Income Tax Officer, Ambala V. Sh.Tarun Kumar S/O Sh.Subhash Chand, Ambala

ITA 470/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2454 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R K SHARMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 470/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 THE ITO, VS. SH. TARUN KUMAR WARD-4, S/O SH. SUBHASH CHAND, AMBALA AMBALA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. CHANDER KANTA RESPONDENT BY : SH. R.K.SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 07.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.01.2016 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.2.2015 OF CIT(A), PANCHKULA RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2011-12. 2. GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3 OF THE APPEAL, READ AS UNDER :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN ACCEPTING THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LOSS AND TAX A UDITED REPORT AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. 1962 AS ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NEVER FURNISHED / PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD, CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE 2 DESPITE OBJECTING ADMISSION THERETO VIEW OF DETAILE D COMMENTS GIVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE CIT(A) 2. THE LD. . C1T(A) HAS ERRED IN FACT AS WELL IN LAW TO ADMIT THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND TAX AUDIT REPORT DATED 22 .08.2011I AS THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 30.03.201 2 CLEARLY MENTIONED VIDE FIRST PAGE OF THE RETURN THAT HE IS NEITHER LI ABLE TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR LIABLE FOR GETTING THE SAME AUDITED . 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.225,20,631/- TAKING ESTIMATING THE NET PROFIT @ 1.25% AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION BY APPLYING 5% ON RS. 6.50 CRORES NET PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF CREDITS IN B ANK ACCOUNT. 3. AS REGARDS GROUND NOS.1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL, THE C IT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLAN T FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A.OF I.T- RULES, 1 962. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E WERE NOT PRODUCED/NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT COUL D NOT PRODUCE THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET ALONGWITH THE AUD IT REPORT BECAUSE OF MISUNDERSTANDING HAPPENED BETWEEN THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT AND THE APPELLANT. THE CHARTER ED ACCOUNTANT DID NOT PROVIDE COPY OF AUDIT REPORT DUE TO PROFESSIONAL RIVALRY. IN VIEW OF THE REASONS CITED BY THE APPELLANT M HIS LETTER DATED 13.10.2014, IT WAS NOT ICED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FRO M PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO, WHICH IS RELE VANT TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT, AND T O IMPART NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY T HE APPELLANT WAS ADMITTED. 4.1 A REPORT WAS CALLED VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DA TED 14.10.2014 FROM THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE A FTER DUE EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS 3 REPORT DATED 09.01.2015 SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 DEC LARING AN INCOME OF RS.L,17,510/- ON 30.03.2012. THE RETURN O F INCOME HAS BEEN FILED IN ITR-4 DECLARING SALES OF RS.1,49,815/-. , AT THE FIRST PAGE OF THE RETURN O F INCOME, IN THE RELEVANT COLUMNS THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY DECLARED THAT HE WAS NEITHER LIABLE TO MAINTAIN BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS NOR LIABLE TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED U/S 44AB OF THE ACT. ON THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, TH E AO SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED HAVE BEEN EXAMINED AND TEST CHECKED. PRESENTLY, THESE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS ARE FOUND IN ORDER. THE AO FURTHER SUBMITT ED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF TAX AUDIT RE PORT AND AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND P&L ACCOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, AS IT IS AN AFTERTHOUGHT STORY AND IF THE ACCOUNTS WERE GOT AUDITED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHIN TI ME PERIOD PRESCRIBED THEN WHY THE SAME WERE NOT FURNIS HED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS, NEITHER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR THE A UDITED BALANCE SHEET AND P&L ACCOUNT WERE PROVIDED. THE SUBMISSIONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE NOT BROUGHT IN THE KNOWLED GE OF THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED. 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. IN OUR OPINION, THE CIT(A) HAS NOT VIOLATED ANY PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF I.T. RULES, 1962 AS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A), IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS P REVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CA USE FORM PRODUCING BOOKS 4 OF ACCOUNT, AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT AND LO SS ACCOUNT AND TAX AUDIT REPORT. RULE 46A(1) PROVIDES THAT WHERE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL, THE CIT( A) CAN ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SUB RULE (2) PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHILE ADMITTING SUCH EVIDENCE MUST RECORD ITS REASONING IN WRITING. SUB RULE (3) PROVIDES THAT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN THE SUB RULE (1) SHALL BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT UNLESS A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS PRODUCED OR PERMITTED TO CROSS EXAMINE THE WITNESSES EXAMINED O R PERMITTED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REPORT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 14.10.2014 FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AFTER DUE EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCES. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REPORT ON 9.1.2015. THUS, PROPER OPP ORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMMENT UPON THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR VIEW, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THIS G ROUND OF APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY WE DISMISS THE SAME. 5. VIDE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,20 ,631/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF KARYANA TRADING AS WEL L AS TRADING OF KHAL AND CHHOKAR FOR ANIMALS SINCE 1996. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASS ESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 66,48,950/- IN ICICI BANK L TD AND CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4,03,750/- AND RS. 2,28,000/- IN HDFC BANK LTD. ACC ORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, DESPITE OF VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES ALLOWED, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN AFORESAID BANK AC COUNT. HOWEVER, THE 5 ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSI TED ON ACCOUNT OF SUGAR TRADING BUSINESS. ON FURTHER INQUIRY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM BANK WHICH REVEALED THE TOTAL CRED ITS IN FOUR BANKS ACCOUNTS WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,68,21,050/-. AFTER ADDIN G CREDITS IN ONE MORE BANK ACCOUNT, THE TOTAL CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,83,57,500/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSE SSEE AS TO WHY THE PROFIT FROM BUSINESS @ 8% SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED ON TOTAL CREDITS. IN RESPONDS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT PROFIT RATE FROM TRADING OF S UGAR WAS ABOUT 1%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E ON THE GROUND THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SALES TO DIFFERENT PARTIES WER E PRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN OTHER BUSINESS ACTIVITIES VIZ TRADING OF KARYANA ITEMS, REFINED OIL ETC. SO THE FIGURES OF TURN OVER AS PROPOSED TO BE ESTIMATED AT RS. 5,68,21,050/- WERE FURTHER ENHANCED TO RS. 6,50,00,000-/- IN VIEW OF K ARYANA ITEMS TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 5% AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 32,50,000/- (5% OF RS. 6,50,00,000/ -) FROM THE BUSINESS OF WHICH NO BOOKS WERE PRODUCED OR WERE MAINTAINED. 6. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) ALLOWED A RELIEF O RS. 25, 30,531/- AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,29,469/-. THE LD. CIT(A) EST IMATED THE NET PROFIT @ 1.25% AS AGAINST 5% APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AT LENGTH AND HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD . IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ENHANCING THE TURN OVER TO RS.6,50,00,000/-. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TOTAL CREDITS OF RS. 6 5,83,57,500/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS THE BUSINESS TURN OVER OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ACCEPTED THE TORN OVER AT RS. 6,50,00,000/-. ON THIS TURN OVER THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS APPLIED AN ESTIMATED NET PROFIT @ 5% AND THE CIT(A) REDUCED TH E SAME TO 1.25%. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THIS REGARD BY THE CI T(A) ARE AS UNDER:- 6.5 HOWEVER, THE TOTAL CREDITS OF RS. 5,83,57,500/ - IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS THE BUSINESS TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT. THE AO HAS ENHANCED THE TURNOVER TO RS.6 ,50,00,000/- ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TH AT HIS BUSINESS INCLUDES ACTIVITIES RELATED TO TRADING IN OTHER ITE MS ALSO. BUT, THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY INSTANCE ABOUT ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OR SALES ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN OTHER ITEMS. THE AO HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN FINDING THAT THE CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT R ELATES TO ONLY TRADING IN SUGAR ITEMS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY OTHER EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD REGARDING SALES MADE FOR OTHER ACTIVITIES IN ADDITION TO SUGAR, THE AO WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN THE ENHANCEMENT OF TURNOVER ON AN ESTIMATED BASIS. ONCE THE CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED ON ACCOUNT OF BU SINESS TURNOVER, THE SAME WILL INCLUDE ALL BUSINESS RECEIP TS OF TRADING ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS ITEMS AND COMMISSION ETC. SO, TH E TOTAL CREDITS OF RS.5,83,57,500/- IN ALL THE BANK ACCOUNTS IS CON SIDERED AS TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE APPELLANT'S BUSINESS. THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN COMPARABLE SAMPLES BY SHOWING THE FINANCIAL RESULTS OF OTHER CONCERNS INVOLVED IN SUGAR TRADE, E PROFIT OF THESE CONCERNS VARIES FROM 1 % TO 1.14%. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED T HE BILLS/VOUCHERS IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES ON VARIOUS AC COUNTS. IN VIEW OF DISCREPANCIES NOTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILE D BY THE APPELLANT AND SUBSEQUENTLY PRODUCED AUDITED ACCOUNT , THE PROFIT DECLARED AS PER AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND RELIABLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEIN G GUIDED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD FOR COMPUTING PROFITS ON PRESUMPTIVE 7 BASIS RAISED SHOW CAUSE TO ESTIMATE INCOME @ 8%. H OWEVER, IT SEEMS AFTER CONSIDERING THE TURNOVER AND OTHER FACT ORS, ESTIMATED THE PROFIT @ 5%. HOWEVER, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF THE CITED COMPARABLE CASES AND AFTER GIVING CREDITS FOR ALL EXPENSES LIKELY TO HAVE INCURRED TO EARN PROFIT FROM VARIOU S BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, THE NET PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO BE ESTIMATED @ 1.25% OF ITS TOTAL TURNOVER. THUS, T HE TAXABLE PROFIT IS ESTIMATED AT RS. 7,29,469/-. THE APPELLA NT GET RELIEF OF RS. 25,20,531/-. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALL OWED. 8. TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A). THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE TOTAL CREDITS FOUND IN THE BANK AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE OF RS. 5,83,57,500/-. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS ENHANCED THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE BUT HE HAS NOT GIVEN A NY INSTANCE ABOUT ANY UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES / SALES ON ACCOUNT OF TRADING IN OTHER ITEMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ENHANCED THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATED BASIS. HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE IN SU PPORT OF HIS ACTION. IT IS ALSO RELEVANT TO OBSERVE HERE THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPENSES WHICH WERE INCURRED TO E ARN PROFIT FROM VARIOUS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS O F THE CIT(A), IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CITED COMPARABLE CASES TO PROVE THAT IN SUGAR TRADE, THE PROFIT RATE VARIES FROM 1% PROFIT TO 1.1 4%. IN OUR OPINION, THE NET PROFIT @ 5% APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WIT HOUT ANY BASIS. IN FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED AN ADHOC NET PROFIT R ATE OF 5% WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIS CUSSION, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVE NUE S APPEAL. 9. GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL READS AS UNDER:- 8 4. LD. C'IT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 2,83,000/,- ON ACCOUNT CASH DEPOSITED IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AS THE ASSESSES HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 10. GROUND NO. 4 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OF CIT(A ) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,83,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 2,83,0 00/- ON 7.3.2011 IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH STATE BANK OF PATIALA, SAH A BRANCH. THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID TO ESTATE OFFICE, HUDA, PANCHKULA. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION U/S 69A OF THE ACT . 11. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION, OBS ERVING AS UNDER:- 8.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT, REPORT OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND REJOINDER FILED BY THE APPELLANT. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,83,000/- FOR BOO KING OF FLAT THROUGH HIS SAVING ACCOUNT ON THE BASIS OF NON - ACCEPTANCE OF APPELLANT SUBMISSION THAT THE SAME WA S FROM THE AVAILABLE CASH IN HAND THROUGH HIS CASH BOOK. T HE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF CASH BOOK WHICH SHOWS AN TRANSFER ENTRY OF RS. 2,82,906/- FROM CASH BOOK TO THE APPELLANTS BANK ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELL ANT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,83,000/- ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DELET ED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD PAID RS. 2,83,000/- TO THE ESTATE OFFICE FOR THE BOOKING OF A FLAT THROUGH HI S SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH 9 STATE BANK OF PATIALA. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE A MOUNT OF RS. 2,83,000/- ON 7.3.2011 OUT OF HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FORM THE AVAIL ABLE CASH IN HAND THROUGH HIS CASH BOOK. IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORD S THAT THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THUS, THE AMO UNT IS QUESTION WAS DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS BOOKS OF ACCOU NT I.E. AVAILABLE CASH IN HAND ON THE DAY OF DEPOSIT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MATE RIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. AC CORDINGLY, WE DISMISS GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07.01.2016 SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 07 TH JANUARY, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR .