Zohra Emporium,, v. DCIT, Circle-11(3),,

ITA 2281/DEL/2001 | 1994-1995
Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 228120114 RSA 2001
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2281/DEL/2001
Duration Of Justice 12 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Zohra Emporium,,
Respondent DCIT, Circle-11(3),,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 18-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 08-08-2013
Next Hearing Date 08-08-2013
Assessment Year 1994-1995
Appeal Filed On 25-05-2001
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH I NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 3708/DEL/2000 & 2281/DEL/2001 ASSTT. YR: 1996-97 & 1994-95 RESPECTIVELY M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM VS. DY. CIT CIRCLE 11(3) 1 ARYA SAMAJ ROAD KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI AND ITA NO. 3862/DEL/2000 & 2934/DEL/2001 ASSTT. YR: 1996-97 & 1994-95 RESPECTIVELY DY. CIT CIRCLE 11(3) VS. M/S ZOHRA EMPORIUM NEW DELHI. 1 ARYA SAMAJ ROAD KAROL BAGH NEW DELHI ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : S/SHRI RAJ KUMAR & SUMIT GOEL CA S REVENUE BY : SHRI SAMEER SHARMA SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI J.M : THIS IS A GROUP OF FOUR APPEALS COMPRISING OF CROS S APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS O F CIT(A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994-95 AND 1996-97. ALL THESE APP EALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY A COMPOSITE ORDER FOR THE SAKE O F CONVENIENCE. 2. RESPECTIVE GROUNDS FOR A.Y. 1994-95 ARE AS UNDER : ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO. 2281/DEL/01) : 1. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE DETERMINATION OF ASSESSABLE INCOME AT RS. 1 83 770/ - AS 2 DETERMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST RETURNED AT LO SS OF RS. 98 530/- IS ARBITRARY ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO F ACTS. 2. THAT UNDER THE FACTS RETURNED INCOME AT LOSS OF RS. 98 530/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. 3. THAT UNDER THE FACTS NO INTEREST U/S 234B CAN B E LEVIED MORE SO SINCE THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ORDER FOR CHARGI NG THE INTEREST. 4. THAT UNDER THE FACTS THE LD. CIT(A) WAS REQUIRED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE OF INTEREST U/S 234B HIMSELF AGAIN ST REMANDING THE SAME TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 2.1. REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 2934/DEL/2001): BASED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 35 23 115 /- AFTER HOLDING THAT AO HAS EXCEEDED HER JURISDICTION BY A DOPTING THE INCOME AT RS. 7 06 885/- FOR THE FIRST PERIOD WHICH WAS THE FIGURE AS ORIGINALLY DETERMINED SINCE THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) FOR THE SECOND PERIOD HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND SECOND APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE ITAT. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE : THE ASSESSEE M/S ZOHRA EMPORIU M WAS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM WHICH CAME TO BE DISSOLVED ON 19-7-1993. A NEW FIRM IN SIMILAR NAME WAS CONSTITUTED BY A NEW PARTNERSHIP DEED COMPRISIN G OF OF DIFFERENT PARTNERS OF SAME FAMILY FROM 19-7-1993. HOWEVER TH E SAME SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS CONTINUED BY PARTNERS. THUS FOR A.Y. 1 994-95 IN THE SAME NAME THERE EXISTED TWO DISTINCT PARTNERSHIP FIRMS F OR FOLLOWING PERIODS : (I) 1-4-1993 TO 18-7-1993; AND (II) 19-7-1993 TO 31-3-1994. 3.1. TWO SEPARATE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 1994- 95 FIRST FOR THE PERIOD 1-4-1993 TO 18-7-1994; AND THE SECOND FOR TH E PERIOD 19-7-1993 TO 3 31-3-1994 WERE FILED BY RESPECTIVE FIRMS. IT MAY B E MENTIONED THAT PRESENT CROSS APPEALS ARE ONLY FOR THE FIRST PERIOD I.E. 1- 4-93 TO 18-7-93 AS THE ISSUE ABOUT SECOND PERIOD HAS BEEN DECIDED BY ITAT IN FAV OUR OF ASSESSEE WHICH EMERGES FROM THE REVENUE GROUND ALSO. 3.2. RETURN FOR THE FIRST PERIOD WAS FILED DECLARIN G LOSS OF RS. 98 530/- WHICH WAS ACCEPTED U/S 143(1) AND THE OTHER RETURN FILED FOR THE SECOND PERIOD WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY U/S 143(3). WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE ACCOUNT BOOKS OF THE FIRM TO SPECIAL AUDITOR U/S 142(2A) WHO ALSO GAVE A SINGLE AUDIT R EPORT COMBINING THE INCOME OF BOTH PERIODS IN ONE FIRM. BASED ON THE SP ECIAL AUDIT REPORT AND HIS OBSERVATIONS ASSESSING OFFICER COMBINED THE INCOME OF BOTH THE PERIODS REJECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND INCREASED THE INC OME TO A FIGURE OF RS. 1 24 12 962/- AS UNDER: (I) ASSESSED INCOME FOR THE FIRST PERIOD RS. 37 06 885/- (II) ASSESSED INCOME FOR THE SECOND PERIOD RS. 87 06 077/- RS. 1 24 12 962 3.3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AND CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF COMBINING THE INCOME OF B OTH PERIODS. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT BOTH THE ENTITIES WERE DIFFERENT PAR TNERSHIP FIRMS CONSTITUTED BY DIFFERENT INSTRUMENTS AND HENCE SEPARATE ASSESSA BLE ENTITIES. THEREFORE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION IN ASSESSING THE FIRM C ONSTITUTED FROM 19-7-1993 ON AN INCOME WHICH WAS EARNED IN THE WHICH BELONGED TO A DISTINCT SEPARATE AN EARLIER PARTNERSHIP FIRM/ ENTITY WHICH WAS DISS OLVED ON 19-7-1993. 4 3.4. CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 4-4-2000 IN APPEAL NO. 577/99-00 ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION HOLDING THAT BOTH THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS WERE DISTINCT AND SEPARATE AND OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ASSESS ED SEPARATELY. CIT(A) UPHELD REJECTION OF BOOKS HOWEVER REDUCED THE ASSE SSED INCOME BY ESTIMATING THE SALES OF BOTH PERIOD AT RS. 2.5 CRO RES AND ALSO ESTIMATING THE G.P. BY APPLYING RATE OF 25.11%. IT WAS DIRECTED T O APPORTION THE INCOME BETWEEN TWO PERIODS AS ABOVE ON PRO RATA BASIS. 3.5. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE THE TOTAL ADDITION OF I NCOME AS WORKED OUT BY THE CIT(A) CAME TO RS. 9 45 324/- WHICH WAS TO BE A PPORTIONED PROPORTIONATELY BETWEEN THE TWO PERIODS. THUS THE PORTION FOR THE FIRST PERIOD CAME TO RS. 2 79 300/- AND AFTER REDUCING TH E RETURNED LOSS OF RS. 98 530/- THE TOTAL INCOME TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN AT RS. 1 83 770/-. 3.6. ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER REFUSED TO CARRY O UT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(A) WHILE GIVING THE APPEAL EFFECT ORDER AND MAD E THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE FIRST PERIOD AT RS. 37 06 885/- BY FOLLOWING OBSER VATIONS: THE SUCCESSOR CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE OR DER WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE NEITHER CORRECT NO R COMPLETE AND THEREFORE INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 (2) AND REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE CIT(A) WAS THUS SATISFIED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE NOT CORRECT AND WENT FORW ARD WITH MAKING THE BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT U/S 144. IN ORD ER TO COVER VARIOUS ERRORS AND DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACCOUNT THE CIT(A) ESTIMATED THE SALES AT RS. 2.5 CRORES AND INCREASED THE GROSS PROFIT BY APPLYING G.P. OF 25.11% ON ENHANCED SALES OF RS. 37 64 730/-. THE POINT TO BE NOTED IS THAT AT THIS STAGE THE CIT(A) HAS NOT MENTIONED AS TO HOW HE HAS ARRIVED A T A FIGURE OF RS. 2.5 CRORES. IN A CASE WHERE SPECIAL AUDIT HA S ALREADY TAKEN PLACE AND ASSESSMENT HA BEEN MADE ACCORDINGLY SUCH APPROXIMATIONS IS NOT CALLED FOR. 5 THUS AS PER THE DISCUSSIONS ABOVE IT MAY BE CONCLUD ED THAT THE OBSERVATIONS MADE ON THE CASE ARE NOT DIFF ERENT FROM THOS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7.11.97. MO REOVER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WS CONFR ONTED WITH ALL THE ISSUES RAISED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FROM THE PERIOD 19.7.93 TO 31.3.94. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE DI D NOT HAVE ANY FRESH STATEMENT TO MAKE. REPLIES TO ALL SUCH QU ERIES HAD BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER ALSO. THUS KEEPING THE ABOVE FACTS IN MIND AND THE FACT THAT A SINGLE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE PERIODS I ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION TH AT TH OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS O RDER DATED 7- 11-97 IS CORRECT. THUS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE WHOLE YEAR IS =1 24 12 962/- AND INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE PERIO D UNDER CONSIDERATION IS RS. 37 06 885/-. THE ASSESSED INCOME IS OF RS. 37 06 885/- A AGAINST RETURNED LOSS OF RS. 98 530/-. ISSUE DEMAND NOTICE AND CHALLAN. CHARGE INTEREST AS PER LAW. PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) H AVE SEPARATELY BEEN INITIATED. 3.7. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE CONSEQUENT A.OS ORDER GIVING EFFECT TO CIT(A)S ORDER FOR BOTH PERIODS ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL. CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST PERIOD HELD THAT ASSESSING OFFICER COMMI TTED ERROR IN NOT PROPERLY CARRYING OUT THE DIRECTIONS CONTAINED IN HIS ORDER AND THE INCOME OF THE FIRST PERIOD WAS DETERMINED BY CIT(A) AT RS. 1 83 770/- B Y FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 2.1. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7-11-1997 ALREADY S TANDS DECIDED BY THE UNDERSIGNED VIDE APPEAL ORDER DATED 4-2-2000 IN APPEAL NO. 577/99-2000. THE A.O. HAS DULY GIVEN APPEAL EFFECT TO THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER AFTER WHICH IN TERMS OF SAID APPEAL ORDER THE INCOME STANDS DETERMINED AS UNDER :- 6 INCOME FOR THE FIRST PERIOD RS. 1 83 770/- INCOME FOR THE SECOND PERIOD RS. 4 31 604/- RS. 6 15 374/- . 2.2. THE LEARNED AR FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PRES ENT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER APPEAL WHICH RELATES TO THE FIRST PERIOD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 IS DATED 31-1-2001 AND THUS PASSED AFTER THE DATE OF APPELLATE ORDER DATED 4-2- 2000. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT THE LD. A.R. ARGUED THE DETERMI NATION OF INCOME FOR THE FIRST PERIOD AT RS. 37 06 885/- IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT SINCE THIS IS THE FIGURE WHICH WAS DETER MINED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7-11-1997 AND THE S AID ASSESSMENT ORDER STANDS MERGED IN THE APPELLATE ORD ER DATED 4- 2-2000 ACCORDING TO WHICH THE INCOME FOR THE FIRST PERIOD STANDS DETERMINED AT RS. 1 83 770/-. THE LD. AR STR ONGLY OBJECTED TO THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME AT RS. 37 0 6 885/- BY CONTENDING THAT THE A.O. WAS DUTY BOUND TO FOLLOW T HE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND WAS NOT LEGALLY COMPETENT TO AGAI N FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AT THE SAME INCOME WHICH ALREADY STANDS DEMOLISHED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XV. THE LD. AR HAS FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS TOTALLY OVERLOOKED AND DISCARDED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WHICH SHE WAS NOT LEGALLY COMPETENT TO DO. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THE DE PARTMENT HAS ALREADY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT AGAINST THE APPEAL ORDER DATED 4.2.2000 AND THE INCOME FOR THE FIRST P ERIOD WILL AUTOMATICALLY STAND ADJUSTED AND DETERMINED WITH RE FERENCE TO THE APPELLATE ORDER OF ITAT WHENEVER IT WILL BE PRO NOUNCED. 3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS PER MY ORDER DATED 4.2.2000 IN APPEAL NO. 577/99-2000 THE MATTER HAS ALREADY BEEN DECIDED. I HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT THE A.O . HAS GIVEN EFFECT TO THE SAID APPELLATE ORDER WHEREBY THE INCO ME FOR THE FIRST PERIOD STANDS DETERMINED AT RS. 1 83 770/- AN D FOR THE SECOND PERIOD RS. 4 31 604/-. IN MY CONSIDERED OPIN ION THE A.O. HAS EXCEEDED HER JURISDICTION BY AGAIN ADOPTIN G THE INCOME AT RS. 37 06 885/- FOR THE FIRST PERIOD WHI CH WAS THE FIGURE AS ORIGINALLY DETERMINED VIDE ASSESSMENT ORD ER DATED 7.11.97. THAT ORDER ALREADY STANDS SUBSTANTIALLY MO DIFIED AND CONSEQUENTLY HAS MERGED WITH MY ORDER DATED 4.2.200 0 AFTER 7 WHICH THE INCOME FOR THE PERIOD UNDER APPEAL STANDS DETERMINED AT RS. 1 83 770/-. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSE SSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE FRAMED AT THE INCOME OF RS. 1 83 770 /-. THE A.O. CANNOT SIT IN JUDGMENT ON THE FINDING OF THE CIT(AP PEALS) IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS HELD THAT HE IN COME OF THE FIRST PERIOD SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT RS. 1 83 770/- A GAINST RS. 37 06 885/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE GETS RELIE F OF RS. 35 23 115/-. 3.8. AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A) CHALLENGING THIS RELIEF AND THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEV ED ON THE DECISION THAT ITS RETURNED LOSS HAS BEEN FINALLY ASSESSED AT POSITIVE FIGURE OF RS. 1 83 770/-. THUS AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF FIRST PERIOD BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL. 5. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT FOR T HE SECOND PERIOD ALSO AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER BOTH THE PARTIES FILED APPEA L BEFORE THE ITAT AND VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER 30-11-2011 THE REVENUES AP PEAL STANDS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ITSELF IS QUASHED AS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND NON EST BY FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND S UBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE US. IT TRANSPIRES THAT THE APPROVAL TO THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS GRANTED BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX ON 18.03.1997. THIS IS THE DATE ON WHICH ORDER FOR AUDIT IS TAKEN TO HAVE BEEN PASSED. IN THIS ORDER THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO GET THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AUDITED ON OR BEFORE 31.07.1997. THEREAFTER THE PERIOD WAS EXTENDED UP TO 12.09.1997. THIS EXTENSION WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF AN Y REQUEST FROM THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IN TERMS OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF BISHAN SAROOP RAM KISHAN AGRO PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) TH ERE IS NO VALIDITY OF THE ORDER GRANTING EXTENSION BETWEEN 01 .08.1997 TO 12.09.1997. IN OTHER WORDS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HA D TO BE AUDITED ON OR BEFORE 31.07.1997. FURTHER UNDER CLAU SE (III) OF EXPLANATION 1 OF SECTION 153 THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTS THE ASS ESSEE TO GET HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED UNDER THE AFORESAID PROVISION AND ENDING 8 WITH THE LAST DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRE D TO FURNISH A REPORT OF SUCH AUDIT SHALL BE EXCLUDED IN COMPUTIN G THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. THUS ACCORDING TO THIS PROVISION PERIOD OF FOUR MONTHS AND 13 DAYS S TARTING FROM 18.03.1997 TO 31.7.1997 HAS TO BE EXCLUDED IN RECKO NING THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT. IF THE EXTENDED TIME OF FOUR MONTHS AND 13 DAYS IS TAKEN INTO ACCOU NT THE LAST DATE FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT WAS 13.07.1997. AS A GAINST THE AFORESAID THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 07. 11.2011. THUS THE ASSESSMENT IS CLEARLY BARRED BY LIMITATIO N ULS 153 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW THEREOF IT IS HELD THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW. 4. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDING THERE IS NO NE ED FOR US TO DECIDE VARIOUS GROUNDS TAKEN IN THIS APPEAL THE CR OSS APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ON MERITS. 5. THE RESULT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSION IS -(I) THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS AFORESAID; (II) THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS; AND (III) THE CROSS O BJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 5.1. LD. COUNSEL THUS PLEADS THAT SINCE THE REVENUE S APPEAL FOR THE SECOND PERIOD WHICH IS THE REASON FOR THE REVENUE TO FILE THIS APPEAL FOR FIRST PERIOD HAS NO LEGS TO STAND AS THE REVENUES APP EAL STANDS DISMISSED. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WHICH COMBINED BOTH THE INCOME PERIODS IN ONE ITSELF HAS BEEN QUASHED. IN OTHER WORDS IN THESE CIRCUMSTA NCES ONLY THE SEPARATE RETURNS FILED BY TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES FOR THESE PERIODS HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED AS THE COMBINED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NON EST. 6. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AND SPECIFIC GROUN D HAS BEEN TAKEN THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FOR SECOND PERIOD PASSED IN FIRST R OUND HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IN OUR VIEW THE ITAT HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES 9 APPEAL FOR THE SECOND PERIOD HOLDING THAT THE COMBI NED ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 7-11-1997 IS BARRED BY LIMITATION AND I S NON EST. SINCE THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN TREATING BOTH THE FIRMS SEPARATEL Y HAS ATTAINED FINALITY THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE FIRST PERIOD ALSO IS TO BE DISMISSED AS IT ARISES OUT OF THE SAME ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 7-11-1997. 8. COMING TO THE ASSESSEES APPEAL LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS OF THE ITAT: 1.1. AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN UP SIX GROUNDS. THESE GROUNDS RELATE TO (I) REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY INVOKING THE PROVISION CONTAINED IN SECT ION 145(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961; (II) ESTIMATION OF THE TURNOVER FOR THE WHOLE OF THE YEAR ENDED ON 31-03-1994 AT RS. 2. 50 CRORES AGAINST DECLARED TURNOVER OF RS. 2 12 35 270/-; (II I) ADDITION OF RS. 9 45 324/- FOR THE WHOLE OF THE YEAR ENDED ON 3 1-03-1994 BY APPLYING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 25.11% ON THE ENHANCE D SALES OF RS. 37 64 730/-; (IV) ENHANCEMENT AS AT (III) WITHO UT ISSUING ANY NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT U/S 251(2) OF THE ACT; AND (V ) CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED SYNOPSIS ON 01.07.201 0. THIS WRITE UP WAS READ OUT AS ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IS BARRED BY LIMITATIO N. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 1994-95 EXPIRES ON 31.3.1997. THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX APPROVED THE PROPOSAL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GETTING THE CASE AUDITED U/S 142(2A) M HIS LETTER DATED 18. 03.1997. THIS IS EVIDENCED BY THE FINDING OF THE LD. CL'T(APPEALS ) IN PARAGRAPH NO. 5.2 AT PAGE NO. 13 OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER THAT THE PROPOSAL WAS ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX UNDER HIS LETTER DATED 18.03. 1997 WHEREBY M/S GAR G BROTHERS & ASSOCIATES WERE APPOINTED SPECIAL AUDITORS. THE TE RMS OF REFERENCE HAVE ALSO BEEN REPRODUCED IN THIS PARAGRA PH. THE ORIGINAL TIME LIMIT FIXED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT ASCERTAINABLE. THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF AUDIT WAS EXTENDED BY 10 AN ORDER DATED 14.04.1997 ON ACCOUNT OF INVOLVEMENT OF THE AUDITOR IN AN ACCIDENT. THE EXTENSION WAS GRANTED U P TO 31.07.1997. THIS IS EVIDENCED BY THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON PAGE NO. 15 TO THE EFFECT THAT SHRI K.P. GARG THE AUDITOR HAD MET WITH AN ACCIDENT ON 14.04.1997 THEREFORE THE PERIOD FOR CONDUCTING THE AUDIT WAS EXTENDED TI LL 31.07.1997. THIS DATE MAY BE TAKEN AS THE DATE FIXE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE AUDIT. THE PERIOD WAS AGAIN EXTENDED UP TO 12.09.1997 AS EVIDENCED BY THE FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON PAGE 16 THAT BECAUSE OF ONE R EASON OR THE OTHER THE TIME FOR COMPLETION OF AUDIT WAS EXTE NDED TILL 12.09.1997. THE AUDIT REPORT WAS FINALIZED ON 11.09 .1997 WHICH WAS FURNISHED TO THE AO ON 12.09.1997. HOWEVE R IT IS SEEN FROM THE APPLICATION ON PAGE 16 OF THE IMPUGNE D ORDER THAT THE AUDIT REPORT WAS SUBMITTED UNDER LETTER DA TED 09.09.1997. THIS GETS CONFIRMED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN WHICH ON PAGE NO. 4 IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE AUDIT REPORT DATED 09.09.1997 PREPARED BY M/S GARG BROTHERS & ASSOCIATES WAS SUBMITTED TO HIM BY THE ASSESSEE ON 12.09.1997. THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT WAS PASSED ON 07.11.1997. 9. LD. COUNSEL THUS CONTENDS THAT THE ORDER OF CIT( A) ON APPORTIONMENT WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WA S A SUBJECT MATTER OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2409/DEL/2000 AND REVE NUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2451/DEL/2000 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITSELF S TANDS BAD IN LAW THUS THE CIT(A)S CONSEQUENT ORDER THEREON APPORTIONING THE INCOME STANDS ALSO QUASHED. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE CONSEQUENT ORDER OF CIT(A) BECOM ES BAD IN LAW AS THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IS NON EST. 10. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND CONTENDS THAT THE PART OF CIT(A)S ORDER RELATABLE TO THIS PERIOD SHALL BE GIVEN EFFECT TO E VEN THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW. 11. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER WE HAVE DISMI SSED REVENUES APPEAL FOR 11 THE FIRST PERIOD. ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ITSELF HAS BE EN QUASHED AND ITAT HAS DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR THE SECOND PERIO D ACCORDINGLY. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE RESULT WHICH EMERGES IS THAT AS THE ASSESSMENT HAVING BEEN HELD TO BE NON EST BY ITAT CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSEES INCOME IS DEEMED TO BE ASSESSED AT THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILE D BY IT FOR THE FIRST PERIOD. 12. NOW COMING TO A.Y. 1996-97 CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE THE RELEVANT GROUNDS ARE AS UN DER: ASSESSEES APPEAL (ITA NO. 3708/DEL/2000 AY 1996- 97) : 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PETITIONER FIRMS CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR REJECTING ITS ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR END ED 31-3-1996 BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PETITIONER FIRMS CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN ESTIMATING THE SALES FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.1996 AT RS. 2 60 00 000 AGAINST RS. 2 43 79 65 0/- AS DECLARED BY THE PETITIONER FIRM. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PETITIONER FIRMS CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 4 0 7 355/- FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31-3-1996 BY APPLYING A GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 25.14% ON THE ENHANCED SALES OF RS. 16 20 350/- FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31-3-1996. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PETITIONER FIRMS CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) FOR ENHANCEMENT OF SALES BY RS. 16 20 350 /- AND GROSS PROFIT BY RS. 4 07 355/- FOR THE YEAR ENDED 3 1-3-96 WITHOUT ISSUING ANY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 251(2) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT 1961 IS WRONG AND ILLEGAL. 12 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE PETITIONER FIRMS CASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS WRONG IN SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE O F TRAVELING EXPENSES OF RS. 27 877 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 6. THAT THE CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B O F THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 IS UNJUST AND WRONG. 7. THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE IS BAD IN LAW. REVENUES APPEAL (ITA NO. 3862/DEL/2000- AY 1996-97 ) : 1. IN THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 83 25 708/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED PURCHASES. 2. IN THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 16 85 743/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOWER GROSS PROFIT RATE. 3. IN THE FACTS AND UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 87 429/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EMBROIDERY CHARGES. 13. BRIEF FACTS ARE: ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER THE P&L A/C FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31-3-1996 SHOWED SOME DISCREPANCIES IN OPENI NG CLOSING STOCK PURCHASES AND SALES. THE TRADING ACCOUNT OF THE ASS ESSEE REFLECTED FOLLOWING FIGURES: OPENING STOCK 2 35 03 594.86 SALES 2 43 79 650.5 0 PURCHASES 1 90 22 640.12 CLOSING STOCK 2 42 76 64 4.28 GROSS PROFIT 61 30 059.80 13.1. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE FA CT THAT SALES WERE ALMOST EQUAL TO OPENING STOCK THERE SEEMED TO BE NO NEED FOR MAKING FRESH PURCHASES DESPITE THIS SITUATION ASSESSEE MADE FRES H PURCHASES CREATED SUSPICION. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THAT IN THIS LINE O F TRADE THERE WAS FREQUENT 13 CHANGE OF FASHION DESIGNS & TRENDS AND OTHER ISSUE S RELATED TO FINISHED BRIDAL WEAR AND EMBROIDERIED SARI BUSINESS AND TO KEEP PACE WITH THE CHANGING TRENDS FRESH PURCHASES WERE MADE TO MAINT AIN NEW FINISHED STOCK. . ASSESSING OFFICER APPREHENDED THAT RESULTS INDIC ATED THAT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF SALES WERE NOT RECORDED IN BOOKS AND THE SALE FIGURE OUGHT TO BE AROUND 2-3 TIMES OF THE OPENING/ CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE PURCHASE BILLS DETAILS OF OPENING AND CLOS ING STOCK. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE WAS CHECKED ON RANDOM TEST CHECK BASIS THE RESULT WHEREOF IS ANNEXED AS ANNEX URE I TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 13.2. ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 18-3-1996 POINTED OUT THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FOLLOWING AMOUNTS TO ITS PURCHASES : HEAD OFFICE RS. 70 45 541/- BRANCH OFFICE RS. 12 80 227/- TOTAL: RS. 83 25 768/- 13.3. ASSESSEE IN REPLY CONTENDED THAT PURCHASES AN D STOCK INVENTORIES HAVE VARIOUS ISSUES LIKE PLAIN SARIES & LEHNGAS ETC. I N WHICH THE FIRM IS BUYING AS RAW MATERIAL THEY ARE CONVERTED INTO FINISHED GOOD S AFTER COPIOUS ARTISAN WORK LIKE DYING EMBROIDERY IS DONE BY VARIOUS KARI GARS WHICH RESULTS INTO FINAL PRODUCT I.E. EMBROIDERIED SARI AND LEHENGA. T HUS THERE IS HEAVY VALUE ADDITION ON THE FINISHED PRODUCT AND THE ITEMS OF P URCHASES CANNOT BE IDENTICALLY SHOWN IN CLOSING STOCK AS THEY STAND CO NVERTED INTO VALUE ADDED FINISHED PRODUCTS. ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON THE ORDE R SHEET ENTRY DATED 11-2- 1999 I.E. SUBMISION OF ONE SHRI HARPREET SINGH MAN AGER STATING DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT FIRM IS MAINTAINING THE RECO RDS WHICH CAN LINK THE ORIGINALLY PURCHASED PLAIN SARIES WITH ITS VALUE AD DITION PRODUCT. HOWEVER IT 14 IS SUBSEQUENTLY DESTROYED AFTER EMBROIDERY WORK AND COST DETERMINATION OF FINAL PRODUCT. AT PRESENT HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PIN PO INT THE VALUE ADDITION. REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSES SING OFFICER MADE THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. 13.4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST APPEAL WH ERE IT WAS CONTENDED THAT: (1) NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE REGARDING ALLEGED UNRECORDED P URCHASES OR UNRECORDED SALES WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEES REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND AUDITED BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPT IONS AND SURMISES. SUSPICION HOW SO STRONG CANNOT ASSUME THE CHARACTER OF A PROOF TO REJECT ASSESSEES BOOKS AND MAKE HUGE ES TIMATED UNPRECEDENTED ADDITIONS. (2) WHAT WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PLAIN MATE RIAL I.E. SARIS LEHNGAS ETC. THEY WERE SUBJECTED TO THE PROCESSES O F DYING COLOURING VARIOUS TYPES OF EMBROIDERY AND EMBELLIS HMENTS OF BEADS ZARIES AND OTHER STONES AND CONVERTED INTO F INISHED PRODUCTS. IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO IDENTIFY WHICH ITEMS OF PURCHASES WERE UTILIZED IN A PARTICULAR MANUFACTURI NG ITEM. THE PROCESS INVOLVE COORDINATION OF HUGE WORK FORCE HAN DLED BY DIFFERENT ARTISANS FOR VALUE ADDITIONS. (3) THUS THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 145(2) IS BASED ON HYPOT HETICAL SURMISED AND GUESS WORK BASED ON SUSPICION. 13.5. CIT(A) DELETED VARIOUS ADDITIONS BY FOLLOWIN G OBSERVATIONS: (I) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED PURCHASES : 15 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATTER. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH COMPREHENSIVELY BY ME WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 (ORDER DATED 4-2-2000 IN AP PEAL NO. 577/99-2000). AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES RELATI NG TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS AND THE MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS BY THE APPELLANT FIRM REMAIN UNCHANGED FOR THE PREVIOUS YE AR PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 THIS ISSUE W OULD BE SQUARELY COVERED BY MY FINDING GIVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994- 95. IN PARA 10.5 OF MY ORDER DATED 4.2.2000 (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN INTER ALIA HELD AS UNDER:- COMING SPECIFICALLY TO THE FIRST ADDITION OF RS. 80 76 441/- WHICH RELATES TO UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES MADE BY THE HEAD OFFICE AND BRANCH OFFICE I FIND TH AT THE SPECIAL AUDITORS HAVE MADE A FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE IN ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION. THEY HAVE NOT UNDERSTO OD THAT HE APPELLANT FIRM PURCHASES CLOTH AND UNFINISH ED DRESS MATERIAL INCLUDING SAREES AND THEREAFTER IN CURS SUBSTANTIAL EXPENDITURE ON JOB WORK BY WAY OF EMBROIDERY ETC. AND SO THE FINISHED GOODS COME INTO EXISTENCE. THE SPECIAL AUDITORS FAILED TO APPRECIAT E THAT THE IDENTITY OF THESE FINISHED GOODS IS NOT SIMILAR TO THE IDENTITY OF THE CLOTH AND DRESS MATERIAL PURCHASED BY THE FIRM. THE LEARNED ARS CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD HO LDS WATER THAT WHILE THE PURCHASES ARE OF RAW MATERIAL AFTER THE JOB WORK IS DONE THE SHAPE STYLE NAME IDENTI TY AND SPECIFICATION OF THE GARMENT UNDERGOES A SEA CHANGE . THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY QUESTION OF MATCHING THESE FINISHED GOODS WITH REFERENCE TO OPENING STOC K INVENTORY OR THE PURCHASES MADE. THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS INCURRED EXPENSE OF APPROX. RS. 58 LAKHS ON EMBROID ERY WORK. THIS FACTOR HAS BEEN TOTALLY IGNORED AND BOTH THE SPECIAL AUDITOR AND THE AO HAVE FALLEN INTO ERROR B Y FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE EMBROIDERED FINISHED GOODS CAN IN NO CASE BE TRACED OUT FROM THE OPENING STO CK INVENTORY AND THE PURCHASES MADE. IN VIEW OF THE AB OVE I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE MANNER IN WH ICH THE SPECIAL AUDITOR AND A.O. HAVE TRIED TO LINK T HE ITEMS OF CLOSING STOCK WITH THE ITEMS IN THE OPENING STOC K AND 16 THE PURCHASES MADE IS TOTALLY FAULTY AND IRRATIONAL . THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LINKING ITEMS OF STOCK ONLY ON TH E BASIS OF VALUATION. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES OF THE CASE AND MORE PARTICULARLY THE SUBMISSIONS A ND CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED AR WHICH CARRY WEIGHT I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDING THAT THE AO HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WERE UNRECORDED PURCHASES OF T HE VALUE OF RS. 80 76 441/- AS MENTIONED ON PAGES 32 A ND 38 OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 80 76 44 1/- WHICH WAS TOTALLY UNCALLED FOR IS DELETED. FOR SIMILAR REASONING I HAVE NO HESITATION IN HOLDI NG THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 83 25 768/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED PURCHASES. (II) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF REJECTION OF GOODS AND SALES G.P. REGARDING THE ADDITION IN G.P. RATE OF RS. 20 93 0 98/- I FIND THAT THE A.O. HAS ATTRACTED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 145(2) AND REJECTED THE ACCOUNTS. I FIND THAT THE NATURE OF BU SINESS AND THE MANNER IN WHICH ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE APPE LLANT FIRM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 AND ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 6-97 ARE SIMILAR. THERE IS NO ELEMENT OF A LACK OF CLARIFY I N THE ACCOUNTS. THIS ISSUE WAS EXAMINED IN DETAIL BY THE UNDERSIGNE D FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 145(2) WERE ATTRACTED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE SALES OF RS. 2 12 35 270/- WERE ENHANCED TO RS. 2.50 CRORES FOR A.Y. 1994- 95 AND THE GROSS PROFIT INCREASED BY APPLYING A G.P . RATE OF 25.11% KEEPING IN VIEW THE VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE A CCOUNTS AS DETECTED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. AS THE FACTS ARE S IMILAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 I UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN ATTRACTING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145(2) ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE COMPLETENESS AND CORRE CTNESS OF THE ACCOUNTS. THIS YEAR THE APPELLANT FIRM HAS DISCLOSE D SALES OF RS. 2 43 79 650/- ON WHICH GROSS PROFIT OF RS. 61 30 05 9/- HAS BEEN DISCLOSED WHICH GIVES A G.P. RATE OF 25.14%. KEEPI NG IN VIEW THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE AND THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES PREVALENT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR 1995-96 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 TO MY MIND IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IF THE SALES OF RS. 2 43 79 650/- ARE ENHANCED TO RS. 2.60 CRORES 17 AND THE GROSS PROFIT INCREASED BY APPLYING A G.P. R ATE OF 25.14% A DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT FIRM TO THE TO TAL SALES. THIS WOULD MEAN A GROSS PROFIT ADDITION OF RS. 4 07 355/- AT 25.14% OF RS. 16 20 350/- (RS. 2 60 00 000/- - RS. 2 43 79 650/- ). THEREFORE OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 20 9 3 098/- MADE BY THE A.O. AN ADDITION OF RS. 4 07 355/- IS SUSTAI NED. THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED TO A RELIEF OF RS. 16 85 743/ - (20 93 098 - 4 07 355). AT 25.14%. (III) EMBROIDERY CHARGES: GROUND NO. 4 DEALS WITH THE DISALLOWANCE OF EMBROI DERY CHARGES OF RS. 87 429/- OUT OF TOTAL EMBROIDERY CHA RGES OF RS. 54 96 139/- CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT-FIRM. I FIND T HAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ON THIS COUNT ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994- 95. THESE PAYMENTS HAVE ALL BEEN MADE TO OLD KARIGARS THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. JUST BECAUSE THESE PARTIES DID NOT RESPON D TO THE SUMMONS U/S 131 CANNOT LED TO THE INFERENCE THAT TH ESE PAYMENTS ARE NOT GENUINE. THE AO COULD VERY WELL H AVE ENFORCED THEIR ATTENDANCE AND EXAMINED THEM. THE AP PELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF THESE PARTIES AND T HE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS AND THEREFORE HIS ONUS O N THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCHARGED. THE CONFIRMATION OF THE KARIGAR(S) IS ALSO AVAILABL E IN HIS OWN HANDWRITING IN THE EMBROIDERY REGISTER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS. 87 429/- IS DELETED . (IV) TRAVELLING EXPENSES: GROUND NO. 5 DEALS WITH THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TRA VELING EXPENSE OF RS. 27 877/-. THE A.O. HAS MADE THIS DIS ALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 6D. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED AR HAS NOT BE EN ABLE TO SHOW HOW THE COMPUTATION OF DISALLOWANCE UNDER RULE 6D IS ERRONEOUS. THEREFORE THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 27 8 77/- IS SUSTAINED. 18 14. AGGRIEVED BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL. ASSE SSEE BY ABOVE GROUNDS IN SHORT HAS CHALLENGED THE REJECTION OF BOOKS ES TIMATION OF SALES ESTIMATION OF G.P. ON ENHANCED SALES; AND TRAVELING EXPENSES. PER CONTRA THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED PURCHASES AND ESTIMATED REDUCTION IN ESTIMATE OF G. P. MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO ON EMBROIDERY CHARGES. 15. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE FAC TS AND CONTENDS THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE; NO EVIDENCE OF ANY UNRECORDED PURCHASES OR SALES HAS B EEN BROUGHT ON THE RECORD. SIMILARLY NO EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF EMBROI DERY CHARGES VARIOUS OTHER EXPENDITURE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BE EN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE ACTION OF ASS ESSING OFFICER IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED. ASSE SSEES BOOKS OF A/CS ARE REFERRED TO SPECIAL AUDIT IN A.Y. 1994-95 HOWEVER IN THE YEAR 1996-97 THERE WAS NO SPECIAL AUDIT. THE MAIN REASON OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER RESORTING TO REJECTION OF BOOKS IS PURPORTED STATEMENT MADE BY THE MANAGER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM NAMELY HARPREET SINGH MENTIONED ABOVE . ON THIS SIMPLE ORAL STATEMENT BY THE MANAGER WHICH IS NOT GIVEN ON OAT H THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RANDOM CHECK BASIS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO LINK TH E ITEM OF STOCK WITH THE ITEMS OF PURCHASES. THE ASSESSEE HUMBLY EXPLAINED T HAT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS PECULIAR IN NATURE AS P LAIN CLOTH SAREES AND FINISHING MATERIALS ARE PURCHASED SEPARATELY. THE A SSESSEE THEN MAKES VALUE ADDITION TO THE PLAIN CLOTH/ SAREES WITH MATCHING C OLOURS EMBELLISHMENT EMBROIDERY STITCHING AND ADDING COLOURFUL STONES O R ZARI MATERIAL. THEREFORE IT WILL BE VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PIN P OINT WHICH FINISHED SAREE WAS MADE OUT OF WHICH INVOICE OF SARI AND MATERIAL EXACTLY . ASSESSEES BONA FIDE EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN ANY CREDEN CE. THUS THE MARKET 19 PRACTICE AND THE COMMON PARLANCE TEST HAVE BEEN GI VEN A GO BYE WITHOUT ANY RHYME AND REASON. AFTER SUMMARILY REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION RANDOM CHECK RATIO HAS BEEN EXTRAPOLATED TO THE ENT IRE CLOSING STOCK. 15.1. THUS THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS B EEN RESORTED ON FLIMSY GROUND AND NOT ON VALID CONSIDERATIONS. THEREFORE ASSESSEES BOOKS HAVE BEEN UNJUSTIFIABLY REJECTED THEY DESERVE TO BE ACC EPTED. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO HIS ORDER FOR A.Y. 1994-95 TO EMPHASIZE THE FIND INGS THAT NO WORTHWHILE DISCREPANCIES EXISTED TO UPHOLD THE REJECTION OF BO OKS. THOUGH THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 1994-95 HAS BEEN TECHNICALLY AN NULLED HOWEVER THE MERITS OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REMAIN. 15.2. ALTERNATIVELY IT IS PLEADED THAT EVEN IF RE JECTION OF BOOKS IS UPHELD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF SUPPRESSED PURCH ASE ANY ADDITION IN THIS BEHALF IS SET OFF AS THE PURCHASE ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 15.3. SIMILARLY IN ABSENCE OF DETECTION OF ANY UNAC COUNTED SALES SALES FIGURES CANNOT BE REJECTED AND ESTIMATION CANNOT BE RESORTED. THUS WHEN NO EVIDENCE ABOUT ANY SUPPRESSED PURCHASES OR SALES IS AVAILABLE ESTIMATE IS TO BE BASED ON THE G.P. AND TRADING RESULTS OF THE AS SESSEE. IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE G.P. RATE OF 25.14% WHIC H HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE SATISFACTORY IN PARA 9 OF HIS ORDER. 15.4. LEARNED COUNSEL PLEADS THAT WHEN IT COMES TO RATE OF G.P. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) BOTH ACCEPT THE SAME A S SATISFACTORY. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER REGARDING OF ANY SUPPRESSED PURCHASES OR SUPPRESSED SALES WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO BE OUT OF THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AND MERELY ON UNSUBSTANTIATED SUSPICION BOOKS OF A/CS ARE REJECTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES O N ASSUMPTIONS WORKED OUT ESTIMATED SALES ON ASSUMPTIONS AND HAS APPLIED G.P. WHICH IS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE ITSELF. 20 15.5. LD. COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT : (I) REJECTION OF BOOKS OF A/CS IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVID ENCE ABOUT UNRECORDED PURCHASES OR SALES. IT IS ONLY BECAUSE A SSESSEE COULD NOT PRECISELY CORRELATE THE FINISHED PRODUCT WITH T HE PURCHASES. (II) ASSESSING OFFICER ON ASSUMPTIONS PROCEEDED TO ESTIM ATE THE UNRECORDED PURCHASES BY TEST CHEQUE TO 17 ITEMS OF STOCK INVENTORY ON MRP BASIS AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PIN POINT WH ERE THIS ITEM WAS REFLECTED TO BE PURCHASED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAI NED THAT THIS IS A FINISHED PRODUCT AND IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO PRECISELY PIN POINT OUT WHICH OF THE ITEMS WENT INTO THE FINISHED PRODUCTS WHICH IS IN THE CLOSING STOCK. ASSESSING OFFICER ON RANDOM BASIS WO RKED OUT RATIO OF UNRELATED STOCK ITEM HELD IT TO BE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND FURTHER APPLIED THE PROCEDURE OF RANDOM CHECK BASIS TO THE ENTIRE CLOSING STOCK. THUS THE ENTIRE EXERCISE IS ONLY ON ASSUMPTIONS EXTRAPOLATING OF ASSUMPTIONS. 15.6. IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT IF THESE AMOUNTS A RE TO BE HELD AS UNRECORDED PURCHASES THEN IN THIS YEAR THESE ARE TO BE ALLOWE D AS EXPENDITURE. THE AMENDMENT IN THIS BEHALF IS BROUGHT IN SEC. 69C W.E .F. 1-4-1999 I.E. APPLICABLE FROM A.Y. 2000-01 ONWARDS AND NOT IN THI S YEAR. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CBDT CIRCULAR NO. 772 DATED 23-2-1998 WHI CH EXPLAINS NON ALLOWABILITY OF SUCH UNRECORDED PURCHASES AS EXPEND ITURE W.E.F. 2000-01. THE ASSESSEES CASE IS FOR A.Y. 1996-97 WHICH FALLS IN THE PRIOR PERIOD. THUS IN ANY CASE THESE PURCHASES ARE TO BE ALLOWED AS EX PENSES TO ASSESSEE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON : - ITAT ORDER DATED 28-10-2004 IN MA NO. 131/DEL/04 (I TA NO. 1907/DEL/99 & CO 44/DEL/03) FOR AY 1989-90 IN THE C ASE OF SHRI PADAM CHAND JAIN VS. DCIT 21 - DGP WINDSOR INDIA LTD. 74 TTJ (MUM) 291. - KRISHNA TEXTILES VS. CIT 310 ITR 227 (GUJ.) HOLDI NG THAT PROVISO TO SEC. 69C INSERTED W.E.F. 1-4-1999 THEREF ORE NOT APPLICABLE TO AY 1987-88. - RAJ SONS JWELLERS VS. ITO 86 TTJ (DEL.) 1106 HOLD ING THAT RESTRICTION PLACED U/S 69C ON ALLOWING SUCH EXPENDI TURE IS NOT APPLICABLE TO AY 1998-99. - DCIT VS. RADHE DEVELOPERS INDIA LTD. & ORS. 329 ITR 1 (GUJ.) HOLDING THAT PROVISO BELOW SEC. 69C IS EFF ECTIVE FROM 1-4-1999 AND THUS APPLICABLE FROM AY 1999-2000. 15.7. APROPOS ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALES AND GP I T IS PLEADED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) BOTH HAVE ACCEPTED THE GP RATE OF 25.14% TO BE CORRECT. THE ADDITION IS NOT A RESULT OF G.P. A DDITION BUT ON ESTIMATION OF SALES PRESUMED TO BE OUT OF BOOKS. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT NOT AN IOTA OF EVIDENCE IS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DEMONSTRATE ANY UNRECORDED SALES. THE AD DITION IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED AS BEING A PURE WORK OF FIGMENT OF IMAGINAT ION. 15.8. APROPOS EMBROIDERY EXPENSES CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE WHILE RELYING ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS AS UNDER: (I) TOTAL EMBROIDERY EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPRISED OF RS. 54 96 139/-. ALL THE PARTIES WERE ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6). ALL EXCEPT SIX PARTIES REPLIED. (II) PAYMENT TO THESE SIX PARTIES HAVE BEEN MADE THROUG H CHEQUES. THEY ARE OLD KARIGARS THEIR NAMES ARE ENTERED INTO KARIGAR REGISTERS. THEIR CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED. THE ASSE SSEE FILED BANK STATEMENT DISCLOSING THAT H CHEQUES WERE CLEARED T HROUGH THE BANK. THE SUMMONS WERE SERVED AND DID NOT COME UNSERVED. THE FACT OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUES CONFIR MATION ALL GO 22 TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES. DESPITE THE PLETHORA EVIDENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DOUBTED THE EXI STENCE OF PARTIES AND REJECTED THE EXPENDITURE. (III) SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS. 2 43 775/- IN RESPECT OF 5 KARIGARS WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER; CIT(A) DELETED THE SAME WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. IT IS PLEADED THAT CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON: - CIT VS. G.P. INTERNATIONAL LTD. 229 CTR (P&H) 86 HOLDING THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTION CANNOT BE TREAT ED AS NON-GENUINE MERELY BECAUSE SOME OF THE APPLICANTS DID NOT RESPO NDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 133(6). - PANKAJ SAWHNEY VS. ITO 141 TAXMAN 45 (DEL.) (MAGZ.) HOLDING THAT IF THERE IS NO RESPONSE FOR THE SUMMON S ISSUED U/S 131 NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE TAKEN IF SUFFICIE NT EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. - ORISSA CORPORATION 159 ITR 78 (SC) - FOR THE PROPOS ITION THAT IF SUMMONS U/S 131 ARE ISSUED AND NOT RESPONDED BY THE PERSONS SUMMONED NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BRING THE PROCEEDINGS OF 131 TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. 16. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER . 17. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. GROUND NO. 5 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL REGARDING TRAVELING EXPENSES IS NOT PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE HENCE DISMISSED BEING NOT PRESSED 17.1. WHAT IS LEFT TO BE DECIDED IN THESE CROSS APP EALS IS THE ISSUE OF REJECTION OF BOOKS WHETHER MATERIAL EXISTS ON REC ORD TO HOLD THAT ASSESSEE MADE HUGE UNRECORDED PURCHASES; ITS ADDITION U/S 6 9C AND ALLOWABILITY AS 23 EXPENDITURE TO ASSESSEE; JUSTIFICATION OF ESTIMATIO N OF SALES AS ALTERNATIVELY CLAIMED ITS GROSS PROFIT WHEN NO MATERIAL IS BROUG HT ON RECORD. 17.2. AS THE FACTS EMERGE THE GP RATE OF 25.14% DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN HELD TO BE ACCEPTABLE AND SATISFACTORY. TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AND IN THIS YEAR THEY HAVE NOT BEEN REFERRED TO SPECIAL AUDITOR SO NO ADVERSE COMMENTS EXIST ON RECORD ABOU T VERACITY OF RECORD. NO IRREGULARITY INCONSISTENCY OR INFIRMITIES HAVE BE EN POINTED OUT IN THE MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF A/CS. 17.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SUSPICION STARTS QUA THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED ABOVE ON A PRESUMPTIVE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEES SALES WERE NEARLY THE OPENING STOCK. INVENTORY OF C LOSING STOCK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERIFIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON TEST CHECK BASIS. ASSESSING OFFICER THEN REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRECISELY IDE NTIFY THE ITEM MENTIONED IN THE CLOSING STOCK AND TALLY IT WITH THE PURCHASE VO UCHERS WITH EXACTLY SAME DESCRIPTION. THE ASSESSEE IN DETAIL EXPLAINED THAT IT DEALS IN SELLING FURNISHED LEHANGAS SAREES AND OTHER LADIES APPARELS WHICH AR E FINISHED WITH ZARI EMBROIDERY BEAD WORK ETC. THE RAW CLOTHS LIKE SARE ES LEHENGAS ARE DYED IN DIFFERENT COLOURS AS PER REQUIREMENT AND THEN FINIS HED BY A LENGTHY PROCESS. THEREFORE THE EXACT DESCRIPTION OF CLOSING STOCK I TEMS WITH MATCHING CANNOT BE SHOWN FROM THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS. THE PURCHASE V OUCHERS CONTAIN THE DESCRIPTION AS PLAIN SAREES DUPATTAS OR OTHER TEXT ILE AND FINISHING MATERIAL WHICH WILL BE CONVERTED INTO FINISHED PRODUCT BY WA Y OF DYING EMBROIDERY WORK BY ARTISANS STONES ZARI ETC. IN OUR CONSIDER ED VIEW THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED ON PRACTICAL FACTS OF ITS BU SINESS AND THE EXACT DESCRIPTION OF CLOSING STOCK FINISHED ITEMS COULD NOT BE DEMONSTRATED BY 24 WAY OF EXACT DESCRIPTION IN THE PURCHASE VOUCHERS. THIS IS SIMPLY SO BECAUSE ASSESSEE DOES NOT PURCHASE FINISHED ITEMS. THIS FA CTUAL SITUATION HAS BEEN CONVERSELY ASSUMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DRAW AN ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT UNRECORDED PURCHASES ARE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND UNRECORDED SALES WERE ALSO INDULGED IN BY ASSESSEE. THE TEST CHECK R ATIO IS EXTRAPOLATED AND APPLIED TO ENTIRE PURCHASES AND SALES OF THE YEAR RESULTING IN THESE ADDITIONS. 17.4. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE EXERCISE UNDERTAK EN BY ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN RIGHTLY HELD BY THE CIT(A) TO BE UNJUSTIFI ED AND BASED ONLY ON ASSUMPTIONS AND PRESUMPTIONS. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED T O HIS ORDER FOR AY 1994-95 THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 94-95 HAS BEE N TECHNICALLY QUASHED BY ITAT ORDER HOWEVER THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CIT( A) THEREIN ARE ON MERITS AND TALLY WITH OUR VIEWS WHICH ARE TAKEN IND EPENDENTLY. 17.5. THE ASSESSEES ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION IS ALSO WORTH OF ACCEPTANCE AS IF THEY ARE HELD TO BE UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES THEN THE SAME IS TO BE ALLOWED AS EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS AY 1996-97 FALLS IN PRE AMENDMENT PERIOD WHICH HAS BEEN FURTHER CLARIFIED B Y THE CBDT IN THE ABOVE CIRCULAR CONSEQUENTLY ON MAIN GROUND AS WELL AS ALTERNATIVE GROUND THE EXPENDITURE U/S 69C IS TO BE ALLOWED TO THE ASS ESSEE. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHICH IS UPHELD. T HIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ON ABOVE OBSERVATIONS WE UPHOLD THE O RDER OF CIT(A) ON THE GROUNDS WHICH ARE RAISED IN REVENUES APPEAL ABOUT ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES GP ADDITION AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OUT OF EMBROIDERY EXPENSES. CONSEQUENTLY THE REVENUE APPEAL FOR AY 96 -97 IS DISMISSED. 25 17.6. APROPOS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL - IN OUR CONSID ERED VIEW ASSESSEES BOOKS AS FAR AS SALES ARE CONCERNED DO NOT CALL F OR ANY REJECTION OF BOOKS. NO IOTA OF EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO S UGGEST ANY UNDISCLOSED SALES AND IN THE ABSENCE THEREOF MERELY BECAUSE BO OKS OF A/CS ARE REJECTED WITHOUT JUSTIFICATION SALES CANNOT BE ESTIMATED. I N OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF A/CS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND ASSUMED DISCREPANCIES IN THE CLOSING STOCK WHIC H HAS BEEN REASONABLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER INDICATING NON RECORDING OF ANY PURCHASE OR SALE IN BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE A.OS THEORY. 17.7. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT UNDISCLOSED PURCHASE AND SALE CANNOT BE ATTRIBUTED TO ASSESSEE WITHOUT RELIANCE ON PROPER CORROBORATI VE EVIDENCE. THE GP DISCLOSED BY ASSESSEE HAVING BEEN ACCEPTED; NO SPEC IFIC INSTANCES OF DEFICIENCY OF SALE OR PURCHASE IN A/C BOOKS; NO PRO OF OF UNRECORDED PURCHASES OR SALES HAVING BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD W E SEE NO JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF IN THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE WE UPHOLD THE BOOK RESUL TS AND G.P. DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING SATISFACTORY NO ADDITION IS CALL ED FOR. THE REJECTION OF BOOKS BY LOWER AUTHORITIES IS ONLY ON SURMISES AND NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY COGENT OR OBJECTIVE REASONS. CONSEQUENTLY WE DELE TE THE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF REJECTION OF BOOKS ESTIMATION OF SALES/ PURCHASES AND CONSEQUENT ESTIMATION OF GP IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES GROUND IN THIS RESPECT SUCCEEDS. REVENUES GROUNDS IN THIS RESPECT FAIL. 17.8. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234B IS CONSEQUE NTIAL. 26 18. TO SUM UP ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 1994-95 IS ALLOWED AND FOR A.Y. 1996-97 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. REVENUES APPEALS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18-10-2013. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH OCT. 2013. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR