THE DY. CIT- 2(1), RAIPUR (CG) V. SHRI CHHAGANLAL MUNDRA, RAIPUR (CG)

ITSSA 32/BIL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3606 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S C MAHESHWA RI
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Gift; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Source of fund; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 142(1); 69; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH , RAIPUR BEFORE : SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICAL MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /20 1 3 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 09 - 2010 ) DCIT - 2(1), RAIPUR (CG) V S SHRI CHHA GANLAL MUNDRA, C - 8, ASHOK TOWER, SHANKAR NAGAR, RAIPUR P AN NO. : A DUPM 0829 Q (APPELLANT ) .. TSEDNEPSER REVENUE BY : SHRI R.K.SINGH, CITDR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.C.MAHESHWARI , AR DATE OF HEARING : 10 / 01 /201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 / 01 /201 8 / O R D E R PER SHRI N.S.SAINI , A M : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ), RAIPUR , DATED 14.08.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 2010 . 2. THE SOLE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,06,14,2 8 8/ - MADE BY THE AO U/S.69C OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1 961 WAS CONDUCTED ON 23.06.2010. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ON 24.04.2012 AT AN INCOME OF RS.2,36,970/ - . THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR IN M/S AARTI SPONGE & POWER PRIVATE LIMITED AND PARTNER IN M/S AARTI CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND M/S ASHOK VIHAR . THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCOME BY WAY OF SALARY FROM M/S AARTI INFRASTRUCTURE & BUILDCON LIMITED, SHARE OF PROFIT FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND FROM OTHER SOURCES, THAT IS IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 2 INTEREST INCOME . THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED EXPLANATION ABOUT THE CASH, JEWELLERY AND SILVER ARTICLES FOUND OUT OF WHICH CASH OF RS.5,00,000/ - WAS SEIZED AND ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS . THE QUESTIONNAIRE COVERING THE DETAILS OF SUCH ENTRIES ALONG WITH NOTICES U/S 142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 03.12.2012, 21.01.2013 AND 11.03.2013 AND THE ASSESSE FURNISHED HIS EXPLANATION THROUGH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 14.12.2012, 27.02.2013, 18.03.2013, 25.03.2013 AND 26.03.2013 . THE SEIZED MATERIALS INCLUDED, INTER ALIA, A DIARY WHICH WAS SEIZED UNDER, IDENTIFICATION MARK LPS 01/ 01, IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR HIS EXPLANATION . THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS UNDER IDENTIFICATION MARK LPS 01/01 IS A DIARY BY NAME 'WORLD DIARY' AND CONSISTS OF 321 PAGES OUT OF WHICH 151 PAGES ARE WRITTEN AND WERE INDEXED WITH SE RIAL NUMBERS 1 TO 151 . THE DIARY PROMINENTLY CONTAINS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE , THAT IS 'CHHAGAN LAL MUNDRA' WRITTEN IN ENGLISH & HINDI SCRIPTS AND ALSO HIS PHONE NUMBER AND ON THE TOP OF THIS PAGE THE NOTING 'VIDHAN SABHA CHUNAV 2008' IS ALSO PROMINENTLY MADE IN HINDI SCRIPT . F ROM EXAMINATION OF THE ENTRIES IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT ALL THE NOTINGS ARE RELATING TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH POLITICAL ACTIVITIES . T HE NOTINGS MAINLY ARE FOR EXPENSES RELATING TO POLITICAL ACTIVITIES LIKE PURCHASE O F PUBLICITY MATERIALS . R EGARDING THIS, ENTRIES SHOWING NAMES, AMOUNTS AND DATES (AT SOME PLACES) ARE MADE . THE NAMES OF FEW PERSONS , WHO ARE OFFICE BEARERS, WORKERS AND `KARYAKARTAS' OF 'BHARTIYA JANTA PARTY AT THE LEVEL OF STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ARE MENTIO NED . THE DIARY IS PROMINENTLY HAVING OPENING NOTE ABOUT ELECTION IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 3 EXPENSES . T HE ASSESSEE WAS AN IMPORTANT ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONARY FOR 'BHARTIYA JANTA PARTY' . T HERE ARE DEFINITE INDICATIONS THAT ACTUAL DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE ELECTIONS TO STATE LEGISLATURE ARE RECORDED. THESE ARE AS UNDER: - (A) ELECTIONS WERE HELD IN THE YEAR 2008. (B) RAIPUR CITY IS HAVING CONSTITUENCIES NAMED UTTAR VIDHAN SABHA, PASCHIM VIDHAN SABHA, WHICH ARE NOTED AT FEW PLACES. (C) NAMES OF FEW PERSONS, NAMELY GA NDHI, NAGPUR, ANILBHAI, DELHI & WILSON, AHMEDABAD, FOUND WRITTEN AT SOME PLACES AND ALL THESE PERSONS ARE DEALING IN SUPPLY OF ELECTION MATERIALS. 3.1 A PART FROM THIS ON THE PAGES HAVING INDEX NUMBERS OF 37, 107, 109, 116, 117, 119, 143, 147 AND 148 ARE HAVING NOTINGS OF FIGURE OF EXPENSES AGAINST VARIOUS NAMES . ON FEW OF THESE PAGES DATES AGAINST THE NAME/AMOUNT AND THE NAMES MEANT TO BE THE SOURCE ARE ALSO GIVEN . S INCE THE SIDE CONTAINING ENTRIES WHICH CLEARLY APPEAR TO BE IN THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE W AS DEFINITE . T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THEM IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 11.03.2013 . T HE SUMMARIZED DATE RELATING TO ABOVE CITED PAGES, WHICH WAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS AS UNDER: - SL.NO. PAGE NO. AMOUNT ENTERED OF THE RELEVA NT PAGE 1. 37 1,02,00,000/ - 2. 107 34,42,084/ - 3. 109 3,04,71,004/ - 4. 116&117 3,20,22,500/ - 5. 119 14,85,000/ - 6. 143 14,40,000/ - 7. 147&148 15,53,700 IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 4 3.2 THE TOTAL OF THE ABOVE COMES TO RS.8,06,14,288/ - . T HE METHOD OF WRITING, IN WHICH THE PREFI X OF 'RS.' I S WRITTEN OR NOT IS PURELY A MATTER OF HABIT AND SOMETIMES WHEN THE NOTINGS ARE VERY OBVIOUS IT IS PURPOSEFULLY SKIPPED ALSO . T HIS EXPLANATION IS UNWARRANTED, SINCE ON MANY OF PAGES IN THIS DIARY THE NOTINGS ABOUT THE PUBLICITY MATERIALS RELATI NG TO ELECTIONS LIKE FLAGS, BANNERS, BADGES, CUT - OUTS, CAPS ETC. ARE MADE BUT THESE HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY CONSIDERED IN THE PROPER LIGHT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER BURDENED TO EXPLAIN ABOUT THESE NOTINGS . THE TRANSACTIONS ON THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DIAR Y RELATE TO TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND OTHER PAGES OF THE DIARY ARE CONTAINING RELIABLE INFORMATION INDICATING TIE NATURE OF THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS . T HE DIARY DESCRIBES TRANSACTIONS OF AMOUNTS GIVEN TO VARIOUS PERSONS INCLUDING SUPPLIERS OF ELECTION MATERIA LS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED ONLY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DIVULGE THE TERMS OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY HIM . THE DIARY WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS IT WAS IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 132(4A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 CASTS A PRESUMPTION BECAUSE OF WHICH THE DIARY SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PRESUMED TO BE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. F OR FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO DO SO, SUCH EXPENDITURE IS TO BE ADDED BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT . HENCE, THE AO ADDED RS.8,06,14,288/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR DEFINITE M ATERIAL OR EVIDENCE OF IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 5 UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND AND NO UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT OF CASH, JEWELLERY OR VALUABLE, MOVABLE OR IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, ETC. WAS FOUND EITHER . THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT W HATEVER CASH, JEWELLERY AND OTHER PROPERTIES OR ASSETS WERE FOU ND WERE EXPLAINED FULLY AND ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT AND THE EXPENSES OF FOREIGN TRAVELS AND FUNCTIONS INCURRED WERE FULLY FROM DISCLOSED SOURCES AND WERE EXPLAINED AND WERE DULY ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT . THE ASSESSEE NEVER CARRIED ON ANY BUSINESS AND HE HAD NEVER ANY OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME UNDISCLOSED WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER . I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PAGE 1 PARA 2 IT IS FOUND THAT DURING THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING INCOME BY WAY OF SALARY FROM M/S AARTI INF RASTRUCTURE & BUILDCON LIMITED, SHARE OF PROFIT FROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS AND INTEREST INCOME AND IN PAGE 2 PARA 4 THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THE DIARY IS OF NOTING OF VIDHAN SABHA CHUNAV, 2008 AND THAT THE NOTINGS ARE NOT RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES O F THE ASSESSEE BEING, DIRECTOR IN ASPL, A PARTNER IN AARTI CONSTRUCTION CO., ASHOK VIHAR OR OTHER INCOME ACTIVITY . THE INCOMES FROM ALL THESE SOURCES ARE FOUND TRULY STATED AND NO AMOUNT IS FLOWN/INCURRED IN ANY UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OR IN THE DIARY SEIZ ED . THE ASSESSEE IS KARYAKARTA OF THE POLITICAL PARTY BJP AND WAS NOT A N ELECT ORATE IN CHUNAV, 2008 . THE ABOVE DIARY CONTAINED ROUGH JOTTINGS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN DISCUSSIONS OF THE BJP KARYAKARTAS, ETC. IN THEIR INFORMAL MEETINGS WITH REGARD TO ESTIMAT ES, PROPOSALS, IDEAS, WORK TO BE DONE, TIPPINGS, MEMORANDUM, ETC. WITH RESPECT TO CHUNAV, 2008 WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOTED DOWN IN THAT DIARY . THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT WRITTEN ACTUAL IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 6 TRANSACTIONS OF THE BJP WHICH WAS NOT HIS DUTY . T HE ABOVE JOTTINGS ARE NOT S PEAKING AND ARE NOT SHOWING ANY INTELLIGIBLE OR MEANINGFUL OR SYSTEMATIC INFORMATION AND ARE NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AND DO NOT EVIDENCE THAT REPRESENTED ANY TRANSACTION . T HE DIARY DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY SUFFICIENT DETAILS REGARDING NATURE OF NOTINGS, PERIOD, PER SONS INVOLVED, RELATION WITH TRANSACTIONS ACTUALLY MADE BY BJP, ETC , T HE AO HAS NOT SHOWN EVIDENCE FOR HOLDING THAT NOTINGS WERE ACTUAL EXPENDITURE, NEGATIVATING / DENYING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE NOTINGS WERE ROUGH TIPS OF ESTIMATES OF CHUNAV PUBLICIT Y MATERIALS AND THOSE WERE TENTATIVE QUANTITIES OF FLAGS, BINDIES, ETC. PUBLICITY MATERIALS IN THE ELECTION NOTED IN THE DIARY AS PER DISCUSSIONS OF BUDGET / ROUGH PROGRAMMES TRIALS, ETC. AS PER TENTATIVE DISCUSSIONS OF THE KARYAKARTAS AND WERE OF THE STAG E OF ROUGH NOTINGS, JOTTINGS, ETC. AS PER THEIR GOSSIPING AND CHATTERING AND HAD NO LIVE CONNECTION WITH ANY ACTUAL TRANSACTION OR EXPENSES INCURRED WHICH THE KARYAKARTAS HELD IN DISCUSSION IN INFORMAL CHUNAV MEETINGS AND DISCUSSIONS . T HE DIARY CONTAINED R OUGH JOTTINGS TO BE DESTROYED BUT OMITTED TO BE DESTROYED AND HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE . T HE AO HAS PRESUMED 'TRANSACTIONS' IN THE JOTTINGS AND ALSO PRESUMED THAT EVEN WHERE RS. I S NOT PREFIXED ANY NUMERICAL FIGURE IN THE DIARY IS AMOUNT REJECTING THE ASS ESSEE 'S ABOVE SUBMISSIONS . THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN LOGICAL REASONS OR BASIS OF MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE FOR HOLDING THE NOTING TO CONTAIN ANY TRANSACTION OF EXPENDITURE OR THAT HOW THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED AND THAT TOO FROM ASSESSEE 'S SOURCE OF INCOME . T H ERE WAS NO EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THAT EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED FROM IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 7 ASSESSEE 'S SOURCES AND THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF ADDITION U/S 69C WAS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR THAT HE HAD EARNED HUGE SUM OF RS.8,06,14,288/ - AND INCURRED EX PENSES IN CHUNAV, 2008 FOR BJP PARTY . F OR TRANSACTIONS OF EXPENSES OF ELECTION MATERIALS THERE HAS TO BE TWO PARTIES, SUB JECT MATTER, QUANTITY OF SUPPLY RATE, VALUE OF TRANSACTION, DELIVERY SCHEDULE, ACTUAL DELIVERY, PAYMENT DETAILS, CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL S LIKE INVOICE, CHALLAN, EVIDENCES OF REMITTANCES, AGENCIES, DELIVERY EVIDENCES STORAGE, HANDLING OF GOODS, ETC. FOR EVERY TRANSACTION . T HERE WERE LOT OF ENQUIRIES MADE I N THE SEARCH AND POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS BUT CONCRETE MATERIAL FOR A SINGLE TRANSACTIO N WAS NO FOUND OF THE SEIZED DIARY . I T IS ALSO A FACT THAT IN THE SEARCH AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL OR SUPPORTING EVIDENCE/MATERIAL WAS FOUND THAT ANY EXPENDITURE WA S INCURRED OR THERE WAS EXHAUSTION OF MONEY FROM ASSESSEE 'S SOURCE S . A S PER SECTION 69 C OF THE ACT THE QUESTION OF THE 'SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF' WOULD ARISE ONLY WHEN IT I S SHOWN ON THE BASIS OF COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE THAT ' ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN Y EXPENDITURE' AND WHICH WAS INCURRED FROM HIS INC OME/SOURCE OR IS PART OF HIS TOTAL INCOME THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO HAVE INCURRED ANY E XPENSES FROM HIS SOURCES OF TOTAL INCOME, HE CANNOT BE DEEMED TO BE ASSESSABLE . THE 'INCUR' EXPENSES MEANS PAYING OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH OR BY CHEQUE OR BY RECEIVING CREDIT FROM ANOTHER PERSON FOR RECEIVING GOODS OR SERVICES . T HERE WAS NOTHING RELATING TO ASSESSEES INCOME EARNING ACTIVITY IN THAT DIARY AS FOUND AND HELD BY THE AO ALSO AND SO IT IS A FACT THAT NO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 8 INVOLVED IN ANY EXPENDITURE IF ANY NOTED IN THE DIARY . T HERE IS NO EVIDENCE SHOWN OF THE PASSING OF MONEY FROM ASSESSEE TO ANY OTHER PERSON AND IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF TRANSFER OF GOODS/SERVICE WERE RECEIVED FROM ANY PERSON TO THE ASSESSEE. I T IS CLEAR AND EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THERE IS NO INGREDIENT OF EXPENDITURE IN IT . WHO INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE? WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS WRITTEN BY HIM O R BY SOME ONE OR MORE OTHERS OF BJP PARTY . F OR WHAT INCURRED FOR GOODS, SERVICES, GIFTS, ADVE RTISING GOODS, ETC . W HETHER PROPOSED, ESTIMATES, PRESUMED OR ACTUAL? TO WHOM PAID? BILLS, CHALLANS, SUPPLIES EVIDENCES, L.R., R.R. ETC.? QUANTITIES, RATES, ETC. OF THE GOODS PURCHASED? WHERE SUPPLIES RECEIVED/STORES , W HO TOOK DELIVERIES AND WHERE STORED? U TILIZATIONS OF THE SUPPLIES, HOW MADE? MODE OF PAYMENTS? WHETHER PAID ONCE OR IN A NUMBER OF TIMES . N O CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH AND IN THE ENQUIRIES MADE . T HE AO HAS HELD THAT THE EXPENDITURE THOUGH DO NOT RELATE OR WAS FO UND TO HAVE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF BUT THERE ARE DEFINITE INDICATIONS THAT ACTUAL DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE ELECTIONS TO STATE LEGISLATURE ARE RECORDED ON PAGE NO.37,107,109,116, & 117, 119, 143, 147 AND 148 WHICH ARE HAVING NOTINGS OF FIGURE OF EXPENSES AGAINST VARIOUS NAMES AND SO HE IS ASSESSABLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE PROVISIONS U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. M ERELY ON 'INDICATIONS' OR 'APPEAR TO BE' THE AO HAS TRIED TO TREAT THE ROUGH JOTTINGS OF MEETINGS OF POLITICAL PARTY WOR KERS, KARYAKARTAS, OFFICE BEARERS, LEADERS, ETC. AS ACTUAL TRANSACTION OF THE EXPENSES BJP INCURRED IN ELECTIONS . T HE TOTAL OF FIGURES IN PAGE NO.109 IS 3.39 CRORES AND TOTAL OF IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 9 GROSS ESTIMATE OF THE SAME AS APPEARING IN PAGE NO.116, 117, 119 IS COMING TO RS.3.35 CRORES WHICH ARE ALMOST SIMILAR AND REPEATED ITEMS PROVE THAT THESE WERE ROUGH JOTTINGS . I N TOTALLING BOTH FIGURES ARE AGGREGATED AND ALSO THERE ARE MISTAKES IN TOTALLING OF PAGES . T HESE FACTS ALSO PROVE THAT THOSE WERE ROUGH JOTTINGS AND INVOLVED NO TRANSACTION OR MONEY . I T IS NOT THE CASE OF THE AO THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS IN POSSESSION OF FUNDS DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE SOURCE OF WHICH HE IS UNABLE OR UNWILLING TO EXPLAIN SATIS FACTORILY . I T IS ALSO NOT HIS CASE THAT ANY EXPENDITURE BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT HE WAS LIABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME ELSE HIS FAILURE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME OR TO EXPLAIN IT SATISFACTORILY CAN CONSTITUTE A REASONABLE GROUND FOR AN INFERENCE THAT THE SOURCE THEREOF MUST BE AN ITEM TAXABLE UNDER THE ACT . I N THE SEARCH AND P OST SEARCH ENQUIRIES ALSO ASSESSEES ABOVE CLAIM WAS NOT FOUND UNTRUE ON THE BASIS OF FACTS, EVIDENCES OR CORROBORATIVE MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE RELIES UPON FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: - ( I ) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. NOORJAHAN (P.K.)(SMT.) [237 ITR 570]; (II) CIT V. ANIL BHALLA (2011) 332 ITR 191 (DEL.); (III) ACIT V. SATYAPAL WASSAN (2007 295 ITR (AT) 352; AND (IV) CIT V. LUBTEC INDIA LI MITED (2009) 311 ITR 175 (DEL.). 4.1 ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER A TABLE IS MADE OF S.NO.1 TO 7 OF PAGE NO.37, 107, 109, 116 & 117, 119, 143, 147 & 148 (TOTAL 9 AGES) AND HELD THAT IN THESE 9 PAGES THERE IS SHOWN EXPENDITURE OF TOTAL RS.8,06,14,288/ - WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF ADDITION U/S 69C OF THE ACT. S O THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY EXPENDITURE ON OTHER 142 WRITTEN PAGES OF THE IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 10 DIARY . T HE AO IMPLIEDLY ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEE 'S EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO 142 PAGES OF THE DIARY THAT THE ABOVE IS ROUGH JOTTINGS MADE BY HIM IN THE DIARY AS TOLD TO HIM BY THE DISCUSSANTS IN THEIR NORMAL MEETINGS OF RIP WORKERS , KARYAKARTAS, ETC. IN CONNECTION WITH POLITICAL ACTIVITIES, PROGRAMMES, ESTIMATES, POSSIBILITIES, ETC AND THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF IS NOT HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE OR DETAIL OF IT . T HE AO HAS RAISED PRESUMPTION U/S 292C OF THE ACT TOWARDS SEIZED DIARY LPS 01/01 SE IZED U/S 132 . THE SEIZED DIARY IS NEITHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR A DOCUMENT BECAUSE IT CONTAINS ROUGH JOTTINGS OF DISCUSSIONS IN INFORMAL MEETINGS AS EXPLAINED AND DOES NOT FIT WITH THE MEANING OF THE TERMS . THE BOOKS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS DEFINED U/S 2(12A ) OF THE ACT AND 'DOCUMENT' IS DEFINED U/S 2(22AA) OF THE ACT. THE BOARD IN CIRCULAR NO.14/2001, DATED 12 TH DECEMBER, 2001(2002) 254 ITR (ST.) 279 AS FOLLOWS: - '5.2 A NEW CLAUSE (12A) HAS BEEN INSERTED IN SECTION 2 TO DEFINE 'BOOKS OF ACCOUNT' AS INCLUDING LEDGERS, DAY BOOKS, CASH BOOKS, ACCOUNT BOOKS AND OTHER BOOKS WHETHER KEPT IN WRITTEN FORM OR AS PRINT - OUTS OF DATA STORED IN A FLOPPY DISC, TAPE OR ANY OTHER FORM OF ELECTRO - MAGNETIC DATA STORAGE DEVICE. 5.3 ANOTHER NEW CLAUSE (22AA) HAS BEEN INSERTED IN THE SECTION TO DEFINE THE EXPRESSION 'DOCUMENT' AS INCLUDING AN ELECTRONIC RECORD AS DEFINED IN CLAUSE (T) OF S ECTION 2 OF THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ACT, 2000, AS PER WHICH ELECTRONIC RECORD OR DATA RECORD OR DATA GENERATED, IMAGE OR SOUND STORED RECEI VED OR SENT IN AN ELECTRONIC FORM OR MICRO FILM OR COMPUTER GENERATED MICRO FICHE.' 4.2 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SEIZED DIARY LPS 01/01 IS NEITHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NOR A DOCUMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 292C OF THE ACT. T HE EXPRESSION USED IS 'MAY BE PRESUMED' AND SO THERE COULD BE APPLICATION OF DISCRETION (METRANI (P.R.) V. CIT (2006) 287 ITR 209 S.C.). IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 11 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6. THE DR RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS UNDER : - 1. THE DEPARTMENT IS AGITATING DELETION OF ADDITION U/S 69C OF RS.8,06,14,288/ - WHICH WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF DIARY NUMBER LPS/01/01 [PAPER BOOK PAGE 30 TO 71] SEIZED IN ASSESSEE'S RESIDENCE IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE CONDUCTED IN GROUP CASES ON 23/06/2010, PRESUMING THAT SOME CONTENT IN THE DIARY SHOWS EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CHUNAV/ELECTION 2008 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NO EX PLANATION OF THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. 2. THE MAIN INGREDIENTS OF THE PROVISION U/S 69C ARE: - (A) ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE (B) HE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF THIS MAY BE NOTED THAT T HE PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 69C IS A MACHINERY PROVISION AND IS A RULE OF EVIDENCE. IN CIT V. LUBTEC INDIA LTD (2009) 311 ITR 175 (DEL.): - IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT WHAT IS POSTULATED IN SECTION 69C OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961, IS THAT FIRST OF ALL THE ASSES SEE MUST HAVE INCURRED THAT EXPENDITURE ---- '. 3. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO.2 PARAGRAPH NO.4 IT IS OBSERVED THAT: - 'ON ITS PAGE 1, THE DIARY PROMINENTLY CONTAINS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT IS `CHHAGAN LAL MUNDRA' WRITTEN IN ENGLISH & HINDI SCRIPTS AND ALSO HIS PHONE NUMBER. ON THE TOP OF THIS PAGE THE NOTING `VIDHAN SABHA CHUNAV 2008' IS ALSO PROMINENTLY MADE IN HINDI SCRIPT. THE NOTINGS ON OTHER PAGES ARE ALSO NOT RELATING TO THE ACTIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEE OF BEING, DIRECTOR IN ASPL, A PART NER IN AARTI CONSTRUCTION CO,/ASHOK VIHAR OR OTHER INCOME EARNING ACTIVITY. FROM EXAMINATION OF THE ENTRIES IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT ALL THE NOTINGS ARE RELATING TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH POLITICAL ACTIVITIES.' IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT THE DIARY DOES NOT RELATE TO ASSESSEE'S SOURCES OF INCOME. THE ALLEGED EXPENSES ARE STATED TO BE OF POLITICAL ACTIVITIES LIKE PURCHASE OF PUBLICITY MATERIALS; IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 12 REGARDING THIS, ENTRIES SHOWING NAMES, AMOUNTS AND DATES (AT SOME PLACES) ARE MADE . NAMES OF FEW PERSONS WHO ARE OFFICE BEARERS, WORKERS AND LARYAKARTAS' OF B HARTIYA JANTA PARTY' AND HAVING OPENING NOTE ABOUT ELECTION EXPENSES AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN IMPORTANT ORGANISATIONAL FUNCTIONARY FOR BHARTIYA JANTA PARTY. THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY A BJP KARYAKARTA. SECTION 69C ATTRACTS IF THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE EVIDENT FROM THE CHUNAV DIARY IN QUESTION AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF THE AO'S ABOVE BASELESS OBSERVATIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AN IMPORTANT ORGANISATIONAL FUNCTIONARY FO R BHARTIYA JANTA PARTY, ETC. THE ABOVE FACTS DO NOT JUSTIFY OBSERVATIONS THAT HE HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FROM HIS SOURCE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 69C. 4. IT IS STATED IN POINT NO.5 THAT THERE ARE INDICATIONS OF EXPENSES INCURRED DURING THE ELEC TIONS TO STATE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE NAMES OF FEW PERSONS, NAMELY - GANDHI, NAGPUR, ANILBHAI, DELHI & WILSON, AHMEDABAD, ARE FOUND WRITTEN WHO ARE DEALING IN SUPPLY OF ELECTION MATERIALS AND THAT ON THE PAGES NUMBERS OF 37, 107,109,116 AND 117, 119, 143, 147 & 148 NOTINGS OF FIGURE OF EXPENSES AGAINST VARIOUS NAMES AND ALSO NAMES/AMOUNTS AND THE NAMES MEANT TO BE THE SOURCES ARE ALSO GIVEN. THE AO HAD FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ON THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE DIARY RELATE TO TRANSFER OF FUNDS AND OT HER PAGES OF THE DIARY ARE CONTAINING INFORMATION INDICATING THE NATURE OF THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS, AMOUNTS GIVEN TO VARIOUS PERSONS ,SUPPLIERS OF ELECTION MATERIALS. WHEN SOURCES WERE FOUND MENTIONED OR THAT THE ENTRIES WERE ALLEGED TO BE TRANSFER OF F UNDS OF BJP POLITICAL PARTY CHUNAV DIARY, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE TO ATTRACT SECTION 69C. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE A.O. HAS SUPPLEMENTED HIS OBSERVATION TO GIVE COLOUR FOR SAYING THAT 'EXPENDITURE WAS INCURRED BY TH E ASSESSEE', WHICH IS NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE FACTS. THE ONLY BASIS FOR THE ADDITION U/S 69C ULTIMATELY IS THE HANDWRITING OF THE NOTINGS IN THE DIARY IS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT THE DIARY WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSISTENTLY SUBMITTED IN DETAIL THAT THE DIARY DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY HIM, VIDHAN SABHA CHUNAV 2008 IS MENTIONED ON IT, THAT HE WAS NOT AN ELECTORATE, IN THE DIARY ROUGH AND RANDOM JOTTINGS WERE DONE BY HIM BY OVER - HEARING FROM DISC USSIONS OF BJP CHUNAV KARYAKARTAS, ETC. IN THEIR INFORMAL MEETINGS, GOSSIPING, ACTIVITIES, THINKINGS, PROPOSALS, IDEAS, WORK TO BE DONE, TIPPINGS, ESTIMATES, BUDGETS, TENTATIVE PROGRAMMES, TRIALS AND WERE NOT - INTELLIGIBLE, MEANINGFUL, SYSTEMATIC, UNDERSTAN DABLE AND WERE DUMB/NOT SPEAKING. THE JOTTINGS, ETC. WERE NOT CORROBORATED OR EVIDENCED FROM ANY MATERIAL IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 13 OR LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. IN THE SEARCH ALSO THE DIARY WAS DISOWNED OF HAVING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWN IN IT. THERE IS N OT SHOWN BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE OF EXPENSES INCURRED SAYING 'SPENDING', 'PAYING OUT OR AWAY' OF MONEY GONE IRRETRIEVABLY; SPENDING ON ATTAINING SOME OBJECT, SUCH AS CASH PAID FOR GOODS OR SERVICES, CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT OF EXPENSES, BILL, CHALAN, RECEIPT, SUPPLY EVIDENCE, L.R., R.R., WHO INCURRED/PAID FOR EXPENSES, FOR WHAT INCURRED GOODS, SERVICE, GIFTS, ADVERTISING MATERIAL, TO WHOM PAID, QUANTITY, RATES, ETC., GOODS/SERVICES WHERE RECEIVED/ STORED, PLACE OF DELIVERY, STORAGE, UTI LISATION, MODE OF PAYMENT, ETC. ETC. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF SOURCE OF INCURRING EXPENDITURE. 6. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE SEIZED DIARY WAS DULY HELD TO BE NOT RELATING TO ASSESSEE'S SOURCES WHICH WERE TRULY SHOWN IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FOUND ANY CORROBORATING AND LEGALLY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE THAT IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AT ALL. THE DEPARTMENT HAD ON PRESUMPTION, SURMISE, CONJECTURE, GUESS, DOUBT OR SUSPICION MADE THE ADDITION. THE DIARY BEING USELESS/ MEANINGLESS WAS TO BE DESTROYED BUT WAS OMITTED TO BE DESTROYED. IN THE PROCEEDINGS TAKEN PLACE BY THE DEPARTMENT IN SEARCH, POST SEARCH AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NO MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE OR CORROBORATING MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE OF ANY EXPENSE ACTUAL LY INCURRED, MUCH LESS SPENT BY THE ASSESSEE, HAS BEEN SHOWN OR FOUND. NO INCRIMINATING ASSET LIKE CASH, JEWELLERY, VALUABLE, MOVABLE, IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OR OTHERS WAS FOUND. LIKEWISE NO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON FOREIGN TRAVEL, FUNCTION OR OTHERS WAS FO UND. 7. BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES ALSO IT IS MORE PROBABLE THAT ON THE OCCASION OF ELECTION, FIRSTLY, IT IS THE CONCERNED POLITICAL PARTY THAT CAN BE EXPECTED TO MAKE PAYMENTS FOR ELECTION CAMPAIGN AND IT IS QUITE CUSTOMARY ALSO. SECOND LY, IT IS THE CANDIDATE CONTESTING ELECTION WHO CAN BE EXPECTED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR ELECTION CAMPAIGN. IT IS CONFIRMED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A C A NDIDATE IN THE ELECTION. THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDISPUTEDLY NOT A CANDIDATE CONTESTING IN ELECTION . IN THE MATTER OF CHUNAV EXPENSES IT IS MORE PROBABLE THAT FIRSTLY, IT IS THE CONCERNED POLITICAL PARTY THAT CAN BE EXPECTED TO INCUR EXPENSES FOR ELECTION CAMPAIGN. SECONDLY, IT IS THE CANDIDATE CONTESTING ELECTION WHO CAN BE EXPECTED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR ELECTION CAMPAIGN. THE SEIZED DIARY DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE' OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED. SECTION 292C AND 132(4A) ARE NOT APPLICABLE. THE OVERALL LOOK OF THE DIARY JUSTIFIES ITS ABOVE SUBMISSIONS THAT IN THIS DIARY ROUGH JOTTINGS WERE D ONE IN THE MANNER AS ABOVE WHILE IN IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 14 CHUNAV AND DOES NOT CONTAIN ANYTHING TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE FOR THAT HE WAS LIABLE TO EXPLAIN SOURCE THEREOF . THE A.O. MERELY PRESUMED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES THAT CERTAIN NINE PAGES OF DIARY 'INDICATE OR APPEAR TO BE ELECTION EXPENDITURE' WHICH WORK OUT TOTAL RS.8,06,14,288/ - . 8. IN INDIAN MOLASSES CO. (PRIVATE) LTD. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, WEST BENGAL [1959] 37 ITR 66 (SC), AS PER HON. SUPREME COURT 'EXPENDITURE', MEANS, 'SP ENDING' IN THE SENSE OF 'PAYING OUT OR AWAY' OF MONEY IS THE PRIMARY MEANING OF 'EXPENDITURE'. THERE IS NOT SHOWN ANY 'SPENDING', 'PAYING OUT OR AWAY' OF MONEY, SUCH AS CASH PAID FOR GOODS OR SERVICES, CONTRACT OR AGREEMENT OF EXPENSES, BILL, CHALAN, REC EIPT, EVIDENCE OF SUPPLY, L.R., R.R., WHO INCURRED/PAID FOR EXPENSES, FOR WHAT INCURRED GOODS, SERVICE, GIFTS, ADVERTISING MATERIAL, TO WHOM PAID, QUANTITY, RATES, ETC., GOODS/SERVICES WHERE RECEIVED/ STORED, PLACE OF DELIVERY, STORAGE, UTILISATION, MODE OF PAYMENT, ETC. 9. PRINCIPLES WITH RESPECT TO ADMISSIBLE LEGAL EVIDENCE ARE DERIVED FROM THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON. SUPREME COURT IN COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY) V. UNION OF INDIA [2012] 77 TAXMANN. CORN 245 (SC) AND THE CASES REVIEWED LIKE CBI V. V.C. SHUKLA [1998] 35CC 410, ETC. BY THE HON. SUPREME COURT. THE ASSESSEE RELIES UPON THE SETTLED PROPOSITION THAT, 'A COURT OF APPEAL INTERFERES NOT WHEN THE JUDGMENT UNDER ATTACK IS NOT RIGHT BUT ONLY WHEN IT IS SHOWN TO BE WRONG' [ JIAUDDIN MOLLAH V. CIT [2016] 385 ITR, 398(9) (CAL). IT IS QUITE FAR FROM FACTS TO FIND INGREDIENT OF ANY EXPENDITURE IN IT. THE DEPARTMENT HAD ALL THE TIME MADE EXTENSIVE ENQUIRES AND EXAMINATIONS BUT HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE TRUTH EVEN THEN SO THAT A HUGE AMOUNT OF TAX LIABI LITY MAY BE RAISE D . MERELY BECAUSE THE DIARY WAS SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSEE'S RESIDENCE AND ROUGH JOTTINGS WERE DONE THEREON BY THE ASSESSEE, DOES NOT MAKE THE JOTTINGS AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED AND THAT TOO BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ATTRACTING SECTION 69C. THE ASSESSEE RELIES UPON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS). IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE DELETION OF ADDITION MAY BE UPHELD. 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECOR D. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 15 OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23.06.2010 . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A DIARY MARKED LPS 01/01 WAS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE TOTAL OF VARIOUS FIG URES WRITTEN IN THE DIARY COMES TO RS.8,06,14,288/ - . ACCORDING TO THE AO THE SAID FIGURE REPRESENTS EXPENDITURE INCURRED AT THE TIME OF ELECTION IN THE YEAR 2008 AND, THEREFORE, HE ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 20 10 BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 9. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : - 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DIARY AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT CONTESTING IN THE ELECTIONS AS A CANDIDATE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE APPELLANT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A POLITICAL PARTY. IT IS GATHERED THAT EXCEPT THE DIARY SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH AND IDENTIFIED AS LP S 01/01, THE A.O HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTION EXPENSES OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. I DO FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT EVEN AFTER PRE AND POST SEARCH P ROCEEDINGS AND EXTENSIVE ENQUIRY, THE A.O HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THE SOURCE OR MANNER IN WHICH INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.8,06,14,288/ - WAS EARNED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O HAS CORRELATED THE AMOUNTS/SUMS MENTIONED IN THE DIARY WITH THE ELECTION EXPENSES IN CONNECTION WITH VIDHAN SABHA CHUNAV - 2008, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE DIARY IS OF 2005 I.E. THE CALENDAR YEAR 2005. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE A.O HAD AGGREGATED THE SUMS MENTIONED ON FOLLOWING PAGES AND HELD THAT THE SAME ARE UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION: SL.NO. PAGE NO. AMOUNT ENTERED OF THE RELEVANT PAGE 1. 37 1,02,00,000/ - 2. 107 34,42,084/ - 3. 109 3,04,71,004/ - 4. 116&117 3,20,22,500/ - 5. 119 14,85,000/ - 6. 143 14,40,000/ - 7. 147&148 15,53,700 7 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THAT RELEVANT PAGES OF THE SEIZED DIARY, IT IS SEEN THAT THE SUMS APPEARING ON PAGE NO. 107, 109, 116, 117, IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 16 119 AND 143 DO NOT CONTAIN ANY DATE. FURTHER, NO DATE IS APPEARING AGAINST V ARIOUS SUMS MENTIONED IN PAGE NO.37, 147 AND 148. THUS, THE PERIOD/YEAR IN WHICH EXPENDITURE, IF ANY, WAS INCURRED/PAID BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT APPARENT. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE A.O HAS GONE BY THE PROBABILITIES AND PRESUMED THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE DIAR Y PERTAINS TO EXPENDITURE AND THAT THE EXPENSES MUST HAVE BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION BY THE APPELLANT OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN MY CONSI DERED VIEW, IT IS MORE PROBABLE THAT, ON THE OCCASION OF ELECTION, FIRSTLY, IT IS THE CONCERNED POLITICAL PARTY THAT CAN BE EXPECTED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR THE ELECTION CAMPAIGNING AND IT IS QUITE CUSTOMARY ALSO, PARTICULARLY, FOR THE REASON THAT THE POLITICA L PARTIES DO HAVE THEIR OWN PARTY FUND. SECONDLY, IT IS THE CANDIDATE CONTESTING ELECTION WHO CAN BE EXPECTED TO MAKE PAYMENT FOR ELECTION CAMPAIGNING. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT A CANDIDATE CONTESTING ELECTION. THUS, THE PROBABILI TY OF APPELLANT INCURRING OR MAKING PAYMENT FOR THE EXPENSES, IF AT ALL ANY INCURRED, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IS QUITE NEGLIGIBLE. 8. IN PARA 5C. OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O HAS MENTIONED NAMES SUCH AS GANDHI, NAGPUR, ANILBHAI, DELHI & WILSON, AHMEDA BAD AND STATED THAT ALL THESE PERSONS ARE DEALING IN SUPPLY OF ELECTION MATERIALS. HOWEVER, THE A.O HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE RESULTS OF ANY ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE A.O FROM THE SAID PARTIES. THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE A.O HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED ON THE BASIS OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES COLLECTED FROM THE SAID PARTIES. 9. ON PERUSAL OF PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE A.O HAS STATED THAT 'ON FEW OF THESE PAGES DATES AGAINST THE NAME/AMOUNT AND THE NAMES MEANT TO BE THE SOUR CE ARE ALSO GIVEN'. THIS ASSERTION OF THE A.O, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IS SELF CONTRADICTORY. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C CANNOT BE INVOKED WHERE THE A.O HIMSELF IS HAVING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE, AS SECTION 69C COMES INTO PICTURE ONLY ON FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF ANY EXPENDITURE. 10. FOR BETTER APPRECIATION OF FACTS, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C ARE EXTRACTED HEREUNDER: 'UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, ETC. - WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR AN ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AND HE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION, IF ANY, OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE AMOUNT COVERED BY SUCH EXPENDITURE OR PART THEREOF AS THE CASE MAY BE, MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR : IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 17 PROVIDED THAT, NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISION OF THIS ACT, SUCH UNEXPLAINED EXPENDI TURE WHICH IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME.' 11. IT IS CLEAR THAT SECTION 69C IS APPLICABLE (I) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE, AND (II) HE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION OR THE EXPLANATION TENDERED AS TO THE SOURCE IS NOT SATISFACTORY AS REGARDS THE WHOLE OR PART THEREOF. THE WHOLE OR PART OF SUCH UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED. I FIND THAT BEFORE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C, IT HAS TO BE PROVED BEYOND ALL SHADOWS OF DOUBT THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED AS THE WORDS 'IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER' DO NOT PRECEDE THE PHRASE 'AN ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE'. THE OPINION OF THE A.O IS MATERIAL AND RELEVANT ONLY WITH REGARD TO THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT AND NOT WITH REGARD TO THE INCURRENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A.O HAS NOT COME ACROSS EVEN A SINGLE BILL OR VOUCHER OR DELIVERY CHALLAN TO EVEN INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AS ALLEGED BY THE A.O. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O THAT THE PARTIES WHOSE NAME HAVE BEEN FOUND RECORDED IN THE DIARY HAVE CONFIRMED HAVING RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS FROM THE APPELL ANT EVEN REMOTELY OR INDIRECTLY. 12. IT IS SEEN THAT, EXCEPT THE DIARY, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR EVIDENCE INDICATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FOUND IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE A.O HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION EVEN IN RESPECT OF CASH SEIZED DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WHICH SHOWS THAT WHATEVER CASH OR ASSETS WERE FOUND WERE EXPLAINED FULLY AND ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT/DIARY, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT, IT CANNOT BE SAID WITH CERTAINTY AS TO WHETHER THE CONTENTS ARE REPRESENTING THE ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS OR JUST THE BUDGETARY ESTIMATES. IT IS DIFFICULT TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW OF THE A.O AS THE DIARY DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY CONCRETE DETAILS AS REGARDS NATURE OF NOTINGS, PERIOD, SUPP LIERS/PARTIES INVOLVED, FURTHERMORE, THE A.0 HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM THAT THE NOTINGS WERE ROUGH TIPS OF ESTIMATES OF CHUNAV PUBLICITY MATERIALS AND THOSE WERE TENTATIVE QUANTITIES OF FLAGS, BINDIES, ETC. PUBLI CITY MATERIALS IN THE ELECTION NOTED IN THE DIARY AS PER DISCUSSIONS OF BUDGET / ROUGH PROGRAMMES TRIALS, ETC. AS PER TENTATIVE DISCUSSIONS OF THE KARYAKARTAS. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED B Y THE APPELLANT, OR THAT EXPENDITURE WAS PAID FROM APPELLANT'S SOURCES AND THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF ADDITION U/S 69C WAS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT OR THAT HE HAD EARNED SUM OF RS.8,06,14,288/ - AND INCURRED EXPENSES IN CHUNAV, 2008 FOR BJP PARTY. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PROXIMITY OF THE APPELLANT WITH THE POLITICAL PARTY ALONE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO HOLD ADVERSITY AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE PROXIMITY ALONE DOES NOT LEAD TO IRREBUTABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 18 APPELLANT HAD M ADE PAYMENTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 8 CRORES FOR ELECTION CAMPAIGNING. THE A.O HAS, EXCEPT REFERRING TO THE DIARY, NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE WHICH GIVES EVEN IOTA OF DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INCURRED AND PAID FOR THE EXPENSES ON ELECTION CAMPAIGNING. THE LD. COUNSEL ASSERTS THAT AS ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE COMPLETED ON THE BASIS OF RECORDS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO AND PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE AND EXCITEMENT ON EVENTS AND EXTRANEOUS FACTS SHOULD NOT LEAD THE AO TO A STATE OF AFFAIRS WHERE THE SALIENT/ PRIMARY/DIRECT EVIDENCES ARE OVERLOOKED AND SHOULD NOT INFLUENCE THE AO FOR RESORTING TO ADHOC ADDITIONS. THE ADDITIONS SHOULD NOT BE MADE BY THE AO IN A ROUTINE MANNER MERELY ON PRESUMPTION, PROBABILITIES, SUSPICION AND SURMISES SINCE THE SAME ACTION OF T HE AO DEGENERATES THE SPIRIT FOR WHICH THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS WERE EMPHASIZED BY THE BOARD. (MUKESH R MAROLIA V. ADDL. CIT [2006] 6 SOT 247 MUMBAI). THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IF GENERAL/CASUAL/ROUTINE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO ARE TO BE CONSIDERED AS M ATERIAL EVIDENCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF FRAMING AN ASSESSMENT, THE AO SHALL HAVE BLANKET AND ARBITRARY POWERS TO DISPOSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS ACCORDING TO HIS WHIMS AND FANCIES WHICH IS NOT THE SPIRIT OF THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY THE BOARD ON SCRUTINY ASS ESSMENT. AN ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE ARBITRARILY AND IN ORDER THAT AN ASSESSMENT CAN BE SUSTAINED, IT MUST HAVE NEXUS TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. (CIT V. MAHESH CHAND [1983] 199 ITR 247, 249 (ALL.). AS PER THE LD. COUNSEL, IT IS THE SETTLED POSITION THAT, THOUGH THE AO HAS VERY WIDE POWERS AND IS NOT FETTERED BY TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PLEADINGS, THERE IS ONE OVER - RIDING RESTRICTION ON HIS JUDGEMENT AND, THAT IS, THAT, HE MUST ACT HONESTLY AND DILIGENTLY ON THE MATERIAL, HOWSOEVER, INADEQUATE IT WAS , AND NOT VINDICTIVELY, CAPRICIOUSLY OR ARBITRARILY. 'PROBABILITY CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO FORM AN OPINION BY THE AO TO CONCLUDE AN ASSESSMENT AND FOR DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE APPELLANT UNLESS THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIA TE SUCH PROBABLE INFERENCE.' THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE BASED ON THE REAL INCOME THEORY, I.E., INCOME TO BE DETERMINED FOR TAXATION MUST INVARIABLY BE PROVED TO HAVE BEEN THE CORRECT QUANTUM OF INCOME EARNED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ONE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN EARNED. THE PRESUMPTIONS AND HYPOTHETICAL ESTIMATIONS AND OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE A.O. FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED ESTIMATED ADDITION, WERE EXTRANEOUS, IRRELEVANT AND OPPOSED TO THE FACTS OBTAINING FROM THE RECORD. THE FATE OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT BE DECIDED BY THE A.O. ON MERE SURMISES OR PROBABILITIES (NORTHERN BENGAL JUTE MILLS TRADING CO. LTD. V. CIT (1968) 70 ITR 407 (CAL). THE MERE EXISTENCE OF REASONS FOR SUSPICION WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO EVIDENCE (CAL. HC IN N ARAYAN CHANDRA BAIDYA V. CIT (1951) 20 ITR 287 (CAL.). THE AO WAS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE PURE GUESS AND MAKE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL AT ALL. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN BARE SUSPICION TO SUPPORT THE SAM E. THE RULE OF LAW ON THIS SUBJECT HAS BEEN FAIRLY AND RIGHTLY STATED BY THE LAHORE HC IN SETH GURMUKH SINGH V. CIT (1944) 12 ITR 393 (LAH.) [DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD. V. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775, 782 (SC)]. IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE SC IN DY. COMMISSIONER O F IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 19 AGRICULTURAL INCOME TAX AND SALES TAX V. TRAVANCORE RUBBER AND TEA CO. (1967) 20 STC 520 THAT 'IN ALL CASES OF TAXATION THE BURDEN OF PROVING NECESSARY INGREDIENT LAID DOWN BY LAW TO JUSTIFY TAXATION IS UPON THE AUTHORITIES.' SINCE THIS WAS NOT PROVED AG AINST THE APPELLANT ON THE STRENGTH OF EVIDENCE, THE AO'S ACTION IN THIS REGARD IS OPPOSED TO THE LEGAL STANDARDS ENUMERATED ABOVE. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSED LEGAL AND FACTUAL POSITION AND ALSO IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND IN SEARCH OR I N POST - SEARCH INQUIRY REGARDING PAYMENT BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTION CAMPAIGNING AND ALSO OF THE FACT THAT IN THE SEARCH, NO DISPROPORTIONATE UNDISCLOSED CASH, BANK OR OTHER DEPOSIT, PROPERTY OR ANY OTHER ASSET WAS FOUND WITH / IN THE NAME OF TH E APPELLANT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO MAKING ADDITION OF RS.8,06,14,288/ - ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION AND PURE GUESSWORK IS NOT PROPER AND UNSUSTAINABLE. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF RS.8,06,14,268/ - IS DELETED. 10. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SEIZED DIARY WAS IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE DIARY NAME OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN WRITTEN AND THE AMOUNT MENTIONED THEREIN REPRESENTS THE EXPENSES INCURRED AT THE TIME OF THE ELECTION. HE ALSO ARGUED THAT THE OBSERVATION OF LD.CIT(A) THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A CANDIDATE IN THE ELECTION IS ALTOGETHER AN IRRELEVANT FACTOR. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.AR REITERATED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 12. WE FIND THAT AT PAGE NOS.30 TO 71 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A COPY OF THE SAID SEI ZED DIARY. PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT IN THE SEIZED DIARY IN SOME OF THE PAGES AMOUNT IS MENTIONED ALONG WITH NAME OF CERTAIN ELECTION PUBLICITY ITEMS LIKE FLAGS ETC., IN SOME PLACES THE NAME OF PERSON , DATE AND AMOUNT IS MENTIONED AND AT SOME PLACES O NLY NAME OF PERSON AND AMOUNT HAS BEEN MENTIONED. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE FIGURES MENTIONED THEREIN WERE ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS. IT CANNOT BE DECIPHERED THEREFROM IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 20 WHETHER THE AMOUNT MENTIONED AGAINST ELECTION MA TERIAL WERE QUOTATION OR ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE. 13. SIMILARLY FROM THE NAME AND FIGURE MENTIONED ALONG WITH DATE OR WITHOUT DATE IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE SAME A RE ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTION S OR NOT AND IF THEY ARE ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WHETHER THEY REPRESENT AMOUNT RECEIVED OR AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE LD.DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF CIT(A) THAT NO CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR EVEN THEREAFTER TO SHOW THAT THE FIGURE MENTIONED IN THE DIARY WAS ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTION. 15. UNDOUBTEDLY, THERE ARE CERTAIN LEGAL PRESUMPTIONS ENUMERATED IN SECTION 132(4A) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES AS UNDER : - (4A) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLER Y OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH, IT MAY BE PRESUMED - (I) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BU LLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON; (II) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND (III) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HANDW RITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSON' S HANDWRITING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED, THAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED.] 16 . HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE LEGAL PR ESUMPTION DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF REVENUE. THERE IS NO SUCH PRESUMPTION THAT THE IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 21 AMOUNT MENTIONED IN SEIZED DOCUMENT WILL BE PRESUMED THE AMOUNT OF ACTUAL FINANCIAL TRANSACTION. 1 7 . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION VS V.C. SHUKLA & ORS , 1998 (3) SCC 410 , HELD THAT LOOSE SHEETS ARE NOT ADMISSIBLE IN EVIDENCE AND ENTRIES IN SUCH LOOSE SHEETS ARE NOT EVEN A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE. STILL FURTHER, THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF COMMON CAUSE (A REGISTERED SOCIETY ) VS. UNION OF INDIA, [2017] 77 TAXMANN.COM 245 (SC) HAS HELD THAT ; I) ENTRIES IN LOOSE PAPERS/SHEETS ARE IRRELEVANT AND NOT ADMISSIBLE UNDER SECTION 34 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT. IT IS ONLY WHERE THE ENTRIES ARE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REGULARLY KEPT, DEPENDING ON THE NATURE OF OCCUPATION, THAT THOSE ARE ADMISSIBLE; (II) AS TO THE VALUE OF ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, SUCH STATEMENT SHALL NOT ALONE BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE ANY PERSON WITH LIABILITY, EVEN IF THEY ARE RELEVANT AND ADMISSIBLE, AND THAT THEY ARE ONLY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. EVEN THEN INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY AS TO TRUSTWORTHINESS OF THOSE ENTRIES WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT TO FASTEN THE LIABILITY; (III) THE MEANING OF ACCOUNT BOOK WOULD BE SPIRAL NOTE BOOK/PAD BUT NOT LOOSE SHEETS; (IV) ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT BY THEMSELVES SUFFICIENT TO CHARGE ANY PERSON WITH LIABILITY, THE REASON BEING THAT A MAN CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO MAKE EVIDENCE FOR HIMSELF BY WHAT HE CHOOSES TO W RITE IN HIS OWN BOOKS BEHIND THE BACK OF THE PARTIES. THERE MUST BE INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSACTION TO WHICH THE ENTRIES RELATE AND IN ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE NO RELIEF CAN BE GIVEN TO THE PARTY WHO RELIES UPON SUCH ENTRIES TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM AG AINST ANOTHER; (V) EVEN IF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE REGULARLY KEPT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS, THE ENTRIES THEREIN SHALL NOT ALONE BE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO CHARGE ANY PERSON WITH LIABILITY. IT IS NOT ENOUGH MERELY TO PROVE THAT THE BOOKS HAVE BEEN R EGULARLY KEPT IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE ENTRIES THEREIN ARE CORRECT. IT IS FURTHER INCUMBENT UPON THE PERSON RELYING UPON THOSE ENTRIES TO PROVE THAT THEY WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH FACTS; IT (SS) A NO. 32 / RPR /201 3 22 1 8 . IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE ASSUMPTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY GOOD TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), WHICH IS CONFIRMED AND THE GROUND S OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 1 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 12 / 01 /201 8 . SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) SD/ - (N. S. SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAIPUR ; DATED 12 /01/2018 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , RAIPUR / DR, ITAT, RAIPUR 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//