M/s. Banarsi Di Hatti,, Pathankot v. The Income-tax Officer,, Pathankot

ITA 470/ASR/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2013

Appeal Details

RSA Number 47020914 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACPB6997R
Bench Amritsar
Appeal Number ITA 470/ASR/2011
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Banarsi Di Hatti,, Pathankot
Respondent The Income-tax Officer,, Pathankot
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-10-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 07-10-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 03-09-2013
Next Hearing Date 03-09-2013
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 05-09-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.470(ASR)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 PAN :AACPB6997R M/S. BANARSI DI HATTI VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BANARSI SWEETS (P) LTD. WARD-1 PATHANKOT. MAIN BAZAR PATHANKOT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. SALIL KAPOOR & MS. ANANYA KAPOOR ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY: SH. MAHAVIR SINGH SR.DR DATE OF HEARING: 03/09/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:07/10/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AMRITSAR DATED 01.07.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS IN VIEW OF THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS.20 00 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.20 00 000/- WAS MADE WITHOU T ANY BASIS ARBITRARILY AND WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEF ECT OR OMISSION IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VOUCHERS OR OTHER RECORDS AND THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD. 2 3. THAT IN ANY CASE THE ADDITION OF RS.20 00 000/- FO R AY 2006- 07 WAS MADE SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S 133A ON 06.10.2006 WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AN D THE SAME WAS UNJUST UNLAWFUL AND HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD. 4. THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE ADDITION WAS MADE ILLEGALLY IN VIOLATION OF THE CBD T INSTRUCTIONS F.NO.286/2/2003 DATED 10.30.2003 AND T HE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD. 5. THAT THE ALLEGED SURRENDER WAS RETRACTED AND THE EV IDENCE FILED IN RESPECT THEREOF HAS BEEN WRONGLY IGNORED. 6. THAT IN ANY CASE THE SURRENDER WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION WA S DULY APPEARING IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE COST OF COMPL ETE BUILDING WAS PROVED BY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTED BY VAL UATION CERTIFICATE. 7. THAT THE EVIDENCE PLACED ON RECORD EXPLANATIONS FI LED HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED AND JUDICIALLY INTERPRETED AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD. THAT IN ANY CASE THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT ADMITTED ON RECORD AND NOT CONTRADICTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OR PROVED TO BE FALS E BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS CONCLUSIVE EVIDENCE AND THE SAME HAS BEEN WRONGLY IGNORED. 8. THAT IN ANY CASE THE ADDITION OF RS.20 00 000/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THAT ADDI TION WAS UNJUST UNLAWFUL AND BAD IN LAW. 9. THAT EVEN ON THE BASIS OF STATED FACTS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE WRONGLY STARTED U/S 271(1)(C) AND PENAL INTERE ST CHARGED U/S 234B & 234C WAS UNJUST AND UNLAWFUL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING AND TRADING OF SWEETS. A SURVEY U/S 1 33A OF THE ACT WAS 3 CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 06/10/2006. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REFLECTED THE AMOUNT OF SURRENDER OF RS.20 LAKHS W HICH WAS MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY CONDUCTED. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT OF SURRENDER FOR RS.20 LAKH WAS NOT REF LECTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. IN THIS REGARD THE AS SESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF LETTER OF THE THEN JOINT CIT RANGE-VI PATHANKO T WRITTEN TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER NO.8817 DATED 20.11.2006 AND ITS REPLY DATED 23.11.2006 RECEIVED ON 27.11.2006 AS PER WHICH THE SURRENDER W AS FOR RS. 8 LAKH FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08. THEREFORE A LETTER NO.2249 DATED 20.11.2008 WAS SENT TO ADDL. CIT RAN GE VI PATHANKOT VIDE WHICH HIS DIRECTION U/S 144A OF THE ACT WERE SOUGHT ON THE ISSUE. THE ADDL. CIT RANGE VI PATHANKOT HAS GIVEN HIS DIRECTION U/S 144A VIDE LETTER DATED 24.12.2008 AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN THE ABOVE CASE A SURVEY U/S 133 OF THE ACT WA S CARRIED OUT ON 06.10.2006 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 06.10.2006 SURRENDERED A TOTAL SUM OF RS.53 00 000/- AS FOLLO WS: DURING F.Y. 2005-06 (A) ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP BUILDING RS.20 00 000 DURING F.Y.2006-07 (A) INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP BUILDING RS.15 0 0 000 4 (B) ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CASH IN HAND RS.15 00 0 00 (C) ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE IN STOCK IN HAND RS. 3 00 0 00 A LETTER DATED 23.11.2008 WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN WHICH THE TOTAL SURRENDER WAS REVISED TO RS.8 00 000/-. VIDE YOUR LETTER YOU HAVE SOUGHT DIRECTIONS U/S 1 44A OF THE ACT FOR COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD A LETTER DATED 02.12.2008 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY ME GIVING IT AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT REPLY WITH REGARD TO THE AMO UNT SURRENDERED BY IT DURING SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE VIDE REPLY DATED 11 .12.2008 SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS: I HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED BY MY CLIENT TO MAKE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: 1. THAT A SURVEY OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSI NESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 06.10.2006 DURING WHICH STATEMENT OF SH.RISHI ARORA PARTNER OF THE FIRM WAS RECODED U/S 133A. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY SURR ENDERED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.53 LAKHS COMPRISING OF RS.35 LAKHS IN THE ACCOUNT OF BUILDING RS.15 LAKHS IN CASH AND RS.3 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF STOCK. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE ABOVE SURRENDER WITH OUT KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT FACTS SINCE HE WAS AN IMM ATURE PERSON WITHOUT ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE O THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT PROCEEDINGS OF THE DEPARTMENT & UNDER MENTAL TENSI ON AND TRAUMA. THE SURRENDER ON ACCOUNT OF RENOVATION OF B UILDING DURING THE SURVEY WAS MADE WITHOUT ANY DEFECTS OR O THER DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER MATE RIAL WHICH WOULD REFLECT ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONST RUCTION OF BUILDING. 3. AFTER THE SURVEY THE ASSESSEE REALIZED THE DISCREP ANCIES FOUND AND THAT IT WAS BASELESS. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE FILED A GRIEVANCE PETITION BEFORE THE THEN JCTI SH.R.L.CHHA NALIA. 5 4. THAT VIDE LETTER NO.8817 DATED 20.11.2006 THE JCIT ACCORDED PERSONAL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE IN HIS OFFICE ON 2 2/06/2006 WHICH WAS DULY ATTENDED BY SH.RISHI ARORA PARTNER OF THE FIRM. 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED OUT SUBSTANTIAL RENOV ATION TO THE EXISTING BUILDING SITUATED AT MAIN BAZAR PATHANKOT COMMENCING FROM THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06. THE TOT AL AMOUNT DEBITED TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION WORK IN PROGRESS U PTO 06.11.2006 I.E. THE DATE OF SURVEY AMOUNTED TO MORE THAN RS.70 LACS. UPTO 31.03.2007 THE ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED A SUM OF RS.87.98 LAKHS AS EXPENDITURE TOWARDS RENOVATION OF BUILDING AND THIS AMOUNT STOOD AT RS.107.26 LAKHS UPTO 31.03 .2008. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT BUILDING CONSISTS OF A TOTAL COV ERED AREA OF ABOUT 8000 SQ. FEET COMPRISING OF FOUR AND A HALF F LOORS. OUT OF THIS ONLY THE GROUND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR AND KITCHEN HAVE BEEN COMPLETED EVEN UPTO DATE AND THE BALANCE INTERIOR AND OTHER WORK OF OTHER FLOORS IS STILL INCOMPLETE. THE ASSES SEE HAD OBTAINED A LOAN FROM THE HINDU CO-OPERATIVE BANK PATHANKOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENOVATION. NO DISCREPANCIES WER E FOUND IN THE ACCOUNT OF BUILDING DURING THE SURVEY AND EVEN A CURSORY LOOK AT THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED IN THE BOOKS ON THI S ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT IT IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE. 6. AFTER THE PERSONAL HEARING ON 22.11.2006 THE JCIT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE REDUCED TH E AMOUNT SOUGHT TO BE ADDED TO INCOME TO R.8 LAKHS FOR THE F .Y. 2006-07 AND NIL FOR THE F.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKE D TO FILE A REVISED SURRENDER LETTER. 7. ON 27.11.2006 THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER ACKNOWLE DGING THE REVISED SURRENDER OF RS. 8 LAKHS AS SETTLED ON 22.1 1.2008 WITH THE JCIT PATHANKOT. 8. NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE DEPA RTMENT AND IT WAS ADDUCED THAT THE DEPARTMENT NEEDED TO FU RTHER INFORMATION AND AMICABLY IN VIEW OF THE ACTUAL FACT S OF THE CASE SURRENDER WAS VALIDLY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 9. THE SUM OF R. 8 LAKHS WAS DULY CREDITED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 ST MARCH 2007 6 AND TAX PAID THEREON. THERE WAS NO AMOUNT SURRENDER ED FOR THE YEAR PRESENTLY UNDER CONSIDERATION. YOU HONOUR WILL ALSO APPRECIATE THE SETTLED JUDICI AL PROPOSITION SUCH AS IN THE CASE OF PAUL MATHEWS & SONS VS. CIT (2003) 263 ITR 101 THAT UNLIKE A STATEMENT U/S 132(4) A STAT EMENT RECORDED U/S 133A HAS NOT EVIDENTIARY VALUE. FURTH ER ATTENTION IS INVITED TO CBDT INSTRUCTION F.NO.286/2/2003-IT (INV.) DATED 10/3/2003 WHEREIN OBTAINING UNCORROBORATED CONFES SIONS HAS BEEN DISCOURAGED. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE SURRENDER OF RS. 8 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 BY THE ASSESSEE AND NIL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD ASSUMED FINALITY AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE JCIT PATHANKOT AND MAY KINDLY BE ACCEPTED. 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINALLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 69B OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF AOS ORDER AT PAGES 6 & 7 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE: A PERUSAL OF THE SURVEY FOLDER SHOWS THE FOLLOWIN G FACTS: 1. AN INVENTORY OF CASH HAS BEEN PREPARED ON THE DATE OF SURVEY DULY SIGNED BY SH. RISHI ARORA SHOWING CASH FOUND A ND RECEIVED BACK BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.14 38 310/-. EV EN DENOMINATION OF THE CASH FOUND IS CLEARLY MENTIONE D. 2. ITEMWISE INVENTORY OF STOCK FOUND DURING SURVEY HAS BEEN PREPARED WHICH HAS BEEN DULY SIGNED BY SH. RISHI ARORA AND SH. SUBHASH CHANDER ARORA. 3. FROM COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE PRINTOUT OF CLOSING BALANCE AS PER CASH BOOK HAS BEEN TAKEN WHICH IS DULY SIGNED BY SH.RISHI ARORA. 7 4. FROM COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE PRINTOUT OF MANUFACTURING ACCOUNT FROM 01.04.2006 TO 05.10.2 006 HAS BEEN TAKEN WHICH IS DULY SIGNED BY SH. RISHI ARORA AND SH. PAWAN ARORA AS PER RECORD THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED TAX OF RS.6 23 200 + RS.50 000 ON 06.11.2008 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE SAME WAS CO MMUNICATED THAT THE TAX HAS BEEN DEPOSITED ON ACCOUNT OF SURRE NDER AS AGREED BY SH.RISHI ARORA. ON 27.11.2006 THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER DATED 23.1 .2006 WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: REFERENCE TO YOUR LETTER NO. JCIT/R-VI/PTK/2006-0 7/8817 AND IN CONTINUATION OF OUR PETITION DATED 05.11.200 6 AND THE VERBAL DISCUSSION ON 22.11.2006 WITH YOUR GOODSELF AND WIT H A VIEW TO SETTLE THE GRIEVANCE PETITION WITH YOUR DEPARTMENT AND AS ADVISED I OFFER RS.8 LACS AS REVISED SURRENDERED IN CASH ONLY IN CU RRENT YEARS INCOME SUBJECT TO NO CONCEALMENT PROSECUTION OR HARASSMEN T UNDER ANY PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THERE IS NO EVI DENCE OF THE REVISED SURRENDER OF RS. 8 LAKHS BEING ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO FURNISH ANY EVIDEN CE OF ITS ACCEPTANCE AS CLAIMED BY IT DESPITE BEING GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPOR TUNITY. IT IS ALSO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.20 00 000/- FOR A.Y. 2006-07 DURING SURVE Y U/S 133A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP BUILDING AS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AS WELL AS FOLLOW ING FACTS: 1. THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THIS AMOUNT IN STATEMENT O F SH.RISHI ARORA RECORDED ON THE DATE OF SURVEY. AT T HE CONCLUSION OF THE STATEMENT IT IS CLEARLY VERIFIED BY SH.RISHI ARORA THAT THE STATEMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN WI THOUT UNDUE PRESSURE AND THAT THE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN A COOPERATIVE ENVIRONMENT AND PEACEFUL MANNER. 2. THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN HIS OWN HANDWRI TING AND ON LETTER HEAD OF THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE AB OVE 8 SURRENDER OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IN THE LAST SE NTENCE HE HAS STATED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED SURRENDER O F INCOME HAS BEEN MADE VOLUNTARILY AND WITHOUT ANY UN DUE INFLUENCE AND IN A PEACEFUL MANNER WHICH PROVES TH AT THE SURRENDER WAS VOLUNTARY. 3. THE STOCK INVENTORY AS WELL AS CASH INVENTORY HAVE BEEN DULY SIGNED BY SH.RIOSHI ARORA. IN FACT PRINTOUT O F MANUFACTURING ACCOUNT FROM 1.04.2006 TO 05.10.2006 HAS BEEN TAKEN WHICH IS DULY SIGNED BY SH. RISHI ARORA AND SH. PAWAN ARORA PARTNER OF M/S. P.P. ARORA AND ASSOCIATES CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. THIS SHOWS THAT T HEIR CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF SU RVEY AND THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT HAVE EXERCISED UNDUE INFLUENCE. 4. THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED TAX OF RS.6 73 200 ON 06.11. 2008 FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. THE SAME WAS COMMUNICATED TO THIS OFFICE VIDE LETTER DATED 07.11.2008. IN THE LE TTER IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE TAX HAS BEEN DEPOSITED O N ACCOUNT OF SURRENDER AS AGREED BY SH. RISHI ARORA. THE DEPOSITION OF THIS TAX SHOWS THAT THE SURRENDER WAS VOLUNTARY AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RETRACTED F ROM HIS SURRENDER TILL THIS DATE. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS FILING A LETTER SUO-MOT O REDUCING THE SURRENDER TO RS. 8 LAKHS APPEARS TO B E AN AFTER THOUGHT TO ESCAPE THE TAX LIABILITY. THERE IS NO ACCEPTANCE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE REVISED SURREND ER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRU CTION OF ITS SHOP BUILDING OF RS.20 00 000/-.HENCE YOU ARE DIRE CTED U/S 144A OF THE ACT TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.20 00 000 /- U/S 69B OF THE I.T.ACT. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND ABOVE DIRECTI ONS U/S 144A OF THE ACT IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 20 LAKHS IN CONSTRUCT ION OF ITS SHOP BUILDING. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS EST ABLISHED THAT 9 THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FULLY DISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. DURING THE YEA R THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ADDITION TO BUILDING OF RS.4 4 12 657/-. AS HELD ABOVE INVESTMENT OF RS.20 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP BUILDING WAS NOT FULLY DISCLO SED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HENCE AN ADDITION OF RS. 20 LAKH IS BEING MADE U/S 69B OF THE I.T.ACT 1961. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMIS SIONS WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE A.O. FOR REMAND REPORT WHICH WAS SUBMITTED AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE REJOINDER AND AFTER CONSIDER ING THE REMAND REPORT AND THE REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE THE LD. CIT(A) CONFI RMED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MS. ANANYA KAP OOR ADVOCATE APPEARING ALONGWITH SH. SALIL KAPOOR ADVOCATE ARGUE D THAT THE ASSESSEE INITIALLY SURRENDERED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.53 LAKH S COMPRISING RS.35 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF BUILDING RS.15 LAKHS IN CASH AND RS. 3 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SHORTAGE OF STOCK. THE SAID SUM OF RS. 35 LAKHS S URRENDERED ON ACCOUNT OF BUILDING WAS BIFURCATED INTO TWO YEAS I.E. FOR T HE IMPUGNED YEAR AND IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR. A SUM OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS SURRENDER ED DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF TH E BUILDING. THE SAID SURRENDER WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT THE KN OWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T AND UNDER MENTAL TENSION AND TRAUMA. AFTER THE SURVEY THE ASSESSEE REALIZED THE IMPORT OF THE 10 SURRENDER MADE AND ACCORDINGLY HE FILED A GRIEVANC E PETITION BEFORE THE JCIT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS AFFORDED PERSONAL HEARING TO APPEAR ON 22/06/2006 WHICH WAS DULY ATTENDED BY SH. RISHI ARO RA PARTNER OF THE FIRM. THE TOTAL AMOUNT DEBITED TO BUILDING CONSTRUCTION W ORK IN PROGRESS UPTO 06.10.2006 I.E. THE DATE OF SURVEY AMOUNTED TO MORE THAN RS.70 LAKHS AND UPTO 31.03.2007 THE ASSESSEE HAD RECORDED A SUM OF RS.87.98 LAKHS AS EXPENDITURE TOWARDS RENOVATION OF BUILDING AND THIS AMOUNT STOOD AT RS.107.26 LAKHS UPTO 31.03.2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS O BTAINED LOAN FROM THE HINDU CO-OPERATIVE BANK PATHANKOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF RENOVATION. NO DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN POINTE D OUT BY THE A.O. AFTER PERSONAL HEARING ON 22.11.2006 WITH THE JCIT THE S URRENDER WAS REDUCED TO RS. 8 LAKHS FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE A REVISED SURRENDER LETTER WHICH WAS FILED ON 27.11.2 006 AND WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PB-62. NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION WAS RE CEIVED FROM THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND IT WAS ADDUCED THAT THE DEPARTMENT NEEDED NO FURTHER INFORMATION AND AMICABLY IN VIEW OF THE AC TUAL FACTS OF THE CASE SURRENDER WAS VALIDLY ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. A SUM OF RS.8 LAKHS WAS DULY CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESS EE AND TAXES PAID THEREON. SHE ARGUED THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. AS ARGUED EARLIER THE SURRENDER HAS BEE N RETRACTED FOR THE REASONS 11 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE SURRENDER WITHOUT TH E KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT FACTS AND ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS UNDER MENTAL TENSION AND TRAUMA WHO IMMEDIATELY RE ALIZING THAT THERE IS NO DEFECT IN THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT MADE AND AMOUNT DIS CLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MADE A PETITION TO THE DEPARTMENT AFTER DI SCUSSING THE FACTS OF SURRENDER EARLIER MADE AND ACCORDINGLY REVISED SU RRENDER WHICH IS A FACT ON RECORD AS ARGUED EARLIER. SHE ARGUED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN REJECTED COPY OF CONSTRUCTION ACCOUNT HAS DUL Y BEEN PLACED ON RECORD AND NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE CONSTRUCT ION ACCOUNT OR ANY OTHER ACCOUNT. THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN REFERRED BY THE D EPARTMENT TO THE VALUATION CELL AND NO VALUATION REPORT IS ON RECORD . SHE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE REMAND REPORT WHICH IS AVAILABLE IN THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION THAT IN VESTMENT IN SARIA SAND AND BAJARI HAS BEEN MADE AT RS.15 LAKHS WHEREAS IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO HAS REFERRED TO INVESTMENT IN SARIA AND BAJRI APPR OXIMATELY TO RS.15-20 LAKHS WHICH IS WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE EXPLANATION OF EACH AND EVERY BILL WHERE THE AO HAS MADE THE OBJECTION WHICH HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN IN RIGHT SPIRIT BY THE LD. CIT(A). MS. ANANYA KAPOOR ADVOCATE RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF VARIO US COURTS OF LAW. SHE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF ITAT DELHI BENCH IN TH E CASE OF SH. SATISH 12 BUILDERS VS. ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX REPORTED I N (2009) 23 DTR (DEL)(TRIB) 171 DATED 13.02..2009 AND RELEVANT PARA 9 OF THE SAID DECISION WAS QUOTED AS UNDER. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND THE ISSUE AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY RETRACTED THE SURRENDER STATEMENT. AT THE OUTSET IT IS SEEN THAT OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUPPORT THE DEPA RTMENTS CASE. IN THE SURVEY AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE NO INVENTORY WAS MADE. THE ASSESEE IS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR. NO SITE WAS VISITED. THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THUS HINGES ON LY AND ONLY ON THE SURRENDER STATEMENT. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT AN A DDITION IN ORDER TO BE SUSTAINABLE IN LAW MUST HAVE SOME CONCRETE MATERI AL EVIDENCE AS ITS BASIS. IT IS NOT SO HERE. IN THE PRESENT CASE NO DISCREPANCY OR DEFECT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE AO. IN FACT THE TRADING RE SULTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE BETTER THAN THOSE OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACTUALLY T HE AO ACCEPTED THE TRADING RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WERE AUDITED WERE ACCEPTED ON CHECKING. THE PURCHASES WERE VERI FIABLE. NO PURCHASES OR SALES WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SOLE BASIS OF THE ADD ITION IS THE SURRENDER. 5.1. SHE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON. REPORTED IN (2012) 25 TAXMAN.COM.413(SC) IN WHICH THE REVENUES APPEAL W AS DISMISSED AND IT WAS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT SECTION 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY ITO TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH; SO STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 133A HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND ANY ADMISSION MA DE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT BE MADE BASIS OF ADDITION. THE DEC ISION WAS MADE IN 13 FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID DECISION CIRC ULAR OF THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES DATED MARCH 10 2003 HAS BEEN HAS BEEN QUOTED AT PAGE 165 AND 166 WHICH HAS BEEN READ BY MS. ANANYA KAPOOR AN D WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 'INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOARD WHE RE ASSESSEES HAVE CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CONFESS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE COURSE O F THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS. SUCH CONFESSIONS IF NOT BASED UPON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE ARE LATER RETRACTED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSEES WHILE F ILING RETURNS OF INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ON CONFESSIONS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZUR E AND SURVEY OPERATIONS DO NOT SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE. IT IS THEREFORE ADVISED THAT THERE SHOULD BE FOCUS AND CONCENTRATION ON COLLECTION OF EVIDENCE OF INCOME WHICH LEADS TO INFORMATION ON WHAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSE D OR IS NOT LIKELY TO BE DISCLOSED BEFORE THE INCOME-TA X DEPARTMENT. SIMILARLY WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS NO ATTEMPT SHOULD BE MADE TO OBTAIN CONFESSION AS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ANY ACTIO N ON THE CONTRARY SHALL BE VIEWED ADVERSELY. FURTHER IN RESPECT OF PENDING ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS ALSO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS SHOULD RELY UPON THE EVIDENCES/MATERIALS GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY OPERATIONS OR THEREAFTER WHILE FRAMI NG THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS.' 5.2. SHE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE S UPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SARGAM CINEMA VS. C.I.T. REPORTED IN (2010 ) 328 ITR 513 (SC) 14 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT ASSESSING AUTHORITY C OULD NOT REFER THE MATTER TO THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUATION OFFICER IN A CASE WHERE THERE WAS A CATEGORICAL FINDING RECORDED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NEVER REJECTED. 5.3. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES MS. ANANYA KAP OOR ADVOCATE ARGUED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE REVISED PETITION AND ON REALIZING THE IMPORT OF SURRENDER WAS MADE WITHOUT ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ACTUAL INVESTMENT WAS MADE . ACCORDINGLY A REVISED PETITION WAS MADE BEFORE THE JCIT WHO GAVE THE PERSONAL HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER HAVING DISCUSSION WITH TH E JCIT THE REVISED SURRENDER WAS MADE ON 27.11.2006 WHICH IS A MATER IAL ON RECORD. NO ADVERSE MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THIS REGARD. THE DEPARTMENT IS RELYING UPON THE STATEMEN T MADE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WHICH STANDS RETRACTED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT WHICH WAS TAKEN UNDER THE PRESSURE AND MENTAL TENSION AND WITHOUT HAVING ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOR THE INVESTMENT OF RS.20 LAKHS AS ALLEGED HAS BEEN FOUND BY THE DEPART MENT IS A MATTER OF RECORD. SUCH STATEMENT DO NOT HAVE EVIDENTIARY VALU E IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON HEREINABOVE AND IN VIEW OF TH E DECISION IN THE CASE OF PAUL MATHEWS AND SONS VS. CIT REPORTED IN (2003) 26 3 ITR 101 (KERALA) 15 AND CBDT INSTRUCTION NO.F.286/2/2003 DATED 10.03.20 03. THE SAID REVISED SURRENDER OF RS. 8 LAKHS HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH HAS ASSUMED FINALITY. AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE JCIT P ATHANKOT NO DEFECT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE A.O . AND THEREFORE THE DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINC E THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BLOW HOT AND COLD I N THE SAME BREATH I.E. ON ONE HAND THE DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE OTHER HAND MAKING AN ADDITION WITHOUT BR INGING ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT ON RECORD OF RS.20 LAKHS ONL Y ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WHICH HAS B EEN RETRACTED AS ARGUED HEREINABOVE. SHE PRAYED TO ALLOW ALL THE GROUNDS O F THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE LD. JCIT(DR) MR. MAHAVIR SINGH ON THE OTHE R HAND RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND A RGUED THAT LETTER DATED 06.10.2006 GIVEN ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS GIVEN I N FULL CONSCIOUS. THE WORDING OF THE STATEMENT CAN BE MADE ONLY BY CONSUL TING AND TAKING HELP OF THE COUNSEL. THE WORDING OF THE STATEMENT IS SUCH THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE UNDERSTOOD OR TREATED AS IMMATURE PERSON WHO HAS TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE SU PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS DATED 20.10.1996 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD WHERE IT HAS BEEN HEL D THAT CONFESSION THOUGH 16 RETRACTED IS AN ADMISSION AND BINDS THE PETITIONER . HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF T.S.KUMARASAMY VS. ACIT R EPORTED IN (1998) 65 ITD (MAD) 188 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT UNLESS I T IS PROVED BY LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE THAT ADMISSION OF ASSESSEE WAS VOLUNTARY THE SAME COULD NOT BE RETRACTED. HE RELIED UPON THE DECISION S OF VARIOUS COURTS OF LAW IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY HE PRAYED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD MADE A SURRENDER INITIALLY AMOUNTING TO RS.53 LAKH I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF SHOP BUILDING AT RS.35 LAKHS (RS. 20 LAKHS IN THE IMPUGNED YEAR AND RS.15 LAKHS IN THE FOLLOWING YEAR) AND RS. 15 LAKHS & RS.3 LAKHS IN CASH AND SHORTAGE IN STOCK IN HAND IN THE FOLLOWIN G YEAR. IT IS ALSO NOT UNDER DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGES 2 & 3 OF AOS ORDER AND ALSO REP RODUCED HEREINABOVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A GRIEVANCE PETITION AS STAT ED ON REALIZING THE IMPORT OF THE SURRENDER AND ON REALIZING THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE ADEQUATE KNOWLEDGE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THERE IS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT VIS- -VIS INVESTMENT MADE. PERSONAL HEARING WAS GIVEN B Y THE THEN JCIT ON 22.11.2006 TO SH. RISHI ARORA PARTNER OF THE FIRM. ON 27.11.2006. THE 17 ASSESSEE HAS REVISED SURRENDER IN TOTAL AT RS. 8 LA KHS AS AGAINST RS.53 LAKHS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. ON REALIZING THAT THERE IS NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION RECEIVED FROM THE DEPARTMENT IT WAS ADDUCED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SURRENDER MADE HAS VALIDLY BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. T HERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAXES ON THE SAID AMOUNT. THE ONLY DISPUTE BEFORE US IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS RELYING UPON THE ORIGINAL SU RRENDER MADE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WHICH HAS BEEN RETRACTED BY THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE IS RELYING UPON THE REVISED SURRENDER WHICH HAS BEEN DISCUSSED WITH THE JCIT ON 22.11.2006 AND REVISED SURRENDER LETTER HAS BEEN F ILED ON 27.11.2006 IS A MATTER OF RECORD. IN THIS REGARD C.B.D.T. VIDE CIR CULAR DATED MARCH 10 2003 WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT INSTANCES HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE BOAR D WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THEY HAVE BEEN FORCED TO CONFESS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE AND SUR VEY OPERATIONS. SUCH CONFESSIONS IF NOT BASED UPON CREDIBLE EVIDENCE A RE LATER RETRACTED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSEE WHILE FILING RETURNS OF INCOME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES ON CONFESSIONS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZ URE AND SURVEY OPERATIONS DO NOT SERVE ANY USEFUL PURPOSE. IT WAS THEREFORE ADVISED BY THE C.B.D.T. THAT THERE SHOULD BE FOCUS TO INFORMATION ON WHAT H AS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED OR IS NOT LIKELY TO BE DISCLOSED BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. IT WAS ALSO 18 MENTIONED IN THE SAID CIRCULAR DATED MARCH 10 2003 THAT THE A.O. SHOULD RELY UPON THE EVIDENCES/MATERIALS GATHERED DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY OPERATIONS. IN THIS REGARD IN THE PR ESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER MENTAL TENSIO N AND TRAUMA AND THE SURRENDER WAS MADE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WAS WITHOU T THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE RELEVANT FACTS. THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT S FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NOT HING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ADVERSE ON RECORD WHICH MAY TO LEAD TO INFORMATION AND WHICH COULD PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING OR HAS MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. 7.1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E DEPARTMENT ITSELF CANNOT GO AGAINST ITS OWN CIRCULAR OF CBDT DATED MA RCH 10 2003 (SUPRA). THEREFORE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THIS CIRCULAR THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. AND THE REVIS ED SURRENDER OF RS.8 LAKHS HAS TO BE ACCEPTED IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 7.2. THOUGH RETRACTION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSE E WITHIN HIS OWN RIGHT AND ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ON RECORD AND IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND AND THEREFORE EVEN IF THE ADMISSION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THAT CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE AND THE A SSESSEE HAS THE RIGHT TO PROVE THAT SUCH ADMISSION MADE WAS INCORRECT. THIS PROPOSITION HAS BEEN FORTIFIED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF 19 PULLANGODE RUBBER PRODUCE CO. LTD. VS. STATE OF KER ALA AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN (1973) 91 ITR 18 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HEL D THAT ADMISSION IS AN EXTREMELY IMPORTANT PRICE OF EVIDENCE BUT IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT IS CONCLUSIVE AND IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHO MADE THE ADMISSION TO SHOW THAT IT IS INCORRECT AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIV EN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO SHOW THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DO NOT DISCLOSE THE CORRECT STATE OF FACTS. ALSO IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF PAUL MATHEWS AND SONS VS. C.I.T. REPORTED IN (2003) 263 ITR 101 WHERE IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHATEVER STATEMENT IS RECORDED UNDE R SECTION 133A OF THE ACT IT IS NOT GIVEN ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE OBVIOUS LY FOR THE REASON THAT THE OFFICER IS NOT AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATH AND TO TAKE ANY SWORN STATEMENT WHICH ALONE HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE AS CONTEMPLATED U NDER LAW. ALSO NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE A.O. AND ON ONE HAND THE AO IS ACCEPTING INVESTMENT MADE IN THE BUILDING AND ON TH E OTHER HAND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT IS ALLEGING T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. THE AO CANNOT BLOW HOT AND COLD IN THE SAME BREATH IN THIS REGARD. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. DR HAS BEEN PERUSED AND TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION AND ARE ON DI FFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. IN SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER 20 AND ACCORDINGLY WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE A DDITION SO MADE. ACCORDINGLY ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.470(ASR)/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7TH OCT.. 2013. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 7TH OCT. 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S BENARSI DI HATTI MAIN BAZAR PATH ANKOT.ITO 2. THE WARD-1 PATHANKOT 3. THE CIT(A) ASR. 4. THE CIT ASR. 5. THE SR DR ITAT AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.