ITO, WARD-2, Amaravati V. SHRI CHANDRAKUMAR M. JAJODIYA, Amaravati

ITA 52/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3105 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 52 /NAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 . THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, SHRI CHANDRAKUMAR M. JAODOYA, WARD - 2, AMRAVATI. VS. AMRAVATI. PAN AAPPJ3021M APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.P. DEWANI. DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 - 01 - 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 6 T H FEBRUARY, 2016. O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIN YAHYA, A.M . TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) - II, NAGPUR DATED 08 - 11 - 2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,12,948/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/ S 69 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NON - REFLECTION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 1012054000018 WITH ICICI BANK MUMBAI IN THE BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT DEPIC T INCORRECT STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS DISREGARDING THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES REITERATED IN REMAND REPORT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER : RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS.4,61, 00,000/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 98,703/ - WAS FILED ON 26 - 03 - 2010. DURING THE 2 COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THERE WAS INFORMATION IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO WHICH INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING CURRENT A/C IN ICICI BANK, MUMBAI. THE AO OBTAINED A COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT FROM THE BANK. ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 - 03 - 2009 IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE SAID ICICI BANK A/C WAS NOT APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO FURNISH A COPY OF THE BANK A/C FOR THE PERIOD 01 - 04 - 2008 TO 31 - 03 - 2009 AND ALSO TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REPLY ENCLOSING A COPY OF THE ICICI BANK A/C AND ALSO PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT WAS VERY MUCH REFLECTED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE A SSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT REFE R ENCE TO THE SAID BANK A/C DID NOT APPEAR IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE A SSESSEE AS THERE WAS A DEBIT BALANCE IN THE SAID A/C WHICH WAS REDUCED FROM THE CASH BALANCE AND IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH IN HAND AMOUNTING TO RS. 20576.90 INCLUDES THE DEBIT BALANCE OF THE ICICI BANK. BREAK - UP OF THE CASH BALANCE IS AS UNDER: - CASH BALANCE RS. 21406.02 LESS ICICI BANK RS. 829.12 TOTAL RS.20576 4. AS PER THE LD.AO THE BANK ACCOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED IN T HE LIABILITY SIDE OF BALANCE SHEET AND NOT IN THE CASH - BOOK AND SHE THEREFORE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD INCORPORATED THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE PRODUC I NG THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR VERIFICATION. 5. THE AO FUR THER ASKED THE A SSESSEE TO EXPLAIN CERTAIN 3 ITA NO. 52/NAG/2014 WITHDRAWALS FROM ICICI BANK A/C . THE LIST OF THESE WITHDRAWALS IS NA R RA T ED ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT THESE DEBIT ENTRIES ARE RELATED TO THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY OFF ICE ASSISTANTS FROM THE BANKS AS THE A SSESSEE REQUIRES FREQUENT CASH AND THEY THE R EFORE HAVE POLICY OF ISSUING BEARER CHEQUES TO THE OFFICE ASSISTANTS WHO GO TO BANKS AND WITHDRAW THE CASH FOR THE A SSESSEE . THE AO HOWEVER CARRIED OUT FURTHER ENQUIRIES FROM THE BANK AUTHORITIES FROM WHICH IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THE SAID DEBIT ENTRIES WERE CLEARING ENTRIES AND WERE NOT BEARER CHEQUES. SHE THEREFORE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A SSESSEE IS MISLEADING THE DEPARTMENT AND THAT THE CASH - BOOK PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS FABRICATED. 6. IT WAS FURTHER NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD PURCHASED ONE LAND AT CHANDRAPUR, MURBAD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HIS SHARE IN THIS LAND WAS OF RS. 2620000/ - AN D TH E PURCHASE EXPENDITURE THEREOF HAVE BEEN DEBITED IN THE ICICI BANK A/C AND THAT THE SAID LAND WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE TRADING ACCOUNT OR IN THE BALANCE SHEET. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE THAT THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED FOR THE SAME AMOUNT OF RS. 26,20,000/ - AND SINCE THE PURCHASE AND SALE CONSIDERATION WAS THE SAME THERE WAS NO PROFIT OR LOSS AND HENCE THE SAID TRANSACTION DOES NOT APPEAR IN THE TRADING A/C. THE A SSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE COPY OF A/C OF T HE SAID LAND PURCHASED AND FROM THE SAME IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH ADVANCES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,00,000, RS. 10,00,000 AND RS. 6,20,000/ - ON 05 - 02 - 2009, 07 - 02 - 2009 & 16 - 02 - 2009 RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE PROPOSED SALE AGREEMENT WAS CANCELLED. THE AO REQUIRED THE A SSESSEE TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CANCELLATION OF THE LAND TRANSACTION IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AND ALSO ASKED THE A SSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF 4 ITA NO. 52/NAG/2014 ACCOUNT FOR THE AY 2010 - 11 FOR VERIFIC A TION. 7. THE A SSESSEE PRODUCED BHARNA AND TABA PAVTI DATED 28 - 12 - 2008 TO EVIDENCE THE SALE OF THE SAID LAND FROM WHICH IT COULD BE NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2620000/ - WAS REC EIVED BY THE A SSESSEE FROM FIVE PERSONS ON 28 - 12 - 2008 AND NOT ON THE DATES AS MENTIONED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE LAND A/C. THE AO THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE CASH BOOK WAS FABRICATED AND TRANSACTION IN THE BANK A/C WERE UNEXPLAINED AND REPRESENTED THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE AND SHE THEREFORE ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 4512948/ - WHICH WAS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TOTAL CREDITS IN THE DEBIT IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSIONS. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ALSO REMANDED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM TO THE AO AND ALSO OBTAINED REMAND REPORT. THEREAFTER LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITIONS AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ORDER IS AS UNDER : 5. THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. ' SINCE CERTAIN NEW FACTS WHICH ARE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT I . E. THE FACT THAT THE ICICI BANK A/C HAD BEEN OPENED BY TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE REGULAR HDFC BANK A/C , THAT THE ICICI BANK WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2010 - 11 WHICH ARE FILED EVEN PRIOR TO THE START OF ENQUIRY FOR THE CURRENT FY, THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS HELD AS INVESTMENT AND NOT TRADING A/C, LEDGER ELC OF VARIOUS PARTIES ETC., THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WITH ALL SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE FORWARDED TO THE LD.AO FOR HER COMMENTS. 5.1 THE LD.AO VIDE HER REMAND REPORT DATED 24 - 01 - 2013 HAS BROADLY REITERATED THE FACTS WHICH ARE ALREADY BROUGHT ON RECORD DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SHE FURTHER STATED THAT THE TRANSFER ENTRY OF RS. 5000/ - FROM HDFC BANK A/C DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID ICICI A/C IS DULY REFLECTED AND ALSO THAT THE 5 ITA NO. 52/NAG/2014 DISCLOSURE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY MEAN THAT THE A/C WAS DISCLOSED IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND STATED THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR AY 2010 - 11 FO R VERIFICATION DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE ' CASE AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT . I FIND SUBSTANTIAL FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE LD.AO CAME TO TH E CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID ICICI BANK A/C IS UNEXPLAINED AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4512948/ - ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING THREE PREMISES: I) THAT THE BANK ETC IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. II) THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWAL IN RESPECT OF SEVERAL PARTIES WAS WRONGLY STATED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE BEARER CHEQUES WHILE ON ENQUIRY IT WAS SEEN THAT THESE WERE CLEARING ENTRIES AND III) THAT THE SAID LAND TRANSACTION WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE P&L EIC AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE IN THE DATE ON WHICH THE CASH WAS SHOWN AS RECEIVED IN THE APPELLANT'S CASH BOOK. 7.1 WITH REGARD TO THE FIRST CONTENTION, I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT NON - REFLECTION OF BANK ACCOUNT ON THE LIABILITY SIDE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY IMPACT THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT NOR DOES IT DEPICT INCORRECT STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 - 03 - 2009. WHILE IT IS AN UNORTHODOX WAY OF REPRESENTING THE BANK ACCOUNT, IT IS A FACT THAT 7 CASH & BANK BALANCES AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TALLY (AD IDEM) WITH THE ITEMS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. ( 7.2 IT IS ALSO A CRUCIAL FACT THAT THESAID ICICI BANK A / C HAS BEEN OPENED BY WAY OF TRANSFE R OF RS.5000/ - FROM THE REGULAR HDFC BANK ALC REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. IF THE INTENTION OF THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN TO KEEP THE SAID ALC UNDISCLOSED, THE APPELLANT WOULD NOT HAVE OPENED THE SAID ICICI BANK ALC BY WAY OF TRANSFER FUNDS FROM THE HDFC BANK A/C. 7.3 IT IS ALSO PERTINENT FACT THAT THE SAID ICICI BANK HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET AND RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THAT HAS BEEN SCRUTINIZED ULS 143(3). THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ENCLOSED THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 - 03 - 2010, YEAR - END BANK STATEMENT OF ICICI BANK AND A COPY OF ITR - 4 FOR AY 2010 - 11FROM WHICH IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS DULY REFLECTED. IT IS ALSO A VITAL FACT THAT THE RETUR N OF INCOME DULY SHOWING ICICI BANK ETC HAD BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT ON 18 - 03 - 2011 WHICH IS MUCH BEFORE THE DATE ON WHICH THE LD.AO INITIATED ENQUIRIES ABOUT THE SAID BANK A / C WHICH WAS IN THE MONTH OF JUNE 2011 . IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2010 - 11 HAS BEEN FINALIZED ULS 143(3) AND THE RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28 - 12 - 2012. 6 ITA NO. 52/NAG/2014 7 . 4 IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN THE ICICI BANK A / C CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPO SES OF CASH CREDIT AS THE SAME ARE RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF EITHER SOME OPENING BALANCE OR ON ACCOUNT OF SOME TRANSACTION DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED LEDGER ETC OF CERTAIN PARTIES WITH WHOM TRANSACTIONS HAD BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR. T H IS ISSUE, ALONG WITH THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS, WAS REMAN DED BACK TO THE LD.AO AND IT IS SEEN THAT NO COM MENT HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE LD.AO IN RESPECT OF THE SAME . IT IS EV I DENT THEREFORE THAT THE AMOUNTS SHOWN AS RECEIVED IN THE SAID LEDGER ACCOUNT ARE EITHER ON AC C OUNT OF OPENING BALANCE OR REPRESENT TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO DURING THE YEAR. THUS THE SAID ACCOUNT IS PART OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 8 . WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND CONTENTION, THE APPELLANT HAS VALIDLY EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH ENTRIES IN ITS CASH BOOK TOTALING TO RS. 1025000/ - ARE CONSEQUENT TO WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK ON VARIOUS DATES MADE BY VARIOUS OFFICE EMPLOYEES ON ACCOUNT OF BEARER CH EQUES WHICH THE VARIOUS EMPLOYEES/PERSONS DEPOSITED IN THEIR BANK A/C AND GAVE CASH TO THE APPELLANT AND THAT T 1 , EREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS ALSO REMANDED BACK TO THE LD.AO FOR HER COMMENTS AND NO COMMENTS OR ADVERSE FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE ID. AO. 9. WITH REGARD TO THE LAST CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING THE LAND TRANSACTION, THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID LAND WAS PURCHASED AS AN INVEST MENT AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD AT THE SAME PRICE AND SINCE THE SAID LAND WAS HELD AS AN INVESTMENT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF IT BEING REFLECTED IN THE P&L ETC AND ALSO THAT SINCE IT WAS SOLD BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF IT BEING RE FLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE SALE OF LAND WAS OUT OF INVESTMENT IN LAND AND THE SALE HAD BEEN CREDITED TO SUCH INVESTMENT A/C SINCE THERE WAS NO PROFIT OR LOSS TO THE SAID SALE OF INVESTMENT, THE SAID TRANSACTION DID NOT FIND A PLACE IN THE P&L A/C . 9.1 ALSO, WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS BOOK WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR AND EXAMINED DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. ALSO, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS PRESUME D TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ID. AO TO HER SATISFACTION AS SHE HAS FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR U/S 143(3) WHEREIN THE RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND NO FINDING IN RESPECT OF THE SUBSEQUENT CANCELLATION OF THE LAND DEAL FIND S MENTION THEREIN. 10. THUS, THE VARIOUS REASONS FOR WHICH THE LD.AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID BANK ETC IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN PROPERLY EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. ONCE IT HAS BEEN SUCCESS FULLY ESTABLISHED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAID ICICI BANK HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF . ACCOUNT THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HOLDING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS AND OTHER TRANSACTION IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT ARE NOT EXPLAINED. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.4512948/ - BEING DIFFERENCE OF THE CREDIT IN THE DEBIT SIDE OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IS HEREBY DELETED. 7 ITA NO. 52/NAG/2014 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LEARNED D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 7. PER CONTRA LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). HE ALSO SUBMITTED PAPER BOOKS IN TWO VOLUMES DETAILING THE COPIES OF VARIOUS LEDGE R ACCOUNTS, CASH BOOKS AND BALANCE SHEET. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED THIS ORDER AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS AND RECORDS AND AFTER ALSO REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE AO. LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) HAS CATEGORICALLY GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE FINDING ON THE MATTERS REMANDED. WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED AN ORDER AFTER REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE AO ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND LEARNED CIT(APP EALS) HAS CATEGORICALLY NOTED THAT THE A O HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVE R SE REMARKS WITH REFERENCE TO THE SUBMISSION, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THERE IS ANY GRIEVANCE TO THE REVENUE. 9. NEVERTHELESS WE - HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUES . WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS AND THE AO HAS ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. FURTHER MORE THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUN T HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED AND DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HENCE WE AGREE WITH THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT NO ADVERSE IN FERENCE IN THIS REGARD IS CALLED FOR. WE ALSO AGREE THAT 8 ITA NO. 52/NAG/2014 SINCE THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF LAND AT THE SAME PRICE OCCURRED DURING THE SAME YEAR, HENCE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF REFLECTING THE SAME IN THE BALANCE SHEET. FACTUAL FINDIN G OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS DULY CORROBORATED BY THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS AND THE EXTRACTS FROM CASH BOOK, TRIAL BALANCE, PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BOOK AS WELL AS OTHER MATERIALS PRODUCED BEFORE US. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER AFTER PROP ERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS ON RECORD. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDINGLY WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDE R PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ( SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 26 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. 9 ITA NO. 52/NAG/2014 COPY FORWARDED TO : 1. SHRI CHANDRAKUMAR M. JIJODIYA, JAJODIYA NIWAS, SHARADA NAGAR, BADNERA ROAD, AMRAVATI. 2. I.T.O., WARD - 2, AMRAVATI. 3. C.I.T., NAGPUR. 4. CIT(APPEALS) - II , NAGPUR. 5. D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER WAKODE. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR