Shri Bhanwar Lal Soni, JODHPUR v. ITO, JODHPUR

CO 8/JODH/2014 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 823323 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN ABQPS0604K
Bench Jodhpur
Appeal Number CO 8/JODH/2014
Duration Of Justice 1 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant Shri Bhanwar Lal Soni, JODHPUR
Respondent ITO, JODHPUR
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 28-04-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 25-04-2014
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 18-03-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.54/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2003-04) ITO WARD-1(1) VS. SHRI BH ANWAR LAL SONI JODHPUR. M/S. SHREE RAM GUMS & CHEMICALS C-79 BASNI 2 ND PHASE JODHPUR. PAN NO. ABQPS 0604 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.08/JODH/2014 (A.Y. 2003-04) SHRI BHANWAR LAL SONI VS. ITO WARD-1(1) C/O SHRI U.C. JAIN ADVOCATE JODHPUR. SHATRUNJAY HARI SINGH NAGAR PALI ROAD JODHPUR. PAN NO. ABQPS 0604 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI N.A. JOSHI - D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 25/04/2014. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/04/2014. O R D E R 2 PER N.K. SAINI A.M THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTI ON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25/11 /2013 OF LD. CIT(A) JODHPUR. IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 62 54 525/- & RS. 38 66 440/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) HOLDING THAT NO LOAN IS TAKEN BY THE PARTNER FROM T HE FIRM TO WHICH THE COMPANY HAS GIVEN ADVANCE WHEREAS THERE IS NO SUCH CONDITION IN SECTION 2(22)(E) WHEN PAYMENT IS TO FIRM. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOA NS GIVEN BY THE COMPANY TO THE FIRM IS NORMAL BUSINESS ADVANCES WHE N MONEY LENDING IS NOT THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANIES. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND OR ALT ER ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF APPEAL I S FINALLY HEARD FOR DISPOSAL. 2 FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS IT IS GATHERED THAT THE ON LY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTIO N 2(22)(E) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT IN SHORT) 3. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 25/03/2004 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1 4 1 780/-. IN THIS CASE A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISS UED ON 26/03/2010. IN RESPONSE TO THAT THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RETU RN ALREADY FILED UNDER 3 SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT MAY BE TREATED AS HAVING FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. REASON FO R REOPENING OF THE CASE WAS THAT M/S. SHREE INDO SINO GUM PVT. LTD. IN WHIC H THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING 50% SHAREHOLDING HAD ADVANCED LOAN TO M/S. S HREE RANIE GUM & CHEMICALS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER HAVI NG 25% SHARES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ANOTHER COMPANY I.E . M/S. SHREE RAM GUMS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS H AVING 25% SHAREHOLDING HAD ALSO ADVANCED LOAN OF RS. 64 LAC T O THE FIRM M/S. SHREE RANIE GUM & CHEMICALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE REFORE HAD REASON TO BELIEVE THAT SUCH LOAN IN TERMS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WAS DEEMED DIVIDEND TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING 50% AND 25% SHARE S IN THE COMPANY M/S. SHREE INDIA SINO GUM PVT. LTD. AND M/S. SHREE RANIE GUM & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. RESPECTIVELY HAD RECEIVED DIREC T OR INDIRECT BENEFIT FROM THE LOANS ADVANCED BY THE COMPANIES TO THE FIR M HE POINTED OUT THAT M/S. SHREE RAM GUMS & CHEMICALS TOOK LOAN AMOU NTING TO RS. 1 31 20 000/- AND RS. 64 LAC FROM M/S. INDO SINO GU M PVT. LTD. AND M/S. SHREE RAM GUMS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. RESPECTIVELY W HICH ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AS THE AS SESSEE WAS ULTIMATE BENEFICIARY HAVING SUBSTANTIAL SHARE IN THOSE CONCE RNS. ACCORDING TO THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER THE DEEMED DIVIDEND OF M/S. SHRE E RAM GUMS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. WAS AT RS. 1 31 20 000/- BUT T HE SAME WAS RESTRICTED TO THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS. 1 25 09 050/- AS T HE ASSESSEE HAVING 50% SHAREHOLDING IN THE COMPANY THEREFORE THE DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS. 62 54 5 25/- AND SIMILARLY THE DEEMED DIVIDEND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FR OM M/S. SHREE RANIE GUMS & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. WAS RESTRICTED TO RS. 38 66 440/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. HOTEL HILLTOP REPOR TED AT 313 ITR 116. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT A SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE IN T HE HANDS OF SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI WHO WAS ONE OF DIRECTOR WHERE SIMILAR TYPE OF TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE BUT THE LD. CIT(A) REVERSED THE ORDER O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 14/11/2013 HOLDING THAT THE SECTIO N 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THAT CASE. ACCORDINGLY IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 62 54 525/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. AS REGARDS TO THE ANOTHER ADDITION OF RS. 38 66 440/- IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS ENTERED INTO REGULAR COURSE OF BUSI NESS OF THE FIRM M/S RAM GUM & CHEMICALS WITH THE COMPANY M/S. SHREE RAN IE GUM & CHEMICALS PVT. LTD. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT 5 RECEIVED ANY LOAN EITHER FROM THE COMPANY IN WHICH HE IS A SHAREHOLDER OR FROM THE FIRM IN WHICH HE IS A PARTNER. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT AT NO POINT OF TIME THE INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN TH E FIRM WAS NEGATIVE AND THERE WAS A DEBIT BALANCE AND NO AMOUNT WAS REC EIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S. SHREE RAM GUM & CHEMICALS PVT. L TD. IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT A SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE CAS E OF SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI WHO IS ALSO ONE OF THE DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY M/S. SHREE INDO SINO GUM PVT. LTD. AND HAVING SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST IN T HE SAME FIRM IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS I N APPEAL. 6 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE VERY OUTS ET STATED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS SQUARELY COVERED BY TH E DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO. 581/JODH/2013 FO R THE A.Y. 2003-04 IN THE CASE OF DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 JODHPUR VS. SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI COPY OF THE SAME WAS FURNISHED WHICH IS PLACED ON R ECORD. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI W ERE HAVING THE SIMILAR 6 INTEREST IN THE FIRM AND IDENTICAL SHAREHOLDINGS IN THE COMPANIES THEREFORE FACTS OF TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION ARE ID ENTICAL. 7 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS LEARNED D.R. ALTHOUGH S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 8 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IT IS NOTICED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAVING SIMILAR FACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 09/01/2014 IN I.T.A.NO. 581/JODH/2013 (SUPRA) THE CASE OF SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI WHO IS ONE OF THE PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S. SHREE RAM GUM & CHEMICALS AND THE DIRECTOR HAVING 50% SHAREHOLDIN G IN THE COMPANY M/S. SHREE INDO SINO GUM PVT. LTD. THE SHAREHOLDIN G AND PROFIT SHARING RATIO IN THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WAS THE SAME IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI. THEREFORE THE TRANSACTI ON CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI IS IDENTICAL THEREFORE THE AFORESAID DECISION RENDER ED IN THE CASE OF SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. IN THE SAID DECISION DATED 09/04/2014 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF SHRI OM PRAKASH S ONI HAD BEEN DELETED 7 BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE TRIBUNAL UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING IN PARA NOS. 4 TO 6 OF THE ORDER DATED 09 /04/2014 AS UNDER:- 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CA REFULLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE FOUND IT FOR A F ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI HAS 25% SHARE HOLDING IN THE F IRM AND 50% SHARE HOLDING IN THE COMPANY. THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT ANY LOAN OR ADVANCE MADE BY THE COMPANY TO THE FIRM IN WHICH BO TH THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBSTANTIAL INTEREST WOULD ATTRACT DEEMING PROV ISION OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE HAS BEEN NO ADVANCE BY THE COMPANY AS HAS BEEN ALLEGED BY THE A.O. BUT THI S ADVANCE IS IN RELATION TO BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO LEGA LLY BETWEEN THE FIRM AND THE COMPANY. THEREFORE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS C ANNOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ADVANCE IN THE SENSE IN WHICH IT HA S BEEN ENVISAGED IN SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. IT IS FOUND FROM RECOR DS THAT THE FIRM AND THE COMPANY ARE INDULGING IN ORDINARY COURSE OF BUS INESS FOR LAST SEVERAL YEARS. WE HAVE FOUND FOR A FACT THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY LOAN EITHER FROM THE COMPANY OR FROM T HE FIRM. AT ANY POINT OF TIME NO INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRM HAS BEEN NEGATIVED AND THERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY LOAN OR ADVANCE FROM THE FIRM. THUS NO AMOUNT CAN BE STATED TO HAVE BEEN DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY DIVERTED TO HIM. AS PER THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED COPY OF BANK BOOK ON 1.4.2002 AND 31.32007 BEFORE THE A.O. AND FROM THIS BANK BOOK I T IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT NO AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED BY THE FIRM TO THE PARTNERS AND THERE WAS CREDIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNER AND AT NO POINT OF TIME THERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE IN THE ACCOUN T OF THE PARTNERS FROM THIS BANK BOOK. IT WAS ALSO ESTABLISHED THAT T HERE WERE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE FIRM AND COMPANY IN THE OR DINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND NO AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE FIRM HAD BEE N UTILIZED IN GIVING ADVANCE TO ANY OF THE PARTNERS INCLUDING TH IS ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE A.O. THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF BANK BOOK COP Y OF BANK ACCOUNT AND COPIES OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM TO SHOW THAT NO FUND WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE PARTNERS SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAPITAL I N THE NAME OF THE PARTNER IN THE BOOKS OF THE FIRM. THUS IN THIS BAC KGROUND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE FIRM RECEIVED TRADE ADVANCES FROM THE COMPANY FOR SUPPLY OF PARTICULAR TYPE OF GUWAR GUM POWDER. IT IS NOTICED THAT IN 8 THE PRECEDING YEAR ALSO THE FIRM HAS BEEN RECEIVING SUCH ADVANCE S AND SELLING GUWAR GUM POWDER TO THE COMPANY. THUS THE T RADE ADVANCES WERE FOR SUPPLY OF GOODS AND FAILING TO SUPPLY THE AGREED QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF GUWAR GUM POWDER IT WOULD RETURN THE M ONEY BACK WITHOUT INTEREST. THUS FROM THE RECORDS WE HAVE AL SO CONCLUDED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND FIRM ARE B USINESS TRANSACTIONS AND AMOUNTS ADVANCED BY THIS COMPANY T O THE FIRM IS ONLY ADVANCE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND NOT AS LOAN. IN TH E BALANCE SHEET OF THE COMPANY THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN AS ADVANCE F OR BUSINESS PURPOSES. LIKEWISE IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE FIRM THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD UNSECURED LOAN. WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. A.R. THAT THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIO NS HAS TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF TRUE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND NOT AS PER NOMENCLATURE GIVEN IN THE BOOKS. IN THIS CASE THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH COTTON MI LLS P. LTD. VS. CIT 201 ITR 684 [SC] AND PADMARAJE R. KADAMBANDE VS. CI T 195 ITR 877 ARE RELEVANT. 5. IN A.Y. 2005-06 SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. HIMSELF WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE A CT ON 20.12.2007. WE HAVE FOUND THAT SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE COMPANY AND THE FIRM WERE CARRIED OUT IN THE EARLIER YEARS AND ON T HE SAME FACTS NO ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS EVER DRAWN BY THE A.O. IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ALSO SIMILAR TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY DEMANDS THAT NO SUCH ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN IN THIS YEAR ALSO. AFTER EXAMINING EXTRACTS OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED VIS-A-VIS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOUND THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE FIRM HAS BEEN USED AS A CONDUIT TO PASS ON THE MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE FROM THE COMPANY. HE HAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NO LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE FIRM. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THA T IT IS NOT A CASE OF THE A.O. THAT THE ADVANCE FROM THE COMPANY HAS BEEN ROUTED THROUGH SOME INDIRECT CIRCUITOUS WAY TO ULTIMATELY REACH TH E ASSESSEE. THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT I S BASED ON SUCH A PRESUMPTION ONLY. IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THA T ADVANCES MADE DURING NORMAL COURSE FOR COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY DO N OT CONSTITUTE LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT AND CANNOT BE TAXED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND. IN THIS REGARD THE FOLLOWING DECI SIONS ARE RELEVANT: 9 1. CIT VS. RAJKUMAR 318 ITR 462 2. CIT VS. AMBASSADOR TRAVELS P. LTD. 318 ITR 376 3. CIT VS CREATIVE DYEING & PRINTING P LTD. 318 ITR 476 4. DCIT VS. TIMELESS FASHIONS P. LTD. 33 DTR 48 6. BUT THE LD. CIT(A) BIKANER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 201(1)/201(1A) FOR A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2009- 10 PASSED BY THE DCIT[TDS] JODHPUR IN THE CASE OF M/S SHREE INDIA S INO GUMS (P) LTD. HAS HELD THAT THE SAID COMPANY HAVING FAILED TO DED UCT TAX AT SOURCE U/S 194 OF THE DEEMED DIVIDEND PAID BY THE COMPANY TO THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM WAS ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT U/S 201(1) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT A PERUSAL O F THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHOWED THAT THEY WE RE NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. FROM THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT IT WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THEY WERE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE S HAREHOLDERS WHO ARE ALSO PARTNERS IN THE FIRM. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE AMOUNTS CONSTITUTE A DIVIDEND EVEN UNDER THE DEEMIN G PROVISIONS. THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BIKANER WAS CHALLEN GED BEFORE THE ITAT WHO VIDE THEIR ORDER DATED 31.7.2013 HAVE CATEGORI CALLY MENTIONED IN ORDER THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE AC T ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THIS CASE. THUS WE FIND THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUEST ION WERE NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE ONE C ONCERN IS DEALING IN CHEESE AND THE OTHER IN CHALK. THESE PAYMENTS BY TH E COMPANY TO THE FIRM WERE FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THEREF ORE CANNOT ALLOW THIS APPEAL. 9 . SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERR ED TO ORDER DATED 09/04/2014 IN I.T.A.NO 581/JODH/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2 003-04 IN THE CASE OF DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-1 JODHPUR VS. SHRI OM PRAKASH SONI WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT. 10 10 . AS REGARDS TO THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE AS SESSEE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS AN I NSTRUCTION NOT TO PRESS THE CROSS OBJECTION AND GAVE IN WRITING ON THE ORDE R SHEET AS UNDER:- NOT PRESSED SD/- XXXXXXXXX THEREFORE THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE C ROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH APRIL 2014). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH APRIL 2014. VR/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT JODHPUR.