The ACIT, 3(1), Indore v. Shri Subhash Agrawal, Indore

ITA 443/IND/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2013 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 44322714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ACTPA3322J
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 443/IND/2013
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant The ACIT, 3(1), Indore
Respondent Shri Subhash Agrawal, Indore
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2013
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 13-06-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH J.M. AND SHRI R.C.SHARM A A.M. PAN NO. : ACTPA3322J I.T.A.NO. 455 /IND/201 3 A.Y. : 2009-10 ACIT 3(1) INDORE VS. SHRI ARVIND AGRAWAL INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.A.NO.277/IND/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 SHRI ARVIND AGRAWAL INDORE VS. ACIT 3(1) INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. : ABTPA5396B I.T.A.NO. 278 /IND/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL INDORE VS. ACIT 3(1) INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 2 PAGE 2 OF 14 I.T.A.NO. 443 /IND/2013 A.Y. : 2009-10 ACIT 3(1) INDORE VS. SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N.AGRA WAL AND SHRI PANKAJ MOGRA CAS DATE OF HEARING : 21 . 10 .2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 . 10 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA A.M. THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTM ENT AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 31.1. 2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THERE WAS SEARCH A T RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY ARVIND AGRAWAL AN D SUBHASH AGRAWAL UNDER SECTION 132 ON 6 TH JANUARY 2009. FOLLOWING SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 3 PAGE 3 OF 14 JEWELLERIES WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM DIFFERENT PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES FAMILY AND FAMILY OF HIS BROTHER :- S.NO. PARTICULARS GOLD JEWELLERY DIAMOND JEWELLERY 1. AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM DIFFERENT PREMISES 13032.452 GMS. 323.7CTS 2. AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS 14400.020 GMS. 239.11 CTS 3. EXCESS JEWELLERY DISCLOSED 1367.568 GMS. 4. SHORT DIAMOND 84.59 CTS 5. VALUE OF GOLD FOUND SHORT [PAGE NO. 26 OF COMPILIATION] 14 00 923 6. VALUE OF DIAMOND FOUND IN EXCESS [PAGE NO. 26 OF COMPILIATION] 10 31 730 3. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ABOVE CHART THAT GOLD JEWELLER Y DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY WAS 14 400.020 GMS WHEREAS GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS 130 32.452 GMS. THUS THE GOLD JEWELLERY ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE A SSESSEE WAS EXCESS BY 1367.568 GMS. THE VALUE OF SUCH GOLD JEW ELLERY AS DECLARED WHICH WAS IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH AMOUNTS TO RS.14 00 923/-. HOWEVER DIAMO ND OF 323.7 CT. WAS FOUND AS AGAINST DIAMOND OF 239.11 CTS. DIS CLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE WEALTH TAX R ETURN AND THE V.D.I.S. THUS SHORTAGE OF DIAMOND WAS 84.59 CTS W HICH AMOUNTS SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 4 PAGE 4 OF 14 TO RS. 10 31 730/-. THUS GOLD JEWELLERY WAS FOUND SHORT BY RS. 14 00 923/- WHEREAS DIAMOND JEWELLERY WAS FOUND EXC ESS BY RS. 10 31 730/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF JEWELLERY FOUND IN SHORT AS WELL AS DIAMOND FOUND I N EXCESS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER ON PROPORTIONATE BASIS. DURING COURSE OF SEARCH JEWELLERY WORTH RS. 28 37 136/- WA S SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON THE PLEA THAT SAME WAS MATCHING WITH THE JEWELLERY AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BREAK UP OF WHICH IS AS UNDER :- S.NO. NAME OF THE PERSON AMOUNT ( RS. ) 1. SHRI ARVIND AGRAWAL 8 63 685 2. SHRI SUBHASH AGRAWAL 19 73 451 28 37 136 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY AS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER EVEN WHEN THE QUANTITY OF THE GOLD JEWELLERY AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH . 5. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND IN SHORT H OWEVER HE HAS SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 5 PAGE 5 OF 14 CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF DIAMOND JEWELL ERY FOUND IN EXCESS AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORD ER AS WELL AS THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. HAVING CONSI DERED THE BOTH I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS AGITATED AG AINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 8 63 685/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEG ED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZURE AS MADE DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF RS. 28 37 136/- ADDED AN AMOUN T OF RS. 19 73 451/- TO THE INCOME OF SHRI SUBHASH AGRA WAL AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 8 63 685/- TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ASSIGN ED ANY REASON FOR SUCH DISALLOWANCE EXCEPT THAT HE HAS ADDED THE DIFFERENCE MERELY BASED ON SEIZURE AFFECT ED BY THE INVESTIGATION DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION OF TH E APPELLANT. WHEREAS THE APPELLANT WITH THE SUPPORT OF WEALTH TAX RETURN DETAILS AND VDIS CERTIFICATE WHIC H HE STATED TO BE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HE HAS CL AIMED THAT ENTIRE JEWELLERY AS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 6 PAGE 6 OF 14 WAS PROPERLY DISCLOSED BY THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE THE ADDITION SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZURE MA DE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT W HICH IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE AS PER APPELLANTS CLAIM. IT WAS EX PLAINED BY THE APPELLANT THAT GOLD JEWELLERY OF 13032.452 G MS. WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH STANDS EXPLAI NED AS THE APPELLANT WAS IN POSSESSION OF GOLD JEWELLER Y OF WEIGHING TO 14 400.020 GMS. AS PER W. T. RETURN AND VDIS DISCLOSURE CERTIFICATE. THE APPELLANTS AR TRY TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF DIAMOND JEWELLERY WHICH W AS FOUND IN EXCESS OF 84.59 CTS. THROUGH THE DIFFERENC E OF GOLD FOUND IN EXCESS THROUGH DECLARATION SUBMITTED AS ABOVE BY APPELLANT IN DECLARED JEWELLERY AND THE AC TUAL GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. BUT I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE APPE LLANTS THIS PROPOSITION BECAUSE THE APPELLANT COULD NOT A DDUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF SUCH ASSERTION. HOWEVER TO THIS EXTENT APPELLANT EXPLANATION IS ACCEPTABLE THA T THE DIFFERENCE IN NATURE OF GOLD JEWELLERY MAY BE TAKEN DIFFERENT SHAPE AS PER THE LADIES REQUIREMENT IN TH E SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 7 PAGE 7 OF 14 FAMILY WHICH IS NORMALLY HAPPEN IN THE INDIAN FAMIL Y I.E. THE LADIES ARE IN HABIT OF CHANGING THE OLD JEWELLE RY TO THE NEW JEWELLARY AS PER THE REQUIREMENT. THEREFORE TH E ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F GOLD JEWELLERY DIFFERENCE STANDS EXPLAINED. HENCE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO GOLD JEWELLERY SEIZURE STANDS DELETED. 4.4 HOWEVER THE APPELLANTS EXPLANATION OF TRYING TO EXPLAIN THE EXCESS DIAMOND THROUGH DIFFERENCE OF GO LD ITEM FOUND IN EXCESS AS PER DECLARATION AS STATED A BOVE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH DOCUMENTA RY EVIDENCE FOR DOING SO BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE SAME ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 10 71 730/- IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS B ROTHER SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL STANDS CONFIRMED IN THE RATIO OF PROPORTION FOR ADDITION AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. THUS THE ADDITION TO THE EXT ENT OF RS. 3 24 995/- IS CONFIRMED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. TH E VALUE OF THE DIAMOND SEIZURE IN EXCESS OF APPELLANTS DECLARATION HAS BEEN TAKEN ON THE BASIS OF APPELLAN TS SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 8 PAGE 8 OF 14 SUBMISSION. THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED IN THE RATIO OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF 8.63 (+) 19.73 = 28.36 IN THE PROPORTION. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINDS ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION THAN TO THE VALUATI ON MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY HE MAY MODIFY THE SAME ACCORDINGLY IN THE PROPORTION AS DO NE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS THE APPELLANTS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SUBHASH AGRAWAL IN RE SPECT OF CASH SEIZED DURING COURSE OF SEARCH WAS DELETED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER AS WELL AS THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION. HAVING CONSI DERED BOTH I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 58 041/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVEST MENT IN EXCESS CASH AS FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE TIME OF S EARCH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF SEIZURE MADE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CASH AS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS NOT PROPERLY SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 9 PAGE 9 OF 14 EXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDING IT WAS CLARIFIE D THAT INDIVIDUAL CASH BOOK WAS MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF A LL THE INDIVIDUAL FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT. THE CAS H BOOK AS MAINTAINED WAS ALSO FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. SEARCH WAS EXECUTED ON 06-01- 2009 AND CASH BOOK WAS WRITTEN TILL DEC 2008. THE SOURCE OF CASH IS ALSO VERIFIABLE FROM THE CASH BOOK AND WITH DRAWAL MADE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZURE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMO UNT OF CASH TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH IN ANY CA SE IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE MORE SO WHEN THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED DAY TO DAY CASH BOOK IN RESPECT OF ALL T HE INDIVIDUAL FAMILY MEMBERS HUF AND THEIR BUSINESS CONCERN. THE CASH AS DISCLOSED IN THESE BOOKS OF AC COUNTS WAS HIGHER THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. I AM THEREFORE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAK ING ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CASH FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 10 PAGE 10 OF 14 COURSE OF SEARCH. THUS THE APPELLANT HAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH. ACCOR I HEREBY DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 5 8 041/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED CASH AS FOUND AND SEIZED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THUS THE APPELLANTS THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A) BOTH ASSESSEE AN D DEPARTMENT ARE BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE RECORDED DURING COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132(4 A). WE FOUND THAT DURING COURSE OF SEARCH STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 16.2.2009 U/S 132(4) AND IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.4 HE HAS CLARIFIED THE REASON FOR DIFFERENCE IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELLERY AS FOUND VIS--VIS DESCRIPTION OF JEWELLERY AS DISCLOSED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN AND VDIS. THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE JEW ELLERY AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS IN THEIR WEALTH RETURNS AND VDIS DECLARATION. THE VALUE OF SUCH G OLD JEWELLERY WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXCESS BY RS . 14 00 923/- AS AGAINST EXCESS DIAMOND OF RS. 10 31 730/- AS FO UND DURING SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 11 PAGE 11 OF 14 SEARCH. CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE WAS THAT LADIES OF T HE HOUSE USED TO MAKE ALTERATION IN THE JEWELLERY THEREFORE THE DE SCRIPTION OF JEWELLERY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RESPEC TIVE RETURNS WERE NOT MATCHING WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE JEWELLERY FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH. SO FAR AS TOTAL AMOUNT OF JEWELLE RY AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED THE SAME WAS MUCH MORE T HAN WHAT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. CHANGES IN FORM OF JEWELLERY WAS MADE BY DISPOSING SOME PART OF JEWELLERY AND RE PLACING THE SAME BY DIAMOND JEWELLERY. EVEN AMOUNT-WISE DIAMOND JEWELLERY FOUND IN EXCESS WAS OF RS. 10 31 730/- AS AGAINST V ALUE OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND SHORT WHICH WAS RS. 14 00 923/-. TH US TAKING THE VALUE OF BOTH GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND JEWELLERY TOGETHER THE AMOUNT OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND DIAMOND FOUND DURING C OURSE OF SEARCH WAS LESS THAN THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS IN THEIR WEALTH TAX RETURNS AN D VDIS DECLARATION THEREFORE THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION F OR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF PART OF GOLD JEWELLERY CONV ERTED INTO DIAMOND JEWELLERY WHEN THE VALUE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE MORE THAN WHAT WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN S. CHANGE IN THE FORM OF JEWELLERY FROM GOLD JEWELLERY TO DIAMOND JE WELLERY DO NOT SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 12 PAGE 12 OF 14 SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREA T THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED WHEN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF JEWELLERY SO D ISCLOSED TO DEPARTMENT IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN AND VDIS DISCLO SURE FILED MUCH PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS MUCH MORE THA N THE TOTAL VALUE OF JEWELLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H.. I.T.A.T. JODHPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ARJUNDAS KALWANI 102 TTJ 977 HELD THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ITEMS OF THE ORNAMENTS DO N OT TALLY WITH THE ITEMS SHOWN IN THE INVENTORY PREPARED AT THE TI ME OF SEARCH AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT LEAD EVIDENCE OF CONVERSION OR REMAKING OF JEWELLERY IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT JEWELLERY TO THIS EXTENT WAS UNEXPLAINED. I.T.A.T. JAIPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF RAKESH R. PUROHIT 14 DTR 414 OBSERVED THAT JEWELLERY DISCLO SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PAST CANNOT BE LOST SITE IN VIEW OF THE NON-AVAILABILITY OF ITEM-WISE TALLY. 9. KEEPING IN VIEW TOTAL AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE MADE BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE BROTHERS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS IN T HEIR WEALTH TAX RETURNS AND VDIS FILE MUCH PRIOR TO DATE OF SEARCH WHICH WAS MUCH MORE THAN TOTAL VALUE OF GOLD AND DIAMOND JEWE LLERY FOUND DURING SEARCH WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT FOR THE ADD ITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 13 PAGE 13 OF 14 10. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF CASH MADE IN THE HANDS O F SUBHASH AGRAWAL WE FOUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS HAVING MORE CASH AS PER DAY-TO-DAY CASH BOOKS MAINTAINED BY HIM AS COM PARED TO CASH FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH. WHILE DELETING THE A DDITION IN RESPECT OF CASH FOUND AND SEIZED THE CIT(A) HAD AL SO RECORDED CATEGORICAL FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT CASH DISCLOS ED IN THE CASH BOOK MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE HIGHER THAN CASH FOUND DURING COURSE OF SEARCH. NOTHING WAS BRO UGHT ON RECORD BY DEPARTMENT TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS RECORDED B Y CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFER E IN THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A). 11. WE ALSO FOUND THAT TAX EFFECT IN THE APPEAL FILED B Y THE DEPARTMENT IN I.T.A.NO. 455/IND/2013 IS LESS THAN M ONETARY LIMIT FIXED BY C.B.D.T. CIRCULAR NO. 3/2011 DATED 9.2.20 11 FOR FILING APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. SINCE THE TAX EFFECT WAS LESS THAN RS. 3 LAKHS EVEN AS PER C.B.D.T. CIRCULAR DATED 9.2.2011 THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. SHRI ARVIND AGARWAL AND SHRI SUBHASH AGARWAL I.T.A.NOS. 455 277 278 & 443/IND/2013 14 PAGE 14 OF 14 12. IN THE RESULT APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIS MISSED WHEREAS THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOW ED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28 TH OCTOBER 2013. CPU* 222410