M/s Neeraj Chhabra, Ludhiana V. ACIT, Ludhiana

ITA 948/CHANDI/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80809 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S R CHHABRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Agreed addition
• Section: 246; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.948/CHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SHRI NEERAJ CHHABRA, VS. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-V, LUDHIANA LUDHIANA PAN NO. AATPC8002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.R. CHHABRA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA DATE OF HEARING : 03/07/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08/08/2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18.07.2012 OF CIT (APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, LUDHIANA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE C ASE :- A) BY ARBITRARILY AND WRONGLY SUSTAINED THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 14 LACS MADE U/S 69 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61. 2. THAT THE ABOVE SAID ORDER IS BAD IN LAW & CONTRA RY TO THE FACTS OF CASE. 3. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY PLEA SE BE ACCEPTED AND SUCH RELIEF MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED WHICH MAY BE DEEMED FIT AND PROPER UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2 4. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES PERMISSION TO FILE / RAISE / AMEND ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE OUTSET, WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT OUT THAT A SSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 23.8.2013 WHICH WAS PLACED ON REC ORD FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH MAINLY CONSISTS OF REPLIE S GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, COPIES OF NOTHING SHEETS DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND EXTRACTS OF SOME CASH BOOK. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF HEAR ING LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT WHISPER A WORD IN RESPECT OF THIS APPLICATION, THEREFORE, WE PRESUME THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN ANY CASE, THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE IN THE FORM OF REPLIES ETC. HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, WE REJECT THIS APPLICATION. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED SOME CA SH IN THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA. THE INFORMATION WAS OBTAINED FROM THE CENTRA L BANK OF INDIA U/S 133(6). IT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE BANK THAT THERE WAS AN ACCO UNT IN THE NAME OF SHRI NEERAJ CHHABRA I.E. THE ASSESSEE BEARING ACCOUNT NO . 1252643038 AND FOLLOWING CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE. DATE MODE AMOUNT 18.12.2007 BY CASH 2,00,000/- 05.03.2008 BY CASH 5,00,000/- 06.03.2008 BY CASH 7,00,000/- 5. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE CASH BOOK AND ON PERUSAL OF THE CASH BOOK IT WAS FOUND THAT NO ENTRIES FOR CASH DEP OSITS ON THE DATE SPECIFIED BY THE BANK WERE THERE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO REC ONCILE THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE CASH BOOK. THE ASSESSEE GAVE FOLLOWING REPLY VI DE LETTER DATED 26.11.2010. 3 1. THAT THE ASSE4SSEE IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF MANUFA CTURING IN AUTO & MACHINERY PARTS ETC. SINCE A LONG AND APART FROM THIS WINE CONTRACTOR SHIP UP TO 31.03.2008. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS A SAVING BANK ACCOUNT IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, INDUSTRIAL AREA LUDHIANA VIDE SAVING S ACCOUNT NO. 1252643038 WHICH IS BEING REFLECTED IN PERSONAL ACCOUNT THROUGH CASH OR CHEQUE ENTRIES & ALL THE DEPOSITS I N THIS ACCOUNT ARE BEING MAD AFTER RECEIVED FROM FIRM NOT FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE. 3. THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE WITHDRAWS / DEPOSITED CERTAIN AMOUNTS IN CASH FROM FIRM AND DEP OSITED THE SAME IN BANK SAVING ACCOUNT AS PER BANK SAVING ACCO UNT STATEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GET WINE CONTRACT SHIP BUSINESS FROM THE STATE EXCISE DEPARTMENT IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS PER STATE GOVERNMENT NORMS AND ACCORDINGLY SAME WER E DEPOSITED IN THE SHAPE OF BANK DRAFT TO THE AETC AC COUNT, THOUGH THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE IN THE BANK AFTER WITHDRAWALS FROM THE FIRM BUT INADVERTENTLY COULD N OT BE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE ACCOUNTANT AND ASSES SEE WAS UNAWARE OF THESE ENTRIES OF SAVING ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM 30.06.2007 TO 31.03.2008. WHEREAS DEPOSITED CASH IS SURPLUS IN OUR ACCOUNT AN D THE SAME REMAINED UNTOUCHED AS MY CASH AMOUNT IS VERY M USH TALLIED & THE SAID NET CASH AMOUNT OF RS. 11 LAC RE MAINS SURPLUS TILL DATE IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS PURELY BONAFID E MISTAKE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCUSTOMED TO THE ACCOUNTS. THAT THE SAID SAVING ACCOUNT IS ALWAYS RE FLECTED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME & HAVE NEVER CONCEALED FOR THE IN COME TAX PURPOSE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN THE SAID CASH FROM THE FIRM AND DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING ACCOUNT FOR BUSINE SS PURPOSE ONLY. 6. THE ABOVE REPLY WAS NOT FOUND TO BE TENABLE AND ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO RECONCILE THE ENTRIES OF RS. 14,00,000/- WITH TH E CASH BOOK AND ALSO GIVE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. IT WAS AGAIN REPLIED VIDE LETTE R DATED 8.12.2010 AS UNDER;- 4 YOUR HONOUR HAS BEEN PLEASED TO REQUIRE US TO SUB MIT THE SOURCE OF RS. 14,00,000/- WHICH HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN SAVING A/C 1252643038 IN CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA INDU STRIAL AREA, LUDHIANA DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08. I N THIS CONNECTION, IT IS SUBMITTED ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH IN HAND OF RS. 37,23,097/- AS ON 31.03.08. IN FACT RS. 14,00,000/- WERE WITH THE PROPRIETOR AS IMPREST ACCOUNT WHILE RS. 23,23,097/- WAS CASH IN HAND OF T HE TRADING CONCERN AS ON 31.03.2008 BUT DUE TO CLERICA L MISTAKE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 37,23,097/- WAS SHOWN AS CASH I N HAND IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2008. THERE BEING A B ONAFIDE MISTAKE, SO , RS. 14,00,000/- BE TREATED AS IMPREST ACCOUNT AND RS. 23,23,097/- AS CASH IN HAND ON 31.03.2008 O F THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ANY FACT BE FORE YOUR GOODSELF. 7. THE PART REPLY GIVEN WAS FOUND TO UNTENABLE AND ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH. THE REAFTER, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THESE ENTRIES AND VOLU NTARILY SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF 14 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. IN THIS BACKGRO UND, THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TOT EH INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE REITERATED. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSI DERING THE SAME OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE AFTER AVAILING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND HAD VOLUNTARILY SURREN DERED THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 14 LAKHS. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT AFTER HAVING AGREED FO R THE ADDITION THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT TURN BACK AND SAID THAT ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THIS REGARD, LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1) PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCTS CO. LTD V STATE O F KERALA & ANR, 91 ITR 18 (SC). 2) BACHHITAR SINGH VS. CIT & ANR (2010) 236 CTR (P& H) 587 3) MAHESH B. SHAH V ACIT & ANR (1994) 154 CTR (KER) 391 5 4) SC GUPTA V CIT, 248 ITR 782 (ALL.) 5) DEWAN BAHADUR SETH GOPAL DAS MOHTA VS. THE UNION OF INIDA & ORS (SC) 26 ITR 722 6) HIRA SINGH & CO. VS. CIT (HP) 230 ITR 209 7) NARAYAN BHAGWANTRAO GOSAVI BATAJIWALE VS. GOPA L AIT 1960 SC 100 8) PRANAV CONSTRUCTION CO. V ACIT (ITAT, MUM ) 61 ITJ 145 HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT IF THE ADDITION WAS AGREED TH AN NO APPEAL COULD LIE AND IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED THE E FOLLOWING DECISIONS. I) RAMESHCHANDRA & CO VS. CIT (BOM) 168 ITR 375 II) RAMANLAL KAMDAR V CIT (MAD) 108 ITR 73 9. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CARRIED US THROUGH THE VARIOUS REPLIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE HAD CLEARLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WAS CASH A VAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRM AND CASH OF RS. 37,23,097/- WAS SHOWN IN T HE BALANCE SHEET BUT INADVERTENTLY NO ENTRIES HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASH BOOK. DESPITE THIS EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT AGREE WI TH THE SAME ADDITION AND ALLOWED ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, THEREFORE, THIS FURTHE R OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE CONSTRUED AS COERCION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT IS WHY THE ASSESSEE UNDER COERCION SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT. AN Y ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT IS NOT POSSIBLE IF THE SAME IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF COERCION. IN THIS REGARD HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHAT MULL AGGARWAL V CIT , PATIALA 116 ITR 694 (P&H) AND SMT. BHAGWANT KAUR V CIT 223 ITR 242. 10. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTE D THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON AGRE ED BASIS, THEREFORE, NO APPEAL SHOULD BE ENTERTAINED. IN THIS REGARD HE REL IED ON THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN HIS ORDER. 6 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS CAREFU LLY AND ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO RECONCILE THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA WITH THE CASH BO OK AND FURNISHED THE SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE GAVE AN EXPLANATION WHICH WAS FOUND NOT TENABLE, THEREFORE, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN AND SAME E XPLANATION WAS REITERATED ON 8.12.2010. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT AGREE WITH THIS EXPLANATION IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE WAS COERCED TO SURRENDER THE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD THE FULL LIBERTY TO STOP AT THAT POINT AND CONTEST CLAIM LATER ON IN THE APPEALS. INSTEAD OF THAT, ASSESSEE HAS AGREED TO MAKE SURREN DER. NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT BEFORE US TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED A NY COMPLAINT BEFORE ANY AUTHORITY THAT HE WAS COERCED TO MAKE THAT SURRENDE R. THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PROVIDING SECOND OPPORTUNITY C ANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS COERCION AS SUGGESTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE. 12. AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HAR YANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHHAT MULL AGGARWAL V CIT (SUPRA) IS CONCE RNED IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED A SUM OF RS. 83,042 IN T HE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE. THE S.D.O., P.W.D., ESTIMA TED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS RS. 87,668 AND THE INCOME TAX INSPECTOR GAVE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS RS. 1,06 ,846. THE ITO MADE ON ADDITION OF RS. 15,000 AS BEING THE ASS ESSEES UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY, AFTER NOT ING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO THE ADDITION. ON APPEAL TO T HE AAC, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOU SE WAS COMPLETED ONLY DURING THE YEAR ENDING MARCH 31, 197 1, THAT THE TOTAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS RS. 98,152/- THA T SINCE HE HAD ACTUALLY SPENT RS. 15,000 BUT DID NOT UNDERSTA ND THAT AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS AGREEMENT THE AMOUNT WOULD BE A DDED TO HIS INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1970-71. THE AAC ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 7 15,000. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL REVERSED TH E ORDER OF THE AAC ON THE GROUND THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE WAS IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE BEFORE THE AAC AN D THAT, IN THE ABSENCE OF A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION OR AN AF FIDAVIT EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH MISLED THE ASSES SEE TO GIVE HIS CONSENT TO THE ADDITION, THE VERY APPEAL BEFORE THE AAC WAS INCOMPETENT. 13. ON THE ABOVE FACTS IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- HELD, THAT IT CANNOT BE HELD AS A MATTER OF LAW TH AT THE REMEDY OF APPEAL PROVIDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF S. 2 46 (1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE AVAILED OF BY THE ASSESSEE WIT HOUT HAVING FILED A RECTIFICATION APPLICATION BEFORE THE ITO. HELD ALSO, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO CONVINCE T HE AAC THAT THE ADMISSION MADE BY HIM WAS NOT BINDING ON H IM AND WAS MADE UNDER A MISAPPREHENSION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 15,000 WAS BEING ADDED FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMEN T YEAR AND THE AAC WAS RIGHT IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE ITO AND WAS CONSEQUENTLY BOUND TO GO INTO THE MERITS OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WHICH HE RIGHTLY DID. 14. IN OUR OPINION, THE JUDGMENT IS TOTALLY DISTIN GUISHABLE ON ITS OWN FACTS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AGREED ADDITION. THA T DECISION IS ON THE PRINCIPLE OF REMEDY OF APPEAL IS STILL AVAILABLE EVEN WHEN AD DITION HAS BEEN MADE ON AGREED BASIS BUT WHERE IT IS SHOWN THAT ADDITION WA S MADE UNDER MISAPPREHENSION. IN THE CASE, BEFORE US THERE WAS NO MISAPPREHENSION AND ASSESSEE WAS SIMPLY ASKED TO RECONCILE THE CASH DEP OSITED IN THE BANK. 15. IN THE CASE OF SMT. BHAGWANT KAUR, THE ASSESSEE HAD DENIED THE LIABILITY TO BE ASSESSED THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 1963- 64 TO 1965-66 BUT THE LIABILITY WAS DENIED ON TWO P LEAS:- I) RETURN FILED BY HER WERE INVALID RETURN WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 139(4) (B) OF THE ACT. 8 II) THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(10 WERE BARRED BY LIMITATI ON U/S 153 OF THE ACT. THE COURT HELD THAT EVEN IF THESE PLEAS WERE NOT RA ISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SAME COULD BE RAISED BEFORE THE APPELL ATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, THEREFORE, THIS CASE IS ALSO TOTALLY DISTINGUISHABL E. 16. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT ADMISSION IS THE BEST EV IDENCE AND IN THIS REGARD AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE OBSERVATI ON OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCTS CO. LTD V STATE OF KERAL A & ANR (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: - ENTRIES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS TREATING A PORTION OF THE GENERAL EXPENDITURE AS EXPENSES TO WARDS IMMATURE PLANTS AND CAPITALISING SUCH PORTION AMOUN T TO AN ADMISSION THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS LAID OUT OR EXPENDED FOR THE CULTIVATION, UPKEEP OR MAINTENANCE OF IMMATURE PLANTS FROM WHICH NO AGRICULTURAL INCOME W AS DERIVED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLANATION (2) TO SECTION 5 OF THE KERALA AGRICULT URAL INCOME-TAX ACT, 1950. SUCH ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID T HAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE. IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT AND THE ASSE SSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CORRECT STATE OF FACTS . 17. THE ABOVE HIGHLIGHTED PORTION CLEARLY SHOWS THA T THE ADMISSION IS THE BEST EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS SHOWN THAT ADMISSION WAS INCO RRECT. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANYWHERE THAT ADMISSION REGARDING THE VOLUNTA RY SURRENDER WAS INCORRECT. EVEN OTHERWISE IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO APPEAL SHO ULD LIE IF THE ADDITION IS AGREED UPON ON CONSENT BASIS. THE ASSESSEE COULD H AVE EASILY CONTESTED HIS WITHOUT AGREEING TO THE ADDITION PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLANATION THAT THERE WAS CASH AVAILABLE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SUBMISSIONS THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING CASH IN TRADING FIRM AMOUNTING TO RS. 37 ,23,097/- BECAUSE THE CASH 9 HAD ALREADY BEEN SHOWN AS CLOSING CASH IN HAND ON 3 1.3.2008 BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BALANCE SHEET, COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PA GE 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK THEN HOW CASH COULD BE AVAILABLE FOR DEPOSIT BEFORE 31.3 .2008 I.E. RS. 2,00,000/- ON 18.12.2007, RS. 5,00,000/- ON 5.3.2008 AND RS. 7,00 ,000/- ON 6.3.2008. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE DEPOSITED TH E CASH ON VARIOUS DATES MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, IN O UR OPINION THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CORRECTLY MADE THE ADDITION AND WE CONFIRM HIS ORDER. 18. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 08/08/2014 SD/ SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMER DATED : 8 TH AUGUST, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR