INCOME TAX OFFICER1 (3), RAIPUR (CG) V. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 96/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 9624714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K JAIN
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Peak credit
• Section: 69; 56; 143(3)

Judgement Text

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BENCH -RAIPUR . .. . . .. . , ,, , ! ! ! !, ,, , . .. . . .. . BEFORE S/SH.H.L.KARWA,PRESIDENT AN D RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.96/BLPR/2011- # # # # / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR -2007-08 INCOME-TAX OFFICER 1(3), RAIPUR. V/S. SHRI SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH, PREM PARK, MAHAVIR NAGAR, NEW PURENA, DISTT. RAIPUR PAN:ATMPS 4024 K ( ) / // / ASSESSEE ) ( *+) / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : SH.D.K. JAIN, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE - /DATE OF HEARING : 23-12-2014 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24 -12-2014 # # # # , 1961 1961 1961 1961- - - - 254 254254 254( (( (1 11 1) )) ) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA,AM < << < = = = =, ,, , ! ! ! ! : CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT. 07.02.2011OF THE CIT(A)-R AIPUR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER IN LAW ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,52,692/- MADE BY THE AO ON A/C OF LOW NP REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 . 2. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.55,197/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT O F INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 3. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,75,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S. 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 4. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH IN LA W AND ON FACTS. ASSESSEE,AN INDIVIDUAL,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF P ROVIDING QUALIFIED AND COMPETENT FACULTIES FOR COMPUTER EDUCATION IN DIFFERENT GOVERNMENT GIRLS H IGH SCHOOLS IN CHHATTISGARH STATE AND ALSO SUPPLY OF COMPUTER HARDWARE,SOFTWARE AND CONNECTED ACCESSORIES FILED HIS RETURN ON 22.10.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,22,510/-.THE AO COMP LETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3)OF THE ACT AT RS.15,05,400/-. 2. FIRST GROUND IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS.7,52,692/-.DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GROSS RECIPTS OF RS.1,7 9,20,032/-,THAT IN THE EARLIER AY.THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET PROFIT @ 57.95% WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIAL LY DECREASED TO 2.72% IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WHEN CONFRONTED BY THE AO, IT WAS CL ARIFIED THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY 2006-07, TOTAL RECEIPT WAS RS.6,28,638/- WHI CH WAS EXCLUSIVE OF PAYMENT RECEIVED TOWARDS SALARY DISTRIBUTION TO THE FACULTIES WHICH CAME TO RS.97,19,785/-.AFTER CONSIDERING THIS, THE REVISED NP FOR AY. 2006-07 WORKED OUT TO 57.95% WHILE THE SAME CAME DOWN TO 48.35% IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT LAST YEAR,NIIT MADE TDS ON NET COMMISSION PRAYED@5.61% (INCLUDING SURCHARGE)WHEREAS IN THE PR EVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY.UNDER CONSIDERA -TION,THE TDS WAS ON GROSS PAYMENT I.E.,INCLUDING P AYMENT FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF SALARY.THE DECLINE IN NP FROM 57.95% TO 48.35% WAS EXPLAINED T O BE DUE TO INCREASE IN ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.ACCORDING TO THE AO,THE REASON FOR INCURRI NG SALARY PAYMENT TO ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF, WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AND EXTENT OF SALARY CLAIMED TO H AVE BEEN PAID TO FACULTY MEMBERS WAS EXCESS - IVE.THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE REASONS FOR THE DECLI NE IN NP THIS YEAR AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR. HE 2 ITA NO.96/BLPR/2011-SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAYMENT AND PF DEDUCTION OF FACULTIES,ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SCHOOL PRINCIPALS AND IN SOME CASES SECURITY DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM FACULTIES WERE SHOWN AS RECE IVED IN THE FORM OF DD WHEREAS AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE SCHOOL PRINCIPALS, TH E SAME WAS RECEIVED IN CASH FROM THE FACULTIES. THE AO ALSO NOTED THAT ONLY VERY FEW PAYMENTS OF SA LARY TO FACULTIES WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PAYMENT S WERE THROUGH CHEQUES OR DDS, WAS INCORRECT. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCLOS E ONE OF HIS SB ACCOUNT AND THE PEAK BALANCE IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS TAKEN AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T U/S. 69 OF THE ACT.HE FOUND THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES FATHER WAS NOT REFLECTED I N BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE.FOR ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED T O EXPLAIN AS TO WHY BOOK RESULTS SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT AND AS TO WHY NP SH OULD NOT BE ESTIMATED AT 6% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO HELD THAT THE INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY VIZ PRINCIPALS OF THE SCHOOLS,WAS AUTHENTIC,THAT THE DISCREPANCIES DETECTED IN SALARY PAYMENT AND PF DED UCTION WERE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED,THAT OTHER EXPENSES LIKE OFFICE EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE, TRAVELIN G, TRANSPORTING CHARGES ETC. WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THE PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS.CONSIDERING ALL TH E ABOVE DEFECTS, THE BOOK RESULTS WERE REJECTED BY THE AO U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACT AND INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY ESTIMATING NP AT 6% ON THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN.IT RESULTED ADDITION OF RS.7,52,692/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,HE HELD THAT IT WAS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE BUSINESSMA N HOW TO RUN HIS BUSINESS,THAT IT WAS NOT OPEN TO THE AO TO PRESCRIBE WHAT EXPENDITURE AN ASSESSEE SH OULD INCUR AND IN WHAT CIRCUMSTANCES HE SHOULD INCUR SUCH EXPENDITURE,THAT THE ONLY CONDITI ON REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED, IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO CLAIM A DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE,IS THAT IT MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE P URPOSE OF BUSINESS,THAT ONCE THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENT WAS PROVED ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE THERE COULD BE NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE,THAT THE AO HAD NO T BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FACULTIES AN D OTHER STAFF WORKING FOR THE BUSINESS INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NEITHER GENUINE NOR WERE FOR N ON-BUSINESS PURPOSES,THAT IT COULD NOT BE A VALID GROUND FOR REJECTION OF THE AUDITED BOOK RESU LTS.HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF OM PRAKASH BEHI(132 ITR 342),ASHOK PAL DAGA (142 TAXMAN 27).HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE CLAIM THAT THE IMPUGNED PAYMENT OF SALARY WAS FOR UP-KEEPING THE B USINESS INTEREST WAS NOT PROVED AS FALSE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD,THAT CONSID ERING THE SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN THE RECEIPTS AS COMPARED TO THAT OF LAST YEAR SUCH A CLAIM WAS ALLO WABLE,THAT WHETHER SALARY SHOULD BE PAID/ CHARGED OR NOT AND AT WHAT RATE WAS A MATTER OF UND ERSTANDING BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND THE SAME WAS NOT REALLY GOVERNED BY ANY LAW AS SUCH,THAT IT DEPENDED UPON SEVERAL FACTS AS TO WHAT RATE OF SALARY SHOULD BE PAID/CHARGED AND THE A.O. SHOULD N OT SUBSTITUTE HIS OWN RATE FOR CALCULATING RATE OF SALARY,THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED CLAI M WAS BEYOND ALL SHADOWS OF DOUBT,THAT THE AO HAD NOT DISPUTED THE BONAFIDES OF THE PAYMENTS O F SALARY,THAT THE REMARKS OF THE AO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR REJECTING THE AUDITED BOOK RESULTS WERE UNSUSTAINABLE,THAT NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE TAX LIABILI TY WAS ARTIFICIALLY REDUCED BY DIVERTING BUSINESS PROFITS IN THE FORM OF EXCESSIVE PAYMENT OF SALARY THE CLAIM SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN REJECTED. FINALLY,THE FAA HELD THAT REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS AND ESTIMATION OF NP AT 6% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS SHOWN AND CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITION TO THE DE CLARED BOOKS RESULT WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE.HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.7,52,692/-. 2.2. BEFORE US,THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESETATIVE(DR)SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND STATED THAT THERE WAS VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE NP AS COMPARED TO LAST YEAR,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE DIFFERENCE,THA THE AO HAD REJECTED THE BOOKS OF RESULTS AS IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO ARRIVE AT CORRECT RESULTS,THAT NP ESTIMATED BY THE AO WAS MOD ERATE. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PAYMENT OF SALARY WAS N OT JUSTIFIABLE,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED ONE OF THE ACCOUNTS,THAT THE GIFT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GENUINE.WE WOULD DEAL WITH THE LAST TWO ARGUMENTS WHILE DECIDING THE GROU ND OF APPEAL NO.2 AND 3.BUT,AS FAR AS REJECTION 3 ITA NO.96/BLPR/2011-SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ADOPTION OF NP @ 6% OF THE GROSS RECEIPT IS CONCERNED,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PRO VE THAT THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FACULTY AND OTHER STAFF MEMBERSW ERE NON GENUINE OR SAME WERE INCURRED FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES.THEREFORE,WE HOLD THAT THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE NOT REJECTED ON VALID GROUNDS.WE HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACT THAT THE GRO SS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION A ND THEREFORE,IF THERE WAS VARIATION IN GP IT IS JUSTIFIABLE.THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE AUDITED AND NO DEFECT WAS FOUND IN THEM BY THE AUDITORS.CONSIDERING THE ABOVE,WE ARE CONFIRMIN G THE ORDER OF THE FAA.GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINST THE AO. 3. GROUND NO.2 PERTAINS TO ADDITION OF RS.55,197/- MAD E BY THE AO U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO DISCLOSE ONE OF HIS SB ACCOUNT.AS A RESULT THE PEAK BALANCE IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 3.1. AGAINST THE ADDITION,THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN PROCEE DINGS BEFORE THE AO,WERE REPEATED BEFORE THE FAA.HE HELD THAT ACCOUNT IN QUESTION WAS A SB A CCOUNT AND WAS HAVING VERY FEW AND LOW TRANSACTIONS,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CASH ABALONE OF RS.1,34,294 AS ON 31.03.2006 IN HIS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET,THAT CASH DEPOSIT MADE IN THE ACCOUNT WAS EXPLAINED TO BE FROM CASH-IN-HAND AS PER PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET I.E. DOMESTIC SAVING AND WIT HDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES,THAT REPAYMENT FOR HOUSING LOAN WAS MADE FROM THE ACCOUN T,THAT THE PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET REFLECTED HOUSING LOAN AND REPAYMENT WAS PART OF THE RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR,THAT THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND WAS MADE BY USING THE SAID ACCOUNT WHICH STOOD REFLECTED IN PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD CASH AND OTH ER ASSETS,THAT CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.10, 164.27.IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WAS INCLUDED UNDER THE H EAD CASH AND CURRENT ASSETS,THAT THE BIFURCATION OF THE CASH AND OTHER CURRENT ASSETS WA S BANK BALANCE, INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUND AND CASH-IN-HAND,ALL TOTALING TO RS.74,680.95,THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS BANK ACCOUNT SHOWN IN PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET,THAT IT WAS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE AO TO SAY THAT THE SAME WAS NOT DISCLOSED,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ON LY DISCLOSED THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT BUT ALSO SHOWN THE INVESTMENT MADE THROUGH THAT ACCOUNT ,THAT THE STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT AND PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET EVIDENCED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AFORE-STATED FACTS,THAT IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S. 69 OF THE ACT WAS UNSUSTAINABLE. 3.2. BEFORE US,THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.WE F IND THAT THE FAA HAS GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FACT THAT THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED SB ACC OUNT WAS PART OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME.DR COULD NOT CONTROVE RT THE FACT NARRATED BY THE FAA AND SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES.IN THESE CIRCUMS TANCES,IT IS SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THE APPEAL ABOUT GROUND NO 2 HAS BEEN FILED/APPROVED THE BY TH E DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES WITHOUT APPLYING THEIR MINDS.HENCE,UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE AO. 4. LAST GROUND IS ABOUT ADDITION OF RS.3,75,000/- MADE BY THE AO DEEMING THE SAME TO BE THE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED GIFT OFRS.3,75,000/- DURING T HE YEAR 2006-07 FROM HIS FATHER IN CASH FOR THE BUSINESS REQUIREMENT,THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSE E WAS IN NEED OF MONEY FOR PURCHASING THE LAND, THAT ON 18.03.2008 THE ASSESSEE ISSUED CHEQUE IN FA VOUR OF HIS FATHER AND BACKED THE GIFT.IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER WAS A SENIOR M ANAGER IN NATIONAL MINERAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION AND RETIRED IN THE YEAR 2005.FROM HIS R ETIREMENT PROCEEDS HE STATED TO HAVE GIFTED RS.3,75,000/- TO HIS SON (THE ASSESSEE).AT THE TIME OF NEED, THIS GIFTED SUM WAS RETURNED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS FATHER.BUT,THE AO DID NOT AGREE WITH THE EXPLANATION AND MADE AN ADDITION U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 4.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,THE FAA,AFTER CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVED AS FALSE BY BRINGING REBUTTAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD,THAT ANY GIFT RECEIVED FROM RELATIVE WAS PERMITTED AND TAX FREE UNDER CLAUSE (VI) OF SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTIO N 56 OF THE ACT,THAT THERE WAS NO LEGAL 4 ITA NO.96/BLPR/2011-SANTOSH KUMAR SINGH PROHIBITION FOR NOT RETURNING THE GIFTED SUM IF ONC E TAKEN,THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED FOR RETURNING THE SAID SUM TO ASSESSEES FATHER WERE NOT PROVED AS FALSE BY THE AO,THAT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO PR OVE THE STATED FACTS AS FALSE NOR WAS THERE ANY EVIDENCE BROUGHT BY HIM ON RECORD TO CONCLUSIVELY P ROVE THAT THE IMPUGNED SUM WAS NOTHING BUT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE EARNED FROM SOURCES UNDI SCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT, THAT THE SUM RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FROM THE DISCLOSED SOU RCES AND THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS,THAT THE GENUINENESS AND AUTHENTICITY OF THE SAME WAS NOT DI SPROVED BY THE AO,THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE BROUGHT BY THE AO AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S. 69 OF THE ACT, COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED. FINALLY,HE DELETED THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO. 4.2. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US,THE DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO.FROM THE RECORD IT IS CLEAR THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE GIFT THE ASSESSEE AND IT APPEARS THAT IN THAT YEAR NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE.DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RETURNED TO HIS FA THER THE GIFT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.IT IS A FACT THAT THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND AUTHENTICITY AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION CAN NOT BE DOUBTED.THEREFORE,BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF A DEEMING SECTION I.E.69 OF THE ACT,T HE AO SHOULD HAVE BROUGHT SOME POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THERE EXISTED UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION,THE AO HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE O NUS CASE UPON HIM.THEREFORE,WE ARE CONFIRM - ING THE ORDER OF THE FAA .GROUND NO.3 IS DECIDED AG AINST THE AO. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE AO S TANDS DISMISSED. > #>< @ A - . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH DECEMBER,2014. - E 24 F ,2014 - . SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA/ . .. . . .. . ) ( ! ! ! ! / RAJENDRA) PRESIDENT/ = = = = /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /RAIPUR. F DATE: 24.12.2014 - -- - *#GH *#GH *#GH *#GH IH IH IH IH / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE / ) 2. RESPONDENT / *+) 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ J K , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / J K 5. DR ITAT,RAIPUR BENCH/ H *## , . . ., 6. GUARD FILE/ . +H *# //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, RAIPUR