ITO, Kurukshetra V. Sh. Sushil Kumar, Kurukshetra

ITA 747/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 74721514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAI SHREE SHARMA; AJAY SHARMA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 271(1)(c); 40A(3); 133A; 250; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 747/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 I.T.O., WARD-1, V SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, KURUKSHETRA. PROP. M/S ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR, 46, NEW GRAIN MARKET, KURUKSHETRA. PAN: AAPPJ-0527L & ITA NO. 718/CHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR, V I.T.O., WARD-1, PROP. M/S ATMA RAM, KURUKSHETRA. SUSHIL KUMAR 46, NEW GRAIN MARKET, KURUKSHETRA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY: SMT.JAISHREE SHARMA & SHRI AJAY SHAR MA ASSESSEE BY: SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 06.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.09.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DATED 28.03.20 11, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PASSED U/S 250 (6) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,03,708/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF 2 SALE IN RICE PERMAL ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF LOSS CLAIMED WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE AVERAGE SALE RATE OF RICE PERMAL SHOWN BY OTHER CONCERNS OF THE LOCALITY AS RELIED UPON BY THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,94,775/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES APPEARING ON PAGES 2 & 3 OF DOCUMENT NO.2 IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF NARRATION OF PURCHASE, SALE, RATE AND WEIGHT ETC., THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE TERMED AS THAT OF PURCHASE OR SALE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.268504/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES APPEARING ON WRITTEN PAGES OF DOCUMENT NO.D-6 IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 3. IN THE CROSS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT,1961 IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH THE LD. CIT(A), KARNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO HO LD THAT LOSS ON SALE OF OPENING STOCK OF RICE IS NON- GENUINE AND THEREBY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,39,954/- OUT OF RICE PERMAL ACCOUNT AND RS.1,97,364/- ON RICE OUT OF STATE ACCOUNT WHICH HAD BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AO BY APPLYING ARBITRARY MARKET RATE. 2. THAT HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE LD. AL IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT U/S 145(3). 3 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.5,30,000/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND WHICH HAD DULY INCLUDED BY HIM IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,860/- OUT OF FREIGHT ACCOUNT BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). 4. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE BENCH, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT A SURVEY U/S 133 A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED, ON 19.01.2007, AT THE PREMISES O F THE FIRM M/S MAHAVIR TRADING COMPANY, KURUKSHETRA. IN THE COURSE OF SUCH SURVEY OPERATION, DOCUMENTS PERTAINI NG TO M/S ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR WERE ALSO FOUND. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.6,00,000/- OVER AN D ABOVE THE NORMAL PROFIT. IN THE COURSE OF SAID SURV EY OPERATION, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN TH E HABIT OF NON-MAINTAINING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AO REJECTED THE BOOK VERSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MA DE ADDITION INCLUDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF R ICE OUTSIDE THE STATE. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,03,708 /-, AND AN ADDITION OF RS.1,97,364/-, IN RESPECT OF SALE OF RICE. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO PAGE 9 & 10 OF THE IMPUGNED AP PELLATE ORDER AND REFERRED TO THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE CIT(A ). 5. IN RESPECT OF OTHER TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL, LD. DR ATTRIBUTED THE ADDITIONS TO THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS AND DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. A PERUSAL OF PARA 5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT THE AO, ON 4 THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS BEARING NO.D-2, IMPOUNDE D IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, CONTAINING CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS M ADE AN ADDITION OF RS.12,94,774/- U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 6. LD. DR, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION O F RS.2,68,504/- IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONTENTS AS A PPEARING IN DOCUMENT NO. D-6. THE LD. DR FURTHER STATED T HAT THE BENEFIT OF SURRENDER OF RS.6,00,000/- CANNOT BE GIV EN TO THE ASSESSEE, AS THE ASSESSEE RESORTED TO DEVICE IN NEU TRALIZING THE EFFECT OF SURRENDER BY ROUTING THE SAID SURREND ER THROUGH PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND NOT OFFERING THE SAME IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. CONTENTS OF THE SAID SURREN DER LETTER AS ANNEXED TO PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK MAY BE REFER RED TO. 7. LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT A SURRENDER OF RS.6,00 ,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DULY REFLECTED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, AS APPEARING AT PAGE 6 & 7 OF THE PAP ER BOOK. HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED A T THE TIME OF SURVEY HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME. HE, FURTHER, CONTENDED THAT NECESSARY BILL S AND OTHER RELEVANT DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO, IN DICATING SALE MADE TO VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS, FURTHER, SUBMITTE D THAT THE BILLS CONTAIN RELEVANT DETAILS OF ITEMS SOLD, RATE AT WHICH SOLD AND QUANTITY OF THE SAID ITEMS. HE, FURTHER, POINTE D OUT THAT IN A FEW CASES, SALE CONFIRMATIONS WERE ALSO OBTAIN ED AND PLACED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. HE STATED THAT THE PARTY HAS CLOSED ITS BUSINESS AND IT WAS A CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE A DISTRESS SALE HAS TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE CLOSED ITS BUSINESS AND NO BUSINESS WAS CARRIED ON IN THE NEXT YEAR. THE LD. AR, FURTHER, SUBMITTED THAT A SURRENDER 5 OF RS.6,00,000/- WAS MADE TO COVER UP CERTAIN DISCR EPANCIES. HE CONTENDED THAT A BENEFIT OF CASH FOUND AT THE PR EMISES IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY DESERVES TO BE GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER, CONTENDED THAT HIS SUBMISSION MADE IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.1 MAY BE TREATED IN RESPECT OF SUCH GROUND RAISED IN THE CROSS APPEAL. THE LD. AR RE FERRED TO VARIOUS RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK TO SUBSTAN TIATE ITS CONTENTIONS. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RELEVANT RECORDS INCLUDING PAPE R BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO AFTER REJECTION OF T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S 145(3) OF THE ACT, APPLIED THE AVERAGE RATE OF RS.1063/-, PER QUINTAL, IN RESPECT OF THE RICE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WORKED OUT THE SALE OF RICE AT RS.15,56,700/-, AS AGAINST THE SALES OF RS.9,55,992 /- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, AN ADDITION OF RS.6 ,03,708/- WAS MADE AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, ON ACCOUNT OF L OW RATE OF RICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER DETAILED MARSHALLING OF THE FACTUAL POSITION OF THE CASE AND CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE H ELD THAT IT IS REASONABLE TO APPLY THE RATE IN RESPECT OF RICE SALE AT RS.931/- PER QUINTAL I.E. THE RATE AT WHICH RICE WA S SHOWN TO BE SOLD IN DECEMBER,2006, AS AGAINST THE RATE ADOPT ED BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO WORK OUT THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. 9. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE PAPER BOOK, EVIDENCING SALE OF RICE BY WAY OF BILLS . A PERUSAL OF THE SAME REVEALS THAT IN MOST OF THE BILLS, QUAL ITY OF RICE 6 HAS NOT BEEN INDICATED. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE PROF IT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS EVIDENCED AT PAGE 7 OF T HE PAPER BOOK REVEALS THAT THE SURRENDER OF RS.6,00,000/-, M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE, UNDER THE HEAD OTHER INCOME HAS BEE N COMPLETELY WIPED OUT, BY SHOWING THE PROFIT AT RS.8 2,389/- AND THE CONSEQUENT OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT(A), IN T HE MATTER ARE FACTUALLY CORRECT, AND VALID. ON A CONSIDERATI ON OF THE ENTIRETY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , INCLUDING EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS REC ORDED BY THE CIT(A), IN THE MATTER DONT SUFFER FROM ANY INF IRMITY, HENCE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD. 10. A PERUSAL OF THE RELEVANT RECORD INCLUDING ASSE SSMENT ORDER AND THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER MAKES IT CLE AR THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE HABIT OF WRITING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER HIS CONVENIENCE, AFTER CLOSURE OF THE FINANC IAL YEAR, WHICH CANNOT BE TREATED AS A NORMAL PRACTICE IN BUS INESS CIRCLE. IT WAS, FURTHER, ESTABLISHED THAT THE DOCU MENTS IMPOUNDED BY THE REVENUE IN THE COURSE OF THE SAID SURVEY OPERATION WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNT WAS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION OF SUCH EVIDENCE OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1.05 THE ISSUE IS CONSIDERED. THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE ARE THAT A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A O F THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE 7 APPELLANT. DURING THE SURVEY, STATEMENT OF SHRI RA JIV KUMAR JINDAL S/O SHRI MANGE RAM JINDAL, AGED 33 YEARS WAS RECORDED. IN HIS STATEMENT HE STATED THAT THE FIRMS NAMED ATMA RAM NEM KUMAR, M/S MAHAVIR TRADING CO., M/S ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR AND ATMA RAM DAMAN KUMAR HAS BEEN FUNCTIONING FROM THE OFFICE SITUATED AT 46, ANAJ MANDI, KURUKSHETRA AND HE HAS BEEN WORKING AS AN ACCOUNTANT FOR THE LAST 13 T O 14 YEARS IN THESE CONCERNS. HE FURTHER STATED THAT CASH OF RS.6500/- IS AVAILABLE ON THAT DATE AND BES IDE THAT, NO CASH BELONGING TO ANY OF THESE CONCERNS WE RE LYING ANYWHERE ELSE. THE CASH OF RS.6500/- STATED TO BELONG TO M/S ATMA RAM NEM KUMAR. IT IS FURTHER STATED BY HIM THAT BOOKS OF M/S ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND OF M/S MAHAVIR TRADING CO. OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 WERE NOT WRITTEN SO FAR. TO A SPECIFIC QUESTION THA T; Q. WHAT THE REASON FOR NON-WRITING BOOKS OF TWO CONCERNS I.E. MAHAVIR TRADING CO. AND ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR FOR THE F.Y. 2006-07 SO FAR ? ANS. BOOKS OF THESE TWO CONCERNS ARE MAINTAINED/WRITTEN ONCE AT THE CLOSING OF F.Y. THIS IS THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED SINCE PAST. 1.06 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS NOTED: (A) THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE NOT FOUND TO BE WRITTEN ON THE DATE OF SURVEY; APPARENTLY, THE SAME WOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN AFTER THE END OF THE YEAR AS PER THE CONVENIENCE OF THE APPELLANT; (B) THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.6 LACS WAS DECLARED DURING SURVEY TO COVER UP VARIOUS DISCREPANCIES; 8 (C) THAT ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS IMPOUNDED DURING SURVEY; WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND HENCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT/TRADING RESULTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE CORRECT/RELIABLE AND REJECTION THEREOF BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(3) MADE BY THE AO IS, THEREFORE CONFIRMED. 1.07 IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE APPELLANT CREDITED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED DURING SURVEY IN THE P & L ACCOUNT AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, NET PROFIT WORKS OUT TO RS.82,389/- ONLY AND IF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME IS EXCLUDED, THERE WOULD BE LOSS AMOUNTING TO RS.5,17,611/- AS AGAINST INCOME OF RS.77,038/- DECLARED IN THE LAST YEAR. THE REASONS THEREOF ARE DISCUSSED BELOW; 1.08 THE APPELLANT WAS HAVING OPENING STOCK OF RICE PERMAL WEIGHING 1464.44 QUINTALS WHICH WAS VALUED AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF RS.883 PER QUINTALS. THE SAME WAS, HOWEVER CLAIMED TO BE SOLD FOR RS.9,52,992/- GIVING AN AVERAGE SALE RATE OF RS.650.75 PER QUINTAL RESULTING IN A LOSS OF RS.3,39,954/-. THE AO NOTED THAT M/S JAIN RICE MILL A SISTER CONCERN OF THE APPELLANT FIRM, PURCHASED RICE IN JANUARY 2007 AT THE RATE VARYING FROM RS.950/- PER QUINTAL TO RS.1100 PER QUINTAL. THE AO , THEREFORE HELD THAT THE SALE WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AT THE RATE OF RS.1063 PER QUINTAL I.E. T HE AVERAGE RATE OF THREE PURCHASES MADE BY THE SISTER CONCERN AND REFERRED TO BY THE AO WHICH IS CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT. IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE AO CROSS VERIFIED THE FACT FROM HIS INDEPENDENT SOURCES AND COULD NOT DETECT ANY DISCREPANCY OR ANY PROOF OF SHAM OR COLLUSIVE TRANSACTION AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.6,03,708/- ON THIS ACCOUNT EVEN 9 WITHOUT REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF RS.6 LAKH ALREADY SURRENDERED. THE APPELLANT FURTHER FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ON 21.3.2001 WHEREIN HE SUBMITTED AS UNDER : IN CONTINUATION OF MY PREVIOUS SUBMISSIONS, IT IS AGAIN SUBMITTED THAT THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT ALONGWITH OTHER TWO SISTER CONCERNS NAMELY M/S MAHAVIR TRADING COMPANY & M/S JAIN RICE MILLS, KURUKSHETRA ON 19.01.2007 BY THE THEN JCIT, KKR WHICH WAS CONCLUDED WITH THE SURRENDER OF RS.6 LAKHS, RS.14 LAKH AND RS.40 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY. IT IS ALSO BROUGHT TO YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUFFERING LOSSES IN THE PAST SOME YEARS, WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE QUANTUM OF WORK AND DUE TO THIS VERY REASON THE STOCK WAS BEING CARRIED OUT FROM THE PRECEDING YEARS ON HOPE THAT THE SOME PROFITS COULD BE EARNED WHEN THERE PRICES WILL INCREASE IN FUTURE, BUT THE SURVEY CONDUCTED BY THE DEPARTMENT MADE THE CONDITION OF THE APPELLANT WORST AND HE HAD TO TAKE THE DRASTIC STEP OF REALIZING THE MONEY BY SELLING THE STOCK AT THE MARKET PRICE AVAILABLE AT THAT JUNCTURE, WHICH RESULTED IN THE HEAVY LOSSES. EVEN THEY HAD TO SELL THEIR RICE MILL PROPERTIES IN THE SUCCEEDING YEARS TO MEET WITH HEAVY LOSSES. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE LOSSES HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RATHER HE WAS FORCED TO SELL THE STOCKS WHICH RESULTED IN THE HEAVY LOSSES AND THESE ARE THE ACTUAL RESULT OF THE BUSINESS CONDUCTED IN THE ROUTINE COURSE AND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE LD AO ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURMISES ARE NOT 10 TENABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND BE KINDLY DELETED. 1.09 THE APPELLANT FILED COPY OF RICE ACCOUNT ALONGWITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 21.3.2011. ON EXAMINATION THEREOF, IT IS NOTED THAT 100 QUINTALS OF RICE (CHAWAL TUKRA) WAS SOLD TO M/S SHARDA FOODS KURUKSHETRA @ RS.661 PER QUINTAL ON 20.11.2006 AND THE REMAINING RICE WAS SHOWN TO BE SOLD IN THE FIST WEEK OF FEBRUARY 2007, I.E. AFTER THE SURVEY TO M/S SINGLA TRADERS @ RS.650/- PER QUINTAL. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ADDRESSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO THAT ITS SISTER CONCERN PURCHASED RICE ON 24.1.2007 AT THE AVERAGE RATE OF RS.1063/- PER QUINTAL; I.E. 2500 QUINTALS @ RS.1100/- PER QUINTAL AND 250 QUINTALS @ RS.950/- PER QUINTAL. EVEN THE BROKEN RICE WAS SOLD @ RS.61/- PER QUINTAL AND HOW THE RATE OF RICE WERE DECLINED TO RS.650/- PER QUINTAL. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO GIVE ANY PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF DECLINE AND SALE OF RICE @ 650/- PER QUINTAL EXCEPT TO SAY THAT DUE TO SURVEY, HE HAD TO TAKE DRASTIC STEP OF REALIZING THE MONEY BY SELLING THE STOCK AT THE MARKET PRICE AVAILABLE AT THAT TIME, WHICH RESULTED IN HEAVY LOSS. THIS PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT VERIFIABLE FOR WANT OF ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE. 1.10 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ONLY INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE WAS CARRIED OUT JUST TO SET OFF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING SURVEY. TAKING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS IN CONSIDERATION, THE LOSS DECLARED ON SALE 11 OF OPENING STOCK OF RICE IS HELD TO BE NON GENUINE AND HENCE IS DISALLOWED. 1.11 THE APPELLANT FURTHER HELD OPENING STOCK OF RICE (O/S) WEIGHING 906.90 QUINTALS, THE AVERAGE VALUE OF WHICH WAS TAKEN @ RS.729.70 PER QUINTAL. IT ALSO PURCHASED RICE WEIGHING 1047.20 QUINTALS IN THE FIRST WEEK OF SEPTEMBER,2006 AT THE AVERAGE RATE OF RS.925 PER QUINTAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FREIGHT, BUT SOLD THE ENTIRE RICE AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF RS.824 PER QUINTAL. THE ENTIRE RICE WAS SENT TO M/S VIJAY TRADER, COMMISSION AGENTS, NAYA BAZAAR, DELHI FOR SALE. DETAILS OF SALE ARE AS UNDER : DATE OF DISPATCH WEIGHT DT.OF SALE SALE RATE (RS.) (PER QUINTAL) 26.12.06 225.00 27.12.06 @RS.1031/- 27.12.06 243.90 28.12.06 @RS.931/- 27.12.06 198.00 28.12.06 @RS.931/- 27.12.06 270.90 28.12.06 @RS.931/- 29.12.06 216.00 30.12.06 @RS.931/- 29.12.06 225.00 30.12.06 @RS.931/- 04.03.07 300.00 05.03.07 @RS.630/- 04.03.07 270.00 05.03.07 @RS.630/- FROM THE ABOVE DETAIL OF SALE, IT IS NOTED THAT TH E RICE WAS SOLD MORE THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE EXCEPT O F THE SALE MADE ON 4.3.07 I.E. SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF SURVEY. NO JUSTIFICATION HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD OF SALE OF RICE @RS.630/- PER QUINTAL WHICH WAS PURCHASED DURING THE YEAR ITSELF @RS.925/- PER QTL. THE ONLY INFERENCE WHICH CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE AFFAI RS WERE MANAGED JUST TO SET OFF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING SURVEY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS REASONABLE TO HOLD THAT THE RICE WAS SOLD @RS.931/- PER QTL. I.E. THE RATE AT WHICH THE RICE WAS SHOWN TO BE 12 SOLD IN DECEMBER,06 AS AGAINST RS.1035/- TAKEN BY THE AO. THE AO IS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO WORK OUT THE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS AS SUCH PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE UPHELD. 12. IN GROUND NOS. 2 & 3, IT IS CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.12,94,774/- AND RS.2,68,505/- RESPECTIVELY, ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME BE LONGING TO THE ASSESSEE APPEARING IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS, FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION. THE LD. DR SUP PORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. HOWEVER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E AR THAT SUCH ADDITIONS ARE PURELY BASED ON SURMISES AND CON JECTURES IGNORING THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FACTS OF THE CASE IN RESPECT OF THE SE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. THE AO IN PARA 5 HAD DEALT WITH THE INC RIMINATING DOCUMENTS BEARING NO. D-2 AND D-3, ON WHICH TRANSAC TIONS OF RS.5,94,614/-, AT PAGE 2, AND RS.7,00,159/- AT PAGE 3, TOTALING TO RS.12,94,775/- WERE APPEARING. SIMILAR LY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,68,504/- IN RESPECT OF TRA NSACTIONS CONTAINED IN DOCUMENT NO. D-6. THE LD. CIT(A), DEL ETED THE ADDITION AND HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER APPRECIATION: 2.03 THE FACTS ARE THAT DURING THE SURVEY, SOME DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. DOCUMENTS NO. D-2 AND D-3 CONTAINS SOME ENTRIES, TOTAL OF WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.5,94,615/- AND TO RS.7,00,159/- 13 RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED THAT ENTRIES CONTAINED ON PAGE NO. D-2 ARE THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE MADE OUT OF BOOKS AND D-3 CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF SALE TRANSACTIONS WHICH ARE OUT OF BOOKS AND AS SUCH PROFIT EARNED ON THESE TRANSACTIONS WORKS OUT TO RS.1,05,544/- (7,00,159-5,94,615/-). THE AO, HOWEVER REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF PURCHASE, SALES, QUANTITY AND RATES ETC. AND HENCE ADDED THE TOTAL OF TRANSACTIONS ON BOTH THE PAGES TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT TRANSACTIONS CONTAINED ON THESE PAGES WERE OF PURCHASE AND SALES MADE OUT OF THE BOOKS WHEREBY NET INCOME OF RS.1,05,545/- WAS EARNED, WHICH WAS COVERED BY THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.6 LAKH DECLARED DURING SURVEY. 2.04 PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS CONSIDERED. RELEVANT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO. ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THESE PAGES ARE IN ODD NUMBERS WHICH IS NORMALLY NOT IN THE CASE OF ACCEPTING OR MAKING THE LOANS/ADVANCES. PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFORE, TENABLE AND HENCE INCOME EARNED AMOUNTING TORS.1,05,544/- IS TO BE TAKEN AS INCOME EARNED OUT OF THE BOOKS. THE FURTHER PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE SAME IS COVERED BY THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.6 LAKH DECLARED DURING SURVEY IS ALSO TENABLE AND HENCE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 14 14. HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF CONTENTS OF T HE DOCUMENTS D-2/D-3 AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHICH ARE BASED ON APPRECIATION OF THE FACTUAL MATR IX OF THE CASE AND THE REQUISITE MATERIAL AS OBTAINING ON REC ORD. 15. THE AO REJECTED THE PLEA AND MADE THE ADDITI ON OF THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,68,504/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. HOWE VER, THE LD. CIT(A), RECORDED THE SPEAKING AND CATEGORICAL F INDING, IN PARA 2.05, OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER, IN RESP ECT OF DOCUMENT NO. D-6 AND DELETED THE ADDITION. THE DOCU MENT CONTAINS 24 PAGES AND TRANSACTION OF RS.60,883/- (L ENA) AND RS.3,29,187/- (DENA). THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A R THAT SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE COVERED UNDER THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE C IT(A), AS CONTAINED IN PARA 2.5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER ARE RE PRODUCED HEREUNDER : 2.05 FURTHER, DOCUMENT NO.D-6 WAS IMPOUNDED IN WHICH THERE ARE 24 WRITTEN PAGES CONTAINING TRANSACTIONS OF RS.60,883/- LENA AND RS.3,29,187/ - DENA. THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE AO SUBMITTED THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO TRANSACTIONS ARE COVERED BY THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.6 LAKH DECLARED. TH E AO REJECTED THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND MADE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENC E OF RS.268504/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE SINCE AT THE OUTSET NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND TO BE WRITTEN DURING SURVEY AND FURTHER HAD THE SAME BEEN WRITTEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO ADDITION WOULD 15 HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR ON THIS ACCOUNT. FURTHER PLEA OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2,68,504/- MA DE BY THE AO IS COVERED BY THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS .6 LAKH DECLARED, IS, HOWEVER, TENABLE AND HENCE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THIS ACCOUNT IS ALSO DELETED. 16. ON CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND REL EVANT RECORDS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE FOUNDATIONS OF RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSEQUENTLY, THE SAME ARE UPHELD AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA 718/CHD/2011 (ASSESSEE'S APPEAL) 17. THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT IN GROUND NO.1 CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT LOSS ON SALE OF OPENING STOCK OF RICE IS NON-GENUINE AND THEREBY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,39,954/- OUT OF RICE PERMAL ACCOUNT AND RS.1,97,364/- ON RICE OUT OF STATE ACCO UNT. THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ALSO CHALLENGED VIDE GROUND NO.2 UPHOLDING OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE C IT(A). 18. THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO G ROUNDS OF APPEAL MADE BY THE RIVAL PARTIES HAVE BEEN DULY CON SIDERED WHILE ADJUDICATING SIMILAR GROUND IN REVENUES APPE AL ABOVE. THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT HA S BEEN ADJUDICATED ABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. 19. SIMILARLY, THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS UPHELD BY CIT(A), HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY US AND THE SAME WAS 16 FOUND TO BE VALID AS CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED ABOVE WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 20. IN GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.5,30,000 /- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION. 21. LD. AR CONTENDED THAT UPHOLDING OF THE ADDITI ON OF RS.5,30,000/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE SOURCE OF SU CH DEPOSITS CAN BE TRACED TO THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 53/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) DATED 13.05.2 011 IN THE CASE OF M/S MAKSON DISTRIBUTORS, YAMUNANAGAR V DCIT, YAMUNANAGAR. 22. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO NOTICED THAT ON VARIOUS DATES CERTAIN DEPOSITS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT WAS CLAIMED TO BE MADE OUT OF THE S URRENDER OF RS. 6 LACS MADE IN THE SURVEY OPERATION. THE SA ID SURRENDER WAS RECORDED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT . THE AO, BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASS ESSEE, INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.5,30,000/-, TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER APPRECIATION OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, UP HELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 17 23. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ISSUE IN QUESTION , FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PART IES. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS IN THE MATTER ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E INTRODUCED CASH OF RS.3,00,000/- ON 20.03.2007, RS.1,30,000/- ON 23.03.2007 AND RS.1,00,000/- ON 26.03.2007 IN THE CASH-BOOK. THE APPELLANTS MAIN PLEA REMAINS THAT THE SOURCE OF INCOME TO SUCH DEPOSITS IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.6,00,000/- IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE CONTAINED IN PARA 3. 04 AT PAGE 18 OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE AND PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE FINDINGS O F THE LD. CIT(A), THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE NOT FOUND TO BE WRITT EN ON THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E. 19.1.2007. THE ACCOUNTA NT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY STATED THAT NO CASH WAS AVAILABLE OF THE APPELLANT FIRM. FURTH ER NO SURRENDER WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, CASH INTRODUCED IN THE CASH BOOK IN THE MONTH OF MARCH CAN NOT BE SAID TO BE COVERED BY THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.6 LAKH DECLARED DURING SURVEY. HAD THE UNEXPLAINED CASH BEEN AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY, THE SAME WOUL D HAVE BEEN SPECIFIED IN THE LETTER OF SURRENDER OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT AFTER SURVEY WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE PLEA OF THE APPELLANT IS, THEREFOR E, NOT TENABLE AND HENCE CASH OF RS.5.3 LAKH INTRODUCE D IN THE CASH BOOK IN MARCH 2007 IS HELD TO BE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND HENCE ADDITION THEREOF MADE BY THE AO IS, HEREBY CONFIRMED. 18 24. FURTHER, THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS TO BE EXAMINE D IN THE LIGHT OF THE RELEVANT RECORD INCLUDING THE SURRENDE R LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE SURVEY CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR AT KURUKSHETRA ON 19.01.2007 & DISCUSSED WITH YOUR GOODSELF. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LOOSE PAPERS, STOCK OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS, BYPRODUCTS & VARIOUS OTHER RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. THAT ASSESSEE FIRM VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERS A SUM OFRS.6.00 LACS (SIX LACS) AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT PAPER S, DOCUMENTS, STOCK BYPRODUCTS AND OTHER RECORDS. ON DOCUMENT D-8 OUTSIDE IT IS WRITTEN M/S ATMA RAM NEM E KUMAR BUT THE SAME BELONGS TO M/S ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR. THAT THE SURRENDER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT NO PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT O R UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE IT ACT/PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LOOSE PAPERS, STOCK BY PRODUCTS OR ANY OTHER DOCUME NTS. NO FURTHER ADDITION OR ENQUIRY SHALL BE MADE ON ACC OUNT OF ANY DISCREPANCY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, LOOSE PAPER S, DOCUMENTS, STOCK & BYPRODUCTS. WE WILL PAY THE TAXE S BY DUE DATES. 25. A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SURRENDER LETTER REVEALS THAT NO SURRENDER UNDER THE SAID SURVEY WAS MADE BY THE ASS ESSEE AGAINST THE CASH. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION , ONLY RS.6500/- WAS FOUND CASH AND NO OTHER CASH WAS AVAI LABLE 19 WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE INTRODUCED THE CAS H IN HIS CASH-BOOK AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY I.E. ON 19.1.200 7. THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SURRENDER LETTER DECLARED ADDIT IONAL INCOME OF RS.6 LACS TO COVER CERTAIN DISCREPANCIES AND PROMISED TO PAY THE TAX THEREON. HOWEVER, THE ASSE SSEE DECLARED INCOME AT RS.82,389/- IN THE RETURN OF INC OME FILED FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, IT IS EVID ENT THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PAY ANY TAX ON THE ADDITIONAL SURR ENDER MADE BY HIM. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS WISDOM C HOSE TO INTRODUCE THE CASH IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OUT OF T HE SAID SURRENDERED AMOUNT ON WHICH NO TAX WAS PAID BY HIM. IT IS PERTINENT TO HIGHLIGHT THAT ASSESSEE WAS IN THE HAB IT OF PREPARING HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AFTER THE CL OSURE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IN SUCH A FACT SITUATION OF TH E CASE, ASSESSEE WAS AT COMPLETE LIBERTY TO MANIPULATE HIS BOOK VERSION. BEING SAID SO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ADDUCE COGENT AND CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES TO JUSTIFY THE I NTRODUCTION OF CASH IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS STATUTORILY INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CASH INTRODUCED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PREPARED AF TER THE CLOSE OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. MERE ASSERTIONS IN TH E MATTER OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS IS OF NO LEG AL CONSEQUENCES. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS PURELY IN THE REALM OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THE PECULIAR FAC T SITUATIONS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE NOT COVERED UNDE R ANY RATIONAL FISCAL JURISPRUDENCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE O F THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), DESERVE TO BE CONFIRMED AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD. 20 26. IN GROUND NO.4, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1 0,860/- OUT OF FREIGHT ACCOUNT BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 27. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE MATTER AND FOUND THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE AND BASED ON THE EXIGENCY OF THE SITUATION. THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECO RD ANY MATERIAL TO REBUT SUCH EVIDENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE REVERSED AND THE ASSESSEE GET S RELIEF OF RS.10,860/-. 28. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER,2011. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (MEHAR SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 28 TH SEPT.,2011 POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT, 2. THE RESPONDENT, 3. THE CIT(A), 4. THE CIT 5. THE D.R, INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT, CHANDIGARH ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH