Supreme Transport Company, Indore V. The ITO Ward 3(1), Indore

ITA 544/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 54422714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHEEM KUNWAR
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ SHAH CAS
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Wrong claim; Commercial expediency
• Section: 143(3); 194C

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. : AAUFS5010N I.T.A.NO. 544 /IND/201 2 A.Y. : 2007-08 SUPREME TRANSPORT CO., INDORE VS. ITO, 5(1), INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANOJ GUPTA AND SHRI PANKAJ SHAH, CAS RESPONDENT BY : SHRI BHEEM KUNWAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 28 . 10 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31 . 10 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), DATED 6.8.2012, FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2007-08 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 2 PAGE 2 OF 13 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR CIT(A )S ACTION FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIM ATING NET PROFIT AT 10% AND ALSO DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40A(IA ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT COMMISSION A ND CONTRACT AGENT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE TOTAL RECEIPT FROM TRANSPORT COMMISSION AND CONTRACT BUSI NESS WAS AMOUNTED TO RS. 10.14 CRORES ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS. 2,80,098/- AS PER AUDITED BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENTLY EMPLOYING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND ALSO GOT ITS ACCOUNT AUDITED U/S 44A B. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER EXAMINED THE RETURN IN DETAIL AND AFTER CONDUCTING THOROUGH INQUIRY MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,88,300/- THEREBY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 6,41,040/-. IN THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE INITIATED ENHANCEMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 25 1(2) AND REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATED NET PROFIT RATE OF SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 3 PAGE 3 OF 13 10% WITHOUT GIVING ANY COMPARABLE CASES AND WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY VALID REASONS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO MA DE SEPARATE DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(IA) IN RESPECT OF HAMMALI CHAR GES. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF THE RETURN AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WH ICH IS EVIDENT FROM QUESTIONNAIRE AND ORDER SHEET NOTINGS PLACED IN THE RECORD. WE ALSO FOUND THAT AFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME WAS AUDITED BY I NTERNAL AUDIT PARTY OF THE DEPARTMENT, WHEREIN ASSESSMENT W AS FOUND PROPER AND NO ADVERSE REMARK WAS GIVEN WHICH INDICA TE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PERFORMED HIS DUTY PROPER LY. EVEN DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CA LLED A REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ISSUE R AISED THEREIN, NO ADVERSE FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER. EVEN AFTER EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , THE LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT BRING TO ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE, SO AS TO MAKE OUT A CASE FIT FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. NOTHING WAS FOUND UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR WRONG CLAIM HAVING BEEN MADE SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 4 PAGE 4 OF 13 BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ITSELF INDICATE THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES AND ALLEGATIONS MADE BY T HE LD.CIT(A) ARE BASELESS, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED PROFIT BASED ON ITS AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND T HE NET PROFIT SO DERIVED WAS IN THE LINE IN THE EARLIER YE ARS STANDARDS WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN PAST AND EVEN DURING THE YEAR IN ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). THE ASSES SEE WAS PROVIDING TRANSPORT FACILITY TO ITS CORPORATE CLIEN TS AND WAS NOT HAVING ITS OWN LORRIES OR TRUCKS. LORRIES OR TRUCKS WERE ARRANGED THROUGH OPEN MARKET FROM TRUCK OWNERS AND TRANSPORT OPERATORS. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS DEALING WI TH CORPORATE CLIENTS, THE RATE CHARGED FROM SUCH CLIEN TS PER KG/TON WAS FIXED FOR CERTAIN PERIOD AND CANNOT BE R EVISED FREQUENTLY. ON THE OTHER HAND, FREIGHT PAID TO THE TRUCK OWNERS WAS NOT FIXED AND WAS NEGOTIATED AS PER AVAILABILIT Y OF TRUCKS IN THE MARKET. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLEGED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AS MERCANTILE, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND. WE FOUND THAT IT WAS MERE TYPOGR APHICAL SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 5 PAGE 5 OF 13 ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS CON SISTENTLY FOLLOWING CASH METHOD OF ACCOUNTING SINCE ITS INCEP TION AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ACCEPTED CASH SYSTEM AS A METHOD OF ACCOUNTING AND VERIFIED THE FACTS AND TRA NSACTIONS OF CASE ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CIT(A)S OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPL IED HIS MIND MERELY ON THE BASIS OF TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WE FOUND THAT WHILE CONSIDERING T HE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED INTEREST OF RS. 7,80,830/- PAID TO THE PARTNERS ON THE CAPITAL INVESTED IN THE BUSINESS. WE FOUND THAT FUNDS WERE INTRODUCED AND WITHDRAWN FREQUENTLY BY THE PARTNERS AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BUSINESS, THEREFORE, TAKING CLO SING CAPITAL BALANCE AND BENCH MARKING IT ONLY WITH NET PROFIT W OULD YIELD ABSURD RESULTS. THE LD. CIT(A)S PRESUMPTION THAT C APITAL EMPLOYED IN BUSINESS IS THE CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING THE PROFIT EARNED BY THAT CONCERN, IT IS NOT CORRECT EVERY TIM E. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT VARIOUS COMPANIES EVEN AF TER EMPLOYING HUGE CAPITAL, INCUR LOSSES. THEREFORE, ME RELY IF SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 6 PAGE 6 OF 13 ASSESSEE IS NOT EARNING HIGHER PROFIT ON CAPITAL EM PLOYED WOULD NOT WARRANT REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. W E FOUND THAT WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE A COMPARISON OF PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WIT H A PROFIT OF EARLIER YEARS AND HE HAS THOROUGHLY APPLIED ANALYTI CAL PROCEDURE WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WHICH IS EVI DENT FROM QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 1.7.2009, WHEREIN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED FOR GROSS P ROFIT AND NET PROFIT CHART WITH DETAILED WORKING FOR THIS ASS ESSMENT YEAR ALONGWITH COMPARISON FOR LAST FOUR YEARS. IT IS CLE AR FROM THIS SPECIFIC QUERY AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THA T AFTER VERIFYING THE NET PROFIT RATE OF EARLIER YEARS, NO ADVERSE OBSERVATION WAS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVEN THE RATIO OF FREIGHT RECEIVED AND FREIGHT PAID WAS SATISFACTO RY AND REASONABLE, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSMENT YEAR (RS. IN LAKHS) APPELLANTS PARTICULARS 2007 - 08 2006 - 07 2005 - 06 FREIGHT RECEIVED 1,014.83 816.42 805.32 FREIGHT PAID 847.27 653.08 651.61 PERCENTAGE 83 % 80% 81 % SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 7 PAGE 7 OF 13 4. WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF HAMMALI CHARGES BY CIT(A) BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW AFTER REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AND ESTIMATING NET PROFIT, NO SEPARATE ADDITION U/S 40A (IA) IS CALLED FOR. OUR VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HON'B LE M.P. HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PURSHOTTAMLAL, 270 ITR 314, TEJA CONSTRUCTION , 39 SOT 13, INDWELL CONSTRUCTION, 232 ITR 776 AND BHANWARI LAL BANSHIDHAR, 229 ITR 229. 5. FROM THE RECORD, WE ALSO FOUND THAT ON THE CIT( A)S QUERY REGARDING FREIGHT CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSE E AND TDS DEDUCTED THEREON, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED DETAILS FOR TDS DEDUCTED ON FREIGHT PAID AND ALSO SUBMITTED ALL ANN UAL TDS RETURNS FILED BY IT. EVEN ALL THE SERVICE TAX RETUR NS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO REPRODUCED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT P AGE 7 OF HIS APPELLATE ORDER. WE FOUND THAT NO DISCREPANCY W AS FOUND NOR ANY CASE OF SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS OR DISALLOWABLE U/S 40A(IA) WAS NOTICED BY THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE INQUIRY. AS PER OUR SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 8 PAGE 8 OF 13 CONSIDERED VIEW, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PROPERLY MAI NTAINED WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED U/S 44AB CANNOT BE REJECTED LIGHT HEARTEDLY UNLESS SPECIFIC DEFECTS ARE POINTED OUT T HEREIN. WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED BOOKS AT HEAD OF FICE AND BRANCHES BOTH AND AT THE YEAR END OF THE TRANSACTIO N OF BRANCHES, WERE TRANSFERRED IN THE BOOKS OF HEAD OFF ICE. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED BRANCH WISE EXPENSES FOR VER IFICATION BY CIT(A). HOWEVER, NO SPECIFIC DEFECTS WAS NOTICED BY THE LD.CIT(A). EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE BUSINESS TERMS B EING USED IN ASSESSEES BUSINESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS M ADE THOROUGH INQUIRY AND EXPLANATION WAS SUBMITTED TO H IM BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 25.11.2009. INTERNAL AUD IT PARTY OF THE DEPARTMENT ALSO BEING SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLAN ATION OF BUSINESS TERMS OF RECORD IN ASSESSMENT ORDER, DID N OT RAISE ANY OBJECTION ON IT. EVEN CIT(A) WAS ALSO SUPPLIED WITH SUCH EXPLANATION, WHO IGNORED THE REPLY FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND EXPRESSED GENERAL DISSATISFACTION. WE FOUND THAT SU CH PECULIAR BUSINESS TERMS WERE REGULARLY USED SINCE INCEPTION OF SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 9 PAGE 9 OF 13 BUSINESS AND SAME SATISFACTORILY UNDERSTOOD BY THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES IN ALL THE EARLIER YEARS. 6. BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS PER HIS QUERY, DETAILS OF DEP OSITS AND WITHDRAWALS MADE BY EACH PARTNER WERE FURNISHED FOR VERIFICATION. EVEN AFTER EXAMINATION OF THESE DETAI LS, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE ANY SPECIFIC DEF ECTS OR IRREGULARITY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY CIT(A) WAS BASELESS AND UNWARRANTED. 7. WE ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SECURED LOAN OF RS. 19,96,660/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SOUGHT DETAILS OF ASSETS AGAINST WHICH SUCH LOAN WAS TAKEN. EVEN DETAILED IN QUIRY WAS MADE WITH REGARD TO LOANS AND ADVANCES AND DEPOSITS , RATE OF INTEREST, COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY ETC. EVEN AFTER MAK ING ROVING INQUIRIES, NOTHING ADVERSE WAS FOUND BY CIT(A). FRO M THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT IN RESPECT OF LOANS AND ADVAN CES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED FOR CONFIRMATION FROM P ARTIES VIDE NOTING ON 4.12.2009 AND 15.12.2009, THE SAME WERE SUBMITTED AND RECONCILED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . EVEN AFTER MAKING REINQUIRY, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY CONTRARY SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 10 PAGE 10 OF 13 MATERIAL, SPECIFIC DEFECT. THUS, THE GENERAL DISSAT ISFACTION SHOWN BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HOWEVE R, IN THE ASSESSMENT, CERTAIN MINOR ITEMS DID NOT MATCH WITH THE ASSESSEES BOOK, SINCE ASSESSEES BOOKS WERE BASED ON CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, WHEREAS CORPORATE CLIENTS BOO KS WERE MAINTAINED ON MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. FOR SUCH DISCREPANCY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALREADY MADE AD HOC ADDITION OF 5% OF SUCH AMOUNT CONSIDERING THE SYSTE M DISCREPANCY AND OTHER FACTORS INVOLVED. WE FOUND TH AT THIS MINOR ENTRIES AGGREGATED TO RS. 1,12,634/-. 8. WITH REGARD TO CIT(A)S OBSERVATION OF NON DEDUCTIO N OF TAX PROPERLY ON HAMMALI CHARGES, WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DEDUCTED TAX ON HAMMALI CHARGES SO PAID. T OTAL AMOUNT OF SUCH HAMMALI AND HANDLING CHARGES ON WHIC H TDS WAS DEDUCTED AGGREGATED TO RS. 4,28,836/-. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF HAMMALI AND HA NDLING CHARGES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS EVID ENT FROM HIS NOTING IN THE ORDER SHEET DATED 31.12.2009. ALL THE SE DETAILS WERE DULY VERIFIED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. O THER THAN SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 11 PAGE 11 OF 13 THESE CASES, THERE WERE NO INSTANCE WHERE TDS BECAM E APPLICABLE ON SUCH HAMMALI AND HANDLING CHARGES. TH E LD. CIT(A) ALSO CALLED FOR LEDGER OF HAMMALI AND HANDLI NG CHARGES, WHEREIN NOT A SINGLE INSTANCE HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHERE LIMIT U/S 194C HAD BEEN EXCEEDED. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED TURNOVER AT RS. 10.50 CRORES AS AGAINST TURNOVER OF RS. 10.14 CRORES SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH HE HAS APPLIED NET PROFIT RATE OF 10 %. WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR ESTIMATING HIGHER TURNOVER WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND COMPARABLE CASE. KEEPING IN V IEW THE NET PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEA RS, WHEREIN EXACT SIMILAR NATURE OF BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON AND WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING SCRUTINY ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR C IT(A)S ACTION FOR APPLYING 10 % NET PROFIT. 10. COMPARISON OF PROFIT RATIO VIS--VIS TURNOVER DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND FOR EARLIER FOUR YEARS ARE AS UNDER :- SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 12 PAGE 12 OF 13 A. Y. ( RS. IN LAKHS) APPELLANTS PARTICULARS 2007 - 08 2006 - 07 2005 - 06 2004 - 05 2003 - 04 TURNOVER 1,014.83 816.42 805.32 586.64 608.11 NET PROFIT 2.80 2.36 3.54 3.40 2.84 PERCENTAGE 0.28% 0.29% 0.44% 0.58% 0.47% 11. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ORDER SHEET OF ASSESSING OFFICER , QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY HIM, REMAND REPORT OF ASSES SING OFFICER INCLUDING OBSERVATION OF INTERNAL AUDIT PAR TY, ALL THESE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT WHOLE EXAMINATION HAD BEEN MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AND THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ENHANCING THE ASSESSMENT WITHO UT HAVING COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD. 12. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION VIS--VIS PROFIT RA TE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN EARLIER YEARS AND MORE PAR TICULARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, WHEREIN SCRUTINY AS SESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED, THE NET PROFIT RATE SHOWN AT RS. 4 ,92,730/- WAS ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AT RS. 5,71,208/- WHICH GIVES RISE TO NET PROFIT RATE OF 0.70%. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAD SUPREME TRANSPORT COMPANY, INDORE. I.T.A.NO. 544/IND/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 13 PAGE 13 OF 13 DELETED PART OF ADDITIONS. AFTER GIVING BENEFIT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE EFFECTIVE RATE OF NET PROFIT WORKS OUT AT 0.66%. WE FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED TO RS. 104.83 LAKHS A S COMPARED TO TURNOVER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH W AS AT RS. 805.32 LAKHS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE WELL SETTL ED PROPOSITION THAT INCREASE IN TURNOVER CAN BE ACHIEV ED AT A SACRIFICE OF MARGINAL RATE OF NET PROFIT. KEEPING I N VIEW TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED ABOVE VIS--VI S NATURE OF ASSESSEES BUSINESS, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO APPLY NET PROFIT RATE OF 0.50% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOW N BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1014.83 LAKHS. NO SEPARATE DISALLOW ANCE IS CALLED FOR. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN PART. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDI CIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 31 ST OCTOBER, 2013. CPU* 293010