Sri. M.G. Vishwanath Reddy, Bangalore v. ACIT, Bangalore

ITA 1237/BANG/2009 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 123721114 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN ATELY1100T
Bench Bangalore
Appeal Number ITA 1237/BANG/2009
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Sri. M.G. Vishwanath Reddy, Bangalore
Respondent ACIT, Bangalore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-09-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 29-09-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 19-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 19-08-2010
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 30-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1237/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SRI M.G. VISHWANATH REDDY PROP: EXOTIC GRANITES & MARBLES NO.5 LALBAGH HOSUR ROAD BANGALORE 560 027. : APPELLANT VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2) BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. DEVARAJ C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.H. NARAGUNDKAR ADDL.CIT(DR ) O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-VI BANGALORE IN ITA NO: 453/ACIT CC 1 (2)/ CIT (A)-VI/08-09 DATED: 28.10.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOUR GROUNDS IN WHICH GROUND NO.1 BEING GENERAL IT DOESNT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. IN THE REMAINING GROUNDS THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE REVOLVED THAT ITA NO.1237/BANG/09 PAGE 2 OF 9 (I) THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE STAND OF TH E AO BY RESTRICTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO RS.14.60 LAK HS AS AGAINST RS.30 LAKHS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE; (II) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE STAND OF AO IN B RINGING TO TAX RS.17 24 935/-UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES; & (III) WITHOUT PREJUDICE THE AO ERRED IN NOT GIVING TELES COPING EFFECT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17.25 LAKHS AGAINST THE CASH SA LES DETERMINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE ASSESSEE AN INDIVIDUAL WAS A DEALER IN MARBLE AND GRANITE. THERE WAS AN ACTION U/S 132 OF THE AC T IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. HINDUSTAN MARBLES AND GRANITE [HMG ] WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE PARTNERS BESIDES THE BUSI NESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 8.3.2007. DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION RS.1.31 CRORE OF CASH WAS UNEARTHED IN T HE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER M.G.ANANDA REDDY WHO WAS THE OTHER PARTNER OF THE SAID FIRM. WHEN THE ORIGIN OF THE CASH WAS QUER IED IT WAS REVEALED THAT RS.1 CRORE REPRESENTS BUSINESS INCOME OF HMG AND A S FAR AS RS.30 LAKHS WAS CONCERNED THIS REPRESENTS THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME OF THE FAMILY WHICH INCLUDES THE ASSESSEE. 4. CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING RS.2 61 379/- AS HIS INCOME PLUS AGRICUL TURAL INCOME OF RS.30 LAKHS. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CREDIT FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS IN PREVIOUS YEAR OF RS.14 60 700/- WOULD SUFFICE AND ACCORDINGLY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.17 2 4 935/- [RS.3185635 ITA NO.1237/BANG/09 PAGE 3 OF 9 1460700] WAS TREATED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND BROUGHT TO TAX NET AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 6. WHEN THE ISSUE WAS CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT (A) WH O HOWEVER AFTER DELIBERATING THE ISSUE AT LENGTH TURNED DOWN THE A SSESSEES CONTENTION ON THE GROUNDS THAT (I) THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS THAT HE HAD EARNED TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY SALE OF MANGOES MIXED VEGETABLES COCONU TS BETWEEN THE PERIOD 9.4.96 TO 1.3.07. HOWEVER ON EXAMINATI ON OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID INCOME OF RS .30 LAKHS WAS INTRODUCED ONLY ON 9.3.07 WHICH INDICATES THAT THE SAID SUM WAS RECEIVED ON THAT DATE EVEN THOUGH THE ALLEGED SALE S WERE MADE ON DIFFERENT DATES THE CASH AGAINST SALE OF CROPS WA S INTRODUCED AS RECEIVED ON 9.3.07; (II) THE SELF MADE VOUCHERS PRODUCED DID NOT CONTAIN THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE PRODUCES WERE SOLD. HAD THERE BEEN GENUINE SALES THE CASH RECEIVED ON THE DATE(S) ON WHICH SALE WAS SHOWN SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT? (III) THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT THE SAID LANDS WERE PU RCHASED IN 1995-96 DID NOT CARRY ANY WEIGHT AS NO INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL LANDS WAS DISCLOSED FOR THE AYS 2001-02 TO 2004-05. FOR THE AY 2002-03 THERE WAS INTRODUCTION OF CASH OF RS.1.9 L AKHS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BEING QUERIED THE ASSESSEE EXP LAINED THAT THE SAID CASH REPRESENTS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER THE AO TURNED DOWN THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT AND THE SAME WA S ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH; (IV) THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT SIMILAR CASH VOUCHERS WERE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH FOR THE PRECEDING F.Y DOESNT PRO VE THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF THE SEARCH FOR THE AY AND IT TESTIFIES THAT THE VOUCHER S WERE READIED AFTER THE SEARCH TO JUSTIFY THE CASH FOUND AT THE R ESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF HIS BROTHER; - MERELY FURNISHING A LIST CONTAINING EXPENSES WITHOU T EVIDENCE WOULD NOT SUFFICE TO JUSTIFY THAT AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT; - THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.30 LAKHS BASED ON THE SEARCH OPERATION AT HIS BROTHERS RESIDENCE. H OWEVER HIS BROTHER ITA NO.1237/BANG/09 PAGE 4 OF 9 ON OATH HAD STATED THAT RS.30 LAKHS REPRESENTS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HIS FATHER AND BROTH ER. HOWEVER NO DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF H IS FATHER AND THE LAND HOLDING WERE FURNISHED; - THE INCOME ADMITTED WAS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE SIM ILAR INCOME DECLARED FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING AYS. 7. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP WITH THE PRE SENT APPEAL. THE FORCEFUL ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A R WAS CENTRED AROUND THAT THERE WAS A STEADY INCREASE IN THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED O VER THE YEARS. TO GIVE CREDENCE TO HIS ARGUMENT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS WERE PLACED BEFORE THE AO FOR HIS PERUSAL W HICH HE HAD IN FACT ELABORATED IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HOWEVER WHILE CO NCLUDING THE PROCEEDINGS HE RESORTED TO RESTRICT THE INCOME FRO M AGRICULTURE TO RS.14.60 LAKHS CITING THE INCOME ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED TO RESTRICT THE AGRICULTURAL INC OME ONLY AT RS.14.60 LAKHS AS AGAINST RS.30 LAKHS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE . TO JUSTIFY HIS POINT THE LD. A R DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING FURNISHED TW O PAPER BOOKS CONTAINING 1 62 PAGES (TOGETHER) WHICH CONTAIN A MONG OTHERS COPIES OF (I) RECEIPTS OF AGRICULTURAL SALES; (II) PAHANI EX TRACTS; (III) STATEMENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME; (IV) CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE A O ETC. 7.1. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D R WAS VERY SPECIF IC IN HIS URGE THAT AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES VARIOUS C ONTENTIONS THE AO HAD RESTRICTED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.14.60 LAKH S FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY T HE CIT (A) AFTER ITA NO.1237/BANG/09 PAGE 5 OF 9 ANALYZING THE ISSUE IN DEPTH. IT WAS THEREFORE P LEADED THAT THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BE SUSTAINED. 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS D ILIGENTLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS VARIOUS DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ADDUCED BY THE LD. A R IN THE SHAPE OF PAPER BOOKS ETC. 8.1. AT THE OUT SET WE WOULD LIKE TO POINT THAT TH E LAND HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. THE ONLY GROUSE OF THE AO AS COULD BE SEEN FROM HIS IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.36.8 3 LAKHS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R APPEAL BUT NO DOCUMENTARY PROOF WAS ADDUCED EXCEPT PHOTOSTAT COPI ES OF SELF VOUCHERS ETC. HE HAD FURTHER VOUCHED THAT THE SELF VOUCHE RS CONTAINED THE DATES AMOUNTS THE COMMODITIES SUCH AS MANGOES COCONUTS AND MIXED VEGETABLES ETC. THIS GOES TO PROVE THAT THE AO HAD IN FACT CONCEDED IN PRINCIPLE THE LAND-HOLDINGS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALS O THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES IN THE SAID LANDS AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE. 8.2. BEFORE THE CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT HE OWNS 16A 9G OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHERE MANGOES (APPROXIMAT ELY 1100 TREES) COCONUT (APPROX. 800 TREES) AND ALSO SHORT PERIOD C ROPS VEGETABLES WERE BEING GROWN. DURING THE YEAR UNDER DISPUTE THE AS SESSEE HAD DERIVED GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.36.8 LAKHS AND ADMI TTED NET INCOME OF RS.30 LAKHS BALANCE BEING EXPENSES INCURRED TOWAR DS AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. ITA NO.1237/BANG/09 PAGE 6 OF 9 8.3. ON A CAREFUL READING OF THE REASONS RECORDED B Y THE CIT (A) FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ONE COULD VISUALIZE THAT (I) THE CIT(A) HAD NEITHER DOUBTED THE BONA FIDE OF THE LAND HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE NOR THE GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME A DMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER HIS ONLY SUSPICION WAS ON THE V ERACITY OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THOUGH HE HAD EARNED SUCH I NCOME BETWEEN THE PERIOD 9.4.06 TO 1.3.07 THE SAME WAS INTRODUC ED IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT ONLY ON 9.3.2007 WHICH DOUBTED THE BONA FIDE OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM (II) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE L ANDS IN 1995- 96 NO INCOME FROM SUCH LANDS WERE ADMITTED FROM 20 01-02 TO 2004-05 AND FOR THE AY 2002-03 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HA D INTRODUCED THE CASH OF RS.1.90 LAKHS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS IT REPRESENTS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN REJEC TED BY THE AO AND ADDED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH 8.4. IN TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF EVENTS NARRATED IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS THE F OLLOWING CRUCIAL POINTS ARE EMERGED: (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS HOLDING AROUND 16 ACRES OF FERTILE AGRICULTURAL LANDS [PAHANI EXTRACTS P 26 TO 30 OF PB AR]; (II) THE DETAILS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED FOR T HE PERIOD BETWEEN 9.4.2006 TO 1.3.2007 ON SALE OF MANGOES MI XED VEGETABLES COCONUTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE CIT (A) BUT HIS OBSERVATION WAS THAT IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ALLEGED SALES OF THE AGRICULTURE PRODUCES WERE MADE ON DIFFERENT DATES BETWEEN PERIOD 9.4.06 TO 1.3.07 THE CASH AGAINST SALE OF THE CROPS IS INTRODUCED AS RECEIVED ON ONE DATE I.E . 9.3.07. THUS THE CIT(A) HAD PRIMA FACIE ACCEPTED THE INC OME FROM THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES. HE HAD RATHER FOUND FAULT ONLY WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CASH ON A SINGLE DAY I.E. 9.3.2007; - ON BEING QUERIED THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS CONCENTRATING ON THE BUSINESS AT BANGALORE THE AGR ICULTURAL OPERATION AND ALLIED WORK WAS BEING LOOKED AFTER B Y HIS PEOPLE AND THE TRADERS WHO PURCHASE THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES WILL MAKE THE PAYMENTS ON DIFFERENT DATES (AND NOT IN ONE GO) USU ALLY DURING THE PERIOD OF YEAR-END WHICH NECESSITATED IN CREDITING THE SAME TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT DURING THE MONTH OF MARCH AND THUS NO ULTERIOR ITA NO.1237/BANG/09 PAGE 7 OF 9 MOTIVE NEEDS TO BE ATTACHED TO THE ENTERING OF THE CASH TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT; (III) ON SCRUTINY OF THE VOUCHERS WE FIND THAT THEY WERE NOT SELF-MADE VOUCHERS AS ALLEGED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE VOUCHERS HAVE BEEN PREPARED ON THE LETTER-HEADS OF EXOTIC GRANITE S & MARBLES WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY SIGNED BY THE TRADERS/PURCHASE RS. HAD THE VOUCHERS BEEN PREPARED AND SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE H IMSELF THEN SUCH VOUCHERS COULD BE CLASSIFIED AS SELF MADE VOUC HERS. (IV) THE CIT(A)S OTHER SUGGESTION 2.2.2. (IV) IT ALSO INDICATES THAT THE VOUCHERS WERE PREPARED AFTER THE SEARCH TO JUST IFY THE CASH FOUND AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF HIS BROTHER BELIES HIS AVERMENT THAT SINCE THE VOUCHERS FOR THE PERIOD FRO M 18.4.2005 TO 18.1.2006 (P 2 25 OF PB) PERTAINING TO THE AY 20 06-07 WERE SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION ( THE COPIES OF SUCH VOUCHERS ) WERE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE REVENUE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED: 15.4.2010 [P 1 OF PB AR]; (V) THE CIT(A)S FINDING THAT 2.2.2. (III) THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS PU RCHASED IN 1995- 96 DOES NOT PROVE THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AS THE PERUSAL OF THE RECORD REVEALS THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO AS SESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME DOESNT HOLD WATER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE PURPORTED TO HAVE PURCHASED THE LANDS SAY IN 1995-96 WHICH DOESNT MEAN THAT NO SOONER HE PROCURED THE L AND HE SHOULD DECLARE INCOME FROM SUCH LANDS. AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THOUGH HE HAS BEEN CULTIVATING THE LANDS SINCE 1995-96 THE SAPLINGS OF MANGOES COCONUTS STARTED GIVING YI ELDS WHEN THEY HAVE GROWN UP AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN ADMITTING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL PRODUCES FROM THE AYS 2005 -06 ONWARDS ADMITTING INCOME AT RS.6.5 LAKHS AND RS.14 .60 LAKHS FOR THE AYS 2005-06 AND 06-07 RESPECTIVELY. WHEN THOSE TREES ATTAINED MATURITY THEY HAVE STARTED YIELDING MORE IN NUMBER OF FRUITS COCONUTS ETC. WHICH COULD HAVE FACILITATED THE ASSESSEE TO ADMIT MORE INCOME FROM SUCH BUMPER CROPS FOR THE AY UNDER DISPUTE. SUCH BEING A GROUND REALITY THE AOS STAN D THAT THE INCOME SHOWN IS MORE THAN DOUBLE COMPARED TO THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 TO 2006-07 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 006-07 TO 2007-08 DOESNT CARRY ANY RATIONAL CONVICTION. (VI) WE ARE IN TOTAL DISAGREEMENT WITH THE AOS ASSERTIO N THAT GENERALLY THE VEGETABLES ARE QUICK YIELDING AND HAR VESTED VERY FREQUENTLY. IF THE LANDS WERE PURCHASED IN 1995-96 AT LEAST THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERABLE INCOME FROM SALE OF M IXED ITA NO.1237/BANG/09 PAGE 8 OF 9 VEGETABLES IN THE EARLIER YEARS ALSO BUT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 01-02 TO 2004.05. SINCE THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ANY DISCREET DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GROWING SHORT TERM VEGETABLES IN THE EARLIER Y EARS TOO WE CONSIDER HIS STAND WAS NOTHING BUT HYPOTHETICAL WHI CH DOESNT CARRY ANY WEIGHT. (VII) DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US AS POINTED OUR EARLIER THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED PAHANI EXTRACTS OWING AROUND 16 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AND THE AO IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER HAD VOUCHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS AND RECORDS OF RIGHTS AND PAHANI TO THE EXTENT OF 11.12 ACRES AND MANGOES AND VEGETABLES WERE THE CROPS AND AS SUCH NO MUCH IMPORTANCE NEED TO BE ATTACHED THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER TH AT AS FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.30 00 000/- IS CONCERNED THIS REPRESE NTS THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF MY FAMILY MEMBERS. (VIII) THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT GIVEN ITEM-WISE EXPENSE S TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL OPERATION HE HAD FURNISHED CONSOLIDAT ED EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE DAY DURING THE PERIOD UNDER DISPUT E [SOURCE: P 3 OF PB AR ] - CONSIDERING HOLDING OF THE LAND AND ALSO THE TYPE S OF CROPS BEING GROWN THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BEING REASONABLE THE S AME CANNOT BE PLACED UNDER A SCANNER. 8.5. IN AN OVERALL CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES OF THE ISSUE AS DISCUSSED IN THE FORE-GOING PARAGRAPHS WE ARE OF T HE FIRM VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E TO RS.14.60 700/- BASED ON THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HE IS DIRECTED TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS.30 00 000/- AS ADMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE SINCE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEES OTHER GROUNDS NAMELY (I) THE AO ERRED IN BRING TO TAX RS.17.24.935/- AS NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOURCES; & (II) THAT THE AO ERRED IN NOT GIVING TE LESCOPING EFFECT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.17.25 LAKHS AGAINST THE CASH SALES DET ERMINED IN THE HANDS OF ITA NO.1237/BANG/09 PAGE 9 OF 9 THE ASSESSEES BROTHER THEY HAVE BECOME OBSOLETE AND ACCO RDINGLY THEY ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- ( SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE DATED THE 29 TH SEPTEMBER 2010. DS/- COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT BANGALORE.