Smt. Renu Agarwal D/o ShriLaxmi Narayan, Mathura V. ITO, Mathura

ITA 55/AGR/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 5520314 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 31-01-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: WASEEM ARSHAD
• Assessee Lawyers: SHASHANK AGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04 SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(3), D/O. SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN, MATHURA. 1639, LALA RAM PETCH, KOSI KALAN, MATHURA. (PAN: ABDPA 1965 G). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHASHANK AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.10.2011 PER BENCH : IN THIS CASE THE DIFFERENCE AROSE BETWEEN THE MEMBE RS OF THE DIVISION BENCH HEARING THIS APPEAL. THEREFORE, THE MATTER W AS REFERRED TO THE OPINION OF THE LD. THIRD MEMBER. THE LD. THIRD MEMBER HAS AGREED WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE MAJORITY DECISION, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 2. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.10.2011) . SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 11 TH OCTOBER, 2011 ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 2 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT CONCERNED/CIT(APPEALS) CON CERNED/D.R., ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA/GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIB UNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA AGRA BENCH, AGRA AGRA BENCH, AGRA AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI G.E.V BEFORE SHRI G.E.V BEFORE SHRI G.E.V BEFORE SHRI G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT EERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT EERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT EERABHADRAPPA, VICE PRESIDENT (AS A THIRD MEMBER) (AS A THIRD MEMBER) (AS A THIRD MEMBER) (AS A THIRD MEMBER) ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO.55 5555 55/AGR/2007 /AGR/2007 /AGR/2007 /AGR/2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR ASSESSMENT YEAR : : : : 2003 2003 2003 2003- -- -04 0404 04 SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, D/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN, D/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN, D/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN, D/O SHRI LAXMI NARAYAN, 1639, LALA RAM PETCH, 1639, LALA RAM PETCH, 1639, LALA RAM PETCH, 1639, LALA RAM PETCH, KOSI KALAN, KOSI KALAN, KOSI KALAN, KOSI KALAN, MATHURA. MATHURA. MATHURA. MATHURA. PAN NO.ABDPA1965G. PAN NO.ABDPA1965G. PAN NO.ABDPA1965G. PAN NO.ABDPA1965G. VS. VS. VS. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER INCOME TAX OFFICER- -- -3(3), 3(3), 3(3), 3(3), MATHURA. MATHURA. MATHURA. MATHURA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA, ADVOCATE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HOMI RAJVANSH, CIT-DR. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER THERE BEING A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE MEMBERS WHO O RIGINALLY HEARD THIS APPEAL, THE HONBLE PRESIDENT HAS NOMINA TED ME AS A THIRD MEMBER TO RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCE UNDER SECTION 255( 4) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE AGREED POINT OF DIFFERENCE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE DIVISION BENCH RELATES TO THE FOLLOWING GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE:- THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS WRONG IN CONFIRMING/IN DISALLOWING THE GIFTS RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE RS.4,00,000/- FROM FOLLOWINGS:- (A) SHRI JAY SINGH YADAV RS.2,00,000/- (B) SHRI GAJANAND GOYAL RS.2,00,000/- AS CASH CREDIT AND TO ASSESS AS INCOME U/S 68 OF IN COME TAX ACT BY THE LD. INCOME TAX OFFICER. ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 4 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON WHOLES ALE CLOTH BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME SHRI GANESH TRADERS. THE AUDITED STATEMENTS WERE FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN OF I NCOME UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS RECEIVED TWO GIFTS OF `2 LAKHS EACH FROM SHRI JAY SINGH YADA V AND SHRI GAJANAND GOYAL. THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A):- 3. THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS WRONG IN DISALL OWING THE GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE RS.4,00,000/- OF FOLLOWINGS:- A. SHRI JAY SINGH YADAV RS.2,00,000/- B. SHRI GAJANAND GOYAL RS.2,00,000/-. 4. THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WAS WRONG IN DISALLO WING THE ABOVE GIFTS AND TO ASSESS AS INCOME U/S 68 OF I NCOME TAX ACT. 4. THESE GROUNDS WERE CONSOLIDATED AND DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN PARAGRAPH NOS.6 TO 7.4. THE DISCUSSIONS IN THESE PARAGRAPHS SHOW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE CASH CREDIT ENVISAGE D FOR ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BO TH THE ADDITIONS STOOD CONFIRMED ON MERITS BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). T HE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD IS GROUND NO.3 AS REPRODUCED BY ME IN PARAGRAPH NO.2 ABOVE. 5. THE DIVISION BENCH BEFORE WHOM THE APPEAL WAS PO STED FOR HEARING HEARD THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AND RECORDED T HOSE ARGUMENTS IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER. PARAGRAPH 5 OF THE SAME ORDER OF LEARNED JM ALSO ACKNOWLEDGES THE FACT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ENDORSED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 5 OFFICER TO ASSAIL THE GENUINENESS OF THESE GIFTS AN D FOUND THAT CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING IMPUGNED ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ORDER O F THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALSO CONFIRMS THAT THE APPEAL STO OD ARGUED ON MERITS AS WAS THE CASE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . I MAY MENTION HERE THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) WAS ENTIRELY O N MERITS AND NOT ON ANY LEGAL ISSUE. 6. THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER WHO TOOK UP THE CASE FOR WRITING THE ORDER FOR THE BENCH WENT TO A LEGAL QUESTION WHETHE R THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS COULD BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADDITION UND ER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MA INTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT FOR PROPRIET ORSHIP BUSINESS, SHE MAINTAINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ACCORDING TO HER, THE GIFTS WERE RECEIVED IN HER INDIVIDUAL BANK ACCOUNT AND DID NOT RELATE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF HER PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. ACCORDIN G TO LEARNED JM, SUCH GIFTS WERE RECEIVED BY WAY OF CREDIT IN THE BA NK PASSBOOK IN HER INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND IN THAT CAPACITY, SHE DID N OT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD B E MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED JM HELD THAT IN THE LIGHT OF CERTAIN JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS WHICH ARE MENTIONED IN PARA GRAPH 7 OF HIS ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SUCCEED ON THE LEGAL ASP ECT OF HER GROUND AND THERE IS NO NEED TO DECIDE THE MERITS OF THESE GIFTS. HE THUS PROPOSED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WITH THAT REASONING. 7. WHEN THE PROPOSED ORDER OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER WAS PLACED BEFORE THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE VIEWS AND DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE LEARNED JM IN HIS PROPOSED ORDER. HIS FINDINGS IN THIS REGARD ARE THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO EXHIBIT AND IT WAS NOT SHOWN BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT THE CREDITS UNDER REFERENCE STOOD ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 6 DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF WHICH T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, I.E., IT DOES NOT ST AND CO-OPTED IN ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED AM APPRECIAT ED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A WHOLESALE CLOTH MERCHANT DOING TH E SAID BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME SHRI GANESH TRADERS, MAINTAINING A CCOUNTS, WHICH STAND DULY AUDITED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID BUSINESS, AS ALSO PERSONAL ACCOUNTS, COMPILING FINA L ACCOUNTS IN THE FORM OF A COMBINED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, CAPITAL A CCOUNT, THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET, WHICH, THUS, REFLECTS, INTER ALIA , THE CAPITAL INVESTMENT IN SHRI GANESH TRADERS. HE FURTHER APPRECIATED THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF CONTAINS REFERENCE TO THE P RODUCTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, VOUCHERS ETC. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE WENT ON TO OBSERVE THAT AUDIT UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT IS TO BE OF THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND NOT ONLY THOSE RELATING TO THE BU SINESS/PROFESSION, THE TURNOVER IN WHICH EXCEEDS THE THRESHOLD LIMIT, OR ONLY OF ITS BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. ACCORDING TO HIM, IT IS CL EAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT UNDER REFERENCE FORMS PART OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS ACCOUNTS AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABSENCE OF ANY GROUND IN ITS RESPECT, BOTH BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS BEFORE CIT(A). ACCORDING TO HIM, ALL THESE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINI NG BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED AM FURTHER WENT ON TO DISCERN THE ASSES SEES BOOKS AND FOUND THAT THE CREDIT AMOUNT DOES NOT CONTINUE TO B E DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BUT STOOD IMMEDIATELY WITHDRAWN SO THA T THE AMOUNT FLOWS TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WHERE REGULAR ACCO UNTS ARE MAINTAINED. HE OPINED THAT THERE WAS NO FACTUAL BA SIS WHATSOEVER FOR ALLOWANCE OF ITS APPEAL ON THIS BASIS. HE FURTHER JUSTIFIED THE ADDITION EVEN UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, SUPPOR T FOR WHICH WAS DRAWN FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HI GH COURT IN CIT VS. JAUHARIMAL GOEL 147 TAXMAN 448 (ALL.) WHEREIN IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE DEPOSITS IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT STOOD C OVERED UNDER ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 7 SECTION 69 OR SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO LEARNED AM, THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WOULD APPLY WITH MORE FORCE WHERE THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT DISCLOSED OR DO ES NOT FORM PART OF THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OR THE SAME STOOD NOT MAINTAINED, SO THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 WOULD NOT BE APPLI CABLE THERETO. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF L.HAZARIMAL KUTHALIA VS. ITO (1960) 41 ITR 12 (SC) AND LAXMI INDUSTRIES & COLD STORAGE PVT.LTD. VS. ITO 79 ITR 248 (ALL.) AND REITERATED THE SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT I N A GIVEN CASE, THE TRANSACTION UNDER REFERENCE MAY FAL L TO BE COVERED UNDER MORE THAN ONE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, AND WHIC H BY ITSELF WOULD BE OF NO CONSEQUENCE. APPLYING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE S, HE STRONGLY JUSTIFIED THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS EVEN ON THE LEGAL GROUND AS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED JM. 8. THAT IS HOW, IN THIS MANNER, THE DIFFERENCE HAS COME TO ME FOR RESOLUTION. I CONFINE MY JURISDICTION ONLY TO DISP OSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT STANDS ADDRESSED TO ME. THE REFORE, I REFRAIN FROM GOING INTO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER OR OF THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN GETTI NG INTO AREAS WHICH WERE NOT EVEN THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF DISPUTE O R DELIBERATIONS BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS, I EXAMINE CERTAIN PAPERS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SMT.RENU AGRAWAL HAS FILED FORM 3CD SIGNED BY THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO CERTIFIED THE FINAN CIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. COLUMN NO.9 OF THIS FORM CLEARLY STA TES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED CASH BOOK, LEDGER AND JOURN AL. NOWHERE, EVEN IN THE STATUTORY AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD, IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FO R ANY PART OF HER TRANSACTIONS. IN FACT, ON THE CONTRARY, IT IS STAT ED THAT PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN KEPT BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENA BLE THE DRAWING OF ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 8 THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE SHEET. I N FACT, THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTIONS AS WELL AS T HE TRANSACTIONS OF SHRI GANESH TRADERS WERE SUBJECT TO AUDIT REPORT OF EVEN DATE WHICH DOES NOT QUALIFY THE SHORTCOMING OR NON-MAINTENANCE OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. TO THIS EXTENT, I AM IN COMPLETE AGREEMEN T WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THAT THERE ARE SUF FICIENT INDICATIONS IN THE DIRECTIONS OF MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN T BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, HE RELIES UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER TO SAY THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ALL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, VOUCHERS ETC. WERE PRODUCED. I AM SURPRISED TO FIN D THAT LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER DID NOT EVEN DEAL WITH THESE AND WE NT BY THE LEGAL ARGUMENTS TAKEN IN THIS REGARD. IN FACT, THE ARGUM ENTS TAKEN DO NOT FIND MENTION EVEN IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). I DO NOT KNOW WHAT PROMPTED THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER TO RECORD SUCH FINDINGS CONTRARY TO THE RECORDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST ELABORATED WHY HE WANTS TO ACCEPT. THE ONLY REASON, IN MY OPI NION, IS THAT HE IS ABLE TO DIVIDE THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL INTO TWO CAP ACITIES, ONE HE CALLS AS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, AND OTHER, PROPRIETORSHI P BUSINESS. ACCORDING TO HIM, HE SHOULD HAVE DEMANDED SOME MORE EVIDENCES AND SHOULD HAVE AT LEAST CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE A O. ANYHOW, I LEAVE IT AT THAT STAGE. 10. THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, IN MY VIEW, HAS PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE ASSESSEES TRANSACTIONS AND CLAIMS ABOUT MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE LIGHT OF THE PREVAIL ING RECORDS. 11. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE IS TECHNICALLY TAKEN TO BE NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RELATION TO THE PASSBOOK EN TRIES, IT MUST BE APPRECIATED THAT THE PASSBOOK CREDITS HAVE ULTIMATE LY GONE INTO THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CREDIT IN CAPITAL A CCOUNT AS FOUND BY THE LEARNED AM. IN ANY CASE, I REFRAIN FROM GETTIN G INTO THAT ASPECT OF ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 9 THE MATTER. THE ADDITION COULD VERY WELL BE JUSTIF IED EVEN UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO P ROVE THE SOURCES OF THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS THE BANK ITSELF HAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AN ASSET IN THE FORM OF CREDITS IN THE PASSBOOK. IT IS ONLY FOR THIS REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE VENTURED INT O FURNISHING THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIMS OF GIFTS STATED T O HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY HER. THE ASSESSEE BEING FOUND TO BE THE OWNER O F A PARTICULAR ASSET IS DEFINITELY UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO DISCLOSE ALL T HE SOURCES THEREOF TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES. SO, THE Q UARREL WHETHER IT IS SECTION 68 OR SECTION 69 SHOULD NOT MAKE A DIFFEREN CE HAVING REGARD TO THE SUBSISTING OBLIGATION OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAI N ALL THE CREDITS AND SOURCES OF THE INVESTMENTS FOUND BY THE REVENUE. I N MY VIEW, THE LEARNED JUDICIAL MEMBER WAS UNNECESSARILY IN HASTE TO GET INTO THE CASE LAWS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS O F THE CASE. IT ALWAYS HAPPENS WHENEVER A JUDGMENT IS APPRECIATED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT LED TO THAT PARTICULAR DECISION. I AM O BSERVING THIS BECAUSE IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THE RECORD THAT IS PRODUCED BY THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES AND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS SUFFICIENT T O INDICATE THE FACT RELATING TO THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE, AS DISCUSSED BY THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THE REFORE, IN MY VIEW, DELETING THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE LEGAL GROUN DS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS ON RECORD DOES NOT BRING PRO PER RESULT. TO THIS EXTENT, I DO NOT APPROVE THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED JU DICIAL MEMBER. I ENTIRELY AGREE WITH THE DISCUSSIONS OF THE LEARNED ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS REGARD. 12. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS WHICH ARE PRIMA RILY BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS PRESENTED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHO RITIES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD. I MAY MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE T WO ORDERS, I HAVE ITA NO.55/AGR/2007 10 REFRAINED MYSELF FROM GETTING INTO THE MERITS OF TH E ADDITIONS, ALTHOUGH THE LEARNED COUNSEL WHO APPEARED BEFORE ME PRESENTE D CERTAIN CASE LAWS WHICH ARE RELEVANT ONLY FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERITS. 13. THE MATTER SHALL NOW BE PLACED BEFORE THE REGUL AR BENCH FOR PASSING APPROPRIATE ORDER. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2011. SD/- (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA (G.E.VEERABHADRAPPA) )) ) VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 30.08.2011 VK. COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR