M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., Noida v. JCIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 11/DEL/2012 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1120116 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AABCS4712P
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITSSA 11/DEL/2012
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd., Noida
Respondent JCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted G
Tribunal Order Date 11-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 12-06-2013
Next Hearing Date 12-06-2013
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 02-02-2012
Judgment Text
IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS)A.NO.11/DEL/2012 BLOCK PERIOD: 01/04/1988 TO 10/12/1998 SUPER CASSEETTES INDUSTRIES LTD. VS JOINT C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PLOT NO. 3 & 3A CIRCLE-9(1) ROOM NO. 163 FILM CENTRE SECTOR 16A C.R. BUILDING I.P. ESTATE NOIDA-201301 NEW DELHI. (PAN: AABCS4712P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI HIREN MEHTA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAME SH CHANDRA C.I.T. DR PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-XII NEW DELHI DATED 31.12.2011 IN APPEAL NO. 19/10-11 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01/04/1988 TO 10/12/1998 BY WHICH THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) CONFIRMED T HE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE MAIN GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 2 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12 NEW DELHI. ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY OF RS.5 26 070/- LEVIED BY THE LD. ASSISTA NT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE - 9(1) NEW DELH I U/S 158 BFA(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INC OME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 8 76 784/- PERTAINING TO DIFF ERENCE IN STOCK IN : - (I) UNIT C - 85 SECTOR - IV NOIDA RS. 4 75 125/- . (II) I UNIT C - 90 SECTOR - IV RS. 12 765/-. (III) UNIT F - 70 SECTOR - XI NOIDA RS. 51 486/- AND ALSO PERTAINING TO (IV) UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE IN UNIT B - 16 RS. 3 37 408/- . 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS AP PEAL ARE THAT A SEARCH OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE AS SESSEE. DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION CERTAIN VALUABLES WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. SUBSEQUENTLY A NOTICE U/S 158 BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 7.12.1999 FOR FILING OF RETURN FOR BLOCK PERIOD. THE ASSESSE E FILED RETURN FOR BLOCK PERIOD ON 19.01.2000 DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME A T NIL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S 158BC ON 28.02.2001 DETERM INING TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.35 38 74 600 AND CONSEQUENTLY PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT WERE ALSO INITIATED. IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 3 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER T HE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I NEW DELHI WHICH WAS DECIDED ON 27.03.2013 WHEREIN CERTAIN RELIEF WAS AL LOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER ALLOWING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) A TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BL OCK PERIOD WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 8 76 784 VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2003. 5. BOTH THE DEPARTMENT AND THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGR IEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER FILED SECOND APPEALS BEFORE ITAT WHICH WERE DECIDED BY A SINGLE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 31.07.2009 AND THE COPY OF THE ORDER WAS RECEIVED BY C.I.T. DELHI-III ON 12.10.2009. THE REVENUE HAS FILED FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AGAINST THE ORDER O F ITAT. 6. MEANWHILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER STARTED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BFA(2) IN VIEW OF THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED U/S 158 BFA(3)(C) OF THE ACT AND THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE FILED ON 08.04.2010 W AS ALSO CONSIDERED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME S HOWN IN THE RETURN HENCE AS PER SECOND PROVISO ATTACHED TO SUB-SECTIO N (2) OF SECTION 158BFA THE PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT SHALL BE IMPOS ED ON THAT PORTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED IN EXCESS OF THE AMOU NT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT PENALTY U/S IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 4 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSABLE AND IMPOSED A PE NALTY OF RS.5 26 070/- ON THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WHICH WAS ALSO DISMISSED WITH FOLLOWI NG OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS:- GROUND NO. L 2 &4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. GROUND NO.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH FACTS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE FACTS SUBMITTED ABOVE BY T HE ASSESSEE. IT IS EVIDENT THAT ENTIRE ADDITION TOWARD S DIFFERENCE OF STOCK IS BASED ON ESTIMATION ONLY BUT ASSESSEE FOR HIS OWN STOCK ALSO COULD NOT PROVIDE A NY RECONSIDERABLE STATEMENT EITHER BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER OF BEFORE CIT(A) OR BEFORE ITAT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT A T IT A NO. 2491DEL/2003 THEY OBSERVED THAT:- DIFFERENCE OF STOCK IN UNIT-85 RS. 4 75 128/- IN THIS HEAD ITAT HAS HELD:- 'WE HAVE HEAD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LEARNED FIRST APPELLA TE AUTHORITY HAS RECORDED A SPECIFIC FINDING OF FACT O N THE BASIS OF RECONCILED TABLULATED INFORMATION FILED BEFORE H IM. HE CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT ON SUCH INFORMATION AND WORKED OUT UNRECONCILED SHORTAGE OF STOCK HAVING VALUE OF RS. 4 75 125/-. LEARNED DR WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT ANY ERROR IN THIS WORKING OF THE CIT(APPEAIS). THE ALTERNATIVE C ONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT ON SALE OF SUCH STOCK OUT OF BOOKS HAS TO BE TREATED IN THE IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THIS CONT ENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE AS FAR AS FOR THE PURCHASE OF RAW IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 5 MATERIAL ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DEBITED THE EXPENSES AND CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION IN THE REGULAR RETURN. THUS THE STOCK ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT OF THE BOOKS IS REQUI RED TO BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REJECTED. ' II) DIFFERENCE OF STOCK IN UNIT C-90 RS. 12765/ - IN THIS HEAD ITAT HAS HELD:- 'WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THE ASSESSEE REITERATE D ITS ARGUMENTS AS WERE RAISED WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUE'S APPEAL AND GROUND NO. 2 OF ITS APPEAL DIS CUSSED ABOVE. THE MAIN THRUST OF ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT IS TH AT VARIATION IN THE STOCK IS VERY MINOR AND THAT TOO I S DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH PARTY DID NOT CONDUCT 100% PHY SICAL COUNT OF THE STOCK ITEMS. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS VERIFIED THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND SOUGHT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HAVE G ONE THROUGH THE REMAND REPORT ALSO. ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY SPECIFIC COMMENT S RATHER HE RAISED AN OBJECTION ABOUT THE ENTERTAINME NT OF DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TABULATION FOR M ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THESE MATERIAL WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THIS ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BECAUSE SHOR T IN STOCK HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT HAV ING VALUE OF RS. 12 765/-. LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION TO THIS EXTENT. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) BOTH THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE REJECTED. III) DIFFERENCE OF STOCK IN UNIT F-70 RS. 51486/- IN THIS HEAD ITAT HAS HELD:- 'THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES HAVE REITERATED THEIR CONTENTIONS AS WERE RAISED IN THE FOREGOING GROUND S OF APPEAL. WE HAVE SPECIFICALLY GONE THROUGH THE DETAI LS IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 6 PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE ON PAGE NO. 214 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE LIGHT OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE ALONGWITH FINDINGS OF THE CIT(APPEALS) COUPLED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 11.12.2000 AVAILABLE (IT PAGE NO.220 OF THE PAPER BOOK WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ADDITION HAS BEEN PA RTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AFTER VERIFYING THE DET AILS AND THAT LED IN CIT(APPEALS) TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO RECONCILE THE DISCREPANCY. ACCO RDINGLY BOTH THESE GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE REJECTED . III) UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE AT B-16 RS.3 37 408/- IN THIS HEAD ITAT HAS HELD THAT:- 'THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED HI S CONTENTIONS AS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. HE TOOK US THROUGH PAGE NO. 142 OF VOLUME-L OF THE PAPER BOOK AND EXPLAINED AND RECONCILIATION OF STOC K. ON THE OTHER HAND LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO RECO NCILE THE SALE OF SCRAP EMERGING OUT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY WORKED OUT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE THE PENALTY IMPO SED BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 5 26 070/-IS CONFIRMED AND HENCE THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 8. APROPOS GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 THE ASSESSEES REPRE SENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) IS NOT MANDATORY. T HE AR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME A T RS.35 38 74 600 IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 7 WHICH WAS REDUCED TO RS.8 76 783 BY THE FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY. THE AR POINTED OUT THAT AS PER PAGE NO. 11 AND 12 OF THE P APER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER PHYSICAL VERIFICATION MAXIMUM ITEM S HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE FIRST COLUMN AS ZERO AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THIS PHYSICAL POSITION AND CONSIDERED THE STOCK REGISTER FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE SO- CALLED EXCESS VALUE OF FINISHED GOODS AMOUNTING TO RS.4 75 125. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT PAGE NO. 13 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMI TTED THAT ACCORDING TO PANCHNAMA REFERENCE G-32 PERTAINING TO FANS AND APP LIANCES DIVISION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE STOCK OF RS.12 534 WAS EITHER NOT CONSIDERED OR WAS TAKEN ON APPROXIMATION BASIS. THEREFORE THESE ADDITIONS WERE NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE AR VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY U/S 15 8BFA(2) IS NOT MANDATORY AND AUTOMATIC. FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY THERE HAS TO BE SOME ELEMENT OF POSITIVE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE AS SESSEE. THE AR CONCLUDED HIS ARGUMENT WITH THE FINAL SUBMISSION TH AT NO CASH EXPENDITURE OR CASH HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE SEARCH IN THE PRE MISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE SKY HIGH UNDISCLOS ED INCOME CALCULATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN BROUGHT DOWN TO THE EARTH BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY NO PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE. 9. REPLYING TO THE ABOVE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN REJECTED B Y THE ITAT AND IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 8 UNDISCLOSED INCOME ASSESSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELO W HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THI S SITUATION THE PROVISION U/S 158BFA(2) LAYS DOWN THAT IT IS MANDATORY TO IMP OSE A PENALTY WHERE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS RETURNED (UNLESS COVERED BY T HE FIRST PROVISO TO THIS SECTION) OR HAS BEEN ENHANCED. THE DR FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT THE DISCRETION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIMITED TO DETERMINING THE QUANTUM OF THE PENALTY BETWEEN THE MINIMUM 100% OF TAX AND MAXIMUM 300% TH EREOF. THE DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MAIN LIMB OF SECTION 158 BFA(2) STIPULATES THAT PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (C)OF SECTION 15 8BC OF THE ACT. THE DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 158BFA(2) IS NOT INCLUD ED IN THE LIST OF PROVISIONS MENTIONED IN SECTION 273B OF THE ACT AND THE IMPLICATION OF THIS EXCLUSION IS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DECIDING THE IS SUE OF PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. 10. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIO NS CONTENTIONS AND LEGAL PROPOSITIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES WE OBSERVE THAT THIS CASE IS RELATED TO THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY TH E COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. DELHI-IX VS HARKARAN DAS VED PAL (2009) 1 77 TAXMAN 398 IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 9 (DEL) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT THE ISSUE OF IMPO SITION OF PENALTY U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE DETERMINED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER BY EXERCISING JUDICIAL CONSIDERATION. THE OPERATIVE P ARAS OF THIS JUDGMENT READ AS UNDER:- 17. BEFORE WE PROCEED TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE COUNS EL FOR THE PARTIES IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO NOTICE TH E STATUTORY PROVISIONS. SECTION 158 BFA (2) READS AS UNDER:- 158BFA. LEVY OF INTEREST AND PENALTY IN CERTAIN CASES. (1) XXXX XXXX XXXX XXXX (2) THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER T HIS CHAPTER MAY DIRECT THAT A PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOU NT OF TAX LEVIABLE BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TI MES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC: PROVIDED THAT NO ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY SHALL BE MADE IN RESPECT OF A PERSON IF (I) SUCH PERSON HAS FURNISHED A RETURN UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 158BC; (II) THE TAX PAYABLE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN HAS BEEN PAID OR IF THE ASSETS SEIZED CONSIST OF MONEY THE ASSESSEE OFFERS THE MONEY SO SEIZED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX PAYABLE; (III) EVIDENCE OF TAX PAID IS FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE RETURN; AND (IV) AN APPEAL IS NOT FILED IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 10 AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OF THAT PART OF INCOME WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE PRECEDI NG PROVISO SHALL NOT APPLY WHERE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOM E DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN AND IN SUCH CASES THE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THAT PORTION OF UNDISCL OSED INCOME DETERMINED WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. IT IS APPARENT THAT IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY DIRECT THAT A PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY O F PENALTY A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOU NT OF TAX LEVIABLE BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED THREE TI MES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158BC. THIS IN OUR VIE W IMPLIES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCRETION I N IMPOSING A PENALTY. THIS IS APPARENT FROM THE USE O F THE EXPRESSION MAY DIRECT THAT A PERSON SHALL PAY BY WA Y OF PENALTY. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXERCISING HIS DISCRETION COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE THE STATUTE REQUIRES THAT SUCH SUM OF PE NALTY SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF TAX LEVIABLE B UT SHALL NOT ALSO EXCEED THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT OF TAX SO LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS INDICATED AB OVE. WHILE IT IS DISCRETIONARY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DIRECT THAT A PERSON SHALL PAY PENALTY IT IS MANDA TORY THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINI ON THAT SUCH PENALTY IS LEVIABLE THE PENALTY AMOUNT SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THE AMOUNT OF TAX LEVIABLE IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND NOT MORE THAN THREE TIMES OF SUCH TAX. A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 158 BFA (2) GI VES US THE INDICATION THAT THE LEGISLATURE DID NOT INTE ND THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY ITSELF TO BE MANDATORY. TH E LEGISLATURE INTENDED THE SAME TO BE LEFT TO THE DIS CRETION IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 11 WHICH OF COURSE HAS TO BE EXERCISED UPON JUDICIAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 18. THE FIRST PROVISO CLEARLY STIPULATES THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH AN ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY CANNOT BE MADE. WHERE A PERSON HAS FURNISHED A RETU RN UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SECTION 158 BC AND THE TAX PAYA BLE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RETURN HAS BEEN PAID OR IF TH E ASSETS SEIZED CONSIST OF MONEY THE ASSESSEE OFFERS THE MONEY SO SEIZED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX PAYA BLE AND THE EVIDENCE OF TAX PAID IS FURNISHED ALONG WIT H THE RETURN AND AN APPEAL IS NOT FILED AGAINST THE ASSES SMENT OF THAT PART OF INCOME WHICH IS SHOWN IN THE RETURN NO ORDER IMPOSING A PENALTY CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 158 BFA (2). THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CL EAR. WHERE AFTER A PERSON RECEIVES A NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 158 BC AND HE FURNISHES A RETURN INDICATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND TAX IS PAID OR THE MONEY SEI ZED IS OFFERED TO BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX PAYABLE A ND IF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED ON THAT BASIS THEN NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED ON SUCH AN ASSESSEE. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS THAT WHERE A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY OF MAKING A CLEAN BREAST OF THINGS COMES FORTH AND DECLARES HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ALSO PAYS THE TAX THEREON THEN NO PENAL TY OUGHT TO BE IMPOSED ON HIM FOR HIS EARLIER TRANSGRESSIONS. 19. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 158 BFA (2) HOWEVER STIPULATES THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRS T PROVISO WOULD NOT APPLY WHERE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOM E DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN EXCESS OF THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. IT FURTHER STIPULATES T HAT IN SUCH CASES THE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THAT PO RTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETUR N. THE INDICATION OF THE LEGISLATURE WHICH CAN BE DISCERNED UPON A PLAIN READING OF THE SECOND PROVIS O IS THAT WHEN AN OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GRANTED TO A PERS ON IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 12 TO FILE RETURN OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND HE STI LL DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE INCOME WHICH IS UNDISCLOSED THEN WHERE THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUN T OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN THE PROVISIONS OF THE FIRST PROVISO WOULD NOT APPLY. IN OTHER WORDS IN SUCH A SITUATION THE PENALTY WOULD BE IMPOSABLE. AND IT SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THAT PORTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. T HE EXPRESSION THE PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED ON THAT POR TION. APPEARING IN THE SECOND PROVISO IN OUR VIEW HAS REFERENCE TO THE BASIS ON WHICH THE PENALTY IS TO B E IMPOSED. TO BE CLEAR THE WORD SHALL USED IN THE SA ID EXPRESSION DOES NOT HAVE REFERENCE TO THE IMPOSITIO N OF PENALTY IN THE SENSE THAT PENALTY WOULD BE MANDATOR Y BUT HAS REFERENCE TO THE MODE OF QUANTIFICATION OF THE PENALTY. ALL THAT THE SECOND PROVISO MEANS IS THAT WHERE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOM E SHOWN IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER SECTION 158 BC (A) AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 158 BC (C) NOTWITHSTANDING T HE FACT THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES STIPULATED IN THE FIRST PROVISO ARE SATISFIED PENALTY WOULD STILL BE IMPOS ABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE SAME SHALL BE IMPO SED ON THE PORTION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS IN EXCESS OF THE AMO UNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN. 20. THE EXPRESSION UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED HA S TO BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE CONTEXT USED IN SECTION 158 BFA (2). IT REFERS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 1 58 BC. SECTION 158 BC PRESCRIBES THE PROCEDURE FOR BLO CK ASSESSMENT. CLAUSE (B) THEREOF STIPULATES AS UNDER: - (B) THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED TO DETERM INE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158BB AND THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 142 SUB-SECTIONS (2) AND (3) OF SECTION 143 31 SECTION 144 AND SECTION 145 SHALL SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY; IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 13 THIS IS FOLLOWED BY CLAUSE (C) WHICH READS AS UNDER :- (C) THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON DETERMINATION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IN ACCORDANC E WITH THIS CHAPTER SHALL PASS AN ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T AND DETERMINE THE TAX PAYABLE BY HIM ON THE BASIS O F SUCH ASSESSMENT; THUS DETERMINATION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS T O BE DONE IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN IN SECTION 158 BB A ND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142 SUBSECTION (2) AND ( 3) OF SECTION 143 SECTION 144 AND SECTION 145 SHALL SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLY. SECTION 158 BB DEALS WITH COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERI OD. SECTION 158 BB (1) SO MUCH AS IS RELEVANT FOR OUR PURPOSES READS AS UNDER:- 158BB. (1) THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERI OD SHALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOU S YEARS FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD COMPUTED IN ACCORD ANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENC E FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AND SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMATION A S ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELATABLE TO SUCH EVIDENCE AS REDUCED BY THE AGGREGATE OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR AS THE CASE MAY BE AS INCREASED BY THE AGGREGATE O F THE LOSSES OF SUCH PREVIOUS YEARS DETERMINED .. THIS PROVISION CLEARLY STIPULATES THAT THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD HAS TO BE DETERMINED OR COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AND SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMATION A S ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELATA BLE TO SUCH EVIDENCE. THIS COURT IN RAVI KANT JAIN (SUP RA) AS INDICATED ABOVE HAS ALREADY OBSERVED THAT THE PROCEDURE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B IS A SPECIAL PROCEDURE INTENDED TO PROVIDE A MODE OF ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH HAS BEEN DETECTED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH. THE PROCEDURE UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B IS NOT INTENDED AS A SUBSTITUTE TO RE GULAR IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 14 ASSESSMENT AND ITS SCOPE AND AMBIT IS LIMITED IN TH AT SENSE TO MATERIALS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH. AS POINTED OUT IN RAVI KANT JAIN (SUPRA) THE ASSESSME NT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD CAN ONLY BE DONE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AND SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMATION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELATABLE TO SUCH EVIDENCE. I T IS THEREFORE CLEAR THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH IS TO BE DETERMINED UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B HAS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE DISCOVERED DURI NG THE SEARCH. IT IS OBVIOUS THAT WHERE THE COMPUTATIO N OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS BASED ON MATERIAL OTHER THAN WHAT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH THE SAM E COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMIN ED UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158 BC. 21. GOING BACK TO SECTION 158 BFA (2) THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS BEEN EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON A PERSON WHEN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETERMINED UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158 BC IS IN EXCESS OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME RETURNED BY SUCH PERSON IN PURSUANCE TO A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158 BD/ 158 BC. IN OTHER WORDS A PRE-CONDITION FOR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 158 BFA (2) IS THAT THERE MUS T BE A DETERMINATION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SECTION 158 B C OF THE SAID ACT. IF THIS IS NOT SATISFIED THEN THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF IMPOSING ANY PENALTY. 11. THE AR HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS OF ITAT BENCH INCLUDING THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT DELHI H BENCH IN I TA NO. 12/DEL/2012 IN THE CASE OF M/S TONY ELECTRONICS LTD. (PRESENTLY ME RGED WITH ASSESSEE I.E. M/S SUPER CASSEETTES IND. LTD.) VS JCIT DATED 28.02 .2013 WHEREIN PENALTY IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 15 IMPOSED U/S 158BFA(2) OF THE ACT RELATED TO THE SAM E SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION HAS BEEN DELETED WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSER VATIONS:- 6. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IN THE SCHE ME OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS IT IS SETTLED POSITION OF LAW TH AT THE INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD HAS TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH. THE SEIZED MATERIAL IS TO BE SUPPLIED TO TH E ASSESSEE AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO COMPUTE TRUE UNDISCL OSED INCOME FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED NIL INCOME IN ITS RETURN. THIS NIL INCOME WAS COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL SUPPLIED T O THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE OTHER HAND COMPUTED AN IN COME OF RS.4 35 22 099. THIS INCOME HAS ALSO BEEN COMPUT ED BY HIM ON THE BASIS OF SAME SEIZED MATERIAL. THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AS WELL AS BY THE ITAT. THE ULTIMATE I NCOME WHICH IS TO BE ASSESSED AS AN INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD IS ONLY RS.2 09 650. THESE FACTS SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS NO ATTEMPT OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS IT IS DIFFERENCE OF THE OPINION ABOUT THE INCOME ASSESSABLE FROM THE MATERIAL. WHEN THE ASSESSING OF FICER CAN ASSUME SUCH A HUGE INCOME OF MORE THAN RS. 4 CR ORES FROM THAT VERY SEIZED MATERIAL WHICH DID NOT CONCUR WITH BY THE HIGHER APPELLATE AUTHORITIES THEN POSSIBILI TY OF ERROR AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT SHOWING RS.2 09 650 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PER IOD CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN AN EXPL ANATION ABOUT THE POSITION OF STOCK. THIS EXPLANATION WAS R EJECTED. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BECAUSE THERE IS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION ABOUT THE POSITION OF STOCK. THUS TAKING I NTO CONSIDERATION THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO DELIBERATE ATTEMPT AT THE END OF ASSESSEE IN COM PUTING WRONG INCOME FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THEREFORE W E ALLOW THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND DELETE THE PENALTY . IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 16 12. FROM BARE READING OF OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE IN PARA 7 OF THIS ORDER WE OBSERVE THAT THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY I.E. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) TOOK NOTE OF REJECTION OF ASSESSEES APPEAL BY ITAT AND SHE DECI DED THE ISSUE IN ONLY TWO LINES BY HOLDING THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS I.E. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE ITAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMIS SED. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS EXPECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF CONTENTIONS AND SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND THERE MUST BE SOME REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED CONCLUSION FOR DECIDING TH E ISSUE. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON M/S TONY ELECTRONI CS LTD. (SUBSEQUENTLY MERGED WITH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY) RELATED TO THE SA ME SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND HAS BEEN DELETED B Y THE ITAT H BENCH IN ITA NO. 12/DEL/2012 DATED 28.02.2013 AND THE PRESEN T CASE ALSO EMERGED FROM THE SAME SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. 13. THE AR HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THE PRESEN T CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ABOVE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE PENALTY IMPOSED ON ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 14. AS PER GENESIS OF THE CONTROVERSY WE OBSERVE T HAT I TAT JAIPUR BENCH A IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS SHANTI KUMAR CHHAB RA (2009) 32 IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 17 SOT 21 (JP) (URO) HAS HELD THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK BAS ED ON ESTIMATION AND REGARDING THIS ADDITION THE EXPLANA TION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS ONE OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE PHOTOCOPY PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT CLEAR. THE ITAT JAIPUR BENCH HELD THAT IT IS NOT THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE TO IMPOS E PENALTY UNDER THE SAID PROVISION ON EVERY FINALLY SUSTAINED ADDITION IN UN DISCLOSED INCOME AND THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 158BFA (2) OF THE ACT IS THAT THERE MUST BE CONCEALMENT OR SUPPRESSION OF INCOME ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAX THEREON. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A POSITIVE FINDING IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING THE PENALTY. 15. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGME NT OF I TAT BANGALROE BENCH C IN THE CASE OF SMT. MALA DAYANI THI VS DCIT(2004) 91 ITD 46(BANG) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PENALTY U/S 158B FA(2) OF THE ACT IS NOT MANDATORY. 16. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT CHENNAI BENCH A IN THE CASE OF DR. HAKEEM S.A. SYED SATHA R VS ACIT(2009) 120 ITD 1(CHENNAI) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE PROCESS OF IMPOS ITION OF PENALTY IS NOT AUTOMATIC IN THE EVENTUALITY OF E STIMATED INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ALL THE ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE MUST BE IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 18 CAREFULLY SCRUTINIZED AND THE QUESTION OF PENALTY M UST BE CONSIDERED AND DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF JUDICIAL DETERMINATION AND IT MUST BE PROVED BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THERE WAS ACTUAL INCOME AN D FURTHER THAT INCOME WAS NOT DISCLOSED. THE CHENNAI TRIBUNAL HAS CLEARL Y HELD THAT THE MERE FACT OF THE ADDITION ON ESTIMATED BASIS PARTICULARLY W HEN THE ASSESSMENT IS MADE ON THE INFERENCE FOLLOWING FROM THE INABILITY OF TH E ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE CASE PLEADED BY HIM WILL NOT BE SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. 17. IN VIEW OF DISCUSSIONS MADE HEREINABOVE AND AS PER LEGAL PROPOSITION AND THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES SISTER CONC ERNS CASE WE HOLD THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED IN THE PRESENT CASE IS NOT SUST AINABLE BECAUSE THE ENHANCEMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATED BASIS AND WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY REA SON OR MATERIAL WHICH PROVES BEYOND THE SHADOW OF DOUBT THAT THERE WAS AC TUAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THAT THE INCOME WAS N OT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF ITAT H BENCH DELHI IN ITA NO. 12/DEL/2012 DATED 28.2.2 013 (SUPRA) WE HOLD THAT THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO COVER ED ON ALL FOUR CORNERS BY THIS JUDGMENT. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IT(SS)A NO.11/D/2012 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 10.12/1998 19 AND THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) IS HEREBY DELETED. 18. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.7.2013. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 11 TH JULY 2013 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR