M/s SAB Industries Limited, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 848/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5047 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH ABROL
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 69; 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 848/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 I.T.A. NO. 986/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 ASSESSEE BY : SH. ASHWANI KUMAR & SHRI ADITYA KUMAR REVENUE BY : SH. ASHISH ABROL DATE OF HEARING : 03/01/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 /03/2018 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ASSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 31/03/2017 OF CIT(A)-3 GURGAON PERTAINING TO 201314 ASSESSMENT YEAR. FOR READY REFERE NCE THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE PARTIES ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA 848/CHD/2017 BY THE ASSESSEE A RE AS UNDER: 1 THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMIN G AND TREATING THE SURRENDERED SUM OF RS.1,21,85,000/- AS INCOME/DEEMED INCOME WHEREAS TH E ASSESSEE HAS MERELY OFFERED THE SUM AS BLANKET SURRENDER TO COVER DISCREPANCIES FOUND I F ANY. SINCE LD. AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY DISCREPANCIES IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THEREFORE RS.1,2 1,85,000/- CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME/DEEMED INCOME AT ALL AND SAME MAY PLEASE BE ALLOWED TO BE REDUCED FROM TAXABLE INCOME. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 AS ABOVE, THE L D. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AND TREATING THE BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.1,21,85,000/ - AS DEEMED INCOME U/S 69, WHEREAS IT IS SURRENDERED AS BUSINESS INCOME. THEREFORE IT IS PRA YED THAT SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES AND DEPRECIATION LOSSES MAY BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE SURR ENDERED INCOME OF RS.1,21,85,000/- BEING A BUSINESS INCOME. M/S SAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED SCO 49-50, SECTOR-26, CHANDIGARH. PAN:AACCS5078H VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, CHANDIGARH. VS. M/S SAB IN DUSTRIES LIMITED SCO 49 - 50, SECTOR-26, CHANDIGARH. PAN:AACCS5078H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 2 OF 11 THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND AMEND A NY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OF. IT IS RESPECTFULLY PRAYED THAT THE RELIEF MAY KINDL Y BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND: WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN TREATING THE UNACCOUNTED SURRENDERED INCOME EMANATING FROM THE S EIZED DOCUMENT AS BUSINESS INCOME AGAINST DEEMED INCOME U/S 69 OF THE I. T. ACT, 1961 ASSESSED BY THE AO. 4. THE LD. CIT-DR RELYING UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SU BMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON FACTS QUA THE SOLE ISSUE OF THE REV ENUE MAY BE REVERSED UPHOLDING THE FINDING ARRIVED AT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF KIM PHARMA RELIED UPON BY THE AO. 5. THE LD. AR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 04/10/2012 ON THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF M/S STEEL STRIPS GROU P OF CASES. IN THE SAID BACKGROUND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27/03/201 5 WAS PASSED UNDER SECTION 153B (1) (B) READ WITH SECTION 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT ACT) PURSUANT TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 139 ON 23/09/2013 DECLARING A NET INCOME OF RS.15,77,16,367/-. 5.1 INVITING ATTENTION TO PARA-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PARTICIPATED FULLY IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND MADE ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AVAILABLE SUPPORTED BY BILLS AND VOUCHE RS. REFERRING TO PARA-5.1 OF THE ORDER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TAKES NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECT ION 132 (4) ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 08 /11/2012 HAD OFFERED THE SAME. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE EXTRACT OF THE LETTE R REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DISP UTE THAT THE RESPECTIVE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE PERTAIN TO TH E SECOND ISSUE ADDRESSED THEREIN. FOR READY REFERENCE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT IS RE PRODUCED HEREUNDER FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: 5.1 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE A SSESSEE HAD MADE A VOLUNTARY STATEMENT U/S 132(4) ADMITTING THE BELOW MENTIONED UNDISCLOSED IN COME AND MADE A TOTAL SURRENDER OF RS.26,88,99,169/- FOR AY 2013-14 VIDE SURRENDER LET TER 08.11.2012, DETAIL OF WHICH IS GIVEN AS UNDER: S NAME OF THE AMOUNT BASIS NO. CONCERN/INDIVIDUAL SURRENDERED 1 SAB INDUSTRIES 0)11,67,14,169 (I) OFFERED AS CAPITAL GAIN INCOME TO COVER ANY ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 3 OF 11 DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS LIMITED AS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS PER ANNEXURE A- 4 PAGE NOS.119, 127 & 128. THE CAPITAL GAIN WAS EARNED FROM THE SALE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. (II) 3,00,00,000 (II) IN ADDITION TO RS.11.67 CRORES AS AFORESAID, A SUM OF RS.3.00 CRORES HAS BEEN FORFEITED BY THE COMPANY AGAINST ADVANCE FOR SALE OF AFORESAID INVESTMENT IN SHARES. 2 SAB INDUSTRIES 11,00,00,000 OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME TO COVER ANY DISCREPANCIES IN ALL THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INCLUDING AS PER THE ANNEXURE A - 35 PAGE NO. 8 AND THE ABOVE STATED RECEIVABLE BUSINESS INCOME I.E. FROM THE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS WAS EARNED IN THE S AME MANNER AS BUSINESS INCOME REFLECTED AND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IS DERIVED FROM THE SAME BUSINESS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ABOVE BUSINESS INCOME COVERS THE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES AS PER ANNEXURE A-35 PAGE NO.8 A GAINST REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT SAME IS YET TO BE RECORDED AS RECEIVABLE BUSINESS INCOME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2 SAB INDUSTRIES LIMITED 1,21,85,000 OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME TO COVER ANY DISCREPANCIES IN ALL THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IF ANY. TOTAL 26,88,99,169 5.2 REFERRING TO THE SAID DOCUMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS SUBMITTED CONCLUDED THAT IT HAS THE HEADING SAB INDUSTRIES AND CONTAIN CERTAIN ENTRIES OF NAMES WITH FIGURES WRITTEN IN FRONT OF THEM THE TOTAL OF THE FIGURES IT WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RS. 11 CRORES. THE ASSES SEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS DOCUMENT AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED ON 0 5/10/2012. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT REPRODUCED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS READ OUT. FOR READY REFERENCE THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER A PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENT REVEALS THAT IT HAS THE HEADING SAB INDUSTRIES AND CONTAINS CERTAIN ENTRIES OF NAMES WITH FIGURES WRIT TEN IN FRONT OF THEM. THE TOTAL OF THE FIGURES IN FRONT OF THESE NAMES IS RS.11 CRO RES. THE ASSESSES, SH. R.K. GARG WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS DOCUMENT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 5/10/2012, THE EXTRACT OF WHICH IS BEING REPRODUCED AS FOLLOWS : 'Q.4 I AM SHOWING YOU P.NO. 8 OF ANNEXURE A-35, SEIZED FROM THE CORPORATE OFFICE. PLEASE EXPLAIN? ANS.4 SIR, ON BEHALF OF SAB INDUSTRIES, CERTAIN PRO PERTY TRANSACTIONS WERE UNDERTAKEN WHEREBY PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ON BIANAS WERE MADE, AND THE COMPANY IS TO RECEIVE THE PROFITS ON THESE TRAN SACTIONS. THESE ARE THE NAEM OF FIVE PROPERTY DEALS, AND THE TOTAL RECEIVABLE AMOUN TS IS RS. 11 CRORES. Q.5 WHO ARE THESE PARTIES. ARE THESE TRANSACTIONS RECOR DED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY? ANS. 5 SIR, THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY. THESE ARE DONE THROUGH IRREGULAR MARKET BR OKERS AND I DO NOT HAVE THE ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 4 OF 11 ADDRESSES. THERESE RECEIVABLE AMOUNTS OF RS. 11 CRO RES ARE THE INCOME OF THE COMPANY, WHICH IS UNACCOUNTED FOR THE F. Y. 2012-13 . Q. 6 PLEASE PRODUCE THE BIANAS. ? ANS.6 THE BIANAS ARE DESTROYED AFTER THE DEALS ARE DONE.' 5.3 CARRYING US THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS SU BMITTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANALYZED THE FACTS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER : AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND THE STA TEMENT OF SH. R.K. GARG, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY M/S. SAB INDUSTRIES LTD. HAS CARRI ED OUT THESE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES ON BI ANAS(AGREEMENTS). THE FIGURES IN FRONT OF THE NAMES OF VARIOUS PEOPLE ON THE DOCU MENT ARE ACTUALLY PROFITS ON ACCOUNT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS, WHICH ARE YET TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, SH. R.K. GARG HAS ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE BIANAS CORRESPONDING TO THESE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE COMPANY HAVE ALREADY BEEN DESTROYED. SH. R.K. GARG HAS ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT TH ESE TRANSACTIONS ARE OUTSIDE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE HAS, ON B EHALF OF M/S.SAB INDUSTRIES LTD., DISCLOSED THE RECEIVABLE AMOUNT OF RS.11 CROR ES AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE COMPANY IN THE F.Y.2012-13. 5.4 READING FROM PARA 5.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THIS CONCLUSION AND REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND MANNER OF EARNING THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 26.88 CRORES AND SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN D ERIVED ALONGWITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND SHOW HOW IT HAS BEEN ACCOUNT ED IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS FURTHER REQUIRED TO ALSO ADDR ESS WHETHER THE TAXES DUE THEREON HAVE BEEN PAID ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DA TE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE DETAILED REPLY WHICH HAS BEEN EXTRACTED IN PARA 5.3.1 FROM PAGES 12 TO 19 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS ORDER OFFERED A DETAILED EXPLANATION. HEAVY RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE SAID ORDER. REVERTING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION IN PARA 5.5 OF HIS ORDER. AGGRIEVED BY THIS THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CITA. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE CITA WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 5.5 HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER DISCLOSURE OF RS.11,00,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS, ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RECOVERABLE INCOME OF RS.11.00 CR ORES IS FROM REAL ESTATE TRUE BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, ASSESSEE HAD NO T RECORDED THE SAME IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ALSO ADMITTED U/S 132(4) STATEMENT (THROUGH ITS PROMOTER SH. R.K GARG) THAT HE HAD ALREADY DESTROYED THE BIANAS, HENCE IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER OF EARNING THE SAME WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EVEN AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN IT AS PART OF IT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY T REATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME. HOWEVER, THIS ACCOUNTING TREATMENT IS NOT CORRECT AS THE SAM E BEING UNACCOUNTED, SHOULD BE TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN ENTIRETY WITHOUT ALLOWING ANY SET OFF AGAINST THE NORMAL BUSINESS LOSSES. IN OTHER WORDS, SINCE, THE SURRENDERED INCOME IS OVER AND ABOVE THE NORMAL BUSINESS INCOME, THE SAME SHALL NO T BE ALLOWED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE P & L ACCOUNT WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHALL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SURRENDERED INCOME CANNOT BE'CLASSIFIED ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 5 OF 11 UNDER ANY OF THE HEADS OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 14 O F THE 1. T. ACT, 1961. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON RATIO LAID DOWN IN M/S KIM PHARMA PVT LTD VS CIT, PANCHKULA (ITA NO. 1 06/2011 DATED 27.04.2011, PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT) AND IN THE CASE OF FAKIR MOHMED HAJI HASAN VS CIT 247ITR 230 (GUJRAT HIGH COURT). 5.6 THUS, FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXABILITY, THE S URRENDERED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,00,00,000/- IS NOT ALLOWED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINS T THE CURRENT BUSINESS LOSSES AND TAXABLE BUSINESS INCOME DURING THE CURRENT YEAR WILL BE COM PUTED AFTER EXCLUDING THE ABOVE SURRENDERED INCOME FROM P & L ACCOUNT THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 11 CR. SHALL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN ENTIRETY AS DEEMED INCOME AND TAXES SHALL BE PAYABLE ON THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER IS ELIGIBLE FOR CREDIT OF MAT AS P ER PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5.5 REVERTING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE CIT(A) FROM PAGES 2 TO 16 HAS FIRST DISCUSSED THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING THE PRAYER MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM AT PAGE 16. THE SPECIFIC GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED ALONG WITH S UBMISSIONS ORIGINALLY ADVANCED AND THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED QUA THE TWO ISSUES, IT WAS SUBMITTED, HAVE BEEN AGAIN SET OUT IN PAGES 19 TO 20 C ONSIDERING WHICH THE CITA CONCLUDED THE ISSUE IN PARA 5 OF HIS ORDER HOLDING AS UNDER:- 5. DECISION:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMIS SIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT AND FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS ARE MADE:- GROUND NO. 1 RELATES TO BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 11,0 0,00,000/- TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME AND SET OFF OF BUSINESS LOSSES AND DEPRECIAT ION NOT ALLOWED AGAINST THIS SURRENDERED INCOME. THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPEL LANT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DUE TO FOLLOWING REASONS:- (I) THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE RECOVERABLE INCOME OF RS . 11 CRORES IS FROM REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS MAY BE TRUE BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT ON THE DUE DATE OF SEARCH, THE APPELLANT HAD NOT RECORDED THE SAME IN BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND ALSO ADMITTED U/S 132(4) STATEMENT THROUGH ITS PROMOTER THAT HE HAD ALREADY DESTROYED THE BIANAS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. (II) THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THIS INCOME AS PART OF ITS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY TREATING THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME, WHICH IS NOT THE CORRECT A CCOUNTING TREATMENT AND SHOULD BE TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT (III) THIS SURRENDERED INCOME CANNOT BE CLASSIFIED UNDER ANY OF THE HEADS OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 14 OF THE ACT. (IV) RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S KIM PHARMA PVT LTD VS CIT PANCHKULA. (V) THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 11 CRORES SHALL BE C ONSIDERED SEPARATELY AND BROUGHT TO TAX IN ENTIRELY AS DEEMED INCOME. BEFORE DECIDING THIS ISSUE, THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN KIM PHARMA PVT LTD. NEEDS TO BE DISCUSSED. 'IT WAS HELD BY THE HON'BLE COURT THAT THE AMOUNT S URRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY WHICH WAS NOT REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO SOURCE FROM W HERE IT WAS DERIVED WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IT WAS DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT AND CORRESPONDING DEDUCTIONS WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO THE INCOME UNDER ANY OF THESE VARIOUS HEADS WILL NOT BE ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF DEEMED INCOME WHICH ARE CO VERED U/S 69,69A,69B AND 69C OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF THE SCHEME OF THE PROVISION.' THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS INCOME OF RS. 11,00,00,000/- DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT BECAUSE:- (I) THIS INCOME WAS NOT FOUND IN CASH DURING SEARCH PRO CEEDINGS. (II) DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS,IN THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 08.11.2012 SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11,00 ,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT AND OFFERED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME TO COVER AN Y . DISCREPANCIES IN THE SEIZED ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 6 OF 11 DOCUMENT AS PER THE ANNEXURE A-35, PAGE NO-8 AND TH E ABOVE STATED RECEIVABLE BUSINESS INCOME FROM THE REAL ESTATE TRANSACTIONS WAS EARNED IN THE SAME MANNER AS BUSINESS INCOME REFLECTED AND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IS DERIVED FROM THE SAME BUSINESS CARRIED BY THE APPELLANT. (III) DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, SHRI R.K. GARG IN HI S STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4J OF THE ACT HAD STATED THAT THE TRANSACTION AT PAGE NO. 8 OF ANNEXURE A-35 SEIZED FROM CORPORATE OFFICE REFLECT CERTAIN PROPERTY TRANSACTI ON UNDERTAKEN BY SAB INDUSTRIES WHEREBY PURCHASE AND SALE OF PROPERTY ON BIANAS WER E MADE AND THE COMPANY IS TO RECEIVE THE PROFIT ON THESE TRANSACTIONS. IT WAS FU RTHER STATED THAT THERE ARE NAME OF 5 PROPERTY DEALS ON THIS DOCUMENT AND THE TOTAL RECEI VABLE AMOUNTS RS. 11 CRORE WHICH IS INCOME OF THE COMPANY FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION. (IV) THUS, IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS INCOME OF RS. 11 CRO RES IS RELATED TO THE RECEIVABLES FROM BUSINESS WHICH WAS DECLARED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME D URING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (V) THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PARA 5.4 HAS ACCE PTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE RECOVERABLE INCOME OF RS. 11 CRO RE IS FROM REAL ESTATE TRANSACTION MAY BE TRUE. THUS, IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE FACT THAT THE INCO ME SURRENDERED IS 'INCOME FROM BUSINESS' ON FACTS OF THE CASE AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS DEEMED I NCOME AS HELD BY THE AO. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON'BLE ITAT CHANDIGARH I N THE CASE OF GARUISH STEELS PVT LTD VS ACIT 173 TTJ 764. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, THIS INCOME OF RS. 11,00,00,000/- IS HELD TO BE BUSINESS INCOME AND THE APPELLANT WILL BE ALLOWED TO ADJUST THE SAME AGAINST CURRENT BUSINESS LOSSES; IF ANY AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. 5.6 IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE SAID FINDINGS OF THE RESPECTIV E AUTHORITIES, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE SPECIFIC ASPECT A SPECIFIC QUERY WAS RAISED BY THE BEN CH FROM THE DEPARTMENT ALSO AS ADMITTEDLY SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION HAS B EEN CARRIED OUT, WHETHER THERE WAS ANY OTHER BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED OR UNDISCLOSED AS TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS. IN RESP ONSE THERETO LD. CIT-DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINE SS. THE LD. AR REITERATING THIS STATED POSITION SUBMITTED THAT ONCE IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WHICH FA CT IS ACCEPTED BY THE CIT-DR ALSO IN THE SAID BACKGROUND IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION T HAT WHATEVER HAS BEEN SURRENDERED, HAS BEEN SURRENDERED FROM THE ACTIVIT IES OF REAL ESTATE BUSINESS ONLY. CONSEQUENTLY, THE INSISTENCE OF THE REVENU E QUA THE GROUND RAISED BY THEM THAT IT IS NOT THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IT WAS ALSO HIS VEHEMENT STAND THAT THE INSIST ENCE THAT NECESSARILY THE MANNER IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED, IT WAS SUBMITT ED, IS NOT WHAT THE STATUTE MANDATES. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE SAME WAS FROM PROPERTY BUSINESS AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO DISCLOSED THAT IT IS FROM THE PROPERTY BUSINESS ETC. THEN THERE IS NO DISCREP ANCY IN THE ASSESSEE'S STAND. THUS, ONCE THE ENTIRE INCOME IS BUSINESS THEREAFTER THE OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIFY IT WITH SOME FURTHER EXPLANATION WAS NOT CAPABLE OF BEING ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 7 OF 11 ADDRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE DEP ARTMENTAL APPEAL MAY BE DISMISSED AND THE ASSESSEES APPEAL SHOULD BE ALLOWED. 6. THE LD. CIT-DR IN REPLY SUBMITTED THAT QUA THE ISSUES AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ISSUES AGIT ATED BEFORE THE CIT-A IT IS NECESSARY TO SEE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE H AS SURRENDERED THE SPECIFIC INCOME. SINCE THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT WAS NOT AVAILAB LE WITH THE PARTIES ALTHOUGH IT WAS A COMMON STAND OF BOTH THE PARTIES BEFOR E THE BENCH THAT THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ORDERS A ND ARE READILY AVAILABLE WHICH FULLY ADDRESS THE ISSUES, CONSEQUENTLY, AVAILABILITY OF S TATEMENT WAS NOT NECESSARY. HOWEVER, NOT DISPUTING THE STAND TAKEN BY T HE PARTIES, IT WAS DEEMED APPROPRIATE TO ADJOURN THE HEARING AND PROCEED ONLY AFTER THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS MADE AVAILABLE. 6.1 ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING THE STATEMENT OF THE A SSESSEE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER QUA THE ISSUES WAS MADE AVAILABLE. ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAME THE LD. CITDR SUBMITTED THAT MORE OR LESS SAME QU ESTIONS ARE RELEVANT AS ONLY THOSE WHICH WERE RELEVANT FOR ADDRESSING THE ISS UE HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ORDERS. INVITING ATTENTION TO SECTION 69A OF THE ACT IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT AS FAR AS THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS CONCERNED THE DELETION ON FACTS WAS NOT WARRANTED CONSIDERING THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS PUT TO T HE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF THE PROCEEDINGS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT W AS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN SURRENDERED IS OVER AND ABO VE THE NORMAL WHAT HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE NORMAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM PAGE 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAGE 16 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDE R PAGE 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PAGE 19 AND 20 OF THE CIT(A)S O RDER. THUS, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT BE A LLOWED. ADDRESSING THE GROUND, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IT HAS NEVER BEEN OFFERE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT IS UNEXPLAINED MONEY OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUCH SECT ION 69A OF THE ACT IS ATTRACTED. 7. THE LD. AR SOUGHT PERMISSION TO ADDRESS THIS NEW ARGU MENT MADE IN REPLY BY THE REVENUE. INVITING ATTENTION TO SECTION 69A OF THE ACT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED SECTION 69 WHICH TALKS OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BUT EVEN IF SECTION 69A IS CONSIDERE D IT TALKS OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY, BULLION OR JEWELLERY ETC. FOUND NOT RECORD ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER IN THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE, NO MONEY BULLION ETC. HAVE BEEN FOUND OR DISCOVERED. THE ADDITION, IT W AS SUBMITTED, IS PURELY ON ACCOUNT OF THE SURRENDER OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 8 OF 11 IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT WHICH HAS BEEN ADMITTED EVEN BY T HE CIT-DR ALSO THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND THE A SSESSEE ADMITS THE FACT AND THE MANNER OF EARNING IS EVIDENT THAT IT IS FROM REAL E STATE. NO DOCUMENT RELATABLE TO IT , IT WAS SUBMITTED, HAS BEEN FOUND IT HAS B EEN ACCEPTED AS BUSINESS INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. AS NOTHING HAS BEEN FOUND LINKING IT TO ANY ARTICLE OR THING INVITING ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE I TAT IN THE CASE OF GAURISH STEEL 43 ITR TRIB 414 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT KIM PHARMAS DECISION HAS BEEN DISTINGUISHED BY THE ITAT IN THE SAID DECISION O N WHICH HEAVY RELIANCE WAS BEING PLACED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SPECIFIC R EASONS PREVAILING WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING THE ADDITION AND THE R EASONING ON FACTS OF THE CIT-A IN DELETING THE ADDITION. WE HAVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE QUESTIONS PUT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING IN THE COURSE O F THE SEARCH TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE RESPONSES THERETO BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WE NOTE HAVE BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES ITSELF. WE H AVE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE APPLICABILITY OF THE LEGAL PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN IN THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIM PHARMA P RIVATE LIMITED (CITED SUPRA) HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE AND ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE C ASE OF GAURISH STEELS PRIVATE LIMITED (CITED SUPRA) RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR AND ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE CIT-A. SINCE THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE RESPECTIV E ORDERS HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER REPETITIO N THEREOF IS REFRAINED FROM. ON A CONSIDERATION THEREOF, IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE PARTIES BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE FACTS AS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE FACTS AS THEY STAND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVE NUE HAS TO BE REJECTED. THE SURRENDER ADMITTEDLY WAS MADE QUA THE BIANA RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY FOR THE FIVE SPECIFIC PROPERTIES WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REFLECTED AND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESS EE. THE CONSISTENT STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT RECORDS HAVE BEEN DESTR OYED AFTER THE DEALS WERE DONE AS WOULD BE EVIDENT FROM THE SPECIFIC QUESTION NO.6 PU T BY THE INVESTIGATION WING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TRANSACTION AS PER REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 5 WAS ALSO THROUGH IRREGULAR MARKET BROKERS WHOSE ADDRESS ES HAD NOT BEEN RETAINED AND RECORDS WERE ALSO NOT RETAINED. THE SURRE NDER, ADMITTEDLY WAS ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS. IN THE FACE OF TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHERE THE SURRENDER IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SEIZ ED DOCUMENTS AND THE STATED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ONLY REAL ESTATE BUSINESS WE FIND NO GOOD ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 9 OF 11 REASON TO VARY THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE LD. CIT -A. BEING SATISFIED WITH THE CONSISTENT EXPLANATION OFFERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E WHICH STANDS UNREBUTTED AND CONSIDERING THE LEGAL POSITION THEREON THE DEPARTMENTAL GROUND IS DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED 10. THE SOLE ISSUE AGITATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRE SENT APPEAL BY GROUND NO. 1 IN ITS APPEAL IS THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS ADDED THE SURRENDERED INCOME AS DEEMED INCOME INSTEAD OF BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ACTION HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) WHO HAS ALSO TREATED THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS. 1,21,85,000/- AS DEEMED INCOME. THE RELEVANT FACTS QUA THE SAID ISSUE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED IN PARAGRAPH 5.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PORTION OF THIS ORDER REPETITION IS AVOIDED. THE SPECIFIC REASONING OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IT IS NOTICED HAS BEEN ADDRESSED IN PARAGRAPH 5.7 OF HIS ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF C OMPLETENESS THE SAME EASY PRODUCED HEREUNDER : 5.7 ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED AN ADDIT IONAL AMOUNT OF RS. 1,21,85,0007- TO COVER ANY OTHER DISCREPANCIES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED THIS I NCOME AGAINST ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENT, AND HIMSELF ADMITTED THE SAME, NO ADVERSE VIEW IS TAKEN AND THIS INCOME IS ACCEPTED AS SUCH. HOWEVER, SINCE IT WAS SURRENDERED OTHER THAN THE NO RMAL INCOME SO IT SHALL ALSO BE TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME FOR TAXATION PURPOSES AND BE TAXED SE PARATELY AS DISCUSSED IN THE PROCEEDING PARAGRAPH. 11. THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) W HO CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND HOLDING AS UNDE R : GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 RELATE TO THE BUSINESS INCOME OF RS. 1,21,85,000/- AS DEEMED INCOME. I) DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAD OF FERED RS. 1,21,85,000/- AS BUSINESS INCOME TO COVER ANY DISCREPANCIES IN ALL THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IF ANY. II) IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT THIS INCOME HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED AGAINST ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENT AND HENCE TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME FOR TAXATION PURPOSE. III) AS THIS AMOUNT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RE TURN OF INCOME HAS NOT BEEN LINKED WITH ANY DOCUMENT/ SOURCE OF BUSINESS THE SAME WILL BE T REATED AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A OF THE ACT. IV) THEREAFTER, THIS INCOME WILL BE COVERED BY THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THE APPELLANT IS L IABLE TO PAY TAXES AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 115BBE(1) OF THE ACT AND THE APPELLANT WILL NOT TO BE ALLOWED ANY DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY EXPENDITURE OR ALLOWANCE AGAINST THI S INCOME AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 115BBE(2) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED AND APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 AND 3 ARE DISMISSED. 12. ADDRESSING THE BACKGROUND OF THE CASE AND REITE RATING THE ARGUMENTS THAT THE SOLE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REAL ESTATE BUSINESS IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE SUBMISSIONS ALREADY ADVANCED ON BEHA LF OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THEIR APPEAL WOULD FULLY ADDRESS THIS ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 10 OF 11 GROUND ALSO. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION AT THE COST OF REPETITIO N THAT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WAS REAL ESTATE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT THERE WERE CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED AND INFACT THE REC ORD OF THE UNRECORDED TRANSACTIONS HAS NOT BEEN RETAINED THUS BY WAY OF HYP ER CAUTION THE ASSESSEE HAD SPECIFICALLY MADE A BLANKET SURRENDER OF THE SAID AMOU NT STATING CLEARLY AND CATEGORICALLY THAT IT WOULD COVER ANY DISCREPANCIES IN ALL THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH. THUS, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS ARGUED THE OCCASION TO CONSIDER TH E SAME AS DEEMED INCOME IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRES ENT CASE IS CONTRARY TO FACTS AND LAW. 13. THE LD. CIT-DR HEAVILY RELYING UPON THE CONSISTE NT ORDERS OF THE TAX AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION AS DEEMED INCOME IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINED . 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH ON 04.10.2012 AND BY THE SURRENDER LETTER DATED 08/11/2012 AS PER FACTS EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF IN PARA 5.1 THE ASSESSEE MADE TH E SURRENDER OF THE SPECIFIC AMOUNT WITH THE NARRATION OFFERED AS BUSINESS INCOME TO COVER ANY DISCREPANCIES IN ALL THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IS FO UND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IF ANY THE SAID NARRATION HAS BEEN EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF. WE FIND THAT IN THE PECULIA R FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE THE OCCASION TO TREA T THE SAME AS DEEMED INCOME DOES NOT ARISE. THE ADMITTED FACTS ON RECORD ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDULGED IN UNRECORDED SALE TRANSACTIONS; THE ASSESSEE HA D NOT RETAINED THE DOCUMENTS AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE CLAIMED TO BE THR OUGH IRREGULAR BROKERS. ACTING ON THE APPREHENSION THAT THERE MAY BE CERTAIN O THER DOCUMENTS WHICH MAY DEMONSTRATE THAT SURRENDER AMOUNT WAS NOT ADEQU ATE IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESS EE SPECIFICALLY TO COVER UP ANY DISCREPANCIES CAME UP WITH THE SAID OFFER. THE SAID ACTION CANNOT BE SAID TO BE OUTLANDISH OR NOT RELEVANT. THE HYPER CAUTIOU S APPROACH TAKEN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES DOES NOT WARRANT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO CONCLUDE THAT IT WAS DEEMED INCOME. THE INCOME IS BUSINESS INCOME RELATABLE TO PROPERTY BUSINESS. THE LEGA L PRINCIPLE APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE DECISIONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE ITAT RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIES IN THE RESPECTIVE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATIO N. HOWEVER SINCE THE ITA-848&986/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2013-2014 PAGE 11 OF 11 ISSUE IS FACT SPECIFIC CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCE OF THE PRESENT CASE WHICH HAVE BEEN ELABORATED HEREINABOVE IN DETAIL WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES GROUND DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.03. 2018. SD/- SD/- ( ANNAPURNA GUPTA ) ( DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *GYAN PRAKASH/AMIT KUMAR*/POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT, CHANDIGARH.