Prakash Sachdeva, Lucknow V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax Range-2, Lucknow

ITA 698/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78487 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-04-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-04-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K RAM
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH AGARWAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Period of limitation; Valuation report; Time period of passing order
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 698/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009 - 10 PRAKASH SACHDEVA LUCKNOW V. ACIT RANGE 2 LUCKNO W PAN: AJPPS5639F (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. YOGESH AGARWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. R. K. RAM, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 21.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 .04.2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV: THIS APPEAL IS PRE FERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAINLY ON THREE GROUNDS ONE IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,26,070/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT MADE TO ICICI BANK ON USE OF CREDIT CARD; SECOND IS WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.2 ,40,000/ - TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS AND THE THIRD IS WITH REGARD TO THE COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN HAVING ACCEPTED THE DVOS REPORT BY THE LD. CIT(A). 2 . WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN MAKING PAYMENT OF RS.3,26,070/ - AND HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL OF RS.2,40,000/ - , THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT CASH PAYMENT OF PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 2 - : RS.3,26,070/ - WAS MADE FOR THE USE OF CREDIT CARD OF ICICI BANK ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL, THER EFORE , THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS CONSIDERED TO BE AT RS.2,40,000/ - AND ADDITION S WERE MADE. BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LIVING WITH HIS MOTHER WHO IS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX AND WAS HAVING R ENTAL INCOME AND OUT OF ACCUMULATED FUND, AND CASH PAYMENT OF RS.3,26,070/ - WAS MADE BY HER FOR THE USE OF CREDIT CARD OF ICICI BANK ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 . SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS, AS THE HOUSEHOLD EX PENSES WERE BORN BY HIS MOTHER OUT OF HER INCOME AND PAST SAVINGS. 4 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,26,070/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PAYMENT MADE TO ICICI BANK FOR THE USE OF CREDIT IS SUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND RS.2,40,000/ - TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. 5 . THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FILED THE COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT OF HIS MOTHER IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT H IS MOTHER WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE TO MEET THE AFORESAID EXPENSES. IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, IT WAS STATED THAT AT THE TIME OF DEATH OF HIS FATHER, HIS MOTHER RECEIVED CASH OF RS.5,25,325/ - AND THEREAFTER SHE HAD BEEN EARNING RENTAL INCOME FRO M THE HOUSE PROPERTY. SOME PART OF THE RENTAL INCOME WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK, BUT THE MAJOR PORTION OF THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT AT HOME TO MEET THE EMERGENT REQUIREMENT. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT HIS MOTHER HAS BORN HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS SHOWN AT RS.2,45,000/ - . THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 3 - : 6 . NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AN D HAS REITERATED HIS CONTENTIONS. COPY OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND RETURN OF INCOME OF HIS MOTHER, SMT. VEENA SACHDEVA ARE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD. SHE HAS BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 AND COP IES OF THE INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 143(1) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 IS PLACED ON RECORD FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03 AND 2003 - 04. BESIDES COP IES OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008 - 09 AND 2009 - 10 ARE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD I N ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE FINANCIAL POSITIO N OF HIS MOTHER TO MEET THE AFORESAID EXPENSES. 7 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IS MANUFACTURED BY THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY HIS CLAIM AND IT IS AGAINST THE HUMAN PROBABILITY THAT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS KEE PING SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT AT HOME. HE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 8 . HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHE R WAS ASSESSED TO TAX SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 AND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 THE RETURNED TOTAL INCOME WAS SHOWN AT RS. 2,05,000/ - . IT WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RETURNED INCOME SHOWN WAS OUT OF THE RENTAL INCOME WHICH WAS COMPU TED AFTER STANDARD DEDUCTION. THEREFORE THE REAL INCOME WAS MORE THAN THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE INTIMATION ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. FROM THE LAST ACKNOWLEDGE MENT OF RETURN, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAS SHOWN TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,40,000/ - . FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER HAS SHOWN AVAILABILITY OF CASH AT RS.5,25,325/ - AT THE TIME OF DEATH OF HER HUSBAND. THEREAFTER SHE HAD WITHDRAWN THE AMOUNT FROM BANK AND ALSO DEPOSITED RENTAL INCOM E IN THE BANK. FROM THE DETAILS, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE INCOME FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2008 - 09 WAS SHOWN AT RS.1,75,000/ - , BESIDES C ASH PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 4 - : BALANCE OF RS.5,08,885.20. IN THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT, AN AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.2,45,000/ - WAS PAID TO ICICI BANK IN CA SH ON DIFFERENT DATES . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE EVIDENCE OF AVAILABILITY OF CASH IN THE HANDS OF HIS MOTHER AT THE TIME OF DEATH OF HER HUSBAND AND IN RESPONSE THERETO IT WAS STATED THAT NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE AT PRESENT AS THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPIRED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2001 - 02 AND THE MATTER IS TOO OLD. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS AND THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE MOTHER OF THE ASSES SEE AND WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES MOTHER IS ASSESSED TO TAX SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03 , THEREFORE, TH E FACT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT SHE WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT FUND TO MEET CERTAIN EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE ACCEPTED , AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT THAT MOST OF THE TIME CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AND WE FIND NO VALID REASON TO KEEP SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF CASH AT HOME, BUT TO SOME EXTEN T CREDIT OF THE SAME SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE. THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR PAYMENT TO ICICI BANK WAS MADE AT RS. 3,26,070/ - . A TLEAST SOME CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND THE RETURN OF INCOME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ATLEAST CREDIT OF RS.2 LAKHS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PAYMENT IN CASH TO ICICI BANK BY THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY REDUCE THI S ADDITION FROM RS.3,26,070/ - TO RS.1,26,070/ - AFTER GRANTING RELIEF OF RS.2 LAKHS. 9 . SIMILAR IS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWAL. THOUGH IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.2,45,000/ - , BUT WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN TOT O . BUT SOME CREDIT SHOULD BE GIVEN FOR THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH THE MOTHER OF THE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 5 - : ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY REDUCE THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD FROM RS.2,45,0 00/ - TO RS.1 LAKH AFTER GRANTING A RELIEF OF RS.1,45,000/ - . 10 . SO FAR AS THE LAST ISSUE OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAIN IS CONCERNED, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY AT NASIK FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.95 LAKHS. THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS SESSED FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE WAS RS.1,13,44,500/ - . IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A LOWER PRICE DUE TO PENDING LITIGATION IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROPERTY AND MOREOVER IT IS DIFFICULT FOR THE ASSESSEE TO MANAGE THE PROPERT Y FROM LUCKNOW. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THE REPLY SATISFACTORY AND REFERRED THE PROPERTY FOR VALUATION TO THE DVO UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE VALUATION REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE WAS FORCED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , AS IT WAS GOING TO BE TIME BARRED. 11 . THE VALUATION REPORT WAS RECEIVED IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DVOS REPORT . THE DVO HAS VALUED THE PROPERTY AT RS.99,66,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ADOPTED BY THE DVO WAS EVEN LESS THAN 5%, THEREFORE, THE VALUATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT CONVINCED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUE ASCERTAINED BY THE DVO AT RS.99,66,000/ - AS DEEMED SALE CONSIDERATION IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE CA PITAL GAIN . 12 . NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US AND HAS REITERATED HIS CONTENTIONS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MIL INDUSTRIES LT D., 21 ITR (TRIB) 627 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE APPELLATE PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 6 - : AUTHORITIES ARE NOT BOUND BY THE DVOS REPORT. AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND BY THE DVOS REPORT, BUT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY CAN APPLY HIS /HER OWN MIND TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. THEREFORE, THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED , AS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETERMINED BY THE DVO WAS LESS THAN 5%. 13 . THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND , HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 14 . HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE DVOS REPORT COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASS ESSMENT W AS COMPLETED BEFORE THE RECEIPT OF THE DVOS REPORT. THE DVOS REPORT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) I S ALSO ARMED WITH CO - TERMINUS POWER OF THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HE IS COMPETENT TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE DVOS REPORT AND TO CALL THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE DVOS REPORT. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT APPLYING HIS OWN MIND HAS BLINDLY ACCEPTED THE DVOS REPORT AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE VALUATION DETERMINED BY THE DVO. IN THIS REGARD WE HAVE EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CHENNAI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MIL INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA), IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT BOUND BY THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE DVO ON A R EFERENCE MADE UNDER SECTION 50C OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MIL INDUSTRIES LTD. (SUPRA) ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: - HELD, (I) THAT THE DOCUMENT CONSIDERATION WAS LESS THAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE. THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C(1) OPERATED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO ADOPT THE GUIDELINE VALUE. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFER THE MATTER FOR VALUATION. THAT WAS DONE. THE VALUA TION REPORT NEVER CAME TO THE ASSESSING PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 7 - : OFFICER BEFORE C OMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE LIMITATION PERIOD. THE ONLY WAY OPEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS TO COM PLETE THE ASSESSMENT BY ADOPTING THE GUIDELINE VALUE. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (II ) THAT IT WAS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO HEAR THE ASSESSEE ON THE QUESTION OF VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AND GRANT APPROPRIATE RELIF, DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE . THE COMMIS SIONER (APPEALS) HAD THE OCCASION TO GO TH ROUGH THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICE, WHEREIN THE VALUE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 3,54,73,536. THE COMMIS SIONER (APPEALS) WAS FULLY COMPETENT TO GO BELOW THIS VALUATION, AS THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OF FICER WAS NOT BINDING ON HIM. ( II I) THAT HOWEVER, THE COMPELLING CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SALE OF THE PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,21,64,409 COULD NOT BE ACT ED UPON BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. (IV) THAT EARLIER THERE WAS A VALU ATION AT RS. 1.21 CRORES BY THE ASSESSEE'S BAN KERS. THE GUIDELINE VALUE WAS RS. 3,95,91,000. BUT THE VALUATION MADE BY THE VALUATION OFFICER IS LESS THAN THE GUIDELINE VALUE AT RS. 3,54,73,536. WHEN ALL THESE VARIABLES WERE CHANGING FROM TIME TO TIME , FROM AUTHORITY TO AUTHO RITY, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO REJECT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS A WHOLE. NOR COULD THE VALUATION REPORTED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER BE ACCEPTED AS SAC RO SANCT. TAKING INTO ALL ASPECTS OF THE CASE, THE CONSIDERATION ACCOUNTABLE IN HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPA N Y FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 50C WAS TO BE FIXED AT RS. 2.5 CRORES AND THE LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAINS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPAN Y W AS TO BE ACCORDINGLY MODIFIED. 15 . AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND BY THE DVOS REPORT TO DETERMINE THE SALE CONSIDERATION. BUT SO FAR AS THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES ARE CONCERNED, THEY HAVE TO APPLY THEIR OWN MIND ON THE DVOS REPORT VIS - - VIS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TO TAKE A REASON ABLE VIEW. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS DECLARED SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS.95 LAKHS AND THE DVO HAS DETERMINED THE VALUE AT RS.99.66 LAKHS. THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO IS ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION AND NO T ON THE EXACT FIGURE AND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED AND DETERMINED IS EVEN LESS THAN 5%. IN SUCH PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 8 - : A CIRCUMSTANCE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ADOPTED AND NOT THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPERTY AT RS.95 LAKHS AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO COMPUTE THE CAPITAL GAIN. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16 . IN THE RES ULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.4.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH APRIL, 2014 JJ: 2104 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RES PONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ )