUMENT, HE HAS FILED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH IS REPRODUC ED AS UNDER:- BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. IN THE MATTER OF APPEAL OF M/S KOHINOOR ENTERPRISES , 7, SHEIKH BAGH, SRINAGAR. SUB:- ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 APPEAL I.T.A.T. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 AGAINST ORDER U/S 250(6)/143(3) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 THIS IS AN APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGA INST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHEREIN TH E ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/- AND RS. 18,30,000/- WAS DELETED BY THE WORTHY CIT(A). IN THIS 10 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 CONNECTION, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THIS IS A CA SE OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THE ASSESSEE-FIRM DERIVES INCOME FROM TRADING I N PESTICIDES WITH HEAD OFFICE AT SRINAGAR. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/- IS CON CERNED, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS A CREDIT OF RS. 15,00,000 /- STANDING IN THE NAME OF HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COMMUNICATIONS LTD. IT IS TR UE THAT THIS CREDIT BALANCE WAS APPEARING IN THE BALANCE-SHEET RIGHT FR OM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED AS AN I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E. ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE A.O. ADDED BACK THE SAME TO TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 O F THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE ADDITION WHICH WAS MADE BY THE A.O. WAS CHALLEN GED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IT WAS POINTED OUT AT THE TIM E OF APPEAL THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION WERE NOT AT ALL APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IT WAS NEVER AN INCOME D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS SUCH, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS FULL Y JUSTIFIED IN THE DELETING THE ADDITION. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT MAY B E POINTED OUT THAT UNDER THE SAME AND SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THIS BENCH HAS A CCEPTED THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF RITESH WADHWA VS. DCIT IN ITA NO. 5 4(ASR)/2013, ORDER DATED 20.05.2013 WHICH WILL SPEAK FOR ITSELF. THUS, THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND THE DEPARTM ENT HAS GOT NO BASIS, REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR COMING IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LEARNED BENCH. AGAIN, THERE IS AN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 18,30,0 00/- IN THE NAME OF GHULAM NABI STANDING FROM FINANCIAL YEAR 20 05-06. IN THIS CONNECTION, A COPY OF ACCOUNT OF GHULAM NABI WAS DU LY FILED. IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE ADDITION OF THIS VER Y AMOUNT WAS MADE IN CONNECTION WITH ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THE MAT TER IS PENDING IN FIRST APPEAL. HOWEVER, THE A.O. MADE ADDITION DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE. O NCE THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN TREATED AS INCOME AND THIS AMOUNT HAS SUFFERED TAX IN CONNECTION WITH ASSESSING YEAR 206-07, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXE D TWICE. THUS, THIS IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THE CI T(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS SELF SPEAKING, WELL REASONED AND ACCORDINGLY THE WORTHY CIT(A) WAS FULLY 11 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION AND THE DEPARTME NT HAS GOT NO BASIS, REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION FOR COMING IN APPEAL BEFO RE THE BENCH. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/./- COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US ALONG WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY T HE REVENUE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BY BOTH THE PA RTIES AND OUR FINDINGS ARE AS UNDER: 11.1 AS REGARDS TO THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO . 1 REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/- {ACTUALLY R S. 1,50,00,000/-} AS MENTIONED BY THE REVENUE IN THE GROUND NO. 1, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING THE RETURN FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESS EE CALLED UPON TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF SUNDRY CREDITORS/ LOANS OUTSTANDING FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. VIDE REPLY DATED 03.09.2009, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CREDIT BALANCE OF M/S HIMACHA L FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. WAS LYING AS AN OUTSTANDING LIABILITY UNDER THE HEA D UNSECURED LOANS FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. IS NOT A RELATED CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAIL 12 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC CO. LTD. WHICH REQUIRES ACCORDING TO SECTION 40A(2) (B) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDI NG ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC CO. LTD. N O DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE LOAN HAD BEEN RAISED IN THE FI NANCIAL YEAR 2001-02. IT IS AGAINST THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES TH AT A BUSINESS CONCERN WOULD KEEP SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT OUTSTANDING WITH AN U NRELATED CONCERN AND WITH WHICH IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS, FOR A PERIOD OF MORE THAN 3 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT E STABLISHED BY FILING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND EVEN BEFO RE THIS BENCH REGARDING BUSINESS RELATION/BUSINESS TRANSACTION FOR THE PREV IOUS YEARS AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN AS PER RECORD, IT IS ADMITTED F ACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID ANY INTEREST OR CREDITED TO M/S HIMACHAL F UTURISTIC CO. LTD. IN RESPECT OF THIS CREDIT BALANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER CALLED THE EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASON S FOR LOAN OF M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC CO. LTD. BEING STAGNANT FOR 3 Y EARS AND MORE AND ALSO ASKED MODE OF PAYMENT, TERMS OF PAYMENT AND RE PAYMENT SCHEDULE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY DATED 14.09.2009, WHEREIN IT HAS 13 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SUBMITTED THAT NON-PAYMENT OF UNSECURED LOAN TO M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. IS ONLY A REASON THAT THEY ARE VERY FRIENDLY WITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND DUE TO THE LIQUIDITY CRUNCH BEING FACED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR THE LAST SO MANY YEARS, THE ASSESSEE IS NO T IN A POSITION TO REPAY THE SAID LOAN. 11.2 IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE REPLY FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY BASELESS AND ILLOGICAL AND WITHOUT ANY COGE NT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE ON THE QUERY RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 03. 09.2009, AS MENTIONED ABOVE. IT IS SETTLED POSITION IN LAW THAT WHEREVER THERE ARE CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSE SSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTING ITS CLAIM ON THE ISSUE I N DISPUTE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LEARNED FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND EVEN BEFORE US. WE SURPRISED TO READ THE IMPUGN ED ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE IN WHICH HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ONLY ON THE BASIS O F COPIES OF BALANCE- SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AS WELL AS TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 14 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2007-08 BY HOLDING THAT THE LOAN IN DISPUTE HAS CON TINUOUSLY BEEN CARRIED FORWARD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LOAN IN D ISPUTE IS A FICTITIOUS LOAN WHEREAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HERSELF HAS ACCEPTED THAT IT WAS BEING CARRIED FORWARDED SINCE A.Y. 2001-02. 11.3 IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FINDING OF THE L EARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS CONTRARY TO THE LAW AND FACT S ON THE RECORD AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS PER PROVISION OF SECTION 69 OF ACT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINT AINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, I N THE OPINION OF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDI TED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PR EVIOUS YEAR. 11.4 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT CREDIT BALANCE OF M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. WAS LYING AS AN OUTSTANDING LIABILITY UND ER THE HEAD UNSECURED LOANS FOR MORE THAN THREE YEARS. IN SPITE OF THE FA CT THAT M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. IS NOT A RELATED CONCERN OF TH E ASSESSEE FIRM WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE 15 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT THE CONCERN M/S H IMACHAL FUTURISTIC COM. LTD. DOES NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS W ITH THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN THE NORMAL COURSE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIV EN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE REQUIREMENT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH WITH ANY DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE LOAN FROM M/S HIMACHAL FUTUR ISTIC CO. LTD. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 AND THE HUGE AMOUNT IS STILL OUTSTANDING WITHOUT PAYMENT OF ANY INTEREST OR CREDITING THE INTEREST I N THE ACCOUNT OF M/S HIMACHAL FUTURISTIC CO. LTD.. IN RESPECT OF THIS CR EDIT BALANCE, UNSATISFACTORY EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE HA S BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE DELETING TH E ADDITION IN DISPUTE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/- IS NOT AS PER LAW AND RECORD OF THE CASE. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUSTAIN THE SAME. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHIN HER POWER TO CALL FOR EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON ANY SUM WHICH SHE HAS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE AS SESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEARS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED TH E EXPLANATION WHICH IS NOT SATISFACTORY AND AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LA W AND WITHOUT SUPPORT OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN OUR VIEW, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY 16 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISS UE IN DISPUTE AND HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/- AS UNE XPLAINED CASH ENTRY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WITH MALA FIDE INTENTION HAS M ADE THE ENTRY OF THIS CASH CREDIT TO AVOID THE TAX LIABILITY. 11.5 IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR COULD NOT CATCH THE WRONGS DONE BY THE ASSESSE E WITH THE MOTIVE TO EVADE TAX BUT IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT IF IN THE PREVIOUS YE AR, ONE WRONG IS CONTINUOUSLY COMING FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001-02 AS IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE, AND AT ONE STAGE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOUBTED THERE IS EVASION OF TAX, THEN HE/SHE CAN CALL THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR IN HIS/HER HAND. NOTHING IS WRONG, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER STOP TO CONTINUE THE WRONGS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO WATCH THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE PREVIOUS ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT BE CONTINUED AND SHOULD BE STOPPED AT ONE STAGE AS HAS BEEN STOPPED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, LEARNED F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/- WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE ON HAND. THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE THE I MPUGNED ORDER IS CANCELLED AND GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESE NT APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 12. AS REGARDS TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 18 ,30,000/- UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERING THE REPLY FILED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, OUR FINDINGS IS AS UNDER:- 12.1 THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,30,000/- MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS ALMOST ON THE IDENTICAL GROUND ON WHICH THE ASSE SSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,00,000/-, AS STATED IN THE A FORESAID PARAGRAPHS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALMOST FILED SIMILAR REPLY TO THAT WIT HOUT THE SUPPORT OF ANY EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM. WE ARE OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 18,30,000/- FROM SOME GHULAM NABI FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. TH IS LIABILITY WAS STATED TO BE REPAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006- 07 AND NO CREDIT BALANCE WAS SHOWN AGAINST SRI GHULAM NABI FOR THE F INANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.03.2007. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSE SSEE TO PRODUCE SH. GHULAM NABI AND ESTABLISH HIS IDENTITY BUT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE SH. GHULAM NABI BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THIS LIABILITY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS B OGUS AND THE SUM WAS NOTHING BUT ASSESSEES OWN MONEY INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE GARB OF UNSECURED LOAN. THE AVERM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE 18 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 REGARDING REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO SH. GHULAM NABI DURI NG THE YEAR IN DISPUTE HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WI TH THE PROOF OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. LEARNED FIRST APPELLANT AUTHO RITY HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE WITHOUT BEING ANY E VIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE TO SH. GH ULAM NABI IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE. 12.2 IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE LEARNED FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MERELY ON P RESUMPTION AND ASSUMPTION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE SUPPORTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF RS. 18,30,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN IN THE NAME OF SH. GHULAM NABI AND THE ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE T O ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF SH. GHULAM NABI AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND EVEN BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY VALID EXPLANATION SUPPORTING ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OR FILING CONFIRMATION FROM SH. GHULAM NABI FOR THE PAYMENT OF THE LOAN IN DISPUTE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE SH. GHULAM 19 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 NABI TO CORROBORATE ITS VERSION AND TILL DATE NOTHI NG HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT SH. GHULAM NABI IS IN EXISTENCE OR NOT. 12.3 IN OUR CONSIDERED, THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS. 18,30,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE SHEET FROM SOME SH. GHLAM NABI FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS STATE D TO BE REPAID DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND NO CREDIT BALANCE WA S SHOWN AGAINST SH. GHULAM NABI FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR ENDING ON 31.03. 2007. FOR LACK OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF S H. GHULAM NABI, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THIS BOGUS LIABILI TY WITH THE INTENTION TO EVADE THE TAX AND HAS INTRODUCED ITS OWN MONEY IN T HE BOOKS IN THE GARB OF UNSECURED LOAN. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN THE ADDI TION OF RS. 18,30,000/- HAS BEEN WRONGLY DELETED, IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FA CTS ON THE FILE. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DESERVES TO BE CANCEL LED AND ACCORDINGLY WE CANCEL THE SAME BY UPHOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,30,000/- AS UNEXP LAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 13. WITH THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A WELL REASONED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE ISSUE 20 I.T.A. NO. 458(ASR)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 18.09.2009 ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT AP PEAL AND CANCEL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.09.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARN ED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY ACCEPTING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 SD/./- SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: KOHINOOR ENTERPRISES, 7- SHEIKH BAGH , SRINGAR 2. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, SRI NAGAR 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT, 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.