M/s Sewak Timber Pvt. Ltd., Rajpura V. ITO, Ward, Rajpura

ITA 808/CHANDI/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4288 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-01-2020
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 31-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S PHANI KISHORE
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Loose papers
• Section: 133A; 13

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B CHANDIGARH , ! '# $ % & '# , () BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 783/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 THE ITO, WARD, RAJPURA M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., PLOT NO. 46, RAJPURA ./PAN NO: AAMCS8809E / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 808/CHD/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., PLOT NO. 46, RAJPURA THE ITO, WARD, RAJPURA ./PAN NO: AAMCS8809E / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN, CA & SHRI B.M. MONGA, ADVOCATE & SHRI ROHIT KAURA, ADVOCATE ' ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI G.S. PHANI KISHORE CIT DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 29.01.2020 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.01. 2020 (* / ORDER PER BENCH: THESE CROSS APPEALS, ONE BY THE REVENUE AND OTHER B Y THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2 018 OF THE ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 2 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PATIALA [HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT (A)]. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN I TA NO. 783/CHD/2019, WHEREIN, FOLLOWING GROUND HAVE BEEN T AKEN BY THE REVENUE:- ITA NO. 783/CHD/2018 : 1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,32,77,37 2/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER BILLING OF SALES DONE BY T HE ASSESSEE. 2. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,939/- AS HE ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENT IMPOUNDED FOR TH E EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON RENOVATION/WHI TE- WASH OF THE RENTED BUSINESS PREMISES. THE DOCUMENT (A BILL BY THE SERVICE PROVIDER) WAS IN THE NAME OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY. 3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACC OUNT OF CASH PAYMENTS MADE AT RS.70,300/- WHICH WERE FOUND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ON DATE OF SUR VEY. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,90,069/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE PURCHASE BILLS OF GOOD S PURCHASED AND WEIGHT-SLIP/DETAIL OF STOCK GIVEN TO ASSESSEE BY THE TRANSPORTER. 5. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.18,67,221/- ON A CCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF STOCK ON ITS PHYSICAL ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 3 VERIFICATION AND AS APPEARING IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,51,000/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SURVEY, WHICH PERTAINS TO PAYMENT TO THE DIRECTO RS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 7. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) BE SET A SIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY G ROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD AND FINALLY DI SPOSED OFF. 3. GROUND NO.1 : VIDE GROUND NO.1, THE DEPARTMENT HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 3,32,77,372/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALES / UNDER BILLING OF S ALES. THE BRIEF FACTS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER A SKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE QUANTITATIVE & QUALITATIVE DETAILS OF O PENING STOCK AS WELL AS OF CLOSING STOCK AND MONTH WISE TRADING ACCOUNT OF TEAK WOOD, IMPORTED SAWN (ASSAM WOOD), MALAYSIAN KAOOR, MALAYSIAN KAPOO R BALE, MALAYSIAN MARINDI, UP PARTAL, PINE WOOD, M.K. WOOD, BARMA TEAK, SHOREA (RED MERANTI), DILLENIA (DILLENIA), TECTONA GRANDIS(TEAK), MICHELIA (CHAMP), SHOREA (BALAU GROUP), LEGUMINOSAI FAMILY AND ANY OTHER TIMBER/WOOD/ITEM PURCHASED OR SOLD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 4 21.10.2016 STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINT AINING THE TRADING ACCOUNTS ON THE BASIS OF NAME OF TIMBERS. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT MAINTAINING THE CLOSING STOCK DETAILS ON THE BA SIS OF QUALITY BECAUSE THERE WERE SO MANY ITEMS AND SIZES, LOTS AND QUALI TIES ETC. AND IT WAS NOT PRACTICALLY POSSIBLE TO KEEP SUCH RECORDS IN VI EW OF THE SMALL SIZE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, NOTED TH AT THERE WAS A WIDE VARIATION IN THE SALES BILLS TO DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS AT DIFFERENT RATE OF THE SAME ITEMS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THE V ARIATION IN THE ITEMS AS UNDER:- S.NO. NAME OF THE TIMBER IN SALE BILL VARIATION IN RATES (IN RS.) MAXIMUM MINIMUM 1. IMPORTED TIMBER SWAN SIZE 15300 32800 2. MALAYSIAN MARANTY 13500 34610 3. RED MARANTI 23500 33815 4. PINE WOOD FATTA 11500 15500 5. IMPORTED TEAK WOOD 19500 46200 6. IMPORTED TEAK LOGS 30500 45800 7. HO/LOCK WOOD SAWAN 21500 T 34500 8. BURMA TEAK LOQS 42500 70500 ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THE VARIATION IN THE SALE BILLS OF THE SAME ITEMS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THERE WERE MANY FACTORS OF VARIATION IN THE SALE PRICE OF AN ITEM TO DIFFERENT CUSTOMERS. THAT WHILE DECIDING THE SALE PRICE, THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS WE RE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION:- A) WHETHER THE CUSTOMER IS BUYING ON WHOLESALE OR RETAIL BASIS? B) WHETHER A CUSTOMER IS A REGULAR OR A NEW CUSTOME R? ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 5 C) WHETHER THE CUSTOMER HAS SOME REFERENCE FROM ANY OFFICIAL PERSON OF REPUTE? D) WHETHER THE CUSTOMER IS CHOOSING PIECES ON HIS O WN AND HAS COME WITH HIS TECHNICAL PERSONS? E) WHETHER THE CUSTOMER HAS ASKED FOR HIGH QUALITY PREMIUM PIECES? F) WHETHER THE CUSTOMER HAS ASKED FOR WOOD FREE OF ANY DISCOULORED PIECE? G) WHETHER THE CUSTOMER HAS ASKED FOR THE PIECE FRE E OF ANY KNOTS IN WOOD H) WHETHER THE CUSTOMER IS BUYING PIECES OF SMALL L ENGTH? THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER, OBSERVED THAT THE VA RIATION IN THE SALE PRICE WAS TOO HIGH, RANGING FROM 20% TO 150%. HE FU RTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED QUESTIONS / POINTS TO DETERMINE THE SALE PRICE WERE ACCEPTABLE TO SOME EXTENT AND ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED T HE NATURAL VARIATION @ 20%. HE, THEREAFTER, TOOK THE SALES AT THE HIGH V ALUE OF EACH ITEM AS SALE PRICE AND DIFFERENCE OF MINIMUM SALE PRICE AND MAXIMUM SALE PRICE WAS TREATED AS SUPPRESSED SALES AND AFTER GIVING BE NEFIT TO THE ASSESSEE OF 20% OF THE NATURAL VARIATION, HE MADE THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION INTO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SAL ES. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED ITS SUBMISSIONS. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT P OINTED OUT ANY SINGLE ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 6 INSTANCE OF UNDER DECLARED SALE PRICE / UNDISCLOSED BILLS OR ANY OTHER ERROR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES WHICH PRIMA-FACIE APP EARED TO BE UNREASONABLE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE CI T(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER;- 5.3 I HAVE EXAMINED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO THE CASE LAWS CITED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY U/S 133A AND THEREAFTER DURING ASSESSMENT COULD NOT DETAILED PRODUCE ITEM-WISE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF STOCK. WHILE THERE IS SOME BASIS IN THE APPELLANTS ASSERTION THAT GIVEN THEIR LINE OF BUSINESS IT IS N OT POSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN ITEM QUANTITATIVE DETAILS; IT STANDS TO REASON THAT SOME SORT OF DETAILS WOULD NEED TO BE MAINTAINED BY ANY SUCH BUSINESS TO KEEP CONTROL OVER STOCK AND TO DETERMINE PROFITABILITY A S WELL AS TO FORECAST STOCK REQUIREMENTS. HOWEVER, I FIND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN THE OTHER ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT THAT WOOD EVEN WITHIN THE BROAD HEADINGS OF TEAK, MALAYSIAN, MARANTI, SAL PINE WOOD ETC. HAVE VARIOUS SUB VARIETIES DEPENDING UPON THE ORIGIN, QUALITY, SEASONING AND SIZE OF THE WOOD. TEAK OF IVORY COAST ORIGIN OF LARGE SIZES MAY COST UPTO TIMES THE PRICE OF SEMI-SEASONED GHANA TEAK OF VERY SMALL SIZES. THE AO'S FORMULATION WHERE HE HAS LISTED ALL THE SALES OF A PARTICULAR BROAD CATEGORY OF WOOD AND THEN APPLIED THE HIGHEST RATE WITHIN THE CATEGORY AND PROVIDED A CORRECTION OF 20% ON ACCOUNT OF THE NATURAL VARIATIONS APPEARS TO BE PRIMA FACIE UNREASONABLE. THIS FORMULA APPEARS TO BE BASED ON AN INCORRECT UNDERSTANDING OF THE TRADE AND TRADE PRACTICES AND IS ARBITRARY. AS SUBMITTED IN THE ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 7 CHARTS OF THE APPELLANT AS PER RECORDS/ BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, HAS MADE TOTAL SALES OF TIMBER AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,31,05,662/- AND CONSIGNMENT SALES OF RS. 3,59,08,500/-. WHICH AS SUCH HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT, BY THE LD. AR HAVE BEEN TREATED ON PAR SALES WHILE THEY ARE ON A COMPLETELY SEPARATE FOOTING. THE LEARNED AO TAKING THE HIGHEST RATE IN EACH OF CATEGORIES OF WOOD SUPRA AND ITS APPLICATION ON THE TOTAL SALE OF SUCH CATEGORY HAS BEEN DONE WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BILLS OR REJECTING THE DULY AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ESPECIALLY, AS THE APPELLANT HAS POINTED OUT, AS REGARDS QUANTITY OF MALAYSIAN OUT OF THE 2553.06 CMS TIMBER SOLD DURING THE YEAR, ONLY 5.92% OF THE WOOD HAS BEEN SOLD AT THE HIGHEST SLAB OF RS. 34,610/- THE HIGHES T RATE OUT OF THE TOTAL 184 BILLS WHICH HAS BEEN APPLIED ON THE BALANCE 183 BILLS CONTAINING ALMOST 94% OF THE WOOD ESPECIALLY AS THE WOOD HAVE BEEN SOLD WITH VAT AND LARGELY THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANAND KUMAR DEEPAK KUMAR (2007) 294 ITR 497 (DELHI), TO POINT OUT THE UNREASONABLE NATURE OF TH E ADDITION WHERE POST-SURVEY SALES ARE ALSO COVERED BY THE SAME FORMULA. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THIS DECISION HAS RULED AS UNDER: THE A.O. WHO EXAMINED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD, CANNOT PRESUME THAT THE SAID DISCREPANCIES OF UNACCOUNTED SALES WOULD HAVE CONTINUED IN THE POST-SEARCH PERIOD, PARTICULARLY WHEN THERE WAS FACTUALLY NO EVIDENCE/MATERIAL FOUND BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW TO SUPPORT SUCH ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 8 A VIEW. THEREFORE, THE A.O. COULD NOT DRAW SUCH AN INFERENCE AND HENCE THE APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT WAS DISMISSED.' THE FORMULA HAVING LED TO CALCULATING THE GP OF THE ENTITY AT 45.79 % AS PER RECASTED SALE PRICE WHICH ARE COMPLETELY AT ODDS WITH THE ACCEPTED GP FOR EARLIER AND LATER ASSESSMENT YEARS AS UNDER: ASSTT. YEAR G.P. RATE (%) 2012-13 12.58 2013-14 10.75 2014-15 9.73 2015-16 8.03 5.4 THE LD. AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT A SINGLE INSTANCE OF UNDER DECLARED SALE PRICES / UNDISCLOSE D BILLS OR ANY OTHER ERRORS IN THE BOOKS. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ADDITION IS DONE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES THAT PRIMA-FACIE APPEARS UNREASONABLE, THUS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER DECLARED SALES OF RS. 3,42,25,286 IS DELETED. HOWEVER, IN VIEW THAT OF THE GP REGULARLY OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE NATURE OF THE TIMBER TRADE THE AO IS DIRECTED TO SUBSTITUTE A RE-CASTED GP FOR THE YEAR IN CONSIDERATION ON ALL SALES OTHER THAN CONSIGNMENT SALES AT 10.5% INSTEAD OF THE 9.73 % AS PER THE BOOKS (10.5 % BEING 0.50% ABOVE THE AVERAGE GP). ON THIS POINT THE APPEAL OF APPELLANT IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5. BEFORE US, THOUGH, THE LD. DR HAS VEHEMENTLY CON TENDED THAT THERE WAS A VERY HIGH VARIATION IN THE SALE PRICE, HOWEVER, COULD NOT POINT ANY EVIDENCE ON FILE TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD SUPPRESSED ITS SALES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS FACTORS WHICH ARE TAKEN INT O MIND AT THE TIME OF ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 9 DECIDING THE SALE PRICE TO THE CUSTOMERS WHICH INC LUDED THE QUANTITY, WHICH CUSTOMERS WANTS TO BUY, AND ALSO AS TO WHETHE R THE CUSTOMERS IS ON WHOLE SALE BASIS OR RETAIL BASIS. WHETHER THE CU STOMER IS A REGULAR CUSTOMER OR A NEW CUSTOMER AND ALSO THE PAYING CAPA CITY OF THE CUSTOMER IS ALSO JUDGED. EVEN THE QUALITY OF THE W OOD, SIZE OF THE WOOD, THICKNESS/ BREADTH OF THE WOOD ETC. IS ALSO TAKEN I NTO CONSIDERATION. THE ABOVE POINTS HAVE ALSO BEEN DULY BROUGHT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS OPERATING SOMETIMES ON HIGH MARGINS AND SOMETIMES AT LOW MARGIN. THERE IS A VARIATION IN TH E SALE PRICE. IN OUR VIEW, A BUSINESSMANS INTENTION IS ALWAYS TO MAXIM IZE ITS PROFITS. THE ASSESSEE DUE TO NATURE OF ITS TRADE AND ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIATION IN THE QUALITY AND SIZE OF THE WOOD ETC., IS SELLING THE WOOD AT A MUCH HIGHER RATE TO CERTAIN CUSTOMERS AND AT THE LOWER RATE TO CERTAIN OTHER PERSONS. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS THE BUSINESSMAN S PREROGATIVE TO DECIDE AT WHAT RATE HE HAS TO SELL HIS PRODUCT AND THE BUSINESSMAN MAY ADOPT HIS SKILL TO MAXIMIZE ITS PROFIT FROM A CUSTO MER WITHIN THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK. SINCE IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDEN CE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED ITS SALES OR HAS UNDISCLOSED HIS SAL ES, NOR ANY ERROR HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DE LETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 10 THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD. GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL O F REVENUE IS HEREBY DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 : THE REVENUE VIDE THIS GROUND HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 11,939/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON RENOVATION / WHITE-WASH OF THE RENTED B USINESS PREMISES. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT W HITE WASH WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RENTED BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE EXPENSES OF THE WHITE WASH WAS BORNE BY THE LANDLOR D SH. HAH SINGH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE SAID RE NTED PREMISES, THE NAME ON THE BILLS WAS WRITTEN AS THAT OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED AS PER COMMON PARLANCE, ALL THE EXPENSES RELATING TO U P KEEPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF RENTED PREMISES WERE BORNE BY THE LA NDLORD ONLY. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, DECID ED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 6.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR; THERE APPEARS TO BE IS MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE THAT IT IS COMMON FOR EXPENSES OF RENTED PREMIS E MAINTENANCE TO BE BORNE BY THE LANDLORDS AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE EXPENSE WA S INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. ON THIS GROUND THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS. 7. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 11 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO N OT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DEFINITE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON TH IS ISSUE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY UPHE LD. 9. GROUND NO. 3 : THE REVENUE VIDE THIS GROUND HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASS ESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENTS MADE AT RS.70,300/- WHICH WERE FOUND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ON DATE OF SURVEY. THE FACTS ON THIS ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO RECONC ILE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE IMPOUNDED WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSE SSEE CLAIMED THAT THE INVOICES RELATING TO SHEELA FILLING STATION WER E DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND PAYMENTS MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE LD. AO HELD THAT WHILE PAYMENTS IN CASH OF RS. 48,000/- FROM 06-01-2 013 TO 23.01.2014 AND A PAYMENT OF RS. 1,49,350/- WAS MADE THROUGH C HEQUE ON 13.03.2013 WERE RECORDED. HOWEVER, NO OTHER CASH P AYMENT HAS BEEN RECORDED. 10. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 70,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF INV OICES OF SHEELA FILLING STATION IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURV EY, WHICH WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 12 VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM , MADE THE ADDITION ONLY ON PRESUMPTIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT PRESUMP TIONS, HOWSOEVER STRONG MAY BE, CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF EVIDENCE. THE L D. CIT(A) DECIDED THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE REVENUE, OBSERVING AS UNDER: - THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND INVOICES RELATING TO SHEELA FILLING STATION WERE PRODUCED THE TOTAL INVOICES AND AMOUNT PAID PRIOR TO DATE OF SURVEY AND THEREAFTER TALLY. IT IS MY CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO ADDITION ON THIS POINT CAN BE SUSTAINED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 11. THE LD. DR COULD NOT POINT OUT ANY ERROR OR DEF ECT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS HEREBY UPHELD. 13. GROUND NO. 4: THE REVENUE VIDE THIS GROUND HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 5,90,069/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN T HE PURCHASE BILLS OF GOODS AND WEIGHT-SLIP/DETAIL OF STOCK GIVEN TO ASSE SSEE BY THE TRANSPORTER. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUN D A DISPARITY BETWEEN THE GOODS AS PER PURCHASE BILLS AND ACTUAL GOODS RECEIVED ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 13 AGAINST THE BILLS. HE, THEREFORE, SHOW CAUSED THE A SSESSEE AS TO WHY THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS PURCHASES OUTSIDE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILED SUBMISSI ONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 8.1, WHICH REA DS AS UNDER:- 8.1 FURTHER DETAILED SUBMISSION WAS MADE BEFORE T HE LD. AO WHICH READS AS UNDER:- AS R EGARDS THE DIFFERENCE OF MEASUREMENT SHEETS WITH PURCHASE BILLS WE HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED IN OU R REPLY DATED 26.12.2016, FURTHER IT IS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT DIFFERENCE MAY HAVE BEEN DUE TO REASON THAT BECAUSE AT THE END OF PARTY SOMETIME ONCE THE GOODS ARE LOADED IN TRUCKS, THE DRIVER/TRANSPORTER OBJECT TO THE OVERWEIGHT IN VEHICLE BECAUSE TRANSPORTER AR E NOT ALLOWED TO CARRY MORE THAN PRESCRIBED LIMIT OF METRIC TONS IN VEHICLE. SO AS TO REDUCE THE WEIGHT THE PARTY REPLACE THE BIGGER PIECES WITH SMALLER ONE AN D ACCORDINGLY THE QUANTITY IS REDUCED AS COMPARED TO MEASUREMENT SHEETS, IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE THAT THE DRIVER MAY HAVE CARRIED THE OK MEASUREMENT SHEET WITH TRUCK WHICH IS OF NO RELEVANCE TO US BECAUSE W E MEASURE THE QUANTITY AS MENTIONED IN THE INVOICE AND ACCORDINGLY PAYMENT IS MADE ON BASIS OF ACTUAL QUANTITY RECEIVED. FURTHER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARGUMENTS, EVEN IF THERE IS ANY DIFFERENCE (THOUGH NOT ADMITTED) ONLY GP. RATIO SHOULD BE ADDED TO OUR INCOME.' 14. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GROSSLY ERRED BY ADDING A SU M OF RS. 5,90,069/- ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN DUMB DOCUMENTS OF THIR D PARTY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 14 ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION THAT SOME EXCESS STOCK HAVE BEEN RECEIVED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS IN THE FORM OF INVOICES AND PAYMENT MADE TO THE CONCERNED SELLERS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 8.2 THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR THAT WHILE THE SELLER GIVE S SIZES IN BILL THE BUYER VERIFIES THE SIZE/QUALITY OF THE WOOD PIE CES RECEIVED WITH A PARTICULAR PURCHASE BILL AND RECORDS AND ACK NOWLEDGES THE WOOD RECEIVED AS PER SIZE. THE BILLS IN QUESTIO NS RELATE TO BILLS OF GOODS SUPPLIED BY RELATES TO MEASUREMENT S HEET DATED 25-11-2013 (TRUCK NO. HR-63B 6373) RELEVANT TO CHAL LAN NO. 8 DATED 25-11 2018 (PAGE NO 6 OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT S. THESE RELATE TO BILLS SUPPLYING GOODS FROM WOODPECK ER IMPORTS RELATING TO 811 PIECES OF TIMBER. THE SHEET S AND THE BILLS TALLY BUT FOR A DIFFERENCE IN THE SIZES OF 11 PIECES. THE MEASUREMENT SHEET APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY WOODPECKER (COPY OF BILLS PLACED AT ANNEXURE A). TH ERE APPEARS TO BE NO EVIDENCE OF PURCHASE OUTSIDE THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON THIS COUNT OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT SU CCEEDS. THE APPEAL ON THIS GROUND MAY BE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 15. THE LD. DR COULD NOT REBUT OR POINT OUT ANY MIS TAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 16. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ARE HEREBY UPHELD . ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 15 17. GROUND NO. 5: THE REVENUE VIDE THIS GROUND HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS. 18,6 7,221/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE OF STOCK ON ITS PHYSICAL VE RIFICATION BY WAY RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS. 5,00,000/- AS AGAIN ST RS. 23,67,221/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING SUR VEY OPERATION, STOCK OF WOOD / LOGS AND PIECES WAS DONE AND AS PER SURVEY TEAM IT WAS ALLEGEDLY MADE AT 2978 CUBIC FOOT IN EXCESS OF THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ACCEPT THE STOCK AS T AKEN BY THE DEPARTMENT AND POINTED OUT THAT THERE WERE LOT OF D ISCREPANCIES IN THE SAME, SUCH AS, INVENTORY WAS PREPARED ON ESTIMATED BASIS BY NON- TECHNICAL PERSONS IN JUST ABOUT 5 6 HOURS BY TWO PERSONS. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TIMBER LYING IN ONE LOT WAS ASS UMED TO BE OF SAME SIZE AND SAME QUALITY. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT I N THE STOCK INVENTORY LIST, QUANTITY COLUMN WAS LYING BLANK IN MANY CASES AND ALSO IN THE STOCK INVENTOR LIST AT PAGE 1 OF THE DOCUMENT, IN T HE QUANTITY COLUMN, WORD ESTIMATED WAS MENTIONED. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, HOWEVER, DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND ADDED A S UM OF RS. 23,67,221/- ON ALLEGED ESTIMATED EXCESS STOCK. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MAD E BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT IN CERTAIN COLUMNS IN THE STOCK INVENTORY, TOTAL ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 16 WEIGHT WAS LEFT BLANK. HE FOUND THAT EVEN THE DIFF ERENCE IN STOCK WAS IN THE RANGE OF 5%. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREAFTER TO MEE T THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE RESTRICTED THE EXCESS STOCK TO RS. 5,00,000 /- OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 10.2 I HAVE EXAMINED A COPY OF THE STOCK STATEMENT TAKEN DURING THE COURSE QF THE SURVEY WHICH CLEARLY MENTIONS 'ESTIMATED' UNDER THE COLUMN HEAD LABELLED QUANTITY ON THE TOP OF THE STOCK STATEMENT (COPY PLACED AT ANNEXURE B). IN CERTAIN COLUMNS IN THE STOCK INVENTORY; TOTAL WEIGHT IS LEF T BLANK (REFER PAGE 9 OF THE INVENTORY). EVEN SO THE DIFFERENCE IN STOCK IS IN THE RANGE OF 5%. I FIND CONSIDERABLE MERIT IN THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION TH AT THE INVENTORY LIST WAS PREPARED ON ESTIMATED BASIS; IT IS NOT HUMANLY POSSIBLE TO TAKE STOCK INVENTORY OF TIMBER INCLUDING LOGS AND PIECES WITHOUT LARGE CRANES TO HANDLE THEM AND GIVEN THAT THE SIZES VARY FROM 2.5 INCHES THICK PIECES TO LOGS THAT ARE 10 IN CH THICK, CUT WOOD AS WELL AS SAWN PIECES THE TEAM HAS HAD NO OPTION BUT TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION ESTIMATED SIZES. THE PRESUMPTION THAT NUMEROUS PIECES IN ONE BUNDLE WERE ASSUMED TO BE OF SAME SIZ E AND SAME QUALITY IS UNREASONABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE SHALL BE MET IF THE ESTIMATED ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK IS RESTRICTED TO RS. 5,00,0 00/- ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL, THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS IN PART. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE AN D FIND THAT SINCE THE STOCK STATEMENT TAKEN DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY W AS ON ESTIMATED BASIS AND ALSO THERE WERE MANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE STOCK INVENTORY, THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY RESTRICTED TH E SAME TO RS. ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 17 5,000,00/-. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND, THEREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. 19. GROUND NO. 6: THE REVENUE VIDE THIS GROUND HAS AGITATED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .9,51,000/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY WHICH PERTAINED TO PAYMENT MADE TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE A SSESSEE COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOW CAUSED THE ASSESSEE IN T HIS RESPECT, HOWEVER, THE REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT WAS ADDED BA CK TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CA LCULATION PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 WHICH EVIDENCED THE PAYMENT OF REMUNERATION PAID TO DIRECTORS AMOUNTING TO RS. 7,2 0,000/- AND SOME OTHER CALCULATIONS FOR MAKING THE PAYMENT OF ADVAN CE TAX WERE ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION BRUSHING ASIDE THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 20. THE LD. CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ALLOWED THE GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, OBSERVING AS UNDER:- ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 18 11.2 THE COPY OF RETURNS OF THE DIRECTORS AND THE COMPUTATION HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. AS STATED BY THE LD. AO TOO; THE CALCULATIONS SIGNIFICANTLY TALLY WITH THE WORKINGS OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME/CALCULATION OF ADVANCED TAX. FURTHER NOTHING ON RECORD HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO SUGGEST WHETHER THESE WORKINGS RELATE TO RECEIPTS OUTSIDE BOOKS/ UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OR ANY OTHER CREDIBLE RECEIPTS; IN VIEW OF THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES, THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THIS POINT ARE ACCEPTED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS ON THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THOUGH T THE RECORD. THE LD. DR, THOUGH RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NO T FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND, THERE FORE, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 22. GROUND NOS, 7 & 8: THESE GROUNDS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE AND SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ITA NO. 808/CHD/2018: 23. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS APPEAL HAS TAKEN FOLL OWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 19 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ADJUD ICATING THE GROUND OF APPEAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, RAJPURA IS WITHOUT VALID AND LEGAL JURISDICTION AND HAS BEE N PASSED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ORDER U/S 127 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TRANSFERRING JURISDICTI ON FROM AO, DELHI TO AO, RAJPURA. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT DECIDI NG THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION BY SIMPLY STATING THAT THIS ISSUE IS N OT MAINTAINABLE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THEREFORE CANNOT BE ADJ UDICATED UPON. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE APPLYING THE GP RATE OF 10.5% WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO DISCREP ANCY HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS IN RESPECT OF UNDER DECLARED SALE PRICE/UNDISCLOSED BI LLS OR ANY OTHER ERROR IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,81,383/- AS SHORTAGE IN CASH IN HAND AND N OT CASH SURPLUS AND ALSO DESPITE BEING SATISFIED ON THE MER ITS OF THE ISSUE. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED WHILE ESTIMAT ING THE EXCESS STOCK AT RS. 5 LAKHS ONLY ON PRESUMPTION BASIS. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPO SED OFF. 24. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT BAR THAT IF THE ISSUE ON MERITS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AS CONT ESTED BY THE REVENUE VIDE ITA NO. 783/CHD/2018, THEREFORE, HE WOULD NO T PREFER THE ISSUES RAISED THROUGH CROSS APPEAL AS THE SAME ARE LEGAL I SSUES. HE, HOWEVER, HAS SUBMITTED THAT HE RESERVES HIS RIGHT TO RAISE T HE RELEVANT LEGAL ISSUE ITA NOS. 783 & 808-CHD-2018 M/S SEWAK TIMBER PVT LTD., RAJPURA 20 INCLUDING JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALI DITY OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AT ANY STAGE, IF SO REQUIRED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR, TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL MAY NOT BE TAKEN AS AFF IRMATION TO THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON ANY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL BY THIS TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO RAISE ANY IDENTICAL GROUND INCLUDING THE ISSUE RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO FRAME ASSESSMENT IN ANY OTHER / SUBSEQUENT YEAR, IF SO RE QUIRED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.01.2020. SD/- SD/- ( $ % & '# / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) () / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29.01. 2020 .. '+ ,-.- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # 1 / CIT 4. # 1 ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -23 4 , %4 , 56738 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 379$ / GUARD FILE