ACIT, Gwalior V. Shri Tulsi Narayan Garg, Lashkar

ITA 652/AGR/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6924 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-04-2010
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R C SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: K C AGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Charitable institution; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove; TDS
• Section: 250; 264; 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.652/AGR/2008 ASST. YEAR: 2005-06 ASSTT. C.I.T., CIRCLE-3, VS. SHRI TULSI NARAYAN GARG, GWALIOR. SARAWAGI MOHALLA, SHEOPUR (M.P.) (PAN : AFQPG 6997 P). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R.C. SHARMA, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.C. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M.: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 25.07.2008 BY TAKING THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND S OF APPEAL :- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASES THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,35,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON THE GROUND T HAT CASH CREDITORS ARE WELL PROVED BY ESTABLISHING IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CR EDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE RELIEF OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.2,32,000/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS ON THE GROUND THAT ABSENCE OF PROPER REGULAR VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF INCURRING EXPENSES UNDER THESE HEADS COULD NOT B E VIEWED ADVERSELY. 2. THE A.O. NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CA SH CREDIT BEING LOAN OF RS.5,90,000/- FROM SMT. KAMALA GARG, RS.4,50,000/- FROM SMT. SANT OSH GARG, RS.2,75,000/- FROM SMT. SEENU 2 GARG AND RS.1,20,000/- FROM SHRI RAHUL GARG, TOTALI NG TO RS.14,35,000/- AND ADDED THE SAME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREINAFTER). THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT IN ALL THE CASES INDIVIDUALLY ALL THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE C HEQUE . ALL THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE LOANS HAD BEEN RECEIVED ARE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX HAVING PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER. THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE LOAN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. COPIES OF THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURNS OF INC OME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, CAPITAL ACCOUNTS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF EACH AND EVERY PART IES WERE DULY SUBMITTED. THE A.O. HAS ISSUED SUMMON UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO PRODU CE PROOF OF IDENTITY, COPY OF THE RETURN FILED ALONGWITH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT & COMPUTATION OF INCO ME AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT. EACH OF THE LENDERS IN REPLY THERETO SUBMITTED ALL THE DOCUMENT S ALONGWITH AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THAT THE LOANS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.14,35,000/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS VIS--VIS THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DE CIDED. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1, THE SAME IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.14,35 ,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS THE AO HAS ADDE D THE LOAN AMOUNT RS.5,90,000/- OF SMT KAMALA GARG W/O SHRI RAM DAYAL GARG, RS.4,50,000/- OF SMT SANTOSH GARG, W/O. SHRI RAM KISHORE GARG, RS.2, 75,000/- OF SMT SEENU GARG W/O SHRI TULSI NARAYAN GARG, RS.1,20,000/- OF SHRI RAHUL GARG, S/O. SHRI RAM KISHORE GARG. ALL WERE STATED TO BE THE RESIDE NT OF SHEOPUR, DISTT. SHEOPUR. ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS IT IS EVIDENT THAT ALL THE CASH CREDITORS ARE REGULAR ASSESSEES, WITH THE INCOME TA X OFFICER, SHIVPURI AND ALL ARE HOLDING PAN. ALL THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED BY THE AP PELLANT THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. AS REGARDS THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOU NTS OF THE CASH CREDITORS ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME WERE REASONABLY EXPLAINED BEFOR E THE AO WHICH WERE STATED TO BE FROM THE REPAYMENT OF LOANS AND ADVANCES RECE IVED FROM THE FRIENDS AND RELATIVES TO WHOM PETTY UNSECURED LOANS WERE STATED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN EARLIER. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNISHED COPIES OF ACKNOWLE DGEMENTS OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, CAPITAL ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND COPIES OF B ANK PASS BOOKS/BANK 3 STATEMENTS FROM WHERE THESE LOANS WERE STATED TO HA VE BEEN GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. THE SAME WERE ALSO ADMITTEDLY FILED BEFO RE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LOANS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT WERE COMING FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE LEN DERS AND ALL SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ABOVE. NOT ONLY THIS THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PAID INTEREST ON THESE LOANS AND HAS DEDUCTED TDS THEREON AS PER LAW AND ISSUED TDS CERTIFICATES. FURTHER THE A SSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS 131 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO THE CASH CREDI TORS ON 20.11.07 AND FIXED THE DATE TO EITHER ATTEND BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ON 30.11.2007 OR TO FURNISH THE DOCUMENTS SPECIFIED, OVERLEAF OF THE SUMMONS U/ S 131 OF THE I T ACT,, WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- 1. PROOF OF IDENTITY. COPY OF RETURN FILED ALONGWI TH CAPITAL A/C AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME. 2. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT BY WHICH THE CREDITORS HA VE GIVEN UNSECURED LOANS TO TULSI NARAIN GARG, SHEOPUR FOR THE A.Y. 05-06. COPIES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURNS OF INCOME, COM PUTATION OF INCOME, CAPITAL ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEETS FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2004-05 AND 2005-06 AND COPY OF BANK PASS BOOKS/BANK STATEMENTS FROM WHERE LOANS WERE GIVEN. THE LOAN AMOUNTS TRANSFERRED TO THE APPELLANT WERE ALSO CLEA RLY REFLECTED IN THE RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE LENDERS. THE APPELLANT ALSO F URNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. THE EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST ON LOA N AND DEDUCTED TDS THEREON AS PER LAW AND ISSUED TDS CERTIFICATES. IN THE SUMMON S THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DIRECTED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE EITHER P ERSONALLY OR THROUGH AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. IN COMPLIANCE OF SUMMON S THE LENDERS HAVE SENT AFFIDAVITS TO CONFIRM THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE APPELLA NT AND HAVE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS REQUIRED IN THE SUMMONS WERE ALREADY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, THROUGH SHRI TULSI NARAIN GARG, SHEOPUR, THE APPELL ANT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FURNI SHED THE COPIES OF SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE ABOVE CASH CREDITORS IN SUPPO RT OF THE CONTENTION THAT PERSONAL ATTENDANCE WAS NOT MADE MANDATORY WHILE ON LY THE COMPLIANCE BY FURNISHING PROOF OF IDENTITY, COPY OF RETURN FILED ALONGWITH CAPITAL ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME WAS REQUIRE D TO BE FURNISHED AND ALL THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS WERE ADMITTEDLY FURNISHED BEFORE THE A.O. IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES ISSUED BY THE A.O. SUBSEQUENTLY THE A.O. A SKED ON 10.12.07 THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS ON 14.12.07 TO WHICH THE A PPELLANT REPLIED AS FOLLOWS:- THAT THE CASH CREDITORS SMT. KAMALA GARG, SMT. SAN TOSH GARG, SMT. SEENU GARG AND SHRI RAHUL GARG HAVE ALREADY FILED T HEIR AFFIDAVITS, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF INCOME, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, CAPITAL ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEET. THEY ALSO FILED THEIR COPY OF B ANK PASS BOOK IN WHICH THE LOAN AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY REFLECTED. ALL THE CASH CREDITORS ARE LIVING AT SHEOPUR WHICH IS FAR 250 KM FROM GWALIOR. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE THEM. 4 AFTER FILING ALL THE ABOVE SAID EVIDENCE THEY HAVE APPROVED THEIR IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CASH CR EDITORS WERE WELL PROVED BY ESTABLISHING IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WO RTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS ALL OF WHICH WERE ADMITTEDLY REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEES THE A.O. WAS, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED IN STILL PROCEEDING TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THE SUM RS.14,35,000/- SO ADDE D IS, THEREFORE, DELETED HEREBY. 3. THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US REITERATED THE SUBMISSION S MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS, AFFIDAVIT AND O THER DOCUMENT AS WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE PAPER BOOK. HE VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION AND, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT CAN BE MADE. RELI ANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW:- 1) DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS (2002) 256 ITR 360 (GU JRAT) 2) P.K. SETHI VS. CIT (2006) 286 ITR 318 (GAUHATI) 3) ACIT VS. SURETECH HOSP. & RESEARCH CENTRE (2006) 104 TTJ (NAG) 869 (ITAT NAGPUR) 4) BHAGWAN DAS SHARDA VS. ACIT (2004) 82 TTJ (HYD) 982 (ITAT HYDERABAD) 5) S. SARABHAIAHA SETTY & SONS VS. CIT (1967) LXIV ITR 175 (AP HIGH COURT) 6) CIT VS. DHANRAJGIRI RAJA NARASINGIRJI, CTR (SC) 197 PAGE 445 7) LAKE PLACE HOTELS & MOTELS PVT. LTD. UDAI VS. DC IT (ASST) UDAIPAUR (2001) 29 ITC 491 (ITAT JODHPUR) 8) LAHOTI MEDICARE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (2005) 33 ITC 76 (ITAT INDORE) 9) GANGA PRASAD SHARMA VS. CIT MP (1981) 132 ITR 87 (INDORE HIGH COURT MP) 10) CIT VS. DAULAT RAM RAWATMULL 87 ITR 349 (SC) 11) NEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS. CIT 264 ITR 254 (GAUHATI ) 12) KALYAN MEMORIAL AND CHARITABLE TRUST VS. ACIT, 124 TTJ 883 (AGRA) TM 13) CIT VS. BARJATIYA CHILDREN TRUST (2007) 7 ITJ 3 19 (MP) 4. THUS, IT WAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE CONFIRMED. 5. LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SECTION 68 OF THE ACT LAYS DOWN THE RULE OF EVIDENC E AND THE STATES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE A.O., SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDI TED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN T HIS CASE WE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY OFFERED EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE CASH CREDIT A MOUNTING TO RS.14,35,000/- BEING RECEIVED FROM 4 DIFFERENT PARTIES I.E. RS.5,90,000/- FROM SM T. KAMALA GARG, WIFE OF SHRI RAM DAYAL GARG, RS.4,50,000/- FROM SMT. SANTOSH GARG, WIFE OF SHRI RAM KISHORE GARG, RS. 2,75,000/- FROM SMT. SEENU GARG, WIFE OF SHRI TULSI NARAYAN GA RG AND RS.1,20,000/- FROM SHRI RAHUL GARG, SON OF SHRI RAM KISHORE GARG. ALL THE CASH C REDITORS ARE REGULAR ASSESSEES HAVING PERMANENTS ACCOUNT NUMBER (PAN). THUS, THEIR IDENT ITY IS DULY PROVED. ALL THE LOANS WERE ADVANCED BY THESE PARTIES THOROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ALSO GENUINE. EACH OF THE PARTIES HAS DULY CON FIRMED THAT THEY HAVE ADVANCED THE MONEY TO THE PARTY. ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE DULY V ERIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. IN THE SHAPE OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN OF THE INCOME, C OMPUTATION OF INCOME, CAPITAL ACCOUNTS AND BALANCE SHEETS, COPIES OF BANK PASS BOOKS/BANK STAT EMENTS FROM WHERE THE ENTRIES RELATING TO THE LOAN ARE APPEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AF FIDAVITS FROM EACH OF THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID THE INTEREST ON THESE LOANS AND DULY DEDUCTED THE TDS AS PER LAW. THE A.O. ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 WHICH WERE DULY COMPLIED WITH. THUS, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED HIS ONUS AS LAID DOWN UNDER SEC TION 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED EXPLANATION. THE A.O. SHO ULD NOT ABRUPTLY REJECT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS SATISFACTION MUST BE ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. HIS 6 SATISFACTION SHOULD BE THAT OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY PRUDENCE. THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN OUR OPINION, WERE THE EVIDENCES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE A.O. MUST BE SATISFIED ABOUT THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSE SSEE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THOROUGH THE CASE LAW AS HAS BEEN RELIED ON BY THE LD. A.R. IN OUR O PINION, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED OR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. NO COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE WHICH MAY COMPEL US TO TAK E A DIFFERENT VIEW AS HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THUS, GROUND NO.1 TAKEN BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 7. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO ALLOWING OF RELIEF OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.2,32,000/-. 8. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THIS GROUND ARE THAT THE A.O. DISALLOWED ON ADHOC BASIS A SUM OF RS.2,32,000/- OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES AS DETAILE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONING THEREIN THAT THE DISALLOWANCE ARE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF PR OPER SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS. WHEN THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) REDUCED T HE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.50,000/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- THE A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCES ON ADHOC BASIS UND ER THE ABOVE HEADS REPEATING THE SIMILAR GROUND FOR EACH DISALLOWANCE THAT SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH AND THE SAME COULD BE OF PERSONAL NATURE. THE APPELLANT IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR AND THE HEADS UNDER WHICH THE EXPENSES ARE DEBITED ARE INCI DENTAL TO THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT WHICH ARE ON ACCOUNT INCIDENTAL OF PURCHA SE OF MATERIAL ROLLER CHARGES, WAGES AND FREIGHT, LOADER HIRING CHARGES, BOILER AN D TRACTOR HIRING CHARGES, SALARIES TO STAFF ETC AS ABOVE. EXCEPT FOR VEHICLE RUNNING AND MAINTENANCE, TELEPHONE AND MOBILE EXPENSES AND TRAVELLING EXPENS ES OUT OF WHICH THE AO HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.40,000/- (RS.15,000/-, RS,.1 5,000/- & RS.10,000/- 7 RESPECTIVELY), IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW SUCH EXPENSES COULD BE TREATED AS OF PERSONAL IN NATURE AND NOT PERTAINING TO THE BUSINE SS OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS VEHICLE RUNNING AND TELEPHONE INCLUDING MOBILE EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED I HOLD THAT PERSONAL USE OF VEHICLE AND T ELEPHONE COULD NOT BE RULED OUT PARTICULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF LOG BOOK AND CALLER BOOK RESPECTIVELY. CONSIDERING THIS AND THE FACT THAT SUPPORTING BILLS AND VOUCHER S WERE NOT FOUND BY THE AO TO BE FULLY AND PROPERLY MAINTAINED IT WOULD BE REASON ABLE TO UPHOLD DISALLOWANCE OF RS.50,000/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,32,0 00/- MADE BY THE A.O. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT HERE THAT THE NATURE OF SEVERAL EXPE NSES NOTED BY THE AO ARE SUCH THAT REGULAR PROPER VOUCHER AND BILLS ARE NOT EXPEC TED AND ARE NOT PRACTICABLE AS THE SAME DO NOT APPERTAIN TO ORGANIZED SECTOR AND H ENCE THE ABSENCE OF PROPER REGULAR VOUCHERS IN SUPPORT OF INCURRING EXPENSES U NDER THOSE HEADS COULD NOT BE VIEWED ADVERSELY. THE APPELLANT THUS GETS A RELIEF OF RS.1,82,000/- ON GROUNDS NO.3 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y CONSIDERED THE SAME ALONGWITH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. LD. D.R. ALTHOUGH VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE A.O. BUT DID NOT DENY THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON ADHOC BASIS. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE WHICH WARRANTS OUR IN TERFERENCE. WE, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISS THIS GROUND ALSO. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STAN DS DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.04.2010) . SD/- SD/- (R.K. GUPTA) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 23 RD APRIL, 2010. PBN/* 8 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY