M/s New Dubai Jewellers, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 740/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 74021514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS.SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 740/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 NEW DUBAI JEWELLERS, V ITO-VII(4), SHOP NO. 2, LUDHIANA. A&B PLAZA, MALL ROAD, LUDHIANA. PAN: AADFN-0661P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT : SHRI N.K.SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 11.09.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.09.2012 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2011 PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A) U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'TH E ACT'). 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS)-LL, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN A SUMMARY MANNER WITHOUT LOOKING INTO TH E DETAILED SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE HIM AND ALSO NOT AT ALL RELY ING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS NARRATED IN DETAIL IN TH E WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM VIDE LETTER, DATED 21. 12.2010 AND ALSO THE DETAILED EXPLANATION SUBMITTED TO THE REMA ND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 04.12.2011. 2. A). THAT THE CIT (A)-LL HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,83,634/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INV ESTMENT IN THE PURCHASES OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. B). THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION IS AGAINST TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IGNORING THE STOCK RE GISTER AS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ON DAY TO DAY BASIS AND WHICH WAS 2 PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO DEFECT S HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT BY THE AO/CIT(A). C). THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION ON THE BASIS OF WRONG FIGURES GIVEN BY THE CHARTERED ACCOU NTANT OF THE QUANTITATIVE TALLY AND IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 1,54,583/-ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE GROSS PRO FIT RATE. 4. THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 978/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN DIAMOND STONES. 5. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ALLEGED ADDITION OF RS.21,880/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PURCHASES EXCEEDI NG RS.20,000/-, WHICH IS AGAINST THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,457/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CONVERSION OF GOLD. 7. THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,070/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVOUCHED LABOUR. 8. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ALSO ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE ADDITION OF RS.31,396/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED LABOUR PAID OUTSI DE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 9. THAT THE AO HAVING NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND, AS SUCH, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THE ISSUES AS TAKEN IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 10. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEA L, THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT TELESCOPING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 11. THAT THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ADDITIONS BY THE C IT (A) IS IN A MECHANICAL MANNER WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. 12. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF. 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'AR' STATED THAT GROUND NOS. 1, 2, 3 & 9 ARE INTER-LINKE D AND THE SAME PERTAIN TO THE SINGLE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO FOR NON-RECONCILIATION OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHAS E OF GOLD, AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIS--VIS THE SAME SHOWS IN AUDIT REPORT. LD. 'AR', FURTHER, CONTENDED THAT GR OUND NO. 4, 5, 6 & 7 ARE NOT PRESSED. 3 4. LD. 'AR' ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHIN THE MEANING AS CONTEMPLATED U/S 145( 3) OF THE ACT, BEFORE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.9,83 ,634/-. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOK VERSION U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. HE, FURTHER, ARGUED AND CONTENDED THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE AS CONCEIVED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF T HE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS V IS--VIS THE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT. HE PLA CED RELIANCE ON PAPER BOOK AND BRIEF SYNOPSIS. RELEVANT PART OF THE SYNOPSIS IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : BRIEF SYNOPSIS 1. THIS IS A CASE OF JEWELLER AND IN THIS CASE, THE RETURN HAD BEEN FILED ON THE BASIS OF AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND FOLLO WING RECORDS ARE BEING MAINTAINED AND PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R: I. CASH BOOK II. LEDGER III. PURCHASE AND SALE VOUCHER IV. OPENING AND CLOSING STOCK LIST IN QUANTITY, QUA LITY AND VALUE. V). DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER 2. THIS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE REPLY TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AS PER PAGE 15 OF THE PAPER BOOK. 3. COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORT IS FROM PAGES 1 TO 14 OF T HE PAPER BOOK. REFERENCE AT PAGE 2, 14, 17 AND 21. 4. DETAIL OF PURCHASE OF GOLD FROM CUSTOMERS FILED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NO DEFECTS POINTED OUT IN QUANTITY OR VALUE. 5. DETAIL OF GOLD PURCHASED/EXCHANGED FROM OLD GOLD I S AT PAGES 22''TO 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND DEBITED TO TRADING ACCOUNT AT PA GE 10. 6. REPLY PLACED AT PAGE 39 OF THE PAPER BOOK FURTHER S UPPORTS ABOUT THE 4 QUANTITATIVE TALLY BEING MAINTAINED. 7. COPIES OF THE STOCK REGISTER FOR 22 CARAT GOLD AND 24 CARAT GOLD PLACED AT PAGES 40 TO 58 AND NO DEFECTS POINTED OUT. 8. BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOT REJECTED U/S 145(3) BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER. 9. THE ONLY DEFECT POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE QUANTITATIVE TALLY AS REFLECTED BY THE AUDITOR IN T HE AUDIT REPORT AND AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AS PER PAGE-1 OF THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. A LOOK AT THE CHART REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AT PAGE 22-34, WHICH IS COMPARISON BETWEEN THE STOCK TALLY AS PER AUDIT REPORT AND AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT CONFIRMS THAT THE PURCHASES AND SA LES AS PER BOOKS ARE MORE THAN MENTIONED IN THE AUDIT REPORT FOR 22 CARA T OF GOLD. 11. FOR THE 24 CARAT OF GOD, THE DIFFERENCE IS ONLY OF 200 GMS OF GOLD AND FOR THE DIAMOND STONE, IT IS AGAIN A VERY NEGLIGIBLE DI FFERENCE AND FOR SUCH DIFFERENCE, THE REPLY IS AT PAGE-2 OF THE ORDER OF THE AO. II. OUR SUBMISSIONS I. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PIN P OINT ANY DEFECT OR OMISSION IN THE STOCK REGISTER, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, PURCHASE AND SALE VOUCHERS OR ANY OTHER DEFECT. II. DAY TO DAY STOCK REGISTER HAVE BEEN PRODU CED AND EXAMINED AND NO DEFECTS POINTED OUT. III. NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASES OR SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN FOUND. IV. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE NOT BEEN REJECT ED U/S 145 (3). V. PURCHASE AND SALE OF 22 CARAT OF GOLD REFLE CTED MORE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND, THUS, THERE COULD NOT BE ANY ALLEGED ADDITION OF THE INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS, ALLEGEDLY NOT SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND WHICH IS ON ACCOUNT OF JUST CLERICAL MISTAKE AND, PARTICULARLY, WHEN THE PURCHASES ARE AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SALES ARE MORE AND THE DI FFERENCE IS ALMOST TALLYING. VI. SIMILARLY FOR 24 CARAT OF GOLD, NO ADDITI ON COULD BE MADE WHEN THE BASIS RECORD HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND NO DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5 VII. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. ON SALES IS AGAIN NOT JUSTIFIED, BECAUSE THE SALES AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MORE AND, THUS, HOW CO ULD THERE BE ADDITION OF THE G.P. ON SALES OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE GROSS PROFIT SINCE MORE GROSS PROFIT ALREADY STANDS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS. VIII. SIMILARLY, THE OTHER ADDITION OF LABOUR PAID OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.31,396/- ARE CONSEQUENTIAL TO THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASES AND SALES OUTSIDE THE B OOKS AND OTHER SMALL ADDITIONS OF UNVOUCHED LABOUR OF RS. 2070/-ANDRS. 15,457/-. IX. IT IS A FACT THAT THE CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT DU E TO CERTAIN CLERICAL MISTAKES HAS MENTIONED CERTAIN FIGURES WHICH ARE FO REIGN TO THE RESULTS AND FIGURES AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND, AS SUCH, NO COGNIZANCE COULD BE TAKEN OF THE SAME. X. THE CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN A SUMMARY MANNER AND THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) TRYING TO SHIFT THE ONUS ON T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNFOUNDED, SINCE THE PURCHASE AND SALE AS PER BOOKS ARE MORE AND, THOUGH, THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE TO THE CIT(A) FO R WHICH THE COPY HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 59 TO 63, THE CIT(A) HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE SAME WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASON. XI. EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT, WHEN WE RAISED VARIOUS CONTENTIONS, THE AQ HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO REBUT ANYTHING. COPY OF THE RE MAND REPORT IS AT PAGE 64 OF PAPER BOOK. XII. REGARDING 40A (3), THE ADDITION IS AGAIN AGAINST TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THUS, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR SINCE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT. 5. LD. 'DR', ON THE OTHER HAND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. LD. 'DR' FURTHER P LACED RELIANCE ON PAGE NO. 1 TO 3 AND PAGE NO. 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE 22 TO 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK . 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE, PAPER BOOK AND BRIEF SYNOPSIS FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 6 THE AO, VIDE ORDER DATED 29.12.2008 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2006-07,MADE ADDITION OF RS.9,83,634/- ON THE GROUN D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS NOT SHOWN IN THE AUDIT R EPORT. THE AO, DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHEREBY IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THERE WAS NO MISTAKE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS WELL AS IN THE STOCK REGISTER M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. AS REGARDS VARIATION, IN THE CL OSING STOCK OF 22 CT. AND MINOR VARIATION IN 24 CT. AND DIAMOND AS PER AUDIT REPORT, AS SUPPLIED BY THE C.A., AS ANNEXED WITH TH E RETURN OF INCOME AND AS PER STOCK REGISTER MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT VARIATION IS ONLY C LERICAL OMISSION OR MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE CHARTERED ACCO UNT WHILE COMPILING BALANCE-SHEET AND AUDIT REPORT. THE AO, MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUN T WITHIN THE CONTEMPLATION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT. LD . CIT(A) UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, AS IS EVIDENT FROM P ARA 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 6 . I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT 'S COUNSEL AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDER, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS FILED AND A.O.'S COMMENTS THEREON. THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AUDIT REPORT W HICH ARE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM, HAS NOTED THESE ABOVESAID DIS CREPANCIES. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN, THE APPELLANT INSTEAD OF EXPLAINING THE SA ME HAS TRYING TO SHIFT ITS 'ONUS TO THE C.A. WHO HAS PREPARED AUDIT REPORT FOR THE APPELLAN T THAT THE CLERICAL MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE C.A. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF T HE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE A.O. HAS SORT OUT U NDER CONSIDERATION DISCREPANCIES FROM THE RECORD PROVIDED OR ARRANGED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D IT IS DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE SAME IN PROPER MANNER. IN THE CASE IN H AND, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS, THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY MADE ABVOESAID ADDITIONS TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. KEEPING IN VIEW TH E DISCUSSED POSITION, I FIND NO CONCRETE REASONS IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLAN T TO QUASH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. THUS, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. IS AP T AND AS PER LAW AND NEED NOT TO BE ALTERED. 7 7. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN QUESTI ON REVEALS THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS N OT SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT AT RS.9,83,634/-. THE AO, HAS ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,61,669/- AND RS.31,396/- IN RES PECT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALES FOR 1046.540 GMS. LESS SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND LABOUR CHARGES RESPECTIVELY. THE LD. 'A R' POINTED OUT THAT AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, 22 CT. GOLD HAS B EEN RECEIVED AND SOLD AT HIGHER QUANTITY VIS--VIS AS SHOWN IN T HE AUDIT REPORT, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE FOLLOWING DETAILS : 22 CT. GOLD AS PER AUDIT REPORT AS PER BOOKS OF DIFFERENCE ACCOUNT OP.STOCK 23707.550 23707.550 PURCHASES 0.820 RECEIVED 14488.690 15535.230 FROM MFG. -------------- ----------- -- 38197.060 39242.780 1045.720 SALES 12919.582 13966.122 1046.540 25277.478 25276.658 THEREFORE, IT WAS ARGUED THAT AO IS NOT COMPETENT T O MAKE ADDITION ON THIS SCORE AS THE QUANTITY OF RECEIPT F ROM MFG. IS HIGHER AT 15535.230 GMS. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, A S AGAINST AT 14488.690 GMS. SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT. CONSEQ UENTLY, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THIS SCORE. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT 13966.122 GMS. VIS- -VIS SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT AT 12919.582 GMS. S IMILARLY, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE TWICE IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PURCHASE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS A ND SALE OF THE SAME AS MADE BY THE AO AT RS.8,61,669/- AND RS. 31,396/- IN RESPECT OF LABOUR CHARGES, PAID OUTSIDE THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT ON JEWELLERY SOLD AND LESS SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPOR T. THE 8 CONTENTION OF LD. 'AR' IS BASED ON FOUNDATION OF FA CTS AND MERIT, WHICH CANNOT BE DISLODGED BY THE AVAILABLE DETAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE MATTER. FURTHER, THE AO HA S NOT REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND, HENCE, WITHOUT R EJECTING THE BOOK VERSION, NO ADDITION IS FEASIBLE IN VIEW OF TH E SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION ON THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MERELY UPHELD THE ADDITION WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD EXCEPT STATING FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO DISCHARGE ONUS IN RECONCILIATION OF THE ALLEGED DIS CREPANCY IN THE AUDIT REPORT VIS--VIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 8. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD. 'DR' RAISED ENTIRELY A NEW ISSUE, WHICH IS NOT BORNE OUT OF THE FACTS AND FINDINGS OF BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT PER TAINS TO GOLD NOT TRANSFERRED FROM 24 CT WHICH IS ENTIRELY A NEW DISCOVERED ISSUE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THIS, THIS CONTENTIO N RAISED BY LD. 'DR' FALLS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF JURISDICTION A T THIS STAGE, AS LD. 'DR' IS NOT COMPETENT TO REFRAME THE ASSESSM ENT AND APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 9. SIMILARLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, IN RESPE CT OF LABOUR PAID OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. 10. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DI SCUSSIONS, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. AC CORDINGLY, GROUND NO. 1, 2, 3, 8 AND 9, RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE , ARE ALLOWED. 9 11. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS OF 24 CT. GOL D REVEALS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF 200 GMS. VIS--VIS ST OCK AT 9607.280 GMS, SHOWN IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND 9407.28 0 SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, FINDINGS OF TH E AO, IN RESPECT OF THIS DIFFERENCE, ARE UPHELD. ACCORDINGL Y, AO, IS DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE DIFFERENCE IN MONETARY TER MS, BY APPLYING THE RATE AS APPLIED, ON THE ISSUE IN QUEST ION IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TO THIS EXTENT, THE ADDITION IS UPHELD. 12. GROUND NOS. 4,5,6 & 7 ARE NOT PRESSED. THEREFOR E, THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 13. GROUND NOS. 10, 11 AND 12 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEED NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY, THESE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH SEPT.,2012. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27 TH SEPT.,2012. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH