M/s Ritesh Agarwal, Bhopal v. The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal

CO 48/IND/2013 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4822723 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ADHPA6015F
Bench Indore
Appeal Number CO 48/IND/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant M/s Ritesh Agarwal, Bhopal
Respondent The ACIT, 2(1), Bhopal
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 15-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 15-07-2013
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 09-04-2013
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.74/IND/2013 A.Y. 2002-03 ACIT 2(1) BHOPAL :: APPELLANT VS RITESH AGRAWAL BHOPAL PAN ADHPA 6015F :: RESPONDENT ITA NO.79/IND/2013 A.Y. 2002-03 RITESH AGRAWAL BHOPAL :: ASSESSEE VS ACIT 2(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT CO NO. 48/IND/2013 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 74/IND/2013 RITESH AGRAWAL BHOPAL :: OBJECTOR VS ACIT 2(1) BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT 2 DEPARTMENT BY SHRI R.A. VERMA ASSESSEE BY SHRI R.N. GUPTA DATE OF HEARING 4.7.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 5 . 7 . 1 3 O R D E R PER SHRI R.C. SHARMA AM THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 21.11.2012 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 IN THE MATTER OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS AN INDIVDUAL AND PROPRIETOR OF M/S SHRI RADHIKA JEWELLERS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 27.02.2002. TH E INVENTORY OF STOCK FOND ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION WA S PREPARED AND THE POSITION OF STOCK FOUND WAS AS UND ER: 3 PARTICULARS WEIGHT AMOUNT (RS.) STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND 10608.190 GMS. 44 02 393/ - STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ON 27.02.2002 (TRADING ACCOUNT DRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE) 4599.840 GMS. 19 08 928/ - EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND 6008.350 GMS. 24 93 465/ - WHEN THE ASSESSE WAS CONFRONTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY REGARDING THE EXCESS STOCK VALUING AT RS.24 93 465/- FOUND HE HAD DECLARED IN HIS STATEMENT AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.21 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ON 10.03.2003 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.24 71 863/- . THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND OF RS. 21 00 000/- SURRENDERED BY HIM DURING SURVEY U/S 133A IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS 4 COMPLETED U/S 143(3) ON 31.03.2005 DETERMINING TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.28 83 250/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO INTER-ALIA HAS MADE ADDITION OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.3 93 465/- (RS.24 93 465 RS.21 00 000) REPRESENTING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. TH E AO ALSO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. AGAINST THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 93 465/- MADE BY THE AO IN ADDITI ON TO RS. 21 LACS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER HAVIN G THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FACTS OF THE CAE. ADMITTEDLY THE EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIHING 608.350 GMS WAS FOUND 5 AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ON 27.02.2002 ON PHYSICAL VERIFICATION OF THE STOCK. THE VALUATION OF THE STOCK FOUND AT BUSINESS PREMISES WAS MADE BY A REGISTERED VALUER AND THE VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND WAS DETERMINED AT RS.24 93 465/-. HOWEVER AS AGAINST THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND VALUING AT RS.24 93 465/- THE ASSESSEE HAD SURRENDERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.21 00 000/- ONLY. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADDUCED ANY COGENT AND UNIMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VALUATION OF THE STOCK DONE BY THE REGSTERED VALUER DURING THE SURVEY WAS NOT CORRECT AND ON HIGHER SIDE AND ALSO NO BASIS WAS GIVEN FOR ESTIMATING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.21 00 000/- BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN EXCESS STOCK FOUND BY THE ASSESSEE. IN MY OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN 6 ADOPTING THE VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT RS.24 93 465/- AS PER THE VALUATION DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER DURING SURVEY AND THIS ACTION OF THE A.O. CANNOT BE FAULTED WITH. THEREFORE NO INTERFERENCE IS WARRANTED IN THE FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.3 93 465/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDITION TO RS.21 00 000/- SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN EXCESS STOCK. 4. IN AN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH NOVEMBER 2010 CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A). ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOV E THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THIS WAS A FIT CAS E FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WITH REFERENCE TO THE EXCESS STOCK OF RS.24 93 463/- FOUND AS RESULT OF SURVEY U /S 133A. THE AO HAD ALSO INCLUDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.21 00 000/- SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE 7 GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE EXCESS STOCK WAS DETECTED AS A RESULT OF SURVEY U/S 133A CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINE SS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) REDUCED THE PENALTY TO RS. 1 20 400/- FROM THE PENALTY OF RS. 14 43 758/- MADE BY THE AO AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWI NG OBSERVATIONS :- 9. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND FACTS OF THE CASE. THE AO LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF RS.14 43 758/- ON THE CONCALED INCOME OF RS.24 93 465/- WHICH INCLUDD THE AMOUNT OF RS.21 00 000/- SURRENDERED AND DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.3 93 465/- MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT OF RS.21 00 000/- THE ASSESSEE HAD SINCE 8 DISCLOSED THIS INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED U/S 139 AND PAID TAXES THEREON THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT OF RS.21 00 000/- . THEREFRE THERE CANNOT BE A CASE FOR PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS.21 00 000/- IT MAY BE RELEVANT TO REFER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAS PHARMACEUTICALS (2011) 335 ITR 259 (DEL.) WHERE IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAD AN OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AND DECIDED THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE IMPOSED ON THE GROUND THAT DISCREPANCY 9 WAS DETECTED DURING SURVEY U/S 133A. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE ARE THAT A SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES AND GODOWN OF THE ASSESSEE ON JANUARY 6 2003. IN THAT SURVEY DISCREPANCIES IN CASH STOCK AND RENOVATION WERE FOUND. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED IT SURRENDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.88 14 676 DURING THE SURVEY. SINCE THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED ON JANUARY 6 2003 I.E. IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2002-03 CORRESPONDING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 FOR THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE OCCASION TO FILE THE INCOME-TAX RETURN HAD NOT MATURED. WHEN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN WAS ULTIMATELY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON DECEMBER 2 2003 THE ASSESSEE DECLARED ITS INCOME AT RS. 87 71 580 INCLUDING THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE 10 ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED INCLUDING THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT. WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DECIDED TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 SEPARATELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SURRENDER WAS MADE ONLY WHEN DISCREPANCIES WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THUS WAS OF THE OPINION THAT HAD THERE BEEN NO SURVEY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE SUCCEEDED IN CONCEALING THE INCOME AND EVADING TAX. THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AS IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THIS INCOME WAS DULY REFLECTED. THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). THE HON'BLE 11 HIGH COURT DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT HELD AS UNDER :- THAT CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT AUTHORIZES IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EITHER CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. IT WAS NOT A CASE OF FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME AS IN THE INCOME-TAX RETURN PARTICULARS OF INCOME HAD BEEN DULY FURNISHED AND TE SURRENDERED AMOUNT WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE RETURN. THE QUESTION WHETHER THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME WERE CONCEALED BY THE ASSESSEE OR NOT WOULD DEPEND UPON WHETHER THIS CONCEALMENT HAD REFERENCE TO THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE WORDS 'IN THE COURSE OF ANY 12 PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT' WERE PREFACED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). WHEN THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED THE QUESTION OF SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER DID NOT ARISE. IT WAS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTED THE PAYMENT OF PENALTY. HE HAD NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THE DECISION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS THE EXPRESSION 'IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT' COULD NOT HAVE THE REFERENCE TO SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE. THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE HAD 13 TO BE IN THE RETURN FILED BY IT. NO PENALTY COULD BE IMPOSED UNLESS THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE PROVISIONS WERE DULY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY SATISFIED.SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPOSED DURING THE SURVEY MAY BE IT WOULD HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME BUT FOR THE SURVEY. HOWEVER THERE COULD NOT BE ANY PENALTY ONLY ON SURMISES CONJECTURES AND POSSIBILITIES. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAD TO BE CONSTRUED STRICTLY. UNLESS IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY CONCEALMENT OR NON- DISCLOSURE OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME PENALTY COULD NOT BE IMPOSED. THERE WAS NO SUCH CONCEALMENT OR NON-DISCLOSURE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE RETURN AND OFFERED THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT FOR THE PURPOSES OF TAX. 14 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE NO PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) WAS LEVIABLE ON THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT OF RS.21 00 000/- WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2002-03 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION-5 BELOW SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE ALSO NOT ATTRACTED IN CASE OF SURVEY U/S 133A. HOWEVER IN REGARD TO THE FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.3 93 465/- IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE FULL AND COMPLETE DISCLOSURE REGARDING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2002-03 TO THIS EXTENT. AS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) AS WELL AS HON'BLE ITAT THAT THE VALUATION OF THE 15 EXCESS STOCK WAS MADE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ADDUCED ANY COGENT AND UN- IMPEACHABLE EVIDENCE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT VALUATION OF STOCK DONE BY THE REGISTERED VALUER DURING THE SURVEY U/S 133A WAS NOT CORRECT AND WAS ON HIGHER SIDE. THE HON'BLE ITAT IS THE FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN EXCESS STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 93 465/- IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND IT RESULTED INTO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF THIS AMOUNT. HENCE THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) TO THE EXTENT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS.3 93 465/-. IN THE RESULT THE AO IS 16 DIRECTED TO RE-COMPUTE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.3 93 465/- ONLY AND THE PENALTY LEVIED ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.21 00 000/- IS DELETED. ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) @ 100 % OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED ON CONCEALED INCOME OF RS.3 93 465/- ONLY IS CONFIRMED. 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BOTH THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US. 7. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORD PERUSED. WE HAVE ALSO DELIBERATED UPON THE CASE LAW S CITED BY THE LEARNED AR AND THE LEARNED DR AND ALSO CASE LAWS DISCUSSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTUAL MAT RIX OF THE INSTANT CASE. FROM RECORD WE FIND THAT THE ASS ESSEE 17 WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE OF GOLD ORNAMEN TS. THERE WAS A SURVEY AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES WHEREIN EXCESS STOCK OF GOLD ORNAMENTS WEIGHING 6008.350 GM S WAS FOUND. BY APPLYING THE PREVAILING RATE OF GOLD VALUE OF EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND AT RS.24 93 463/-. IT WA S EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE EXCESS STOCK WAS F OUND BECAUSE OF OLD STOCK ACCUMULATED OVER A PERIOD OF T IME IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS AND THE REAL VALUE OF INVEST MENT WAS AROUND RS. 21 LACS WHICH WAS DULY SURRENDERED A S INCOME OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH WAS GOIN G TO END AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO GIVEN POST DATED CHEQUES OF RS. 6 42 600/- TO THE SURVEY OFFICERS TOWARDS PAYMENTS OF TAX AGAINST THE INCOME SURRENDERED. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO DECLARED RS. 21 LACS IN THE RETURN OF INCOMEFOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2002-03. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO ALSO ACCEPTED THE SAID DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 21 LACS WH O HAD MADE FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 3 93 465/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION DIFFERENCE. WE FIND THAT THE EXCESS TRADI NG 18 STOCK WAS ACCUMULATION OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. MOREO VER SUCH ITEMS CONTAINED DIFFERENT PURITY RANGING FROM 82% TO 87%. THUS THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 93 465/- WAS O NLY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION REGARDING THE VALUATION BY THE REGISTERED VALUER VIS-A-VIS VALUAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO INCOME OF RS.21 LACS SURRENDERED AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THE CIT( A) DELETED THE PENALTY BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAS PHARMACEUTICALS (SUPR A). THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE IN PARA MATERIAL WITH THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) WHEREIN ALSO EXCES S STOCK DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS SURRENDERE D AND INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN WAS ACCEPTED BY T HE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMI TY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE PENALTY WIT H REFERENCE TO THE INCOME SURRENDERED AT RS. 21 LACS WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE U/S 139. 19 8. WITH REGARD TO FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.3 93 465/- WE FIND THAT THE SAME WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO IMPURITIE S FOUND IN THE GOLD WHICH WAS RANGING FROM 82% TO 87% . HOWEVER THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE WEIGHT OF G OLD FOUND AND THE VALUATION DIFFERENCE WAS ONLY DIFFERE NCE OF OPINION OF REGISTERED VALUER VIS-A-VIS THE VALUATIO N ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH CANNOT BE SUBJEC T MATTER OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT UNLESS C OGENT MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH CONCEALM ERNT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE.. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARATE AN D THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL RIGHTS TO BRING ON RECORD REAS ONS FOR ADDITION AND THE CONTENTION THAT SUCH ADDITIONS ARE NOT LIABLE FOR PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INC OME. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD W E DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY WITH REF ERENCE TO THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE REGISTE RED 20 VALUER VIS-A-VIS THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE QUANTITY OF GOLD REMAINED THE SAME. 10. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE ORDER SINCE WE HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THE POINT OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1) ITSELF CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND DISMISSED AS SUCH. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON.......7.2013 SD/- SD/-. (JOGINDER SINGH) (R.C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 15.7.2013 COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR DN/- 21