ACIT, Faridabad V. M/s Piyush Developers (P) Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 5706/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 570620114 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 18-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Rejection of books of accounts; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H , NEW DELHI B EFORE SHRI H.S.SIDHU , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 5599 /DEL/201 0 AY: 200 8 - 09 PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT, C.C. 1 A 16/B - 1, MOHAN CO - OP. FARIDABAD INDUSTRIAL ESTATE MAIN MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI PAN: AAECP 2788 B ITA NO. 5 706 /DEL/201 0 AY: 200 8 - 09 ACIT, CC 1 VS. PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD., NEW DELHI NEW DELHI ITA NO. 1574 /DEL/201 3 AY: 200 9 - 10 VERSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD. VS. ACIT, CC 1 A 16/B - 1 FARIDABAD MOHAN CO - OP. INDL.ESTATE MAIN MATHURA ROAD NEW DELHI PAN: AACCV 2714 R ITA NO. 5708 /DEL/201 0 AY: 200 8 - 09 ACIT, CC 1 VS. VARSA BUILDW ELL INDIA P.LTD. FARIDABAD NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. S UDHIR K SEHGAL, ADV. DEPT. BY : SH. SYED NASIR ALI, CIT, D.R. ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 2 ORDER PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BELONGING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSES DIRECTED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 29.9.201 0 PERTAINING TO THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 IN THE CASE OF M/S PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD; AND ORDER DT. 29.9.2010 FOR THE A.Y. 2008 - 09 IN THE CASE OF M /S VA R SA BUILDWELL INDIA PVT.LTD. A DMITTEDLY AS THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL, AND THE ORDERS OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ARE IDENTICAL IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONVENIENCE THEY ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE D ISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI S UDHIR K SEHGAL , AND SHRI SYED NASIR ALI , LD.CIT, D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE CASE OF M/S PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. MAY BE ADOPTED FOR VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD. ALSO. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF : - THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY. IT DOES NOT OWN LAND. IT CARRIES OUT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY AND DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY, IN THE CAPACITY OF A CONTRACTOR, ON THE LAND OWNED BY ITS CLIENTS. THE ASSESSEE NEITHER PURCHASED LAND NOR SELLS THE SAME. 3.1 . A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON PIYUSH GROUP OF COMPANIES ON 16.1.2008 BOTH AT THE OFFICE PREMISES AS WELL AS AT THE R ESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE DIRECTORS. CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED, CERTAIN CASH AND JEWELLERY WAS ALSO FOUND. SURVEY U/S 133A OF ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 3 THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE OFFICE PREMISES OF SOME OF THE ASSESSES IN THE GROUP ON THE SAME DATE. 3.2 . NOT ICE U/S 142(1) DATED 7.9.2001 WAS ISSUED TO M/S PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD . IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSES FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.10.2009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.61,79,070/ - . M/S VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD. FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.3.2010 DECL ARING INCOME OF RS.50,84,390/ - . 3.3 . IN THE CASE OF M/S PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. THE AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT ) ON 29.12.2009 DETERMINING THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 3,51,14,490/ - . HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.2,89,34,711/ - . THE PURCHASES FROM THREE PARTIES I.E. A) M/S JAI AMBEY TRADING CO. B) M/S SHRI GAN PATI ENTERPRISES C) M/S NIRANJAN PARSHAD JAI GOPAL WERE HELD AS BOGUS AND NON - GENUINE. THE REASONS FOR DISALLOWING THIS PURCHASE EXPENDITURE ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS EXTRACTED FOR READY REFERENCE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS EXCEPT BILLS/VOUCHERS OF PURCHASES AND DETAILS OF PAYMENT MADE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED CONFIRMED COPY OF AC COUNT, INCOME TAX PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES, CORRECT ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES AND ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE THE ABOVE PARTIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ENQUIRY MADE ALSO REVEALS THAT THE SAID FIRM M/S JAI AMBEY TRADING CO. AND M/S SH REE GANPATI ENTERPRISES, DO NOT EXIST AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AT PLOT NO.108, D.C.COLONY, MUJJESSAR, FARIDABAD, DURING THE LAST 6 - 7 YEARS AND 981/2, GALI NO.2, BHOOR COLONY, FARIDABAD DURING THE LAST 5 - 6 YEARS RESPECTIVELY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GENUINEN ESS, IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES ARE SHOWN REMAINED UNVERIFIED . 