The A.C.I.T., Central Circle, Agra V. M/s Citizen Glass Industries, Firozabad

ITSSA 5/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7590 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Loose papers; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.L. GEHLOT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.90 TO 29.11.2000 A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE, VS. M/S. CITIZEN GLASS INDUSTRIES, AGRA. MAINPURI GATE, FIROZABAD. (PAN : AAAFC 7395 J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI WASEEM ARSHAD, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 03.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.04.2012 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-I, AGRA DATED 15.02.2011 FOR THE ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A), AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ANNULLING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE F ACTS OF THE CASE, AND THE LEGAL POSITION WHEN THE SATISFACTION HAS BE EN RECORDED BY THE AO. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN IGNORING THE PARA 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE AO H AS RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 158BD ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS FOUND IN OFFICE OF M/S. JAIN INDUSTRIES. IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 2 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN APPLYING THE RATIO OF CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. CIT 289 ITR 341 (SC) WHEN THE FACTS OF THE TWO CASES ARE DIFFERENT, IN THE IN STANT CASE, THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER BOTH THE PERSONS WAS THE O NE AND THE SAME, THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF HANDING OVER THE RECO RDS AND RECORDING OF SATISFACTION FOR ANOTHER AO WAS NOT NECESSARY AN D HE HIMSELF RIGHTLY PROCEEDED U/S. 158BD OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. CI T(A), AGRA HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT AS PER PROVISIONS U/S. 292 B, IF ANY NOTICE OR ASSESSMENT IS IN SUBSTANCE AND EFFECT IN CONFORMITY WITH OR ACCORDING TO INTENT AND PURPOSE OF THE ACT, THE SAME CANNOT B E INVALIDATED MERELY BY REASON OF ANY MISTAKE, OMISSION OR DEFECT S IN SUCH NOTICE OR RETURN. 5. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS NEEDS TO BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO B E RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH U /S. 132(1) WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE FIRM, M/S. JAIN GLASS INDU STRIES, FIROZABAD AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSE E FIRM, NAMELY SHRI DINESH CHAND JAIN, MAHESH CHAND AND SHRI SANJAY KUMAR JAIN OF FI ROZABAD AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DIARIES AND LARGE NUMBER OF LOOSE PAPERS W ERE SEIZED. THE SEIZED PAPERS CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE PERSON SEARCHED AND THE ASSESSEE. THE AO INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD OF THE IT A CT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND ESTIMATED THE UNDISCLOSED NET PROFIT OF RS.29,9 0,774/-. HOWEVER, ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ON PROTECTIV E BASIS. IT WAS ALSO NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECOR D TO ESTABLISH THAT A PARTICULAR IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 3 PART OF THE PROFIT RELATES TO THE PERIOD OTHER THAN THE PERIOD OF SEIZED DIARY. THEREFORE, SPREAD OVER OF THE PROFIT AS TAKEN BY AS SESSEE WAS NOT DONE. 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORD ER U/S. 158BD READ WITH SECTION 143(3) BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUB MITTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION REQUIRED U/S. 158BD OF TH E ACT BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS WHOLL Y WITHOUT JURISDICTION. SEVERAL DECISIONS WERE RELIED UPON IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTEN TION INCLUDING DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHW ARI VS. ACIT, 289 ITR 341. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT FR OM THE AO AND THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS EXAMINED THE RE CORDS OF ALL THE PERSONS SEARCHED BUT NO REASONS WERE TRACEABLE. THE AO, HOW EVER, REFERRED TO PARA 3 OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER TO SHOW THAT AO WAS SATISFIE D FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 158BD AFTER CONSIDERING THE SEIZED DIARIES. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD NOTED THAT IT WAS ADMITTED BEFORE HIM THAT THE REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD ARE N OT TRACEABLE AND THAT THE SAME IS MANDATORY BEFORE INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE CASE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI (SUPRA). THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE REPORT OF THE AO THAT NO SATISFACTION WAS FOUND RECORDED IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, HELD THAT THE IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 4 PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALID AND CANNOT BE PROCEEDED AGA INST THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, ANNULLED THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD OF THE IT ACT. 4. THE LD. DR, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO TO S HOW THAT THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SATISFIED BEFORE INITIATING PROCEEDING U/S. 158BD OF THE IT ACT ON THE BASIS OF EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY INITIA TED IN THE MATTER. THE LD. DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE PERSO N SEARCHED AND THE AO IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SAME. THEREFORE, THERE IS N O NEED OF RECORDING SPECIFIC SATISFACTION AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT, BAN GALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SUBHAN JAVEED VS. ACIT, 122 ITD 307 (BANG.). 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. SECTION 158BD PROVIDES - 158BD. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED TH AT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THA N THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER S ECTION 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS O R ANY ASSETS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUI SITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVIN G JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESS ING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHE R PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCO RDINGLY. IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 5 5.1 CHAPTER XIV-B PROVIDES FOR SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN ASSESSMENT IN SEARCH CASES. SECTION 158BC PROVIDES FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN THE CASES IN WHICH SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR DOCUMENTS REQUI SITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. HOWEVER, ANOTHER PROVISION UNDER SECTION 158BD IS P ROVIDED FOR ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ANY PERSON OTHER T HAN THE PERSON SEARCHED. IT PROVIDES THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISF IED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH R ESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV-B SH ALL BE APPLICABLE. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING SEIZED THE RECORD WITH HIM AND AFTER SATISFYING HIMSELF FROM THE SEIZED RECORD FOUND THAT THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME BELONGED TO OTHER PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED, THEN TO HAND OVER T HE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON. THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON SHALL PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON UNDER SECTION 158BD TO DETERMINE THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME AS PER LAW. 6. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF AMITY HO TELS PRIVATE LIMITED V. CIT;272 ITR 75 HELD- IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 6 HELD, THAT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THERE WAS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE FORMED AN OPI NION AND ARRIVED AT A SATISFACTION THAT THE PETITIONER HAD N OT TRULY DISCLOSED ITS INCOME. THE APPRECIATION REPORT CLEAR LY REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CALLED UPON TO LOOK INTO IT WITH REGARD TO SEVERAL ENTRIES AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS NOTHING HAD CLEARLY INDICATED THAT IT REQUIRED FURT HER INVESTIGATION IN-DEPTH SCRUTINY AND THERE WAS NOTHI NG TO INDICATE THAT HE HAD RECORDED IN WRITING THAT HE WA S SATISFIED ABOUT THE ACTION REQUIRED TO BE INITIATED. EVEN IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY IT WAS NOT STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED AND HENCE ISSUED NOTICE. ON THE CONTRARY, IT REVEAL ED THAT TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION NOTICE WAS ISSUED AND THAT WAS CLEAR FROM THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE PR OPERTY WHICH WAS REFERRED TO FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS HAD ALRE ADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE NOTICES ISSU ED UNDER SECTION 158BD WERE NOT VALID AND WERE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 6.1 ITAT, SPECIAL BENCH, BANGALORE, IN THE CASE OF Y. SUBBARAJU &COMPANY V. ACIT; 91 ITD 118 HELD- THE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 158BD ARE: (I) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF A PERSON SEARCHED SHOU LD BE SATISFIED, (II) THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO PERSON OTHE R THAN THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. (III) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR AS SETS SEIZED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THAN OTHER PERSON. (IV) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST SU CH OTHER PERSON UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER. ON THE BASIS OF THE SEARCH MATERIAL IN THE POSSESSI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF A PERSON WHO IS SEARCHED, HE IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 7 MUST COME TO A PRIMA FACIE VIEW THAT UNDISCLOSED IN COME BELONGS TO OTHER PERSON. 6.2 ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF VISHWANATH PRASAD V. ACIT; 86 ITD 516 HELD- THE DEPARTMENT AS SUCH COULD NOT GIVE SURPRISE TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE APPELLATE STAGE BY MENTIONING THAT THERE WAS NO AUTHORIZATION OF SEARCH IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE -FIRM. THE SATISFACTION HAD TO BE ARRIVED AT BY THE INITIAL AS SESSING OFFICER BEFORE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIN 158BD. IT WAS UNDIS PUTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE F IRM WAS THE ITO. THAT FACT WAS MENTIONED IN THE PANCHANAMA ALSO BUT LATER ON THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSTT. COMMISSIO NER. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE T O THE ASSESSEE FIRM BUT LATER ON THE RECORD WAS AGAIN TRA NSFERRED TO ANOTHER ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER. IT APPEARED THAT TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD PROCEEDED AGAINST THE ASSESSE E FIRM UNDER SECTION 158BC, THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW HAD NOT CARED TO MENTION ANYWHERE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGED TO S UCH PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHO WAS SEARCHED UNDER SECTIO N 132. IT WAS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SEARCH MATERIAL WAS NEVER HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THEREFORE, THE RE WAS NO AUESTION OF HIS SATISFACTION AT ALL AS REQUIRED UND ER SECTION 158BD (PARA 15) 6.3 ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF NAVIN VERMA; 283 ITR (AT)83 HELD THAT RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IS A PRE-REQUISITE CONDIT ION UNDER SECTION 158BD. SATISFACTION CAN BE RECORDED SEPARATELY. 6.4 HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAH ESHWARI V. ACIT; 289 ITR 349 HELD- IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 8 11. THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING A BLOCK A SSESSMENT IS THAT A SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER S ECTION 132A. THE SAID PROVISION WOULD APPLY IN THE CASE OF ANY PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM SEARCH HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT UNDE R SECTION 132A OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A. SECTION 158BD, HOWEVER, PROVIDES FOR TAKING RECOURSE TO A BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN TERM OF SECTION 1 58BC IN RESPECT OF ANY OTHER PERSON, THE CONDITIONS PRECEDE NT WHEREFOR ARE (I) SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON O THER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UND ER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT; (II) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAD BEE N HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION O VER SUCH OTHER PERSON; AND (III) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS P ROCEEDED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 158BD THUS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED BEF ORE THE PROVISIONS OF THE SAID CHAPTER ARE APPLIED IN RELAT ION TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES HAD BEE N SEARCHED OR WHOSE DOCUMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS HAD BE EN REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD- LAW IN THIS REGARD IS CLEAR AND EXPLICIT. THE ONLY QUESTION WHICH ARISES FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS AS TO WHETHER THE NOTICE DATED FEBRUARY 6M 1996, SATISFIES THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THE SAID NOTICE DOES NOT RECORD A NY SATISFACTION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. DOCUMENTS AND OTHER ASSETS RECOVERED DURING SEARCH HAD NOT BE EN HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION I N THE MATTER. IT WAS FURTHER HELD- AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT RECORDED HIS SATI SFACTION, WHICH IS MANDATORY; NOR HAS HE TRANSFERRED THE CASE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE MATT ER, WE ARE OF IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 9 THE OPINION THAT THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENTS OF THE HIGH COURT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED, WHICH ARE SET ASIDE ACCORDINGL Y. THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. HOWEVER, IN THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE SHALL BE NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 7. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE F ACTS OF THE CASE FOR QUASHING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BD OF THE IT ACT. THE AO IN TH E REMAND REPORT SPECIFICALLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT NO REASONS FOR RECORDING SATISFACTION TO PROCEED U/S. 158BD ARE TRACEABLE. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, NO SUCH SATISFACTION HAS BEEN RECO RDED FOR PROCEEDING U/S. 158BD OF THE IT ACT. THUS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 15 8BD HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THIS CASE. FURTHER, THE AO RECORDED IN PARA 2 & 3 O F THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE U/S. 158BD AFTER CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF DIARIES SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH WOULD NOT AMOUNT TO SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED U/S. 158BD O F THE ACT. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE FURTHER FORTIFIED BY THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, IN WHICH THE AO HAS MADE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE. SINCE NO SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT IS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WOULD PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AVAILABLE AGAINST THE ASSESS EE, WHICH WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED U NDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. SINCE THE ENTIRE SEIZED MATERIAL WAS CONSIDERED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IT(SS)A. NO. 05 /AGRA/2011 10 IN THE CASE OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, THEREFORE, THE AO WOULD NOT HAVE ANY OCCASION TO HAVE SATISFIED HIMSELF TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U /S. 158BD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FIRM. SINCE, IT IS A DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND NO MAT ERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO CONTRADICT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) THROUGH A NY MATERIAL, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE DECISION CITED BY THE LD. DR WOULD BE DISTINGUISHABLE ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, REQUISITE SATISFACTION HAD BEEN RECORDED BY T HE AO. IN THE RESULT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A.L. GEHLOT) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY