ITO, PALI V. M/s. Miracle Carriers & Trading Co., PALI

ITA 617/JODH/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 61723314 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N A JOSHI
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Cost of acquisition; Bonafide mistake
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.617 /JU/2007 (A.Y. 2004-05) ITO, WARD-1, VS. M/S. MIRACLE CARRIERS &, PALI. TRADING CO., PIPALIYAKALA. PAN NO. AAAFM 8364 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN & SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI- D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 25/11/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/11/2013. O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, A.M THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 31/05/2007 OF LD. CIT (A), JODHPUR. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL:- ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A), JODHPUR HAS ERRED IN:- 2 1. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,68,577/- MADE BY THE AO ON A/C OF HOLDING THE DECLARED LTCG AS BOGUS AND TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,86,317/- MADE BY AO U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO ADDITIONAL , AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OR APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD FOR DISPOSAL. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE F ILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING A LOSS OF RS. 14,39,590/- ON 21/07 /2004 WHICH WAS PROCESSED ON 08/07/2005. LATER ON, CASE WAS SELECT ED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AND PRODUCED BROKER AS WELL AS CONTRACT NOTES. THE DETAILS OF SHARES PURCHASED AND SOLD WAS AS UNDER:- SCRIP QUANTITY PURCHASE DATE SALE DATE NAGESHWAR INVESTMENT LTD. 12,000 23/09/2002 06/02/2004 SHREE NIDHI TRADING LTD. 10,000 23/09/2002 10/12/2003 VALOUR CONSTRUCTION LTD. 12,000 23/09/2002 15/01/2004 3. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS PE R THE FOLLOWING DETAILS:- PARTICULARS SHARES OF NAGESHI (A) SHARES OF SHREE NIDHI (B) SHARES OF VALOURCE (C) FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION 1116600.00 780000.00 1068000.00 3 LESS:- EXPENSE ON SALES OF CONSIDERATION 1200.00 800.00 1080.00 BALANCE 1115400.00 779200.00 1066920.00 COST OF ACQUISITION 74052.00 (12000 X 6.171) 50210.00 (10000 X 5.021) 62052.00 (12000 X 5.171 ) INDEX COST OF ACQUISITION 76703.00 (74052 X 463/447) 52007.00 ( 50210 463/447) 64273.00 (62052 X 463/447) LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WIT H OUT INDEXED COST 1041348.00 728990.00 1004868.00 WITH INDEXED COST 1038697.00 727193.00 1002647.00 TOTAL OF A+B+C WITHOUT INDEXED COST 2776206.00 WITH INDEXED COST 2768537.00 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE OPENED A D-MET ACCOUNT IN ITS OWN NAME WHICH WAS NOT PERMISSIBLE B ECAUSE THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM CANT OPEN A D-MET ACCOUNT IN ITS OWN NAME. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM PROJECTED ITSELF AS A COMPANY BY PASSING A BOARD RESOLUTION AT THE TIME OF OPENING OF D-MET ACCOUNT. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT APPLIED TO THE BANK FOR OPENING D- MET ACCOUNT, SIGNATURES WERE ALSO MADE UNDER THE SE AL OF PARTNERS AND THAT PARTNERSHIP DEED WAS ALSO FILED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION, THEREFORE, OPENING OF D-MET ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF FIRM WAS A BONAFIDE MISTAKE ON THE PART OF BOTH THE PARTIES I.E. ASSESS EE AS WELL AS THE BANK. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED S HARES, HELD THE SAME AND SOLD THOSE RESULTING INTO LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE FUNDS UTILIZED IN THE PURCHASE OF SHARES B ELONGED TO THE 4 ASSESSEE-FIRM AND THE TRANSACTIONS MADE WERE GENUIN E. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE INVESTIGATIONS AND ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131(1)(D) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERR ED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) AND FOUND THAT SHARE BROKER M/S. BALLABH DAS DAGA INCURRED THE TRANSACTION ON SELF ACCOUNT AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF C LIENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE BROKER WAS INVOLVE D IN FAKE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SCAM. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT SINCE FIR M CANNOT OPEN A D-MET ACCOUNT IN ITS OWN NAME, THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION OF SHARES WAS NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSE SSEE PAID A SUM OF RS. 1,86,314/- FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES VIDE CHEQUE NO. 0 18880 DATED 20/01/2003 AND THE PAYMENT WAS MADE AFTER 04 MONTHS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF SHARES I.E. ON 23/09/2002 AS PER CONTRA CT NOTE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SHARES WER E PURCHASED ON 23/09/2002 AND THE ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR OPENING OF D-MET ACCOUNT ONLY ON 17/01/2003 AND THE SHARES OF 3 COMPANIES WERE CR EDITED IN THE D-MET ACCOUNT ONLY ON 28/04/2003, THOUGH, THOSE WERE PURC HASED ON 23/09/2002. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRADING IN SHARES WAS A MANAGED TRANSACTION AND NOT GENUINE. HE ADOPTED THE DATE OF CREDIT OF SHARES IN THE D-MET ACCOUNT I.E. ON 28 /04/2003 AS THE DATE OF PURCHASE AND SINCE THE SHARES WERE SOLD IN MARCH, 2 004, DECEMBER 2003, 5 JANUARY 2004, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE G AIN ON THE TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN A ND THAT THERE WAS AN ANTEDATING INASMUCH AS SHARES ACTUALLY WERE PURCHAS ED ON 28/04/2003 AND NOT ON 26/09/2002 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 27,68,577/- AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS BOGUS AND LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO HELD THA T UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,86,314/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE W AS LIABLE TO BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER T O THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT D-MAT ACCOUNT WAS OPENED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COPY OF THE RESOLUTION WAS GIVEN TO THE BANK TO SHOW THA T THE COMPANY MEANS THE FIRM M/S. MIRACLE CARRIERS & TRADING COMP ANY AND THAT THE SIGNATURES WERE ALSO MADE UNDER THE SEAL OF THE PAR TNER, THE SAID RESOLUTION DID NOT SHOW THAT THE PARTNERS SIGNED IN THE CAPACITY OF DIRECTORS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF PARTNERSHIP DEED ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION FOR OPE NING D-MAT ACCOUNT. THUS, IT WAS CLEAR THAT NO WRONG INFORMATION WAS PR OVIDED TO THE BANK AND THERE WAS NO INTENTION TO DEFRAUD THE BANK OR T HE REVENUE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE OPENING OF D-MAT ACCOUNT IN ADVERTENTLY IN THE 6 NAME OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WOULD NOT HAVE ANY ADVERS E BEARING ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND EVEN OTHERWISE, OPENING OF D-M AT ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF FIRM MAY BE AN INFRINGEMENT UNDER SOME OTHE R LAW SUCH AS SEBI RULES ETC, BUT CERTAINLY NOT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX A CT, THEREFORE, THE TRADING OF SHARES IN D-MAT ACCOUNT INADVERTENTLY OP ENED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM SHALL NOT BE A REASON TO TREAT THE GAINS AS NO T BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6 . LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE HOLDING T HE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS NON-GENUINE, HEAVILY RELIED ON THE FACT THA T THOUGH THE SHARES AS PER THE CONTRACT NOTES WERE PURCHASED ON 23/09/2002 , THE PAYMENT FOR THE SAME WAS MADE ONLY ON 20/01/2003 VIDE CHEQUE NO . 18880 OF RS. 1,86,314/-, BUT THE SAID FINDING ALONE COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS REASONS TO TREAT THE TRANSACTION IN SHARES AND RESULTANT LT CG AS NON-GENUINE. LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY T HAT PAYMENTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE MADE IMMEDIATELY TO THE BROKER BY TH E INDIVIDUAL CLIENT BECAUSE IT ALL DEPENDED UPON THE MUTUAL TRUST AND C ONFIDENCE BETWEEN THE BROKER AND THE CLIENT. SO, THERE COULD ALWAYS BE PURCHASES ON CREDIT. LD. CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DATES WERE NOT MATERIAL BECAUSE THE 7 BROKER COULD HAVE KEPT THE PURCHASES OF ANY CLIENT IN HIS POOL ACCOUNT FOR WHATEVER PERIOD MUTUALLY AGREED AND THE SETTLEMENT WAS ALSO THE CHOICE OF THE CLIENT. 6.1 LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID THE AMOUNT FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES BY WAY OF CHEQUE ON 20/01/2003 A ND D-MAT ACCOUNT WAS ALSO OPENED AND OPERATED PRIOR TO 27/02/2003, T HE ENTIRE PURCHASES OF SHARES HAD BEEN ACCEPTED AND TREATED AS PART OF THE ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 29/03/2005 FOR THE A.Y. 2003-04. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE A.Y. 200 3-04 FILED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DE CLARED THE SHARES AS AN ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET. LD. CIT(A) OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD STATED THAT BRO KER SHRI BALLABH DAS DAGA WAS INVOLVED IN FAKE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SC HEME AND THE COMPANIES OF WHOSE SHARES WERE TREATED HAD NO CREDI BILITY AND THAT THE PRICES OF SHARES OF 03 COMPANIES, IN WHICH THE ASSE SSEE TRADED IN, WERE RIGGED FOR CONVERSION OF BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE, HO WEVER, THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE SHARES PRICES WERE RIGGED OR THE BROKER WAS SUSPENDED FROM DOING SHARE TRADING ACTIV ITIES OR TRADING IN 8 SHARES OF THE 03 COMPANIES UNDER REFERENCE WAS SUSP ENDED BY SEBI. LD. CIT(A) POINTED OUT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEI VED BY WAY OF CHEQUE, SALE PROCEEDS WERE ALSO RECEIVED THROUGH BA NKING CHANNELS THERE WAS NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE WHETHER DIRECT OR INDIR ECT TO PROVE THAT ANY CASH OR UNACCOUNTED MONEY HAD FLOWN FROM THE ASSESS EE TO THE SELLER OF THE SHARES OR TO THE BROKER OR TO ANYONE ACTED WITH THE SAME AND THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE GAVE CASH IN LIEU OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS NON-GENUINE A ND IN TAXING RS. 27,68,537/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, ACCORDI NGLY, HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ACCEPT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL G AIN AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. AS REGARDS TO THE INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,86,314/- TREA TED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THE LD . CIT(A) HELD THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CHEQUE F ROM HIS REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT AND IT WAS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW TH E SOURCE COULD BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,86,314/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE AC T WAS ALSO DELETED. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 9 8. LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND REITERATED THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER DATED 28/12/2006. 9. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN TH E CASE OF ACIT, CIRCLE, PALI VS. PANKAJ RAJ SHAH IN I.T.A.NO. 330/JODH/2011 FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 ORDER DATED 28/06/2013, COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGED 123 TO 133 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE OPEN ED D-MAT ACCOUNT AND THE TRANSACTION RELATING TO SALE AND PURCHASE OF SH ARE WAS DONE THROUGH THE SAID D-MAT ACCOUNT. THE SHARES PURCHASED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEAR WERE ACCEPTED AS AN INVESTMENT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEREFO RE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS NON -GENUINE. IN THE 10 PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE TRANSACTION AS NON- GENUINE ONLY ON THIS BASIS THAT THE BROKER SHRI BAL LABH DAS DAGA WAS INVOLVED IN FAKE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN SCHEME, HOW EVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE CO NVERTED BLACK MONEY INTO WHITE BY ENTERING IN THOSE TRANSACTIONS OR THA T THE COMPANIES WHOSE SHARES WERE TRADED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUSPENDED B Y SEBI OR THE BROKER WAS SUSPENDED FROM DOING SHARE TRADING ACTIVITIES O R TRADING IN THE SHARES OF 03 COMPANIES UNDER REFERENCE. A SIMILAR ISSUE H AS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID REFERRE D TO CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI PANKAJ RAJ SHAH VIDE ORDER DATED 28/06/2013 IN I.T.A.NO. 330/JODH/2011, WHEREIN THE RELEVANT FINDING HAS BEE N GIVEN IN PARA 2.10, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 2.10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASE D THE SHARES OF M/S SHREE NIDHI TRADING CO. LTD. FROM MARKET AT THE PRICE PREVAILING AT THAT TIME AND THOSE SHARES WERE PUT INTO DEMAT A CCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE SHARES ON 26-06-2004 AND ACQ UIRED THOSE SHARES BEFORE 17-06-2005 THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE. TH OSE SHARES WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31-03-2005 AND 31-03-2006. THE HOLDING OF THE SHARE S WAS MORE THAN ONE YEAR AS SHARES WERE SOLD BETWEEN THE PERIOD 25- 08-2006 TO 21- 09-2006 AT RS. 15,11,870/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO INCUR RED THE EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF BROKERAGE, SECURITIES TRANSFER TAX, SERVICE TAX, STAMPS ETC., THOSE EXPENSES WERE NOT DOUBTED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED THE BANK RECEIPT NOTE, STAT EMENT OF SECURITY TRANSACTION NOTE, CONTRACT NOTE ETC. THEREFORE, THE TRANSACTION WAS 11 GENUINE AND THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALES OF SHARES OF M/S SHREE NIDHI TRADING CO. LTD., AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,5 9,240/- WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FULFILLED BOTH THE CONDITIONS FOR CLAIMING EXEMPTION U/S 10(3 8) OF THE ACT. THE FIRST CONDITION WAS THAT TRANSACTION OF THOSE SHARE S WAS TO BE ENTERED INTO ON OR AFTER THE DATE ON WHICH CHAPTER VII OF T HE FINANCE(NO.2) ACT, 2004 CAME INTO FORCE I.E. 01-10-2004 AND THE T RANSACTION WAS CHARGEABLE TO SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX UNDER THIS CHAPTER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, SHARES WERE ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17-06-2005 THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND PUT INTO DEMAT ACCOUNT. WHEN THOSE SHARES WERE SOLD, THE ASSESSEE INCURRED THE EXPENSE S OF RS. 1891/- ON ACCOUNT OF SECURITIES TRANSACTION TAX AND THOSE SHA RE WERE HELD FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE PROFIT EARNED ON THE SALE OF THE SHARES WAS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WHICH WAS EXEMPT U/S 10(38) OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE L D. CIT(A) RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF T HE DEPARTMENT. 11. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT S AND BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO OR DER OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 12. AS REGARDS TO THE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 1,86,314/ - IS CONCERNED, LD. CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE SAID P AYMENT WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF CHEQUE FROM HIS REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT AND IT WAS ALSO SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE PRECEDING YE AR, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE NO. 34 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK WHERE IN ALL THE SHARES OF THESE 03 COMPANIES PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BE EN SHOWN AS 12 INVESTMENT IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2003. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY D ELETED THE SAME. 13. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSE D. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29 TH NOVEMBER , 2013. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.