3.4. AGGRIEVED , THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 4 FURNISHED COPIES OF BILLS, PURCHASE VOUCHERS, MATERIAL RECEIPT NOTES, COPIES OF GRS ALONG WITH EVIDENCE OF WEIGHMENT OF GOODS FROM DHARMKANTA AND AS ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PARTIES BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ALSO HELD IF THESE PU RCHASES ARE DISALLOWED, THE GROSS PROFIT MARGIN WOULD JUMP TO 68 % WHICH IS ABNORMAL IN THIS LINE OF BUSINESS. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE AND THAT 41.44% OF THE PURCHASES W ERE DISALLOWED, WHILE SALES WERE NOT DOUBTED. HE HELD THAT THE PARTIES ARE REGISTERED WITH SALES TAX DEPT. A ND VAT HAS BEEN CHARGED. HE GRANTED RELIEF BY DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES. AT THE SAME TIME THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES AND THE GROSS PROFIT RATE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE GROSS PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE OTHER CONCERNS OF THE GROUP AND THER E AFTER WENT ON TO ESTIMATE THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 27% AS AGAINST 16% DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 . AGGRIEVED BY THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, REVENUE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,89,34,711/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT DESPITE ABUNDANT OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE AO AND BEING CONFRONTED ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES AND TO PROVE GENUINENESS, IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ALLEGED PURCHASES WERE MADE, THE ONUS FOR WHICH HAD SQUARELY SHIFTED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE RELEVANT PARTIES WERE NOT FOUND TO EXIST AT THE ADDRESSES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.2,89,34,711/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HIMSELF, IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS GAVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES AND TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS BEFORE THE AO, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO DO SO ON THE GROUNDS OF GAP OF SUCH A LONG TIME, A CONTENTION WHICH APPEARS UNTENABL E IN VIEW OF THE HUGE QUANTUM INVOLVED IN THE PURCHASES. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.2,89,34,711/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 5 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) HIMSELF HELD THA T BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE REFLECTING A TRUE AND FAIR VIEW OF ITS FINANCIAL AND BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND THE SAME ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 4. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN DIRECTING THE AO TO COM PUTE GROSS PROFIT @ 27% INSTEAD OF 16% SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE, WHEREAS THE AO HAD RIGHTLY DISALLOWED THE BOGUS PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS.2,89,34,711/ - . 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND DISPOSED OF. 6. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 5. AGGRIEVED ON THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT AND REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I, LUDHIANA IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) - I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSES ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 3. THE CIT(A) - I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT BY TAKING GROSS PROFIT @ 27% TO INSTEAD OF 16% SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) - I, L UDHIANA IN ACTUAL GROSS PROFIT AT 16% SHOWN IN DIRECTING THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT BY TAKING GROSS PROFIT @ 27% TO INSTEAD OF 16% SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS BASED ON IMAGINATION AND GUESS WORK AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AN D IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NOS. 1,2,3 AND 4 ABOVE, THE CIT(A) - I, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN GIVING DIRECTION TO THE AO TO ADOPT GROSS PROFIT AT 27% IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE. ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 6 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 6. WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SUDHIR K SEHGAL, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SYED NASIR ALI, LD.CIT, D.R ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 7. THE LD.CIT,D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THESE THREE PARTIES BEFORE THE A.O. AND ENQUIRIES MADE BY THE A.O. DEMONSTRATE THAT THESE PARTICULAR FIRMS WERE NOT EXISTING AT THE ADDRESSES GIVEN FOR THE LA ST SIX TO SEVEN YEARS. HE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED CONFIRMATION COPIES OF ACCOUNTS, INCOME TAX RETURN ETC. OF THESE FIRMS AND UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES PURCHASES MADE BY THEM WERE RIGHTLY HELD AS NON GENUINE BY THE A.O. HE SUBMITTED THA T MERE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 8 . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MR.SEHGAL ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES FROM WHO M PURCHASES WERE MADE WAS BEYOND DOUBT BECAUSE THEY WERE REGISTERED WITH THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND HAD PAID VAT. HE ARGUED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE EVIDENCES SUCH AS COPIES OF BILLS, PURCHASE INVOICES, MATERIAL WEIGHMENT PROOFS, MATERIAL RECEIPT NOTES ALONG WITH BILL NUMBERS AND TRUCK NUMBERS, WERE PRODUCED AS WELL AS ENTRIES IN STOCK REGISTERS AND THE CONSUMPTION OF MATERIAL TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. HE STRONGLY DISPUTED THE CLAIM OF SPOT ENQUIRY BY THE REVENUE AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO BASIS FOR COMING TO SUCH A CONCLUSION AND NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO REACH THE PARTIES THROUGH THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. HE RELIED ON NUMBER OF CASE LAWS AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLE OF NATUR AL JUSTICE AS THE RECORD OF SPOT ENQUIRIES WAS NOT PUT TO THE ASSESSEE. HE ARGUED THAT ALL POSSIBLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED, AND HENCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE BURDEN OF PROOF THAT LAY ON IT AND THE ONUS SHIFT ED TO THE REVENUE. HE P OINTED OUT THAT THE VALUE OF THE WORK AND VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK WERE ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND NO DEFECTS WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 7 ACCOUNTS AND THERE IS NO REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE A.O. HE POINTED OUT THAT CERTAIN MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZ ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO ADVERSE VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE A.O. AND THAT THE MATERIAL SEIZED DOES NOT DISCLOSE ANY BOGUS PURCHASES, INFLATION OF EXPENSES ETC. 9. ON THE ASSESSEES APPEAL, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY HELD THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE REJECTED, THOUGH THE A.O. HAD NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS , FOR TWO REASONS (A) CONFIRMATIONS WERE NOT FILED AND PARTIES WERE NOT PRODUCED. (B) THE OTHER REASON WAS THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF OTHER CONCERNS OF THE GROUP. HE RELIED ON A NUMBER OF CASE LAWS AND ARGUED THAT THIS CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE ISSUE OF NOT FILING OF CONFIRMATIONS AND NOT PRODUC ING PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES ARE MADE , HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE DISALLOWANCES AND IN CONTRADICTION TO HIS OWN ACTION, TAKES A VIEW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE REJECTED. ON THE SECOND ISSUE HE SUBMITTED THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT THAT THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THAT OF THE OTHER CONCERNS. THUS HE SU BMITTED THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE LD.CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND THIS ACTION IS TO BE VACATED AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ESTIMATES OF NET PROFIT IS ALSO TO BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW. 10. THE LD.D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RELIED O N THE SAME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED VERY LOW NET PROFIT AND HENCE THE BOOKS ARE NOT RELIABLE, SPECIFICALLY WHEN THE PURCHASES HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED AS GENUINE BY THE ASSESSEE. 11 . RIVAL CONTENTIONS HEARD. ON A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ON PERUSAL OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, CASE LAWS CITED, WE HOLD AS FOLLOWS . ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 8 12. WE FIRST TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL . 13. AS ALREADY NOTED THE ASSESSEE IS A REAL ESTATE CONTRACTOR. PURCHASES FROM THREE PARTIES HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED , ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THOSE PARTIES AND HAS NOT FURNISHED CERTAIN DETAILS SUCH AS CONFIRMATION OF COPY OF ACCOUNTS, INCOME TAX PARTICULARS ETC. WHEN WE SEE THE QUALITY OF EVID ENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. WE HAVE TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE HAS FURNISHED ALL POSSIBLE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE FACTUM OF PURCHASES F ROM THESE THREE PARTIES. THE EVIDENCES INCLUDE , COPIES OF THE BILLS WHEREIN DETAILED NOTINGS HAD BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF THE MATERIAL WHICH HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT, PURCHASE VOUCHERS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS, EVIDENCES BY WAY OF THE MATERIAL WEIGHMENT PROOFS, COPIES OF THE GRS OR MATERIAL RECEIPT NOTES SHOWING THE DELIVERY OF THE GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE BILL NUMBER AND TRUCK NUMBER HAS BEEN MENTIONED. EVIDENCE OF PAYMENTS HAVING BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT P AYEE CHEQUES HAD ALSO BEEN FILED. SUCH PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN CLEARED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO PAYMENT IS OUTSTANDING AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2008. THESE EVIDENCES IN OUR VIEW CANNOT BE IGNORED UNLESS CONTRARY MATERIAL IS FOUND BY THE REVENUE. NO SUCH MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE WITH THE REVENUE EVEN AFTER SEARCH. 14 . THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AT PARA 19 O F HIS ORDER HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 9 PERUSAL OF PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT SHOWS THE DETAILS AS UNDER: PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) PARTICULARS AMOUNT (IN RS.) PURCHASES 69,828,060 VALUE OF - WORK CERTIFIED 55,430,587 DIRECT COST 4,372,857 CLOSING STOCK 27,639,224 GROSS PROFIT 8,868,894 TOTAL 83,069,811 TOTAL 83,069,811 BASED ON THE ABOVE ANALYSIS GP MARGIN OF THE ASSESSEE COMES TO 16%. IF PURCHASES OF RS. 2,89,34,711/ - ARE TREATED AS BOGUS AND THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE GROSS PROFIT THEN THE GP MARGIN WOULD COME TO 68.20%. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CITED ANY COMPARABLE CASE TO JUSTIFY SUCH A HIGH GP OF 68.20%. THUS THE WHOLE TRADING RESULTS WOULD PRESENT A DISTORTED PICTURE IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S VERSION IS ACCEPTED WHICH IN MY OPINION IS PRACTICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. THIS VIEW IS DULY SUPPORTED BY THE TWO JUDGM ENTS OF HON'BLE CHANDIGARH BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF J.R. SOLVENT INDUSTRIES (P) LTD. VS. ACIT (1999) 68 ITD 65 (CHD) (TM) AND IN THE CASE OF M/S RAJ & SAN DEEPS LTD. VS. ACIT, LUDHIANA IN ITA NO. 1853/CHANDI/92. THEREAFTER AT PAGE 22 THE LD CIT(A) HE LD AS FOLLOWS: - 4.11. IF A.OS ACTION OF DISALLOWING PURCHASES OF RS.2,89,34,711/ - TREATING THEM AS BOGUS IS ACCEPTED THEN FOLLOWING POSITION WOULD EMERGE : TOTAL PURCHASES RS.6,98,28,060 LESS: PURCHASES DISALLOWED RS.2,89,34,711 BALANCE PURCHASES ACCEPTED BY AO RS.4,08,93,349 LESS: CLOSING STOCK RS.2,76,39,224 BALANCE MATERIAL CONSUMED RS. 1,32,54,125 FROM THE AFORESAID DETAILS IT FOLLOWS THAT FROM THE MATERIAL OF RS.1,32,54,125/ - ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN WORK CERTIFIED OF RS.5,54,30,587/ - WHICH I N MY OPINION IS PRACTICALLY NOT POSSIBLE UNLESS OF COURSE PROVED BY THE AO WHICH THE AO HAS NOT DONE. THESE FACTUAL FINDING COULD NOT BE CONTROVERED BY THE LD.D.R. 14.1. NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN FOUND I N THE STOCK REGISTER NOR ANY DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. IN THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 10 MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE SEARCH AND SEIZURE NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO SUBSTANTIATE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. THE SO CALLED SPOT ENQUIRY DONE BY THE INSPECTOR HA S NO CREDENCE AS NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE US, NOR WAS THE ASSESSEE CONFRONTED WITH THE MANNER IN WHICH SPOT ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED, THE PERSONS WHO CONDUCTED THE SPOT ENQUIRY OR THE MATERIAL GATHERED BY THE REVENUE IN THE SPOT ENQUIRY. THUS THE RE VENUE CANNOT PLACE RELIANCE ON THIS ENQUIRY. THE PURCHASES WHICH ARE DISALLOWED RELATE TO CEMENT AND STEEL WHICH ARE ESSENTIAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION. NO ENQUIRIES ARE MADE WITH THE BANK S, OTHER STATUTORY AUTHORITIES ON THE IDENTITY OF THE PART IES. DE TAILS SUCH AS WHETHER SALES TAX AUTHORITIES HAVE ACCEPTED THE QUANTUM OF PU RCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE H AVE NOT BEEN OBTAINED IDENTITY COULD BE ASCERTAINED BY THE AO , BOTH FROM THE BANKER AND THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE H AVE TO UP HOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE , THAT THE FINDING OF THE AO , THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED FULL DETAILS , IS FACTUALLY IN CORRECT. 14.2 . COMING TO THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT ALL THE PARTIES ARE REGISTERED WITH SALES TAX DEPARTMENT AND HAVE CHARGED VAT IN EACH OF THE BILLS. ALL THESE PARTIES HAVE BANK ACCOUNTS AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. EVIDENCE OF MATERIAL HAVING BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE , HAS BEEN FILED. 14.3 . AS REGARDS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NON PRODUCTION OF THE PARTIES CANNOT BE A GROUND OF DI SALLOWANCE OF ALL THE PURCHASES FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS. ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 11 (I) THE PERSONS FROM WHOM PURCHASES ARE MADE COULD NOT ALWAYS BE IN THE CONTROL OF THE ASSESSEE , SPECIFICALLY WHEN THEY ARE UNRELATED PARTIES. (II) T HE VOLUME AND QUALITY OF EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUCH THAT NON PRODUCTION OF THE PARTY FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED CANNOT LEAD TO A CONCLUSION THAT THE PURCHASES ARE NOT GENUINE. THE LD.CIT(A) AT PARA 4.4 HELD AS FOLLOWS. 4.4. I T IS ALSO SEEN THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED VARIOUS EVIDENCES (WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK) OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM THE SAID PARTIES IN THE SHAPE OF COPIES OF BILLS, PURCHASE VOUCHERS, MATERIAL RECE IPT NOTES, AS WELL AS THE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SAID PARTIES, WHICH HAVE BEEN CLEARED FROM THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FEW CASES COPIES OF GRS AL ONGWITH EVIDENCE OF WEIGHMENT OF GOODS FROM DHARMKANTA HAVE BEEN FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE INVOICES ISSUED BY THE VARIOUS P ARTIES ARE BEARING THE TRUCK NUMBER OF THE VEHICLE USED FOR DELIVERY OF GOODS AND VAT HAS ALSO BEEN CHARGED BY THE PARTIES IN THEIR BILLS. T HE GOODS MENTIONED IN THE BILLS ARE MAINLY CEMENT AND STEEL (TMT BARS) WHICH ARE THE BASIC COMPONENT REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ANY BUILDING OR COMPLEX. THE EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF SUCH GOODS BY ASSESSEE 'IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE VOUCHER/MATERIAL RECEIPT N OTE IS ALSO THERE. MOST IMPORTANTLY AS STATED BY THE AR ALL THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE PARTIES HAVE BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND SAME HAVE BEEN CLEARED FROM THE ASSESSEE' S BANK ACCOUNT. THE LD. AR HAS ALSO BROUGHT MY ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING ITEM WISE STOCK REGISTER COPIES OF WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NO DEFECT HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SAME. THUS IT IS OBSERVED THAT SUFFICIENT PIECES OF EVIDENCE OF TRANSAC TIONS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE. THEREFORE, IN SUCH ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 12 CIRCUMSTANCES THERE WAS HEAVY ONUS ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVE OTHERWISE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY HIM AND ON THE OTHER HAND INITIAL ONUS ON THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN DAULAT RAM'S CASE 87 ITR 349 HAS HELD THAT THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT REAL WAS ON THE PA RTY WHO CLAIMED IT TO BE SO. THUS THE ONUS WAS. HEAVILY ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED THE FACT OF MAKING CERTAIN SP9T. ENQUIRES WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM HAVE REVEALED THAT PARTIES M/S JAI AMBE TRADING COMPAN Y AND M /S SHREE GANPATI ENTERPRISES DID NOT EXIST AT THEIR GIVEN ADDRESSES FOR 6 - 7 YEARS. AR STATED AND ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO DOES NOT SHOW THAT SUCH FACTS OR THE ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE APPELLANT. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THUS DISALLOWED PURCH ASES IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF ID. AR THAT T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SIMPLY BRUSHING ASIDE THE EVIDENCES BEFORE HIM WAS HIGHLY UNJUSTIFIED IN THE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . THESE FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY THE LD.D.R. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. (II I ) THE OTHER ASPECTS ARE THAT THE VALUE OF WORK CERTIFIED, THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. B OTH THESE CANNOT BE INDEPENDENT OF THE VALUE OF PURCHASES. THE PURCHASES EITHER FORM PART OF WORK CERTIFIED OR CLOSING STOCK. WHEN BOTH THESE ARE ACCEPTED AND NOT DISTURBED, THE QUESTION OF DISALLOWING THE PURCHASES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUN T DOES NOT ARISE. (IV) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY ANALYSED THAT IF THIS DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES IS UPHELD THEN THE G.P. RATE OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ABNORMAL AT 67%. (V) THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN DIAGNOSTICS VS. CIT (2012) REPORTED IN 20 TAXMAN N.COM 692 (CAL.) AT PARAS 9 AND 10 HELD AS FOLLOWS. ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 13 9. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S SELVAS PHOTOGRAPHICS ARE CONCERNED AMOUNTING TO RS.3,12,302/ - WE FIND THAT THOSE HAVE BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THOSE HAVE BEEN ENCASHED THR OUGH THE BANKERS OF M/S SELVAS PHOTOGRAPHCIS. IT APPEARS THAT ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THE APPELLANT HAD NO BUSINESS TRANSACTION WITH M/S SELVAS PHOTOGRAPHICS AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAID PARTY DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE AO. H OWEVER, THE TRANSACTION HAVING TAKEN PLACE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF MR.AGARWAL, THE LD.ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS A NON - EXISTENT ONE. IF AN ASSESSEE TOOK CARE TO PURCHASE MATERIALS FOR HIS BUSINESS BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM A THIRD PARTY AND SUBSEQUENTLY THREE YEARS AFTER THE PURCHASE, THE SAID THIRD PARTY DOES NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO PURSUANT TO THE NOTICE OR EVEN HAS STOPPE D THE BUSINESS, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THAT ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DISCARDED AS NON EXISTENT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS NOT PUT FORWARD ANY OTHER GROUND, SUCH AS, IT WAS NOT A GENUINE TRANSACTION FOR OTHER REASONS BUT HAS SIMPLY REJECTED THE CLAIM ON THE GROUND AS IF THERE WAS NO SUCH TRANSACTION. 10. THE TRANSACTION HAVING TAKEN PLACE THROUGH PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, SUCH PLEA IS NOT TENABLE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TRIBUNAL BELOW ERRED IN LAW IN REVERSING THE FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) ACCEPTING THE SAID TRANSACTION AS A GENUINE TRANSACTION. (EMPHASIS OURS). 14. 4 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE DELETION OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,89,34,711/ - , WHICH WAS TREATED AS BOGUS PURCHASES BY THE A.O. THESE GROUNDS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. WE NOW TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS SOUGHT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON TWO GROUNDS. (A) THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO FILE CONFIRMATIONS AND PRODUCE THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE. (B) THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEE IS LESS THAN THE GROSS PROFIT RATE OF OTHER CONCERNS IN THE GROUP. ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 14 1 7 . AS FAR AS THE FIRST ISSUE IS CONCERNED WE REFER TO OUR DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND HOLD THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS TAKEN A CONTRADICTORY STAND. THE LD.CIT(A) HELD THAT THE NON PRODUCTION OF PARTIES ETC. O N THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , DOES NOT JUSTIFY DISALLOWANC E OF THE CLAIM OF EXPE NDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES. ON THE OTHER HAND HE CITES THE SAME REASON FOR HOLDING THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NOT RELIABLE AND HAVE TO BE REJECTED. SUCH A CONTRADICTORY VIEW CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED. 18. THE SECOND GROUND ON WHICH BOOKS WERE REJECTED IS ALSO NOT SUSTAINABLE. (I) THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PARADISE HOLIDAYS REPORTED IN 325 ITR 13 (DEL) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT OR DISCREPANCY IN THE ACCOUNT BOO KS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED BY AN INDEPENDENT CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND MAKING THE ADDITION TO THE DECLARED INCOME. (II) SIMILARLY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. P OO NAM RANI IN ITA 406/ DEL/ 2009 JUDGEMENT DT. 7.5.2010 HAS HELD THAT THE FALL IN GROSS PROFIT RATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT REASONS COULD NOT, BY ITSELF, HAVE BEEN A GROUND TO HOLD THAT PROPER INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DEDUCTED FROM THE ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HER AND CONSEQUENTLY, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN A GROUND TO REJECT THE ACCOUNTS INVOKING SEC.145(3) OF THE ACT. THERE ARE NUMBER OF DECISIONS ON THE SAME LINE S . ITA 5599/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (PIYUSH DEVELOPERS P.LTD.) ITA 5706/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 ITA 5708/DEL/2010 A.Y. 2008 - 09 (VARSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD.) ITA 1574/DEL/2013 A.Y. 2009 - 10 15 18.1. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND AS NO DEFECTS HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, WE UPHOLD THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND VACATE THE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON ESTIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT. THE DIRECTION GIVEN TO THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE ASSESSEES GROSS PROFIT @ 27% INSTEAD OF AT 16% IS HE REBY VACATED AND THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 18.2. AS ALREADY STATED, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND FACTS IN THE CASE OF PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD AND IN THE CASE OF M/S VERSA BUILDWELL INDIA P.LTD. ARE THE SAME . HENCE WE FOLLOW OUR DECISION IN T HE CASE OF PIYUSH DEVELOPERS PVT.LTD. AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S. VERSA BUILDWELL INDIA (P) LTD. AND ALSO DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL IN THIS CASE. HENCE BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 1 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE CASES ARE DISMISSED AND BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH JULY, 2015 . - SD/ - - SD/ - ( H.S. SIDHU ) (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 8 TH JULY, 2015 MANGA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR