SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, Bhopal V. THE DCIT (CENTRAL), Bhopal

ITSSA 109/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6693 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHIMA GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: GAGAN TIWARI A RS
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 69C; 50C

Judgement Text

[IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS.109 & 110/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2011-12 PANKAJ MA K HIJA E-3/180, ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (M.P.) / VS. DCIT (CENTRAL) BHOPAL ( APPELLANT ) ( REVENUE ) P.A. NO. ABFPM9661D ITA NOS.678/IND/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012-13 PANKAJ MAKHIJA E-3/180, ARERA COLONY BHOPAL (M.P.) / VS. DCIT (CENTRAL) BHOPAL (APPELLANT) (REVENUE ) P.A. NO. ABFPM9661D APPELLANT BY SHRI SUMIT NEMA & SHRI GAGAN TIWARI, A.RS RESPONDENT BY SMT. ASHIMA GUPTA, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 10.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.01.2019 [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 2 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS BUNCH OF 3 APPEALS ARE AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS O F THE CIT(A)-3, BHOPAL DATED 18.3.16 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08, 2011-12 & 2012-13. FIRST W E TAKE UP IT(SS)A NO.109/IND/2016 & IT(SS)A NO.110/IND/2016 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: IT(SS)A 109/IND/2016: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE VIEW THAT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AROSE AND BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT EXCLUSIVE LY IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT AROSE AND BELONGED TO THE AOP WHO DISTRIBUTED THE SAME AMONGST ITS MEMBER S THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN QUESTION BE HELD TO BE ARISEN AND BELONGED TO THE AOP AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE VIEW THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE ATTRACTED IN THE INSTANT CASE. SAME BE HEL D TO BE NOT ATTRACTED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,42,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS AGAINST RS.8 5,000/- ORIGINALLY DECLARED IN HIS RETURN FILED ON 28.11.2007. THE EF FECTIVE ADDITION OF RS.28,42,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE DELET ED IN TOTO. [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 3 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION U/S 69C OF RS.1,95,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SAME MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN TOTO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED AND WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,18,108/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CA PITAL GAINS. THE SAME BE DELETED IN TOTO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 6. THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER APPEAL BEING NON SPEAK ING ONE AGAINST POINT WISE AND ISSUE WISE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT BE FORE HER AS REPRODUCED BY HER IN THE APPELLATE ORDER FROM PAGES 3 TO 8 WITH NO REASONS THEREIN FOR DISAGREEMENT THERETO AND AGREEMENT WITH THE ACTION OF THE A.O., IT HAS RESULTED IN GROSS INJUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT WHICH MAY KINDLY BE REMOVED BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW, IT IS PRAYED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, W ITH THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IT(SS)A 110/IND/2016: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DENIED NATURAL JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT BY PASSING THE ORD ER UNDER APPEAL WITHOUT ACCEDING TO THE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT TO FACILIT ATE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE LAND OWNERS AND OTHER PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED ON THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT AND USED AGAINST HIM I N ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME AND WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPOR TUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE THEM. THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY THEREFORE SET ASIDE ON THE POINT AT ISSUE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED AND WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING OR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT FACILITA TING THE CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE SELLERS OF THE LAND AND OTHER PE RSONS WHOSE ORAL STATEMENTS WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT HAS BEEN MADE THE BASIS FOR THE ADDITION, AND AFTER CONSIDERING T HE OUTCOME OF SUCH CROSS EXAMINATION. HENCE, THE ADDITION IN QUESTION BEING UNFOUNDED, UNWARRANTED ARBITRARY AND TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED BE DE LETED IN TOTO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS NON SPEAKING AS TO HOW THE APPELLANT COULD BE MADE A PARTY TO THE AGREEMENT DA TED 27.10.2010 IN WHICH HE WAS NEITHER A PARTY NOR EVEN A SIGNATORY, SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O ., AND CONFIRMED BY [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 4 THE CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IN QUESTION BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, W ITH THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). IT IS CONTENDED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS BEING THE LEGAL GRO UND CAN BE ADMITTED AT ANY STAGE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS, HE RE LIED ON THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE O F NTPC VS. CIT 229 ITR 383. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THAT THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE T RIBUNAL TO URGE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND IN ITS APPEAL: A. WHETHER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS CONTRARY TO THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HON'BLE COURT IN CIT VS. M/S. MECHMEN (2016) 380 ITR 591 (MP) IN WHICH THE HON'BLE MP H.C. HAS C ATEGORICALLY HELD THAT U/S 153C THE PROPER SATISFACTION HAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON BEFORE ASSUMING JURI SDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE & FAILURE TO RECORD SATISFACTION RENDERS T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER NULL AND VOID? [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 5 B. WHETHER ABSENCE OF SATISFACTION U/S 153C IN THE HANDS OF THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. SAGAR GROUP BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON RENDERS THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C IN THE CAS E OF THE APPELLANT ILLEGAL, VOID AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION? 2. THAT THE AFORESAID GROUNDS ARE PURELY LEGAL GROU NDS. RAISING OF SUCH AN ALTERNATIVE CLAIM AS ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IS PERMISSI BLE AS HELD IN THE CASE OF NTPC V. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 SC. 3. THAT IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE APPELLANT B E ALLOWED TO RAISE AND ARGUE THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS SINCE THEY GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND ARE ESSENTIALLY LEGAL GROUNDS. 4. THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS NECESSITATED TO PR OTECT THE INTEREST OF THE APPELLANT. 3. LD. D.R. OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROU ND. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO VIEW HAS BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE L D. CIT(A). MOREOVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE PROCEEDINGS. NOW AT THIS BELATED STAGE, ASSESSEE CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO RAISE SUCH GROUND. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A LEGAL GROUND, WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND MOREOVER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WAS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MECHMEN (2016) 380 ITR 591 (MP) WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER. BY WAY OF [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 6 ADDITIONAL GROUND, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ISSUE RELATED T O JURISDICTION FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE AC T BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE I MPUGNED ORDER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION ON ADDITIONAL GROUND. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT LD. CIT(A) WOULD GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING OUR VIEW ON OTHER GROUNDS. IN CASE ASSESS EE SUCCEEDS IN ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE OTHER GROUNDS WOUL D BECOME ACADEMIC ONLY. HENCE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. NOW COMING TO THE IT(SS)A NO.110/IND/2016, THE PARTIES HAVE ADOPTED THE SAME ARGUMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. NO CHANGE IS POINTED OUT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BY THE REVENUE IN IT(SS)A NO.109/IND/2016. WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN PARA-4 [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 7 ABOVE AND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. SINCE THE ASS ESSEE HAS RAISED A LEGAL GROUND, WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND MOREOVER THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT WAS RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MECHMEN (2016) 380 ITR 591 ( MP) WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF IMPUGNED ORDER. BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AN ISSUE REL ATED TO JURISDICTION FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE IMP UGNED ORDER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION ON ADDITIONAL G ROUND. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT LD. CIT(A) WOULD GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IN THIS APP EAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING OUR VIEW ON OTHER GROUNDS. IN CASE ASSESSEE SUCCEE DS IN ADDITIONAL GROUND, THE OTHER GROUNDS WOULD BECOME ACADEMIC ONL Y. HENCE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. FOR THE SAME REASONING, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. NOW WE TAKE UP ITA NO.678/IND/2016. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) DENIED NATURAL JUSTICE TO THE APPELLANT BY PASSING THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL AND CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS WITHOUT ACCEDIN G TO THE LEGITIMATE REQUEST OF THE APPELLANT TO FACILITATE C ROSS EXAMINATION OF THE LAND OWNERS (SELLERS) AND OTHER PERSONS WHOSE S TATEMENTS HAVE BEEN RECORDED ON THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME HAVE BEEN USED AGAINST AND TO THE DISADVANTAGE OF THE APPELLA NT IN THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME AND WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THEM. THE APPELLATE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY, THEREFORE, BE SET ASIDE ON THE POINT AT ISSUE. [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 8 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED AND WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN SUSTAI NING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,13,700/- WITHOUT FACILITATING THE CROSS EX AMINATION OF THE SELLERS OF THE LAND AND OTHER PERSONS CONCERNED ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE STATEMENTS. ON THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT WIT H NO SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE OUTCOM E OF SUCH STATEMENTS ON CROSS EXAMINATION. HENCE, THE ADDITI ON IN QUESTION OF RS.56,13,700/- BEING UNFOUNDED, UNWARRANTED, ARBITR ARY, UNJUSTIFIED AND OPPOSED TO THE FACTS BE DELETED IN TOTO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED AND WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED IN SUSTAI NING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,26,300/- WITHOUT FACILITATING THE CROSS EXA MINATION OF THE SELLERS OF THE LAND AND OTHER PERSONS CONCERNED ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE STATEMENT ON THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT WITHOU T CONFRONTING THE SAME AND WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THEM, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE, AND AFTER CONSIDERING T HE OUTCOME OF SUCH CROSS EXAMINATION. THE ADDITION IN QUESTION B EING OPPOSED TO NATURAL JUSTICE BE DELETED IN ITS ENTIRETY IN THE I NTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS NON SPEAKING AS TO HOW THE APPELLANT COULD BE LEGALLY MADE A PARTY TO THE AGRE EMENT DATED 27.10.2010 IN WHICH HE WAS NEITHER A PARTY NOR EVEN A SIGNATORY, SO AS TO JUSTIFY THE ADDITIONS INVOLVED IN PIVOTING RO UND THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SELLERS OF RS.10,00,000/- DT. 27.11.201 0 AND RS.40,00,000/- DATED 10.12.2010. ON THE BASIS OF W HICH ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY A.O. AND CONFIRMED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED ARE UNJUSTIFIED AND MAY BE DELETED IN THEIR ENTIRETY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY, W ITHDRAW THE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL AT ANY TIME BEFORE THE FINAL HE ARING. 7. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF AN AGREEMENT IN WHICH ASSESSEE WAS NOT A PARTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GRANTED CROSS EXAMINATION. [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 9 8. LD. D.R. HAS OPPOSED THESE SUBMISSIONS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER S OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESS EE THAT SINCE THE DEPARTMENT HAS RECORDED THE STATEMENTS AND ENTERTAINED AFFIDAVITS ON THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND US ED THE SAME AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME, ALL THE 3 LAND OWNERS WHO CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE ALLEGED ON MONEY AND THE PERSONS WHO HAVE CLAIMED T O HAVE MADE THE ALLEGED ON MONEY PAYMENTS TO THEM MAY, I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, BE ALLOWED TO BE CROSS EXAMI NED BY THE ASSESSEE/HIS COUNSEL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY ACCORDINGLY BE DIRECTED TO FACILITATE SUCH CROSS EXAMIN ATION OF THE ABOVE WITNESSES OF THE DEPARTMENT AT THE EARLIE ST WHERE AFTER THE ASSESSEE SHALL FURNISH HIS FURTHER DEFENCE/SUBMISSIONS IN THE MATTER FAILING WHICH, THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCO UNT [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 10 OF THE ALLEGED ON MONEY PAYMENTS IN THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS INVOLVED DESERVES TO BE DELETED IN TOTO IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE HAS N OT BEEN PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINATION OF THE PERSON ON THE BASIS OF WHOSE STATEMENT AND THE AFFIDAVIT ADDITIONS WERE MADE. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH. THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD PR OVIDE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION AS REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A RE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 . 01.2019. SD/- (MANISH BORAD) SD/- (KUL BHARAT) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIALMEMBER INDORE; DATED : 23/01/2019 VG/SPS [IT(SS)A NOS.109, 110 & 678 /IND/2016,] [SHRI PANKAJ MAKHIJA, BHOPAL] 11 COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ITAT (DR)/GUAR D FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INDORE