Sh. Anand Yadav, Bhiwani V. ACIT, Bhiwani

ITA 5994/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3442 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: THIS COMM ON
• Assessee Lawyers: ARE BEING DISPOSED OF
• Keywords: Business income; Loose papers; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 133A; 143(2); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 5993 TO 5996/DEL/2016 AYRS. : 2009-10 TO 2012-13 ANAND YADAV, VPO MALIKPUR, TEHSIL BAWANI KHERA, DISTT. BHIWANI (PAN: ACJPA0087E) VS. ACIT, BHIWANI, SCO 202-203, OFFICE OF INCOME TAX HUDA CITY CENTRE, BHIWANI - 127021 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THESE 04 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A)-HISAR, RELE VANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2012-13. SINCE THE IS SUES INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL, HENCE, THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND THEREF ORE, WE ARE ASSESSEE BY SHRI NARENDER KUMAR JAIN, ADV. DEPARTMENT BY SHRI SANJOG KAPOOR, SR. DR. 2 ONLY REPRODUCING THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 5993 /DEL/2016 (AY 2009-10) AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAD ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM BRICK KILN BUSINESS COMPUTED ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT CONSIDERING:- I. THAT THE RETURNED INCOME WAS BASED ON AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS HAVING DETAIL OF THE TURNOVER AND SALE PRICE OF THE BRICKS ALONGWITH NUMBER OF BRICKS SOLD DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS / SALE BILL. II. THAT THE ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER BY THE AO WAS BASED ON ESTIMATED PRODUCTION BY APPLYING ESTIMATED SALE PRICE WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL, IN ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERING PAST HISTORY AND WITHOUT REJECTING THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145(3) PRESUMING THAT THE TOTAL BRICKS PRODUCED WERE SOLD AND THERE WAS NO OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK. 3 2. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE PRODUCTION OF BRICKS SALE PRICE AND TURNOVER DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME INSTEAD OF ESTIMATED TURNOVER AND PRODUCTION OF BRICKS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL IGNORING THE RETURN SUBMITTED AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE OBJECTION WERE REJECTED WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF INTEREST AS CONSEQUENTIAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT INTEREST WAS NOT CHARGEABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS INCOME WAS DECLARED BASED ON REGULAR BOOKS AND INCOME WAS ASSESSED ON ESTIMATE BASIS NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR RESCIND ANY OF THE GROUND OF APPEAL 4 BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED AND ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE 04 APPEA LS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE, HE IS ONLY ARG UING THE APPEAL NO. 5993/DEL/2016 (AY 2009-10). HENCE, WE A RE ONLY DEALING WITH ITA NO. 5993/DEL/2016 (AY 2009-10) AN D DECISION THEREOF WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO OTHER 03 APPEALS. ITA NO. 5993/DEL/2016 (AY 2009-10) 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.9.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 3,39,750/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 69,600/-. LATER ON SURV EY U/S. 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) WAS CO NDUCTED ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.3.2012 AND ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED MATERIAL/PAPERS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, AFTER RE CORDING THE 5 REASONS WHICH THE AO HAS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 1 T O 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3.1 NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE WHICH WAS SERVED ON 31.1.2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE S AME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND FILED THE REPLY STA TING THEREIN THAT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED ON 20.9.2009 MAY B E TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO