DCIT, Yamunanagar V. M/s Vikas Lime Industries, Yamunanagar

ITA 550/CHANDI/2001

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1637 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2001
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Question of law; Block assessment
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT & MS. ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 550/CHD/2001 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1997-98 THE DCIT, VS. M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES, INV. CIRCLE, YAMUNANAGAR YAMUNANAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MS. RAJINDER KAUR RESPONDENT BY : SH. VIBHOR GARG DATE OF HEARING : 08.10.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.10.2015 ORDER PER H.L.KARWA, VP THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SHIMLA DATED 29.03.2001 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED AN ADDITIO NAL GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 'THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSMENT COMPLETED WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 2 3. THE ORIGINAL GROUND OF APPEALS RAISED ON MERITS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER:- ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW: 1. IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,65,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MANIPULATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT. 2. IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,09,643/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF LIME OUTSIDE HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,000/- MADE ON AC COUNT OF FREIGHT PAYMENT VOUCHER FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. 4. IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 1,01,000/- OUT OF AN ADDI TION OF RS. 1,05,100/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT / SQUARED UP ACCOUNTS. 4. AS REGARDS THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND, W E HOLD THAT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE QUESTION OF LAW AND THEREFORE , KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONA L THERMAL POWER CO. LTD VS CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC) , THIS GROUND IS ADMI TTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 5. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') WAS PASSED ON 31.3.2000 DETERM INING THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 14,69,165/- AS AGAINST DECLARED LOSS OF RS. 8,6 80/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS / DISA LLOWANCES AND THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.3.2000. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED T HE SAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), AND ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE MA IN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE 3 BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS NOT PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON OR BEFORE 31.3.2000 RENDERING THE ASSES SMENT AS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DEMAND NOTICE O F RS. 26,182/- WAS SERVED UPON SHRI SURINDER ANAND ON 17.4.2000. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER GOT THE SIGNATURES ON 17.4.2000 O N DEMAND NOTICE AND A CHALLAN AGAINST A DEMAND OF RS. 26,182/- STATING TH AT SINCE THE DEMAND IS OF VERY LESS AMOUNT AND HENCE SHRI SURINDER ANAND CAN SIGN IT ON BEHALF OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED T HAT SHRI SURINDER ANAND IS NEITHER A PARTNER NOR AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEES FIRM OR THE PARTNERS TO SIGN ANY OF THE PAPERS. IT IS ALSO STAT ED THAT WHEN SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND, PARTNER OF THE FIRM CAME TO KNOW THAT PAPERS HAVE BEEN GOT SIGNED WRONGLY FILED APPLICATIONS WITH DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR, CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF I.T. PANCHKULA, CIT HARYANA RANGE, PANCHKULA, JCIT AMBAL A RANGE, AMBALA CANTT. FOR THE DENIAL TO SIGNATURES AND STATING THE MALAFI DE INTENTIONS OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INCOME TAX. THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER DESERVES TO BE KNOCKED DOWN ON T HE GROUND OF LIMITATION.. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS BARRED BY LIMITATION. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER:- THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED AND THE FACTS O F THE CASE HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. REGARDING GROUND NO . 1 AND 2 RAISED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THOUGHT THE MATTER RE GARDING PASSING OF THE ORDER AND SERVICES THEREOF WITHIN TH E TIME PRESCRIBED UNDER THE ACT AND HELD BY VARIOUS JUDICI AL AUTHORITIES, THAT THE ORDER MUST ALSO BE SERVED BY DUE DATE PRESCRIBED AS ALSO SERVICE ON UNAUTHORIZED PERSON, DOES NOT SMACK THE SAME FOUL PLAY IN AS SUCH AS THE DEMAND S HOWN IN THE ORIGINAL NOTICE OF DEMAND RAISED IN THE ORDER U NDER SECTION 143(3) IS VERY PETTY, WHEREAS IT HAS BEEN REVISED U NDER AN INNOCENT ACT, THE ORDER PASSED DESERVES TO BE KNOCK ED DOWN ON THIS VERY SCORE. 4 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS CA SE, THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY S ECTION 153 OF THE ACT. ON 17 TH APRIL, 2000, THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT THE SIGNATU RES ON DEMAND NOTICE AND THE CHALLAN AGAINST DEMAND OF RS. 26,182/-. THE ASS ESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT AND THE ISSUANCE OF DEMA ND NOTICE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO DETERMINE THE S UM PAYABLE BY IT AS TAX ALONGWITH ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME, THE WHOLE ASSESSMENT HAVE BECOME TIME BARRED. IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT ON 20.4.2000, THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER TO DY. CIT, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, INCOME T AX OFFICE, YAMUNANAGAR AND COPIES OF THE SAME WERE ALSO SENT TO CHIEF COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX HARYANA RANGE, PANCHKULA, CIT HARYANA RANGE PANCHKULA AND J CIT AMBALA RANGE, AMBALA CANTT. THE SAID LETTER READS AS UNDER:- 'THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, INVESTIGATION CIRCLE, INCOME TAX OFFICE, YAMUNANAGAR. SUB:- ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) BARRED BY LIMITATION IN CASE OF M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES, YAMUNA NAGAR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. WITH REFERENCE TO THE NOTICE OF DEMAND AND CHALLAN FORM AS SUPPLIED BY YOUR OFFICE AND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATIONS FURNIS HED TO ME BY MY SON MR. SURINDER KUMAR WITH REGARDS TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS U/S 143 (3) IN CASE OF M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES, I SUBMIT AS UNDE R :- 1. THAT ASSESSMENT U/S 143 (3) IN CASE OF M/S VIKAS L IME INDUSTRIES, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM COMPRISING OF TWO PARTNERS MYSELF, VED PARKASH ANAND AND MRS. BINDU ANAND, WAS INITIATED AND WAS S UPPOSED TO BE COMPLETED BY 31-3-2000. 2. THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER COULD NOT BE PASSED BY YOUR GOODSELF ON OR BEFORE 31-3-2000 RENDERING THE ASSESSMENT AS 'BARR ED BY LIMITATION. 5 3. THAT ON 16-04-2000 ONE MR. GOPAL INSPECTOR OF INCOM E TAX AT YOUR INSTANCE STARTED MEETING A FEW OF CLOSE FRIENDS OF MY SON MR. SURINDER KUMAR TO PERUSE HIM AND PRESSURISE HIM TO MAKE HIM AGREE TO GIVE THE SIGNATUE FOR BACK DATE TO SHOW THE CASE AS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION AND TO RAISE AN ILLEGAL DEMAND AGAINST T HE FIRM. 4. THAT MY SON SURINDER KUMAR WAS PUT UNDER TREMENDOUS PRESSURE BY YOUR AND THE STAFF OF YOUR OFFICE FOR GETTING YOU S IGNATURES OF MY SON SURINDER KUMAR ON 17-04-2000 FOR THE BACK DATE 31-3 -2000 AT MANY PLACES ON ORDER SHEET, CHALLAN FORM, ASSESSMENT ORD ER & NOTICE OF DEMAND ETC. 5. THAT AFTER OBTAINING THE SIGNATURES A NOTICE OF DEM AND FOR RS 26,182/-ALONGWITH A CHALLAN FORM DULY SIGNED BY THE D.C.I.T. WAS HANDED OVER TO MY SON ON 17-04-2000. 6. THAT YOU IN CONNIVANCE WITH YOUR INSPECTOR MR. GOP AL IN THE INCOME TAX OFFICE, MASTER MINDED THE WHOLE PLANNING AND OB TAINED THE SIGNATURES OF MY SON FOR THE BACK DATE AS AGAINST 1 7-04-2000 TO COVER YOUR TIME BARRED ACTION AND PROMISED TO GIVE THE CO PY OF THE ASSESSMENT OLDER ON WHICH SIGNATURE WERE OBTAINED, NEXT DAY ON THE PLEA THAT THERE WAS NO SPARE COPY WITH THE OFFICE. 7. THAT MR. SURINDER KUMAR MY SON IS NEITHER A PARTNER IN M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES, YAMUNA NAGAR NOR HE WAS AUTHORISED BY ANY OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM TO SIGN ANY DOCUMENTS PAPERS O R ASSESSMENT ORDER OR DEMAND NOTICE ETC. ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM A ND THEREFORE THE SIGNATURES OF SH. SURINDER KUMAR OBTAINED UNDER UND UE PRESSURE WITH MALAFIDE INTENTION HAS NO LEGAL VALUE IN THE EYES O F TAW AND THEREFORE YOUR ACTION STANDS BARRED BY LIMITATION. 8. THAT ALL THE QUERIES RAISED TO US THOUGH VARIOUS QUERY LETTERS WERE DULY REPLIED WELL IN TIME IN WRITING AND NO QUERY W AS RAISED TO US IN VERBAL MANNER OR THOUGH ORDER SHEET. THIS IS BEING MENTIONED TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT ANY SIGNATURE OBTAINED FREQUENTLY OR UNDER PRESSURE WILL NOT BE A GROUND FOR MAKING YOUR TIME BARRED ACTION WITHIN A STATUTORY TIME LIMIT. 6 9. THAT ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE MENTIONED FACTS I STRON GLY CONDEMN THE ABOVE MENTIONED STATE OF AFFAIRS IN YOUR OFFICE AND FOR YOUR MALAFIED AND FRAUDENT OR ILLIGAL ACTION IN THE MATTER, I PLE AD FOR AN IMMEDIATE INQUIRY INTO THE WHOLE EXERCISE AND ALSO PLEAD FOR IMMEDIATE SUPPLY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED AFTER 31-3-2000 BUT FRAU DULENTLY SHOWN TO BE PASSED ON 31-3-2000, SO AS TO ENABLE MYSELF FOR FURTHER ACTION. IT IS FURTHER REQUESTED FOR IMMEDIATE SUPPLY THE CERTI FIED COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- VED PARKASH ANAND PARTNER M/S VIKASH LIME INDUSTRIES, YAMUNANAGAR COPY TO/- THE LEARNED CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HARYANA RANGE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, PANCHKULA. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, HARYANA RANGE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, PANCHKULA THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, AMBALA RANGE, AAYKAR BHAWAN, AMBALA CANTT. 7. IT IS OBSERVED THAT NOTICE OF DEMAND ORDER U/S 156 OF THE ACT AND AS CHALLAN AGAINST THE DEMAND OF RS. 26,182/- WERE SERVED UPON SHRI SURINDER ANAND S/O SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND ON 17.4.2000. THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY SHRI SURINDER ANAND READS AS UNDER:- AFFIDAVIT I, SURINDER ANAND SON OF SH. VED PARKASH ANAND RESIDENT OF H.NO. 38, MADHU COLONY, HARYANA DO 7 HEREBY SOLEMNLY AFFIRM AND DECLARED ON OATH AS MENTIONED BELOW:- 1. THAT I HAVE SIGNED THE DEMAND NOTICE OF RS. 26182/- ON DATED 17.4.2000. 2. THAT THE DEMAND NOTICE SIGNED BY MY SLEF WAS FOR M/ S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES, YAMUNANAGAR. 3. THAT MYSELF HAS NO CONNECTION OF WHATSOEVER KIND WH AT THE SAID FIRM M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES, YAMUNA NAGAR. 4. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT THE SIGNATURES ON 1 7- 04-2000 ON DEMAND NOTICE AND A CHALLAN AGAINST A DEMAND OF RS. 26182/- STATING THAT SINCE THE DEMAN D IS OF VERY LESS AMOUNT. HENCE MYSELF (SURINDER ANAND) CAN SIGN IT ON HIS BEHALF. WHEREAS MYSELF IS NEITHER A PARTNER NOR AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF FIRM OR THE PARTNERS TO SIGN ANY OF THE PAPERS. 5. THAT MYSELF ON COMING TO KNOW MAT THE PAPERS HAVE BEEN GOT SIGNED WRONGLY FILED AN APPLICATION WITH T HE DC1T YAMUNA NAGAR, CHIEF COMM. OF I..T. PANCNKULA, C1T HARYANA RANGE, PANCHKULA, JC1T, AMBALA RANGE, AMNBALA CANTT. FOR THE DENIAL TO SIGNATURES AND STATING THE MALAFIDE INTENTIONS OF T HE DEPTT. SD/- DEPONENT. VERIFICATION:- VERIFIED THAT ALL THE ABOVE CONTENTS ARE TRUE AND C ORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF AND NOTHING HAS BEEN CONCEALED THEREIN. SD/- DEPONENT. 8 FROM THE ABOVE AFFIDAVIT AND THE LETTER DATED 20.4. 2000 SUBMITTED BY SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER GOT THE SIGNATURES OF SHRI SURINDER ANAND ON 17.4.2000 ON DEMAND NOTICE AND TH E CHALLAN AGAINST THE DEMAND OF RS. 26,182/-. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT SHRI SURINDER ANAND IS NEITHER A PARTNER NOR AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE FIRM OR THE PARTNERS TO SIGN ANY OF THE PAPERS. ON THE CONTRAR Y, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 31.3.2000 A ND THE SAME WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DATE. IN FACT, THERE IS N O MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FACTS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN ITS LETTER DATED 20.4.2000. SIMILARLY, THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BY SHRI SURINDER ANAND S/O SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND. IT IS W ELL SETTLED LAW THAT WHAT SECTION 153 REQUIRES THAT THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE COMPLETED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT. THE WORDS ORDER OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT CONSTRUED TO MEAN ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME ONLY. THOSE WORDS WOULD MEAN AN ORD ER IN WRITING WHEREBY THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED AND THE TA X PAYABLE BY HIM IS DETERMINED. WHEN AN ORDER IN WRITING IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE T HINGS IS PASSED, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS A COMPLETE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. FURTH ERMORE, BOTH THE STEPS WILL HAVE TO BE TAKEN WITHIN TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT. THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PURSHOTTAMDASS T. PATE L [1994] 209 ITR 52 (GUJARAT) RELYING ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT I N KALYANKUMAR RAY VS. CIT [1991] 191 ITR 634 (SC) HELD AS UNDER:- IN OUR OPINION, THIS DECISION, FAR FROM HELPING TH E REVENUE, GOES AGAINST IT. THE SUPREME COURT HAS IN TERMS STA TED THAT ASSESSMENT IS ONE INTEGRATED PROCESS INVOLVING NOT ONLY THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME BUT ALSO THE DETERMI NATION OF THE TAX. IT HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LATTER IS AS CRUCIAL AS THE FORMER. THEREFORE, UNLESS THE TOTAL INCOME I S DETERMINED AND THE DETERMINATION OF TAX IS ALSO DON E, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT IS CO MPLETE. WHAT SECTION 153 REQUIRES IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT SH OULD BE 9 COMPLETED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME-LIMIT. THE WOR DS 'ORDER OF ASSESSMENT' CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO MEAN ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME ONLY. THOSE WORDS WOULD MEAN AN ORDER IN WRITING WHEREBY THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE IS ASSESSED AND THE TAX PAYABLE BY HIM IS DETERMINED. WHEN AN ORDER IN WRITING IN RESPECT OF BOTH THESE THINGS IS PASSED, IT CAN BE SAID THAT THERE IS A COMPLETE ORDER OF ASSES SMENT. THESE TWO STEPS MAY BE TAKEN SIMULTANEOUSLY OR SEPA RATELY, BUT IT CANNOT BE GAINSAID THAT BOTH OF THEM WILL HA VE TO BE TAKEN WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED BY THE ACT. ADMITT EDLY, IN THIS CASE THE SECOND STEP WAS NOT TAKEN WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. AFTER DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME, THE INCOM E-TAX OFFICER POSSIBLY LEFT THE MATTER TO HIS SUBORDINATE S FOR THE PURPOSE OF CALCULATING THE TAX PAYABLE BY THE ASSES SEE ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME. EVEN IF WE ASSU ME IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE APPROVED TH E SAID CALCULATION WHEN THE PAPERS WERE PUT BEFORE HIM FOR SIGNING THE DEMAND NOTICE, AND THAT HE SIGNED THE SAME, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THAT STEP WAS TAKEN BY HIM AFTER THE P RESCRIBED PERIOD WAS OVER. THE TRIBUNAL WAS, THEREFORE, RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS RESPECT WAS TIM E- BARRED. 7. IN THE INSTANT CASE ALSO, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUME NTS, IT IS ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I N TIME BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE ON ASSESSED INCOME WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME I.E. DEMAND NOTICE NO T BEING SERVED WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME, THOUGH ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSE D WITHIN TIME, THE SAME HAS BECOME TIME BARRED. IN THE CASE OF CIT V BALAKRISHN A MALHOTRA [1971] 81 ITR 759 (SC), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HELD THAT AN AS SESSMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE COMPLETED ONLY WHEN THE TAX ON TOTAL INCOME COMPUTE D IS DETERMINED AND NOTICE OF DEMAND ISSUED AND NOT WHEN THE INCOME IS COMPUTE D AND DETERMINED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTICE OF DEMAND AND CHALLAN BOTH ARE UNDATED WERE SERVED UPON SHRI SURINDER ANAND ON 17.4.2000 AND HE WAS NEITHER A PARTNER NOR AN AUTHORIZED 10 REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FIRM OR THE PARTNERS TO SIGN ANY OF THE PAPERS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE CIT(A) WAS, THEREFORE, RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION WAS TIME BARRED. ON THIS ISSUE, WE UPHO LD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LIA BLE TO BE DISMISSED. 8. NOW, WE WILL DISCUSS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE O N MERITS. VIDE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE A CTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 3,65,000/- MADE ON ACCOUN T OF MANIPULATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH READS AS U NDER:- 6. DURING THE COURSE OF OPERATION OF LOCKER NO.144 WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, GOVINDPURI, CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,13,000/- WAS FOUND THE SAID LOCKER WAS IN THE JOINT NAME OF SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND AND SMT. SHAKTI RANI. A Q UERY WAS RAISED IN THE CASE OF SHRI VEDLPARKASH ANAND REQUIR ING HIM TO EXPLAIN THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH. IN REPLY TO THIS QUERY THE PERSON HAD RELIED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT IN LOCKE R AFTER WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BOOKS OF VARIOUS CONCERNS AS UN DER I) SH. VED PRAKASH ANAND 3,65,000 31.10.96 1,50,000 M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES 12.11.96 1,65,000 DO- 13.11.96 50,000 -DO- II)SH. SURINDER ANAND 1,50,000 M/S SHAKTI LIME INDUSTRIES 31.10.96 1,00,000 -DO- 12.11.96 50,000 -DO- 11 A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE FIRM M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES SHOWS MANIPULATION OF THE ENTRIES, ERASING AND REWRITING OF THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE MANIPULATION, ERASING AND REWRITING OF THE ENTRIES, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. NO REPLY TO THIS QUERY HS BEEN FILED. THE DEFECT POINTED OUT ABOVE A RE DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A(1) ON 24.12.96 IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE CASH BOOK WAS WRITTEN UPTO 18.12.1 996. HOWEVER, WHEN THE BOOKS WERE IMPOUNDED LATER ON ON 27.1.1997, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY CAS H BOOK HAS BEEN WRITTEN FROM 19.12.1996 ONWARDS ALSO. IT SHOWED THE INTRODUCTION OF CASH OF RS. 30,000/- BY SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND A PARTNER ON 19.12.96 AND RS. 10000/- AND RS. 9000/- ON 20.12.96 & 21.12.96 RESPECTIVELY BY SMT. SHAKTI RANI W/O SH. VED PARKAS H. A TOTAL OF RS. 49000/- HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED ON 23.12.96 TO THE IMPREST ACCOUNT OF SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND I.E. ON THE DATE OF OPERATION OF LOCKER NO.144. NOT ONLY THIS, EVEN THE ORIGINAL ENTRIES ON THE SAME PAGE 126 OF CASH BOOK HAVE BEEN, ERASED AND RE WRITTEN. FROM WHAT CAN BE READ OF THE ERASED ENTRY IT IS CLE AR THAT RS. 5000/- HAVE BEEN REDUCED STRAIGHT AWAY FROM THE PAY MENT SIDE. THE ORIGINAL AND THIRD ENTRY OF PAYMENT ON 17.12.96 ON PAGE 126 WAS RS. 50000/-. IT HAS ALSO BEEN ERASED AND REWRIT TEN. THE TOTALS HAVE ALSO BEEN ERASED AND REWRITTEN. THE TOTALS HAV E BEEN CHANGED AND CONVENIENTLY SO BECAUSE THE SAME HAVE B EEN WRITTEN IN PENCIL. THE RUBBING OF THE TOTAL, HOWEVER, IS AM PLY CLEAR ON ALL THE PAGES, AND FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF THIS ENTR Y FROM PAGE 125 TO 128. SIMILARLY ENTRIES OF THIS CASH BOOK SHOW A CLEAR MA NIPULATION IN THE ORDER TO MAKE ROOM FROM THE WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 1.5 LAKHS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY SHR VED PARKASH ANAND ON 30.10.96. ALL THE TOTALS HAVE BEEN RUBBED AND RE-WR ITTEN ON AROUND 30.10.96 RS. 1LAC HAS STRAIGHT WAY BEEN INCR EASED ON THE RECEIPT SIDE ON31.10.96 BY PREFIXING 1 TO THE ORIGI NAL AMOUNT OF RS. 61840/- AND SIMILARLY PREFIXING 1 TO CST AMOUNT OF RS. 6184/- . ORIGINAL TOTAL HAS BEEN COMPLETELY RUBBED AND TWO MORE ENTRIES OF CARRIAGE OF RS. 3000/- AND RS. 1200/- HAVE BEEN ADDED. THE 12 NEW TOTAL HAS BEEN WRITTEN MUCH BENEATH OF THE SAME . THE ENTRY OF RS. 1.5 LAKH TO THE IMPREST ACCOUNT OF SHRI V.P. AN AND ON THE SAME DATE ON PAGE 10 IS CLEARLY WRITTEN LATER ON WH ICH IS AMPLY EVIDENT FROM THE CHANGE OF INK AND ALSO FROM THE RU BBING OF ORIGINAL TOTAL OF RS. 61848.96 AND THE REWRITING OF THE TOTAL BENEATH ON THE SAME PAGE. THAT THE ENTRIESOF THE BOOKS HAVE BEEN CHANGED LATE R ON IS FURTHER PROVED FROM THE FACT THAT AS LPER THE INVENTORY OF BOOKS IDENTIFIED DURING SURVEY AT M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRIES ON 24.12 .1996, THE CASH BALANCE AS ON 3.12.96 IN THE CASH BOOK OF M/S VIKAS LIME INDUSTRY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1996-97 HAS BEEN ME NTIONED AT RS. 63096/- ON PAGE 118 OF THE CASH BOOK WHERE CHANGED BALANCE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS AT RS. 42,489.09. THE RUBBING OF THE ORIGINAL ENTRIES CAN BE EASILY MADE OUT FROM THIS P AGE ALSO. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BURRY TO MANIPULATE THE ACCOUNTS AP PEARS TO HAVE OVER LOOKED THE CASH REPORTED ON 3.12.96 IN THE INV ENTORY OF BOOKS AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT TAKE CARE OF THE SAME. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS MADE CLEAR MANIPULATIONS IN THE CASH BOOK JUST TO JUSTIF Y THE CASH FOUND IN LOCKER NO.144, THEREFORE, RS. 3,65,000/- WERE IN THE NAME OF SHRI V.P.ANAND ITS PARTNER AND SMT. SHAKTI RANI THE WIFE. WHILE MAKING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SH. V.P. ANAND, IT HAS BEEN HELD SUBSTANTIALLY THAT CASH INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM BY WAY OF THE MANIPULATIONS AND SHOWN AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF SH. V.P. ANAND ACTUALLY BELONGS TO SHR I V.P. ANAND ONLY AND ADDRESSED SUCH. SINCE DURING THE PRESENT P ROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY REPLY WIT H REGARD TO THESE MANIPULATIONS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , THE A DVERSE INFERENCE FOR THE SAME IS TAKEN IN ITS HANDS AND AS SUCH RS. 3,65,000/- SHOWN AVAILABLE IN THE LOCKER OF SHRI V. P. ANAND ITS PARTNER BY WAY OF THESE MANIPULATIONS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ADVERSE INFERENCE FOR THE SAME IS TAKEN IN ITS HAND S AND AS SUCH RS. 3,65,000/- SHOWN AVAILABLE IN THE LOCKER OF SHR I V.P.ANAND ITS PARTNER BY WAY OF THESE MANIPULATIONS ARE ADDED TO THE RETURN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. 13 9. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION STATI NG THAT IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS AND THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE CASE OF SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND BY THE TRIBUNAL AND MATTER IS PENDING WITH TH E ASSESSING OFFICER FOR A FRESH DECISION. ACCORDINGLY, CIT(A) DELETED THE ADD ITION STATING THAT SUCH BASIS OF ADDITION IS STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND. IT IS OBSERVED THAT IN THE BLOC K ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE CASE OF SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND IT HAS BEEN HELD THA T CASH ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ACTUALLY BELONGED TO SHRI VED PA RKASH ANAND ONLY AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI VED PARKASH ANAND IS ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SH OW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,65,000/- BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ACCORDIN GLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE A ND UPHOLD HIS ORDER. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL IS REJECTED. 10. VIDE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,09,643/- M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF LIME OUTSIDE ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 7 OF THE ASSES SMENT ORDER. PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READS AS UNDER:- 7. VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED WHY THE RETRIEVAL AND COST OF THE FOLLOWING BE NOT TAKEN AS MENTIONED AGAINST EACH. I) RETRIEVAL OF LIME FORM BHATTA STONE 40% II) COST OF BHATTA STONE RS. 375/- PMT III) COST OF RAKHI RS. 12.50% PER QUINTAL 14 IV) AVERAGE COST OF WASHERY RS. 325/- PER MT NO REPLY TO THIS QUERY HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN T HIS REGARD. HENCE THE LIME MANUFACTURED AND SOLE BY THE ASSESSE E IS WORKED OUT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF BHATTA STONE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER DOCUMENT NO.7. AS PER THIS DOC UMENT TOTAL BHATTA STONE PURCHASED FORM 31.7.1996 TO 18.9.1996 I.E. FOR 1 MONTHS WAS 1421 METRIC TON. THERE TOTAL PURCHASES F OR WHOLE OF THE YEAR COME TO 11368 METRIC TON (1421 X 8) THE ABOVE MENTIONED RETRIEVAL AND COST OF MANUFACTU RING LIME IS BEING ADOPTED ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF OTHER O WNERS OF LIME KILNS SUCH AS BAL MUKAND VOHRA PROP. YAMUNA LIME IN DUSTRIES, SUNIAL KUMAR OF M/S SRI NIWAS CHEMICALS, YAMUNNAGAR AND SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR S/I SH. MANI RAM PROP. BHARAT LIME I NDUSTRIES, YAMUNANAGR. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE LIME MANUFACTURING AND SO LD OVER AND ABOVE THE NORMAL MANUFACTURING AND SALES SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE IS WORKED OUT AS UNDER;- TOTAL BHATTA STONE PURCHASED AS WORKED OUT IN PARA DISCUSSED ABOVE 11368 MT RECOVERY OF LIMIT 40% COMES TO 4,547 MT SALE OF LIME @ 1800/- PER MT 1517X 1800 81,84,600/ - LESS EXPENSES 1. LABOUR @ 120/- PER TON 5,45,640/- 2. MANUFACTURING.EXP RAKHI & REJECTED COAL 1 /12 TIME OF LIME MANUFACTURED 6820 X 230 (BEING AVERAGE OF RS. 325 + 125 PER MT RATE OF WASHERY AND RAKHI) 15,68,600 3. VALUE OF STONE AS SHOWN ABOVE 1705911 3820151/- 43,64,44/- LESS; SALES SHOWN IN THE BOOKS 31,80,688/- 11,83,763 15 LESS : CLOSING STOCK OPENING STOCK 2,86,580/- CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.3.1987 6,60,700/- 2,74,120/ - BALANCE 9,09,643/- THUS RS. 9,09,643/- IS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME AS SALES MADE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 11. ON APPEAL , THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION STATING THAT ADDITI ON HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PURCH ASES OF 1 MONTH. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SUR VEY THAT SIMILAR QUANTUM WAS PURCHASED IN OTHER MONTHS ALSO. HE FURTHER STATED T HAT THERE IS LEAN SEASON FOR LIME STONE MANUFACTURING ALSO I.E. IN RAINY SEASON THE BHATTA DOES NOT FUNCTION. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM WERE FROM REGISTERED DEALERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT M ADE ANY VERIFICATION FROM THE DEALERS REGARDING QUANTUM OF PURCHASES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT SALES TAX RETURNS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 12. AFTER HEARING THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH T HE PARTIES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE. IT IS TRUE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ESTIMATE BASIS BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT PURCHASES OF 1 MONTHS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON REC ORD THAT SIMILAR QUANTUM WAS PURCHASED IN OTHER MONTHS ALSO. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPH OLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND DISMISS GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL. 13. VIDE GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FREIGHT PAYMENT VOUCHERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS 16 DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. PARA ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER READS AS UNDER:- 8. IDENTIFIED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY AND IMPOUNDED LATER ON SHOWS CERTAIN PAYMENTS OF FREIGHT. VIDE QUESTIONNAI RE DATED 24.8.2000 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF FOLLOWING THESE FREIGHT PAYMENTS WHICH ARE GIVEN BE LOW:- PAGE NO. NAME OF THE PARTY TO WHOM AMT FREIGHT PAID. 2. M/S J.C. ROAD LINEA 10,000/- 3. -DO- 10,000/- 4. -DO- 10,000/- 5. -DO- 10,000/- 7 M/S MAHARAJA TRADERS 10,000/- 8 -DO- 10,000/- 9 M.R.S.T. 5,000/- 10. -DO- 20,000 IN ITS REPLY ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING THAT SOME PAPERS FOUND UNCOMPLETED, UNDATED AND SE EMS THAT THOSE ERE PREPARED SAFELY MEASURE ONLY AND THE RE IS NO RELEVANCY WITH THE DAY TO DAY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS . IT IS REQUESTED THAT NO WRONG INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN F ROM THE ABOVE SAID WASTE MEASURES. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEES REPLY IS DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. THE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY MENTIONS THE NAMES OF THE RECIPIE NTS OF THE FREIGHT PAYMENTS. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND SHOW HOW AND WHEN THESE HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS . THE SIMPLE DENIAL THAT THESE HAVE NO RELEVANCY WITH THE DAY T O DAY BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. THE INESC APABLE INFERENCE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THESE FREIG HT PAYMENTS OUTSIDE ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, T HESE FREIGHT 17 PAYMENTS TOTALLING TO RS. 85,000/- ARE ADDED TO ITS RETURNED INCOME. 14. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION STAT ING THAT ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF UNDATED DOCUMENTS AND NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE SAME PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HE FURTHER OBVERSED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS COULD HAVE RELATED TO THE PART OF THE REGULAR PAYME NTS AND NECESSARY VERIFICATION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE FROM TRANSPORTERS WHICH THE AS SESSING OFFICER FAILED TO DO SO. 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE DO N OT FIND ANY GROUND IN INTERFERING WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON THE B ASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY OBSERVED THA T ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF UNDATED DOCUMENTS AND, THE REFORE, NO INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE SAME PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSI DERATION. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO CORRECTLY OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING O FFICER HAS NOT MADE INVESTIGATIONS FROM THE TRANSPORTERS. THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE BENEFITS OF EXPENSES INCURRED ADDED U/S 69C HAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S 37 TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 AS AMENDMENT IS EFFECTIVE F ROM 1.4.1999. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PRESENT CASE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. C ONSEQUENTLY, WE REJECT GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL. 16. VIDE GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING A RELIEF OF RS. 1,01,100/- O UT OF AN ADDITION OF RS. 18 1,05,100/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS / SQUARED UP ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 9 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. 17. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OBSE RVING AS UNDER:- REGARDING GROUND NO. 7 RELATING TO ADDITION FOR SQ UARED UP CREDITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSIONS FILED THAT NONE OF THE CREDITS WERE OUT STANDING AND COMPLETE DETAILS STOOD FILED, GIVING DATE OF PAYMEN TS, REPAYMENTS, IDENTITY ETC. OF THE PERSON WAS ESTABLI SHED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT HAVE MADE NECESSARY VER IFICATION. ALL THE AMOUNTS WERE PETTY AND IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT THE PERSONS MENTIONED HAD NO CREDITWORTHINESS, EXCEPT F OR AN AMOUNT FOR S 5000/- GIVEN TO SHRI PREM MISTRI SHOWN AS PERSONAL SAVINGS, THE SOURCE OF ALL THE CREDITS STO OD EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION IS REDUCED TO RS. 5000/-. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). THE CI T(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT NONE OF THE CREDITS WERE OUTSTANDING AND COMPLETE DETAILS WERE FILED GIVING DATES OF BILLS / RE-PAYMENTS, IDENTITY ETC. OF THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE NECESSARY VERIFICATI ON. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,000/- GIVEN TO ONE SHRI PREM MISTRI. IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REQUIRES NO INTERFEREN CE AT OUR LEVEL. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS CLEARLY BA RRED BY LIMITATION AND ON MERITS ALSO, THE REVENUE HAS NO CASE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.10.2015 SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA MEHROTRA) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 20 TH OCTOBER, 2015 19 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR