ACIT-CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), Nagpur V. DR. SANJEEV CHOUDHARY, Nagpur

ITA 64/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1005 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S R KIRTANE
• Assessee Lawyers: R V LOYA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 153A; 234B; 69; 132; 139

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. SR. NO. I.T.A. NO. ASSTT. YEAR. 1. 64/NAG/2013 2003-04 2. 65/NAG/2013 2004-05 3. 66/NASG/2013 2005-0 6 4. 67/NAG/ 2013 2006-07 5. 68/NAG/2013 2007-08 6. 69/NAG/2013 2008-09 7. 70/NAG/2013 2009-10 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, DR. SANJEEV CHOUDHARY, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), NAGPUR. V/S. CHOUDHARY HOSPITAL, UMRED ROA D, NAGPUR. PAN AANPC 9303R. APPELLANT. RESPONDE NT. APPELLA NT BY : SHRI S.R. KIRTANE. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.V. LOYA. DATE OF HEARING - 21-04-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 5 TH JUNE, 2015. O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, J.M. ALL THESE SEVEN APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVE NUE DEPARTMENT ARISING FROM A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-I , NAGPUR DATED 15-11-2012. 2 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 ALMOST IDENTICALLY WORDED GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT REPRODUCED FROM LEAD ASSESSMENT ORDER 2003-04 AS UN DER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE SEIZE D CASH CAN ONLY BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE EXISTING TAX LIABILITY AS PER SECTION 132B(1)(I) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHERE AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO SUCH EXISTING LIABILITY. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR ERRED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO REC ALCULATE THE INTEREST U/S 234A & 234B OF THE ACT AFTER TAKING IN TO CONSIDER ATION THE SEIZED CASH OF ` .1,75,50,800/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR ERRED IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE SEIZED CASH OF ` .1,75,50,800/- AS PAYMENT TOWARDS ADVANCE TAXABILIT Y. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE DEPAR TMENT HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INCOM E TAX APPEAL NO. 3741 OF 2010 DATED 21.09.2011 IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. S HRI JYOTINDRA B. MODY AND APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 2. THE MAIN QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN RAISED IN THESE APPEALS IS THAT WHETHER THE CASH SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CAN BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY AND ALSO TO BE TREATED AS PAYMENT TOWARD S ADVANCE TAX SO THAT THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B SHOULD NOT BE IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID ADJUSTMENT OF CASH SEIZED. UNDISPUTED FACT IS T HAT A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE HOSPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RESIDEN CE ON 10 TH OF APRIL, 2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A CASH OF ` .1,75,50,800/- WAS SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED AN INCOME OF ` .2.25 CRORES AS PER STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTI ON 3 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 132(4) OF I.T. ACT. THEREAFTER RETURNS WERE FILED A ND THE SAID OFFERED INCOME WAS DISCLOSED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, FOR EXAMPLE, ASSESSEE FILED A REGULAR RETURN UNDER SECTION 139 O F I.T. ACT ON 27-11-2003 AND DECLARED AN INCOME OF ` .3,58,780/-. AFTER THE SEARCH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003-04 AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF ` .30 LAKHS WAS OFFERED. HENCE IN RESPONSE TO A NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 153A A RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 09-10-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` .33,58,780/-. AS PER THE SAID RETURN FILED UNDER SE CTION 153A THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PAY A SUM OF ` .9,60,716/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A REQUEST TO ADJUST THE IMPUGNED TAX AMOUNT AGAINST C ASH SEIZED. TOTAL INCOME WAS FINALLY ASSESSED ON THE SAME QUANTUM AS DECLARE D IN THE RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A. 2.1 WHEN THIS ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS), IT WAS HELD AS UNDER : I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE BEFORE ME. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE AN ACTION U/S 132 TOOK PLACE ON 10-04-2008 D URING THE COURSE OF WHICH CASH OF ` .1,75,50,800/- WAS SEIZED. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF T HE APPELLANT IS THAT APPELLANT HAS REQUESTING FOR ADJU STMENT OF CASH AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY VIDE VARIOUS LETTERS FILED ON 15 -09-2008, 17-09-2009 AND AT THE TIME OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 02- 10-2009 WHICH HAS NOT BEEN ACTED UPON BY THE DEPAR TMENT. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE THE REQUEST FOR ADJUSTING SEIZED CASH TOWARDS LIABILITY OF THAT HAS ARISEN ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DI SCLOSED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS MADE REPEATEDLY. HOWEVER THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE FROM THE DEPARTMENT REGARDING THIS REQUEST OF THE ASSES SEE. THE CFASH SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT HAS FINALLY BEEN ADJUSTED ON 26 TH MARCH, 2010. IT IS SEEN THAT A SUM OF ` .1,75,50,800/- WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE AND OF FICE OF THE APPELLANT AND WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMEN T FROM THE DATE OF SEIZURE. IN THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED U PON BY APPELLANT 4 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 CONSIDERING SIMILAR CONTENTIONS IT HAS BEEN HELD T HAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND U/S 234B WHEN CASH SEIZED WAS AVAILABLE FOR ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS LIABILITY WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THIS CONNE CTION THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONA L BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 3741 OF 2010 DATED 21-09-201 1 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI JYOTINDRA B. MODY IS RELEVANT. VIDE THE SAID DECISION THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION IS SQUARELY APPL ICABLE IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. I HOLD THAT AO HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUSTING THE SEIZ ED CASH OF ` .1,75,50,800/- TOWARDS TAX LIABILITY OF THAT HAS ARISEN ON ACCOUN T OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN A STATEMENT U/S 132(4) AND SEIZED CASH WAS AVAILABLE FOR ADJUSTMENT TOWARDS TAX LIABILITY PRIOR TO FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME. AO IS DIRECTED TO TREAT THE AMOUNT SEIZED AS PAYMENT TOWARDS ADVANCE TAX, INTEREST U/S 234A & 234B, IF ANY MAY BE REWORKED ACCORDINGLY. 3. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED D.R. MR. S .R. KIRTANE APPEARED AND PLEADED THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN THE CITED DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS FURTHER BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE DE PARTMENT AND THE MATTER IS SUBJUDICE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THEREFOR E, THIS ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE DECIDED RATHER SHOULD KEEP IT PENDING. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDE NT-ASSESSEE, LEARNED A.R. MR. R.V. LOYA HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON FEW DECISIONS AS LISTED BELOW : I) HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 37 41 OF 2010 DATED 21-09- 2011 IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. JYOTINDRA B. MODY. II) CIT V/S. ARUNKUMAR (2011) 334 ITR 351 (P&H) III) CIT V/S. KESAR KUIMAN KARYALAYA (2005) 278 IT R 596 (DEL.) 5 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 IV) SUDHAKAR N. SHETTY V/S. ACIT (2008) 10 TTR (MU M.) (TRIB.) 173. V) NIKKAMAL BABURAN V/S. ACIT (2010) 41 SOT 407 (C HD.) VI) SATPAUL D. AGRAWAL (HUF) V/S. ACIT (1998) 62 T TJ (MUM.) 98. 5. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ISSUE IS COV ERED BY SEVERAL DECISIONS AS CITED SUPRA SPECIALLY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDI CTIONAL BOMBAY HIGH COURT. IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED FEW LE TTERS TO THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT DATED 15-09-2008 AND DATED 17-09-2009 RE QUESTING THEREIN TO ADJUST THE SEIZED CASH AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY. EVEN WHE N THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A, IT WAS AGAIN REITERATED THAT THE SEIZED CASH SHOULD BE TREATED AS THE PAYMENT OF TAX AND TH E CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN SO THAT NO INTEREST COULD BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234 A/234B OF I.T. ACT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE VITAL FACTS AND EVIDENCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF JYOTINDRA P. MODY (SUPRA). WE FIND NO FALLACY IN THE LEGAL AS WELL AS FACTUAL FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). HENCE THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. 6. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE REVENUE HAS ALSO RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR IGNORED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` .2,35,000/- WAS MADE OUT OF THE OFFER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME MADE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAVING CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENT NOTED IN DIARY WERE MADE BY THE PATIENTS DIRECTLY TO THE VISITING 6 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 DOCTORS, FAILED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE ASSESSEE HAS NO TED THESE ENTRIES IN HIS DIARY. LIKEWISE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA 2009-10R THE REVENUE HA S FAILED THE FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR IGNORED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT OF ` .16,39,713/- WAS MADE OUT OF THE OFFER OF ADDITIONA L INCOME MADE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR FAILED TO CONSIDER THAT THE ASSES SEE HAVING CLAIMED THAT THE PAYMENT NOTED IN DIARY WERE MADE BY THE PATIENTS DIRECTLY TO THE VISITING DOCTORS, FAILED TO EXPLAIN. THE SOURCE OF THESE PA YMENTS WITH REFERENCE TO EITHER THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ESTABLISHE D THE NEXUS BETWEEN THESE PAYMENTS AND THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORD ERS FOR THESE TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND A SSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A BOTH IDENTICALLY DATED 20 TH OF DEC., 2010. ON THE BASIS OF THE DIARIES IT WAS FOUN D THAT CERTAIN PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO DOCTORS AND WCL OFFICERS. SINCE THOSE PAYME NTS HAVE NOT BEEN ROUTED THROUGH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HENCE THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO EXPLAIN THAT WHY THE EXPENDITURE WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED SHOULD N OT BE TAXED UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE I.T. ACT. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT THE PAYMENTS RECEIVED PERTAINED TO VISITING DOCTORS. THE RESPONS IBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO COLLECT THE PAYMENTS FROM THE PATIENTS BUT IT WAS D IRECTLY TO BE MADE TO THE VISITING DOCTORS. SINCE THE PAYMENTS DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT WAS NOT ROUTED THROUGH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE SAID EXPLANATION AND TAXED UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. LIKEWISE THE PAYMENT TO WCL OFFICERS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE FOR ORGANIZING CAMPS AT WCL PREMISES. SINCE THOSE PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN R ECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAXED IT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 8. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GRANTED RELIEF IN THE FOLLOWING M ANNER: IN CONCLUSION IT IS NECESSARY TO HIGHLIGHT THAT WHILE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THAT ALL THE RECEIPTS O N THE RIGHT SIDE OF SEIZED DIARIES DO NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME AND DO NOT REPRES ENT PROFESSIONAL FEES AS REGARDS THE ITEM OF EXPENDITURE ENTERED IN THE LEF T HAND SIDE OF THE SAME DIARIES AO HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THESE AMOUNTS REPRESENT ACTUAL EXPENDITURE PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPE LLANT WITHOUT ANY COHERENT REASON. AO HAS FURTHER TAKEN THE VIEW TH AT THESE ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE HAVE BEEN INCURRED OUT OF UNKNOWN SOUR CES OF INCOME. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION AO'S APPROACH IS ENTIRELY ILLOG ICAL. FURTHER AO HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE ITEM OF EXPENDITURE REFER RED TO IN THE SAID SEIZED DIARIES ARE OF A DIFFERENT CHARACTER AND ALTOGETHE R PERTAIN TO A BUSINESS HITHERTO UNDISCLOSED OR REFER TO CERTAIN TRANSACTI ONS OF AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT NATURE. I HAVE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT AS REGARDS SIMILAR ENTRIES OF THE EARLIER YEARS AO HAS TAKEN A VIEW THAT THESE ITEM S OF EXPENDITURE WOULD GO TO REDUCE THE AVAILABLE CASH BALANCE. HOWEVER FOR AY 2008-09 AO HAS PRONOUNCED ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL INTERPRETATION THA T THE AMOUNTS ARE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C. IN MY VIEW THIS I S ENTIRELY UNCALLED FOR AND THERE ARE NO SUPPORTING REASONS TO SUBSTANTIAT E THIS APPROACH AS ADEQUATE FUNDS ARE AVAILABLE IN CASH. IT WOULD ONL Y BE REASONABLE TO PRESUME THAT EVEN IF SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INC URRED THE SOURCE OF THIS EXPENDITURE IS SURPLUS AVAILABLE FUNDS WHICH HAS B EEN DECLARED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN THE DECISION REPORTED IN 51 ITR 757 (MAD.) IN THE CASE OF S. KUPPUSWAMI MUD ALIAR V/S. CIT WHILE ENDORSING THE PRINCIPLE OF TELESCOPING IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THAT WHEN ESTIMATED ADDITIONS ARE MADE THEY SHOULD BE TREATE D AS TRUE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND AVAILABLE FOR SET OFF. IN THE DECISIO N OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT REPORTED IN 123 ITR 457 IN THE CASE OF ANANT HARAM VEERASINGHALAH & CO. V/S. CIT (SC) IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THERE CAN BE NO ESCAPE FROM THE PROPOSITION THAT THE SECRET PROFITS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE 8 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 EARNED IN AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR MAY CONSTITUT E A FUND, EVEN THOUGH CONCEALED FROM WHICH ASSESSEE MAY DRAW SUBSEQUENTL Y FOR MEETING EXPENDITURE OR INTRODUCING AMOUNTS IN HIS ACCOUNT BOOK. SINCE THE QUANTUM OF CASH BALANCE BASED ON ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED BY APPELLANT FOR EARLIER YEARS IS SUFFICIENT, IT IS T O BE CONSIDERED AS AVAILABLE TO MEET THE PURPORTED EXPENDITURE OF ` .2,35,000/-. 9. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE ARE FEW FACTS WHICH ARE RELEVANT TO DECIDE WH ETHER THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT COULD BE TAXED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE UNDER SEC TION 69C OF I.T. ACT. THE ENTRIES AS FOUND RECORDED TOWARDS RIGHT SIDE OF THE SEIZED DIARY IT WAS AN ACCEPTED POSITION AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ALL THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE DIARIES WERE NOT ENTIRELY TOW ARDS PROFESSIONAL FEES. CERTAIN AMOUNTS WERE DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM THE PATIENTS. S OME CASH WERE THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK. THEREFORE, ON PAGE 12 AND 13, IT WAS EXPLAINED TO LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS UNDER : A.Y. REDUCED AMOUNT ( ` .) 2003-04 25000 2004-05 592500 2005-06 405000 2006-07 96000 2007-08 560000 ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN A STAND FOR TH E YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH AND THE AMOUNT CONSI DERED AS CASH EXPENDITURE THEN THE SAME METHODOLOGY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADOPTE D FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10. THUS UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF 9 ITA NOS. 64 TO 70/NAG/2013 THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) HAS TAKEN A LOGICAL CONCLUSION BY GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS ON FACTS ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE A RE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/- SD/- SHAMIM YAHYA) (MUKUL K. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER. NAGPUR, DATED: 5 TH JUNE, 2015. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. T RUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE