Sh. Narendra Kumar Bohra, JAIPUR V. DCIT, UDAIPUR

ITA 9/JODH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 923314 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGALCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAKUL KHURANA; RAHUL LAKHWANI
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 244A; 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL: JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 14/JODH/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VS SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA UDAIPUR. S/O SHRI BHERU LAL BOHRA, WELCOME MARBLE INDUSTRIES, ARHAM PALACE, KELWA RAJSAMAND PAN NO. AANPB5717E ITA NO. 08/JODH/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) SH. TANSUKH BOHRA VS DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, S/O SHRI BHERU LAL BOHRA UDAIPUR. C/O. CHIR AMRIT LAW CHAMBERS, 6 TH FLOOR, UNIQUE DESTINATION, OPP. TIMES OF INDIA, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. PAN NO. AANPB5717E ITA NO. 13/JODH/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VS SH. BHERU LAL BOHRA UDAIPUR. S/O SHRI RANG LAL BOHRA SMT. PHOOLI DEVI BOHRA, SH. TANSUKH BOHRA, SH. NARENDRA BOHRA L/H LATE SH. BHERU LAL BOHRA ARHAM PALACE, PURANI SADAK, KELWA, RAJSAMAND 313 334. PAN NO. AANPB5719L 2 ITA NO. 10/JODH/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) SH. BHERU LAL BOHRA VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, S/O SHRI RANG LAL BOHRA UDAIPUR. SMT. PHOOLI DEVI BOHRA, SH. TANSUKH BOHRA, SH. NARENDRA BOHRA L/H LATE SH. BHERU LAL BOHRA ARHAM PALACE, PURANI SADAK, KELWA, RAJSAMAND 313 334. PAN NO.AANPB5719L ITA NO. 15/JODH/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, VS SHRI NARENDRA KU MAR BOHRA, UDAIPUR. S/O SH. BHERU LAL BOHRA P/O MARBLE INDIA, ARHAM PALACE, KELWA, RAJSAMAND. PAN NO. AANPB5718M ITA NO. 09/JODH/2012 (A.Y. 2008-09) SH. NARENDRA KUMAR BOHRA VS. DCIT, CENT RAL CIRCLE-2, C/O. CHIR AMRIT LAW CHAMBERS, UDAIPUR. 6 TH FLOOR, UNIQUE DESTINATION, OPP. TIMES OF INDIA, TONK ROAD, JAIPUR. PAN NO. AANPB5718M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. PRAKUL KHURANA AND SH. RAHUL LAKHWANI DEPARTMENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL-CIT- DR. 3 DATE OF HEARING : 05/09/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/09/2013. O R D E R PER BENCH : THIS IS A BUNCH OF SIX APPEALS PERTAINING TO TANS UKH BOHRA GROUP. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONGRUENCE, BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE WE ARE PROCEEDING TO DECIDE THEM BY A COMMON ORDER. 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE MOST COMMON FACTS OF THESE A PPEALS ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT 1961, THE ACT FOR SHORT, WAS CONDUCTED ON 03/10/2008 AT THE RESIDENCES OF THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP AND AT THE BUSINE SS PREMISES OF THE GROUP AT WELCOME MARBLE INDUSTRIES, ARHAM PALACE, K ELWA, RAJSAMAND, RAJASTHAN. ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE F OUND DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ENSUE D IN THE CASES OF MEMBERS OF THIS FAMILY RESULTING INTO VARIOUS ADDIT IONS MADE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HAND WHICH WERE PARTLY DELETED BY LD. CI T(A). WE WOULD DISCUSS MORE FACTS SPECIFIC TO DIFFERENT ISSUES WHI CH ARE SUBJECT MATTER OF CROSS APPEALS AND OTHER APPEALS, PERTAINING TO D IFFERENT ASSESSMENT 4 YEARS, WHICH ARE MOSTLY COMMON, WHEN WE WOULD DEAL THEM INDIVIDUALLY. 2.1 FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHICH IS STATED TO BE THE B ASE YEAR, THERE ARE SIX CROSS APPEALS. THERE ARE THREE ASSESSEES, NAME LY (1) LATE SHRI BHERULAL BOHRA, THROUGH LRS; (2) SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA AND (3) SHRI NARENDER BOHRA. EACH OF THEM HAVE FILED THEIR SECON D APPEAL. THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED CROSS APPEALS IN EACH OF THE A BOVE CASES. 2.2 ITA NO. 14 AND ITA NO. 8/JODH/2012 ARE CROSS AP PEALS IN THE CASE OF SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WHICH ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR, DATED 07/10/2 011. ITA NO. 14/JODH/2012 IS REVENUES APPEAL IN WHICH FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE CIT(A) (CENTRAL), JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.31,53,333/- OUT OF T HE ADDITION OF RS.51,60,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUN T OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM UNACCOUNTED SALE PROCEEDS B ASED ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 5 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE THE C1T(A) (CENTRAL), JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN OBSERVING THAT THE FIRST TRANSACTION OF UNACCOUN TED SALE WAS REFERRED BY THE AO WAS OF 1ST AUG. 2007, THEREF ORE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 1ST AU G. 2007 DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE SEIZED RECORDS AT ANN. A- 11 AND A-12 WERE INDICATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE'S TRADE PRACTI CE AND THE AO'S ESTIMATION WAS RIGHTLY MADE FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR. THIS ALSO FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HO N'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF SALES TAX V/S H.M. ESUFALI H.M. ABDULLAH 90 ITR 271 (SC) WHEREIN SOME GUESS-WORK IN ESTIMATION OF SALES FOR THE ENTIRE YE AR WAS BASED ON EVIDENCE OF SALE OF 21 DAYS AND SUCH ESTIM ATION WAS DULY APPROVED BY THE APEX COURT. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO AMEND ALTE R OR ADD TO ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL GIVEN ABOVE. ITA NO. 8/JODH/2012 IS ASSESSEES APPEAL IN WHICH F OLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED :- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS 20,06,667/- LACS ON ACCOUNT O F ALLEGED ESTIMATED PROFIT FROM UNACCOUNTED MARBLE BUSINESS TRANSACTION OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS 51.6 0 LACS MADE BY THE A.O. INSTEAD OF ENTIRELY DELETING THE SAME IN VIEW OF AMOUNT ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT. 6 2. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS 25.80 LACS VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED BY TH E APPELLANT ON THE CONDITION OF NON LEVY OF PENALTY, WHEN LD. A O HAD INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SEPARATELY IN THE CASE. 3. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSM ENT OF RS 4 LACS VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE CONDITION OF NON LEVY OF PENALTY, WHEN LD. AO HAD I NITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS SEPARATELY IN THE CASE. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN MAINTAINING THE INTEREST LIABILITY U/S 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND WITHDRAWING THE INTEREST U/S 244A IF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ALTER, AMEND AND MODIF Y ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 2.3 TO BE SPECIFIC ON FACTS OF THESE APPEALS IT IS NOTICED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI TANSU KH BOHRA, SITUATED AT KELWA, NUMEROUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS RELATING TO UNDISCLOSED SALES OF MARBLES WERE FOUND. THE WELCOME MARBLES IN DUSTRIES IS ENGAGED IN THE MINING AND TRADING OF MARBLES. CERTA IN OTHER LOOSE PAPERS / DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO FOUND, INDICATING UNDI SCLOSED HEAVY 7 EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS HAVING BEEN INCURRED B Y THIS GROUP. THESE DOCUMENTS /INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WERE CONFRO NTED TO THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP AND THEY HAVE ADMITTE D, IN PRINCIPLE, THAT THESE DOCUMENTS, CONTAINING DETAILS OF UNDISCL OSED TRANSACTIONS OF MARBLE BUSINESS I.E., UNDISCLOSED SALES AND UNDISCL OSED EXPENDITURES, BELONGED TO THE BOHRA GROUP. IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RE TURN OF INCOMES (ROI) FILED FOR A.Y. 2008-09 THEY HAVE ADMITTED NET UNDISCLOSED INCOME(S) FROM MARBLE BUSINESS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE HANDS, AS UNDER :- NAME UNDISCLOSED INCOME % OF THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED BY THE GROUP SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA 25,80,000/ - 30% SHRI NARENDRA BOHRA - DO - 30% SHRI B.L. BOHRA 12,90,000/ - 15% SMT PHOOLI DEVI BOHRA 8,60,000/ - 10% SHRI SUSHILA BOHRA - DO - 10% SMT VINITA BOHRA 4,30,000/ - 5% TOTAL 100% THE ABOVE DISCLOSURE IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT IN THEIR CONCURRENCE BASED ON THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. INFECT, TWO DOCUMENTS FOUND AND ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE-11, ANNEXURE-12, ARE THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF DIFFERENT PARTIES TO WHOM THEY SUPPLIED MARBLES. THEY HAVE DISCLOSED THE ABOVE INCOMES AS PER THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN THESE ANNEXURE, PERTAINING TO THE PERIOD BETWEEN THE MONT H OF DECEMBER, 8 2007 AND THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2008. IT IS CLAIMED THAT ALL THESE UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS OF SALES MADE IN CASH WERE MADE AFTER THE FESTIVAL OF DIWALI FALLING IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER OF THE YEAR 2007. THEY HAVE VOUCHED THAT BEFORE DIWALI OF 2007 COMPLE TE TURNOVER / EXPENDITURE WERE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF T HIS GROUP. THAT NO INSTANCE OF SUCH SALE OUT OF BOOKS HAS BEEN FOUND P ERTAINING TO EARLIER PERIOD. SUCH A STAND WAS MADE CLEAR BY THE GROUP ME MBERS IN THEIR STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH AND POST SEARCH IN QUIRIES. THE STAND OF THE GROUP IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN CONSISTENT. HO WEVER, AS PER ANNEXURE-19, FOUND DURING SEARCH, IT WAS NOTICED TH AT EVEN IN THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2007 TO SEPTEMBER, 2007 INSTANCES OF UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTIONS WERE EFFECTED. SO, THE AO HAS CONCLUDE D THAT UNACCOUNTED MARBLES BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED O N BY THIS GROUP EVEN BEFORE DIWALI, 2007 AND INCOME OF THAT PERIOD IS NOT COVERED IN TRANSACTIONS NOTED DOWN IN ANNEXURES A-11 AND A-12. BY TAKING STARTING POINT OF SUCH ACTIVITIES FROM THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2 007 THE AO HAS WORKED OUT UNACCOUNTED SALE AT 1.5 CRORES AND AFTER DEDUCTING RELATED EXPENDITURE A NET PROFIT HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT RS. 8 6 LAKHS. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS B EEN OFFERED FOR TAX. IN THIS WAY FROM THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2007 T O THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2008, I.E., FOR FOUR MONTHS, PER MONTH INCOM E HAS BEEN 9 DEDUCED AT RS. 21.50 LAKHS (86/4). IN THIS WAY THE INCOME FROM THE MONTH OF APRIL, 2007 TO THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 2007 (I.E. FOR EIGHT MONTHS) HAS BEEN ESTIMATED AT RS. 172 LAKHS (21.50 X 8 MONTHS). THIS TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DIVIDED IN THE HANDS OF THE S IX MEMBERS OF THIS FAMILY AS UNDER :- NAME UNDISCLOSED INCOME % OF THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED BY THE GROUP SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA 51,60,000/ - 30% SHRI NARENDRA BOHRA - DO - 30% SHRI B.L. BOHRA 25,80,000/ - 15% SMT PHOOLI DEVI BOHRA 17,20,000/ - 10% SHRI SUSHILA BOHRA - DO - 10% SMT VINITA BOHRA 8,60,000/ - 5% TOTAL 1,72,00,000/ - 100% THUS, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF THE ABOVE AMO UNTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ABOVE NAMED ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED INCOME. 2.4 AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEES PREFERRED APPEAL BEFO RE LD. CIT(A) AND MADE THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS (WS) : ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSEES DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONA L INCOME FOR THE PERIOD FROM DIWALI 2007 TO MARCH 2008 BASED ON CHANGE IN MANNER OF SALE AND WORKED OUT FROM ANNEXU RES A-11 & A-12 THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 8.11.2010 TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE UNACCOUNTED INCO ME 10 FROM MARBLE BUSINESS SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED FOR TH E REMAINING PERIOD FOR F.Y. 2007-08 I.E. FROM APRIL 2 007 TO NOVEMBER 2007. A COPY OF SAID LETTER IS ALSO AVAILA BLE IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO 95 TO 96. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITS REPLY VIDE LETTER DATED 22.11.2010 EXPLAINING THAT UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM MARBLE BUSINESS COMMENCED ONLY FROM NOVEMBER 2007 ONWARDS ON ACCOUNT OF CHANGE IN MANNER OF MAKING SA LES IN CONSEQUENCE UPON RECOVERY OF BETTER QUALITY OF MARB LE IN THE MINES FURTHER IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE, ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE FOR THE PERIOD P RIOR TO NOVEMBER 2007 ON ESTIMATION BASIS. THE ASSESSEE ALS O REFERRED TO HIS STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 132(4) TO S UPPORT HIS ARGUMENTS AND ALSO STATED THAT THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM MARBLE BUSINESS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS A LSO BACKED BY ASSETS. EVEN WHEN LD. AO REITERATED HIS QUERY VIDE LETTER D ATED 24.11.2010 WHY THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF MARBLE BUSI NESS SHOULD NOT BE ESTIMATED FOR THE REMAINING PERIOD I. E. APRIL 2007 TO NOVEMBER 2007 ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN DOCUM ENTS AVAILABLE IN A-19(NO PARTICULAR PAPER WAS MENTIONED ) THE ASSESSEE STUCK TO HIS EARLIER SUBMISSIONS. A COPY O F SAID LETTER IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO 9 7. 11 THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THEN TOOK THE BASIS OF AS SESSEE GROUP'S OWN VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF RS. 86 LACS FOR THE PERIOD FROM DIWALI 2007 TO MARCH, 2008 AND CONSIDER ING IT TO BE FOR 4 MONTHS, DETERMINED THE MONTHLY ADDITION AL INCOME AT RS. 21.50 LACS AND MULTIPLIED THE SAME BY 8 FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2007 TO NOVEMBER 2007 ALLEGIN G THAT SIMILAR ACTIVITIES WERE CARRIED ON DURING THESE 8 M ONTHS ALSO AND THEREBY DETERMINED THE AGGREGATE ADDITION OF RS 172 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP AND DIV IDED THE SAME IN VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP IN TH E SAME PROPORTION AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE GROUP AND THU S MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 51.60 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF FURTHER ADDITIONAL ESTIMATED PROFIT FROM UNACCOUNTED MARBLE BUSINESS TRANSACTION FOR THE PER IOD FROM APRIL 2007 TO NOVEMBER 2007. 2.2.2 AT THE OUTSET, IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUB MITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 51.60 LACS IS UNJUST BAD IN LAW, AND SUFFERS FROM VICE OF ARBITRARINESS & SEVER AL ANOMALIES AS DISCUSSED BELOW: THE ENTIRE ADDITION IS BASED ON MERE GUESS WORK, ASSUMPTIONS, CONJECTURES AND SURMISES. THE LD. AO H AS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING SUCH A HUGE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE INDUL GED IN UNACCOUNTED SALE IN RESPECT OF MARBLE BUSINESS BEFO RE DIWALI 2007 (NOVEMBER 2007). THERE IS NO JUSTIFICAT ION FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY 12 INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE INDULGED IN UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION IN MAR BLE BUSINESS EVEN BEFORE DIWALI 2007. THERE IS NOT EVEN AN IOTA OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO DRAW THE INFERENCE THA T UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM MARBLE BUSINESS WAS EARNED DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2007. THE LD.AO HAS AL SO FAILED TO SPECIFY ANY SUCH EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL FOU ND IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, NONE OF THE PAPERS REFER RED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATE TO APRIL 2007. THIS CLEARLY IMPLIES THAT THE VERY BASIS OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N ITSELF IS NOTHING MORE THAN MERE GUESS WORK AND ASSUMPTION . 2.2.3 THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E LD. AO SUFFERS FROM NON APPLICATION OF MIND IN AS MUCH AS THE LD. AO HAS MADE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE ASSESSEE GROUP WAS INDULGED IN EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM MARBLE BUSINESS EVEN BEFORE NOVEMBER 2007. ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN ENTRIES IN ANNEXURE A-19 BY PRESUMING THEM TO BE UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER HOWEVER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE OLDEST ENTRY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AO IN A-1 9 PERTAINS TO AUGUST 2007. NO ENTRY WAS FOUND FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO AUGUST 2007. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE INDULGED IN UNACCOUNTE D MARBLE BUSINESS FROM APRIL 2007 ONWARDS. FURTHER, E VEN CONSIDERING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM DIWALI 2007 TO MARCH 2 008 FOR ONLY 4 MONTHS FOR DETERMINING AVERAGE MONTHLY INCOM E AND 13 THEN TAKING THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2007 AGAIN FOR COMPUTATION ALSO REFLECTS NON APPLICATION OF MIND. 2.2.4 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAS MADE HUGE INTANGIBLE ADDITION OF RS. 172 LACS ON ESTIMAT ION BASIS IN THE HANDS OF MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP. IF S UCH A SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION IS MADE, IT SHOULD BE BACKED B Y CERTAIN ASSETS OR PROPERTY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEA RCH SO AS TO SHOW THE APPLICATION OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRESENT CASE HOWEVER, NO ADDITIONA L ASSET/PROPERTY BEYOND THE ASSESSEE'S OWN DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF ANY OF THE MEMBER OF THE GROUP WHICH WOULD SHOW THE APPLICATIO N OF SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE GROUP. THUS , SUCH ADDITION IN SEARCH CASE, BEING NOT BACKED BY ASSETS , DESERVED TO BE DELETED. 2.2.5 IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. AO HAS MADE HUGE ADDITION OF RS. 51.60 LACS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN RES PECT OF ALLEGED INCRIMINATING EVIDENCES FOUND IN A-19. THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER ASKED TO OFFER PAGE WISE EXPLANATION OF A -19 AND THE LD. AO DID NOT EVEN SPECIFICALLY REFER TO THE A LLEGED INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE GROUP WAS INDULGING IN UNACCOUNTED MARBLE BUSINESS BEFORE NOVEMBER 2007. SIMILARLY, THE A/R OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT CON FRONTED WITH THIS ISSUE EVEN DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE 14 FULL BENCH OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF J.T. (INDIA) EXPORTS AND ANOTHER VS UOI 262 ITR 269 HELD THAT 'NOTICE IS THE FIRST LIMB OF THIS PRINCIPLE. IT MUS T BE PRECISE AND UNAMBIGUOUS. IT SHOULD APPRISE THE PARTY DETERMINATIVELY OF THE CASE HE HAS TO MEET. TIME G IVEN FOR THE PURPOSE SHOULD BE ADEQUATE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO MAKE HIS REPRESENTATION. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NOTICE OF THE KIND AND SUCH REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, THE ORDER PAS SED AGAINST THE PERSON IN ABSENTIA BECOMES WHOLLY VITIA TED. THUS IT IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT IS AFTER ALL AN APPROVED RULE OF FAIR P LAY.' IT IS SUBMITTED THAT OPPORTUNITY MUST BE SPECIFIC A ND NOT VAGUE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT 'JUSTICE MUST NOT ONL Y BE DONE BUT ALSO SEEM TO BE DONE.' ON THE CONTRARY, HERE IS A CASE WHERE BEFORE REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NO OPPORTU NITY AT ALL WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2.2.6 RULE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM WHICH IS AN IMPO RTANT INGREDIENT OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRES THAT PARTIES SHOULD BE HEARD BEFORE ANY DECISION IS GIVE N. THE RIGHT TO A FAIR HEARING HAS BEEN USED AS THE BASE O N WHICH TO BUILD A CODE OF FAIR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE COMPARABLE WITH DUE PROCESS OF LAW. THE DISCLOSURE OF A CHARGE OR OPPOSING CASE MUST BE MADE AND IT MUST BE MADE WITHIN REASONABLE TIME TO ALLOW THE PERSON AFFECTED TO PREPARE HIS DEFENCE OR HIS COMMENTS. HE MUST HAVE F AIR 15 NOTICE OF ANY ACCUSATION AGAINST HIM. ANY ORDER PAS SED WITHOUT GIVING NOTICE IS VIOLATIVE OF THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS BEEN HELD BY TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF R.B SRIRAM DURGA PRASA D AND FATEHCHAND NARSINGH DAS VS. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION 1 76 ITR 169 (SC) THAT AN ORDER PASSED WITHOUT GRANTING A PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IS A NULLITY. 2.2.7 THE LD. AO HAS SPECIFICALLY REFERRED TO CER TAIN ENTRIES APPEARING IN A-19 IN THE NAME OF DEV JI GUJ AR, EXCLUSIVE, ANIL JI, POOJA TILES, GANPATI MARBLES AN D S.N. MARBLES IN SUPPORT OF HIS ALLEGATION THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS INDULGED IN UNACCOUNTED MARBLE BUSINESS EVEN BEFORE DIWALI 2007. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ABOVE ENTRIES/TRANSACTIONS DOES NOT APPEAR IN A-11 AND A- 12 SINCE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ABOVE PARTIES WERE NOT IN THE NATURE OF SALES MADE DIRECTLY TO THEM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SE ENTRIES/TRANSACTIONS REFLECT INCOME FROM SALES MADE ON COMMISSION BASIS TO THESE PARTIES ON BEHALF OF OTHE R VENDORS AND THE COMMISSION INCOME FOR THE SAME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI TANSUKH BOHARA WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 2.2.8 EVEN OTHERWISE AND ALTERNATIVELY, THE LD. A O HAS MADE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ON ESTIMATION BASIS AS SEEN ABOVE. IF ANY ADDITIONS ARE TO BE MADE, IT CANNOT B E MADE 16 ON GUESS WORK OR ESTIMATION BASIS. IT CAN ONLY BE M ADE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH. THE FOLLOWING PAGES OF A-19 HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED BY THE LD. AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER: PAGE NO NAME PERIOD AMOUNT 14 TO 16 DEV JI GUJAR AUG TO OCT 07 1 1 LACS 17 TO 18 EXCLUSIVE SEP TO NOV 07 8.28 LACS 24 ANIL JI OCT 07 5.95 LACS 25 POOJA TILES OCT TO NOV 07 6.40 LACS 43 GANPATI MARBLES SEP TO OCT 07 14.08 LACS 44 S.N. MARBLES BEFORE 02. 12. 07 12 LACS TOTAL 57.71 LACS THUS, AS IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ABOVE TABLE, EVEN IF THE AFORESAID AMOUNTS ARE TREATED TO BE UNACCOUNTED SAL ES AND NOT COMMISSION SALES, ADDITIONS AT THE BEST COULD H AVE BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF PROFITS ON THE TURNOVER OF RS 57.71 LACS AFTER DEDUCTING EXPENDITURES FOR THE SAME. IT HAS BEEN HELD IN BHATINDA CHEMICALS LTD. VS DEPU TY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (2004) 1 SOT 150 (ASR) T HAT NO ESTIMATION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FO UND IN THE SEARCH IN CASE WHERE SUITABLE EXPLANATION OF TH E PAPER IS AVAILABLE ON THE RECORDS. 17 2.2.9 THE LD. AO HAS MADE IMPUGNED ADDIT IONS FOR A PERIOD OF 8 MONTHS I.E FROM APRIL 2007 TO NOVEMBER 2007. THE LD. AO HAS MADE HIS OWN ASSUMPTIONS DISREGARDIN G THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE METHOD OF SALES WAS CHANGED W.E.F. NOVEMBER 2007 AND DETERMINED MONTHLY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER OF SUCH BUSINESS TAKING A PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS AS BASE FRO M DECEMBER 2007 TO MARCH 2008, WHEREAS, THE CALCULATI ONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE TAKING 5 MONTHS BECAUSE DIWAL I 2007 WAS ON 9TH NOVEMBER 2007. THIS WOULD ON THE ON E HAND REDUCE THE AVERAGE INCOME DETERMINED BY THE LD . AO AND ON THE OTHER WOULD RESULT IN ADOPTION OF LOWER MULTIPLICATION FACTOR BECAUSE PERIOD CANNOT BE TAKE N AFTER OCTOBER 2007. THE RELEVANT PAGE SHOWING THAT ANNEXU RE A- 11 AND A-12 INCLUDES THE RECEIPTS OF NOV 2007 IS AV AILABLE AT PB PAGE NO. 141. THE SAME IS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENTS U/S 132(4) DATED 17.11.2005 AT PAGE NO. 16 OF THE PB. 2.5 AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS, INSTEAD, ESTIMATED UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR FOUR AND HALF MONTHS AND HAS COMPUTED AT RS. 66,88,889/- (RS. 19,11,111 X 3. 50 AND IN THE HANDS OF ALL THE SIX FAMILY MEMBERS AS UNDER :- 18 NAME % OF THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME ADMITTED BY THE GROUP ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UPHELD SH. TANSUKH BOHRA 30% RS. 20,06,667 / - SH. NARENDRA BOHRA - DO - RS. 20,06,667 / - SH. B.L. BOHRA 15% RS. 10,03,333 / - SMT. PHOOLI DEVI BOHRA 10% RS. 6,68,889 / - SMT. SUSHILA BOHRA - DO - RS. 6,68,889 / - SMT. VINITA BOHRA 5% RS. 3,34,444 / - TOTAL 100% RS. 66,88,889 / - THE LD. CIT(A) HAS THUS SUSTAINED ADDITION AS PER T HE ABOVE CHART IN THE HANDS OF THE DIFFERENT FAMILY MEMBERS. ALL OF THEM ARE AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SUSTAINED ADDITIONS. THE REVENUE IS ALS O AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE RELIEF GIVEN TO THEM. 2.6. BEFORE US SIMILAR ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN REITERAT ED BY BOTH SIDES. AS PER LD. AR THE ESTIMATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME MADE BY THE AO IS UNCALLED FOR AND BASELESS. AS PER LD. DR THE AO HAS CORRECTLY ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH IS BASED ON ANNEXURE A-19 AND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY REDUCED THIS ADDITION. WE HAVE G IVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO RIVAL SUBMISSIONS VIS.A.VIS AVAILA BLE FACTS AND EVIDENCE. THERE CAN BE NO TWO OPINIONS ABOUT THE FA CT THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS A RESULT OF EST IMATION MADE ON THE CUMULATIVE INFERENCE DRAWN BY HIM FROM ANNEXURE A-11, A-12 AND A-19. IT IS ALSO AN UNDENIABLE FACT THAT DURING SEA RCH AND POST SEARCH 19 INQUIRIES THE ASSESSEE GROUP HAS BEEN CONSISTENT IN STATING THAT THE BUSINESS OUT OF BOOKS WAS DONE ONLY AFTER THE DIWAL I OF 2007 AND NOT BEFORE. THE GROUP HAS ALSO HONOURED THEIR STAND AND ADMISSION MADE DURING THE PERIOD OF SEARCH BY OFFERING THE STATED INCOME FOR TAXATION. THE AO HAS FAR-FETCHED THIS ASPECT, WITH REFERENCE TO ANNEXURE A-19 IN BOTH DIRECTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SURRENDERED RS . 86 LACS FOR THE PERIOD POST DIWALI, FROM THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER (THE MONTH IN WHICH DIWALI FESTIVAL FELL IN THE YEAR 2007). THE AO HAS TAKEN THE AVERAGE OF THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS. 86 LACS, SURRENDERED FOR FOUR MONTHS I.E., FROM DECEMBER, 2007 TILL MARCH, 2008. HE HAS ALSO ASSUMED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED MARBLE TRADING BUSINESS WAS DONE EV EN PRIOR TO THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER (I.E., DIWALI) AND HAS THUS COUNT ED 8 MONTHS, FROM APRIL, 2007 TO NOVEMBER, 2008 AND HAS CALCULATED UN DISCLOSED INCOME. AS AGAINST THE ABOVE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS COMPUTED TH E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY TREATING SURRENDER SUM OF RS. 86 LACS PERTAINING TO 4.5 MONTHS AND HAS ESTIMATED IT FOR 3 .5 MONTHS BY TAKING THE MONTH OF AUGUST, 2007 AS THE STARTING MONTH IN RELATION TO UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS DONE PRIOR TO DIWALI FESTIVAL. THE FOLLOWING CHART WOULD CLEARLY DEPICT THE EXACT FIGURES OF ADDITION BY AO AND REDUCTION BY LD. CIT(A), IN THE CASE OF ALL THE SIX ASSESSEES . THIS CHART IS AS UNDER:- 20 ASSESSEE DECLARED IN ROI U/S 153A FOR THE PERIOD DIWALI 2007 TO MARCH 2008 RATIO ADDITION MADE BY A.O. APRIL 2007 TO NOV. 2007 ADDITION AUG 2007 TO NOV. 2007 UPHELD BY CIT(A) SH. TANSUKH BOHRA 25,80,000 30% 51,60,000 20,06,667 SH. NARENDRA BOHRA 25,80,000 - DO - 51,60,000 20,06,667 SH. B.L. BOHRA 12,90,000 15% 25,80,000 10,03,333 SMT PHOOLI DEVI BOHRA 8,60,000 10% 17,20,000 6,68,889 SMT. SUSHILA BOHRA 8,60,000 - DO - 17,20,000 6,68,889 SMT. VINITA BOHRA 4,30,000 5% 8,60,000 3,34,444 TOTAL 1,72,00,000 66,88,889 2.7 BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE TAKEN SAME LINE OF ARGUMENTS WHICH ARE EMERGING FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE RECORDS VIS--VIS ORAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PA RTIES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE AO HAS MADE ESTIMATED A DDITION OVER AND ABOVE THE SURRENDER UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT IS TRUE THAT ESTIMATION MAY BE JUSTIFIED OR IT MAY NOT BE JUSTIFIED. IT WAS CLE ARLY STATED BY THE MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP THAT ONLY FROM DIWALI, 2007 S UCH OUT OF BOOK BUSINESS WAS DONE BY THEM. SO IT WOULD BE APPROPRIA TE TO ESTIMATE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FORMS THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER, 200 7 TO THE MONTH OF MARCH, 2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS HIMSELF ESTIMATED THIS INCOME AT RS. 86 LACS ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS. WE MAY MENTI ON THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE RATIO DETAILED IN THE CHART EXTRAC TED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER ABOUT BIFURCATION AMONGST THE SI X MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP. ALL OF THEM HAVE OFFERED THEIR RESPECTIVE IN COMES IN THE SAME 21 RATIO WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. THE AOS R ATIOCINATION IS REGARDING THE PERIOD DURING WHICH THE ASSESSEE-GROU P MAY HAVE DONE UNDISCLOSED MARBLE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEES HAVE TR IED TO MAKE THEIR POINT WITH THE HELP OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI TANSUK H LAL BOHRA RECORDED DURING SEARCH AND POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. BASED ON PAPER ANNEXURE-19 THE AO HAS DISCARDED ALL OTHER EVIDENCE COLLECTED ON THE INFERENCE THAT ON THIS PAGE THE MONTH OF AUGUST AND OCTOBER, 2007 ARE MENTIONED SO THE ASSESSEE-GROUP MAY HAVE CARRIED SU CH A BUSINESS FROM 01/04/2007 TO NOVEMBER, 2007. THE NATURE OF AN NEXURE-19 HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN AS THAT OF PAGES ANNEXURE-11 AND ANN EXURE-12, BUT STILL HE HAS RELIED ON IT IN THE SAME MANNER. THE ARGUMEN T OF LD. AR THAT THE TRANSACTION RECORDED ON ANNEXURE-19 ARE THE TRA NSACTION OF COMMISSION SALES DONE BY SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA ON BEHA LF OF OTHER VENDORS / PARTIES AND THE INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE SE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN DULY OFFERED FOR TAX BY HIM IN HIS ROI FILED F OR A.Y. 2008-09 AND THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS, AT ALL, CALLED FOR, IN T HE HANDS OF THE VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP, SEEMS TO BE MORE PLAUSIBLE. ONE CAN EASILY DISCERN FROM THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON ANNEXURE A-19 THAT THESE DONT RELATE TO THIS GROUP. ON THE FIRST OPPORTUNIT Y THE ASSESSEE (TANSUKH BOHRA) HAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED THIS ASPECT T HAT THESE TRANSACTION WERE EXECUTED FOR OTHER VENDORS ON COMM ISSION BASIS. THE 22 REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CONTROVERTING EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE COPIES OF ROI FILED BY SHRI TANSUKH LAL BOHRA (AT PAGES 42 TO 44 CLEARLY SHOW THAT HE HAS DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 4 LAKHS, OVER AND ABOVE RS. 25,80,000/-, DISCLOSED AS PER THEIR RATIO . WE HAVE TREADED THROUGH THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA, ENCLO SED AT PAGES 89 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER FILED IN THE CASE OF SHRI BHER U LAL BOHRA. WHEN ANNEXURE A-19 IS COMPARED WITH ANNEXURES A-11 AND A -12, WE NOTICE THAT BOTH ARE DIFFERENT, RECORDED IN DIFFERENT MANN ER / MODE. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF LD. AR THAT IF THE SALES ON ANNEXURE-19 RELATED TO ASSESSEES GROUP THESE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ENTERED AT ONE PLACE. MOREOVER, THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE EN TIRE GROUP THE REVENUE DID NOT FIND ANY ASSETS IN WHICH UNDISCLOSE D INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 172 LACS MAY HAVE BEEN INVESTED. THEREF ORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT IS REVEALED FROM THE SEI ZED DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE-19 THAT IT DOES NOT RELATE TO DIRECT SALES OF THIS GROUP. RATHER THE ASSESSEE-GROUP HAS EXPLAINED ESPECIALLY SHRI TA NSUKH BOHRA, THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN ANNEXURE-19 ARE RELATE D TO COMMISSION SALES AND THIS WAS SO EXPLAINED AT THE EARLIEST OPP ORTUNITY BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS HIMSELF OBSERVED AT INTERNAL P AGE 7 OF HIS ORDER THAT ANNEXURE-11 AND ANNEXURE-12 IS A SYSTEMATIC LE DGER FORM AND ACCOUNT WISE BUT ENTRIES IN ANNEXURE-19 ARE ESTIMAT ED. THEREFORE, THE 23 SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEES GROUP SEEMS TO BE MORE PRAGMATIC, PLAUSIBLE AND CONVINCING. HENCE, THE FIGURES RECORD ED IN ANNEXURE-19 CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH ERE ARE COMMISSION SALES OF SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD T HAT THE TRANSACTION RECORDED ON ANNEXURE A-19 STANDS DULY EXPLAINED AS THE SALES MADE BY SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA ON BEHALF OF OTHER (THIRD) PARTI ES ON COMMISSION BASIS AND HE HAS ALREADY DECLARED AN INCOME OF RS. 4 LAKHS AGAINST THE QUANTUM OF SALES ON COMMISSION BASIS OF RS. 57.71 L ACS WHICH COMES TO 7% (AROUND). IN OUR VIEW, THIS PERCENTAGE OF COMMIS SION IS NOT SUFFICIENT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE N.P. RATE OF 57% WORKED OUT FROM THE DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE GROUP. SO, THE ENDS OF JUST ICE WOULD MEET IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE I F THE COMMISSION INCOME IS ESTIMATED @ 10% AND THIS WILL RESULT IN S USTAINED ADDITION OF RS. 1.77 LACS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA. T HE REMAINING ADDITION OF RS. 18,29,667/- FROM THE HANDS OF SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA IS DELETED. THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,06,667/- FROM THE H ANDS OF SHRI NARENDRA BOHRA AND OF RS. 10,03,337/- FROM THE HAND S OF SHRI BHERU LAL BOHRA ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN VIEW OF OUR AB OVE FINDING, THE ALTERNATIVE GROUNDS RAISED BECOME ONLY OF ACADEMIC INTEREST. 24 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI TANSUKH BOHRA IS PARTLY ALLOWED. OTHER APPEALS OF BHERU LAL BOHRA THROUGH LRS AND THAT OF SHRI NARENDRA BOHRA ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- [N.K. SAINI] [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. VL/ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT BY ORDER 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR