M/s. Daulat Ramesh & Co., Panipat v. ACIT, Panipat

ITSSA 85/DEL/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8520116 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAEFD4869Q
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITSSA 85/DEL/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 16 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Daulat Ramesh & Co., Panipat
Respondent ACIT, Panipat
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 30-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 29-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 29-09-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 14-12-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN IT(SS)A NO. 85/DEL/2009 (BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1987 TO 20.05.1997) M/S. DAULAT RAMESH & CO. VS. ASSISTANT CIT 28-SUKHDEV NAGAR MARKET PANIPAT CIRCLE PANIPAT. PANIPAT (PAN: AAEFD4869Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI ASHWANI TANEJA & MS. RANI ADV. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ROHIT GARG SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.09.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .11.2011 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV: JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DATED 01.10.2009 PASSED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD STARTING FROM IST OF APRIL 1987 AND ENDING ON 20.5.1997. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IT HAS NARRATED VARIOUS AMOUNTS OF ADDIT IONS IN GROUND NO.2. IN BRIEF ITS GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND DETERMINATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.3 72 284. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE A SEAR CH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SEC. 132(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 WAS C ARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT AND ALSO AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ITS 2 PARTNERS ON 20.5.1997. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CER TAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED RELATING TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE FIRM AND ITS PARTNERS. A STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNER WHO WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH NAMELY SHRI DAULAT RAM WAS ALSO RECORDED. IN ORDER TO GIVE LOGICAL END TO THE PROCEEDINGS A NOTICE UNDER SEC. 158BC OF THE A CT WAS ISSUED REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF UNDISCLOSED INCO ME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD STARTING FROM IST OF APRIL 1987 AND ENDING ON 20.5. 1997. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE AS SESSEE PASSED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 158BC ON 30.5.1999. HE DETERMINED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.32 00 670. ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBSERVED THAT THE PARTNER SHRI DAULAT RAM DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT NAMELY CASH BOOK AND LEDGER ETC. WERE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF THE BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE USED TO RECEIVE COMMISSI ON @ 1% BOTH FROM PURCHASER AND SELLER. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT REGISTR ATION OF THE DOCUMENTS OF SALE AND PURCHASE WAS DONE AT ONLY 25 % TO 60% OF THE ACTUAL TRANSACTION VALUE. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TWO FOLD ADDITIONS. IN THE FIRST LEG HE DETERMINED THE COMMISSION INCOME OF RS.4 94 614. HE FURTHER ESTIMATED THE ACTUAL COMMISSION INCOME IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS TO BE FOUR TIMES THE COMMISSION INCOME ACTUALLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE . UNDER THIS FOLD HE 3 MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.27 16 053. IN THIS WAY THE TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN DETERMINED AT RS.32 00 670. 3. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS). LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.27 40 053 AND IT ALSO REDUCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM COMMISSION AT RS.4 60 473. THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT IN ITA N O.302/DEL/05 AND ITA NO.334/DEL/05. THE ITAT UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) TO THE EXTENT IT HAS DELETED THE ESTIMATION OF COMMISS ION AT FOUR TIMES OF ACTUALLY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMITTED THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ESTIMATION OF COMMISSION INCOME UNDER THE FIRST FOL D CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT DISCUSSION OF THE I TAT READS AS UNDER: 10. NOW THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AFORE SAID STATEMENT DOES NOT REFLECT THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. BEFOR E THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT WHEN THE STATEMENT OF S HRI DAULAT RAM WAS RECORDED THE OTHER TWO PARTNERS WERE OUT OF STA TION AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE ALSO SUBSEQUENTLY RECORDED BY THE A DI. IN SUCH STATEMENTS IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THE CORR ECT PICTURE WAS EXPLAINED. TO SUPPORT THE UNRELIABILITY OF THE STAT EMENT OF SHRI DAULAT RAM THE FIRST PLEA IS THAT THE STATEMENT OF OTHER TWO PARTNERS HAVE NOT BEEN SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AT ALL INSPITE OF MAK ING SEVERAL REQUESTS. SECONDLY IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI DAULAT RAM IS AN OLD HANDICAPPED 4 AND ILLITERATE PERSON AND WAS NOT HANDLING THE BUSI NESS AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THIRDLY IT IS BROUGHT OUT THAT NONE OF THE EVIDENCES OR MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH CORROBORATED THE STAND OF SHRI DAULAT RAM AS MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED. WE HAVE CONS IDERED THESE SUBMISSIONS AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED ON THE STATEMENT WITHOUT ASCERTAINING ITS CREDIBILITY OR A UTHENTICITY WITH REFERENCE TO ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. IN OUR CON SIDERED VIEW THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DAULAT RAM COULD NOT BE TAKEN AT ITS FACE VALUE. WE ARE INCLINED TO SAY SO AFTER NOTICING THAT THE SAID PARTNER IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION EXTRACTED ABOVE REPLIED THAT THE ASSESS EE FIRM DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY CASH-BOOK LEDGER ETC. IN RESPECT OF I TS BUSINESS. WHEREAS IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH RECEIPT BOOK CASH BOOK AND LEDGER ETC. PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM WERE FOUND IN THE P REMISES BY THE SEARCH PARTY. FOR THIS A REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO P AGE 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN IS PLACED A COPY OF THE LIST OF DOCUME NTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AS IDENTIFIED BY THE REVENUE OFFICIALS. FURTHERMORE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THROUGH WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS D ATED 18.05.1999 AND 21.05.1999 THAT THE COMMISSION IS CHARGED AT 1% USUALLY BUT SOME CUSTOMERS PAY LUMP SUM COMMISSION WHICH COULD BE MUCH LOWER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO EXPLAINED IN SOME DEALS NO COMMISSION IS EARNED ON THE ACCOUNT OF BUSINESS RELATIONS. THAT D UE TO COMPETITION IN MARKET THE RATE OF COMMISSION WAS NOT FIXED. THESE SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN REJECTED PRIN ARILY IN THE FACE OF THE STATEME NT OF SHRI DAULAT RAM. IN OUR VIEW IN THE FACE OF THE REASONS CANVAS SED BY THE ASSESSEE IT WAS IMPERATIVE FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EVAL UATE THE EFFICACY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DAULAT RAM. IT TRANSPIRES THA T THE ASSESSING 5 OFFICER ADDRESSED COMMUNICATIONS TO VARIOUS PERSONS INQUIRING ABOUT THEIR DEALING WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS P LACED THE RESPONSES OF SUCH PERSONS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 88 TO 198. OUR ATTENTION HAS BEEN DRAWN TO PA GE 88 AS AN ILLUSTRATION TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COMMISSION CON FIRMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THIS PARTY TO THE ASSESSEE WORKS OUT T O BE %. SIMILARLY FEW OTHER COMMUNICATIONS SAY AT PAGES 111 AND 121 E TC. HAVE ALSO BEEN POINTED OUT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS MUCH LOWER THAN THE FLAT RATE OF 2% ST ATED BY SHRI DAULAT RAM. WE FIND THAT THE RESULT OF SUCH EXERCISE WAS O STENSIBLY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT SURPRISINGLY NO REFERENCE TO THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVI DENTLY THE RESULTS OF THE EXERCISE DO NOT CORROBORATE IN STRICT SENSE THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DAULAT RAM OF EARNING COMMISSION INCOME AT A FLAT R ATE OF 2%. FOR THE ABOVE REASON WE THEREFORE ARE OF OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DAULAT RAM CANNOT BE MADE THE SOL E BASIS TO DEDUCE COMMISSION INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT THE STA TEMENT OF THE PARTNER RECORDED DURING SEARCH IS A RELEVANT PIECE OF MATERIAL BUT AS THE FACTS SHOW IN THIS CASE THE SAME CANNOT BE TAK EN TO CONCLUSIVELY REFLECT THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THIS CONTEXT A REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO THE SILENT FEATURES OF AN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B TO DETERMINE UNDISCLOSED INCOME . IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN CHAPTER X IV-B IS TO COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR SUCH OTHER MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AS IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH SO HOWEVER THAT TH E SAME IS RELATABLE TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING SEARCH. THERE IS NO GA IN SAYING THAT THE 6 MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE UTILIZED TO COMPUTE INCOME SH OULD BE AUTHENTIC AND RELIABLE. IN A CASE WHERE THE AUTHENTICITY AND RELIABILITY OF THE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE IS IN CHALLENGE IT IS OF UTMOS T IMPORTANCE THAT ITS EFFICACY IS ESTABLISHED. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ST ATEMENT OF SHRI DAULAT RAM CLEARLY DOES NOT STAND CORROBORATED ON THE BASI S OF THE CONCURRENT MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH AS ALSO ON THE BASIS O F THE SUBSEQUENT ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE SHAPE OF CONFIRMATION PLACED AT THE PAGES 88 TO 198 OF THE PAPER BOOK. TH ESE ARE THE STATEMENTS OF THE VARIOUS PERSONS FROM WHOM INFORMA TION REGARDING DEALINGS WITH THE ASSESSEE WAS SOUGHT BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BY ISSUING SUMMONS UNDER SEC. 131. NONE OF IT SHOW THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED COMMISSION AT THE RATE ESTIMATED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER. THEREFORE OUR DECISION TO HOLD THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DAULAT RAM CANNOT BE MADE THE SOLE BASIS TO REJECT THE COMMISS ION INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE RETURN O F INCOME. IN FACT IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE FROM THE PAGES 52 TO 69 OF T HE PAPER BOOK WHICH ARE THE ACKNOWLEDGMENTS OF THE INCOME-TAX RET URNS FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SA ME ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THE BALANCE SHEETS AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO INFER THAT SUC H BALANCE SHEETS AND PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNTS ARE INGENUINE. IN OUR OPINIO N THE SAME HAVE BEEN HELD UNRELIABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHO UT ANY COGENT REASONS. 11. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION WE HOLD TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN COMPUTING THE COMMISSI ON INCOME AT FOUR TIMES THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RE SPECTIVE YEARS 7 COMPRISED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. THUS ON THE FIRST FACET OF THE DISPUTE THE REVENUE FAILS AND THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS UPHELD. 12. NOW WE TAKE UP THE DISPUTE IN THE SECOND FACET. IN THIS REGARD VARIOUS DOCUMENTS SEIZED HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER BY THE CIT(A) TO DETERMINE U NDISCLOSED INCOME THEREFROM. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 HAS LISTED 38 SUCH DOCUMENTS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH UNDISCLOSED IN COME HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) OF RS.4 55 710. FOR EACH OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE SAME AND FIN D THAT THE PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE THREE-FOLD. FIRSTLY THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE COMMISSION INCOME SHOULD BE TAKEN AS 2%. S ECONDLY FOR SOME OF THE DOCUMENTS THE RESULTANT COMMISSION INCO ME HAS BEEN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS REGULAR RETURN OF I NCOME. THIRDLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSUMED A HIGHER VALUE OF TRA NSACTION TO COMPUTE COMMISSION INCOME WHILE THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ITSELF DOES NOT RECORD SUCH HIGHER VALUE. WE FIND THAT IN SO FA R AS THE FIRST PLEA IS CONCERNED FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER THERE IS NO WARRANT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO A SSUME EARNING OF COMMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE AT A FLAT RATE OF 2%. H OWEVER IF A PARTICULAR SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES SHOW EARNING OF COM MISSION BY THE ASSESSEE AT 2% OR EVEN HIGHER THAN ADOPTION OF THE COMMISSION AT SUCH RATE WOULD BE JUSTIFIED. FURTHER THE PLEA OF T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE COMMISSION INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN DECLARED IN ITS REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME IS ACCEPTABLE IN PRINCIPLE BUT IS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION. WE 8 FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THIS AND HAS HE LD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN ACCOUNT ED FOR IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME. THERE IS NOTHING BEFORE U S TO INFER DIFFERENTLY. WITH RESPECT TO THE THIRD PLEA WE AGRE E THAT THE VALUE OF TRANSACTIONS SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS FOUND RECORDED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THUS ON THIS ASPECT WE DEEM IT FIT AND P ROPER TO REMIT THE SAME TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIF ICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL CONFINE THE ADDITIONS TO TH E VALUES AS APPEARING IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS AND THE RATE OF C OMMISSION BE ALSO TAKEN AS APPEARING IN SUCH DOCUMENTS. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY RATE RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO ADOPT A REASONABLE RATE BUT NOT EXCEEDIN G THE AVERAGE OF RATE OF COMMISSION DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME OF THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. 4. IN THE SECOND ROUND LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER C ONSIDERED ALL THESE ASPECTS AGAIN. HE AGAIN MADE THE ADDITION ON TWO CO UNTS. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THE PAGES WHICH DISCLOSED ACTUAL TRANSACTIO N AND WHERE COMMISSION HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT COMMISSION HAS TO BE COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF ONE AND HALF PERCENT. IN TH IS COMPUTATION TOTAL COMMISSION ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RS . 1 90 080 AND OUT OF THAT ROUGHLY RS.74 092 HAS BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESS EE. THE DIFFERENCE IS MERELY RS.1 15 798. THE DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN ADDED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF EACH PAGES FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH 9 THE COMMISSION DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HOW IT HAS BEEN ESTIMATED BY HIM. FOR EXAMPLE THE FIRST ITEM CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PAGE NOS. 3 TO 7 OF DOCUMENT NO.1 VALUE OF THE PLOT SOLD IS RS.6 33 000. THE COMMISSION @ 1.5% WORKS OUT TO RS.99 495. THIS 1.5% IS THE AVERAGE RATE OF COMMISSION APPLIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTE R CONSIDERING THE ITATS ORDER AND THE OTHER MATERIAL. IN THIS TRANSA CTION ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE COMMISSION OF RS.2336. ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE T HE CREDIT OF THIS COMMISSION AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.7 159 ONLY. IN THIS EXERCISE THE TOTAL ADDITION WORKS OUT TO BE RS.1 15 798. 5. ASSESSING OFFICER APART FROM THIS EXERCISE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.2 49 173. THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BAS IS OF CERTAIN ENTRIES AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 6. AT THE TIME OF HEARING WE DIRECTED THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PREPARE THE DETAILS IN A TABULAR FORM I NDICATING THE SEIZED MATERIAL COMMISSION INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESS EE ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE AMOUNT ADDED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER. APART FROM THIS WE ALSO DIRECTED THE LEARNE D COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PREPARE THE DETAILS EXHIBITING THE OTHER ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE ASSESSING 10 OFFICER AND THE PAGE NUMBER OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THESE DETAILS HAVE BEEN COMPILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AN D THEY ARE TREATED AS A PART OF THE ORDER AS ANNEXURE A1 AND ANNEXURE A2. T HESE DETAILS WERE GIVEN TO THE LEARNED DR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 7. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS .1 15 798 IS CONCERNED WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THIS A DDITION. HE HAS ADOPTED AN AVERAGE RATE OF COMMISSION AT 1.5% OF THE TRANSACTI ON WHOSE VALUES HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE PAPER AND FOUND AT THE TIME O F SEARCH. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO POINT OUT AN Y ERROR IN THE WORKING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE OUT OF THE TOTAL INCOME ASSESSED IN SECOND ROUND OF ASSESSMENT AN ADDITION OF R.1 15 798 IS C ONFIRMED. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION RELATES TO RS.2 49 173 CONTAINED IN ANNEXU RE A2 IS CONCERNED WE HAVE GONE THROUGH EACH PAPERS. AT PAGE NO.92 OF THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.4 OF DOCUMENT NO.3 IS AVAILABLE. ON PERUSAL OF THIS D OCUMENT IT REVEALS THAT IT DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY LOGICAL CONCLUSION THERE ARE CERTAIN NOTING WHICH HAVE BEEN SQUARED UP. THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ORDE R ON THIS ISSUE. THESE WERE NOT REMITTED BY THE ITAT BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE FIRST ROUND ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE COMMISSI ON AT RS.4 94 614. 11 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSTRUED THESE ADDITIONS AS COMMISSION INCOME. SIMILARLY WE HAVE GONE THROUGH PAGE NO.94 WHICH IS PAGE NO.46 OF DOCUMENT NO.3. IT ALSO AGAIN DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY L OGICAL CONCLUSION. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT IN THE FIRST ROUND AND THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING THESE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS.2 49 173 IS DELETED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2011 SD/- SD/- ( K.D. RANJAN ) ( RAJPAL YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 30/11/2011 MOHAN LAL COPY FORWARDED TO: 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) CIT 4) CIT(APPEALS) 5) DR:ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR