The ACIT, 3(1), Bhopal V. Shri Sunil Kaushal, Bhopal

ITA 466/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 46622714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 09-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI; S N AGARWAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Capital asset; Business expenditure; Difference of opinion; Assessment record; Capital receipt; Change of opinion; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 13 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A, A.M. PAN NO. : AFXPK3822Q I.T.A.NO. 466 /IND/201 2 A.Y. : 2006-07 ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL VS. SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT C.O.NO. 100/IND/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012) A.Y. : 2006-07 SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, GOVINDPURA, BHOPAL. VS. ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.N.AGARWAL AND SHRI PANKAJ MOGRA, CAS DATE OF HEARING : 21 . 10 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 5 . 10 .201 3 SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 2 PAGE 2 OF 13 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), DATED 25.5.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 147 READ WITH SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SATYAM INDUSTRIES ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF FABRICATED ASSEMBLIES. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS. 1,10,02,001/-, WHICH WAS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,14,82,001/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 AND ASS ESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 147 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) ON 28.1 2.2011. DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK, SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND NOT REFLECTED IN ANNEXURE I OF BAL ANCE SHEET SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 3 PAGE 3 OF 13 AS WELL AS ON ACCOUNT OF BANK AND FINANCIAL CHARGES ALLEGED TO BE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVA TIONS :- 3.4 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS WERE EXAMINED. I HAVE ALSO EXAMINED MONTH-WISE INVENTORY OF RAW MATERIAL AND STOCK IN PROGRESS. IT IS FOUND THAT THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN DONE AS PER ACCOUNTING STANDARD 1. THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK INCLUDES CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY PAID ON PURCHASES. THE CONFUSION IS CREATED DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MAINTAINED SEPARATE ACCOUNT FOR CENVAT CREDIT UTILIZATION AGAINST CLEARANCE OF GOODS AND EXCISE DUTY PAID IN CASH. CENVAT CREDIT UTILIZATION AMOUNTS TO PAYMENT OF EXCISE DUTY. SINCE THE SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 4 PAGE 4 OF 13 EXCISE IS INCLUDED IN THE CLOSING STOCK THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ADDITION TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK HENCE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 2,94,26,011/- IS DELETED. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE T HAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT UNDER VALUATION AT RS. 35,41,382/- IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT HAD WRONGLY MADE ADDITION AT RS. 2,94,26,011/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE C OURSE OF RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD DEDUCTED THE AMOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT OF RS. 1,51,74 ,570/- FROM THE COST OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL OF RS. 11,96, 35,143/- ONLY AND DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2,94,26,011/- AND THEREBY REACHED TO A CONCLUSION THAT WHILE VALUING CLOSING STOCK, THE AMOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. 6. AFTER GIVING DETAILED FINDING AT PARA 3.4, PAGE 4, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. WE FOUND WHILE PREPARI NG MANUFACTURING ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED THE COST OF RAW MATERIALS BY AMOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT OF RS. SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 5 PAGE 5 OF 13 1,51,74,570/- AS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE COS T OF RAW MATERIALS OF RS. 13,48,09,713/- INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT OF RS. 1,51,74,570/-. THUS, WHILE CLA IMING THE COST OF RAW MATERIALS, THE AMOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT AS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE REDUCED A NET COST OF R AW MATERIALS OF RS. 11,96,35,143/- ONLY CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION. WE FOUND THAT AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID OF RS. 2,95,96,011/ - REPRESENTED THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY LIABILITY OF BOOKING OF ACTUAL SALE. HOWEVER, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF SALE AT GROSS VALUE WHICH A LSO INCLUDES THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY. THIS WAS THE RE ASON THAT AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW N SEPARATELY IN MANUFACTURING/TRADING ACCOUNT. IT WAS DULY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT THAT VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK WAS DONE AT COST WH ICH INCLUDES ENTIRE EXPENSES AND COMPONENT OF EXCISE DUTY EVEN W HEN THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PAID ON RAW MATERIALS REDUCED FROM THE COST OF MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE PR EPARING THE MANUFACTURING AND TRADING ACCOUNT. THUS, IT IS CLEA R THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS REDUCED THE COST OF RAW MATER IAL BY THE SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 6 PAGE 6 OF 13 AMOUNT OF CENVAT CREDIT, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR AS SESSEE TO INCREASE THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK BY THE AMOU NT OF EXCISE DUTY COMPONENT INCLUDED IN THE FIGURE OF RAW MATERI AL COST. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2.70 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF INDUSTRIAL LEASE H OLD LAND AFTER HAVING FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- (5) IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE AUDIT REPORT COLUMN NO. 13(E), SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 2,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT O F LAND. BUT AS PER ANNEXURE I THE SALE PROCEEDS OF RS. 2,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LAND IS NOT DEBITED TO TOT AL LAND ACCOUNT OF RS. 29,65,365/- WHICH HAS RESULTED IN EXCESS ASSETS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE WHICH WAS OBSERVED FROM THE AUDITORS REPORT. EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY AND ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 2,70,000/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 7 PAGE 7 OF 13 8. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 4.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIPT FOR TRANSFER OF LAND IS CAPIT AL RECEIPT. THE APPELLANT HAD REDUCED THE BLOCK OF ASSETS BY THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,70,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR TRANSFER OF L AND IS INVALID HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ALLOTTED IND USTRIAL LAND BY THE DISTRICT INDUSTRIES CENTRE, BHOPAL. THE LAND WAS ALLOTTED ON LEASE. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HA S TRANSFERRED THIS LEASE-HOLD LAND, FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS RECEIV ED A SUM OF RS. 2.70 LAKHS AGAINST TRANSFER OF LEASE HOLD LAND . THE SALE PROCEEDS SO RECEIVED WAS CREDITED TO LAND ACCOUNT U NDER THE HEAD FIXED ASSETS AND LAND WHICH HE HAD ACQUIRED FOR RS. 29,60,453/- HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE SAME ACCOUNT. T HE BALANCE UNDER THE HEAD LAND AS ON 31.3.2006 TAKEN AT RS. 29,65,365/-. AS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SALE ON TRA NSFER OF SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 8 PAGE 8 OF 13 LAND WAS CAPITAL RECEIPT, THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTL Y REDUCED THE BLOCK OF ASSETS BY THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERA TION. WE FOUND THAT ON THIS TRANSACTION OF SALE OF LAND ASSE SSEE HAD EARNED CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 16,174/- WHICH HE HAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION. ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,174/- AS CAPITAL GAINS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT F IND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING ADDIT ION OF RS. 2.70 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED FOR TRANSFER OF LAND. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 6,62,366/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID ON INDIV IDUAL LOAN OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED LOAN IN HIS INDIVIDU AL CAPACITY ON WHICH INTEREST WAS PAID. THE INTEREST PAID HAS B EEN CLAIMED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE BORROWED MONEY HAD BEEN USED FOR T HE BUSINESS OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE . THE DISALLOWANCE WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST WAS PAID BY THE SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 9 PAGE 9 OF 13 ASSESSEE TO THE BANK IN RESPECT OF LOAN AVAILED BY IT. HOWEVER, THIS LOAN WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURP OSE OF ITS BUSINESS, THEREFORE, INTEREST PAID TO THE BANK ON S UCH LOAN AMOUNT IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(III) AS THE SAME WAS INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IT IS NOT THE CASED OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN SO AVAILED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS NOT UTILIZED BY HIM FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. M ERELY AVAILING THE LOAN IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND UTILIZ ATION OF SAME IN HIS PROPRIETORY BUSINESS WILL NOT DISENTITLE THE ASSESSEE FROM CLAIM OF INTEREST PAID ON SUCH LOAN TO THE BAN K. UTILIZATION OF LOAN AMOUNT FOR REPAYMENT OF OTHER I NTEREST BEARING LOAN TAKEN FROM FAMILY MEMBERS CANNOT BE MA DE THE REASON TO DISALLOW INTEREST ON FUNDS TAKEN AS LOAN FROM BANK AND INTRODUCED AS CAPITAL IN THE BUSINESS. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE DISALLO WANCE OF INTEREST AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,62,366/-. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS. 29,00,700/- ON THE PLEA THAT LOA NS WERE APPLIED TOWARDS CAPITAL ASSETS. BY THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, THE LD. SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 10 PAGE 10 OF 13 CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOW ING OBSERVATIONS :- 6.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE ISSUE. THE INTEREST PAID ON LOAN OBTAINED FOR PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSET IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(III). THE BUSINESS OF THE APPEL LANT HAD COMMENCED LONG BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE HENCE NO PART OF INTEREST IS LIABLE TO CAPITALIZATION. THE FACTS OF THE CASE CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE FINANCIAL CHARGES AND INTEREST HAVE BEEN PAID F OR BORROWING FUNDS WHICH ARE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 29,00,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF FINANCIAL CHARGES AND BANK INTEREST IS INVALID HENC E THE SAME IS DELETED. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT INTEREST PAID ON LOAN ON THE CAPIT AL ASSET IS ALLOWABLE U/S 36(1)(III) AFTER COMMENCEMENT OF BUSI NESS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT ASSESSEES BUSINESS HAD COMMENCED LONG BEFORE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDE RATION, THEREFORE, NO PART OF INTEREST IS LIABLE TO BE CAPI TALIZED. THE FUNDS SO BORROWED HAVE BEEN UNDISPUTEDLY UTILIZED F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THE MAJOR COMPONENT OF INTERES T INCLUDES INTEREST ON CASH CREDIT LOAN OF RS. 26,49,105/- [RS . 13,82,561 + RS. 12,66,544/-], BANK AND OTHER CHARGES OF RS. 5 ,89,865/- [RS. 1,85,944/- + RS. 10,197/- + RS. 59,925/- + RS. 60,722/- SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 11 PAGE 11 OF 13 + RS. 2,73,077/- ] AND INTEREST ON MEDIUM TERM LOAN OF RS. 1,26,883/-. 14. WE HAD ALSO VERIFIED COPY OF AUDITED FINAL ACCOUNT AND TAX AUDIT REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDING ON 31.3.2006 I .E. FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 UNDER CONSIDERATIO N AND FOUND THAT ADDITION TO THE FIXED ASSETS MADE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 65,60,224/- ONLY FROM INTERNAL ACCRUALS OF THE ASSE SSEE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE H AD ACHIEVED SALE TARGET OF RS. 21,14,16,866/- ON WHICH NET PROFIT OF RS. 1,20,83,809/- WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. O N PERUSAL OF DETAIL OF INTEREST PAID, WE FOUND THAT NO LOAN W AS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF CAPITAL ASSETS. AC CORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID TO BANK AND THE L OAN PERTAINING TO WHICH WAS UTILIZED OF THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE PLEA THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED FOR MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND NOTHING NEW FACT WAS BRO UGHT INTO NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF REMARKS OF THE TAX AUDIT REP ORT, SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 12 PAGE 12 OF 13 REOPENED THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT, WHICH IS NOT PER MISSIBLE U/S 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GIRDHAR GOPAL GULATI, 269 ITR 45, HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF EICHER LIMITED, 294 ITR 310, BOMBAY HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF BED MUTHA INDUSTRIES LIMITED. HEAVY RELIANC E WAS PLACED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF KELVINATOR OF INDIA LIMITED, 256 ITR 1, AGAINST WHICH SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS DISMISSED. 16. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SENIOR DR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F TOLARAM HASSOMAL, 298 ITR 22, AND PLEADED THAT THIS LEGAL G ROUND WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME, ACCORDINGLY, THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE LEGAL ISSUE, WHI CH WAS NOT RAISED BEFORE HIM. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AN D FOUND FROM RECORD THAT ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED BY DULY ME NTIONING SHRI SUNIL KAUSHAL, BHOPAL [I.T.A.NO. 466/IND/2012 & C.O.NO.100/IND/2012 ] 13 PAGE 13 OF 13 THE REASON FOR REOPENING. COMPLETE JUSTIFICATION WA S GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REASON SO RECORDED FOR REOPENING. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE REASONS RECORDED, WE FOUND THAT ASSESSMENT WAS NOT REOPENED MERELY ON THE BASIS OF CHANGE OF OPINION, BUT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT REASONS INDICATIN G FAILURE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER VITAL POINT IN THE AS SESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY FOR REOPE NING THE ASSESSMENT AFTER RECORDING SUFFICIENT REASONS AND C ONVEYING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT OPPOSED BY HIM EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A). IN THE RESULT, GROUND TAKEN BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 18. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL A S CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED I N PART. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 25 TH OCTOBER, 2013. CPU* 242510