M/S. GALAXEE LIOSIONING PVT. LTD., RAIPUR (CG) V. THE DY.CIT-1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

ITSSA 18/BIL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2058 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-10-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Income from undisclosed sources; Documents seized
• Section: 68; 6; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY , HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER IT (SS) A NO S . 10 TO 13 / R PR /201 3 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 7 - 0 8 TO 2010 - 11 ) M/S. VICONIC VYAPAR PVT. LTD., VANDANA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, RAIPUR . VS. DCIT - 1(1) , RAIPUR. PAN NO. AAACV 8539 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT (SS) A NO S . 33 TO 36 /RPR/201 3 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 7 - 0 8 TO 2010 - 11 ) DCIT - 1(1), RAIPUR. VS. M/S. VICONIC VYAPAR PVT. LTD., VANDANA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, RAIPUR. PAN NO. AAACV 8539 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT (SS) A NO S . 14 TO 19 /RPR/201 3 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 5 - 0 6 TO 2010 - 11 ) M/S. GALAXEE LIOSIONING PVT. LTD. , VANDANA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, RAIPUR . VS. DCIT - 1(1), RAIPUR. PAN NO. AABCG 2257 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT A NO S . 163 TO 168 /RPR/201 3 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 5 - 0 6 TO 2010 - 11 ) DCIT - 1(1), RAIPUR. VS. M/S. GALAXEE LIOSIONING PVT. LTD., VANDANA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, RAIPUR. 2 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 PAN NO. AABCG 2257 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT (SS) A NO S . 20 TO 25 /RPR/201 3 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 5 - 0 6 TO 2010 - 11 ) M/S. DUNSON BYAPAR PVT. LTD., VANDANA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, RAIPUR. VS. DCIT - 1(1), RAIPUR. PAN NO. AABCD 1680 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO S . 157 TO 162 /RPR/201 3 (ASST. YEAR S : 200 5 - 0 6 TO 2010 - 11 ) DCIT - 1(1), RAIPUR. VS. M/S. DUNSON BYAPAR PVT. LTD ., VANDANA BUILDING, M.G. ROAD, RAIPUR. PAN NO. AABC D 1680 P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.S. BAMB & SHRI DINESH JAIN - CA DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.K. SINGH CIT DR SHRI D.K. JAIN JCIT DR SMT. SHEETAL VERMA JCIT DR . DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 / 04/2016 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 / 04 /201 6 . O R D E R PER BENCH THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE IN THE CASE OF THREE ASSESSEES COMPANY FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD CIT(A). SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE COMMON AND 3 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 CONNECTED, THERE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ASSESSEES APPEAL, A COMMON ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD CIT (A) ERRED IN ESTIMATING 10% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED NON - AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 3. IN REVENUES APPEAL, THE COMMON ISSUE RAISED IS THAT LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING 65% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS BOGUS. 4. SINCE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL, WE ARE A DJUDICATING ISSUES FRO M THE FACTS AND FIGURES OF M/.S VICONIC VYAPAR PVT LTD., RAIPUR. LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOLLOWED HIS ORDER OF VICONIC VYAPAR PVT LTD IN OTHER CASES. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY DERIVING INCOME FROM CULTIVATION AND TRADIN G OF NEELGIRI TREES AND IS COVERED UNDER THE SEARCH ASSESSMENTS IN THE VANDANA GROUP OF CASES. THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HENCE, SHE HAS RESTRICTED SUCH INCOME TO 35% OF THE SALES AND TREATED THE BALANCE 65% AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME AND ASSESSED THE SAME U/S.68 OF THE ACT THE RETURNED INCOME AND THE INCOME ASSESSED IN ASSESSMENTS MADE U/S.L53A R. W.S. 14 3(3) FOR ABOVE YEARS ARE AS UNDER: - ASSESSMENT YEAR RETURNED INCOME RS . ASSESSED INCOME RS. BEING AGRIL. 2007 - 08 NIL RS. 6,56,100/ - 2008 - 09 NIL RS.60,51,200/ - 4 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 2009 - 10 NIL RS. 71,96,300/ - 2010 - 11 NIL RS. 55,13,000/ - THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 16.3.1995 THAT IT HAS CLAIMED TO BE IN THE BUSINESS OF CULTIVATION AND TRADING OF NEEIGIRI TREES; THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. HAS MADE ENQUIRIES FROM DURG VAN SANRAKSHAK AND AS PER LETTER DATED 19.02.2013, IT WAS CONVEYED BY THE SAID AUTHORITY THAT FOR LARGE SCALE PLANTATION AND CUTTING OF NEEIGIRI TREES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, MANDATORY PERMISSION FROM THE RELEVANT AUTHORITY IS REQUIRED AND NO SUCH PERMISSION WAS OBTAINED BY THE COMPANIES OF VANDANA GROUP, THOUGH NO SUCH PERMISSION IS REQUIRED' FOR SMALL SCALE PLANTATION; THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FULFILL THE NORMS REQUIRED FOR PLANTATION AND CUTTING OF NEEIGIRI TREES FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES, ALTHOUGH THE FIGUR ES MENTIONED IN THEIR FINANCIAL STATEMENT SHOW THAT LARGE SCALE PLANTATION WAS PERFORMED; THAT STATEMENTS OF PERSONS, WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, BE I G CLOSE AIDES OF KEY PERSONS OF VANDANA GROU P, WERE RECORDED AND THEY ADMITTED THAT NEONARA AGRO FARMS WAS HAVING NEARLY 250 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF WHICH, ONLY 100 ACRES WAS USED FOR AGRICULTURE ACTIVITIES AND THE REMAINING LAND REMAINED BARREN (PARTI), DHAAN, CHANA, ETC. ARE BEING GROWN ON THESE LANDS AND EVEN THOUGH NILGIRI PLANTS WERE PLANTED D URING THE PERIOD 1995 - 96 TO 2003 - 04, DUE TO SUB - STANDARD PLANTS AND NON - COMPATIBLE SOIL AND WEATHER, THEY COULD NOT DEVELOP OR SURVIVE AND HENCE, ALL THESE UNDER - DEVELOPED PLANTS, WHICH COULD SURVIVE, WERE CUT AND SOLD FOR A LUMP - SUM AMOUNT AND IT WAS ALS O CONFIRMED BY 5 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 THEM THAT NO PERMISSION OF THE FOREST DEPARTMENT WAS OBTAINED FOR CUTTING THESE PLANTS; THAT, AT THE MOST, ONE TIME INCOME OF A LUMPSUM AMOUNT, WAS EARNED THROUGH SALE OF NILGIRI PLANTS BY VANDA GROUP, WHEREAS VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THIS GROUP INCLUDING SOME T HE COMPANIES ARE CLAIMING EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SALE OF NILGIRI TREES / BALLIS, INCLUDING FAILED TREES, YEAR AFTER YEAR; THAT SEARCH TEAM RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BASANT KUMAR VERMA RESIDENT OF ATARI, POST: TENDUA, RAIPUR ON 18.02.2011 ; THAT HE WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP AND THAT OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WITH VICONIC VYAPAR PVT ZLTD., DUNSON VYAPARA PVT LTD. AND GALAXEE LIASONING (P) LTD; THAT HE HAD REPLIED THAT NEITHER HE NOR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD ANY KNOWLEDGE OF T HESE COMPANIES ; THAT SHRI BASANT KUMAR VERMA WAS SHOWN THE STATEMENT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO.018820 - 11001295 MAINBTAIN ED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE, G.E.ROAD BRANCH, IN WHICH SEVERAL CASH DEPOSIT ENTRIES TO TALING RS.64,50,000/ - WERE FOUND, WHI CH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY TRANSFERRED TO THE GROUP OF COMPANIES; THAT DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES OF VANDANA GROUP AT M.G. ROAD AND THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI BASANT KUMAR VERMA SHOW SALE OF NEELGIRI PLANTATION TO M/S VERMA TIMBER MAR T, KUMHARI ON SEVERAL DAYS, WHICH ARE NOT IN ROUND FIGURES BUT FIGURES LIKE RS. 1,34,460/ - ETC; THAT FURTHER, CASH DEPOSITS IN ROUND FIGURES, SAY FOR INSTANCE RS.5,00,000/ - , HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI BASANT KUMAR VERMA AND IMMEDIATELY, CHE QUES OF IDENTICAL AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO DUNSON BYAPAR PVT. LTD. OR VICONIC 6 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 VYAPAR PVT. LTD. OR GALAXEE LIAONING PVT LTD.,; THAT THE VOUCHERS SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THIS TO BE RELATING TO THE SALE PROCEEDS OF NEELGIRI PLANTATION TO M/S VER MA TIMBER MARK, KUMHARI; THAT THUS IT WAS HELD TO BE ONE OF THE TACTICS ADOPTED BY VANDANA GROUP FOR INVESTING ITS UNACCOUNTED FUNDS BY CLAIMING BOGUS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND AT THE SAME TIME, USING BANK ACCOUNTS OF PERSONS LIKE SHRI BASANT KUMAR VERMA BEH IND THEIR BACK; THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THEN ISSUED A LETTER ON 18.03.2013 TO GIVE HIS CLARIFICATION; THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY REPLY; THAT ALTHOUGH CERTAIN AMOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME (RS.5,000/ - TO RS.8,000/ - PER ACRE FOR MAXIMUM 10 0 ACRES OF LAND) ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED LEASE RENT IS BEI NG RECEIVED - BY VANDANA - GROUP, BUT AT THE SAME IS NOT - BEING - CLAIMED; INSTEAD , MUCH HIGHER AMOUNT OF INCOME IS BEING CLAIMED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS FROM SALE OF NILGIRI TREES / BALLIS, INCLUDING FAILED TREES YEAR AFTER YEAR; THAT IN VIEW OF THESE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES, THE A.O. HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SUBMITTED BEFORE HER DID NOT SHOW THE TRUE PICTURE OF THE COMPANY'S FINANCIAL AFFAIRS AND IT APPEARED TO HER THAT THE FIGURES WERE' BEING MANIPULATED TO DIVERT THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF VANDANA GROUP. ACCORDINGLY, 65% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS SHOWN WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAIN ED INCOME AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND THE REM AINING 35% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPTS WAS TREATED AS AGRICULTURE RECEIPTS. 7 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 6. AGAINST THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) . 7. LD CIT(A) HAS GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD CIT (A), INTER ALIA, HAS HELD AS UNDER: 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE . I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA IN CP NO. 402 OF 2006 DATED 16 - 2 - 2007. IT IS GATHERED THAT CONSEQUENT UPON ORDER O F THE HON'BLE HIGH C OURT OF CALCUTTA IN THE CONTEXT OF AMALGAMATION, THE ASSET'S AND COMMERCIAL PV T LTD, WERE TRANSFERRED TO AND VESTED IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BASED ON THE ITS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2005. IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE AUDITED FINANCIAL STATE MENTS FOR EACH OF THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE NUMBER OF TREES SHOWN AS OPENING STOCK, NUMBER OF .TREES, SOLD AND NUMBER OF TREES SHOWN AS CLOSING BALANCE ARE GIVEN. THESE ARE DULY APPEARING AS PART OF INVENTORY DETAILS IN QUANTITATIVE TERMS AS WELL. I FIND THAT THE A.O HAS NOT DISPUTED THESE FACTS. FROM THE PERUSAL OF LEDGER OF PLANTATION SALES, IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD NEELGIRI BALLIS TO DIFFERENT PERSONS. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE NAME AN D ADDRESS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM SALES WERE MADE. 8. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O DID NOT AFFORD ANY OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS - EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN BY HER, ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS RECORDED ' AND ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION AND SUBSEQUENTLY, BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE FACT OF AMALGAMATION OF PRAN COMMERCIAL PVT LTD., WHICH HAS PURCHASED THE TREES. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY PAYMENT THROUGH CH EQUE FROM MR.BASANT KUMAR VARMA, WHOSE BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN HELD AS USED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR TRANSFERRING FUNDS. ON THE .CONTRARY, THE SALE LEDGER SHOWS THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. COPIES OF NOTIFICATION DATED 16 TH MAY. 200 5 AND DATED 20.03.2013. SHOW THAT THE NEELGIRI SPECIES IS OUT OF THE REGULATIONS IMPOSED BY THE FOREST DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO OBTAIN ANY PERMISSION FOR CUTTING NEELG IRI TREES. HENCE, THE A.O'S RESERVATIO NS IN THIS REGARD AR E UNWARRANTED. SIMILARLY, THE A.O DID NOT RENDER ANY LOGICAL BASIS FOR ESTIMATING. 65% OF TH E SALE, PROCEEDS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME ESPECIALLY WHEN THE AUDIT REPORT SHOWS SUBSTANTIAL OUTLAY TOWARDS DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES. U NDISPUTEDLY, THE ENTIRE SALE PROCEEDS CANNOT BE THE INCOME AND IN ORDER TO DERIVE THE INCOME FIGURE, IT IS NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE CORRESPONDING COSTS/EXPENSES. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT 8 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 EVEN BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT NEEDS TO BE BASED ON SOME MATERIAL AND CANNOT BE MADE ON WILD GUESS . HOWEVER, THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE APPELLA NT SEEMS TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE. IN HIS EXPLANATION REGARDING DISTINCT VARIATION BETWEEN AVERAGE SALE RATES OF BALLIS/ BRANCHES IN DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SALE RATE OF BALLIS AND BRANCH ES WOULD DEPEND ON THE SIZE, GIRTH, ETC. OF THE BALLIS/ BRANCHES. HOWEVER, PERUSAL OF THE SALES LEDGER SHOWS THAT ALMOST ALL THE BALLIS/ BRANCHES SOLD IN A GIVEN YEAR WERE SOLD AT A UNIFORM RATE, WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE. THESE, ITEMS BEING PRODUCT OF NATURAL GROWTH, CANNOT BE UNIFORM IN ALL CASES AND THIS GOES AGAI NST THE APPELLANTS OWN SUBMISSIONS THAT EH RATE DEPENDS ON THE SIZE, GIRTH, ETC, OF THE ITEMS SOLD. FURTHER, ALL THE SALES PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED IN CASH. THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS A ND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE EXEMPTED NATURE OF THE INCOME, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LIKELIHOOD OF SHOWING INFLATED FIGURES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE DISCREPANCIES BOTH IN THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AND CONTENTIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. DESERV ES MODIFICATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO TREAT 10% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAI NED NON - AGRICULTURAL INCOME U/S 68 AND SUBJECT THE SAME TO TAX AS PER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND BALANCE 90% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME MAY BE TREATED AS GENUINE AND EXEMPT . ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 8 . AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD OF THE CASE. SHRI R.K.SINGH, LD CIT DR, SHRI D.K.JAIN, JCIT, LD D.R. AND SMT. SHEETAL VERMA, JCIT, LD D.R. REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE AND SHRI P.S.BAMB AND SHRI DINESH JAIN, LD CO UNSELS REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. SHRI R.K.SINGH, LD D.R. SUBMITTED THAT LD CIT (A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER HOLDING THAT 90% OF THE INCOME DISCLOSED SHOULD BE ACCEPTED AS 9 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITHOUT ANY COGENT BASIS WHATSOEVER. HE STATED THAT THE AO HAS PASSED A REASONABLE ORDER AND LD CIT(A) HAS SET ASIDE THE SAME WITHOUT ANY BASIS. LD D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AO. 11. SMT SHEETAL VERMA & SHRI D.K. JAIN , LD D.R S . ALSO BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT THESE ASSESSEE COMPANIES ARE ALSO CONNEC TED WITH S H E LL COMPANIES ACQUIRED FROM KOLKATA INVOLVING HUGE AMOUNT OF UNJUSTIFIED SHARE PREMIUM. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT SITUATION, A LARGE NUMBER OF SUCH COMPANI ES HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO 263 ACTION AT KOLKATA HENCE, SHE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT ON RECORD WHETHER THESE COMPANIES PURCHASED/ACQUIRED IN THE PRESENT CASE HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO ACTION U/S.263 AT KOLKATA. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT ISSUE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED FROM THE CLASSIC CASE OF MONEY LAUNDERING BY SHELL COMPANIES IN WHICH AFTER FORMATION AND LOADING OF BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL AND UNEXPLAINED DISPROPORTIONATE SHARE PREMIUM IN THE LAST STAGE MONEY IS INTRODUCED AS CAS H REALISED . SHE SUBMITTED TH AT THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THIS CASE SHOULD ALSO BE EXAMINED FROM THIS PERSPECTIVE 12. PER CONTRA, LD COUNSELS SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF SMT. SHEETAL VERMA & SHRI D.K.JAIN LD D.R S . IS NOT AT ALL EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO SUCH ISSUE ARISING IN THIS CASE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO INFORMATION WHATSOEVER THAT THE AFORESAID COMPANIES HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO ACTION 10 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 U/S.263 AT KOLKATA. HOWEVER, LD COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN OR DER AVOID UNNECESSARY LITIGATION AND BUYING PEACE OF MIND, HE IS READY TO ACCEPT THE ORDER OF THE AO IN THIS CASE. IN THIS REGARD, LD COUNSEL FILED SEPARATE LETTERS IN THE CASE OF ALL THREE ASSESSEES, IN WHICH HE HAS STATED AS UNDER: WITH REFERENCE TO A BOVE, WE REQUEST YOUR HONOUR KINDLY ALLOW US THE ABOVE TO WITHDRAW ABOVE APPEALS AND THAT WE AGREE THE ORDER OF LD DCIT 1(1), RAIPUR. 13. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE FIND THAT LD COUNSEL HAS AGREED TO WITHDRAW HIS APPEALS AND HE IS ALSO READY TO AGREE WITH THE ORDER OF DCIT. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY GRIEVANCE TO THE REVENUE. FURTHERMORE, AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT(A) IS TOTALLY WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHATSOEVER. HE HAS E NHANCED THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS AGA INST THAT ACCEPTED BY THE AO WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY COGENT BASIS. FURTHERMORE, THE MATTERS RAISED BY LD D.RS WITH RESPECT TO FORMATION OF SHELL COMPANIES AND THE PROCESS OF MONEY LAUNDERING IN THE PR ESENT SITUATION ALSO CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE WITHOUT DUE EXAMINATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A) IS NOT AT ALL SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A). MOREOVER, LD COUNSEL HAS ALSO CONCE DED THAT HE HAS AGREED TO ACCEPT THE ORDER OF DCIT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IT WILL BE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT WE PERMIT LD COUNSEL TO WITHDRAW HIS APPEALS. HENCE, THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED AND APPEALS OF 11 IT (SS) A NO. 10 - 25 & 33 - 36 / RPR /201 3 ITA NOS. 157 - 167/RPR/2013 THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. BOTH THE SIDES HAVE AGREED TO THE ABOVE PROPOSITION. IN COMING TO THE ABOVE DECISION, WE HAVE DULY TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE CONCESSION OF THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEES DESIRE TO AVOID FURTHER LITIGATION TO BUY PEACE OF MIND. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER IS RESTORED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED AND APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPE N COURT ON 22 /04/2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ) ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22 ND A PRIL , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESS E E. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., RAIPUR.