Income Tax Officer Ward-1(3), RAIPUR V. SHRI Parminder SinghSaini, RAIPUR

ITA 60/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85376 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Keywords: Business income; Depreciation; Peak credit; Corroborative evidences; Tax effect
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI REJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA NO.60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), VS. SHRI PARMINDER SINGH SAINI, RAIPUR. PROP. M/S RAIPUR PUNJAB FREIGHT CARRIER, RING ROAD NO.2, BHANPURI, DISTT. RAIPUR (CG) (PAN: AORPS 9860 B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K. JAIN RESPONDENT BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.12.2014 ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), RAIPUR DATED 29.12.2010 RELATING TO A.Y. 2006-07. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1) WHETHER IN LAW AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE CIT(A)WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE NP ARTE @ 4% INSTEAD OF 6% OF GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS AS ADOPTED BY THE A.O. 2 ITA NO. 60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 2) WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDI TION OF RS.1,26,000/- MADE BY THE AO BY APPLYING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 44AE ON ASSESSEES OWN TRUCKS 3) WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELEING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.6,59,370/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT , 1961. 3. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 04.12.2014 HAS FILED CALCULATION OF TAX EFFECT. AS PER THE SAID C ALCULATION, THE TAX EFFECT IS RS.3,04,923/-. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE, SINCE TH E TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.4,00,000/-, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF ITAT, INDORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GAURAV SHARMA AND OTHERS REPORTED IN (2014) 24 ITJ 648) (T RIB-INDORE). AS PER THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE RECENT INSTRUCTION NO.5/20 14 ISSUED BY CBDT ON 10.07.2014 REVISING MONETARY LIMITS FOR FILING OF A PPEAL BEFORE ITAT FIXING TAX EFFECT LIMIT OF RS.4 LAKH, THE INSTANT APPEAL I S NOT MAINTAINABLE AND LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL ON 15.04.2011 I.E. BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 B Y CBDT ON 10.07.2014. IT IS WORTHWHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NAV BHARAT EXPLOSIVE CO, PVT. LTD REPORTED IN (2011) 337 ITR 515 (CG) HELD T HAT MAINTAINABILITY OF 3 ITA NO. 60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 APPEAL/REFERENCE AT THE INSTANCE OF REVENUE IS TO B E CONSIDERED ON THE BASIS OF CIRCULAR/INSTRUCTION PREVAILING AT THE RELEVANT TIM E WHEN THE APPEAL/REFERENCE WAS MADE AND INSTRUCTION ISSUED. THEREFORE, CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.5/2014 DATED 10.07.2014 IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE INSTANT C ASE WHICH WAS FILED ON 15.04.2011. COLUMN 11 OF THE ABOVE INSTRUCTION CLE ARLY AND SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT THE INSTRUCTION WILL APPLY TO THE APP EALS FILED ON OR AFTER 10.07.2014. HOWEVER, THE CASES WHERE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE 10.07.2014 WILL BE GOVERNED BY THE INSTRUCTION ON T HIS SUBJECT, OPERATIVE AT THE TIME WHEN SUCH APPEAL WAS FILED. AT THE RELEVA NT TIME WHEN THE APPEAL WAS FILED, CBDTS INSTRUCTION NO.3/2011, DATED 09.0 2.2011 WAS OPERATIVE AND THE MONETARY LIMIT FOR FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS AT RS.3,00,000/-. IN THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE TOTAL TA X EFFECT IS MORE THAN THE PRESCRIBED MONETARY LIMIT AND, HENCE, THERE IS NO M ERIT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO OBSERVE HERE THAT WHEN THERE IS A DIRECT DECISION OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE AND THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IS BINDING ON THE TRIBUNA L, THEREFORE, WE FOLLOW THE SAME IN PREFERENCE TO THE DECISION OF ITAT, INDORE BENCH RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE HOLD THAT THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS VERY MUCH MAINTAINABLE. CONSEQUENTLY, W E REJECT THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING TAX EFFECT AND HOLD THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE 4 ITA NO. 60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 REVENUE IS MAINTAINABLE. 4. VIDE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE NET PROFIT RAT E @ 4% INSTEAD OF 6% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS ADOPTED BY THE A.O. 5. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE OWNS THREE TRUCKS. DURING THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF 3.35% ON GROSS REC EIPTS OF RS.54,76,203/-. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS DECLINE IN G.P. PE RCENTAGE AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. THE G.P. PERCENTAGE DECLARED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 10.05% AS AGAINST 10.61% DECLARED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS ADMITTED THAT NO PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR BALAN CE SHEET ARE MAINTAINED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. ONLY SOURCE OF INCOME IS TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS WHICH IS IN THE NAME OF M/S. RAIPUR PUNJAB FREIGHT CARRIER, RAIPUR. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SCR UTINY ALSO, MOST OF THE EXPENSES ARE FOUND TO BE INCURRED THROUGH SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AND ITS AUTHENTICITY IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF PROPER VERIFI CATION. THE TRANSPORTATION RECEIPT ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCLUDE THE RECEIPT EARNED 5 ITA NO. 60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 FROM PLYING OF ITS HEAVY GOODS VEHICLES. CONSEQUEN TLY, THE A.O. REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER SECTION 145(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) AND DETERMINED THE NET PROFIT @ 6% BY CO NSIDERING THE NET PROFIT SHOWN IN THE CASE M/S R.K. TRANSPORT, DURG AND M/S ABHISHEK CARRIERS, BHILAI WHO ARE DEALING IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS . IN THE MONETARY TERMS, THE NET PROFIT DETERMINED BY THE A.O. WAS AT RS.3,2 8,572/- AS AGAINST RS.1,51,740/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE DIF FERENCE OF RS.1,76,832/- WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON APPEAL, HE LD CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AFTER DEPRECIATION @ 4% OF GROSS RECEIPTS, OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND TH E SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OF FICER WHILE ESTIMATING NET PROFIT HAS NOT DWELVED INTO THE HIST ORY OF THE CASE AND ALSO NOT SUPPLIED ANY INFORMATION ABOUT COMPARA BLE CASES RELIED ON BY HIM. THERE IS NO DENYING OF THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SHOWN BETTER RESULTS AS COMPARED TO T HE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS AND REFE RRED VARIOUS CASE LAWS TO PINPOINT THAT HISTORY OF THE C ASE TAKES PREFERENCE OVER COMPARABLE CASE IN CASE OF REJECTIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AD-HOC ESTIMATION OF EXPENSES/INCOME NORMALLY DEPENDS UPON INDIVIDUAL PERCEPTION. THEREFORE, KEE PING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF NET PROFIT AFTER DEPRECIATION IS ESTIMATED @ 4% OF GROSS RECEIPTS. THUS, APPELLANTS NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED AT RS.2,19,048/- AS AGAINST RS.1,83,752 SHOWN BY HIM I N PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPELLANT GET RELIE F OF RS.1,41,536/- . 6 ITA NO. 60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PA SSED A WELL REASONED ORDER AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE A.O. HIMSELF HAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S R.K. TRANSPORT, DU RG AND M/S. ABHISHEK CARRIERS, BHILAI WHO ARE DEALING IN THE SAME LINE O F BUSINESS, THE NET PROFIT SHOWN WAS BETWEEN 4% TO 5%. THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING THE NET PROFIT @ 6% IN THE INSTANT CASE. IN OUR VIEW, THE AD-HOC ESTIMATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE A.O. WAS WITHOUT A NY BASIS AND HE HAS ALSO NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THIS FACT THAT THE NET PROFIT SHOWN IN THIS YEAR WAS BETTER THAN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. CONSID ERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE UPH OLD THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REJECT GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL PRE FERRED BY THE REVENUE. 8. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,26,000/-. 9. WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT, THE A.O. TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT INCLUDE THE RECEIPT FROM PLYING OF HIS OWN THREE GOODS VEHICLES IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND HE DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM TH ESE VEHICLES UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT. HE, THEREFO RE, MADE AN ADDITION OF 7 ITA NO. 60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 RS.1,26,000/- (RS.42,000 X 3) TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE. 10. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO.5.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AND HENCE T HE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW WAS THAT IN THE TRANSPORTATION RECEIPTS ACCOUNT AGAINST RECE IPTS INFORMATION OF CONTRACTEES HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN NARRATION AND THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO ANY TRUCK/VEHICLE NUMBERS AND IT WAS POSSIBLE THAT THE A.O. MIGHT HAVE DRAWN INFERENCE ABOUT TRUCK NUMBER-WISE RECEIPTS ON THE B ASIS OF TRUCK-WISE FREIGHT PAYMENT DETAILS FURNISHED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE AUDIT REPORT FURNISHED ALONG W ITH RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS MADE CLEAR BY THE AUDITOR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD USED VEHICLES OWNED BY HIM FOR TRANSPORTATION WORK EXECUTED DURING THE YEA R AND ACCORDINGLY, HE HAD ALLOWED DEPRECIATION THEREON AND STATED IN FORM NO. 3CD THAT NO INCOME WAS REQUIRED TO BE OFFERED UNDER SECTION 44AE OF THE AC T. IT IS ALSO APPARENT FROM THE RECORD THAT IN PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, THE ASSES SEE HAD CLAIMED DIESEL EXPENSES AND SALARY TO DRIVER AND CONDUCTORS WHICH WERE REQUIRED ONLY IN CASE OF UTILIZATION OF OWN TRUCK FOR TRANSPORTATION . THUS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE 8 ITA NO. 60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 ASSESSEE HAD ENGAGED HIS OWN TRUCK IN HIS BUSINESS AND CLAIMED THE EXPENSES AS SATED HEREINABOVE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TH E RELEVANT FACTS STATED HEREINABOVE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND IN INTE RFERING WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD H IS VIEW AND REJECT GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL. 12. GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO DELETION O F ADDITION OF RS.6,59,370/- MADE BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER : (C) DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY, THREE UNDISCLOS ED BANK ACCOUNTS WERE UNEARTHED. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AL SO, IT WAS CATEGORICALLY ACCEPTED, BOTH BY THE ASSESSEE AND HI S COUNSEL, THAT NO OTHER BANK ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED IN HIS N AME (VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES DATED 11.07.08 AND 04.08.2008). IN THE LATER STAGE IT IS SAID THAT DETAILS OF ALL BUSINESS TRANS ACTIONS MADE THROUGH THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DULY INFORMED T O ITS ACCOUNTANT, BUT DUE TO THE NEGLIGENCY OF THE ACCOUN TANT, THE SAME WERE NOT INCORPORATED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE INTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE IS CLEAR AS HE WAS RELUCTANT TO DISCLOSE THE BANK ACCO UNTS EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED TO EXPLAIN ALL THE DEBI T AND CREDIT ENTRIES OF ITS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 05.09.2008; BUT THIS TIME ALSO, HE FAILED TO CLARIFY THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND UTILIZATION OF WITHDRAWAL OF ITS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS. IT IS SAID THAT DEPOSIT S WERE MADE ON BEHALF OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS THROUGH SAID BANK ACCOUNT, BUT ALL THE ABOVE BANK ACCOUNTS ARE UNDISCLOSED ONE AND 9 ITA NO. 60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 TRANSACTIONS ENTERED THROUGH SUCH ACCOUNTS ARE MADE OUT OF BOOKS. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION ABOUT TH E NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDITS OF ITS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS, THE PEAK CREDIT BALANCES ARE HEREBY TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC-68 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961. PERUSAL OF BANK ACCOUNTS SHOWS THE FOLLOWING PEAK C REDIT BALANCE. BANKS NAME A/C NO. DATE PEAK CREDIT BALANCE (A) ICICI BANK, RAIPUR : 016105001098 28.11.2005 R S.3,51,030/- (B) AXIS BANK, RAIPUR : 139010100030700 08.06.2005 RS.26,228/- (C) IDBI BANK, RAIPUR : 049104000039543 25.02.200 6 RS.2,82,112/- 13. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE REASONS STATED IN PARAGRAPH NO.6.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND, HENCE, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 14. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. SHRI D.K. JAIN, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HEAVILY RELIED ON THE O RDER OF A.O. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, AFTER REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY APPLYING NET PROFIT RATE. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AFTER REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BY APPLYING NET PROF IT RATE, A SEPARATE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, CAN BE MADE, IF THE AS SESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDITS OF H IS UNDISCLOSED BANK 10 ITA NO .60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 ACCOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE A.O. MAY BE RESTORED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE DETAILS LIKE SOURCE OF D EPOSITS AND UTILIZATION OF WITHDRAWAL IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS IN ITS UNDISC LOSED BANK ACCOUNTS. IN THIS REGARD, EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS THA T HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE PREPARED BY THE A CCOUNTANT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF MANNER IN WHICH ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE PREPARED BY IGNORING ALL SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW THAT THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT WA S LESS THAN THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, GROSS RECEIPT AS PER TDS CERTIFICATE AS WELL AS GROSS RECEIPTS ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. BY CONSIDERING ALL INFORMATION POSSESSED BY HIM AT THE TIME OF ESTIMAT ING PROFIT FROM BUSINESS. IT APPEARS THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT CORRECTLY APPRECIA TED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE OBSERVATI ONS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EV IDENCE ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SO-CALLED UN DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT RELATED TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS DISCLOS ED BY HIM AND HE HAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE MANNER OF EST IMATING THE GROSS RECEIPTS 11 ITA NO .60/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 OF RS.54,76,203/- SO THAT AN INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE. IN FACT, THE A.O. HAS NOT SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT ANY DEPOSIT WHICH DID NOT RELATE TO ASSESSEES BUSINESS RECEIPT. 15. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE. CONSEQUENTLY, WE DISMISS THIS GROUND. 16. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.12.2014. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT RAIPUR, DATED: 18.12.2014 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. D.R. ITAT, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAIPUR