Sh Amrit Manaklal Jain, v. The ITO, 2 (2),

ITA 845/IND/2005 | 2000-2001
Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 84522714 RSA 2005
Assessee PAN ACWPJ2910Q
Bench Indore
Appeal Number ITA 845/IND/2005
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant Sh Amrit Manaklal Jain,
Respondent The ITO, 2 (2),
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 15-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 15-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 15-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 15-03-2010
Assessment Year 2000-2001
Appeal Filed On 10-11-2005
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. : ACWPJ2910Q I.T.A.NO. 351 /IND/20 07 . A.Y. : 1999 - 2000 SHRI AMRITLAL JAIN CIT - I 220 - 221 KHAJURI BAZAR VS INDORE I NDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. : ACWPJ2910Q I.T.A.NO. 845 /IND/20 05 . A.Y. : 2000 - 01 SHRI AMRITLAL MANAKLAL JAIN 10 MORSALIGALI INDORE. VS ITO 2(2) INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.P.VERMA AND MS.SAKSHI VERMA ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SMT. MRIDULA BAJPAI CIT DR -: 2: - 2 DATE OF HEARING : 14 . 01 .201 3 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 . 01 .201 3 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA A.M. I.T.A.NO. 351/IND/2007 : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX U/S 263 D ATED 29 TH MARCH 2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. 2. CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE LD. CIT-I F AILED TO APPRECIATE AND/OR OVERLOOK THE ORDER PASSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 147/144 DATED 30 TH MARCH 2005 WHICH WAS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERE STS OF REVENUE. ALL THE MATERIAL FACTS WERE DISCLOSED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO CONSIDERED BY HIM. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FOUND FROM RECORD THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FURNISHED ORIGINALLY ON 14.06.2000 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1 57 71 5/-. THIS RETURN WAS ANNEXED WITH A STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS INDI CATING TOTAL OF ASSET AMOUNTING TO RS. 35 03 816/- AND EQUAL AMO UNT AS LIABILITY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS RE-OPENED U/S 147 VID E NOTICE -: 3: - 3 U/S 148 DATED 11.3.2004. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NO TICE A RETURN WAS FURNISHED ON 04.01.2005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 41 510/-. SINCE THE SAID RETURN WAS NOT FILED W ITHIN THE PERIOD SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE U/S 148 IT WAS TREA TED NON-EST. SO CALLED RETURN CONTAINED A BALANCE SHEET REFLECTI NG TOTAL OF RS. 41 47 810/- ON EITHER SIDE. ASSESSMENT U/S 147 WAS THEREAFTER FRAMED TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE ANNEXURE S OF THE SO CALLED RETURN ON 30.03.2005 DETERMINING TOTAL INCO ME AT RS. 2 21 260/-. IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 THE LD. CI T OBSERVED THAT VARIOUS ACCOUNTS LISTED IN THE STATEMENT OF AF FAIRS FURNISHED WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN AND THE BALANCE SHEET ANNEXED WITH THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 DO NOT TALLY SO FAR AS VARIOUS HEADS OF ACCOUNT ARE CO NCERNED. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN THE INCOME AS CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AS PER THE STATEMEN T OF AFFAIRS AND BALANCE SHEET REFERRED ABOVE. IT WAS OBSERVED T HAT THE TOTAL ASSETS HAVE INCREASED BY AN AMOUNT OF RS. 6 4 3 994/-. THIS DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE GOOD BY EFFECTING CHA NGE IN UNSECURED LOAN AND EVEN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. AS PER CIT THE -: 4: - 4 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO MAKE PROPER ENQUIRI ES OR SEEK CLARIFICATION IN THIS REGARD. 4. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FRAMED ASSESSMENT AF TER MAKING DETAILED INQUIRIES. OUR ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO QU ERIES RAISED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND REPLIES FILED BY ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY FILED RECONCILIATION OF FIGURE OF STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS AN D BALANCE SHEET BOTH AS ON 31.3.1999 BY GIVING POINT-WISE REP LIES ON THE VARIOUS ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT. OUR ATTENTIO N WAS DRAWN TO THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT WHEREIN NO D IFFERENCE WAS POINTED OUT WITH RESPECT TO THE GOLD ORNAMENTS 10 MORSALLI GALI HOUSE GOLD/DIAMOND ORNAMENTS BANK B ALANCE AND ADVANCE TO CELLULAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DETAILED SUBMISSION WAS MADE BEFORE THE CIT-I WITH RECONCILI ATION STATEMENT WHO DID NOT CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION TH EREFORE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE CANCELLED. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTH ER SUBMITTED AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEE WAS EARLIER DOING DALALI. HE IS UNEDUCATED PERSON. BOOKS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 & 2001-02 WERE PREPARED AFTERWARDS CIT I INDORE PAGE 2 BOTTOM TWO PARAS. -: 5: - 5 THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FROM (I) TO ( XI) OF LD. CIT ORDER PAGE 2-3. THE OBSERVATION OF THE LD. CIT ON THESE SUBMISSIONS ARE (I) TO (XI) PAGE 3-4 OF HIS ORDER. HIS FINDINGS ARE ON PAGE 5. IN TABULAR FORM :- NO. ASSESSEES SUBMISSION LD.CITS OBSERVATIONS SUBMISSIONS (I) UNEDUCATED PERSON (XI) CIT I PAGE 4. DID NOT EXPLAIN THE LIABILITIES IN B/X. A. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS. PB 7 B. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER EXAMINED THE CREDITORS VIDE SUBMISSIONS P.B.15 FIRST PARA WHICH READS AS UNDER :PRACTICALLY ALL THE DEPOSITORS WERE CALLED IN OFFICE AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. DETAILS OF SUCH ENQUIRIES AND STATEMENTS RECORDED ARE PART OF RECORD BUT THERE IS NO MENTION OF SUCH ENQUIRIES IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINED MY NET INCOME AT RS. 2 21 260/- AS AGAINST THE REVISED RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 41 510/-. (II) & (III) (IV) (VII) (VIII) BOOKS WERE NEAREST POSSIBLE TO TRUTH & NOT TRUTH IN TOTO. BOOKS NOT RELIABLE THE ASSESSEE ALREADY SUBMITTED THAT BOOKS WERE PREPARED AFTERWARDS BY GATHERING MATERIAL FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. (V) SECOND RETURN WAS FILED GIVING COMPUTATION P. B. 4-5 THE BASIS OF INCOME U/S 147 IS NOT GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN INCOME WAS TAKEN @ 8% OF RECEIPTS. BUT THE LD. AUTHORITIES APPLIED @ 10% IN THE IMMEDIATELY NEXT YEAR. HENCE IN THE REVISED RETURN IT WAS SHOWN @ 10% P.B.4. -: 6: - 6 FURTHER THIS ASPECT WAS CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A) IN IT-835-6 DATED 22.3.2006 AND HENCE OUT OF JURISDICTION U/S 263. (VI) & (IX) THE CREDITORS WERE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT NO MENTION OF THIS FACT IS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWING THAT THE STATEMENTS WERE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. A. NO MENTION OF THIS FACT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE LD. CIT. B. BUT IN (IV) PAGE 4 OF THE LD. CIT HE WRITES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED AND ANALYSED THE MATERIAL. C. THE FIGURES OF INTEREST CASH IN HAND AND IN BANK COULD NOT BE WRONG EVEN IN STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS A. THIS CONFIRMS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. B. A.O. PAGED 1 LINE 17 TH FROM TOP READS AS UNDER : HOWEVER THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD IS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. A. INTEREST : IN FIRST RETURN NO INTEREST PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED. IN THE SECOND RETURN INTEREST PAID RS. 2 23 880 WAS CLAIMED. INTEREST RECEIPT WAS RS. 15 334/-. HAD THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO REDUCE THE TAX LIABILITY HE WOULD HAVE CLAIMED BOGUS PAYMENT OF INTEREST IN THE FIRST RETURN. IN THE SECOND RETURN INTEREST PAYMENT WAS CLAIMED AND THE CREDITORS WERE EXAMINED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. B. CASH IN HAND. YEAR ENDING 31.03.1999. RETURN FILED 14.06.2000 NO BOOKS WERE MAINTAINED. HENCE THE EXACT AMOUNT OF CASH-IN-HAND AFTER 2-1/2 MONTHS CAN NOT BE EXACTLY RECOLLECTED. THERE IS MINOR DIFFERENCE OF RS. 587/- ONLY SHOWING THAT EVEN THE ESTIMATE IS NEAR EXACT. C. BANK STATEMENT. NO DIFFERENCE. (X) SALES OF DEBRIS NOT CONSIDERED IN ORIGINAL RETURN. (X)CIT I INDORE PAGE 4. ON SALE OF DEBRIS OF RS. 2 70 000 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED PROFIT OF RS. 27 000. WHY WAS THE BALANCE LEFT TO BE THE HOUSE PROPERTY WAS VERY OLD. REFERENCE P. B. 33. 221 KHAJURI BAZAR. PURCHASED ON 31.3.97 220 KHAJURI BAZAR PURCHASED ON 20.04.98 TOTAL COST OF BOTH THE -: 7: - 7 CONSIDERED. (V) CIT PAGE 4. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABSOLVED FROM STATUTORY LIABILITY EVEN IF HE IS NOT GUIDED PROPERLY. (IX) CIT PAGE 4. SALES NOT PROVED. PROPERTIES WAS RS. 24 04 338. THE DEBRIS WAS SOLD FOR RS. 2 70 000. THEREFORE THERE IS SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 211 34 388/- DULY CONSIDERED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PG.2 LAST PARA. AS A MATTER OF FACT THE ASSESSEE SUFFERED BECAUSE OF THE SMALL MISTAKES IF ANY COMMITTED BY THE COUNSEL FOR WHICH HE TAX-PAYER CANNOT BE MADE TO SUFFER. DENIED. THE SALES ARE PROVED. ASSESSING OFFICER PAGE 2 MIDDLE PARA IN PART : IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN RECEIPTS OF RS. 5 06 000/- WHEREAS IN THE REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RECEIPTS OF RS. 4 96 000 ON VERIFICATION OF THE REGISTERED DEEDS OF PROPERTIES PURCHASED BY SMT. SANTOSH GOYAL & SMT. REETU PRADEEP KUMAR. IT IS SEEN THAT THE TOTAL REGISTERED AMOUNT COMES TO RS. 4 96 000 THEREFORE RS. 1 24 000 10% NET PROFIT OF RS. 4 96 000 IS TAKEN AS THE NET PROFIT AND ADDITION OF RS. 1 24 000/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1) IS INITIATED. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 6 43 994/- AS POINTED OUT BY THE CIT WAS RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER :- THIS IS RECONCILED AS THE EXCESS IN B/S AS UNDER :- -: 8: - 8 A. 3 30 600 ADD: B. 3 13 981 6 44 581 LESS: CASH DIFFERENCE 587 6 43 994 THIS EXPLAINS FOR THE DIFFERENCE IN THE TWO STATEME NTS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. CIT DR SUPPORTED THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 AND CONTENDED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY WITH RESPECT TO TH E ISSUES POINTED OUT BY THE CIT IN HIS ORDER U/S 263 THEREF ORE THE CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE F ILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING DE NOVO. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S WELL AS APPELLATE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) DATED 22.3.200 6 AND THE ORDER DATED 29.3.2007 PASSED U/S 263 AND THE REPLIES/DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT IN REPLY TO THE QUERIES RAISED BY HIM. IN THIS CASE THE LD. CIT HA S REVISED THE ORDER U/S 263 AND DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRA ME -: 9: - 9 ASSESSMENT DE NOVO. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO WELL SET TLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE POWER OF REVISION U/S 263 CAN NOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EACH AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT ONLY TO BE EXERCISED WHEN TWIN CONDITION OF ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER BEING ERRON EOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE IS SATIS FIED. IF DUE TO ERRONEOUS ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE REVEN UE IS LOSING TAX LAWFULLY PAYABLE BY PERSON IT WILL CERTAINLY B E PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE HOWEVER EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE AS A CONSEQUENCE OF ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE WHEN AN AS SESSING OFFICER ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE IN L AW AND IT HAS RESULTED IN LOSS OF REVENUE OR WHERE TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VIEW WITH W HICH CIT DOES NOT AGREE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOU S OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF REVENUE UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IF A N ASSESSING OFFICER ACTING IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW PASS AN ORDER THE SAME CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE HE IS OF SOME OTHER VIEW OR IN THE OPINION OF THE -: 10: - 10 COMMISSIONER THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IS WEAK. THE SECTION DOES NOT VISUALIZE A CASE OF SUBS TITUTION OF JUDGMENT OF COMMISSIONER FOR THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO PASSED THE ORDER UNLESS THE DECISION IS HELD T O BE ERRONEOUS CAUSING PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF REV ENUE. FURTHERMORE AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER CANNOT BE SET ASIDE FOR MAKING ROVING INQUIRY WITHOUT PREC ISELY POINTING ERROR IN HIS ORDER. THE POWER OF REVISION ALSO CANNOT BE EXERCISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DIRECTING ASSESSING OFFICER TO HOLD ANOTHER INVESTIGATION WHEN THE ORDER OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER IS NOT FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS. WHERE ASSESSM ENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER TAKI NG INTO ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION AND DOCUMENTS SUB MITTED BY HIM AND NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE COMMISSIONER WHICH SHOWED THAT THERE IS ANY DISCREPANCY OR FALSITY IN EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SET ASIDE FOR MAKING DEEP INQUIRY ONLY ON THE ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION THAT SOMETHING NEW MAY COME OUT. FURTHERMORE WHERE AN I SSUE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER IS DECIDED BY CIT(A) THE SAME CAN NOT BE -: 11: - 11 MADE SUBJECT OF REVISION U/S 263. IN THE INSTANT C ASE WE FOUND THAT ON SOME OF THE ASPECTS THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT MADE FULL INQUIRY HOWEVER WITH RESPECT TO DI FFERENCE IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS VIS--VIS BALANCE SHEET F ILED ALONGWITH THE REVISED RETURN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT P RECISELY COMMENTED THEREON. 7. WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE OF DEBRIS WE FOUND THAT T HE HOUSE PROPERTY SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY OLD. T HE DEBRIS WAS SOLD FOR RS. 2 70 000/- AND PROFIT ACCRUED THER EON HAS BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAK ING ADDITION OF 10% ON SUCH SALE. ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO MISTAKE WITH REGARD TO INCOME ACCRUED/LOSS SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF DEBRIS. 8. THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE INCOME TAKEN AT 8% OF THE RECEIPTS WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED TO 10% OF THE RECEIPT AS PER THE REVISED RETURN WAS ENHANCED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO 25 %. HOWEVER THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE LD .CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER DATED 22.3.2006 WHICH WAS PRIOR TO THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT U/S 263 DATED 29.3.2007. ACCORDINGLY TH IS ASPECT IS OUT OF JURISDICTION U/S 263. ACCORDINGLY WE MOD IFY THE ORDER -: 12: - 12 OF CIT AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE INQ UIRY ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DIFFERENCE OF RS. 6 43 994/- AS FOUND IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS ORIGINALLY FILED VIS--VIS BAL ANCE SHEET FILED WITH THE REVISED RETURN AND SALES OF JEWELLERY. THU S THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT TO MAKE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AND TO RESTRICT ITS INQUIRY ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF DIFFEREN CE OF RS. 6 43 994/- AND SALE OF JEWELLERY. THE A.O. IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE POINT OF DIFFERENCE EXPLAINED BY THE A SSESSEE AS PER ITS SUBMISSION DEALT HEREINABOVE. WE DIRECT ACC ORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IN I.T.A.NO. 351/IND/2007 IS ALLOWED IN PART IN TERMS INDICATED HEREINABOVE. I.T.A.NO. 845/IND/2005 : 10. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-I INDORE DATED 30.8.20 05 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. 11. FIRST GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 1 90 000/- IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SHOP TO SHRI S HRIKANT DEVTALE. -: 13: - 13 12. RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HEARD AND RECORDS PERUSED. OUT OF THE TOTAL SALE OF SHOPS AT RS. 6 84 795/- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED SALE TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 1 90 000/- ON THE PLEA THAT THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 31.3 .2000 THEREFORE GAIN WAS LIABLE TO BE TAXED IN ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2000- 01. FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT THIS SHOP WAS SO LD FOR RS. 1.80 LAKHS AND ADVANCE OF RS. 11000/- WAS RECEIVED ON 21.4.1999 AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 79 000/- WAS RECEIVED ON 6.5.2000 AND THE SALE DEED WAS ALSO REG ISTERED ON 6.5.2000. SINCE NEITHER POSSESSION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE NOR SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED ON 6.5.2 000 FALLING IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2001-02 WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION ON THE PA RT OF THE CIT(A) FOR TAKING THIS AS SALE OF THE YEAR 1999-200 0 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. ONLY ON THE PLEA THAT 5 % ADVANCE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN THE YEAR 1999-2000 A ND THAT SALE DEED WAS WRITTEN ON 31.3.2000 THERE IS NO REA SON TO TAKE THE SAME AS SALE IN THE YEAR 1999-2000 IN SO FAR A S THERE WAS NO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTI ON 2(47). -: 14: - 14 WHEN THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION MORE THAN 90 % WAS RECEIVED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR POSSESSION WAS GIV EN AND THE SALE DEED WAS ALSO GOT REGISTERED IN THE SUBSEQ UENT YEAR WHEN THE PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED I.E. ON 6.5.2000 SUC H SALES PERTAIN TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2001-02. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRE CTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.90 LAKHS IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-01. 13. WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF PROFIT AT 10% IN PLACE OF 8 % WE FOUND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ONLY CO NTRACTOR BUT WAS ENGAGED IN SALE OF HOUSES ALSO THE ESTIMAT ION OF PROFIT BY ASSESSING OFFICER AT 10 % WAS JUSTIFIED IN PLACE OF PROFIT OF 8% OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 14. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS. 19 500/- AND RS. 18000/- IN RESPECT OF DEBTORS GOVIND SHARMA AND LAL IT PARASHAR RESPECTIVELY WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICA TION. IN THE STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TENTAT IVE FIGURE HOWEVER SINCE THE CREDITS WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEP ARTMENT AS GENUINE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKIN G ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THESE TWO DEBTORS. ACCORDINGLY THE A SSESSING -: 15: - 15 OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 7 500/- MADE IN RESPECT OF TWO DEBTORS. 15. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D IN PART. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JANUARY 2013. SD/ - SD/ - (JOGINDER SINGH) (R. C. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22 ND JANUARY 2013. CPU* 151621