Shri Anchit Goyal, Bhopal v. The A.C.I.T. 1(1), Bhopal

CO 29/IND/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 2922723 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AIKPG5493R
Bench Indore
Appeal Number CO 29/IND/2013
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant Shri Anchit Goyal, Bhopal
Respondent The A.C.I.T. 1(1), Bhopal
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 26-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 26-07-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 18-02-2013
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JM & SHRI R.C. SHARMA AM IT(SS) A NOS.401 TO 405 /IND/2012 A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2009-10 ACIT 1(1) BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS ANCHIT GOYAL BHOPAL PAN AIKPG 5493R :: RESPONDENT CO NOS. 25 TO 29/IND/2013 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS) A NOS.401 TO 405 /IND/2012 A.YS. 2005-06 TO 2009-10 ANCHIT GOYAL BHOPAL :: OBJECTOR VS ACIT 1(1) BHOPAL ::: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE RESPONDENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA DATE OF HEARING 20.6.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 .7.2013 2 O R D E R PER SHRI R.C. SHARMA AM THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CRO SS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) DATED 30.8.2012 FOR THE A.YS. 2005-06 TO 200 9-10 IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 153A READ WITH SE CTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE INDIVIDUAL IS REGULAR INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND DERIV ES INCOME FROM HIS BUSINESS OF DEALING IN LAND. A SEAR CH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHR I ASHOK GOYAL ASSESSEES FATHER IN MAY 2008. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICES U/S 153C WERE ISSUED IN THE ASSESSEES CASE AND AFTER ISSUING OTHER STATUTORY N OTICES THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS MOST OF WHICH WERE DELETED BY CIT(A) AND THE PRESENT APPEALS RELATE TO THESE ASSESSMENTS. DURING THE 3 COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO BY REFERRING TO SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 3. IN THE A.Y. 2005-06 ADDITION OF RS. 6 40 375/- WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS LPS 1/45 PAGE 1 29 WHICH IS A REGISTRATION DOCUMENT FOR PURCHASE OF A PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS. 21 LACS. THIS PURC HASE WAS FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT RS. 18 00 000/ - ONLY. THE AO THEREFORE MADE AGGREGATED ADDITION OF RS. 640375/- I.E. UNRECORDED INVESTMENT AT RS. 3 LACS A ND UNRECORDED STAMP DUTY AT RS. 3 40 375/-. 4. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS. 18 00 000/- ONLY AND WITHHELD THE BALANCE OF RS. 3 00 000/- AS THE SELLER HAS NOT PROVIDED COMPLETE POSSESSION OF THE PROPERTY TILL DATE. AS PER TERMS OF SALE TH E STAMP DUTY WAS ALSO BORNE BY THE SELLER. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN 4 AFFIDAVIT OF THE SELLER CONFIRMING THESE FACTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BUT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE SAME. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL TRIBUNAL REPORTED IN (2008) 11 ITJ 30(IND) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT : 158BC AGREEMENT FOR SALE AT A HIGHER VALUE-ACTUAL REGISTRATION AT LOWER VALUE REASON ATTRIBUTED TO RE-NEGOTIATION AND AFFIDAVIT OF SELLER FILED ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE AO WAS ALSO FILED. 5. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENTS ORDERS THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THE RELEVANT LOOSE PAPERS AND COPY OF AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE AO. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE 5 ADDITION SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSIDERATION APPEARING IN THE LOOSE PAPER AND THE VALUE RECORDED IN BOOKS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS DISREGARDED EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE SELLER DR. SIDDHARTH SINHA. THE SELLER HAS CONFIRMED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 00 000/- HAS NOT BEEN PAID AND FURTHER THAT THE STAMP DUTY ON THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE SELLER. IN THIS CONTEXT THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PAREKH & CO. VS. CIT(1956) 30 ITR 181 THAT DULY SWORN AFFIDAVIT CANNOT BE REJECTED WITHOUT CROSS- EXAMINING THE DEPONENT. THE SAME VIEW WAS FOLLOWED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GLASS LINES EQUIPMENTS CO. LTD. V. CIT (2001) 170 6 CTR470. THEREFORE THEAO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISREGARDING THE AFFIDAVIT WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORDS THE REASONS FOR DOING SO. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ADDITION OF RS.6 40 375/- MADE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE HENCE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 6. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORD PERUSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PROPER TY FOR RS. 21 LACS WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AT RS. 18 LACS. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RS. 18 LACS AND WITHHELD BALANCE OF RS. 3 LACS. THE SELLER OF THE PROPERTY DR. SIDDHARTHA SINHA HAS ALSO CONFIRMED IN THE AFFIDAVIT THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 3 LACS HAS NOT BEEN P AID AND FURTHER THAT THE STAMP DUTY ON THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN PAID BY THE SELLER. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE PURCHASER A ND HIS 7 CONFIRMATION. AFTER RECORDING DETAILED FINDINGS IN PARA 7.3 THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON LY RS. 18 LACS WHICH HAS BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS ACCORDINGLY THE BALANCE OF RS. 3 LACS W HICH WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS STAMP DUTY WHICH WAS BORNE BY THE SELLER WAS DELETED. WE DO N OT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN VI EW OF THE FACT THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN PARA 7.3 HAVE NO T BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY BRINGING ANY POSI TIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED TH AT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT GIVING CREDIT TO PR E-PAID TAXES. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) DIRECTED T HE AO TO ALLOW CREDIT OF PRE-PAID TAXES AFTER VERIFICATIO N AS PER LAW. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW CREDIT AFTER VERIFICATION OF ACTUAL AMOUNT OF PAID-PAID TAXES. 8 8. IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED FOR DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS MADE BY THE AO BY REFERRING TO CHEQUE DATED 6.10.2005 ISSUED BY ATIQ IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM RECORD WE FIND THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ONE CHEQUE OF RS. 18 00 000/ - DATED 06.10.2005 ISSUED BY SHRI ATEEQ IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND. THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS GIVEN CASH LOAN TO THE SAID PERSON AND HAD OBTA INED SIGNED CHEQUE AS SECURITY FROM HIM. SINCE NO SUCH L OAN WAS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE THE A.O. HAS ADDED THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS. 18 00 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS AS UNDER :- THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY CASH LOAN TO THE SAID PERSON AS ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BORROW MONEY FROM HIM FROM TIME TO TIME AND THIS 9 FACT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS. THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED RS. 12 00 000 ON 13.09.2006 HIS GRANDFATHER BORROWED RS. 5 00 000 ON 27.02.2006 AND RS. 18 00 000 ON 09.06.2006 FROM THE SAID PERSON. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE/FAMILY MEMBERS ARE DULY RECORDED IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THESE BOOKS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COPY OF THE RELEVANT EXTRACTS WAS FILED WITH THE A.O. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THEIR BUSINESS WHENEVER ARE REQUIRED THEY OBTAIN LOANS FROM OTHERS THROUGH CHEQUES AND SUCH CHEQUES ARE PRESENTED TO THE BANK ONLY WHEN THE CORRESPONDING DEALS ARE MATERIALIZED.THE CHEQUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS ONE OF SUCH CHEQUES; WHICH WERE NOT PRESENTED TO THE BANK AS IT WAS NOT REQUIRED. THE LENDER DID NOT RECALL THE CHEQUE IN VIEW OF THEIR LONG TERM RELATIONS. EVEN OTHERWISE THE CHEQUE WAS DATED 13.10.2005 AND HAS BECOME A STALE CHEQUE. THEREFORE THE A.O.S SUPPOSED THEORY OF OBTAINING CHEQUES AS 10 SECURITY CASH LOANS ALLEGEDLY GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE PROVES TO BE WRONG AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS STATED AT PAGE 131 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK GOYAL THAT THE DETAILED MODUS OPERANDI OF THE ASSESSEE THEIR EXPLANATION AND REASONS FOR REJECTING THEIR EXPLANATIONS ARE DESCRIBED IN DETAIL IN THE ANNEXURE 2 OF THIS ORDER WHICH MAY PLEASE BE REFERRED HOWEVER NO SUCH ANNEXURE WAS FOUND ENCLOSED. THE ASSESSEES REQUEST DATED 27.01.2011 TO SUPPLY COPY OF THE SAME WAS NOT ADHERED TO HENCE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ADDITION MADE IS WITHOUT ANY REASONING. 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAVING THE FO LLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS AND SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. I HAVE ALSO VERIFIED THE CASH BOOK AND LEDGER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS 11 GRANDFATHER PRODUCED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE FAMILY BORROWS MONEY FROM SHRI ATEEQ FROM TIME TO TIME AND SUCH BORROWINGS ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE EXPLANATION OF THE LD.A.R. REGARDING THE REASONS FOR AVAILABILITY OF SUCH CHEQUE WITH THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH PROBABLE. I HAVE VERIFIED THE CASE RECORDS ALSO AND NO ANNEXURE AS REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FOUND. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT ANY SUCH CASH LOAN WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE CHEQUE RELATES TO SECURITY AGAINST SUCH LOAN. THUS THE ADDITION IS APPARENTLY MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THEREFORE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT CORRECT HENCE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 18 0 000/- IS DELETED. 11. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORD PERUSED. AN ADDITION OF RS. 18 LACS WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ONE CHEQUE DATED 6.10.2005 ISSUED BY S HRI 12 ATIQUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOAN TO THE SAID P ERSON AND HAD OBTAINED SIGNED CHEQUE AS SECURITY FROM HIM . SINCE NO SUCH CASH LOAN WAS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) AFTER GOING THRO UGH THE CASE RECORD AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BORROWED MONEY FROM SHRI ATIQUE. THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED RS. 12 LACS ON 13.9.2006 AND HIS GRAND-FATHER BORROWED RS. 5 LACS ON 17.2.2006 AND RS. 18 LACS ON 9.6.2006 FROM SHRI ATI QUE. ALL THESE LOANS WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WHI CH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE T IME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS THE TRANSACTION WAS RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WITH RESPECT TO THE LOAN T AKEN FROM ATIQ THE CIT(A) AFTER RECORDING DETAILED FIND ING IN PARA 7.3 DELETED THE ADDITION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) INSOFAR AS THE TRA NSACTIONS 13 WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN RESPECT O F THE LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. 12. THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 38 580/- RS. 8 80 200/- RS. 12 42 474/- AND RS. 17 53 085/- MADE IN THE A.Y S. 2006-07 TO 2009-10 WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- THE NATURE OF ADDITIONS AND THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION COVERED IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ADDITION COVERED IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING GROUND OF APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN AGAINST THAT GROUND IN PARA-11 ABOVE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THESE ADDITIONS WERE ALSO MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. HENCE ALL THESE ADDITIONS ARE DELETED. SIMILARLY THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON SUCH LOANS ARE ALSO DELETED BEING NOT BASED ON ANY SUPPORTING MATERIAL. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITIONS TOWARDS INTEREST INCOME MADE IN VARIOUS YEARS ARE DELETED. 14 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FIND THAT THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THE SAME PLEA THAT THE CHEQUES WERE FOUN D IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TREATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN CASH LO AN AND AS A SECURITY AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE CHEQUES DULY SIGNED BY THE BORROWER. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY STATING THAT THESE ADDITIONS WERE SIMILAR TO THE ADDITIONS DISCUSSED I N PARA 7.3 OF HIS ORDER AND HELD THAT THESE ADDITIONS WERE ALSO MADE ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTIONS AND WITHOUT BRINGI NG CORROBORATING MATERIAL ON RECORD. SIMILARLY ADDITI ON MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ALLEGED TO BE ACCRUED O N SUCH LOANS WAS ALSO DELETED. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A ) HAS NOT RECORDED ANY FINDING WITH REGARD TO VERIFICATIO N OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREIN ALLEGED LOANS WERE DULY RECORDED. HOWEVER WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION OF R S. 18 LACS BY GIVING HIS FINDINGS IN PARA 7.3 THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A CLEAR FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT THIS LOAN WAS 15 APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PRODU CED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CLEAR FINDING OF THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THESE LOANS W E SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WITH RESPECT TO THESE DEL ETIONS. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THESE ADDITI ONS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRE SH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THESE TRANSACTIONS WE RE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 14. IN THE RESULT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AMOUNTING TO RS. 3 38 580/- RS. 8 80 200/- RS. 12 42 474/- AND RS. 17 53 085/- IN THE A.YS. 2006-07 TO 2009-10 ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATT ER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR D ECIDING AFRESH. 15. IN THE A.Y. 2007-08 AN ADDITION OF RS. 2 78 382/- WAS MADE BY THE AO AS PER LPS-1/22. 16 16. THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT AS PER LPS 1/22 PAGE 5-12 THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT VILLAGE MANDORI AND INCURRED REGISTRATION EXPENSES AT RS. 2 78 382/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATI ON REGARDING SOURCES OF SUCH EXPENSES; THEREFORE HE A DDED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 17. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE WAS AS UNDER :- THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS.3 50 000/- TOWARDS REGISTRATION CHARGES FOR THE SAID PURCHASE AND THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE IS DULY RECORDE D IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COPY OF RELEVANT LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE A .O. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED A COPY OF THE SAME TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 18. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAV ING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 17 13.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE ALSO WITH COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED. AS APPARENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HIS SUBMISSIONS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 83 STATE THAT ..THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE RECORDED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 AND ARE ALSO APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE BEING PRODUCED HERE WITH FOR YOUR KIND VERIFICATION. AS PER THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS. 15 24 000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF LAND AT MINDORO AND HAS FURTHER INCURRED RS. 3 50 000/- TOWARDS REGISTRATION FEES. THUS THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES ARE FOUND 18 TO HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAID EXPENSES AS UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 19. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION O F RS. 2 78 382/- IN RESPECT OF REGISTRATION EXPENSES OF P ROPERTY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT VILLAGE MANDORI. THE C IT(A) DELETED THE SAME AFTER OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN INVESTMENT OF RS.15 24 000/- TOWARDS PURCHA SE OF LAND AT VILLAGE MANDORI AND FURTHER INCURRED A S UM OF RS. 3 50 000/- TOWARDS REGISTRATION EXPENSES. BOTH THE INVESTMENTS AS WELL AS REGISTRATION EXPENSES WERE D ULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PRODUC ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COPY OF THE SAME W AS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE FINDINGS RECORDED AT PARA 13.3 BY THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED. WE 19 THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIN DING RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) ACCORDING TO WHICH REGISTRAT ION EXPENSES OF THE PROPERTY WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES. 20. IN THE A.Y. 2007-08 THE ADDITION OF RS. 90 740 /- WAS MADE BY REFERRING TO LPS 1/20 WHICH INDICATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT VILLAGE BARKHEDA. THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT AS PER LPS 1/20 P AGE 1-19 THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT VILL . BANKHEAD AND INCURRED REGISTRATION EXPENSES AT RS. 90 740/- BUT HE DID NOT GIVE ANY EXPLANATION REGAR DING THE REGISTRATION EXPENSES THEREFORE THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS ADDITION AD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 21. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE WAS AS UNDER :- THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INCURRED A TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 92 000/- TOWARDS REGISTRATION FEE FOR THE SAID 20 PURCHASE AND IT IS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF AC COUNT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REFLECTING THESE ENTRIES WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND COPY OF RELEVANT LEDGER ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FILED WITH THE A.O. COPY OF RELEVANT LEDGER AC COUNT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 22. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAV ING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 14.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT FILED. THE RELEVANT EXPENDITURE IS VERIFIABLE FROM THE RECORDS HENCE; NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED ON THIS SCORE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION IS DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 23. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORD PERUSED. THE ADDITION OF RS. 90 740/- WAS M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE 21 HAS PURCHASED A PROPERTY AT VILLAGE BARKHEDA AND INCURRED REGISTRATION EXPENSES OF RS. 90 740/- BUT DID NOT GIVE EXPLANATION REGARDING SUCH EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY RECORDING A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED RS. 92 000/- TOWARDS REGISTRATION FEE FOR THE SAID PURCHASE AND THE SAME WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THESE BOOKS WERE ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. TH E FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE REGISTRA TION EXPENSES WERE DULY FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 90 740/- MAD E ON ACCOUNT OF REGISTRATION EXPENSES ON THE PROPERTY AT VILLAGE BARKHEDA. 24. IN THE A.Y. 2007-08 THE ADDITION OF RS. 65 58 600/- WAS MADE BY THE AO BY REFERRING TO LPS 1/38. THE A.O. HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 22 PURCHASED THE PROPERTY MENTIONED IN LPS 1/38 PAGE 3 4- 30 FOR RS. 1 04 37 000/- BUT HAS DISCLOSED THE INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ONLY AT RS. 35 78 400/-. THEREFORE HE ADDED THE DIFFERENCE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT . 25. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSES SEE WAS AS UNDER :- IN THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE SAID ANNEXURE OF PAGE NO. 5 RELATES TO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE SAID PRO PERTY. THE AGREEMENT CONTAINS TOTAL FIVE PAGES MARKED AS L PS- 1/38 PAGE NOS. 30-34 THE DETAILS OF THE PAGES ARE AS UNDER:- SL.NO. PAGE PARTICULARS 1 LPS 1/38 PAGE 34 THIS IS THE FIRST PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT BEARS DETAILS OF PARTIES AND PROPERTY 2 LPS 1/38 PAGE 33 THIS IS THE SECOND PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT ON WHICH THE CONSIDERATION IS SHOWN AT RS. 23 1 04 37 000/- AND CORRECTED LATER ON AS RS. 35 78 400/- 3 LPS 1/38 PAGE 32 THIS IS THE THIRD PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT AND GIVES THE DETAILS OF CHEQUES WHICH HAVE BEEN ACTUALLY PAID TO THE SELLER 4 LPS 1/38 PAGE 31 THIS IS THE FOURTH PAGE OF AGREE MENT 5 LPS 1/38 PAGE 30 THIS IS THE FIFTH PAGE WHICH IS A STAND ALONE PAPER AND IS NOT A PART OF THE AGREEMENT IN WHICH THE PAYMENT DETAILS ARE MENTIONED AS RS. 1 04 37 000/- AND DETAILS OF CHEQUES WHICH WERE NOT ALL PAID AND PAYMENT OF CASH. THE A.O. INSTEAD OF REPRODUCING ALL THE PAGES IN CHOROLOGICAL ORDER HAS REPRODUCED SCANNED COPY OF ONLY PAGE NOS. 1 5 AND 4 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO GIVE AN IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY CONTENTS OF THE AGREEMENT AND HAS OMITTED PAGE NO. 3. IT WAS CONTEN TED THAT PAGE 2 CONTAINS THE CORRECTION OF THE FIGURE F ROM RS. 1 04 37 000/- AND IF IT CONSIDERED THERE WOULD BE N O DIFFERENCE AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE 24 ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT INITIALLY HE WAS NEGOTIATING TO PURCHASE THE PROPERTY AT RS. 7 00 00 0/- PER HECTARE I.E. RS. 2 83 400/- PER ACRE AND THE AGREEMENT WAS PREPARED ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER WHILE TYPING THE STANDARD AREA WAS WRONGLY TYPED AS ACRE INSTEAD OF HECTARE WHILE MAINTAINING THE RATE AT RS . 7 00 000/- . AFTER COMMITTING THE ERROR THE SUBSEQ UENT DETAILS OF SALE CONSIDERATION WERE SUING MOTTO INSE RTED JUST FOR BALANCING THE AMOUNT AND SHOWN AS PAID IN CASH. HOWEVER FINAL PRICE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 2 40 000/- PER ACRE AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION FIGU RES WERE CORRECTED ON 2 ND PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT AND IT WAS RETYPED AND REPLACED. THEREFORE THERE WAS GENUINE ALTERATION MADE IN THE AGREEMENT BUT THE A.O. DID N OT BRING IT ON RECORD APPARENTLY TO SUPPORT HIS VIEW. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT EVERY PROPERTY SALE AGREEMEN T CONTAINS TWO PARTS ONE RELATING TO AGREED SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 35 78 400/- AND THIS ESTABLISH ES THAT THE TRANSACTION WAS NORMAL AND SUBSEQUENT CHANGES I N THE PAYMENT DETAILS WERE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE. T HE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE IMPUGNED PAPERS WERE NOT SEIZED FROM HIS POSITION AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION. 25 26. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAV ING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 15.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSE E ALONG WITH COPY OF RELEVANT SEIZED PAPERS. IT IS FO UND THAT THE SAID SALE AGREEMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY ABSOLU TE MENTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 1 04 37 000/- AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION IS MENTIONED AT RS. 35 78 40 0/- ONLY. PAGE 3 OF THE SALE AGREEMENT MENTIONS THE DET AILS OF THE AMOUNT PAID. THE SEIZED RECORD INCLUDES TWO PAGES HAVING SR. NO 3 IN WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MENTIONED A S RS. 35 78 400/- IN ONE PAGE AND RS. 1 04 37 000/- ON TH E OTHER PAGE. THE PAGE CONTAINING PAYMENT DETAILS OF RS. 35 78 400/- CONTAINS DETAILS OF THREE CHEQUES ALL O F WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY CLEARED. THE PAGE CONTAINING PAYM ENT DETAILS OF RS. 1 04 37 000/- CONTAINS DETAILS OF T WO ADDITIONAL CHEQUES WHICH WERE NOT CLEARED AND WHIC H THE A.O. PRESUMED AS REPLACED AND PAYMENT WAS MADE IN CASH. HOWEVER SUCH PRESUMPTION IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DEPENDABLE MATERIAL. THE PAYMENT OF RS. 35 78 400/- INCLUDES ONE CHEQUE OF RS. 8 54 000/- WHICH WAS CL EARED 26 BUT IT DOES NOT FIND ANY MENTION IN THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT PURPORTEDLY PAID AT RS. 1 04 37 000/-. THEREFORE I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE PAGE MENTIONING PAYMEN T DETAILS OF RS. 1 04 37 000/- CANNOT BE RELIED FOR F ASTENING ANY TAX LIABILITY. AS PER THE AGREEMENT THE PROPER TY WAS JOINTLY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ONE SHRI PRA VEEN AGAWAM. HOWEVER IT APPEARS NO ACTION HAS BEEN TAKE N IN THE CASE OF THE CO-PURCHASER OR THE SELLER OF TH E PROPERTY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 1 04 37 000/- AND IN MAKING ADDITION OF THE DIFFERE NCE. THE ADDITION OF RS. 68 58 600/- MADE BY THE A.O. IS THEREFORE DELETED AND THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED ON THI S GROUND. 27. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORD PERUSED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BY REFERRING TO LPS1/38 INDICATING PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT RS.1 04 37 000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS WAS SHOWN A T RS. 35 78 400/-. THE CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AT PARA 15.3 THAT THE SEIZED PAPER MENTIO NS 27 SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 35 78 400/- AND THERE WAS NO ABSOLUTE MENTION OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1 04 37 000/-. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A ) THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 35 78 400/- INCLUDES ONE CHEQUE OF RS.8 54 000/- WHICH WAS CLEARED BUT DOES NOT FIND A NY MENTION IN THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT PURPORTEDLY PAID. WE FIND THAT ANNEXURE OF PAGE 5 AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER RELATES TO AN AGREEM ENT TO SELL THE SAID PROPERTY. THE AGREEMENT CONTAINS TOTA L 5PAGES WHICH WERE MARKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S LPS 1/38 PAGE NO.30 TO 34. HOWEVER IN HIS ORDER T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REPRODUCED SCANNED COPY OF ON LY PAGE NOS. 1 4 AND 5 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH GIVES AN IMPRESSION THAT THEY ARE THE ONLY CONTENTS OF TH E AGREEMENTS AND HAS OMITTED PAGES 2 & 3. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT PAGE 2 CONTAINS CORRECTION OF THE FI GURE RS. 1 04 37 000/- AND IF IT IS CONSIDERED THERE WO ULD BE NO DIFFERENCE AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE OF WRITING ACR E IN 28 RESPECT OF HECTARE WAS RECTIFIED AND FINAL PRICE WA S DETERMINED AT RS. 2 40 000/- PER ACRE AND THE SALE CONSIDERATION FIGURE WAS CORRECTED AT 2 ND PAGE OF THE AGREEMENT AND IT WAS TYPED AND REPLACED. HOWEVER THIS CORRECTED PAGE NO. 2 WAS NOT REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HOWEVER WHILE RECORDING HIS FINDING THE CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT PAYMENT OF RS.35 78 400/- INCLUDED ONE CHEQUE OF RS . 8 54 000/- WHICH WAS CLEARED BUT DOES NOT FIND ANY MENTION IN THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT PURPORTEDLY PAID B Y THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE MODIFY THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) AND CONFIRM THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 8 54 000/- INSOFAR AS IT DOES NOT FIND ANY MENTION IN THE DETA ILS OF AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS. 8 54 000/-. 28. IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 THE AO MADE THE ADDITION O F RS. 3 LACS BY REFERRING LPS 1/90. THE A.O. HAS MAD E THIS ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF A SALE AGREEMENT SEIZED (L PS 29 1/19 PAGE 7-8). SALE TRANSACTION MENTIONED IN THE S AID PAPER IS RS. 12 00 000/- WHILE THE SAME IS FOUND RECORDED AT RS. 9 00 000/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3 00 000/- WAS THEREFORE ADDED A S UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 29. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE WAS AS UNDER :- A. THE SAID AGREEMENT WAS NOT SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. B. THE SAID TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE RELATES TO F.Y. 2006-07 HENCE NO ADDITION IS POSSIBLE IN THE ASSEM ENT YEAR 2009-10. C. THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 9 00 000/- AFTER NEGOTIATIONS. D. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY IN THAT YEAR ITSELF FOR RS. 13 LAKH AND HAD SHOWN AN INCOME OF R S. 4 00 000/- ON SUCH TRANSACTION. HENCE THERE IS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION THA T THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 9 00 000/-. 30 30. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER HAV ING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 17.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH OBSERVATIONS O F THE A.O. AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND COPY O F RELEVANT SEIZED PAPERS. THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACT ION APPEARING IN THE PAPER CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTION DOES NOT RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 -10 AND HENCE NO ADDITION IS POSSIBLE IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2009-10 AND THEREFORE THE SAID ADDITION IS DELETED . IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MA DE THROUGH CHEQUE DELETED. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ENTIRE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PRICE WAS RE-NEGOTIAT ED AND THE ACTUAL PURCHASE PRICE WAS ONLY RS. 9 00 000 /-. IT IS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROP ERTY IN THE SAME YEAR FOR RS. 13 00 000/- AND HAD OFFERED T HE SURPLUS OF RS. 4 00 000/- AS HIS INCOME IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR EVEN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE APPEAL IS THEREFORE ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND. 31 31. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND RECORD PERUSED. THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LACS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE A.Y. 2009-10 BY REFERR ING LPS-1/90 WHICH RECORDED SALE AGREEMENT OF RS. 12 LA CS WHICH WAS FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS AT RS. 9 LACS . ACCORDINGLY AN ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS (RS. 12 LACS RS. 9 LACS) WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR RS. 9 LACS ONLY IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 AND THE SAME WAS SOLD IN THE SAME YEAR FOR RS. 13 LACS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED SURPLUS OF RS. 4 LACS AS H IS INCOME IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 .THE FINDINGS RECORDED B Y THE CIT(A) AT PARA 17.3 HAVE NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE IN THE A.Y . 2009- 10 IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO A.Y. 2006 -07 PROFIT ON SALE OF WHICH WAS DULY OFFERED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN THE A.Y. 2006-07 BY TAKING THE COST OF PURCHASE AT RS. 9 LACS. AS PER THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS RENEGO TIATED 32 THE PRICE AND PAID RS.9 LACS ONLY AND WHILE COMPUTI NG THE PROFIT ON SALE OF SUCH PROPERTY THE COST OF AC QUISITION WAS ALSO TAKEN AT RS. 9 LACS AND NOT RS. 12 LACS AN D DIFFERENCE BETWEEN SALE PRICE OF RS. 13 LACS AND TH E COST OF RS. 9 LACS WHICH AMOUNTS TO RS. 4 LACS WAS OFFE RED AS INCOME IN THE A.Y. 2006-07. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) RESULTING INTO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3 LACS. 32. IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION MADE HEREINABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE FO LLOWING ADDITIONS DELETED BY HIM AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING AFRESH :- A.Y. AMOUNT 2006-07 RS. 3 38 580/- 2007-08 RS. 8 80 200/- 2008-09 RS.12 42 474/- 2009-10 RS.17 53 085/- 33 33. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE WHE REAS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. 34. THE LEGAL GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE CROSS OBJECTION S ARE SIMILAR TO THAT TAKEN IN THE CASE OF ASHOK GOYA L IN CO NOS. 34 TO 40/IND/2013 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF OMVATI GOYAL IN CO NOS. 30 TO 32/IND/2013. ON THE REASONINGS GIVEN IN THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF ASHOK GOYAL AND OMVATI GOYAL THE LEGAL GROUNDS TAKEN IN THE CR OSS OBJECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26.7.2013. SD SD (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JULY 26 2013 DN/-