Suresh Kumar Garg, Bhubaneswar V. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

ITSSA 63/CTK/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8390 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SETH
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Source of fund

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK ( ) BEFORE . . , , HONBLE SHRI K.K.GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. /AND . . . , HONBLE SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I.T (SS) A.NO S . 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07) 1 . SURESH KUMAR GARG , PAN NO.ABHPG 1221 F 2 . SURESH KUMAR GARG (HUF) PAN:AAGHS 2462 A 3 . UMA GARG, PAN : AAUPG 2152 K ADDRESS FOR ALL: A.R.INTERNATINAL OLD STATION BAZAR, BHUBANESWAR 751 006. - - - VERSUS - ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / FOR THE APPELLANT : / SHRI D.K.SETH, AR / FOR THE RESPONDENT: / SMT . PARAMITA TRIPATHY,CIT - DR AND SHRI S.C.MOHANTY, DR / DATE OF HEARING: 20.07.2012 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.08.2012 / ORDER . . . , , SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RA O, JUDICIAL MEMBER . THESE APPEALS BY SEPARATE ASSESSEE S BELONGING TO A GROUP ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER ON THE PRIMARY ISSUE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE PROTECTIVELY AND SUBSTANTIVELY ON EITHER HANDS WHEN THE SOURCE OF INCOME FOR INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE S SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASSESSED AS PROTECTIVE BUT ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED SUBSTANTIALLY IN ANOTHER ASSESSEE. 2. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 29.11.2005 AT THE BUSINESS PR EMISES AS WELL AS THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF GARG GROUP OF I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 2 CASES. IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ALL THE BUSINESS ENTITIES OF THE GROUP ASSESSEES WERE COVERED. ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IN CASE OF RES PECTIVE ASSESSEES WHEN INCOMES WERE TO BE IDENTIFIED FOR TAXATION PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENTS U/S.153A AND U/S.143(3). IN THE CASE OF SURESH GARG(HUF) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 THE QUANTUM ADDITION WAS SUBJECTED TO APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL WHEN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S.263 BY THE CIT WAS ALLOWED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDERS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEN THE ORIGINAL APPEALS WERE ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ORDERS BY THE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 147/148. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL INITIATING HIS SUBMISSIONS BEGINNING WITH SURESH KUMAR GARG , INDIVIDUAL WHO ALSO IS THE KARTA OF SURESH GARG (HUF) ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING THE INCOME OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE NAMELY SMT. UMA GARG, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO HAVE BEEN RENDERING INCOME FROM AYS 2001 - 01 WHICH ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED UP TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 U/S.1 43(3)/ 153C. THE ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED IN DECEMBER, 2007 CANNOT AGAIN BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXAT ION IN THE HANDS OF SURESH KUMAR GARG SUBSTANTIALLY. WITHOUT CONSIDERING THIS SUB MISSION OF THE A SSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE SAME BY HOLDING A VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S S.263/153A/143(3) WHO HAD BASED ASSESSMENT OF INCOME THAT HAD ALREADY STOOD SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION AS NOTED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN THEIR ORDER DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE LEARNED CIT ASSUMING JURISDICTION U /S.263. THE LEARNED CIT(A) THEREFORE COULD NOT BIFURCATE THE ITEMS FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN THE LAND PURCHASE WHEN I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 3 THE INCOMES HAVE BEEN RENDERED TO TAX BY A DIFFERENT ASSESSEE WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AGAIN. SIMILARLY, THE INCOME OF HUF WAS BEING TAX ED SEPARATELY WAS KNOWN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE HUF BEGINNING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 WERE FURNISHED INDICATING GENERATION OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE HUF WAS NOT A SHIELD TO COVER UP THE INVESTMENTS MADE FROM THE SOURC E OF INVESTMENT BEING THE HUF. IT WAS EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHEN THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTRADICT THE ASSESSING OFFICERS F INDING THAT NO EVIDENCE EXISTS REGARDING CORPUS FUND OF THE HUF WHICH HAS BEEN USED I N THE BUSINESS AND THE APPELLANT EITHER IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OR AS KARTA OF HUF. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE SAME INCOME HAS BEEN TAX ED IN TWO DIFFERENT HANDS WHEN SOURCE HAS BEEN EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS AGAIN TO BE EXPLAINED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S.153A HAS TO BE SPECIFIC TO THE EXTENT THAT INCOMES FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES HAVE TO BE BROUGHT O N RECORD WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MERELY COMPUTED THE INCOME AS HE HA D ALREADY DISCLOSED OR BROUGHT TO TAX BY WAY OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT. IN ANY CASE, THE ORIGINAL ORDER WAS CANCELLED BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S.263 WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THEREFORE WAS TO START FOR A FRESH ASSESSMENT AND NOT TO BE REASSESSED AS HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN ANY CASE, THE SEARCH HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED ON 29.,11.2005 AND THE DEPOSITS BEING BANK DEPOSITS WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR TAXATION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 WHEN ONLY A RESIDUAL AMOUNT OF 19,200 WAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 4 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RENDERED INCOME OF MORE THAN 1 LAKH. INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE NAMELY SMT. UMA GARG AND INCOME OF HUF WERE ALREADY AVAILABLE FOR TAXATION AS CAN BE PERUSED IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED FOR SEVERAL YEARS CANNOT BE TAXED AGAIN INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERED THE UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT IN LAND IN MATIAPADA IN THE CASE OF SURESH GARG (HUF) AND A SUM OF 2,79,170 IN THE CASE OF UMA GARG BECOME AMOUNTS TO BE CONSIDERED AFTER THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT ONCE THE SAME COULD NOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF SURESH KUMAR GARG, INDIVIDUAL , CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ORIGINALLY TO BE CONSIDERED ONLY ON THE BASIS OF EITHER PROTECTIVE OR SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON TAKING UP INDIVIDUAL CASE IN THE CASE OF SURESH KUMAR GARG IN RESPECT OF GROUND NO.4 BEING INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, IT WAS ERRONEOUSLY CONSIDERED FROM THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 WHEN THE ANNUAL LETTING VALUE WAS RENDERED AT 96,000 AND THE INCOME WAS RENDERED AT 67,200 COULD NOT BE ENHANCED TO 1,32,000 FOR TAXATION OF 92,400 WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EARN THAT MUCH OF RENT IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO EARLIER YEAR COULD NOT BE PUT TO USE FO R A LATER YEAR HAVE BEEN ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY HOLDING A NEGATIVE VIEW THAT RENTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 IS LESS THAN THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06. HE ARGUED THAT TENANTS COME AND GO AND IT IS NOBODYS CAS E THAT ANNUAL LETTING VALUE SHOULD BE SUBJECTED TO RESJUDICATA . WITH RESPECT TO THE BANK DEPOSITS, HE SUBMITTED THAT , AS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THAT THE BANK DEPOSITS WAS 50,000 THEREFORE THE ONLY EXPLANATION OFFERED WHEN IT WAS REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING UNDERSTOOD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 5 INCOME OF MORE THAN 1 LAKH, THE ADDITION OF 69,200 I.E., EXPLAINING THE SUM OF 19,2000 AS WELL THEREFORE S HOULD NOT HAVE LED TO THE FINDING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO 50,000 INSTEAD OF 69,200. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT THE WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT WAS FIT FOR DELETION. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION BEING THE INCOME DECLARED BY UMA GARG AND SURESH GARG (HUF) IT IS ALREADY SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE ASSESSEES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CAPACITIES EARNING INCOMES FROM VARIOUS SOURCES WHICH CANNOT BE AGAIN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SURESH KUMAR GARG INDIVIDUAL HAS BEEN ER RONEOUSLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY ERROR IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE IT. HE POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT HE ASSESSEE FOR THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS NEED NOT EXPLAIN THE SOU RCE OF INCOME AND NATURE OF BUSINESS EVERY YEAR WHEN AFTER THE 6 TH YEAR THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT MERE ACCEPTANCE OF RETURN WITHOUT ENQUIRIES WOULD NOT SAVE THE APPELLANT FROM ENQUIRIES IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS PROCEED ED IN THE MANNER IGNORING THE RECORDS THEY THEMSELVES ARE HOLDING OF HAVING PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S.143(3) OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES WHICH WAS POINTED OUT AND BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW REPEATEDLY. HE SUBMITTED THAT REPETITIVE ADDITION OF INCOMES WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED FOR TAXATION CANNOT BE TAXED FOR REQUIREMENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INCOME FROM A DIFFERENT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOT CORRELATED BY THE A SSESSING AUTHORITIES WHEN ALL THE DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE INVESTMENTS ESPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENTS PASSED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A/153C HAS BEEN DEALT WITH EARLIER CANNOT LEAVE ROOM FOR TAXATION TO THE RESIDUAL AMOUNT WHEN THE SEAR CH WAS I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 6 CONDUCTED ON 29.11.2005 AND THIS BEING THE SEARCH YEAR HAS TO BE DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY WITHOUT RESO RTING TO PASSING ORDER U/S.153A OR U/S.263 AS WELL AS RE - AS SESSMENT U/S.147. HE PRAYED FOR DELETION OF THE ADDITIONS SO MADE OVER AND ABOVE THE INCO ME RETURNED IN CASE OF ALL THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT - DR HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR HER PART OF SUBMISSIONS. SHE SUBMITTED THAT BEING THE SEARCH YEAR, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ABSOLVE THEMSELVES FROM ASSESSMENT WHEN THE SUBSTANT IVE AND PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN SEGREGATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ASSESSMENTS SO MADE WHEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN OTHERWISE BUT WAS NOT EXPLAINED MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS THE ASSESSEE WHO COULD NOT ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF GENERATION OF INCOME BEING INVESTED ELSEWHERE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ASSESSEES BEING PART OF A FAMILY MAINTAINED NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT SPECIFICALLY AFTER THE SEARCH HAVING BEEN CONDUCTED ON 29.11.2005 WAS TO EXPLAIN INCOMES RENDERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEES BY WAY OF REGULAR RETURNS WHEN NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT, IF ANY, WAS FOUND INDICATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEES HAV E BEEN SUBJECTED TO VARIOUS ASSESSMENTS NAMELY U/S.263, 147/148 AND ALONG WITH THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE ERRORS COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE SOUGHT TO BE RECTIFIED WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL WHEN ERRORS WERE POI NTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT U/S.263. THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF RECTIFY ING THE ERRORS I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 7 POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED CIT , CHOSE TO CONFIRM THE SAME MERELY BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL HAD DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE APE X COURT IN THE CASE O F TARA DEVI AG ARWAL V. CIT (88 ITR 323). EVEN THIS PROPOSITION DID NOT CLEAR THE DOUBT IN THE MINDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSOFAR AS THE LEARNED CIT(A) REPEATEDLY CLAIMED THAT IT WAS THE ASSESSEES ENDEAVOR TO EXPLAIN AGAIN THE INCO MES EARNED EARLIER WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMMITTED MISTAKE OF ACCEPTING THE RETURNS OF INCOME AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEES FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT. EVEN THE CASH FLOW SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD AGAINST IT IN ORDER TO HOLD THAT T HE ASSESSEES WHO WERE ASSESSED ON THE INCOME ON PROTECTIVE BASIS HAVE BEEN INVESTED ELSEWHERE. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT REALLY IDENTIFIED THE INCOMES WHICH COULD BE TAXED IN THEIR HANDS INDIVIDUAL LY INSPITE OF HAVING ALL THE RECORDS WHEN THEY THEMSELVES PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE CASE OF HUF AND SMT. UMA GARG WHICH COPIES HAVE BEEN PLACED BY THE LEARNED COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE INCOME GENERATED THEREIN WERE SUBSTANTIAL TO HOLD A VIEW THAT THE INVEST MENTS HAVE BEEN MADE EITHER FROM BANK DEPOSITS OR PURCHASE OF LAND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE WER E TO BE EXPLAINED ONLY ON THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHEN INDIVIDUAL BANK ENTRIES WERE RESORTED TO FOR EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE INCOME KEPT IN THE BANK FOR INVESTMENT ACTUALLY WITHOUT MAKING ANY EFFORT TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE INVESTMENT BY ANOTHER CANNOT BE EXPLAINED FROM THE SOURCE OF INCOME FROM ANOTHER WHEN THE INVESTMENT AND THE SOURCE HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY TAXED BY THE SAME AUTHORITY. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO HA S RELIED ON THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF INCOME GENERATED, ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUALS BY I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 8 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PARTLY ALLOWED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WHEN ORDER U/S.263 WAS TO BE COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT MAKING ANY EFFORT TO EVEN GIVE APPEAL EFFECT TO THOSE AMOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IDENTIFYING INCOMES IN RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES. THE SUM SUBSTANCE OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT AS BROUGHT TO TAX THEREFORE LEADS TO THE FINDING THAT THE INCOMES FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAVE BEEN TAXED ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION AND AS A MATTER OF ABUNDANT PRE - CAUTION WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORATIV E EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF SEARCH MATERIAL INDICATING INCOME UP TO 29.11.2005 FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAXATION IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE CASE OF SURESH KUMAR GARG, INDIVIDUAL, WE DO FIND THAT AN INCREASE IN RENT SHOULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSES SEE AS CONSIDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAINLY BECAUSE ONE PARTICULAR PLOT WAS RENTED OUT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 . S IMILARLY ON A FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO REDUCE THE ADDITION FROM 69,200 TO 50,000 WAS A SPECIFIC FINDING WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS CHOSEN TO TAX THAT AMOUNT OF INCOME DECLARED BY SMT. UMA GARG WAS TO BE NO T CONSIDERED FOR REGULAR INCOME GENERATED BY HER RENDERED TO TAX COULD ONLY BE PARTLY ALLOWED. WHEN THE INCOMES GENERATED ARE MORE THAN THE DEPOSITS IT IS NOBODYS CASE THAT THE DEPOSITS ARE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE INCOME WHICH HAVE BEEN RENDERED TO TAX BY THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES THEREFORE COULD NOT BE AGAIN TAXED AS HAS BEEN DO NE IN THE CASE OF SURESH KUMAR GARG, INDIVIDUAL. IN THE CASE OF SMT. UMA GARG THE INCOME RENDERED BY HER WAS SUFFICIENT FOR TAXATION IN HER OWN HANDS NOT BECAUSE THOSE INCOMES WERE TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SURESH KUMAR GARG. IN THE CASE OF SURESH GARG ( HUF) THE INVESTMENT IN LAND WAS MADE FORM KNOWN SOURCES OF INCOME GENERATED BY THE GROUP WAS TO BE EXPLAINED WHICH EXPLANATION WAS I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 9 CONSIDERED LACKING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) INSOFAR AS HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS OF 4 0,000, 50,000 AND 2,76,107 IN THE HANDS OF SURESH GARG (HUF) BUT DISMISS ING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL WAS A DIRECTION TO ASSESS IT PROTECTIVELY AND NOT SUBSTANTIVELY BEING AN APPELLATE AUTHORITY . WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE C ONTENTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS SET ASIDE . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT DELETION OF ALL THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES BY ALLOWING ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FI LED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED. S D/ - S D/ - ( . . ) , , (K.K.GUPTA), ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( . . . ) , (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO), JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) DATE: 14.08.2012 - COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . ASSESSEES : 1 . SURESH KUMAR GARG , PAN NO.ABHPG 1221 F 2 . SURESH KUMAR GARG (HUF) PAN:AAGHS 2462 A 3 . UMA GARG, PAN : AAUPG 2152 K ADDRESS FOR ALL: A.R.INTERNATINAL OLD STATION BAZAR, BHUBANESWAR 751 006. 2 THE DEPARTMENT : ACIT, CIRCLE 1(2), BHUBANESWAR 3 . / THE CIT, 4 . ( )/ THE CIT(A), 5 . / DR, CUTTACK BENCH 6 . GUARD FILE . / TRUE COPY, / BY ORDER, ( ), (H.K.PADHEE), SENIOR.PRIVATE SECRETARY. I.T( SS)A.NOS. 63,381, AND 382/CTK/2012 10 APPENDIX XVII SEAL TO BE AFFIXED ON THE ORDER SHEET BY THE SR. P.S./P.S. AFTER DICTATION IS GIVEN 1. DATE OF DICTATION 8.8.2012 . 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10.8.2012 OTHER MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER ................ 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER ..