Ardee Infrastructure (P) Ltd, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 108/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0545 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-12-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GUNJAN PRASHAD
• Assessee Lawyers: K SAMPATH ADV RAJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Fair market value; Block assessment; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 69

Judgement Text

IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES E NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (SS) A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.96 TO 20.09.02 ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., VS DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 16 TH FLOOR, DR. GOPAL DAS BHAWAN, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 20, 28, BARAKHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI - 110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLANT BY: S/ SHRI K.SAMPATH, ADV., RAJ KUMAR, ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI GUNJAN PRASHAD, CIT DR O R D E R PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - I, NEW DELHI DATED 20.11.2008 IN APPEAL NO. 1 06 / 07 - 08 FOR BLOCK PERIOD OF ASSESSMENT FROM 1.4.1996 TO 20.9.2002. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL: - 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.12,44,06,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT ON THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS IN ARDEE CITY, GURGAON. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 2 BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHICH IS BAD IN LAW ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS LEGAL INFIRMITIES. 2. APROPOS AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS OF TH E ASSESSEE , WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPIES OF ITAT E BENCH, NEW DELHI IN ASSESSEE S OWN CASES FOR AY 1997 - 98 DATED 30.5.200 8 IN ITA NO. 937/DEL/2006 (REVENUE S APPEAL) AND ORDER DATED 8.8.20 13 IN ITA NO. 739/DEL/2006 (ASSESSEE S APPEAL) IN THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. 1997 - 98. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF THE DECISION OF ITAT CHANDIGARH B BENCH DAT ED 9.11.2006 IN IT(SS)A NO. 38, 39 AND 40/CHANDI/2005 IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUDHIANA VS CHAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT REOPENED ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 1997 - 98, WHICH IS ALSO A YEAR OF BLOCK PERIOD RECKONING FROM 1.4.1996 TO 20.9.2002 FOR THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 U/S 147/148 OF THE ACT AND THE AO DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS MADE TWO ADDITIONS VIZ. T HE FIRST ADDITION OF RS.11,70,56,000 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT FROM M/S MITTAL GROUP OF COMPANIES AND SECOND ADDITION OF RS.73,50,000 ON ACCOUNT OF A LLEGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT. LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT FILED ITA NO.937/D/2006 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT - I, NEW DELHI CHALLENGING THE DELETION OF FIRST ADDIT ION AND AT THE SAME TIME ASSESS EE ALSO PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT CHALLENGING IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 3 THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) WHICH CONFIRMED THE SECOND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT. LD. COUN SEL FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 30.5.2008 (SUPRA) AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE VIZ. ITA NO.739/D/2006 HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 8.8.13 (SUPRA) SETTING ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDING THE ISSUE OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS. 3. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTL Y CONTENDED THAT WHILE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R/W SECTION 147 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN FINALLY DELETED BY THE ITAT E BENCH, NEW DELHI, THEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT HAS NO LEGS TO STAND ON TH E LEGAL FOOTING, THEREFORE, ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD RECKONED FROM 1.4.1996 TO 20.9.2002 AND UPHELD BY THE CIT (A) BY PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE, THEREFORE, ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MAY BE SET ASIDE BY DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS OF RS.12,44,06 ,000 (RS. 11,70,56,000 + 73,50,000). 4. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH B IN THE CASE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - I, LUDHIANA VS C HAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL, NEW DELHI DATED 9.11.2006 (SUPRA) IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 4 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER, THEN IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS TO BE MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE PRICE QUOTED, THAT WAS TO BE MADE TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY BUT NOTHING HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE S AME AMOUNT HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SELLER OF THE PROPERTY . THEREFORE, ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH B IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER VIZ. CHAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL HELD THAT ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A) ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE AND , THEREFORE, THE ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH B DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE BY PASSING THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2006 (SUPRA). LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE FINALLY PRAYED THAT WHEN THE ADDITIONS MADE ON THE SAME ISSUES DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R/W SECTION 147 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SELLER I.E. THE ASSESSEE M/S ARDEE INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE SUSTAINABLE BY ITAT E BENCH NEW DELHI IN ASSESSEE S APPEALS IN ITA NO. 937/DEL/2006 ORDER DATED 30.05.2008 (SUPRA) AN D IN ITA NO. 739/D/2006 DATED 8.8.2013 (SUPRA) AND ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER VIZ. CHAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE ITAT CHANDIGARH B BENCH ORDER DATED 9.11.2006 (SUPRA), THEN THE SAME A DDITION ON THE SAME COUNT AND ISSUES MADE BY THE AO DURING BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD/158BC OF THE ACT AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 5. LD. DR SUPPORTED TH E ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) R/W SECTION 147 OF THE ACT MADE BY THE AO HAVE BEEN FINALLY FOUND TO BE NOT SUSTAINABLE BY THE ITAT E BENCH, DELHI. THE DR HAS ALSO NOT IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 5 DISPUTED THIS FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER VIZ. CHAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL HAVE BEEN FINALLY NOT FOUND TO BE SUSTAINABLE BY ITAT CHANDIGARH B BENCH BY PASSING THE ORDER DATED 9.11.2000 (SUPRA). 6. IN VIEW OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, AT THE OUTSET, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ITA T E BENCH DELHI DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I.E. ITA 937/D/2006 ORDER DATED 30.05.2008 (SUPRA) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH DELETED THE AD DITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS FROM M/S MITTAL GROUP OF COMPANIES AMOUNTING TO RS.11,70,56,000. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THIS ORDER READS AS UNDER: - 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE VERY SEIZED PAPER ON THE BASIS OF WH ICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AT LENGTH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFOREMENTIONED O RDER DATED 9TH NOVEMBER, 2006. IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE THE CONCLUDING PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL BY WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID SEIZED PAPER NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE MITTAL GROUP: - 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE WHOLE CON T ROVERSY REVOLVES AROUND THE DOCUMENT A - I PAGE 5 FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN TH AT DOCUMENT FEW ENTRIES WERE NOTED. THE AO OPINED THAT THE VALUE MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS THE ACTUAL V ALUE OF THE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THOSE WERE THE MARKET VALUE AND NOT THE ACTUAL PRICE. IT IS TRUE THAT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT THE ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS O F IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 6 DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FOR WHICH NO PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION IS GIVEN BY THE CONCERNED PERSON, IT IS ALSO TRUE THAT THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A WHOLE AND NOT IN PIECE MEAL, IN OTHER WORDS, THE COGNIZANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE DOCUMENT AS A WHOLE AND NOT TO THE PART OF THE DOCUME NT AS PER DOCTRINE OF 'APROBATE & REPROBATE', IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, THERE WERE CERTAIN ENTRIES ON ONE PAGE WHICH APPEARS TO BE A PAGE FROM SOME CASH BOOK SINCE CAS H BOOK IS MENTIONED AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE AND THE WORD 'PAYMENTS' HAD ALSO BEEN PRINTED BU T THAT DOCUMENT PAGE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS 'CASH BOOK' SINCE IN THE CASH BOOK, RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT BOTH PAGES SHOULD BE THERE AND SOME OPENING BALANCE ALONG WITH CLOSING BALANCE SHOULD BE REFLECTED BUT IN THE DOCUMENT I.E. AI - 5 NEITHER THE OPENING BALAN CE OF CASH IS THERE NOR CLOSING BALANCE AND EVEN THE TOTAL HAS NOT BEEN DONE BUT IN THE CASE OF PROPER CASH BOOK_TOTAL OF THE RECEIPTS AND THE PAYMENTS SIDE IS ALWAYS EQUAL SINCE THE BALANCE BETWEEN RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS REFLECTS THE CLOSING CASH IN HAND. SO, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE DOCUMENT 'A - I PAGE 5' WAS THE COPY OF THE CASHBOOK. NOW THE QUESTION ARISES - WHETHER THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT REFLECTED THAT MARKET VALUE OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES OR THOSE WERE THE ACTUAL VALUE. IN THE SAID DOCUME NT, THREE ENTRIES MENTIONED AT ARDEE 850.20, SL - III 56,14 AND M, FILED 72.00 ARE ONLY THE SUBJECT MATTER OF ADJUDICATION BEFORE US. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THOSE ENTRIES WERE THE MARKET VALUE WHILE THE AO OPINED THAT THOSE WERE ACTUAL VALUE IN T HE CODES AND 85 0.20 STANDS FOR RS. 8,50,20,000/ - LIKE WIS E 56.14 STANDS FOR RS. G6, 14,00 01 - AND 72.00 STANDS FOR RS. 72. 00 LAC S. 10.1 IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE VALUE OF THE P RO PERTY PURCHASED FROM HUDA HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AT RS. 31 ,00 LACS WHICH IS THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE HARYANA GOVERNMENT WHEREAS THE ENTRY ON THE DOCUMENT AI - 5 REFLECTED THE FIGURE AT 132.00 I.E. RS. 1 CRORE 32 LACS. SIMILARLY THE VALUE OF THE SHARES WAS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AT RS. 8 LACS WHEREAS THE ACTUAL VALUE OF THESE SHARES WAS RS. 23.11 LACS. THE SAME WAS THE POSITION WITH RESPECT TO AGRA PROPERTY THE VALUE OF WHICH WAS MENTIONED AT RS. 463.90 LACS WHILE THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT WAS RS. 3;58 CRORES ONLY AND THAT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. T H EREFORE IT CAN BE IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 7 HELD THAT THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED D O CUMENT WERE NOT THE ACTUAL VALUE BUT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE. MOREOVER, THE DEPARTMENT ITSELF HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE AFORESAID ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF HUDA PLOT, SHARES AND AGRA PR OPERTIES REFLECTED THAT MARKET VALUE OF THOSE ASSETS AND NOT THE ACTUAL VALUE BUT THE VERSION OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED AT 'ARDEE CITY' SUSHANT LOK - 1I1 AND MAY FIELD U PPAL IS REVERSE I.E. THE VALUES MENTIONED HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AS ACTUAL INVESTMENT AND NOT MARKET VALUE. IT IS WELL - SETTLED T HAT THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE READ AS A WHOLE. I T IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO ACCEPT PART OF THE. DOCUMENT AND REJECT THE REMAINING PART AS PER THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJ ARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GLASS LINES EQUIPMENT CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 253 ITR 454 (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT: 'IT IS WELL SETTL ED CANON OF INTERPRETATION THAT A DOCUMENT HAS TO BE AS A WHOLE. IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO ACCEPT A PART AND IGNORE T HE REST OF THE DOCUMENT.' . IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE 'AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT IN PART I.E. ACCEPTING PART OF THE ENTRIES AND REJECTING THE REMAINING ENTRIES. THEREFORE, THE ID. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HIS ACTION WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 10.2 FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION ALTHOUGH THE CASE APPEARS TO BE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IF LEGAL ASPECT IS TO BE SEEN BUT AT THIS STAGE, WE THINK IT APPROPRIATE TO D ISCUSS THE ISSUES IN QUESTION OF MERIT ALSO. AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN THE FORMER PART OF THIS ORDER THAT THE AO CONSIDERED THE THREE FIGURES AS ACTUAL INVESTMENT. THOSE ENTRIES PERTAINED TO IN VESTMENT IN LAND SITUATED AT ARDEE CITY, SUSHANT LOK - III , AND M. FIELD. THE AO WORKED OUT THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN LAND IN ARDEE CITY @RS. 4533 / - PER SQ. YD. BUT NO INSTANCE WAS QUOTED WHEREIN THE SAME RATE WAS PAID BY ANY OF THE PERSON. THE EXCISE DONE BY THE AO WAS BASED ON A STATEMENT OF SHRI J.C. MALHOTRA WHO STATED IN HIS EARLIER STATEMENT THAT HE ALONG WITH HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD PAID RS. 2000/ - PER SQ. YD. OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENTED PRICE OF THE PLOT, IF THAT STATEMENT WAS TO BE TAKEN AS TRUE E VEN - THEN RATE OF THE PLOT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AT RS. 30001 - PER S9.YD SINCE THE PLOTS WERE PURCHASED @RS. IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 8 1,000/ - PER SQ.YD_ HOWEVER, THE AO HAD TAKEN THE VALUE @S. 4533/ - PER S Q.YD . MOREOVER, THE STATEMENT HAD BEEN RETRACTED SUBSEQUE NTLY BY SHRI J.C. MALHOTRA. IT IS RELEVANT TO POINT OUT THAT SHRI J.C. MALHOTRA WAS NOT THE WITNESS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT OF THE DEPARTMENT. THE CONTENTION OF THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT OUT OF 298 PLOTS, 146 PLOTS WERE SOLD BY ARDEE GROUP OF COMPA NIES @RS. 1,000/ - PER S9.YD. WHICH IS THE RATE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, HAD NOT BEEN REBUTTED. OUT OF THOSE 146 PLOTS, THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AT 36 PLACES ONLY. SO, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE ONLY PAID EXTRA MONEY BECAUSE THERE WERE ANOTH ER COMPARABLE INSTANCES WHERE THE SAME RATE HAD BEEN PAID BY OTHER PERSONS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE VALUE OF PLOT DEPENDS UPON SO MANY FACTORS LIKE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA, LOCATION OF THE SITE, FACILITIES AVAILABLE ETC. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE THE LAN D WAS ENTERED WHEN THE AREA WAS UN - DEVELOPED AND UN - LICENSED HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED AT ANY STAGE . ONE OF THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ID. OR FOR THE REVENUE WAS THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE AT A PRICE WHICH WAS BELOW THE AVERAGE COST PRICE. HOWEVER, THIS CONTENTION THAT THE LAND PURCHASED IN 1995 - 96 GAVE AN AVERAGE RATE OF RS. 5301 - PER SQ.YD. AND SOME LAND AL SO GAVE AVERAGE RATE OF RS. 200/ - PER SQ.YD. HAD NOT B EEN REBUTTED. IT IS ALSO NOTIC ED THAT THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS REPLY D ATED 15.9.04 (COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 11 OF ASSESSEE'S COMPILATIO N) CLEARLY POINTED OUT TO THE AO ABOUT THE ABOVE FACTS AND THAT CONTENTION HAD NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . IT IS NOTI CED THAT FEW OF THE CASES THE RATE OF PLOTS WAS MORE THAN THAT OF THE PLOTS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS NOT ESTABLISHED TH AT THOSE PLOTS WERE PURCHASED A T THE SAME TIME WHEN THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AND THE LOCATION WAS ALSO SIMILAR. IT IS ALSO NOT E STABLISHED THAT IN THE CASES WHERE THE RATE WAS HIGHER, THER E WAS AN ADVANCE AGREEMENT AS WAS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE WAS A CLAUSE IN THE AGREEMEN T THAT IN CASE INCENSE IS NOT AWARDED TO THE SELLER THE AMOUNT WOULD BE REFUNDED I.E. THE LAND W OULD NOT BE SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE. SO, THE CASES QUOTED WHERE THE RATE WAS HIGHER, CANNOT BE A FACTOR TO DENY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE REGISTR ATION DEED, CONFIRMATION BY THE SELLER AND THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE THR OUGH BANKING CHANNELS . MOREOVER, NO EVIDENCE WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN A IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 9 POSITION TO SPEND MORE SINCE NO EVIDENCE ABOUT EXCESS WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK OR FROM ANY OTHER SOURCE, WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD OR WAS DISCOVERED DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT IS TRUE THAT THE APPARENT WHATSOEVER STRONG, CANNOT REPLACE THE AC TUAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. HE PRESUMED THAT THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT 'A - I PAGE 5' REFLECTED ACTUAL COST AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS MARKET PRICE. THE AO WHILE TREATING THE ENTRIES NOTED I N SEIZ ED DOCUMENT AS ACTUAL COST. IGNO RED THE VITAL FACT TH AT FOR SOME OTHER ENTRIES NOTED ON THE SAME PAPER, IT HAD BEE N CONSIDERED THAT THE V ALUE WAS NOT ACTUAL BUT THE MA RKET VALUE. THE INS TANCES WERE OF INVESTMENT IN HUD A, AGRA PROPERTY AND VALUE OF SHARES & FD RS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 10. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS IT CAN BE SEEN THAT IN RESPECT OF SEIZED PAPER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION IS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WERE NOT THE ACTUAL VALUE, B UT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (PARA 10.1) AND THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND PURCHASE IN 1995 - 96 GAVE AN AVERAGE RATE OF R S . 530 PER SQ. YD. AND SOME LAND ALSO GAVE AVERAGE RATE OF RS.200 PER SQ . YD WAS NOT REBUTTED (PARA 10.2). THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AS HE PRESUMED THAT THE ENTRIES MEN TIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT {A - 1, PAGE 5) REFLECTED ACTUAL COST AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IT WAS MARKET PRICE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE TR EATING THESE ENTRIES AS ACTUAL COST IGNORED THE VITAL FACT THAT FOR SOME OTHER ENTRIES NOTED ON THE SAME PAPER, IT HA D BEEN CONSIDERED THAT THE VALUE WAS NOT ACTUAL BUT THE MARKET VALUE AND SUCH INSTANCES WERE OF INVESTMENT IN HUDA, AGRA PR OPERTY AND VALUE OF SHARES AND FD RS. IT WAS, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN. THE HANDS OF CHAVAN RISHI I NTERNATIONAL LTD. THESE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN BY COORDINATE BENCH WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO THE PRESENT CASE AS THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THAT VERY SEIZED PAPER AND IT IS HELD THAT THE LD. CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN DELETING THE ADDITION BASED ON THESE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN THE CASE OF MITTAL GROUP. NO EXTRA MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE WHICH LEADS US TO IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 10 TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW AS HAS BEEN TAK EN BY CO - ORDINATE BENCH IN THE AFOREMENTIONED CASE. WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. 7. FROM CAREFUL READING OF THE DECISION OF ITAT E BENCH IN ITA NO. 739/DEL/2006 ORDER DATED 8.8.2013, WE OBSERVE THAT THE TRIBUNAL , ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE , HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.73,50,000 MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE P ART OF THIS ORDER READS AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE NOW IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IN VIEW OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF SH. J.C. MALHOTRA. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE ORDER DATED 25.8.2008 IN S.A. NO. 7/7/04/2 - ITAT IN THE CASE OF JAGDISH CHANDER MALHOTRA HAS NOTED THAT SHRI MALHOTRA IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SEARCH HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD MADE AN UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS. 73,50,000/ - IN THOS E PLOTS IN THE ARDEE CITY GURGA6N. SHRI MALHOTRA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS, HOWEVER, RETRACTED FROM THIS STATEMENT LATER ON, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WAS RECORDED UNDER COERCION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND DETAILS THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS CONCLUDED IN PARA 17 AS UNDER: - 'WE HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. A.R. WE AGREE WITH HIM THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPLICANT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT UN - DISCLOSED INCOME CAN BE DRAWN IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S . 158BC. ON MERITS ALSO THE ITA T'S DECISION GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT. NO COGNIZANCE CAN BE TAKEN UP THE CONFESSION OF APPLICANT/ WHICH IS NOT CORROBORATED. WE HOLD THAT THE OFFER MADE BEFORE US DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGE ON THIS BASIS. 7. THUS, THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF MR. J.C. MALHOTRA OF RS. 73.50 LACS ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED WAS IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 11 NOT TENABLE. SINCE THE ADDITION OF RS. 73.50 LACS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS BASED UP ON THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF SH. J.C. MALHOTRA, THIS ADDITION CANNOT SURVIVE IN VIEW OF THE SE TTLEMENT COMMISSION'S ORDER AS ABOVE. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY AGREED THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . 8. IN THE BACKG ROUND OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION AND PRECEDENTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH B BENCH IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER I.E. CHAVAN RISHI INTERNA TIONAL ORDER DATED 9.11.2006 (SUPRA) HAVE UPHELD THE CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) WHICH DELETED SIMILAR ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF PURCHASER CHAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THIS ORDER READS AS UNDER: - 10.4 SIMILAR WAS THE POSIT ION WITH REGARD TO THE INVESTMENT IN M FIELD AND UPPAL . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN ANY BASIS ON WHICH THE RATE PER SQ YD WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 3160 INSTEAD OF RS. 1,000/ - DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF REGISTERED DEED. THE ASSESSING OF FICER MADE THE ADDITION IN THE INVESTMENT RELATING TO UPPALS ON THE BASIS OF ADDITION MADE IN ARDEE CITY. NO OTHER BASIS HAD BEEN GIVEN. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ARDEE CITY, IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER ALSO THIS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN M. FIELD WAS NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAD RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. 10.5. HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. P.K. NOORJAHAN, 237 ITR 570 HAS HELD AS UNDER : - IN THE CORRESPONDING CLAUS E OF THE BILL WHICH WAS INTRODUCED IN PARLIAMENT, WHILE INSERTING SECTION 69 IN THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE WORD SHALL HAD BEEN USED BUT DURING THE COURSE OF CONSIDERATION OF THE BILL AND ON THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE, THE SAID WORD WAS SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORD MAY . THIS CLEARLY INDICATES THAT IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 12 THE INTENTION OF PARLIAMENT IN ENACTING SECTION 69 WAS TO CONFER A DISCRETION ON THE ITO IN THE MATTER OF TREATING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ITO IS NOT OBLIGED TO TREAT SUCH SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS INCOME IN EVERY CASE WHERE THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE NOT SATISFACTORY. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE TREATED AS INCOME OR NOT U/S 69 HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF EACH CASE. IN OTHER WORDS, A DISCRETION HAS BEEN CONFERRED ON THE ITO U/S 69 OF ACT TO TREAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IF THE EXPLANATION OFF ERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY AND THE SAID DISCRETION HAS TO BE EXERCISED KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PARTICULAR CASE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT GIVEN ANY INDEPENDENT AND SEPARATE FINDINGS WHI LE MAKING THE ADDITION BY ESTIMATING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT IN M. FIELD / UPPAL PROPERTY. HE ONLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THIS LAND BY APPLYING THE METHOD OF INVESTOR S AGREEMENT AS APPLIED IN ARDEE CITY AND AS THE ADDITION HAD BE EN MADE FOR THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT M FILED /UPPAL. SO, IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE, THIS ADDITION WAS NOT CALLED FOR PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE EXPLANATION THAT THE VALUE MEN TIONED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS THE MARKET VALUE AND NOT THE ACTUAL VALUE. THE ACTUAL VALUE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE REGISTERED DEED AND HAD BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER. IF ANY PAYMENT WA S TO BE MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE PRICE QUOTED THEN THAT WAS TO BE MADE TO THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY BUT NOTHING HAD BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE SAME AMOUNT HAD BEEN CONSIDERED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 11. THE FACTS RELATING TO ANOTHER APPEALS I.E. IN IT(SS) A NO. 38 & 40/CHAND/2005 ARE THE SAME AND EVEN THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS WERE ALSO SIMILAR, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FOR MER PART OF THIS ORDER IN RESPECT OF IT(SS) A NO. 39 IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 13 /CHANDI/2005 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS FOR THESE TWO APPEALS ALSO. 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE ORDERS OF ITAT DELHI E BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 199 7 - 98, WE NOTE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE SUSTAINABLE AND BOTH THE ADDITIONS WERE DEMOLISHED AT THE LEVEL OF TRIBUNAL. FROM A COPY OF THE ORDER OF HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI DATED 4.4.2011 IN ITA NO. 412/2009, AS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE OBSERVE THAT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.937/D/2006 (SUPRA) HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND IN THIS SITUATION AND IN THE LIGHT OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE LD. DR, WE CAN SAFELY PRESUME THAT THE ORDER OF THE ITAT E BENCH IN BOTH THE CASES VIZ. ITA NO. 937/D/2006 (SUPRA) AND ITA NO.739/D/2006 (SUPRA) FOR AY 1997 - 98 HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY. FROM THE ORDER OF THE ITAT CHANDIGA RH B BENCH, WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, ITAT CHANDIGARH IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER HAVE HELD THAT THE ACTUAL VALUE WAS SUPPORTED BY THE REGISTERED DEED AND ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY AND NO ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF SELLER, THEREFORE, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED OR UNDECLARED INVESTMENT IN THE HANDS OF PURCHASER I.E. CHAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 10. IN THE CASE OF SHRI J.C. MALHOTRA, THE MATTER WAS CARRIED FOR SETTL EMENT TO THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE APPLICATION NO. 7/7/04/2 - II IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 14 FOR AY 1997 - 98 TO 20.9.2002 AND ALSO FOR AY 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 AND THE ISSUE REGARDING ALLEGED EXTRA PAYMENT TO THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE OF THE PRESENT CASE BY SHRI MALHOTRA WAS DECIDED BY HOLDING THAT NO EXTRA PAYMENT WAS DISCERNIBLE AND SO NO ADDITION WAS TO BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 25.8.2008(SUPRA) IN RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA 17 READS AS UNDER: - 17. WE HAVE TAKEN NOTE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR. WE AGREE WITH HIM THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF THE APPLICANT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT UNDISCLOSED INCOME CAN BE DRAWN IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S 158BC. O N MERITS, ALSO THE ITAT S DECISION GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANT. NO COGNIZANCE CAN BE TAKEN UP THE CONFESSION OF APPLICANT, WHICH IS NOT CORROBORATED. WE HOLD THAT THE OFFER MADE BEFORE US DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGE ON THIS BASIS. 11. IN VIEW OF AB OVE SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 937/D/2006 (SUPRA), ITA NO.739/D/2006 (SUPRA), ORDER OF HON BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN ITA NO. 412/2009 DATED 4.4.2011 (SUPRA) AND ALSO ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PURCHASER CHAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL IN ITA NO. 3 9 , 3 8 , 40/CHANDI/2005 (SUPRA), WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT WHILE PASSING IMPUGNED ORDER, THE CIT(A) DID NOT PAY HEED TO THE THEN EXISTENT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR THE SAME AY 1997 - 98 IN ITA NO. 937/D/2006 DATED 30.5.2008(SUPRA), THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PURCHASER S CASE DATED 9.11.06 (SUPRA) AND THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 15 COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF SHRI J.C. MALHOTRA DATED 25.8.2008 ( SUPRA) AND THE CIT(A) PASSED IMPUGNED ORDER ON 20.11.2008 IGNORING AND KEEPING ASIDE THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, THEN EXISTED AND SUBMITTED BE FORE HIM DURING FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS NOT A PROPER AND JUSTIFIED WAY OF WORKING AND APPROACH FOR A QUASI JUDICIAL FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 12. IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL AS NOTED ABOVE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AD DITION OF RS.12,44,06,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS ON THE ALLOTMENT OF PLOTS IN ARDEE CITY, GURGAON AS THE SAME ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO DURING REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABL E AND SUSTAINABLE BY THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY, THUS, ADDITIONS MADE ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ON THE SAME ISSUE IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BD/158BC FOR BLOCK PERIOD OF 1.4.1996 TO 20.9.2002 ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE . AS WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED ABOVE THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF PURCHASERS ABOUT ALLEGED INVESTMENT FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE UNSUSTAINABL E IN THE CASE OF CHAVAN RISHI INTERNATIONAL BY ITAT CHANDIGARH ORDER DATED 9.11.06 AND IN THE CASE OF SHRI J.C. MALHTORA, THE SETTLEMENT IT(SS)A NO.108/DEL/2008 BLOCK PERIOD: 1.4.96 TO 20.9.02 16 COMMISSION VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 25.8.2008 (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE ABOUT UNDISCLOSED INCOM E CAN BE DRAWN. 13 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND CONSEQUENTLY APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED , THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. ORDER PRO NOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 15.1.15 . SD/ - SD/ - (G.D. AGRAWAL) (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 15TH JANUARY, 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR