DCIT, Jaipur V. MEGHRAJ SINGH PUKHRAJ SISODIA & PARTY, Jaipur

ITA 460/JPR/1999

• Counselvise Citation: 46023114 RSA 1999
• Duration Of Justice: 14 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-1999
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S K SHARMA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Revised return
• Section: 145; 144

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH : JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ITA NO. 460/JP/1999 ASSTT. YEAR : 1996-97 DEPUTY CIT, VS. M/S. MEGHRAJ SINGH PUKHRAJ SOSOD IA &, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, PARTY, H-9, CHITRANJAN MARG, C -SCHEME, JAIPUR. JAIPUR. PAN NO. - - (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI D.C. SHARMA, DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SK SHARMA, AR DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.05.2014 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 23.05.1999 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 . THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,57,655 OUT OF THE TRADING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN ASSOCIATION OF PERSONS AND A LIQUOR CONTRACTOR. IT HAD OBTAINED LICENSE FOR SELL ING COUNTRY LIQUOR , IMFL AND BEER FOR JODHPUR AREA BY WAY OF A SUCCESSFUL BIDDING IN THE AUCTION/TENDER FLOATED BY THE EXCISE DEPARTMENT OF RAJASTHAN GOVERNMENT. IT HAD FILED IT S RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.43,03,820. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX AC T, 1961 WAS ISSUED ON 20.10.1997. IN 2 RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES, THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER FOUND THAT SALES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT VERIFIABLE BECAUSE IT COULD NOT PR ODUCE SALES BILLS ISSUED TO THE CUSTOMERS. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HA S MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.12,87,655. 3. THE BRIEF FINDING RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THIS CONNECTION READS AS UNDER: AS STATED EARLIER, NO SALE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PROD UCED AND AS SUCH, THE VERACITY OF THE TRADING RESULTS COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 WERE FOUND APPLICABLE. WHEN REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WH Y THE PROFITS MAY NOT BE DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE G.P. RATE OF 72% IN COUNTRY LIQUOR AND 30% IN I MFL IS THE HIGHEST AND MOST REASONABLE. THE NET RESULT IN PROFITABILITY IN IMFL ACCOUNT WAS POSITIVE BEING 2.53% AGAINST LOSS DECLARED IN OTHER CASES AND, THE REFORE, THE RESULTS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. WHILE THERE IS FOUND TO BE SOME SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENTS, BUT TH E RESULTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN TOTALITY FOR THE REASONS THAT UNLESS THE PRIMARY RE CORD IS PRODUCED, THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE TRADING RESULTS CANNOT BE SUBJE CTED TO VERIFICATION. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE, A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS IS MADE IN THE COUNTRY ACCOUNT AND IN IMFL ACCOUNT, THE PRO FIT IS DETERMINED @ 30.5% ON SALES OF RS.21,76,49,511 WHICH GIVES A PROFIT OF RS .6,63,83,122 AND AFTER DEDUCTING GROSS PROFIT DECLARED AT RS.6,55,95,467 A TRADING ADDITION OF RS.7,87,655 IS MADE. 3 4. APART FROM THE ABOVE, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE CERTAIN AD HOC DISALLOWANCES OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE I.E. OUT OF CA R REPAIR, DEPRECIATION AND STAFF WELFARE ETC. 5. ON APPEAL, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS UPHELD THE R EJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT RECORDED A FINDING THAT ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AT RS.5 LACS IN THE COUNTRY LIQUOR ACCOUNT AND AT RS.7,87,655 IN THE IM FL/BEER ACCOUNT IS EXCESSIVE ONE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), ENDS OF JUST ICE WOULD MET IF A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.1,30,000 IS BEING RETAINED IN THE TR ADING ACCOUNT OF SALE OF LIQUOR. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SINCE BOOKS ARE REJECTED, AD HOC ADDITION IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT IS BEING MADE, THEREFORE, IT IS NOT REQUIRED THAT SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS IS TO BE MADE. 6. BEFORE US, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE CONTENDED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT RELIED UPON. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER ESTIMATED TH E PROFIT AND LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE NOT INTERFERED IN THE ESTIMATION OF T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED AN INCOME OF RS.43 LACS IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. G.P. SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COUNTRY LIQUOR ACCOUNT IS 72.57%. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SE LL THE TOTAL QUANTITY REQUIRED TO BE LIFTED AS PER EXCISE POLICY AND, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO PAY SHORTFALL LICENSE FEE. IF THAT LICENSE FEE IS DEBITED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT, THEN, G.P. W OULD BE 17.97%. IN THE IMFL ACCOUNT, 4 G.P. IS 30.25%. AGAIN, THE DECLINE IN THE G.P. IS B ECAUSE OF PAYMENT OF SHORTFALL LICENSE FEE. 7. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND G ONE THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. SECTION 145 HAS A DIRECT BEARING ON THE CONTROVERSY, THEREFORE, IT IS SALUTARY UPON US TO TAKE NOTE OF THIS PROVISI ON. '145(1) INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS A ND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SHALL, S UBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EIT HER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSE SSEE. (2) THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFICI AL GAZETTE FROM TIME TO TIME ACCOUNTING STANDARDS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSESSEES OR IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. (3) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED AB OUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR WH ERE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR ACCOUNTIN G STANDARDS AS NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLL OWED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MAN NER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144.' 7. FROM THE BARE READING OF THIS SECTION, IT WOULD RE VEAL THAT IT PROVIDES THE MECHANISM HOW TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDING TO SUB- CLAUSE ( I ), THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AN D GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S' SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY EMPLOYED BY AN ASSESSEE REGULARLY SUBJECT TO THE SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 145 OF TH E ACT. SUB-SECTION (2) PROVIDES 5 THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFIC IAL GAZETTE FROM TIME TO TIME THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. THUS, IT INDICATES THAT INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTAN CY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE, I.E., CASH OR MERCANTILE. SUCH METHOD HAS TO BE FOLLOWED KEEPING IN VIEW THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD NOTIFIED BY THE CENTRA L GOVERNMENT FROM TIME TO TIME. SUB-CLAUSE (3) PROVIDES A SITUATION, I.E., IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNABLE TO DEDUCE THE TRUE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF METHOD OF AC COUNTANCY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE THEN HE CAN REJECT THE BOOK RESULTS AND AS SESS THE INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIMATE OR ACCORDING TO HIS BEST JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE IS REQUIRED TO POINT OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE AC COUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND REQUIRE TO SEEK EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THOSE DEFECTS. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DEFECTS THEN ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOK R ESULTS, INCOME CANNOT BE DETERMINED AND ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIMATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE GUIDING FACTOR FOR E STIMATING SUCH INCOME. WHERE A STOCK ACCOUNT IS NOT MAINTAINED AND RECONCILIATIO N IS NOT POSSIBLE IN BETWEEN THE AGGREGATE OF STOCK ON OPENING DATE AND STOCKS P URCHASED WITH THE AGGREGATE OF STOCK SOLD AND AVAILABLE IN CLOSING STOCK OR SAL ES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE THEN, IN SUCH CASES, IF THE GROSS PROFIT IS LOW IN COMPARIS ON WITH PAST YEARS OR IN COMPETITIVE BUSINESS, THEN ASSESSING OFFICER CAN RE JECT THE BOOK RESULTS AND ESTIMATE THE INCOME. 8. ADMITTEDLY, THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT RE LIABLE, THEY ARE REJECTED. THIS ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). THE 6 ASSESSEE DID NOT CHALLENGE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULT S BEFORE THE ITAT AND THE DISPUTE TRAVELLED TO THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS WITH REGAR D TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS. THUS, THE NEXT QUESTION CASE AR ISES, IS THAT WHAT SHOULD BE THE ESTIMATED ADDITION REQUIRED TO BE MADE BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR THIS PURPOSE, SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECT ION 145 CONTEMPLATES THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MAKES AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SEC. 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THIS SECTION READS AS UNDER: SECTION 144. (1) IF ANY PERSON (A) FAILS TO MAKE THE RETURN REQUIRED [UNDER SUB-SECTIO N (1) OF SECTION 139] AND HAS NOT MADE A RETURN OR A REVISED RETURN UNDER SUB -SECTION (4) OR SUB-SECTION (5) OF THAT SECTION, OR (B) FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TERMS OF A NOTICE ISSU ED UNDER SUB-SECTION(1) OF SEC. 142 [OR FAILS TO COMPLY WITH A DIRECTION ISSUE D UNDER SUB-SECTION (2A) OF THAT SECTION ] OR (C) HAVING MADE A RETURN, FAILS TO COMPLY WITH ALL THE TERMS OF A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143, THE [ASSESSING OFFICER], AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GATHERED, [SHALL, AFTER GIVIN G THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, MAKE THE ASSESSMENT] OF THE TOTAL INCO ME OR LOSS TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT AND DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSES SEE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH ASSESSMENT. PROVIDED THAT SUCH OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY SERVING A NOTICE CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW S\CAUSE, ON A DATE AND TIME TO BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE COMPLETED TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT IT SHALL NOT BE NECESSARY TO GIVE SUCH OPPORTUNITY IN A CASE WHERE A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 HAS BEEN ISSUED PRIOR TO THE MAKING OF AN ASSESSMENT UNDER THIS SECTION.] 7 (2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION AS THEY STOOD IM MEDIATELY BEFORE THEIR AMENDMENT BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1 987 94 OF 1988), SHALL APPLY TO AND IN RELATION TO ANY ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR COMMENCING ON THE IST DAY OF APRIL, 1988, OR ANY EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEAR AND REFERENCES IN THIS SECTION TO THE OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL B E CONSTRUED AS REFERENCES TO THOSE PROVISIONS AS FOR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE AND APPLI CABLE TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR.} 9. A BARE PERUSAL OF THIS SECTION WOULD SUGGEST THA T IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE INCOME, LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO EXERCISE HIS DISC RETION WHICH SHOULD BE IN CONSONANCE WITH BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT. HON'BLE HIGH COURT WHILE REMANDING THIS APPEAL TO THE ITAT HAS CONSIDERED THIS ASPECT IN PARAGRAPH NO. 24 AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT IN A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSM ENT, THERE IS ALWAYS A CERTAIN DEGREE OF GUESS WORK. THE AUTHORITIES CONCERNED SHO ULD MAKE A HONEST AND FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME EVEN IN THE BEST JUDGMENT AS SESSMENT AND SHOULD NOT ACT ARBITRARILY. IT IS EQUALLY TRUE THAT ASSESSEE HIMSE LF TO BE BLAMED AS HE DID NOT SUBMIT PROPER ACCOUNTS. 10. APART FROM THE ABOVE PROPOSITION, WE ARE CONSC IOUS OF THE FACT THAT IN VARIOUS AUTHORITATIVE PRONOUNCEMENTS, IT HAS BEEN PROPOUNDE D THAT IN MAKING A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST NOT ACT DISH ONESTLY OR VINDICTIVELY OR CAPRICIOUSLY. HE MUST MAKE WHAT HE HONESTLY BELIEVE TO BE A FAIR ESTIMATE OF THE PROPER FIGURE OF ASSESSMENT AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE MUST B E ABLE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION LOCAL KNOWLEDGE, REPUTATION OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT HIS BUS INESS, THE PREVIOUS HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE OR THE SIMILARLY SITUATED ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT JUDGMENT IS A FACULTY TO DECIDE MATTER WITH WISDOM, TRULY AND L EGALLY. JUDGMENT DOES NOT DEPEND UPON THE ARBITRARY, CAPRICE OF AN ADJUDICATOR, BUT ON SETTLED AND INVARIABLY PRINCIPLES OF 8 JUSTICE. THUS, IN A BEST JUDGMENT, EVEN IF, THERE I S AN ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK, IT SHOULD NOT BE A WILD ONE, BUT SHALL HAVE REASONABLE NEXUS TO T HE AVAILABLE MATERIAL AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH ASSESSEE. APPRAISING OURSELVE S WITH THESE FUNDAMENTALS, LET US,(ON THE COST OF REPETITION) CONSIDER THE FACTORS DISCUS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT WHILE MAKING THE LUMP SUM ADDITION. HIS BRIEF FINDING READS AS UNDER: AS STATED EARLIER, NO SALE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PROD UCED AND AS SUCH, THE VERACITY OF THE TRADING RESULTS COULD NOT BE ASCERTAINED AND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 WERE FOUND APPLICABLE. WHEN REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WH Y THE PROFITS MAY NOT BE DETERMINED HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 145 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE G.P. RATE OF 72% IN COUNTRY LIQUOR AND 30% IN I MFL IS THE HIGHEST AND MOST REASONABLE. THE NET RESULT IN PROFITABILITY IN IMFL ACCOUNT WAS POSITIVE BEING 2.53% AGAINST LOSS DECLARED IN OTHER CASES AND, THE REFORE, THE RESULTS SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED . WHILE THERE IS FOUIND TO BE SOME SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENTS, BUT T HE RESULTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN TOTALITY FOR THE REASONS THAT UNLESS THE PRIMARY RECORD IS PRODUCED, THE CORRECTNESS OR OTHERWISE OF THE TRADING RESULTS CAN NOT BE SUBJECTED TO VERIFICATION. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS OF THE CASE , A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS IS MADE IN THE COUNTRY ACCOUNT AND IN IMFL ACC OUNT, THE PROFIT IS DETERMINED @ 30.5% ON SALES OF RS.21,76,49,511 WHICH GIVES A P ROFIT OF RS.6,63,83,122 AND AFTER DEDUCTING GROSS PROFIT DECLARED AT RS.6,55,95 ,467 A TRADING ADDITION OF RS.7,87,655 IS MADE. 11. THE GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TH E COUNTRY MADE LIQUOR IS 72.57%. SIMILARLY, IN IMFL, IT IS 30.25%. LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT MADE REFERENCE OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH GOAD HIM TO MAKE A LUMP SUM ADDI TION. HE HAD NEITHER REFERRED CASE OF ANY SIMILARLY SITUATED ASSESSEE WHO HAS SHOWN MO RE PROFIT THEN THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOT DISCUSSED THE PAST HISTO RY OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE FINDINGS, 9 EXTRACTED SUPRA, IT IS NOT DISCERNIBLE AS TO WHAT W EIGH IN THE MIND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.5 LACS AND RS.7 ,87,655, IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF COUNTRY LIQUOR AND IMFL/BEER. IT APPEARS THAT ASSES SING OFFICER HAS MADE THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF HIS UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE BUSINES S OF LIQUOR CONTRACTOR OR ON THE BASIS OF HIS PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE BUT TO OUR MIND HE OUGHT TO HAVE DEMONSTRATED THOSE FACTS IN THE ORDER. THE DISCRETION EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS BEEN INTERFERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WHO FURTHER REDUCED THE LUMP S UM ADDITION TO RS.1,30,000. FOR THE SECOND APPELLATE AUTHORITY, IT IS QUITE DIFFICU LT TO INTERFERE IN THE DISCRETION EXERCISED BY LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) UNLESS IT IS ESTABLISHED TH AT SUCH DISCRETION IS BASED ON EXTRANEOUS REASONS OR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FA CTS ON RECORD. WE DO NOT SEE ANY MATERIAL ON THE RECORD WHICH CAN PERSUADE US TO REP LACE THE OPINION OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FORMED ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. THEREFORE , WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE. IT IS DISMISSED. 12. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30/5/ 2012. SD/- SD/- ( R.C. SHARMA ) ( RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30 /05/2014 *MOHAN LAL* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. THE DR