FOR S UPPLY OF REASONS RECORDED TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF TH E ACT AND THE SAME WERE SUPPLIED TO HIM. AO ALSO ISSUED NOT ICE U/S. 143(2)/142(1) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH DETAILED QUEST IONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR COMPLIANCE BY 21.5.2013. DUE TO CHANGE OF AO, THE NEW AO AGAIN ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 11.7.2013 WHICH WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR ED AND FILED OBJECTION TO ISSUE OF NOTICE AND INITIATION O F PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. HE ALSO FURNISHED WRITTEN REP LY DENYING THE FACTS ENUMERATED IN THE REASONS RECORDED. AFTER HEARING THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO REJECTED THE OBJ ECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER DATED 1 2.12.2013 6 WHICH THE AO HAS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 5 TO 7 IN T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3.2 ON 20.3.2014 THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICAT ION FOR SUPPLY OF COMPLETE DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS RELIED UPON BY THE AO FOR ISSUING A NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT WH ICH WAS SUPPLIED BY THE AO. AFTER DISCUSSING WITH THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND PERUSING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL, THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMEN T IN WHICH THE AO HAS HELD THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY O PERATION, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED EVEN AFTER SPECIFIC REPEATED DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY HIM. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT PRO DUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRIES AND THEREFORE, THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RUNNING BUSIN ESS IN THE NAME OF (03) THREE CONCERNS VIZ. (1) M/S SHRI BHAGW AN BRICKS CO., VILL. SAGWAN DISTT. BHIWANI, (2) M/S SUGAN GRA M UDYOG MANDAL, VILLAGE DURJANPUR, DISTT. BHIWANI AND (3) M /S ANAND CONCRETE, VPO SIKANDERPUR DISTT. BHIWANI. OUT OF TH E AFORESAID 03 CONCERNS, (1) & (2) ARE BRICK KILN AND THE TOTA L TURNOVER OF THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS, ESTIMATED AT RS. 19335724/- + 3170795/- = 2,25,06,519/-. THE AVERAGE OF SALE OF BRICKS PER 1000 HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS. 3500/- PER THOUSAND 7 FOR GRADE-I, RS. 3300/- PER THOUSAND, FOR GRADE-II, RS. 1500/- PER THOUSAND FOR GRADE-III, RS. 1200/- PER THOUSAND FOR GRADE- IV AND RS. 300/- PER THOUSAND FOR RODA. AS PER RATE CONTRACT FOR GOVERNMENT PURCHASES THE RATE OF RS. 2550/- HA S BEEN FIXED EXCLUDING FREIGHT/TRANSPORTATION CHARGES WHIC H DEPENDS UPON THE DISTANCE. BUT THE BRICK KILN HAS NOT BEEN MADE ONLY FOR GOVERNMENT SALES, THE RATE CONTRACT IS ONLY NEE D BASE GOVT. SALE. THE ASSESSEE HAS RARELY SUPPLIED THE BRICKS T O GOVT. ORDERS AND THE MOSTLY SALES WERE MADE IN THE OPEN M ARKET WHICH IS CLEARLY PROVED FROM THE SALE BILLS. 3.3 AS PER THE AO THE SALE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INCREASED AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY WHICH WERE VERY LOW BEFORE THAT DATE. THIS FACT PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO TAKING F IGURES ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND OTHER PROOF FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS SHOWS THE FACTUAL POSITION OF KI LN PRODUCTION AND SALE IS DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS NAR RATED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED TURNOVER OF RS. 10093649/- AND NET PROFIT AT RS. 339750/-. AS P ER THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 -13, NET PROFIT RATE WORKED OUT 21%, BY APPLYING THE SAME RA TE, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 ON THE GROSS R ECEIPTS OF 8 RS. 22597625/- WORKED OUT TO RS. 4745501/- WHICH IS TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE DIFFER ENCE OF RS.4755501-339750 = 4415751/- WAS ADDED TO THE TAXA BLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SATISFACTION THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. 3.4 AO HAS PERUSED THE BUNDLE OF PAPERS PAGE NO. 10 8 AND 105 IMPOUNDED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S SHI V GRAM UDYOG MANDAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH WITHDRAWAL S OF RS. 2191552/- TO MEET THE DAILY EXPENSES. SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENTS OF EXPENSES IN CASH, IN EXCESS OF RS. 20000/-, IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2191552/- HAS BEEN DIS ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40A(3) AND ADDED TO THE TAXABLE INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.5 CALCULATION OF BRICKS: ACCORDING TO THE ANALYSI S OF THE AO, THERE ARE SEVERAL GRADES OF BRICKS. NORMALLY MORE THAN 75% BRICKS ARE OF FIRST GRADE AND ABOUT 15% ARE OF GRAD E B. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OBJECTED TO THIS GRADATION. THE AS SESSEE HAS OPINED THE POINT OF 07 GEDS IS NOT CORRECT. THE AS SESSEE HAS TRIED TO NEGATE THE TRUTH THAT GEDS IS A KIND OF RO UND OF 9 PRODUCTION OF BACKED BRICKS. IN EACH GEDE NORMALLY 8-9 LACS BRICKS ARE PRODUCED. THIS FACT HAS BEEN VERIFIED FROM OTHER KILN OWNER OPERATING IN THE AREA AS WELL AS ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED FROM THE BUSINESS PREMI SES OF THE ASSESSEE. BRICK PRODUCTION ACCEPTED IN PREVIOUS YEARS BY THE AO. ACTUAL ACCEPTANCE WITHOUT PHYSICAL VERIFIC ATION IS LIKE ACCEPTANCE OF SURMISES. THE COMPARATIVE POSITION O F YEAR-WISE PRODUCTION OF BRICKS, THE AO HAS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 9 WHICH READ AS UNDER:- YEAR AS PER ASSESSEE AS PER D EPTT. 2009-10 RS. 21 ,72,945/- RS. 6243407/- 2010-11 RS. 23,19,600/- RS. 57,00,000/- 2011-12 RS. 11 ,34,893/- RS. 59,86,690/- 2012-13 RS. 50,11,509/- RS. 57,00,000/- 2009-10 RS. 33,52,760/- RS. 57,00,000/- 2010-11 RS. 27,17,450/- RS. 57,00,000/- 2011-12 RS. 09,06,190/- RS. 67,66,750/- 2012-13 RS. 38,63,350/- RS. 59,10,530/- 10 3.6 AS PER ASSESSEE PROJECT REPORT OF BUREAU OF E NQUIRY EFFICIENCY HAD 31 LACS AVERAGE BRICKS. ASSESSEE H AS HIMSELF HAS SHOWN PRODUCTION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 (SU RVEY YEAR) AT 50,00,000/- BRICKS. AO HELD THAT THE CAL CULATION BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED MATERIA L IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. SIMILAR IS THE POSITION OF S HUGAN BHATTA WHO PRODUCED 906190 BRICKS BUT SOON AFTER SURVEY IN THE YEAR 2012-13 HE SHOWED HUGE PRODUCTION OF 3863350/- BRIC KS. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE MANAGES THE AFFAIRS OF HIS KILN TO SUIT ITS PURPOSE. THIS VEIL WOULD HAVE NEVER BURST, HAD THE DEPARTMENT NOT SURVEYED THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF TH E ASSESSEE. 3.7 IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF THAT MILKPUR GRAMUDYOG SOCIETY IS A SEPARATE ENTITY. IT IS NOTE D THAT THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY ARE EITHER FAMILY MEMBERS OR RELATIVES OR HIS EMPLOYEES. SURVEY OPERATION HAS UNVEILED TH E TRUE CHARACTER OF THE SOCIETY. THE SOCIETY IS HARDLY DOI NG ANY ACTIVITY. IT IS A MEANS TO ADJUST EXCESS MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 3.8 REGARDING THE RATES OF THE BRICKS PER THOUSAND , THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED OBJECTION THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED HIGH RATES FOR EXAMPLE THE ASSESSEE HAS T AKEN RATE OF 3500 FOR 2010-11, RS. 3900 FOR 2011-12, AND RS. 3900 FOR 2012-13 WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN RATE OF RS. 2524 IN 2010-11, RS. 2524 FOR 2011-12 AND 3250 FOR 2012-13. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED RAT E OF COLLECTOR WHICH IS APPLICABLE ONLY WHEN DISTRICT AUTHORITIES PURCHASE BRICKS FROM THEM. THIS RATE IS NOT A BOUND ING FOR ALL AND IS NOT AN ADMINISTERED RATE. THEREFORE, THIS RATE CANNOT BE TAKEN AS STANDARD AND SUBSTITUTE FOR MARKET RATE AND ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS IMPOUNDED IN THE BUSINESS PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSES SMENT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 4415751/- AND FURTHER ADDITI ON OF RS. 2191552/- AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 69740 50/- BY TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME (FOR RATE PURPOSE) AT RS. 69,600/- VIDE ORDER DATED 21.3.2014 PASSED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, ASSESSE E APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 30.9.2016 HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 12 AGAINST THE SAID IMPUGNED ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APP EAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY UPHELD THE A SSESSMENT ORDER. HE STATED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER FROM BRICK KILN BUSINESS COMPUTED ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS BASED ON AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS HAVING DETAIL OF THE TURNOVER AND SALE PRICE OF THE BRICKS ALONGWITH NUMBER OF BRICKS SOLD DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS / SALE BILL. HE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER BY THE AO WAS BASED ON ESTIM ATED PRODUCTION BY APPLYING ESTIMATED SALE PRICE WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL, IN ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT TAKING INTO C ONSIDERING PAST HISTORY AND WITHOUT REJECTING THE AUDITED BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145(3) PRESUMING THAT THE TOTAL BRICK S PRODUCED WERE SOLD AND THERE WAS NO OPENING AND CLOSING STO CK. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE PRODUCTION OF BRICKS SALE PRICE AND TURNOVER DECLAR ED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS AS SHOWN IN THE R ETURN OF INCOME INSTEAD OF ESTIMATED TURNOVER AND PRODUCTION OF BRICKS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS. HE FURTHER SU BMITTED 13 THAT ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE COPY OF LD. CIT(A)S O RDER DATED 30.01.2019 PASSED IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIV GRAM UDYO G MANDAL, VPO JEETA KHERI, DISTT. BHIWANI FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 TO 2012-13 IN WHICH THE AO HAS WORKED OUT THE TURNOVER PRODUCTION TAKING INTO THE TOTAL PRODUCTIO N OF 6 GEDS IN A YEAR, BUT THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HAS HELD THAT WORKOUT ON TURNOVER TAKING TOTAL 6 GEDS IN A YEAR IS A HIGHER SIDE AND REASONABLE ESTIMATION OF 4 GEDS I N THE YEAR CAN BE TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND ESTIMATED TH E TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE REDUCING THE 6 GEDS TO 4 GEDS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS WORKED OUT THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE AT TOTAL 7 GEDS IN A YEAR WHICH IS A HIGHER SIDE, BUT ON THE BASIS OF M/S SHIV GRAM UDY OG MANDAL VPO JEETA KHERI, DISTT. BHIWANI WHICH IS SIMILARLY SITUATED ON THE BASIS OF 4 GEDS TURNOVER ESTIMATED. NO OTHER ARGUMENT HAS BEEN ADVANCED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE IN ADDITION TO AFORESAID ARGUMENTS. LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1-54 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF ITR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10; COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOM E; AUDIT 14 REPORT IN FORM 3CB AND 3CD OF M/S SHRI BHAGWAN BRIC KS COMPANY; AUDIT REPORT IN FROM 3CB AND 3CD OF M/S SU GAN GRAM UDYOG MANDAL; CHART SHOWING SALES AS PER BOOKS AND AS ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF M/S SHRI BHAGWAN BR ICKS COMPANY AND M/S SUGAR GRAM UDYOG MANDAL; CHART SHOW ING BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF SALES, PRODUCTION, ETC. ON T HE BASIS OF FIGURES FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2011 TO 20.3.20212; RATE LIST OF BRICKS ISSUED BY DCIT AS FIXED GOVT. FOR SALE OF BR ICKS; COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING U/S. 148; OBJECT IONS AGAINST INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE A CT; ORDER DATED 12.12.2013 REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST N OTICE U/S. 148; REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 3.5.2013 AND REPLY TO NOTICE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IN THE LAST HE REQUE STED THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 (SUPRA) OF THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR IN THE CASE OF SHIV GRAM UDYOG MAND AL IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO 2012-13 INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE MAY BE WORKED OUT ON THE TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATION OF 4 GEDS IN A YEAR AND NOT 7 GEDS IN A YEAR AS COMPUTED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 15 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE RS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND STATED THAT A REASON ABLE RELIEF HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY FURTHER RELIEF . HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES IMPOUNDED WHILE C ONDUCTING THE SURVEY OPERATION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T AO HAS ALSO ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASI S OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS WHILE ADOPTING THE PRESCRIBED P ROCEDURE UNDER THE LAW AND GIVING A VALID REASONS AND AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AFTER ADOPTING PRESCRIBED PROCE DURE UNDER THE LAW, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. HE F URTHER STATED THAT THE AO HAS REOPENED THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED MATERIAL / PAPERS AND RECORDED THE REASONS ON THE BASIS OF SURVEY IN WHIC H THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS DURING THE SURVEY AND POST SURVEY IN SPITE OF THE REPEATED REQUESTS OF THE AO. ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE IMPO UNDED DOCUMENTS, AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS 03 CONCERNS W HO ARE DOING THE BUSINESS OF BRICK KILN. AO ALSO FOUND T HAT IN THE 16 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 ASSESSEE HIMSELF DECLARED N ET PROFIT @21% AND HE APPLIED THE SAME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR IN DISPUTE AND MADE THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE. HENCE, H E REQUESTED THAT KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE NON-COOPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-FURNISHING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR ANY FURTHER RELIEF, HENCE, LD. C IT(A) HAS GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, LD. DR REQUESTED T O DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES ALONG WITH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAININ G PAGES 1- 54 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF ITR ACKNOWL EDGEMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10; COMPUTATION OF TOT AL INCOME; AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CB AND 3CD OF M/S SHRI BHAGWA N BRICKS COMPANY; AUDIT REPORT IN FROM 3CB AND 3CD OF M/S SU GAN GRAM UDYOG MANDAL; CHART SHOWING SALES AS PER BOOKS AND AS ESTIMATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF M/S SHRI BHAGWAN BR ICKS COMPANY AND M/S SUGAR GRAM UDYOG MANDAL; CHART SHOW ING BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF SALES, PRODUCTION, ETC. ON T HE BASIS OF FIGURES FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2011 TO 20.3.20212; RATE LIST OF 17 BRICKS ISSUED BY DCIT AS FIXED GOVT. FOR SALE OF BR ICKS; COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED FOR REOPENING U/S. 148; OBJECT IONS AGAINST INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 OF THE A CT; ORDER DATED 12.12.2013 REJECTING THE OBJECTIONS AGAINST N OTICE U/S. 148; REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 3.5.2013 AND REPLY TO NOTICE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ALONGWITH THE IMPUGNE D ORDER DATED 30.9.2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR AN D THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2019 OF THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR IN THE CAS E OF M/S SHIV GRAM UDYOG MANDAL, VPO JEETA KHERI, DISTT. BH IWANI IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO 2012-13. 6.1 LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RE VENUE AUTHORITIES HAS COMPUTED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT CONSIDERING WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BASED ON AUDITED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT HAVING DETAIL OF TURNOVER AND SALE BILL OF BRICK AL ONGWITH NUMBER OF BRICK SOLD DULY SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTS A ND SALE BILLS. THEREFORE, ESTIMATION ON TURNOVER BY THE REV ENUE AUTHORITY IS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL AND IN AN ARBITRA RY MANNER AND WITHOUT REJECTING THE AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145(3) OF THE I.T. ACT. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PARA NO. 5 PAGE NO. 7 IN WHICH THE AO HAS HELD THAT DURING TH E COURSE OF 18 SURVEY OPERATION, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCE D EVEN AFTER SPECIFIC AND REPEATED DIRECTION OF THE AUTHOR ISED OFFICER AND IN THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRIES. THE AO HAS COMPLE TED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. 6.2 WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS ORIGINAL RE TURN OF INCOME ON 20.9.2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 3,39 ,750/- AND AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 69,600/-. LATER ON SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) W AS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 21.3.2012 AND ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED MATERIAL/PA PER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED U/S. 148 OF THE A CT. AO RECORDED THE REASONS AND REOPENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 148 READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND STATE D THAT ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM RUNNING THE BKO AND MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF CEMENTED INTERLOCKING BLOCKS. A SURVEY OPERATION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED O UT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND CERTAIN DOCUM ENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BE EN FOUND DURING SURVEY AND IN SPITE OF THE VARIOUS REQUESTS OF THE AO FOR PRODUCING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE SURVEY PRO CEEDINGS 19 AND POST SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. 6.3 AFTER EXAMINATION OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS, THE A O FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 03 FIRMS/CONCERNS VIZ. (1) M/ S SHRI BHAGWAN BRICKS CO., VILL. SAGWAN DISTT. BHIWANI, (2 ) M/S SUGAN GRAM UDYOG MANDAL, VILLAGE DURJANPUR, DISTT. BHIWAN I AND (3) M/S ANAND CONCRETE, VPO SIKANDERPUR DISTT. BHIWANI. ON THE BASIS OF PAGE NO. 9 IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT NO. 3 PRODU CTION OF BRICKS ARE 2677460 OF GEDS 1,2, & 3, WHICH THE AO H AS MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 2 AT PAGE NO. 2. THE TOTAL P RODUCTION OF BRICKS IN THREE GEDS IS 2677460 ON THE AVERAGE BASI S THE TOTAL PRODUCTION OF BRICKS IN 7 GEDS WORKED OUT 6246780 B RICKS. THE PERCENTAGES OF GRADE-I, GRADE-II, GRADE-III, GRADE- IV AND RODA BRICKS (BROKEN BRICKS) ARE 70%, 15%, 5%, 5% AN D 5% RESPECTIVELY. THE GRADE-WISE PRODUCTION, WORKS OU T TO BE FOR GRADE-I 4372430, GRADE-II 937060, GRADE-III 312430 , GRADE- IV 312430 AND RODA 312430. THE SALE RATE DURING TH E PERIOD WERE RS. 3500/- PER THOUSAND FOR GRADE-I, RS. 3300/ - PER THOUSAND, FOR GRADE-II, RS. 1500 PER THOUSAND FOR G RADE-III, RS. 1200/- PER THOUSAND FOR GRADE-IV AND RS. 300/- PER THOUSAND FOR RODA AND THE TOTAL SALES OF BRICKS AT RS. 20 1,94,26,830/- WAS ESTIMATED FOR AY 2009-10 IN RESPE CT OF THIS BKO. SIMILARLY, THE AO HAS ALSO HELD THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE PREMISES OF M/S SHIV GRAM UDYOG MAND AL ON 21.3.2012 LOOSE PAPERS CONTAINING PAGES 1-86 WERE I MPOUNDED AND CERTAIN PAGES OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT RELATED TO M/S SUGAN GRAM UDYOG MANDAL, FOR EXAMPLE PAGE NO. 108, THE DEBITS OF CASH HAS BEEN SHOWN THE CORRESPONDING ENT RIES ARE FOUND IN THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF M/S SUGAR GRAM UDYOG MANDAL/ANAND KUMAR MENTIONED IN UB I HANSI, WHICH THE AO HAS REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FINALLY ON THE BASIS OF THE LO OSE PAPERS IMPOUNDED FROM THE PREMISE OF M/S SHIV GRAM UDYOG M ANDAL, PERIOD FROM 05.4.2008 TO 03.3.2009 FOR THE AY 2009- 10 REVEALS THAT, TOTAL DEPOSITS DURING THIS PERIOD AT RS. 3170 795/-. SIMILARLY, AS PER AGE NO. 107, 108 AND 105 OF LOOSE PAPERS BUNDLE IMPOUNDED FROM PREMISES OF M/S SHIV GRAM UDY OG MANDAL, THE CASH WITHDRAWAL WERE FOUND AT RS. 21915 52/-, THE DETAILS THEREOF ARE REPRODUCED AT PAGE NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN VIEW OF CASH WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 2191552/ -, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTRIES ARE ABOVE THE LIMI T OF RS. 20,000/- MENTIONED UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 21 AND HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. FINALLY ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS AS MENTIONED ABOVE, FROM ALL TH ESE 03 FIRMS/CONCERNS, THE AO WORKED OUT THE TOTAL TURNOVE R AT RS. 2,25,97,625/- (RS. 1,94,26,830 + RS. 31,70,795). A S PER RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2012-13, NET PROFIT RATE OF THE ASSESSEES FIRM WORKS OUT AT 21%. BY APPLYING THE S AME RATE, INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2009-10 WORKS OUT AT RS. 47,45,501/-. ADDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 21,91,5 52/- U/S 40A(3 OF THE ACT. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS AND IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS, THE AO HAS REASONS TO BELI EVE THAT INCOME OF RS. 65,97,303/- CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESC APED ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 AND ISSU ED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND STATED THAT ORIGINAL RETURN W AS FILED ON 29.9.2009 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONS E TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. SUBSEQ UENTLY, THE AO ISSUED A NOTICE U/S. 143(2) /142(1) OF THE ACT A LONGWITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE. THE AR APPEARED AND FILED THE OBJECTION FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 148 O F THE ACT WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE AO BY PASSING A SPEAKI NG ORDER DATED 12.12.2013 WHICH THE AO HAS REPRODUCED AT PAG E NO. 22 5-7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. NO DOUBT THAT THE ASS ESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR SUPPLY OF DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT, WHICH WAS SUPPLIED T O THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED EVEN AFTER SPECIFIC DIRECTI ONS FROM THE AO AND IN THE POST SURVEY ENQUIRIES. THE AO HAS C OMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BY APPLYING THE SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 4415751/- AND FURTHER ADD ITION OF RS. 2191552/- AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AT RS. 69740 50/- BY TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME (FOR RATE PURPOSE) AT RS. 69,600/- VIDE ORDER DATED 21.3.2014 PASSED U/S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT. 6.4 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE RAISED REL ATING TO ESTIMATION OF INCOME COMPUTED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS PER LAW, BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE AO HAS COMP LETED THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS WHIC H HE HAD DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH DOES N OT NEED 23 ANY INTERFERENCE ON OUR PART, HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REJECT THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6.5 AS REGARDS THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS IS CONCERNED, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE IS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL, RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS SOLELY BASELESS BEC AUSE THE AO HAS COMPLETED THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE B ASIS OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS BY CONDUCTING THE VARIOUS ENQUIRIES DURING SURVEY AND POST SURVEY OPERATION A ND RIGHTLY MADE THE REASSESSMENT, WHICH ACTION OF THE AO WAS ALSO RIGHTLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE, NO INTERFE RENCE IS REQUIRED ON OUR PART. 6.6 AS REGARDS THE ESTIMATION OF GRADE WISE PRODUCT ION AT 75% FOR GRADE-I, 15% FOR GRADE-II, 5% FOR GRADE-II I, 5% FOR GRADE IV AND 5% FOR RODA. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS APPLIED UNIFORM RATE @3500/- PER THOUSAND AND EVE N NOT GIVEN BENEFIT FOR GRADE WISE PRODUCTION AS SHOWN IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. IN OUR VIEW THE AO HAS TAKEN THE BR ICKS FOR BOTH FOR RATE PURPOSES AND NUMBERS ACCORDING TO FIGURES CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE AO H AS GIVEN 24 CONCESSION FOR ALL TYPES OF GRADES OF BRICKS MANUFA CTURED. AO HAS NOT APPLIED UNIFORM RATE AS ARGUED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTESTED THE R ATE PER THOUSAND BRICKS OF VARIOUS GRADES. THEREFORE, THE CALCULATION MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS GRADES OF BR ICKS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DIFFERENT R ATES FOR EACH GRADE IS AS PER LAW AND FACTS OF THE PRESENT C ASE. 6.7 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @21% HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FROM 21% TO 8% I N THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN DISPUTE. THE TURNOVER OF THE AS SESSEE FROM BRICK KILN HAS BEEN CALCULATED AT RS. 1,64,33,129/- AND FROM THE 3 RD KILN OF RS. 31,70,795/- HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY T HE ASSESSEE WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED IN PARA NO. 4.5 AT PAGE NO. 12 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE PROFIT RATE @ 8.03% ON THE TURNOVER OF 1,64,33,129 + RS. 31,70,795/- = RS.1,96,03,924/- HAS BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE LD. CI T(A) BY GIVING SUFFICIENT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6.8 KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO G IVEN THE 25 RELIEF OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 21,91,552/- U/S. 40A (3) OF THE I.T. ACT AND GIVEN THE FINDING IN PARA NO. 5 AND 5.1 AT PAGE NO. 12 & 13 AND HELD THAT WHEN INCOME IS COMPUTED BY APPLY ING NET RATE OF PROFIT, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES SEPARATE ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS NO EXPENSES HAVE BEEN CLAIMED, IN VIEW OF 134 TTJ 95 ( JOD.), (2007) 12 SOT 444 (AHD.), ITO VS. NARENDER K. GUPTA (2013) 142 ITD 303 (JOD.). LASTLY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER DATED 30.1.2019 OF THE LD. CIT(A), HISAR IN THE CASE OF M/S SHIV GRAM UDYOG M ANDAL, VPO JEETA KHERI, DISTT. BHIWANI IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 TO 2012-13 AND ESPECIALLY DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS T HE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA NO. 7 AT PAGE NO. 15 & 16 BY DEALING WITH GROUND NO. 3, 4 & 5 IN WHICH THE LD. CIT(A), H ISAR HAS HELD THAT AO HAS WORKED OUT THE PRODUCTION TAKING T OTAL PRODUCTION OF 6 GEDS IN A YEAR AND THIS ESTIMATION CAN BE ASSUMED WHEN THERE ARE PERFECT CONDITIONS OF WEATH ER AND AVAILABILITY OF MATERIAL AS WELL AS THE DEMAND FOR BRICKS. LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THIS ESTIMATION OF TURNOVER OF 6 GEDS IN A YEAR IS HIGHER SIDE AND REASONABLE ESTIMATION 4 GEDS IN A 26 YEAR TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED AND DIRECTED THE AO TO R EDUCE THE PRODUCTION FROM 6 GEDS TO 4 GEDS IN A YEAR UNDER A PPEAL. 6.9 WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT( A), HISAR DATED 30.1.2019 IN THE CASE OF SHIV GRAMUDYOG MANDA L (SUPRA) AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AO HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE ON 21.3.2014 AND LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED HIS IMPUGNED ORDER ON 30.9.2016. IT IS NOT ED THAT THE ORDER DATED 30.01.2019 IN THE CASE OF SHIV GRAMUDYO G MANDAL IS SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO & LD. CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT APPEAL I.E. NOT AVAILABLE WITH THEM. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS EXPLAINED AB OVE AND AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENU E AUTHORITIES ALOGNWITH THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE A SSESSEE, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS WHICH NEED NOT TO BE INTERFERED ON OUR PA RT. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND R EJECT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, DIS MISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL N O. 5993/DEL/2016 (AY 2009-10) FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ST AND DISMISSED. 27 7. FOLLOWING THE CONSISTENT VIEW AS TAKEN IN APPEAL NO. 5993/DEL/2016 (AY 2009-10), AS AFORESAID, THE OTHE R 03 APPEALS BEING ITA NO. 5994 TO 5996/DEL/2016 (AYRS. 2010-11 TO 2012-13) ALSO STAND DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 04 APPEALS FILED BY THE A SSESSEE STAND DISMISSED. THIS DECISION IS PRONOUNCED ON 27.11.2019. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (H.S. SIDHU) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27.11.2019 SRB COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI