ACIT, SATNA V. Shri Ramesh Singh, SATNA

ITA 66/JAB/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70116 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Proportionate interest; Retrospective amendment; Additional evidence; Valuation report
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 194C; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH(JM) AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA (AM) I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 ACIT, CIRCLE, SATNA VS. RAMESH SINGH, PROP. M/S. STARLINE AUTOMOBILES, MUKHTYARGANJ, SATNA. PAN/GIR NO. : ALKPS 4824 M APPELLANT ) .. RESPONDENT ) C.O.NO.69/JAB/2012 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 RAMESH SINGH, PROP. M/S. STARLINE AUTOMOBILES, MUKHTYARGANJ, SATNA. VS. ACIT, CIRCLE, SATNA PAN/GIR NO. : ALKPS 4824 M CROSS OBJECTOR .. RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABHISHEK SHUKLA, SR. DR CROSS OBJECTOR BY : SHRI G.N.PUROHIT, SR. ADV SHRI ABHISHEK OSWAL, ADV. DATE OF HEARING : 19/9/20 13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20/09/2013 O R D E R 2 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 PER R.C.SHARMA, AM: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTIO N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.12.2012 OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JABALPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I. T.ACT, 1961. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER OF HYUNDAI MOTORS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSES SING OFFICER NOTICED DIFFERENCE OF RS.71,304/- WHILE VERIFYING RECONCILI ATION STATEMENT OF CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AT BANK OF BARODA. THE A SSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO OFFER A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION ON CREDIT OF RS .71,304/- TO THE AFORESAID ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED IT TO THE RETU RNED INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE LD. AR WER E REFERRED TO THE A.O. VIDE LETTER DATED 23/03/2010 FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE A.O., IN HIS REPORT DATED 26/10/2010, HAS INFORMED THAT THE CRE DIT RELATES TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 RELEVANT TO ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04. SINC E THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY OFFERED THE SAME AS INCOME FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2008-09, NO ADDITION MAY BE CALLED FOR IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. 3 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSION MADE BY T HE LD. AR AS WELL AS THE REPORT OF THE A.O., I FIND THAT THE ALLEGED DIF FERENCE IN CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT OF BANK OF BARODA IS DUE TO CREDIT OF REFUN D RECEIVED FROM DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE ON 03/12/2002 AND SINCE THE CR EDIT HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELE VANT TO THE ASST. YR. 2008-09, NO MORE ADDITION ON THIS COUNT TO THE RETU RNED INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE, IT IS DELETED. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOU ND THAT ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CASH CREDIT AC COUNT MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF BARODA. LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED A FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT ALLEGED DIFFERENCE IN CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT WAS DUE TO CREDIT OF REFUND RECEIVED FROM DEPARTMENT OF EXCISE ON 3.12.2002 AND CREDIT HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELE VANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, ADDITION IS NOT WARRANTED. THE DETAILED F INDINGS RECORDED BY LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AT PARA 2.1 HA S NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT, ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.71,304/-. 4 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT ADJUSTED THE PROPORTIONATE TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AND ENTRY TAX ON VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK ON CARS. ACCORDINGLY, HE ENHANCED THE VALUE O F THE CLOSING STOCK BY RS.1,09,964/-. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOL LOWING OBSERVATION: THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK WAS FORWARDED TO THE A.O. FOR HIS VERIFICATION AND COMMENT. THE A .O. OBSERVED THAT IF THE TRANSPORTATION CHARGE AND ENTRY TAX IS ADDED TO THE VALUE OF THE OPENING BALANCE OF STOCK OF RS.9843156A, THEN THE OPENING B ALANCE WILL HAVE TO BE INCREASED BY RS.1,20,087/- AND IN THAT CASE, THE DIFFERENCE IN OPENING BALANCE IN STOCK BEING HIGHER, THERE IS NO CASE FOR ANY ADDITION IN VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATIO N OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR AS WELL AS THE REPORT OF THE AO, I FIND THAT THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME ON THIS SCORE IS DELETED. 5. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORDS PERUSED. WE FOUND THAT ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ON THE PLEA THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADJUSTED THE PROPORTIONATE TRANSPO RTATION EXPENSES AND ENTRY TAX ON VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK ON CARS. LD CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWING THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WIT H RESPECT TO TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES AND ENTRY TAX. ACCORDINGLY , ANY CHANGE IN THE 5 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 SYSTEM WITH CORRESPONDINGLY INCREASING THE OPENING STOCK WILL DESTROY THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO N OT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION AFTER CALLING & CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT.. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF ADVERTISEMENT CHARGES TO HITKA RI AND DAINIK BHASKAR U/S 194C, BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DEPOSITED INTO CREDIT OF GOVT. ACCOUNT IN TIME. IN ONE OCCASION, TDS WAS NOT DEDUCTED. FOR SUCH FAILURE, HE INVOKED PROVISION U/S 40(A)(IA) AND DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.60,574/-. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.28,714/- AF TER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR WAS REFERRED TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENT. THE AO REPORTED THAT THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF RS. 28,7147-MADE TO DAINIK BHASKAR, THOUGH TDS H AS BEEN MADE AND CREDITED TO THE CENTRAL GOVT. ACCOUNT ON 26/04/2005 ON PAYMENT OF RS. 28,860/-. SIMILARLY, TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BUT DEPO SITED ON 26/04/2005 ONLY ON PAYMENT OF RS.3,000/- MADE TO HITKARI MEDIA . FURTHER HE COMMENTED THAT EVEN IN VIEW OF AMENDED PROVISIONS W ITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT, THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 60,574/- HAS BEEN RIG HTLY DISALLOWED AS PER PROVISION U/S 40(A)(IA). ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION O F SUBMISSION MADE BY 6 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 THE LD. AR AND REPORT OF THE AO, I FIND THAT THE A PPELLANT TRANSFERRED RS. 1,02,935/- TO 'ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSE A/C' TOWARDS 'ADVERTISEMENT AND PUBLICITY'. PAYMENTS INCLUDE RS. 3,000/- MADE TO 'H ITKARI MEDIA STATION PVT. LTD.' ON 07/04/2004 AND RS. 6000/- TO DAINIK JAGRAN, SATNA, RS. 28,714/-, RS. 28,684/-, RS. 28,860/- TO DAINIK BHAS KAR (PRESS) THROUGH JOURNAL ENTRY DATED 31-03-2005, BESIDES OTHER PETTY EXPENSES DEBITED ON DIFFERENT DATES TOWARDS ADVERTISEMENT. DEDUCTED TAX OF RS. 66/-, RS. 602 AND RS. 635/- WAS CREDITED TO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUN T ON 24-04-2005 AND 06-05-2005 AGAINST PAYMENT OF RS. 3000/-, RS. 2 8,684/- AND RS. 28.660/- MADE LO MITKNRI MEDIA AND DAINIK BHASKAR. THERE IS NO DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF RS. 28,714/- MADE TO DAINIK BHASKAR. THE TOTAL PAYMENT TO DAINIK BHUSKAR BEING MORE THAN RS. 50,000/- AND EACH PAYMENT BEING MORE THAN RS. 20,000/-, THE AO IS JUS TIFIED IN DISALLOWING PAYMENT OF RS. 28,714/- MADE TO DAINIK BHASKAR U/S 40(A)(IA) FOR THE FAILURE OF THE APPELLANT TO DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE U/ S 194C OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE LD. AR COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE SAME WITH COGENT EVIDENCE EVEN IN COURSE OF FRESH OPPORTUNITY GIVEN AT THE TI ME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE APPLICABILITY OF PROVISION OF SECT ION 40(A)(IA) FOR PAYMENT OF RS. 3000/- TO HITKARI MEDIA BEING LESS THAN RS. 20,000/- IS OTHERWISE ALSO NOT ATTRACTED. AS PER THE AMENDED PROVISION OF SECTION 30(A)(IA) INSERTED BY FINANCE ACT, 2008 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EF FECT FROM 01-04-2005, THERE IS NO DELAY IN DEPOSITING THE TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE ON PAYMENT OF RS. 28,684/- AND RS. 28,660/- MADE THROUGH JOURNAL ON 31-03-2005. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF VIOLATION O F PROVISION U/S 40(A)(IA) IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 28,714/ - 7 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND REC ORDS PERUSED. WE FOUND THAT AFTER CALLING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS CO MMENT, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS PROPERLY APPRECIATED TH E DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.40(A)(IA) AND RESTRICT ED THE SAME TO RS.28,714/- AND AFTER RECORDING FINDINGS AS NARRATE D ABOVE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE. WE UPHOLD THE SA ME. 8. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED ON VERIFICATION O F DETAILS OF FREE INSURANCE AND RTO SCHEME A/C (SHAHDOL BRANCH) AND D ISCOUNT A/C (WAIDHAN BRANCH) THAT A SUM OF RS.3,42,780/- HAS BE EN PAID IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000/- IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF SECTIO N 40A(3) OF IT ACT, & THEREFORE A SUM OF RS.68,556/-WAS DISALLOWED &.ADDE D TO THE RETURNED INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: THE AO REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS WRITTE N SUBMISSION DATED 7/12/2007 FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF CASH PAYMENT IN EXCESS OF RS. 20,000/- . HE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.3,17,780/-(12 PAYMENTS) AS FREE INSURANCE & RTO SCHEME(SHAHDOL BRANCH) AND RS.25,000/- AS DIS COUNT A/C (WAIDHAN BRANCH) TOTALING TO RS.3,42,780/- IN CASH IN CONTRAVENTION TO THE PROVISION U/S 40A(3) OF THE ACT. THE DISALLOWANCE A T THE RATE OF 20% OF 8 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 THE EXPENSES MADE IN CASH COMES TO RS.68,556/-. HE FURTHER COMMENTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLA NATION OR EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO GOVT. ACCOUNT AND WAS COVERED UNDER RULE 6DD(J) OF THE IT RULES. SINCE THE CASH E XPENDITURE IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- IS NOT BEING SUPPORTED WITH ANY EVIDENC E TO ESTABLISH THAT IT IS COVERED UNDER RULE 6DD(J), THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS JUST AND PROPER. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER, I FIND THAT EACH PAYMENT MADE IN CASH EXCEEDING RS, 20,000/- TOWARDS FREE INSURANCE AND RTO SCHEME WERE PAID TO SOME MANOJ SONI, PRAKASH CHAND, DURGES H SONI ETC. THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS AS PAYMENTS MADE TO GOVERNMENT OR L.I.C. HAS NOT BEEN ADDUCED IN ANY PR OCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT EXCEPT THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND FEW INTERNAL VOUC HERS IN PAGE NO. 8 TO 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK, QUITE INADEQUATE TO EXPLAIN A ND JUSTIFY THE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PAYMENTS IN C ASH EACH EXCEEDING RS. 20,000/- WERE MADE. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEFAULT COMMITTED AS PER SUB- SECTION (3) OF SECTION 40A CAN BE MITIGATED AS PER RULE OF IT RULES 1962. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOU ND THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE UNDER THE HEAD FREE INSURANCE AND RTI SCH EME AND PAYMENT WAS MADE TO MANOJ SONI, PRAKASH CHAND, DURGESH SONI . LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT SO AS TO RESC UE THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE DD(J). THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY LD COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME 9 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPA RTMENT, ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.68, 556/- MADE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NOTICED THAT TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS.29,086/- AND 76,714/- AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,05,800/-RELATE TO EXPENSES OF EARLIER YEARS, I,E ASSTT. YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING FO LLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE EXPENDITURE OF EARLIER YE ARS ARE INADMISSIBLE AND ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE SUM AND ADDED IT TO THE RETURNED INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION : THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR WAS REFERRED TO THE A.O. FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE A.O., IN HIS REPORT DATED 26/10/2010 HAS ACCEPTED T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR AND SUGGESTED THAT IF THE EXPENSES PERTAININ G TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BUT BOOKED IN NEXT FOLLOWING PREVIOUS YEAR ARE CONSIDERED THIS YEAR, THEN THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITION ON THIS SCORE. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR AND THE REPORT OF THE 10 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 A.O. I FIND THE GROUND OF APPEAL AS ACCEPTABLE AND HENCE, ADDITION ON THIS COUNT IS DELETED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT EXPENSES WERE CRYSTALISED DURING THE YEAR AND, ACCORDINGLY, THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,05,800/- AFTER RECORDING FINDINGS AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. HENCE, W E UPHOLD THE SAME. 12. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CHARGED ANY INTEREST ON ADVANCES MADE TO HIS SISTER CONCERN M/S STAR AUTOMOBILES, SATNA OUT OF INTEREST BEARING LOAN I.E. FROM HIS CA SH CREDIT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED AT BANK OF BARODA. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISAL LOWED PROPORTIONATE INTEREST ON LOAN AMOUNT DIVERTED TO THE SISTER CONC ERN AND ADDED TO THE ASSESSEES RETURNED INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AFTER O BSERVING THAT ASSESSE HAD CASH CREDIT ACCOUNT AT BANK OF BARODA OPENED FO R GETTING LOAN TO MEET OUT THE REQUIREMENTS OF WORKING CAPITAL NEEDS OF TH E BUSINESS ACTIVITIES, OUT OF WHICH, ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN SUM FROM THE A BOVE ACCOUNT EVEN 11 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 AGAINST NEGATIVE BALANCE AND GAVE ADVANCES TO THE S ISTER CONCERN M/S. STAR AUTOMOBILES. 13. IT WAS ARGUED BY LD A.R. THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIV EN ADVANCE TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AS BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY, ACCORDINGLY, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMIN G THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FO UND THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO ITS SISTER CONCERN. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE WELL SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT INTEREST BEARING FUNDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE UTILIZED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND IN CASE OF ANY DIVERSION OF SUCH INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES, DISALLOWANCE IS WA RRANTED U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF S.A. BUILDERS, 288 ITR 1 (SC) HAVE OBSERVED THAT BEFORE DISALLOWING IN TEREST, ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIRED TO SEE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. AS ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED TO ITS SISTER CONCERN AS PER THE BUSINESS REQUIREME NTS, THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH 12 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF S.A.BUILDERS (SUPRA). WE DIRECT ACCORDINGL Y. 15. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE CONSTRUCT ED A SHOW ROOM AT BHOPAL DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT OF RS.70,68,845/- IN SCHEDULE-D OF AUDITED ACCOUNT UND ER THE HEAD WORKSHOP UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT BHOPAL. FURTHER S UBMISSION MADE IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE IT CLEAR TO T HE AO THAT SHOW-ROOM WAS COMPLETED BY THE END OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF VALUATION REPORT DATED 30-03-2005 O F THE REGISTERED VALUER SHOWING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 58.54 LAKH S. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT IT. HE REFERRED THE MATTER FOR VALUATION TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) U/S 142A OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. THE DVO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS. 92,24,659/-. THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS INVESTED RS. 70,68,845/- AND ANOTHER RS. 13,25 ,221/- WAS INVESTED BY M/S. SUPER CARS LIMITED, THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO GOT THE SUBMISSION VERIFIED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF M/S. SUPER CARS LIMITED AND NOTICED THAT THE INVESTMENT WERE IN THE NATURE OF PURCHASE OF FURNITURE AND FIXTURE, OFFICE EQUIPMENT, ETC., NOT CONSIDERED BY THE DVO AS 13 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 WELL WHILE ESTIMATING THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF T HE SHOW ROOM. ACCORDINGLY, HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF F URTHER INVESTMENT BY THE SISTER CONCERN M/S. SUPERCARS LTD. AND TREATED RS. 21,55,814/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN CONSTRUCT ION OF THE SHOW ROOM U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING T HE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: THE INVESTMENT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION MAD E IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF SHOWROOM AT BHOPAL HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY THE DVO AT RS. 92,24,659/- AND IT IS NOT DISPUTED. RATHER , THE ADDITIONAL INV ESTMENT OF RS. 19,57,283/- CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AFORES AID COMPANY ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BY THE L D. AR AND THE CONTENTION IS FOUND TO BE UNACCEPTABLE FOR THE REAS ONS MENTIONED IN PARA 2.7(I) TO (VIII) ABOVE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE P LEA OF THE LD. AR TO IGNORE THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 1,98,531/- AS PER PROV ISIONS U/S 38A READ WITH SECTION 142A AND RULE 3B OF WEALTH TAX RULES IS NO MORE RELEVANT. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 21,55,814/- TO RETURNE D INCOME BY INVOKING PROVISION U/S 69 OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED. 16. IT WAS ARGUED BY LD A.R. THAT ASSESSEE HAS GOT DETAILED ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION, WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED. AS PER LD A .R. EACH AND EVERY CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE WAS RECORDED IN ITS ACCOUN T AND IT WAS PLACED 14 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE FURTHER POINTED O UT THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS DUE TO BONAFIDE REASON, HOWEVER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME, WHICH IS IN CO NTRAVENTION OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND RE CORDS PERUSED. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED SHOW ROOM, WHEREIN, INVESTMENT WAS DISCLOSED AT RS.70,68 ,845/-. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE REFERENCE TO DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OF FICER, WHO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS.92,24,659/-, ACCORDI NGLY, THE DIFFERENCE WAS ADDED IN ASSESSEES INCOME UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. FROM THE RECORD, WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED A DETAILED AC COUNT OF CONSTRUCTION IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND COMPLETE DETAILS OF INV ESTMENT AT PAGES 29 TO 51 WAS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY MISTAKE IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE NOR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS REJECTED. UNLESS BOOKS OF ACC OUNT ARE FOUND TO BE UNREASONABLE OR REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE QUESTION OF ESTIMATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION DOES NOT ARIS E. FURTHER, ASSESSEE 15 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE BY HIM AS WELL AS BY ITS SISTER CONCERN. IF BOTH INVESTMENTS ARE TAKEN TOGETHER, T HERE REMAINS ONLY A DIFFERENCE OF RS.1,98,531/-, WHICH IS LESS THAN THE TOTAL VALUE OF INVESTMENT DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE NO DEFECT WAS FOUND BY ANY OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ALONGWITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF EX PENSES INCURRED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASI S OF ESTIMATE MADE BY DVO. ASSESSING OFFICER IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. 18. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED CUSTOMER'S ACCO UNT AND NOTICED THAT SHRI HITENDRA GUPTA OF BHADOHI MADE A DEPOSIT OF RS . 2,00,000/- ON 06/12/2004 WHICH WAS STILL LYING UNCLAIMED AT THE T IME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPL ETE POSTAL ADDRESS WHICH COULD NOT BE COMPLIED. HE TREATED THE DEPOSIT AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED IT TO THE RETURNED INCOME U/S 68 OF THE ACT. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED T HE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 16 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 I CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR AS W ELL AS THE REPORT OF THE AO CAREFULLY. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT T HE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR HAS BEEN PROVED IS NOT CORRECT SINCE T HE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED BY PRODUCING HIS BANK ACCOUNT A ND HIS KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME. EVEN THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT IS NOT FURNISHED IN THE PAPER BOOKS. WHAT HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN PAGE NO.61 IS TH E LEDGER ACCOUNT OF HITESH GUPTA, THE CREDITOR. PAGE NO. 62 IS AN INTER NAL VOUCHER WHICH SUGGESTS PAYMENT OF RS. 1,50,000/- ON 05/03/2008, A FTER ADJUSTMENT OF INTEREST OF RS. 50,000/-. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON R ECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE CREDIT OF THE DRAFT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR . THAT APART, HOW THERE IS REDUCTION OF ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RS. 2,00,000/- FOR BOOKING A VEHICLE WILL BE REDUCED BY RS. 50,000/- TOWARDS INTEREST AND HOW THAT INTEREST DEDUCTED HAS BEEN BOOKED IS NOT MADE CLEAR. THIS WA S NOT MADE VERIFIABLE AT LEAST FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE AP PELLANT. EVEN SUMMONS TO THE CREDITOR FOR CROSS EXAMINATION MADE AT THIS END WAS NOT RESPONDED. RELIANCE PLACED ON AFFIDAVIT OF THE CREDITOR IS NOT CONSIDERED FOR SIMILAR REASONS AS MENTIONED IN PARA 2.7 (VI) ABOVE. THUS, THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR IS REMAINED TO BE ESTABL ISHED AND HENCE, ADDITION MADE ON THIS COUNT IS CONFIRMED . 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO REFUND OF ADVANCE SO RECEIVED AS WELL AS INTEREST CHARGED BY THE ASSESSE E FOR NOT TAKING THE DELIVERY OF VEHICLE. IT APPEARS THAT ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE AS WELL AS ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH REGARD TO REFUND OF ADVANCE OF 17 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 RS.1,50,000/- AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF INTEREST OF RS.50 ,000/-, WHICH HAS DULY BEEN RECORDED AS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUBS EQUENT YEAR, HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECID ING AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 20. THE AO VERIFIED THE 'CUSTOMER'S ACCOUNT' AN D NOTICED THAT THE CREDIT BALANCE IN SOME OF THE CUSTOMERS TOTALING TO RS. 10,13,579/- ARE APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS FOR LAST SO MANY YEA RS WITHOUT ANY TRANSACTION OR REFUND. THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ACCOUNTS GIVES SUSPICION AS TO WHY A CUSTOMER WILL LEAVE SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT WITH THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY BENEFIT OF INTEREST AND KEEP THE AMOUNT S UNCLAIMED FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD. HE RELIED ON RATIO OF THE CASE IN CIT VS T. V. SUNDERAM IYENGAR & SONS LTD, REPORTED IN 222 ITR 344 (SC), AND TREATED THE UNCLAIMED CREDIT BALANCES AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 28(IV) AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 10,13,579/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELE TED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION: 18 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR AND THE REPORT OF T HE AO WERE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. ON PERUSAL OF MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED DEPOSITS F ROM CUSTOMERS AS ADVANCE FOR SUPPLY OF VEHICLES. SOME OF THE DEPOSI TS ARE SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING FOR SEVERAL YEARS WITHOUT HAVING ANY TR ANSACTION. THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 6,56,514/- BY DEVANSI SAXENA IS LYING SINCE MAY 2002, DEPOSITS OF BHAGWATI TRANSPORT OF RS. 78,330/- AND DEPOSIT OF G OODWILL CARRYING CORPORATION OF RS. 1,45,845/- ARE LYING SINCE APRIL 2001 ETC. AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 2.9 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE DEPOSIT OF R S. 2,00,000/- OF HITESH GUPTA WAS ALSO LYING SINCE DECEMBER 2004 WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN REPAID ONLY ON 05-03-2008 I.E. COINCIDENTALLY AFTER THE AO ADDED THE DEPOSIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, NEITHER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 FOR OL D DEPOSITS NOR THE PROVISION OF SECTION 41 CAN BE INVOKED IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. REMISSION OF LIABILITY DOES NOT CONSTI TUTE INCOME [COMMISSIONER OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX VS. KERALA ESTATE (1986) 161 ITR 155 (SC)]. ON THE OTHER HAND, DESPITE NON AVAILABILITY OF THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE CREDITORS RELATING TO CONTINUATION OF THE DEPOSITS MADE BY THEM, PROVISION OF SECTION 28(IV) CANNOT BE INVOKED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT TREATED THE DEPOSITS AS UNCLAIMED AND WRITTEN BACK THE SAME TO THE P&L A/C. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE RATIO OF THE CASE IN CIT VS T. V. SUNDERAM LYENGAR & SONS LTD IS DISTINGUISHABLE. MONEY DUE BY THE APPELLANT TO HIS CONSTITUENTS ONLY WHEN NOT CLAIMED BY THEM AND THESE ARE TRANSFER TO P&L A/C CAN BE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF TH E YEAR IN WHICH THEY ARE SO TRANSFERRED [PIONEER CONSOLIDATED CO. OF INDIA LTD. KS. C IT (1972) ITR 410 (ALL). THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE LIABILITIES FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES HAVE CEASED. THE ONLY BASIS OF INFERENCE OF LIABILITIES AS UNCLAIMED IS DRAWN ONLY ON MERE 19 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 FACT THAT THE DEPOSITORS HAVE NOT TAKEN STEPS TO RE COVER THE AMOUNTS. NOTWITHSTANDING THE NON-PAYMENT OF LONG OUTSTANDING ADVANCES BY THE APPELLANT AND BY VIRTUE OF THE LIABILITIES CONTINUI NG TO BE SHOWN AS LIABILITIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AN INFERENCE O F CESSATION OF LIABILITIES CANNOT BE DRAWN. [RELIED ON CIT VS. PRE STRESSED CONCREET CO. PVT. LTD]. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, ADDITION OF RS.10,13,579/- MADE U/S 28(IV) OF THE ACT IS DELETE D. 21 . WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED RECORDS. WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED DEPOSIT FROM CU STOMERS AS ADVANCE FOR SUPPLY OF VEHICLES. THE ADVANCE SO REC EIVED WAS TRADING RECEIPT INSOFAR AS IT WAS FOR SUPPLY OF VEHICLES FO R WHICH ASSESSEE WAS DEALING. THESE ADVANCES WERE OUTSTANDING IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ONE OF THE CASE, LD COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT DEPOSIT OF RS.2,00,000/- OF HI TESH GUPTA WAS LYING SINCE DECEMBER, 2004 AND IT WAS CLAIMED TO HA VE BEEN REPAID ON 5.3.2008. LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED A FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER TREATED THE DEPOSIT AS UNCLAIMED AND WRITTE N BACK THE SAME TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, ACCORDINGLY, THE RA TIO OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF V. SUNDERAM LYENGAR & SONS LTD(SUPRA) IS DISTINGUISHABLE. LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) FURTHER 20 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 FOUND THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO COME TO CONCLUSION THAT THE LIABILITIES FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES H AVE CEASED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DRAWN AN INFERENCE OF LIABILI TIES AS UNCLAIMED MERELY ON THE PLEA THAT DEPOSITORS HAVE NOT TAKEN STEPS TO RECOVER THE AMOUNTS. NOTWITHSTANDING THE NON-PAYMENT OF LON G OUTSTANDING ADVANCES BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY VIRTUE OF THE LIABI LITIES CONTINUING TO BE SHOWN AS LIABILITIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, AN INFERENCE OF CESSATION OF LIABILITIES CANNOT BE DRAWN. THE DETA ILED FINDINGS RECORDED BY LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE, HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED, ACCORDINGLY , WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,13,579/-. 22. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED DIFFERENCE IN ACC OUNT OF MAHINDRA & MAHINDRA LIMITED AND HERO HONDA LIMITED AND CALLED FOR RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAVING FAILED TO EXPLAIN T HE DIFFERENCE TOTALING TO RS.4,46,649/- ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED IT TO THE RET URNED INCOME. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 21 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD. AR AND REPORT OF THE AO WERE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY. THE APPELLANT IS AN AUTHORIZED DEALER OF HYUNDAI MOTORS. HE IS A PARTNER IN M/S. STAR AUTOMOBILES SATNA WHO IS AUTHO RIZED DEALER OF MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA AND HERO HONDA MOTORS. VERIFI CATION OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA (UV A/C), MAHINDR A AND MAHINDRA (SCORPIO), HERO HONDA MOTORS (SPARE PARTS) AND HERO HONDA MOTORS (VEHICLES) WERE, IN FACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITH REFERENCE TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF M/S. STAR AUTOMOBILES BUT T HE IMPUGNED DIFFERENCE WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E OUT OF THE BONAFIDE ERROR AS THE TWO CASES ARE OF SAME GROUP. ACCORDIN GLY, THE ADDITION MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME ON THIS COUNT IS NOT SUSTAIN ABLE AND HENCE, IT IS DELETED. 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FO UND THAT AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, LD CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOUND THAT RECONCILIATION STATEMENT W AS FILED, ACCORDING TO WHICH, THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE. THE DETAILED FINDI NGS RECORDED BY LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN C ONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RESULTING INTO DELETION OF RS.4,46,649/-. 22 I.T.A. NO.66/JAB/2012 C.O.NO.69/JAB/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:20 05-06 24. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE AND CROS S OBJECTION BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JABALPUR DATED 20 / 09/2013 B.K.PARIDA, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT : ACIT, CIRCLE, SATNA 2. / THE CROSS OBJECTOR: RAMESH SINGH, PROP. M/S. STARLINE AUTOMOBILES, MUKHTYARGANJ, SATNA. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, JABALPUR 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY,ITAT CAMP AT JABALPUR