M/s A.C..Sarees, RAIPUR (CG) v. ACIT-1(1), RAIPUR (CG)

ITA 42/BIL/2012 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 4224714 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AAOFA3129Q
Bench Raipur
Appeal Number ITA 42/BIL/2012
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
Appellant M/s A.C..Sarees, RAIPUR (CG)
Respondent ACIT-1(1), RAIPUR (CG)
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 16-04-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH RAIPUR BEFORE S/SHRI MUKUL K SHRAWAT (JM) AND SHAMIM YAH YA (AM) ITA. NO.42/BLPR/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08) M/S A C SAREES SHOP NO.62-64 NEW CLOTH MARKET PANDRI RAIPUR VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1(1) RAIPUR (CG) APPELLANT .. RESPONDENT PAN/GIR NO. : AAOFA3129Q APPELLANT BY : SHRI R B DOSHI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D K JAIN DATE OF HEARING : 11 .6.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.07. 2015 O R D E R PER MUKUL K SHRAWAT (JM) : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FR OM THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX RAIPUR PASSED U/S 263 O F I.T.ACT DATED 22.3.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. HE ERRED IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 AND IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FOR FRESH ENQUIRY. THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 IS CONTRARY TO L AW ILLEGAL UNSUSTAINABLE AND IS PASSED WITHOUT PROPERLY APPREC IATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ITA. NO.42/BLPR/2012 2 2. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON 13.11.2009. ACCORDING TO WHI CH THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN SAREES. A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSI NESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 11.10.2006. AT THAT TIME EXCESS CASH OF RS.40 333/- AND EXCESS STOCK OF RS.18 76 983/- WAS FOUND AND THE SAME WAS SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS ALSO MENT IONED THAT THE SAID TWO AMOUNTS WERE DECLARED AS PER THE RETURN OF INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ON 15/11/2007. INCOME TAX RETURN WAS FILED DECLARING THE INCOME OF RS.14 91 520/- AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED ON THE ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.15 56 517/-. 3. ACCORDING TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THE SAID ORDER OF THE AO WAS ERRONEOUS ORDER ON THE GROUND THAT WHI LE DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE REMUNERATION PAYABLE TO THE PARTNERS UNDER SECTION 40(B)(V) WAS ALLOWED AGAINST THE INCOME SURRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COMMISSIONER IT WAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED BY THE AO A S BUSINESS INCOME. THE ALLEGATION OF THE COMMISSIONER WAS THAT THE CL AIM SO ALLOWED BY THE AO WAS LEGALLY INCORRECT BECAUSE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS ONLY THE BOOK PROFIT SH OULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. AS PER THE COMMISSIONER THE AMOUNT S URRENDERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY REPRESENTED UNDISCLOSED INCO ME UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. IN HIS OPINION THE AO HAS WRONGLY ALLO WED THE EXCESS ALLOWANCE OF RS.7.66 LAKHS. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE FEW CASE LAW HAVE BEEN CITED BEFORE LD. CIT IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM AS UNDER : I) M/S ANAND ELECTRICAL AND MILL STORES DURG V/S ITO-1 BHILAI ITA NO.105/NAG/20 06 ORDER DATED 22.8.2006 II) NALINIKANT AMBALAL MODY V/S CIT 61 ITR 428 (S C); III) LAKHMICHAND BAIJNATH V/S CIT 35 ITR 416 (SC); IV) MANSFIELD AND SONS V/S CIT 48 CTR 254 (CAL); ITA. NO.42/BLPR/2012 3 V) CIT V/S MARGARETS HOPE TEA CO. (1993) 201 ITR 7 47 749 (CAL); AND V) M/S MINESTONE V/S ACIT ITA NO.150/MUM/99 ORDER DATED 23.10.2003. 5. HOWEVER LD. COMMISSIONER WAS NOT CONVINCED AND THE ORDER OF AO WAS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS FRESH ORD ER AS BELOW:- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS AS WELL AS THE SUB MISSIONS OF SHRI DOSHI. THE AO SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT TH E EXCESS STOCK AND CASH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THEY WERE IN FACT INCORPORATED SUBSEQUENT T O SURVEY AND BECAME PART OF BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE FORE THE CLAIM OF THE AO THAT THESE WERE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNT IS INCORRECT. AS PER SECTION 108 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT THE SOURCE OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME INVESTED IN EXCESS STOCK AND CAS H IS WITHIN HE KNOWLEDGE OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE IT HAS TO PROVE ITS SOURCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS UNABLE TO PROVE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO HAS PASSED THIS ORDER DATED 13.11.2009 WITHO UT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE LEGAL POSITION IN VIEW OF H DECIS ION OF AKHTARI BEGAM AND SONS V/S CIT 145 ITR 295 (MAD). THEREFORE THE SAME IS CONSIDERED TO BE BOTH ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJU DICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE SAME IS SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A FRESH ORDER ON THE POINT AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THIS ISSUE WAS DISCUSSED AT SOME LENGTH DURING T HE COURSE OF HEARING. HOWEVER FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE LD. DR MR. D.K.JAIN APPEARED AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION AS CITED BY THE LD.COMMISSIONER VIZ IN THE CASE OF AKHTARI BEGAM A ND SONS V/S CIT 145 ITR 295 (SUPRA). LD. DR HAS ALSO REFERRED THE CASE OF M/S DHANUSH GENERAL STORES 339 ITR 651 ( CHATTISGARH ). 5.1) ON THE OTHER HAND FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE THE STRONG RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINAT E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S ANAND ELECTRICAL AND MILL STORES DURG V/S ITO-1 BHILAI ( ITA NO.105/NAG/2006 AY-2001-02) DATED 22.8.2006 A ND THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT MUMBAI BENCH PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF SURE SH A SHROFF V/S JCIT 140 ITD 001 ( MUM.). ITA. NO.42/BLPR/2012 4 5.2 ) SO FAR AS THE FACTS OF THE CA SE ARE CONCERNED WE HAVE BEEN INFORMED THAT A STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI ANAND S SURANA THE PARTNER WAS RECORDED ON 11.10.2006 DURING THE COURSE OF SUR VEY WHEREIN VIDE AN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.6 HE HAS INFORMED THAT THE S TOCK WHICH WAS VALUED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS NOT DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE SAME SHALL BE DISCLOSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE TAX SHALL B E PAID ACCORDINGLY. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO THE INCOME TAX RETU RN FILED AND THE ACCOUNTS ANNEXED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT AS PER THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS DRAWN AS ON 31.3.2007 THE EXCESS STOCK AN D CASH WAS DULY DISCLOSED BY CREDITING THE ACCOUNT BUT SIDE BY SI DE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS BY DEBITING THE AM OUNT TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 6. WITH THIS BACKGROUND OF FACTS THE FIRST PLANK O F THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US IS THAT THE AO HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE LE GAL ASPECT OF THE CLAIM OF REMUNERATION WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE ACT. ALTHOUGH NO SPECIFIC OBSERVATION WAS MADE BY THE A. O. IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US WAS THA T THE A.O. HAD DULY APPLIED HIS MIND WHEN DISCUSSED THE FALL IN GROSS P ROFIT AS ALSO DURING SCRUTINIZING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HENCE THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER AS PRES UMED BY THE COMMISSIONER. IT HAS ALSO BEEN PLEADED THAT THE CI T WHILE PASSING THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 HAS FORMED A DIFFERENT OPIN ION BUT THAT OPINION WAS NOT A CORRECT LEGAL OPINION. SO THE FIRST ARGU MENT WAS THAT MERE CHANGE OF OPINION SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE BASIS FOR INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 6.1 ) ON MERITS THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE US IS THAT THERE ARE NUMBER OF DECISIONS WHEREIN IT WAS CONSISTENTLY HELD THAT IN A SITUATION WHEN AN ASSESSEE HAS NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME EXCEPT BUSIN ESS INCOME THEN THE INCOME SURRENDERED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY U/S 133A S HOULD ALSO BE HELD AS BUSINESS INCOME AND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. WE HAVE ITA. NO.42/BLPR/2012 5 CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H OF THE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR IN THE CASE OF M/S ANAND ELECTRICAL AND MILL STORES (SUPRA) WHEREIN THIS ISSUES WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AND DE CIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE SAID VERDICT IS REPRODUCED BELOW :- IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE ALLOWED. FIRST OF ALL TH E ASSESSEE HAD NO BUSINESS OTHER THAN TRADING IN ELECTRICAL AND MILL STORES. FOR THIS REASON. THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS INCOME. THE STOCK FOUN D IN THE SURVEY IS BUSINESS STOCK AND ANY INCOME IN RESPECT OF THE SAME HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS. THE RATIO OF T HE DECISION OF CALCUTTA HIGH COURT REPORTED IN 48 ITR 254 SQUAREL Y APPLIES TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF THE INSTANT ASSESSEE. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND DURING COURSE OF SUR VEY CANNOT BE ANYTHING BUT THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS INCOME. SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THIS IS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THE HIGHER REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE I S ALSO DIRECTED TO BE ALLOWED. 6.2) THERE IS ONE MORE CASE CITED BEFORE US P RONOUNCED BY ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF SURESH A SHROFF & CO. V /S JCIT 140 ITD 01 (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE OBSERVATION MADE WAS THAT AS PER SEC. 40(B)(V) READ WITH EXPLANATION 3 THERE CANNOT BE A SEPARATE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOR ASCERTAINING NET PROFIT AND/OR BOOK PROFIT AS THE BOOK PROFIT MEANS THE NET PROFIT AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT INCLUDING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. UNDER CLAUSE (V) OF SECTION 40(B) READ WITH EXPLAN ATION 3 THE REMUNERATION ALLOWABLE TO WORKING PARTNERS UPTO ` .50 000/- IS FULLY ALLOWABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. IN CASE THE AG GREGATE PAYMENT EXCEEDS THE LIMIT OF ` .50 000/- CERTAIN MONETARY LIMITS HAVE BEEN PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 40(B)(V) IN THE FORM OF A PERCENTAGE OF BOOK-PROFIT. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS CLAUSE ACC ORDING TO EXPLANATION 3 THE BOOK-PROFIT MEANS THE NET PRO FIT (AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT PREVI OUS YEAR ITA. NO.42/BLPR/2012 6 COMPUTED IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN CHAPTER IVD) A S INCREASED BY THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF THE REMUNERATION PAID OR P AYABLE TO ALL THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM IF SUCH AMOUNT HAS BEEN D EDUCED WHILE COMPUTING THE NET PROFIT. THE SAID CHAPTER NOWHER E PROVIDES THAT NET PROFIT SHOULD BE THE ONLY INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION ALONE AND NOT FROM OTHER SOURCES. SECTION 29 PROVI DES HOW THE INCOME FROM PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFE SSION SHOULD BE COMPUTED AND THIS HAS TO BE DONE AS PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 30 TO 43D. THUS FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 40(B)(V) READ WITH EXPLANATION THERE CANNOT BE SEPARATE METHOD OF ACC OUNTING FOR ASCERTAINING NET PROFIT AND/OR BOOK-PROFIT. IN OTH ER WORDS ACCORDING TO THE SAID EXPLANATION BOOK-PROFIT ME ANS THE NET PROFIT AS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT INCLUDING INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES NOT THE PROFIT COMPUTED UNDER THE HE AD PROFIT AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION. (PARA 12) EVEN IF THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS INCLUDED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNTS TO ASCERTAIN THE NET PROFIT QUA BOOK -PROFIT FOR COMPUTATION OF THE REMUNERATION OF THE PARTNERS TH E SAME CANNOT BE DISCARDED AND THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN EXCLUDING THE OTHER INCOME I. E. COMPENSATION FOR USE OF SHARED FACILITIES OF ` .10 00 000/- AND LICENSE FEES OF ` .20 00 000/- AGGREGATING TO ` .30 00 000/- FROM THE BOOK-PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PARTNERS REMUNERATION AND ACCOR DINGLY THE A.O. WAS DIRECTED TO INCLUDE THE ABOVE SUM OF ` .30 00 000/- IN THE BOOK-PROFIT FOR COMPUTATION OF REMUNERATION OF T HE PARTNERS IN TERMS OF SECTION 40(B)(V) OF THE ACT AND ALLOW PAR TNERS REMUNERATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. PIAGGIO V EHICLES P. LTD. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (2007) 290 ITR 377 (BOM.) CONSOLIDATED PHOTO AND F INVEST LTD. VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REPORTED IN ( 2006) 281 ITR 394 (DEL.) DISTINGUISHED. 7) IN THE LIGHT OF THESE JUDGEMENTS WE HAVE EXAMI NED THE P & L A/C OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE FOUND THAT THE EXCESS CASH S URRENDERED ON SURVEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 40 333/- AND EXCESS STOCK SURREN DERED ON SURVEY AMOUNTING TO RS. 18 76 983/- WAS DULY REFLECTED TOW ARDS CREDIT SIDE AND THE REMUNERATION TO PARTNERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 10 01 137/- WAS REFLECTED TOWARDS DEBIT SIDE SO AS TO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURE OF NET PROFIT . THUS THE POSITION OF ACCOUNTS HAVE REVEALED THAT THE AMOUNTS SO SURRENDERED WERE TREATED AS BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA. NO.42/BLPR/2012 7 8) THE DECISION OF DHANUSH GENERAL STORES ( SUPRA ) AS CITED BY LD. DR HAS ALSO BEEN PERUSED BY US BUT FOUND TO BE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE ISSUE AS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL. THERE WAS UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT IN THE STOCK NOTICED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THE SAME WAS N OT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE HONBLE COURT HAS HELD THAT T HE SURRENDERED INCOME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN TREATED AS DEEMED INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69 AND NOT UNDER SEC. 69B OF THE ACT. THEREFORE THE ISSUE WAS NOT THE CLAIM OF REMUNERATION BUT IT WAS LIMITED TO THE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND AT THE TIME OF SUR VEY WHICH WAS HELD AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. HAD IT BEEN THE ISSUE OF AL LOWANCE OF REMUNERATION THEN THE MATTER COULD HAVE BEEN LOOKE D-INTO IN THE PERSPECTIVE OF COMPUTATION OF BOOK PROFIT FOR TH E PURPOSE OF ADMISSIBILITY OF REMUNERATION U/S 40(B)(V) READ WITH EXPLANATION 3 OF THE ACT. THE SETTLED PRINCIPAL IS THAT A PRECEDENT IS TO BE APPL IED IN THE CONTEXT IT WAS PASSED AND NOT OTHERWISE. 8.1) AS FAR AS THE DECISION OF AKHTARI BRGUM & SON S 145 ITR 295 IS CONCERNED THE SAME WAS ALTOGETHER ON SOME DIFFERENT ISSUE. WE HAVE PERUSED THIS DECISION AND HAVE FOUND THAT THE SAID ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF PLYING OF BUSES. THE ITO HAD REJECTED T HE TRADING RESULT AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT BY APPLYING A NET PROFIT RATE OF 20%. ON APPEAL CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE RATE OF NET PROFIT TO 19%. B UT HE HAS ADDED THE LUGGAGE RECEIPT SEPARATELY. ON FURTHER APPEAL THE A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL HAD MAINTAINED THE ADDITION OF LUGGAGE RECEIPTS BUT RED UCED THE NET PROFIT TO 17.5 %. ON THIS ISSUE THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE H IGH COURT WAS AS UNDER (REPRODUCED THE HELD PORTION :- IT DOES NOT APPEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ON RECORD ANYTHING SHOWING THA T ANY EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY IT IN DERIVING LUGGAGE RECEIPTS. IN THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT DECLARE THE AMOUNT OF LUGGAG E RECEIPTS EARNED BY IT AND THE ITO ADDED THE SUM OF ESTIMATE . TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THESE FACTS THE TRIBUNAL REDUCED THE NET PROFIT RATE ITA. NO.42/BLPR/2012 8 TO 17-1/2%. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR THE ARGUMENT THAT THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO R ECORD A FINDING WHETHER ANY EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DERIVING LUGGAGE RECEIPTS. THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE LUGGAG E RECEIPTS WHILE ESTIMATING THE GROSS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE N ET PROFIT HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT IGNORING THE LUGGAGE RECEIPTS. IN THE DIRCUMSTANCES THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT COMMIT ANY ERROR IN ADDING TH E LUGGAGE RECEIPTS SEPARATELY TO THE NET INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF THE OTHER RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ISSUE WAS NOT AT ALL RELEVANT IN RE SPECT OF THE CONTROVERSY THEREFORE WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT HAS WRON GLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THIS PRECEDENT. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT I S HEREBY QUASHED. 11. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JULY 2015 SD/- SD/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( MUKUL K SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER RAIPUR: 31 ST JULY 2015. SRL SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A) - CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT RAIPUR CONCERNED 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NAGPUR.