Sh. Sushil Kumar, Kurukshetra v. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 735/CHANDI/2014 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 73521514 RSA 2014
Assessee PAN AAOPJ4974C
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 735/CHANDI/2014
Duration Of Justice 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Sushil Kumar, Kurukshetra
Respondent ITO, Kurukshetra
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 07-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 07-11-2014
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 20-08-2014
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 737/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. NEME KUMAR JAIN VS. THE I.T.O. PROP. M/S MAHAVIR TRADING CO. WARD 1 KURUKSHETRA KURUKSHETRA PAN NO.AAOPJ4974C & ITA NO. 735/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. SUSHIL KUMAR VS. THE I.T.O. PROP. M/S ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR. WARD 1 KURUKSHETRA KURUKSHETRA PAN NO.AAPPJ0527L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAKESH JAIN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. RAJEEV KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 29/10/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/11/2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/12/2013 OF CIT (APPEALS) KARNAL. 2 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND WH ICH IS MENTIONED BELOW: BECAUSE THE ACTION OF UPHOLDING THE LEVY OF PENALT Y OF RS. 6 53 882/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 196 1 IS BEING CHALLENGED ON FACTS AND LAW WHILE RELYING UPON THE DECISION REVERSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTION HIGH COURT. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT THE SUR VEY WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING T HE SURVEY CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND. ASSESSEE ULTIM ATELY SURRENDER THE SUM OF RS. 14 LACS HOWEVER ASSESSEE FILED RETURN D ECLARING INCOME OF RS. 48 054. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IT WAS NO TICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SALE OF PADDY AT RS. 523/- PER QUINTAL IN RESPECT OF THE OPENING STOCK OF PADDY OF 4879.18 QUINTALS WHICH WAS VALUED AT RS. 635/- PER QUINTAL. IT WAS NOTICED IN THE COMPARABLE CASES THA T THE OTHER PARTIES HAD SOLD THE PADDY AT FOLLOWING AVERAGE RATE : S.NO NAME & ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AVERAGE SALE RA TE 1 M/S MITTAL TRADING COMPANY AM KURUKSHETRA RS. 799/- PER QTL. 2 M/S GANESH TRADING COMPANY KURUKSHETRA RS. 704/- PER QTL. 3 M/S BALA SUNDRI RICE MILLS INDRI RS. 780/- PER Q TL. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THAT WHY AVERAGE RATE ON WHICH T HE ABOVE SUCH PARTIES HAVE SOLD THE PADDY AT RS. 761/- PER Q UINTAL SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CO NSIDERING THE REPLY AO ADOPTED THE RATE OF RS. 761/- AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 11 62 215/- ON PENALTY PROCEEDING UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WERE ALS O INITIATED. 4. SIMILARLY THE OPENING STOCK OF RICE OF 3474.33 Q UINTAL WHICH WAS VALUED AT RS. 851/- PER QUINTALS WAS SOLD AT RS. 77 0/- HERE AGAIN AO POINTED OUT TO COMPARATIVE EXPLANATION AND ULTIMATE LY HELD THE SALE VALUE AT RS. 1063/- PER QUINTAL AND MADE ADDITION O F RS. 7 35 595/- ON WHICH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) W ERE INITIATED. FURTHER 3 IT WAS FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED RS. 10 30 000/- IN THE BANK AS PER THE FOLLOWING DETAILS: SL. NO. DATE OF DEPOSIT AMOUNT 1. 17.02.2007 RS. 9 50 000/- 2. 19.02.2007 RS. 2 50 000/- 3. 24.03.2007 RS. 2 50 000/- 4. 28.03.2007 RS. 5 00 000/- IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY REGARDING SOURCE OF THIS C ASH IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF THE INCOME DECLARED DURING THE SURVEY. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY PHYSICAL CASH WAS ONLY RS. 6500 THEREFORE NO CASH WAS AVAILABLE AND T HEREFORE HE MADE ADDITION OF RS. 14 LACS AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCE EDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C). 5. IT SEEMS LATER ON THE LD. CIT(A) ON APPEAL REDUC ED THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 62 215/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF SALE OF PADDY TO RS. 5 47 639/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOSS OF SALE OF RICE AMOUNTI NG TO RS 6 38 241/- WAS REDUCED TO RS. 34 743/-. THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SURRENDER AMOUNT AND UNEXPLAINED CASH WAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD. CI T(A). ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REVENUE CHALLENGE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 6. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IT WAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER : IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME NOR CONCEALED HIS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME IN TIME AND DULY PAID THE TAX ON IT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/ S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT IN WHICH SOME ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED UNDER BILLING IN SALES WITHOUT ANY BASIS ARBITRARY WITHOUT DETECTING ANY SALES OR RECEIPTS OUTSIDE THE BOOKS. THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING DAY-TO-DAY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S ALONG WITH STOCK REGISTER WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED BY CHART ED ACCOUNTANT. THE GENUINENESS OF ALL THE TRANSACTIONS OF SALE/PURCHASE WERE REPEATEDLY PROVED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM EVERY POSSIBLE WAY AND NO DISCREPANCY OR PROOF OF S HAM OR COLLUSIVE TRANSACTION WERE DETECTED NOR FOUND. ALL THE 4 PAYMENTS OF SALE OF RICE AND PADDY WERE GOT VERIFIE D FROM THE BOOKS OF THE PURCHASER BY ISSUING SUMMON AND NO DISCREPANCY WAS FOUND OR DETECTED THERE ALSO. THE A DDITION OF RS. 547639/- AND RS. 34743/- MADE OUT OF THE SAL E OF PADDY AND RICE HAS BEEN SUSTAINED / MADE ON THE BASIS OF FORUMULA PROPOUNDED ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE RATE ADOPTED OF DIFFERENT PARTIES IN THE DISTRICT ARBITRARILY. PADD Y AND RICE ARE NATURAL COMMODITIES AND THE RATE OF TWO PARTIES CAN NOT BE COMPARED WITH EACH OTHER AND THE PRICE VARIES DRAST ICALLY DEPENDING UPON THE QUALITY. ALSO NO SALES OR PURCHA SE HAVE BEEN DETECTED OR FOUND OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AS SUCH NO CONCEALMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS. 14 00 000/- IT I S SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED THE ABOVE A T THE TIME OF SURVEY CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES O N 19.01.2007 TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID LITIGA TION WITH THE DEPARTMENT SUBJECT TO NO PENAL ACTION. THE AMOU NT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATE S AFTER THE SURVEY OUT OF THE SURRENDER AMOUNT. THE ADDITIO N OF THIS AMOUNT ALLEGING THE SAME TO BE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED I NCOME IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND ARBITRARY. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT ALL THE ABOVE ADDIT ION HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF CONJECTURES AND SURM ISES AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BE KINDL Y DROPPED. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY THE AO AGAIN REPRODUCED THE FACTS AND OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND CONCLUDED THAT ASSE SSEE HAS CONCEALED PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND RELYING ON THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF K.P. MADHUSUDHANAN VS. CIT 251 IT R 99 LEVIED A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS. 5 53 882/-. 8. ON APPEAL IT WAS MAINLY SUBMITTED THAT AO DID NO T SUPPLIED PARTICULARS OF COMPARATIVE SALES MADE BY OTHER PART IES IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDER SALE OF PADDY AND RICE . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SALES TAX AUTHORITY HAS ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT OF SALES IN THE SAID SALES TAX ASSESSMENT. IN RESPECT OF THE SU RRENDERED AMOUNT IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER THEN N ATURALLY THE ASSESSEE WOULD DEPOSIT THE CASH. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON CERTAIN CASE LAWS. 5 9. THE LD CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND REF ERRED TO THE OBSERVATIONS IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDING. SHE ALSO RE FERRED TO THE SURVEY REPORT AND OBSERVED THAT NO SURRENDER WAS MADE ON A CCOUNT OF CASH THEREFORE CLEARLY CASH WAS NOT AVAILABLE. ULTIMATE LY SHE OBSERVED THAT DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF MAK D ATA P. LTD. VS. CIT 358 ITR 593 WAS APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. BEFORE US LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF SELLING OF PADDY AND RICE AT LOWER PRICE I S CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE WAS HARD PRESSED TO SELL THE SAME BECAUSE THERE WAS TREMENDOUS PRESSURE FROM SUNDRY CREDITORS AS ASSESSEE OWED THE SUM OF RUPEES MORE THAN 90 LACS TO THE VARIOUS SUNDRY CREDITORS. IN AN Y CASE THE SALE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE SALES TAX AU THORITY. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN FINALLY MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A)ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND THEREFORE PENALTY PROVISION ARE NOT ATTRACTED. 11. IN RESPECT OF ISSUE REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS IS CONCERNED HE REFERRED TO THE PAGE 143 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS COPY OF THE SURRENDER LETTER WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SUM OF RS. 14 LACS WAS SUR RENDERED DURING THE SURVEY AND THIS AMOUNT WAS SHOWN IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE. LATER ON MISCELLANEOUS ASSETS WERE PUR CHASED WHICH WERE SOLD AND CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK THOUGH ADDI TION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT P ENALTY PROVISION ARE ALSO ATTRACTED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RE LIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SANGRUR VANASPATI MILLS 303 ITR 53 AND DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158. 12. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A). 6 13. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSION WE FIND THAT AS FAR AS PENALTY IN RESPECT OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF PADDY AT LOWER PRICE AMOUNTING TO RS. 11 62 215/- AND RS. 6 38 241/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF RICE AT LOWER PRICE SAME HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY THE LD. CI T(A) TO RS. 5 47 439 AND RS. 34 743/-. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL ALSO BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS RE VENUE. THIS ITSELF SHOWS THAT ULTIMATELY ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON ESTI MATE BASIS AND NORMALLY PENALTY IS NOT ATTRACTED IN SUCH SITUATION . THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SANG RUR VANASPATI MILLS 303 ITR 53 (SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : IN ORDER TO ATTRACT CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE MUST BE CONCE ALMENT BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR FURNISHING OF I NACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED TO CASES WHERE THE INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND ADDITIONS ARE MADE THEREIN. WHEN THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATE AND NOT ON ACCOU NT OF ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE OF CONCEALMENT THEN THE PENALTY IS NOT LE VIABLE. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PENALTY ON THE SE TWO ITEMS DESERVES TO BE DELETED AND ACCORDINGLY WE DELETED THE SAME. 14. AS FAR AS THE PENALTY ON THE ADDITION OF RS. 14 LACS IS CONCERNED WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE SURRENDER LETTER REFERRED TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 143 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH READS AS UNDER : TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KURUKSHETRA RANGE KURUKSHETRA SUBJECT: SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133-A(1) OF IT ACT 19 61 CONDUCTED AT M/S MAHAVIR TRADING COMPANY KURUKSHETRA ON 19.01.2 007 RESPECTED MADAM THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE SURVEY CONDUCTED AT T HE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S MAHAVIR TRADING COMPANY AT KURUKSHE TRA ON 19.01.2007 & DISCUSSED WITH YOUR GOODSELF. 7 THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CERT AIN DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND INTEREST HE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT LOOSE PAPERS STOCK OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS BYPRODUCTS & VARIOUS OTHE R RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS. THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM VOLUNTARILY SURRENDERS A S UM OF RS. 14.00 LACS (FOURTEEN LACS ) AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FO R THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2006-07 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 TO COVE R UP ALL ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LOOSE PAPERS DOCUMENTS STOCK BYPRODUCTS AND OTHER RECORDS. ON DOCUMENT D-2 OUTSID E IT IS WRITTEN M/S ATMA RAM SUSHIL KUMAR & ON DOCUMENT D-6 IT IS WRITT EN M/S JAIN RICE MILL BUT BOTH PERTAIN TO M/S MAHAVIR TRADING COMPANY. THAT THE SURRENDER OF ADDITIONAL INCOME BY THE AS SESSEE IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE IT ACT OR UNDER ANY OTHER SECTION OF THE IT ACT / PROSECUTION PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LOOSE PAPERS STOCK BYPRODUCTS YIELD OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS. NO FURTHE R ADDITION OR ENQUIRY SHALL BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY OTHER DOCUMENTS. NO FURTHER ADDITION OR ENQUIRY SHALL BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY DISCREPANCY IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT LOOSE PAPERS STOCK BYPRODUCTS YIELD AND DOCUMENTS. WE WILL PAY TAXES BY DUE DATS. THANKING YOU YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/- M/S MAHAVIR TRADING COMPANY KURUKSHETRA THE ABOVE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT SURRENDER HAS BEEN MAD E MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT LOOSE PAPERS FOUND OF VARIOUS PRODUCTS ETC. THE CASH AVAILABLE W AS ONLY RS. 6500/- THEREFORE NO CASH COULD POSSIBLY HAVE BEEN DEPOSIT ED. THE ASSESSEE THOUGH INCORPORATED THE SURRENDER AMOUNT IN THE P&L ACCOUNT BUT BY SHOWING THE SALE OF OPENING STOCK AT LOWER PRICE TH E INCOME WAS AGAIN REDUCED TO RS. 48 054/- THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE AMOUNT SURRENDERED WAS NULLIFIED WHILE FILING RETURN. HOWEVER LATER O N ASSESSEE BECAME WISE AND DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 14 LACS IN THE BANK AND BEFORE US IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED MISCELLANEOUS AS SETS WHICH WERE LATER ON SOLD AND THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. T HERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE EXISTENCE OF ANY MISCELLANEOUS ASSETS T HEREFORE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS TOTALLY FALSE. THIS IS NOT A CASE OF FULL DISCLOSURE OF 8 FACTS AND THEREFORE THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN CASE OF CIT VS. RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. 322 ITR 158 IS ALSO NOT APP LICABLE. IN FACT THE DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RAMESH CHANDER GUPTA VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS 344 ITR 320 WHERE EXCESS STOCK WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY AND ADDITION WAS MADE ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WAS HELD TO BE LEVIABLE. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND DECISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF RAMESH CHAND ER GUPTA VS. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND OTHERS (SUPRA) TH E PENALTY ON THESE ITEMS OF INCOME IS LEVIABLE. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT AO TO LEVY PENALTY ONLY ON RS. 14 LACS A DDITION. 20. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 735/CHD/2014 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05/12/2013 OF CIT (APPEALS) KARNAL. 2. THE FACTS AND ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL ARE I DENTICAL AND LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DECISION IN CASE OF ITA NO. 737/CHD/2014 MAY BE FOLLOWED HERE. IN THIS CASE ALS O PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON THREE ITEMS I.E; SALE OF RICE AT LOWER PR ICE AMOUNTING TO RS. 6 03 708/- ITEM NO. 2 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF RICE AT LOWER PRICE AMOUNTING TO RS. 1 97 364/- AND SUM OF RS. 5 30 000 /- DEPOSITED IN CASH. FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN CASE OF ITA NO. 737/CHD/2014 WE HOLD THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON THE ADDITION WHICH WERE REDU CED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF RICE AND SALE OF PADDY AT LOW ER PRICE. HOWEVER FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ORDER THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE I N RESPECT OF RS. 5 30 000/- DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK. 9 3. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY A LLOWED. IN THE RESULT APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07/11/2014 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07/11/2014 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT TH E CIT(A) THE DR