ITO, v. M/s. Aman Rice Mill,

ITA 505/LKW/2009 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 50523714 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN OMMON1700Q
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 505/LKW/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant ITO,
Respondent M/s. Aman Rice Mill,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 20-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 20-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 06-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 06-01-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 14-09-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A : LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI H. L. KARWA HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N. K. SAINI ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.505/LUC/09 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2004-2005 INCOME TAX OFFICER-I VS. M/S AMAN RICE MILL PILIBHIT. VILL. NISRA PILIBHIT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANADI VERMA D. R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI K. R. RASTOGI C. A. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER N. K. SAINI: PER N. K. SAINI: PER N. K. SAINI: PER N. K. SAINI: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24/06/2009 OF CIT(A) BAREILLY RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2004-2005. 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO THE DELE TION OF ADDITION OF `8 87 751/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 3. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 28/10/2004 SHOWING AN INCOME OF `6 910/- WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT ON 09/12/2004 . LATER ON THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT A FRESH BALANCE SHEET 2 WAS DRAWN WHICH SHOWS THE DEBIT BALANCE OF `3 12 665. 50 WHEREAS AUDITED COPIES OF ACCOUNTS FILED THE BALANCE SHEET ENT RIES TOTALING AT `1 07 75 741.82. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TH ERE WERE DISCREPANCIES IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN OTHER EXPENSES. HE THEREFORE TOOK RECOURSE OF SPECIAL AUDIT UNDER SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY APPROVAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POI NTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO UNSECURED LO AN AS ON 31/03/2004 ONLY SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO `62 84 764/- INCLUDED `10 39 251/- BEING THE DEPOSITS OF VARIOUS FARMERS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED PADDY WHOSE PAYMENTS COULD NOT BE M ADE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OU T THAT THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MISCONCEIVED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO 6-R FOR THE PURCHASE OF PADDY FROM THE PERSONS AND THIS FACT HAS A LSO BEEN REPORTED BY THE AUDITOR IN SCHEDULE-3. THE ASSESSING O FFICER ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD FILED THE LIST O F SUNDRY CREDITORS AND UNSECURED LOANS WHICH INDICATED THE CONTRADICTI ON IN ASSESSEE'S REPLY. HE POINTED OUT THAT ON THE ONE HAND THE ASSESSE E WAS STATING THAT MUNIM SHRI PHOOL CHAND HAD PREPARED FAULTY BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOW HOWEVER CLAIMING THAT WHILE FILING THE RETU RN CORRECTED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. HE ALSO POINTE D OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE ALSO PR ODUCED MOHD. AHMED TAUKIL AHMED ABDUL ASHFAQ MOHD. FAROO Q JAMEEL 3 AHMED MOHD. KAMAR MOHD. ASLAM AND MOHD. UMAR FOR C ONFIRMATION OF THE DEPOSITS GIVEN BY THEM AND THEIR STATEMENTS WER E ALSO RECORDED ON OATH. HOWEVER NO OTHER DEPOSITOR WAS PRODUCED. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF `1 51 500/- ONLY AS PROVED BY WAY OF PRODUCTION OF THE DEPOSITORS AND THE REMAINING SUM OF `8 87 751/- WAS CONSIDERED AS UNPROVED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF I. T. ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A) AN D SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND O N FACTS BOTH IN MAKING ADDITION OF `8 87 751/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROV ED DEPOSITS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAD PICKED UP THIS AMOUNT FROM THE LIST OF SUNDRY CRE DITORS FILED BEFORE HIM FOR `62 84 763/- WHICH INTER ALIA INCLUDED `1 0 39 251/- BEING THE DEPOSITS OF VARIOUS FARMERS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD PUR CHASED THE PADDY WHOSE PAYMENTS COULD NOT BE MADE AT THE END OF THE YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF M ENTIONED AT PAGE NO. 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THIS FACT HAS AL SO BEEN REPORTED BY THE AUDITOR IN SCHEDULE-3 WHICH REVEA LED THAT THERE WAS NO DEPOSITOR OF `8 87 751/- AS ON 31/03/2004 THEREFO RE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED D EPOSITS WAS 4 NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED CIT (A) POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS MENTIONED AS UNDER: ON 28/03/2007 THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THESE ARE NOT UNSECURED LOANS BUT SUNDRY CREDITORS AND THIS AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN SUNDRY CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO `62 84 763/ - HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE 6R PURCHASE OF PADDY ALL THE DEPOSITORS WERE NEVER PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION THEREFORE THE ADDITION HA S BEEN RIGHTLY MADE. 4.1 ON THE ABOVE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AS UNDER: A. THAT NOTICE DT. 04.04.2005 WAS THE FIRST QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED BY THE LEARNED A.O. AND IN THIS NOTICE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ASKED TO EXPLAIN SUCH AMOUNT OF `10 39 251/- (THE COPY OF NOTICE DT. 04.04.2005 IS ENCLOSED AS EX. C/L). B. THAT SO FAR THE APPELLANT WAS NOT REQUIRED TO EXPL AIN `10 39 251/-. C. THAT THE LEARNED A.O. HAS VERY ARBITRARILY AND ON MERE PRESUMPTIONS CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF `10 39 251/- OUT OF `62 84 763/- (SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31.03.2004) AS UNSECURED LOAN AND MADE THE ADDITION OF `8 87 751/- BEING UNPROVED DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. THE ADDITION O F `8 87 751/- MADE BY THE LEARNED A.O. IS WRONG & LIABLE TO BE DELETED. D. THAT `62 84 763/- WERE SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT AS ON 31.03.2004 AS THE AMOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS THE DETAILED LIST CONTAINING NAMES & ADDRESSES & AMOUNT PAYABLE WAS FILED AS EX. C/1 5 TO C/2 ALONG WITH REPLY DT. 28.03.2007 BEFORE THE LEARNED A.O. MOST OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE THE PADDY GROWING FROM WHOM THE APPELLANT PURCHASED THE PADDY. THE DETAILED LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS IS AGAIN ENCLOSED ALONG WITH THE PHOTOCOPIES OF 6RS (AS EX. D/L TO D/91 ) FOR YOUR KIND PERUSAL AND RECORD WHICH ITSELF PROVES THAT THE AMOUNT OF `62 84 763/- SHOWN AS BALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31.03.2004 WAS ACTUALLY PAYABLE TO THEM & IS GENUINE. E. THAT THE SPECIAL AUDITOR ALSO HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY ADVERSE COMMENT ON THIS POINT.' 4.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THA T PARA 5 TO 14 RELATED TO THE ADDITIONS ON VARIOUS HEADS AND THE SUBM ISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DETAILED LIST CONTAINING NAMES & ADD RESSES & AMOUNT PAYABLE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS FILED BEFORE TH E A.O. AND THAT MOST OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WERE THE PADDY GROWERS F ROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PADDY. THE LEARNED CIT (A) FUR THER OBSERVED THAT THE DETAILED LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS AGAIN F ILED BEFORE HIM WHICH ITSELF PROVED THAT THE AMOUNT OF `62 84 763/- SHOWN AS BALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ON 31/03/2004 WAS ACTUALLY PAYAB LE TO THEM AND WAS GENUINE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT CONTRADICT ED THE SAME. HE THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDITION. NOW THE DEPAR TMENT IS IN APPEAL. 6 5. THE LEARNED D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINE D DEPOSITS FROM VARIOUS FARMERS AMOUNTING TO `10 39 251/- AND INCLUDE D THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF `62 84 763/-. IT W AS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE SAID DEPOSITS OF ` 10 39 251/- FROM 55 PERSONS. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS PAGE NO. 6 AND 7 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL PAPER BOOK. IT WAS CONTENDED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO `1 51 500/ - FROM THOSE PERSONS WHO WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND MADE THE ADD ITION IN RESPECT OF THOSE DEPOSITORS WHO WERE NOT PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND EVEN NO CONFIRMATION WAS FILED. THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN T HE INSTANT CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED DEPOSITS FROM 55 PERSO NS DETAILS OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 6 AND 7 OF THE DEPART MENTAL PAPER BOOK. 7 ON PERUSING THE SAID DETAILS IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASS ESSEE OBTAINED `19 500/- EACH FROM 53 PERSONS `4 700/- FROM MOHD. U MAR NAGARIA AND `1 051/- FROM HAJI ABDUL BASEER NIGRA APPEARING AT SL. NO. 49 AND 50 OF THE SAID DETAIL SO IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT T HE ASSESSEE PURCHASED PADDY OF `19 500/- FROM EACH PERSON. FURTH ERMORE IN THE SAID DETAIL IT HAS BEEN MENTIONED THAT THOSE WERE UNSE CURED LOANS. THEREFORE THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE WRONGLY CONSIDERE D AS SUNDRY CREDITORS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PADDY RATH ER IT WAS THE DEPOSIT FROM THOSE PERSONS MAY BE THE FARMERS GROWI NG PADDY BUT IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED PADDY AMOUNTING TO `19 500/- FROM EACH OF THE PERSON. IN THE INSTAN T CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE DEPOSITS FROM THOSE PERSONS W HO WERE PRODUCED. WE THEREFORE CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY O F THE FACTS ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED I N DELETING THE ADDITION MERELY ON THIS BASIS THAT THE AMOUNT APPEARED IN THE LIST OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED AT BAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN PRODUCE THO SE PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HE ARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8 8. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 2 RELATED TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF `3 00 000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S 69C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 9. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED CERTAIN INFIRMITIES IN THE PAYMENT SH OWN IN THE CASH BOOK AND THE PAYMENT ENTERED IN THE LEDGER WHICH WA S AS UNDER: A/C HOLDER PAYMENT SHOWN PAYMENT ENTERED DIFF ERENCE IN CASH BOOK IN LEDGER -------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------- ---- HAJI AKHTAR HUSAIN(LF51) 1 50 000 50 000 1 00 000 ATMA RAM (LF-51) 1 50 000 50 000 1 00 0 00 SHYAM LAL(LF-51) 1 50 000 50 000 1 00 0 00 9.1 THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MISTAKE HAD BEEN COMM ITTED BY THE THEN MUNIM SHRI PHOOL CHAND. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WAS OF THE VI EW THAT A SUM OF `3 00 000/- HAD BEEN TAKEN AWAY BY THE PARTNERS F OR SOME EXPENDITURE OR INVESTMENT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HE THEREFORE MADE THE ADDITION OF `3 00 000/- U/S 69B/69C OF THE ACT . 10. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A) A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON MERE P RESUMPTION AND HYPOTHECATION AND HAD NO BASIS. IT WAS POINTED OUT TH AT THE ASSESSING 9 OFFICER AT PAGE NO. 15 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHILE C OMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MENTIONED AT POINT NO . 4 EXCESS CASH POSTED IN LEDGERS ADDED U/S 69B/69C `3 00 000/- WHICH ITSELF WAS CONTRADICTORY TO HIS EARLIER FINDINGS MENTIONED ON PAGE 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THUS IT WAS CLEAR THAT THIS ADDITION OF 3 00 000/- WAS ON FLIMSY GROUND AND WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED COPIES OF PROPER BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS ON 28/03/2007 ALONG WITH THE REPLY IN COMPLIANCE TO N OTICE DATED 02/03/2007 AND NO DISCREPANCY HAD BEEN FOUND. IT WA S EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT EARLIER THE BOOKS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WERE PREPARED BY SHRI PHOOL CHAND MUNIM WHO HAD MADE SO MANY MISTAKES IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS SINCE HE WAS NOT HAVING ANY PROPER KNOWLEDGE OF THE ACCOUNTING OF THE BUSINESS. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE PARTNERS ENGAGED ANOTHER ACCOUNTANT AND GOT THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS PREPARED PROPERLY WHICH WERE AUDITED AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SA ME INCOME TAX RETURN WAS FILED. 10.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OB SERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT HAD NO T COMMENTED ON THIS ISSUE AND THAT THE AUDITOR WHO WAS ASSIGNED THE SPECI AL AUDIT BY 10 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY FILED A TRIAL BALANCE AND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ASK THE SPECIAL AUDITOR TO FURNISH THE PROPER BALANCE SHEET AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. HE THEREFORE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF TRIAL BALANCE WHICH DID NOT REFLECT A PROPER AND COMPLETE PICTURE OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION WAS DELETED. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEA L. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFU LLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN T HE INSTANT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS MISTAKE IN POSTING THE AMOUNTS FR OM CASH BOOK TO THE LEDGER AND SUCH MISTAKE APPEARED IN THE TRIAL BALANCE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE GOT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS PREPARED PROPERLY AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT POINT OUT IN HIS REMAN D REPORT AS TO WHETHER THE MISTAKE NOTED BY HIM EARLIER AGAIN APPEA RED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IT IS TRUE THAT THE CASH BOOK IS THE PRIM ARY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ONLY FROM THE CASH BOOK THE ENTRY IS POSTE D IN THE LEDGER. IF ANY MISTAKE IS THERE IN THE POSTING THE SAME WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE TRIAL BALANCE AND IF THE MISTAKE IS CORRECTED BY POSTI NG THE CORRECT FIGURE IN THE LEDGER THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TRIAL BA LANCE WILL NOT COME AGAIN. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE TRIAL BALANCE WAS PREPARED ON THE BASIS OF THOSE BOOKS WHICH WERE CLAIMED TO BE WRITTEN BY SHRI PHOOL CHAND WHO COMMITTED THE MISTAKE AND LA TER ON WHEN THE 11 CORRECT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE PREPARED NO SUCH MISTA KE APPEARED. THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE L EARNED CIT (A). WE DO NOT SEE ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF `15 75 900/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE. 13. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE VALUATION OF C LOSING STOCK OF RICE. THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK AS UNDER: COMMODITY WEIGHT RATE AMOUNT (`) ----------------- ------------ ------------- ---- ------------- PADDY COMMON 1700 Q. `600/- `10 20 000 RICE COMMON 1208 Q. `750/- ` 9 06 000/- RICE COMMON BROKEN 3673 Q. `548/- `20 13 500/- 13.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE YEAR HULLED TWO TYPES OF PADDY I.E. PADDY COMMON AN D PADDY GRADE-A WEIGHING 24 300 QUINTALS AND 2 986 QUINTALS. AGAINST THIS RICE MANUFACTURED WAS 16 281 QUINTALS AS RICE COMMON AND 2 000.62 QUINTALS AS RICE GRADE-A. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE DELIVERED RICE COMMON WEIGHING 6 900 QUINTALS AND RICE GRADE-A WEIGHING 600 QUINTALS TO GOVERNMENT AND SOLD 4 500 QUINTALS TO THE EXPORTERS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE 12 CLAIMED THAT OUT OF MANUFACTURING OF RICE COMMON WE IGHING 16 281 QUINTALS FRESH RICE WAS ONLY 12 608 QUINTALS AND 3 673 QUINTALS WAS RICE COMMON KHANDA AND KINKI (BROKEN RICE). IN THIS REGA RD THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A SEPARATE REGISTER WHEREIN ENTRIES FOR GRADI NG OF RICE COMMON I.E. FRESH KHANDA AND KINKI HAD BEEN MAINTAI NED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT NO SUCH REGISTER WAS PR ODUCED DURING EARLIER HEARINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT WITH THE SAME MACHINERY AND PLANT THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOWING PRODUC TION OF RICE KHANDA AND KINKI AGAINST HULLING OF COMMON PADD Y WHEREAS THERE IS NO YIELD OF RICE KHANDA AND KINKI AGAINST THE HULL ING OF PADDY GRADE- A. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE REGISTER SO PRODUCED W AS A FABRICATED ACCORDING TO THE VALUATION OF THE CLOSING STOCK SHOWN IN THE TRADING A/C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE SPECIAL AUDITOR MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: STOCK OF 4 881 QUINTAL OF RICE COMMON HAS BEEN VALUED AT `29 19 500/-. NO CALCULATION FOR ARRIVIN G AT THIS VALUE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US. AS PER THE AUDITORS REP ORT THE VALUATION HAS BEEN DONE ON MARKET RATE. AS PER 9R DT. 8/03/04 THE MARKET RATE IS `921.00 PER QT. NO FURTHE R EVIDENCE FOR CONFIRMATION OF SALE RATE WAS SHOWN TO U S. HENCE THE VALUATION OF THE STOCK COULD NOT BE VERIFI ED. 13.2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE INTENTIONALLY AND WILLFULLY MANAGED TO SHOW LESSER VA LUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE COMMON BY WAY OF GRADING IT IN RICE CO MMON AND RICE 13 COMMON KHANDA. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CONDUCT ANY SALE OF RICE KHANDA NOR TIL L 23.12.2004 IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. HE THEREFORE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND APPLIED THE RATE OF `921/- PER QUINTAL TO THE RICE COMMON AND RICE COMMON BROKEN WEIGHING 4 881 QUINTA L (1 208 + 3 763) AND WORKED OUT THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE COMMON AT `44 95 401/- AS AGAINST `29 19 500/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF `15 75 900/- (44 95 40 1 29 19 500) WAS MADE. 14. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A) A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DULY EXPLAINED & SUBSTANTIATED THE VAL UATION OF CLOSING STOCK OF RICE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A ND ALSO FILED THE PHOTOCOPIES OF STOCK REGISTER SALES INVOICES OF CLO SING STOCK EFFECTED IN SUCCEEDING YEAR WHICH PROVED HIS CONTENT ION. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE TRADE TAX DEPARTMENT HAD ALSO ACCEPTED THE SAME VALUATION AS DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF `15 75 900/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER VALUATION OF CLOSIN G STOCK OF RICE WAS WRONG ARBITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS CONTENDED THA T THE ASSESSEE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOLLOWING DETAILS REGARDING PURCHASE OF PADDY COMMON AND PRODUCTION / SALES OF RICE COMMON DU RING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS UNDER: 14 QTLS. PADDY COMMON- PURCHASED 26 000 PADDY COMMON- HULLED 24 300 PADDY COMMON- CLOSING STOCK 1 700 RICE COMMON PRODUCED 16 281 YIELD 67% RICE COMMON - SOLD - TO RFC UNDER LEVY SCHEME 7 500 - TO EXPORTER FOR EXPORT SALE 3 900 11 400 RICE COMMON - CLOSING STOCK - RICE COMMON 1 208 - RICE BROKEN 3 673 4 881 14.1 ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE FIGURES THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RICE BROKEN AT 15.11% OF PADDY HULLED & PRODUCTION OF RICE AT 51.89% WHICH WAS PROPER & CORR ECT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER VERY ARBIT RARILY AND ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION HAD VALUED THE ENTIRE STOCK OF RIC E & RICE BROKEN AS 'RICE' ONLY SIMPLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINT AINED THE SEPARATE STOCK REGISTER OF RICE & RICE BROKEN. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS A MATTER OF FACT NEITHER IT WAS REQUIRED NOR IT WAS P OSSIBLE TO MAINTAIN THE STOCK REGISTER OF RICE BROKEN SEPARATELY AND THAT RICE BROKEN IS RICE ONLY AND ITS PRODUCTION WAS MENTIONED ALONG WITH THE PRODUCTION OF RICE IN THE DAILY PRODUCTION REGISTER (LEVY REGISTER) . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VALUED THE ENT IRE STOCK AT THE LAST SALE PRICE OF RICE I.E. @`921/- WHICH WAS WRONG BECAUSE NO 15 COGNIZANCE HAD BEEN GIVEN IN RESPECT OF RICE BROKEN. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE FIXED AT `921/- ON THE BASIS OF LAST SALE PRICE OF RICE WAS ALSO WRONG AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO TA KE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT LAST SALE OF RICE WAS MADE TO M/S KRI SHNA OVERSEAS DELHI WHO WAS THE EXPORTER OF RICE COMMON AND SINCE EXPORT QUALITY OF RICE WAS ALWAYS OF BEST QUALITY SO THIS RATE SHOULD NOT BE FIXED AS THE BASIS OF VALUATION OF ENTIRE STOCK OF RICE & RICE BRO KEN. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE BALANCE STOCK OF RICE & RICE BR OKEN WAS OF INFERIOR QUALITY SO IT COULD NOT BE SOLD AND IT REMAINED IN C LOSING STOCK THEREFORE ITS VALUATION WAS MADE @`750/- & `548/- PE R QTL. RESPECTIVELY. 14.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BASED THE A DDITION ON THE BASIS OF TRIAL BALANCE SUPPLIED BY THE SPECIAL A UDITOR BUT IN FACT ON THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AS WERE FORWARDED TO HIM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY WAY OF REMAND REPORT HAD NOT COMMENTED ANY ADVERSE FACT THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DELETE TH E HALF COOKED ADDITION. NOW THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 15. THE LEARNED D. R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WHILE THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED TH E SUBMISSIONS 16 MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 16. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFU LLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN T HE INSTANT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER EARLIER DID NOT ACCEP T THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT COMMON RICE MANUFACTUR ED WAS HAVING TWO TYPES OF QUALITY I.E. RICE AND RICE BROKEN INSPI TE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED THE SAME IN ITS STOCK REGISTER. THE A SSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED STOCK OF RICE BROKEN AS STOCK OF RICE AND A PPLIED THE SALE RATE OF `921/- ON THE BASIS OF LAST SALE PRICE BUT IGN ORED THIS FACT THAT THE SAID SALE RATE WAS IN RESPECT OF RICE SOLD TO THE EXPORTER AS SUCH THE QUALITY OF RICE SOLD TO EXPORTER WAS BEST QUALITY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IGNORED THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THA T TRADE TAX DEPARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED THE SALE VALUATION. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF RICE AND RICE BROKEN WAS I N FACT SOLD IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AT A RATE HIGHER THAN THE RATE SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING THE VALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK. FURTHE RMORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE DETAILED SUBMISSI ONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO BY W AY OF REMAND REPORT HAD NOT COMMENTED ANY ADVERSE FACT. W HEN THE 17 ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HIMSELF HAD ACCE PTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T (A) THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO MAINTAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) WAS FULLY J USTIFIED IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 17. THE NEXT ISSUE VIDE GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF `4 76 800/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N ACCOUNT OF SALE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 18. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO NOTICED THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THERE WAS CREDIT OF `2 81 025/- BEING CUSTOM RECEIPTS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HULLED PADDY ON BEHALF OF GOVERNMENT WEIGHING 18 735.80 QU INTALS AND EARLIER THE GENERAL INFORMATION WAS CALLED FROM R.F. C. BAREILLY WHO FURNISHED A STATEMENT OF PADDY GIVEN FOR HULLING TO V ARIOUS RICE MILLERS AND ALSO THE DETAILS OF RICE DELIVERED AGAINST SUCH HU LLING. FROM THE SAID STATEMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIVERED RICE WEIGHING 4 059.48 QUINTALS AND 7 975.81 QUINTAL S TO HOT SHAKHA AND PCF TOTALING TO 12 035.29 QUINTALS WHICH CAME T O ABOUT 64.23% WHILE YIELD AT THE RATE OF 67% WORKED OUT TO 12 552 .99 QUINTALS THUS THE REMAINING RICE WEIGHING 517.70 QUINTALS (12 552. 99 12 035.29 QUINTALS) SHOULD HAVE EITHER BEEN REFLECTED IN SALES OR IN CLOSING STOCK 18 BUT NO SUCH SALE OR AVAILABILITY OF CLOSING STOCK WAS FO UND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THIS RICE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. HE VALUED THE RICE BY APPLYING THE RATE OF `921/- PER QUINTAL AND MADE THE ADDITIO N OF `4 76 800/-. 19. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A) A ND SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER ANY DISCREPANCY IN SALE ACCOUNT WAS NOTIC ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY UNACCOUNTED SALES WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE SHAPE OF DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCE. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS NEVER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CARRIED ON THE WORK OF PADDY HULLING ON JOB BASIS FOR THE STATE GOVERNMENT WHICH WAS MANDATORY AND THE SAME WAS CALLED CUSTOM HULLING. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT AS PER THE INSTRUCTIONS OF GOVERNMENT W HATEVER RICE WAS PRODUCED FROM CUSTOM HULLING THE SAME IN TOTO WA S TO BE DELIVERED TO THE GOVERNMENT IN SUPPORT OF IT A COP Y OF THE LETTER OF THE SECRETARY U. P. GOVERNMENT DT.23.12.2003 WAS FILED W HICH WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS CONTENDED T HAT THE TRADE TAX DEPARTMENT HAD ALSO ACCEPTED THE SALE OF RICE AS DISCLO SED BY THE ASSESSEE. A PHOTOCOPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF TRADE TA X DEPARTMENT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS 19 ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF `4 76 800 /- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OUTSIDE BOOKS AGAINST CUSTOM HULLING WAS WRONG ARB ITRARY & UNJUSTIFIED. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT SIMILAR TYPE OF AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA PRODUCTION OF RICE FROM CUSTOM HULLING OF P ADDY WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF M/S NOVA INDUSTRIES PURANPUR- PILIBHIT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUCH ADDITION WAS DELETED BY TH E LEARNED CIT (A) AND THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE ITAT HAD BEEN REJECTED. 19.1 THE LEARNED CIT (A) FORWARDED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKING FOR HIS COMMENTS BY WAY OF RE MAND REPORT. THE LEARNED CIT (A) CATEGORICALLY STATED TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENT ON THE LET TER OF THE SECRETARY U.P. DATED DT. 23.12.2003 IN THIS REGARD. HE THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NO W THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL. 20. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFU LLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN T HE PRESENT CASE IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION ON LY ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE SHOWN THE YIELD OF PADDY YI ELD ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT AT THE LEVEL OF THE YIELD SHOWN FO R ITS OWN PADDY YIELD. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ID NOT BRING ANY 20 MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE QUALITY OF THE PADDY PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROVIDED BY THE GOVERNME NT WAS THE SAME. THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE CUSTOM PADDY I.E. THE PADDY YIELD ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT WAS IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE YIELD PRESCRIBED IN LETTER ISSUED BY SECRETARY U.P. GOVERNMENT DATED 23/12/2003 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE NO. 1 42 OF THE ASSESSEES COMPILATION. IN THE SAID LETTER IT HAS BEEN ST ATED IN PARA 3 THAT FOR CUSTOM HULLING THE RECOVERY OF RICE WAS FIXE D AT 64%. IN THE PRESENT CASE IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE TRADE TAX DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN NO ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND THE SALE DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN ACCEPTED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT BRING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE THE SALE OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OUT OF THE CUSTOM HULLIN G AND THE LEARNED CIT (A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IN HIS REMA ND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT SEE ANY VALID GROUND TO INTER FERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUN D OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL FAILS. 21 21. THE LAST ISSUE AGITATED VIDE GROUND NO. 5 OF THE A PPEAL RELATES TO THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF `1 49 868/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH NOT TAKEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. 22. THE FACTS RELATED TO THIS ISSUE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED FROM THE TRIAL BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE WERE THREE SUSPENSE ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF SUSPENSE CASH SUSPEN SE PURCHASE AND SUSPENSE SALES ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT ACCORDING TO THIS TRIAL BALANCE CASH WAS SHOR T BY `1 49 868/- WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT SOME RECEIPTS WERE NOT INCORPO RATED IN THE CASH BOOK. HE THEREFORE MADE THE ADDITION OF `1 4 9 868/-. 23. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO LEARNED CIT(A) A ND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ALLOWED ANY OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN ANYTHING IN THIS REGARD AND HAD VERY ARBITRARILY DRAWN ANOTHER TRIAL BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN N O CASE WAS JUSTIFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DRAWN FIRST TRIAL BALANCE FROM THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE MON TH OF JUNE 2006 IN WHICH HE POINTED OUT A DIFFERENCE OF `3 12 665/- BEING EXCESS OF DEBIT OVER CREDIT BALANCES AND ON THE BASIS OF THIS ALL EGED DIFFERENCE AND WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE'S CASE WAS REFERRED FOR SPECIAL AUDIT U/S 142(2A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE 22 MONTH OF MARCH 2007 FIRST TIME THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN REGARDING THE DIFFERENCE OF `3 12 665/- IN THE TRIA L BALANCE AND THE ASSESSEE DULY EXPLAINED VIDE ITS REPLY DT. 28.03.07 THE N THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY ARBITRARILY DRAWN A SECOND TRIAL BALAN CE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN IN THIS RE GARD AND HAVE MADE THE ADDITION OF `1 49 863/-. 23.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS REFERRED TO PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STATED THAT ACCORDING TO TRIAL BALANCE CASH WAS SHORT BY `1 49 868 /-. THE LEARNED CIT (A) POINTED OUT THAT THE SPECIAL AUDITOR HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY ADVERSE COMMENT ON THIS POINT AND FURTHER IN THE REMA ND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENT ON TH E SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SINCE THE TRIAL BALANCE IS NO T A PICTURE OF COMPLETE COMPILED ACCOUNTS THERE REMAINS NO CASE TO MAKE ADDITION ON PRESUMPTION BASIS. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDIT ION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED. 24. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS BOTH THE PARTIES W E ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE FINDI NG OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) BECAUSE THE TRIAL BALANCE IS NOT THE COMPLETE PIC TURE OF THE 23 ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THERE MAY BE MANY REASONS F OR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TRIAL BALANCE THOSE MAY BE DUE TO ERROR OF POSTING FROM CASH BOOK OR JOURNAL TO LEDGER ERROR OF TOTALI NG IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS SO IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IF ANY DIFFERENCE I S THERE IN THE TRIAL BALANCE THAT MAY BE DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN THE CASH. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE LEARNED CIT (A) CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN HIS REMAND REPORT HAD NOT MADE ANY ADVERSE COMMENTS O N THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE THE ADDITION WAS RIG HTLY DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. 25. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. (THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 0.1.11 ) SD. SD. ( H. L. KARWA ) (N. K. SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:20.1.11. *SINGH COPY FORWARDED TO THE: 1. APPELLANT. 2. RESPONDENT. 3. CIT (A) 4. CIT 5. DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 24