ACIT, Jaipur V. KULSUM MALIK, Jaipur

ITA 606/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2162 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATIMA KAUSHIK
• Assessee Lawyers: GULSHAN AGARWAL CA D
• Keywords: Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Capital receipt; Documents seized
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES , JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; ,O JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D L NL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, AM & SHRI KUL BHAR AT, JM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1 JAIPUR CUKE VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK 73, SURAJ NAGAR EAST, CIVIL LINES, JAIPUR LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: ADAPM 3662 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY: SMT. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, CIT - DR FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI VIJAY GOYAL, CA AND SHRI GULSHAN AGARWAL, CA LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 20/04/2017 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/04/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE REVENUE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-4, JAIPUR DATED 31-03-2016 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS. 14,63,159/- (CORRECT FIGURE RS. 10,75,114/-) AGAINST RS. 25,38,273/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED REC EIPT FROM BEAUTY PARLORS IGNORING THE CONTENTS OF THE SE IZED MATERIAL AND STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 2 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 16.00 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWILL RECE IPTS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MILERANT CO. LTD. ,246 ITR 316. 2.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENUE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:- 4.1.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION AND ALSO TAKEN A NOTE OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT REL IED UPON THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. I FOUND THE AO HAS COMPARED THE RECEIPTS OF THE PARLOUR FRO M SEIZED RECORDS TO DETERMINE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS OF THE PAR LOUR. HE IGNORED THE EXPENDITURE SIDE OF THE SEIZED RECORDS. HE MERELY RELIED ON THE SEARCH STATEMENT AND HELD THAT ALL THE EXPENSES RELATING TO THE PARLOUR ARE RECORDED IN TH E REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SEARCH STATEM ENT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE EVIDENCE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTME NT IN THE SHAPE OF DOCUMENTS. THE GROSS RECEIPTS CANNOT BE TA XED AS INCOME. THEREFORE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE, I DIRECT THE AO TO GIVE CREDIT OF THE EXPENSE S RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BUT NOT FOUND RECORDED IN T HE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT . THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WORKING FOR THIS. THE COMPARATIVE CHART IS PLACED A T PB PG 100 TO 102 WHICH SHOWS THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 14,63,159/- ARE RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BU T NOT IN REGULAR BOOKS OF THE PARLOUR. THIS EXPENSES WERE IN CURRED TO EARN THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS OF THE PARLOUR THEREFO RE, IT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FROM THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS OF THE PARLOUR. THEREFORE, I DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE A DDITION OF RS. 14,63,159/- AND REST OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 25, 38,273 RS. 14,63,159 = RS. 10,75,114/- IS SUSTAINED. ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 3 2.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO RS.10,75,114/- AS AGAINST RS. 25,38,273 /-MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED RECEIPTS FROM BEAUTY PARLORS IGNORING T HE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON T HE ISSUE IN QUESTION. 3.1.2 SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE 1. THE LD AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,38,273/- W HICH WAS REDUCED TO RS. 10,75,114/- BY GIVING RELIEF OF RS. 14,63,159/- BY ALLOWING THE EXPENSES RECORDED IN THE SAME SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A) ARE AT PG 15 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE RELI ES ON THE FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A). 2. WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS THE LD. AO ADDED THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS OF THE PARLOR RECORDED ON THE SEIZED PAPERS OVER AND ABOVE TO RECORDED IN REG ULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE PRESUMING THAT T HE EXPENSES RELATING TO SUCH RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN REG ULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF SUCH PARLOR. THOUGH THE PRESUMPTION TAK EN BY THE LD. AO IS BASED ON THE STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS NOT CORRECT AND SOME OF THE EXPENSES WERE ALSO UNRECORD ED. THUS, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD AO IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE TO DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 3. THE PAPERS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF PARLORS WERE WORK OUT BY LD. AO ALSO CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF EXPENDITURE OF SUCH PARLOR FOR THE SAME PERIOD. WHILE COMPUTING THE INC OME OF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENTS THE LD. AO ONLY COMPARED THE RECEIPTS RECORDED ON SUCH DOCUMENTS FROM REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO COMPARISON OF EXPENSES RECORDED ON SUCH DOCU MENTS WAS MADE. IF THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IT WOULD BE CLEAR THAT AGAINST THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS THERE ARE SOME UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES TOO WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN REGULAR BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS OF THE ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 4 ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY STATED IN HER STA TEMENT THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENSES PERTAINING TO RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. BUT THIS EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN DONE BY THE LD. AO A ND HE ADDED THE ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. IT IS ADMITTED LEGAL POSITION THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE READ AS WHOLE AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATER IAL SHOULD BE COMPUTED BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE CONTE NTS OF SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENTS BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN HAPPENED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PART OF THE ENTRIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE ONLY CONSIDERED BY THE AO. FURTHER IN SUPPORT OF HIS ACTION, THE LD. AO RELIE D UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN SHE ADMITTED THAT THE ENTIR E EXPENSES OF THE PARLOR HAVE BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS . BUT THE ORAL STATEMENTS CANNOT SUPERSEDE TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF RECEIPTS AS WELL AS THE DETAIL OF EXPENSES. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT THE AO IS QUASI-JUDICIAL AUT HORITY AND SHOULD BE GOVERNED IN HIS FUNCTION BY JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION AND MUST CONFORM TO THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND MUST PROCEED WITHO UT BIAS- TIN BOX CO. VS CIT 249 ITR 216 (SC) . IT IS ALSO SETTLED LAW THAT THE AO MUST ACT HONESTLY ON THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM AND NOT VINDICT IVELY, CAPRICIOUSLY, OR ARBITRARILY- GURUMUKH SINGH VS CIT 12 ITR 393, 427 (FB), DAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD VS CIT 26 ITR 775, 4. WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE PARLOR WISE CHART BEFORE L D CIT(A) WHICH CONSIST THE HEAD TO HEAD COMPARISON OF EXPENSES REC ORDED ON SEIZED MATERIAL AND AGAINST WHICH THE EXPENSES RECORDED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF SUCH CHART THE LD CIT (A) FOUND THAT POSITION OF EXPENSES AS PER SEIZED PAPER VIZ A VIZ RECORDED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS AS UNDER: - A) MAHAVEER NAGAR PARLOR MONTH EXPENSES AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS EXPENSES AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS APRIL-08 1,77,609 48,836 MAY-08 2,12,726 59,141 JUNE-08 2,17,518 65,284 JULY-08 1,95,700 61,289 AUG-08 2,01,337 66,041 SEPT. 08 2,10,832 60,539 ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 5 OCT 08 2,04,957 96,468 NOV 08 2,46,015 1,02,855 DEC 08 2,49,691 85,094 TOTAL 19,16,385 6,45,547 EXCESS OF EXPENSES OF MAHAVEER NAGAR PARLOR AS RECO RDED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN EXCESS TO EXPENSES RECORDED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RS. 12,70,838/- B) HANUMAN NAGAR PARLOR MONTH EXPENSES AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS EXPENSES AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOV.-08 1,36,926 32,248 JAN-09 90,249 50,810 MAR-09 85,085 51,384 TOTAL 3,12,260 1,34,442 EXCESS OF EXPENSES OF HANUMAN NAGAR PARLOR AS RECOR DED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN EXCESS TO EXPENSES RECORDED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RS. 1,77,818/- B) BANI PARK PARLOR MONTH EXPENSES AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS EXPENSES AS PER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OCT.08 42,843 28,340 EXCESS OF EXPENSES OF BANI PARK PARLOR AS RECORDED IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN EXCESS TO EXPENSES RECORDED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS RS. 14,503/- 5. THUS AFTER ABOVE SUBMISSION THE TOTAL ADDITIONS IN TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE OF RS. 10,75,114/- ONLY AS AGAIN ST RS. 25,38,273 ADDED BY LD. AO DETAIL OF WHICH IS AS UNDER: - NAME OF PARLOUR UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AS ADDED BY LD. AO UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES AGAINST UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS NET UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS MAHAVEER NAGAR 22,10,059 12,70,838 9,39,221 ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 6 HANUMAN NAGAR 2,71,705 1,77,818 93,887 BANI PARK 56,509 14,503 42,006 TOTAL 25,38,273 14,63,159 10,75,114 THEREFORE, LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY SUSTAINED THE ADDI TION OF RS. 10,75,114/- AS AGAINST RS. 25,38,273/- MADE BY AO. 2.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS INDIVIDUAL AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE WAS FROM BUSINESS OF BEAUTY PARLORS. TH E ASSESSEE FILED HER REGULAR RETURN U/S 139(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT ON 28.0 9.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME RS. 12,43,400/- . THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS ON ASSESSEE ON 11.11.2010 . THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS CENTRALIZED AT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED ON 09.08.2011, WHICH WAS SERVED TO ASSESSEE ON 10.08.2 011 . IN PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF INCOME TAX ACT, THE ASSESSEE FIL ED HER RETURN ON 24.10.2011 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME WHICH SHE DECL ARED IN ORIGINAL RETURN I.E. INCOME OF RS.12,43,400/-. IT IS ALSO N OTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY AO VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.03.2013 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 61,16,804/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOM E OF RS. 12,43,400/- IT IS FURTHER NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS T HAT THE AO HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 25,38,273/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS OF ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 7 MAHAVEER NAGAR, HANUMAN NAGAR AND BANI PARK PARLOR OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN REDUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN FIRST A PPEAL BY RS. 14,63,159/- AND SUSTAINED ADDITION OF RS. 10,75 ,114/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- THE SEARCH STATEMENT CANNOT OVERRIDE THE EVIDENCE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE SHAPE OF D OCUMENTS. THE GROSS RECEIPTS CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME. THERE FORE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I DI RECT THE AO TO GIVE CREDIT OF THE EXPENSES RECORDED IN THE S EIZED DOCUMENTS BUT NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOO KS OF ACCOUNT . THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WORKING FOR THIS. THE COMPARATIVE CHART IS PLACED AT PB PG 100 TO 102 WHICH SHOWS THE TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 14,63,159/- ARE REC ORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BUT NOT IN REGULAR BOOKS OF TH E PARLOUR. THIS EXPENSES WERE INCURRED TO EARN THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS OF THE PARLOUR THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE DEDUCTED FRO M THE SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS OF THE PARLOUR. THEREFORE, I DI RECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,63,159/- AND RE ST OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,38,273 RS. 14,63,159 = RS. 10, 75,114/- IS SUSTAINED. THUS LOOKING TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF T HE ASSESSEE AT PARA 4 AND 5 OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION DESCRIBING THE BIF URCATION OF THE AMOUNTS AT MAHAVEER NAGAR, HANUMAN NAGAR AND BANI PARK PARL OURS AS ABOVE BESIDES THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, WE FEEL THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTIN G THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10,75,114/-. THUS GROUND NO. 1 OF THE REVENU E IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 8 3.1 APROPOS GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE, THE FACTS AS EMERGES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AS UNDER:-` 4.2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION AND - ALSO TAKEN A NOTE OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE. I FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 21,5 0,000/- AS AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 21,00,000/- FR OM SMT.SAROJ JOSHI WHICH INCLUDES IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF R S. 16.00 LACS. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEE T REATED RS. 16,00,000/- AS RECEIPT ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWILL AND RS. 5,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUTION TO CAPITAL A CCOUNT OF FIRM. INCOME TAX CAN BE LEVIED ON A PARTICULAR ITEM AFTER ANALYZING THE TRUE NATURE OF THE RECEIPT WHETHER I T IS TAXABLE RECEIPT OR NOT. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT LITIGATI ON IN BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SAROJ JOSHI WERE INTO COURTS AND H IGH COURT APPOINTED AN ARBITRATOR - A RETIRED HIGH COURT JUDG E (PB PG 52-54) WHO DECIDED A DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF SAROJ JOS HI DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO PAY RS. 21,50,000/- TO SA ROJ JOSHI (COPY OF AWARD AT PB PAGE 55). THE ASSESSEE HAS PAI D THIS AMOUNT BY FOUR CHEQUES, COPY OF WHICH IS AT PB PG 5 6-59. THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE NOT THE INCO ME AND THE ASSESSEE MADE WRONG ENTRY IN HER ACCOUNT UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THIS AMOUNT IS NOT REPAYABLE. THE TAXAB ILITY OF AN AMOUNT DEPENDS ON NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION AND ENT RIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CANNOT BE DECISIVE OR CONCLUSI VE IN THE MATTER. IN THIS CASE, THE ARBITRATOR WAS APPOINTED BY THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID THE AMOUNT IN COMPLIANCE OF THE AWARD PASSED BY THE ARBITRATOR. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FATS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS . 16.00 LACS IS NOT TAXABLE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSE E, ACCORDINGLY , THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE TH E ADDITION OF RS. 16.00 LACS MADE BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWI LL. ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 9 3.2 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16.00 LACS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWILL RECEIPT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MILERANT CO. LT D., 246 ITR 316. 3.3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILLED THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUB MISSION ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE: - 1) THE LD AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,00,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF ALLEGED GOODWILL FROM SMT SAROJ JOSHI. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE AS MENTIONED AT PG 4 OF CIT (A)S ORDER TO PROVE THAT THE RECEIP T WAS AGAINST LIABILITY WHICH THE ASSESSEE REPAID IN COMPLIANCE OF ORDER OF ARBITRATOR APPOINTED BY HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT. THE FIND INGS OF LD CIT(A) ARE AT PG 19 OF HIS ORDER. THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON T HE FINDINGS OF LD CIT(A). 2. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARTNERSHIP DEED DATED 14.01.2009 ENTERED INTO A PARTNERSHIP WITH SM T. SAROJ JOSHI TO CARRY ON THE BUSINESS OF BEAUTY CLINIC AT MAHAVEER NAGAR. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED TOTAL SUM OF RS. 21,00,000/- FROM SMT. SAR OJ JOSHI ON VARIOUS DATES OUT OF WHICH THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS CREDITED IN CAPITAL A/C OF SMT. SAROJ JOSHI AND A SUM OF RS. 16,00,000/ - WAS CREDITED IN CAPITAL A/C TREATING THE SAME RECEIVED AGAINST GOOD WILL THOUGH THERE WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT REGARDING RECEIPT OF RS. 1 6,00,000/- AS GOODWILL. THE PAYEE PARTY SMT. SAROJ JOSHI TREATED THIS SUM AS LOAN TO SMT. KULSUM MALIK, THEREFORE SHE DEMANDED BACK THIS AMOUNT FROM ASSESSEE FOR WHICH SEVERAL LEGAL COMMUNICATION WERE EXCHANGED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SMT. SAROJ JOSHI AND FINALLY B Y THE ORDER OF ARBITRATOR DATED 30.9.2013 THE ASSESSEE HAD TO PAY BACK AMOUNT OF RS. 21,50,000/- TO SMT. SAROJ JOSHI. WE HAVE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS IN THIS REGARD BEFORE LD CIT(A) ALONG WIT H APPLICATION FILED U/R 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES DATED 25.08.2014: - ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 10 A) COPY OF LEGAL NOTICE ISSUED BY SMT. SAROJ JOSHI DATED 11.05.2011 TO ASSESSEE FOR REFUNDING THE AMOUNT PAI D TO ASSESSEE ALONG WITH INTEREST. B) COPY OF REPLY DATED 23.05.2011 GIVEN BY ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE DATED 11.05.2011. C) COPY OF NOTICE DATED 02.06.2011 GIVEN BY SMT. SA ROJ JOSHI FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR. D) COPY OF NOTICE DATED 02.06.2011 GIVEN BY ASSESSE E FOR DISAPPROVAL ON NAME OF ARBITRATOR SUGGESTED BY SMT. SAROJ JOSHI AND FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR SUGGESTED BY ASSE SSEE. E) COPY OF NOTICE DATED 17.06.2011 GIVEN BY SMT. SA ROJ JOSHI FOR DISAPPROVAL ON NAME OF ARBITRATOR SUGGESTED BY ASSE SSEE. F) COPY OF APPLICATION DATED 23.06.2011 FILED BEFOR E ADDITIONAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, JAIPUR FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR. G) COPY OF ORDER DATED 27.09.2011 PASSED BY ADDITIO NAL DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE, JAIPUR. H) COPY OF APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE HIGH COURT, JAIP UR BENCH. I) COPY OF ORDER OF HIGH COURT, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPU R DATED 06.12.2012 WHEREIN HE APPOINTED TO MR. JUSTICE BHAN WROO KHAN, FORMER JUDGE OF HIGH COURT AS ARBITRATOR. J) COPY OF ENTRY RECORDED ON ORDER SHEET BY MR. JUS TICE BHANWROO KHAN (ARBITRATOR) WHEREIN HE ORDER TO ASSESSEE TO P AY RS. 21,50,000/- TO SMT. SAROJ JOSHI. K) COPIES OF CHEQUES OF RS. 21,50,000/- GIVEN TO SM T. SAROJ JOSHI. THUS FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS THIS IS CLEAR THAT SM T. SAROJ JOSHI PAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,00,000/- TO ASSESSEE AS LOAN A ND THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY TREATED THIS AMOUNT AS GOODWILL. NOW FROM T HE LEGAL DISPUTE SETTLED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SMT. SAROJ JOSHI THIS HAS BEEN PROVED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AS LOAN AND THE SAME HAS BE EN REPAID BY NOW THUS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,00,000/-; THEREFORE IT S HOULD NOT BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. . 3. THE SUBMISSION ON OBJECTIONS OF THE LD. AO ON TH IS ISSUE IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 30.10.2014 HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY LD C IT(A) AT PG 8-9 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS AS UNDER: - A) AT VERY FIRST PARA THE LD. AO SUBMITTED THAT NON E OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTED AS PROVIDE U/R 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES IS SATISFIED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS COVERE D IN CIRCUMSTANCES (C) PROVIDED IN RULE 46A OF I. TAX RU LES. SINCE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LEGAL DISPUT E WAS PENDING, THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT TH E LEGAL DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 11 HOWEVER THE LD. AO WRONG IN HOLDING IN THE REMAND R EPORT THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY AVOIDED PRODUCTION OF SUC H EVIDENCES, IN ORDER TO CONCEAL CORRECT NATURE OF THE TRANSACTI ONS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER AND TO AVOID PROPER EXAMINA TION OF THE TRANSACTIONS. IN FACT THERE WAS NO ANY REASON TO CO NCEAL THE REAL NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS BECAUSE AS PER LEGAL DO CUMENTS SMT. SAROJ JOSHI WAS CLAIMING THIS TRANSACTIONS AS LOAN AS AGAINST GOODWILL TREATED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE LO AN CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. B) THE LD. AO HELD THAT MOST PART OF THIS NEW EVIDE NTIARY DOCUMENT WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO BUT THE ASSESSEE NEITHE R MENTIONED ANYWHERE ABOUT IT NOR PRODUCED ANY PART OF IT DURIN G THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD, WE SUBMIT T HAT WHATEVER SPECIFICALLY DEMANDED BY THE LD AO OR THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE P ROVIDED. IN THIS REGARD THIS IS TO SUBMIT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE LEGAL DISPUTE WAS PENDIN G AS IN SUCH DISPUTE THE ASSESSEE WAS CLAIMING THE AMOUNT U NDER QUESTION AS NON REFUNDABLE WHILE THE CLAIMANT PARTY WAS CLAIMING THIS AS LOAN AND DEMANDING BACK. SINCE UP TO THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE WAS NO C HANGE IN THE NATURE OF RECEIPT, THEREFORE IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSE E THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE LD. AO BE CAUSE THE SAME WOULD NOT SERVED ANY PURPOSE AND NATURE OF REC EIPT. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE, T HEREFORE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS DULY COVERED BY THE CIRCUMS TANCES PROVIDED U/R 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES AND THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE. FURTHER THE FACTS OF CASE LAW RELIED BY THE ASSESSE E IN HER APPLICATION ARE IDENTICAL AND SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. C) SO FAR AS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AO IN PARA 1 THA T NO PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS PRODUCED ALONG WITH APPLICATION FILED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THIS REGARD THIS IS TO S UBMIT THAT THE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS SUBMITTED TO AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER THAT THE RECEIPT OF MAHAVEER NAGAR PARLOR FROM JANUARY-2009 WAS TREATED BY LD. AO AS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. THE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED IS AT PB PAGE105-108. IN THE PARTNERSHIP DEED THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF PAYMENT OF RS. 16,00, 000/- TO THE ASSESSEE BY SMT. SAROJ JOSHI. THERE WAS NO WRITTEN ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 12 AGREEMENT/UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SMT. S AROJ JOSHI REGARDING RECEIPT OF SUM OF RS. 16,00,000/- A S GOODWILL. FURTHER IF THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED SOMETHING IN W RONG HEAD THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE REAL INCOME CAN ONLY TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER SETTLEMENT OF LEGAL DISPUTE IN BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SMT SAROJ JOSHI IT HAS BECAME CLEAR THAT SUM OF RS. 16,00,000 /- WAS NOT INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT REFUNDABLE AMOUNT TO SMT . SAROJ JOSHRI, THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. D) THE LD. AO CLAIMING IN PARA 2 THAT ONCE THE ASSE SSEE HERSELF CLAIMED THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SMT. SAROJ JO SHRI WAS AGAINST THE GOODWILL, THEREFORE NOW SHE CANNOT DENY IT. IN THIS REGARD AS STATED IN EARLIER PARAS THAT WHEN THIS AM OUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. SAROJ JOSHRI THERE WAS NO WRITTE N AGREEMENT/UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND SMT. S AROJ JOSHI REGARDING RECEIPT OF SUM OF RS. 16,00,000/- A ND NATURE OF RECEIPT. THE ASSESSEE TREATED AS GOODWILL WHILE SMT . SAROJ JOSHI PAID THIS TO ASSESSEE AS A LOAN REPAYABLE BACK. THE REFORE MERELY SOMETHING HAS BEEN CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN WRONG HEAD UNDER WRONG BELIEF, THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FOR TAXING A RECEIPT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE REAL NATURE OF RECEIPT IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKE I NTO CONSIDERATION AND AFTER SETTLEMENT OF LEGAL DISPUTE IT IS VERY WELL CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE WRONGLY TREATED THIS A MOUNT AS GOODWILL WHILE THE SAME WAS REFUNDABLE LOAN AND ONC E IT IS PROVED THAT THE RECEIPT IS REPAYABLE/REFUNDABLE TO PAYER THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE PAYEE. RELI ANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- (I) CIT VS. HAZARIMAL MILAPCHAND SURANA 263 ITR 573 WHEREIN HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGHCOURT HAS HELD THAT MERE BOOK ENTRY DOES NOT CREATE INCOME AND SURPLUS ON REVALUATION OF ASSET IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS INCOME . (II) KEDARNATH JUTE MANUFACTURING CO. VS. CIT 82 ITR 363, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT MERE ACCOUNTING ENTRY WOULD NOT GIVE RISE TO INCOME UNLE SS INCOME HAS RESULTED IN REAL TERMS. E) SO FAR AS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AO IN PARA 3 THA T FROM THE ORDER OF ARBITRATOR IT CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED WHETHER THIS TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS. 21,50,000/- BY THE ASSESSEE TO SMT. SAROJ JO SHI WAS TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 16,00,000/- W HICH IS IN QUESTION HERE. IN THIS REGARD THIS IS TO SUBMIT THE FROM THE LEGAL ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 13 NOTICE OF SMT. SAROJ JOSHI ISSUED TO ASSESSEE, WHER EIN SHE CLAIMED THE REFUND OF RS. 21,00,000/- FROM ASSESSEE (WHICH WERE PAID BY HER TO THE ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES ). OUT OF THIS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,00,000/- WAS CREDITED IN CAPITA L A/C OF SMT. SAROJ JOSHI IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND A SUM OF RS. 16 ,00,000/- WAS CREDITED IN CAPITAL A/C OF ASSESSEE TREATING TH E SAME RECEIVED AGAINST GOODWILL. THUS FROM THE LEGAL NOTI CE IT IS CLEAR THAT SMT. SAROJ JOSHRI WAS ONLY DEMANDING HER MONEY ALONG WITH INTEREST WHATEVER WAS PAID BY HER TO THE ASSES SEE EARLIER, THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON WITH LD. AO TO SUPPOSE THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 21,50,000/- WAS MADE TO SMT. SAROJ J OSHI OTHER THAN FOR THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM HER EARLIER. F) AS REGARD TO FINDING OF LD. AO IN PARA 4 REGARDI NG JUSTIFYING THE TAXABILITY OF RS. 16,00,000/- IN HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE AS REVENUE RECEIPT THIS IS TO SUBMIT THAT SOMETHING CAN BE TAX ED AS REVENUE RECEIPT WHEN THE SAME WAS RECEIVED AGAINST SALES OF GOODS/SERVICES AND THE RECEIPT IS NOT REFUNDABLE. I N THE INSTANT CASE NO GOODS/SERVICES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO SMT. SAROJ JOSHI, THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED AS REVENU E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS TAXABLE CAPITAL RECEIPT TOO BECAUSE THE SAME WAS REFUNDABLE TO THE PAYER AND LATER ON THE SAME WAS REFUNDED BACK. G) AS REGARD TO FINDING OF LD. AO IN PARA 5 REGARDI NG NON TREATING THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION AS LOAN; THIS IS TO SUBMIT T HAT HOW THE SAME CAN BE TREATED AS TAXABLE REVENUE/CAPITAL RECE IPT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE MORE SO WHEN THE SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN REFUNDED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PAYER. NO INCO ME CAN BE TAXED ON THE BASIS OF WRONG ENTRY PASSED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN HER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AT HER OWN. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT C HANGING THE NATURE OF RECEIPT BUT PROVING THE REAL NATURE OF RE CEIPT WHICH WAS WRONGLY TREATED AS GOODWILL IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. FURTHER THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE LAW THAT THE REFUNDABL E RECEIPT SHOULD BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT AND THE SAME CAN BE CLAIMED AS EXPENSES IN THE YEAR OF PAYMENT. 3) THE REVENUE HAS CITED CASE REPORTED IN 246 ITR 316. THE FACTS OF THIS CASE IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT TO THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. IN THE CASE THE ISSUE WAS WHETHER THE RECEIPT AGAINST THE TRADE MARK AND COPY RIGHT IS CAPITAL RECEIPT OR REVENUE RECEIPT. FURTHER IN THE CASE THERE WAS WRIT TEN AGREEMENT UNDER WHICH THE COMPANY RECEIVED AMOUNT OF RS. 50000/- AGAINST USE OF LICENSE AND TRADE MARK MILLER . IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE REC EIPT WAS AGAINST LIABILITY WHICH WAS ACTUALLY REPAID BY ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS NO WRITTEN AGREEMENT TO JUSTIFY THE RECEIPT AGAINST GOODWILL ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 14 IN VIEW OF ABOVE THIS IS TO SUBMIT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16,00,000/- CREDITED BY ASSESSEE CLAIMING THE SAME AS RECEIPT A GAINST GOODWILL WAS ACTUALLY REFUNDABLE AMOUNT TO SMT. SAROJ JOSHI WHIC H HAS BEEN REFUNDED TO HER, THEREFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED AS INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AND LD CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 3.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, THE AO OBSERVED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 16.00 LACS WAS CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE AS A GOODWILL RECEIPT FOR WHICH THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF RECEIPT AND AS TO HOW THE SAME IS NOT A T AXABLE RECEIPT. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 15-02- 2013 SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD RECEIVED A SUM OF RS. 1 6.00 LACS FROM SMT. SAROJ JOSHI ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWILL DURING THE YEAR AS A CREATION OF GOODWILL WHICH IS A FIRST TIME REALIZATION. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HERSELF GENERAT ED THE NAME FOR HERSELF BY SETTING UP AND CREATION OF CHAIN ON THIS ACCOUN T WHICH IS CAPITAL IN NATURE ONLY AND NOT LIABLE TO TAX BEING NOT A REVEN UE RECEIPT. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FIRST APPEAL THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT IS NOTE D FROM THE AVAILABLE RECORDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 21.50 LACS AS AGAINST THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNT OF RS. 21.00 LACS FRO M SMT. SAROJ JOSHI ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 15 WHICH INCLUDES THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS. 16.00 LAC S. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE TREATED RS. 16.00 LACS AS RECE IPT ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWILL AND RS. 5.00 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRIBUT ION IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF FIRM. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE WAS LITIGAT ION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. SAROJ JOSHI FOR WHICH HON'BLE HIGH COURT A PPOINTED AN ARBITRATOR A RETIRED HIGH COURT JUDGE WHO DECIDED T HE DISPUTE IN FAVOUR OF SMT. SAROJ JOSHI BY DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO PA Y RS. 21.50 LACS TO SAROJ JOSHI. SHE HAD PAID THE AMOUNTS BY FOUR CHEQUES. TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO OBSERVED IN HIS ORDER THAT THE OUTCOME OF THIS LITIGATION PROVES BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE NOT THE INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE MADE WRONG ENTRY IN HER ACCOUNT UNDER BONA FIDE BELIEF THAT THIS AMOUNT IS NOT REPAYABLE. IT IS ALSO NOTABLE THAT HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD APPOINTED AN ARBITRATOR TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE BETWEE N THE ASSESSEE AND SMT. SAROJ JOSHI AND AS PER DIRECTION OF AN ARBITRATOR, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE COMPLIANCE AND REPAID THE AMOUNT OF RS. 21.50 LACS. HENCE TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) WHEREIN HE OBSERVED AS UNDER:- CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FATS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 16 .00 LACS IS NOT TAXABLE RECEIPT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, ACCOR DINGLY , ITA NO. 606/JP/2016 THE ACIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR VS. SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPU R 16 THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 16.00 LACS MADE BY HIM ON ACCOUNT OF GOODWILL. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DELIBERATIONS, THE GROU ND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 4.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 -04-2 017. SD/- SD/- DQY HKKJR HKKXPUN (KUL BHARAT) ( BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL; / JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 25 /04/ 2017 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1, JAIPUR 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- SMT. KULSUM MALIK, JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 606/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR