TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1399X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gain in respect of the transactions entered into through sub-brokers instead of treating it as business income. 3. The facts of the case of all the assessees for all the years are almost similar except variations in the amounts of capital gain shown by the assessees and consequential business income assessed by the Revenue. Therefore, for the sake of brevity we shall discuss herein the facts relating to Shri Ravindra M. Agrawal for A.Y.2001-2002. Both the parties also argued only one appeal of one assessee and admitted that whatever finding is given in one year would be applicable in the remaining departmental appeals. 4. A search action under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was initiated in the case of Shri Ravindra Agarwal and his family members on 29- 10-2004. Shri Ravindra Agarwal, who was Executive Director in Saurashtra Chemicals Ltd., Porbandar at the time of search, is main person of the group. The assessee group has been involved in making large number of transactions in shares and mutual funds over a period of time. A warrant of authorization under Section 132 of the I.T.Act, 1961 was served upon the assessee on 29-10- 2004. Consequent to search action, a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... independent companies and not as promoters, the delivery based transactions and the actual payments/receipts and not mere book entries, absence of lack of intra day trading and of repeated transactions of same scripts, etc. are factors, the holistic consideration of which leads to the conclusion that the appellant was an investor. Thus, considering the details, submissions, facts on record, the Board s circular etc., the AO was not justified in holding the appellant as a trader and assessing his income, shown from capital gains, as being income from business. The action of the AO is therefore not sustainable. The AO is directed to treat the appellant as an investor and thereby compute the income from cpiap8tial gains in respect of the transactions entered into through subbrokers. The related ground of appeal is allowed. 6. At the time of hearing before us, it was contended by the learned CITDR that during the course of search of the assessee-premises, no books of accounts were found. The books were prepared subsequent to search and therefore much credence cannot be given to the same. During the course of search, from the lockers of the assessee huge unaccounted cash was found ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... end income and it would be evident from the fact that the year after year, the assessee earned sufficient dividend income; that the assessee is not maintaining any offices or staff for looking after the investment in shares. Thus, no organized activity is being carried out by the assessee for investment in shares; that the allegations of the learned DR that the transactions in the shares were not disclosed to the department is factually incorrect. All the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were duly disclosed in the return of income of the assessee as well as family members from time to time. Any surplus arising from the sale of shares was always shown as capital gain and accepted by the Revenue; that the contentions of the Revenue that there were total 36,000 transactions in purchase and sale of shares by the assessee and his family members is factually incorrect; that the total transaction by the assessee and the family members for all the years taken together is 4,611 and per assessee per year the transaction would be not much; that the assessee is mainly dealing in B group scripts and whenever the assessee wanted to make the investment, bulk number of shares of such ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ix) Bharat Kunverji Kenia, 130 TTJ 86 (Mum) 8. The learned DR, in the rejoinder, stated that various decisions relied upon by the learned counsel would not be applicable because they were in respect of the transactions disclosed by the assessee while in the case of the assessee, the transactions of purchase and sale of shares were not disclosed to the department. He also stated that law of res judicata is not applicable to the income tax proceedings, therefore, merely because in the earlier years, the capital gain has been accepted would not debar the AO from examining this in the subsequent years. He also stated that though the assessee had not borrowed the funds, but it has managed the funds of other family members. He also submitted that the assessee has not produced any documentary evidences in support of his contentions that one transactions of purchase/sale of shares was broken up in several transactions due to non-availability of one buyer or seller of those shares. He therefore reiterated that the order of the CIT(A) should be reversed and that of the AO be restored. 9. We have carefully considered the arguments of both the sides and perused the material placed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tual dealing in that particular item is indicative of intention of trade. Similarly, ratio between the purchases and sales and the holdings may show whether the assessee is trading or investing (high transactions and low holdings indicate trade whereas low transactions and high holdings indicate investment). (4) Whether purchase and sale are for realizing profit or purchases are made for retention and appreciation in its value? Former will indicate intention of trade and latter, an investment. In the case of shares whether intention was to enjoy dividend and not merely earn profit on sale and purchase of shares. A commercial motive is an essential ingredient of trade. (5) How the value of the items has been taken in the balance sheet ? If the items in question are valued at cost, it would indicate that they are investments or where they are valued at cost or market value or net realizable value (whichever is less), it will indicate that items in question are treated as stock-in-trade. (6) How the company (assessee) is authorized in memorandum of association/articles of association ? Whether for trade or for investment ? If authorized only for trade, then whethe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and the assessee was claiming to have made investment out of borrowed capital. He, therefore, held that the profit in question was assessable as business income. Held that the undisputed fact was that the assessee was dealing in shares both as business as well as investment. It had kept separate accounts in respect of two portfolios. No material was brought on record to show that demarcation line between business and investment was hazy or that the assessee had not maintained an investment portfolio and it was dealing in shares only like a trader. Thus, on appreciation of cumulative effect of several factors present it was to be held that the surplus was chargeable to capital gains only and the assessee was not to he treated as trader in respect of sale and purchase of shares in the investment portfolio. The ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of Janak S. Rangwala (supra) held as under: The mere volume of transaction transacted by the assessee would not alter the nature of transaction. It is an established principle that income is to be computed with regard to the transaction. The transaction in whole has to be taken into consideration and the magnitude of the transaction ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peared no reason as to why the claims made by the assessee should not be accepted. However, the revenue authorities had taken a different view in the year under consideration by holding that principle of res judicata was not applicable to the assessment proceedings. There could not be any dispute on this aspect, but there is also another judicial thought that there should be uniformity in treatment and consistency under the same facts and circumstances and it was as already found that facts and circumstances were identical even though a different stand had been taken by the revenue authorities.: The Revenue filed the appeal before the Hon ble Bombay High Court against the decision of the ITAT in the case of Gopal Purohit (supra) and a specific question was raised against the rule of consistency applied by the ITAT. The Hon ble High Court vide order dated 6-1-2010, 228 CTR 582 (Bom) upheld the order of the ITAT and held as under: 3. In so far as Question (b) is concerned, the Tribunal has observed in pare 8. of its judgment that the assessee has followed a consistent practice In regard to the nature of the activities, the manner of keeping records and the presentation of sh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt of capital gain disclosed. In the order under Section 153A also there is no finding by the AO that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares were not disclosed by the assessee. The same is not assessed as income from undisclosed sources, but assessed as business income. Therefore, the contention of the learned DR that the transaction of purchase and sale of shares was not disclosed to the department is factually not correct. Moreover, whether the transaction of purchase and sale of shares was disclosed before the date of search or not would not be relevant for determining whether the transaction was in the nature of trading transaction or in the nature of investment. Therefore, whether the transaction of purchase and sale of shares was a trading transaction or investment will have to be examined considering the totality of the facts of the assessee s case. We find that Shri Ravindra M. Agarwal is a Chartered Accountant, Cost Accountant as well as Company Secretary by education. He was an Executive Director in Saurahstra Chemicals Ltd., Porbandar at the relevant time. He was not in the business of purchase and sale of shares. In the original return of income furnished prior ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 19,33,425/-. It is a settled law that, to determine whether the assessee is a trader or investor in shares, no single test is conclusive but cumulative effect of all the facts are to be seen. In the case of the assessee, one fact i.e. frequent purchase/sale of shares can be said to be against the assessee but all other facts which can be summarised as under are in favour of the assessee: i) Shri Ravindra Agrawal is a qualified professional being Chartered Accountant, Company Secretary and Cost Accountant; ii) Shri Agrawal was full time director of a public limited company at the relevant time, posted at Porbander; iii) Shares were acquired with own money and there was no borrowing by Shri Ravindra Agrawal or any other family member; iv) No office or any staff was maintained for looking after purchase and sale of shares; v) There was substantial dividend income; vi) His source of income was income from salary, capital gain, dividend and interest and he was not having any business income; vii) In the original return of income furnished from time to time, income from sale of shares was disclosed under the head capital gain and was accepted by Revenue as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The bank balance of over ₹ 1 crore in the ICICI Bank, Porbandar and later the bank balance (Rs.2.68 crores approximately) of the assessee and family members in UCO Bank, Ellisbridge were attached and seized. Documents/books of accounts were seized from residential premises at Porbandar as per Annexure A-1 to Annexure-7. The books of accounts/documents were also impounded in the survey conducted at the office premises of the assessee. The statements of the assessee and his wife were recorded under section 132(4). The books were subject to Special audit under Section 142(2A) of the I.T.Act. The AO apart from consideration of the issue of capital gain in the nature of trade also considered the issue of unexplained cash credit. The AO noted that advances in the form of cash amount have been shown as receipts from number of parties of residents in New Delhi towards the proposed site of flats in the city of Jaipur in the residential scheme stated to have been floated by the assessee in the names of Sundernagar Scheme and Radha Vihar Schemes. The details of sale proceeds/advances shown to have received in various years against the booking of the flats were summarised by the AO as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 26-4-2007, it was submitted that original affidavits (almost 140 in numbers) with all the sought details, copies of IT return of the parties, explanation about the schemes and for the lack of any correspondence found in this regard, the destination of the cash received i.e. in mutual funds in name of nine family members, the source of repayments i.e. withdrawals from bank accounts of nine family members, the details of the flats, the mode/manner of the sale of flats etc. were furnished. The AO has partly reproduced the reply of the assessee dated 26-4-2007 in his order. The AO vide further letter dated 5- 7-2007 required the assessee to produce parties/allottees of flats i.e. deponents of the affidavits for ascertaining the veracity of the claims/details affirmed in the respective affidavits and provided opportunity to produce the parties. The AO also intimated vide letter dated 3-8-2007 for his proposal to treat the receipts as unexplained income. The assessee filed reply dated 16-8-2007 to the show cause notice. The AO considered the replies/explanation of the assessee and pointed out that the explanation furnished was not only misleading but also incredulous. For example, hu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... py of the I.T. returns of most of them, allotment letters and receipts of payment had also been furnished. The individual allottees did not have to enter into correspondences with any statutory body and as for the assessees, correspondence in this regard was either very limited or not readily traceable. The advances received in cash were duly invested in mutual funds through DDs. obtained from the banks and the repayments were made by subsequent encashment, which have been reflected in the books of accounts. The assessee had offered to produce the deponents of the affidavits/allottees of the flats before the AO i.e. for five allottees on 2-8-2007 but this offer was not accepted/acted upon by the AO. The other doubts of the AO had also been answered vide reply dated 26-4- 2007. It was therefore submitted that the AO without any basis considered the cash credits as unexplained. The assessee has proved identity of the deponents, their credit-worthiness and the genuineness of the transactions. The flats could not be constructed owing to disputes. 18. The learned CIT(A) however dismissed the appeal of the assessee on this ground. His findings in para 14.1 are reproduced as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejected. 19. The learned counsel for the assessees reiterated submissions made before the authorities below and further submitted that initially the assessee filed copies of the affidavits, latest returns of the depositors, cash receipts and provisional allotment letters to support the contentions of the genuine deposits have been received against the booking of the flats. He has further submitted that vide reply dated 15-3-2007 (PB-1196), complete details were filed before the AO to prove that advance were received against the proposal sale of flats at Sundernagar Scheme and Radha Vihar Schemes for which details have been maintained in the books of accounts. He has referred to the letter of the AO dated 13-4-2007 (PB 1199) through which the AO has asked for further clarification in the matter, which was replied by the assessee on 26-4-2007 (PB-1193) and complete details were filed and all the original affidavits (140 in numbers) of the depositors were also filed before the AO. All the queries raised by the AO were replied with regard to PAN of the depositors about the scheme and the built-up area etc. He has referred to the letter of the AO dated 5-7-2007 (PB 1211) through wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Revenue in their paper book, which have not been discussed and considered by the AO in the assessment order. He has submitted that since the names, addresses, confirmations of the parties along with allotment letters, PAN and other details were filed before the AO along with affidavits of the deponents, the onus upon the assessee is discharged to prove the conditions of the Section 68 of the Act. He submitted that since the location of the deponents were far away from Ahmedabad, therefore, according to the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, the AO should have got the transactions verified by issuing commission at Delhi through the departmental officers which have also not been done by the AO. He has submitted that since the assessee produced all the evidences before the AO to explain the advances and deposits and also offered to produce the parties for cross-examination before the AO, therefore, if the AO did not cross-examine the deponents, no addition should have been made against the assessee. He has submitted that all the evidences on record shall have to be examined by the authorities. In support of this contention, he has relied upon the following decisions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... PB- 3. However, no list is attached. All the parties in their reply under Section 133(6) confirmed the transactions with the assessee for deposits of the advances for booking of the flats, but the same have not been discussed by the AO in the assessment order. He has further submitted that some of the replies were not received by the AO therefore the same were filed at the counter in August, 2007 and even some of the replies were being filed later before the AO but the same have not been considered and discussed. 22. We have considered rival submissions and material available on record. The assessees vide reply dated 15-3-2007 (PB-1196) have filed a detailed reply before the AO in response to notices under Section 142(1) calling for the details on the issue. The assessee in the reply submitted details of advances received/refunded against the proposed sale of flats at Sundernagar and Radha Vihar schemes. Complete details, as were required in the performa were submitted. The same were supported by the documents i.e. copies of the provisional allotment letter, receipts/vouchers of the advances received and the refund issued, copies of the affidavits, complete addresses, PAN and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llation of the allotment was also explained, which is also noted at page no.9 of the assessment order. The AO instead of considering the affidavits and material on record issued notices under Section 133(6) dated 11-5-2007 to all the depositors in order to cross-verify the above documents. (copy filed in department s paper book). The allottees filed their respective replies with the details and confirmed their transactions with the assessees. PB-3 of the department contained (Volume 1 2) in which all the replies of various allottees under Section 133(6) have been filed by the department which were filed in response to the notice under Section 133(6) dated 11-5-2007 issued by the AO. In the department s paper book, replies of the allottees in response to the notice issued by the AO, the detail of the amount, mode of payment and reasons for the booking of the flats and the return of the amount and copies of the affidavits were also filed. Thus, the replies of the allottees in response to notice under Section 133(6) contained their confirmations of the transactions with the assessee, their PAN, copies of the income-tax returns, replies, provisional allotment letters. These details a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ous depositors under Section 133(6) of the Act have given several irrelevant reasons for rejecting the claim of the assessee. Such reasons have been mentioned in para.3.6 of the assessment order. The same are also considered in the lights of the reply of the assessee and the respective buyer. The AO noted that the assessee in his statement did not mention of receipt of cash. As per the books, the cash so received has been shown to have used for purchasing shares and investing in mutual funds, but no question is put to the assessee in this regard in the statement of the assessee recorded by the search party, therefore, there was no reason for the assessee to give reply of the same. It is not in control of the assessee to ask questions. It is undisputed above, purchase of shares and mutual fund, have not been disputed by the authorities below. In answer to question no.10, as noted at page no.12 of the assessment order, it was replied by the assessee to file details and disclose source. The repayments of the advances have not been disputed by the AO. Further, the AO noted that no papers have found in search to indicate the receipt of the advances, but the AO forgot to note that the bo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o far and the persons in batches shall have to be arranged by the assessee, therefore, it was difficult to produce parties within a short span of time. The assessee however proposed to produce the parties before the AO for cross-examination in batches from 3rd August, 2007. The AO instead of examining the witnesses in batches from 3rd August, 2007 onwards, drew adverse inference against the assessee that the assessee did not produce the deponents before him for cross-examination. These facts would show that the AO did not have any intention to crossexamine the deponents of the affidavits on oath. Otherwise, the AO could have taken some steps in the matter to cross-examine some of the deponents starting from 3rd August,2007. The AO took another reason for rejecting the claim of the assessee that no sufficient time was available for concluding the assessment because the assessment was going to be time barred. However, he would have started examining the deponents from 3rd August, 2007. The AO has failed to note that in this case search was conducted on 29th October, 2004 and according to Section 153B of the IT Act, the assessment could have framed within a period of two years from th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome tax wards. Merely because more than one family members have made the deposits with the assessee for booking of the flats is no ground to reject the explanation of the assessee. At the pre-launch scheme, the advertisement may not be relevant for consideration of the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act. The AO rejected the explanation of the assessee that out of 140 parties, 38 persons did not file reply under Section 133(6) of the Act. However, the facts remains that all 140 persons have filed their original affidavits before the AO admitting transaction with the assessee and made deposits with the assessee. They also explained that they all were assessed to tax and also explained their source of income for making these deposits. Even if the contention of the AO is considered that only 102 persons filed their reply under Section 133(6) of the Act, the AO however did not discuss and consider any of their reply in proper perspective. The AO failed to note all the 102 persons in their replies under Section 133(6) confirmed the transaction with the assessee giving the amount in cash to him for the purpose of booking of the flats. They have also confirmed that they are assessed to t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rectors. The activities of the assessee-bank were regulated by the provisions of the Banking Regulation Act, 1949, and the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India. This was apart from the fact that under the provisions of section 80P of the Act the entire income from banking activities was exempt in the hands of the assessee, a co-operative bank. Thus there could exist no reason for the assessee-bank to indulge in any activity which would yield undisclosed income. The Tribunal was right in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,80,95,811 in respect of fixed deposits and ₹ 21,71,500 in respect of the interest. ii) Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orissa Corporation P. Ltd., 159 ITR 78 held as under: ...that in this case the respondent had given the names and addresses of the alleged creditors. It was in the knowledge of the Revenue that the said creditors were income-tax assessees. Their index numbers were in the file of the Revenue. The Revenue, apart from issuing notices under section 131 at the instance of the respondent, did not pursue the matter further. The Revenue did not examine the source of income of the said alleged creditors to find out whe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for the assessee to explain further as to how or in what circumstances the third party obtained the money or how or why he came to make an advance of the money as a loan to the assessee. Once such identity is established and the creditors, as in the present case, have pledged their oath that they have advanced the amounts in question to the assessee, the burden immediately shifts on to the department to show as to why the assessee's case could not be accepted and as to why it must be held that the entry, though purporting to be in the name of a third party, still represented the income of the assessee from a suppressed source. And, in order to arrive at such a conclusion, even the department has to be in possession of sufficient and adequate materials. The Income-tax Officer's rejection, not of the explanation of the assessee, but of the explanation regarding the source of income of the depositors, could not by itself lead to any inference regarding the non-genuine or fictitious character of the entries in the assessee's books of account. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner clearly pointed out that the findings recorded by the Income-tax Officer were not positive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irresistible conclusion that the assessee proved genuineness of the receipts of the amounts from different parties on account of booking of the flats. The authorities below thus cannot take any adverse inference against the assessee for non-production of the parties before him for cross-examination. The assessee has thus discharged the onus upon him to prove the genuineness of the cash credits in the matter. We accordingly set aside the orders of the authorities below and delete the addition. As a result, Ground Nos.1 and 2 of the appeal of the assessee are allowed. 26. Ground No.3 is regarding charging of interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C which is consequential in nature and is mandatory and accordingly rejected. 27. Ground No.4, 5 and 6 of the assessee s appeal are initiation of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and under Section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act, which is independent proceedings and therefore these grounds are premature. The same are accordingly dismissed. 28. In result, ITA No.1821/Ahd/2008 is partly allowed. ITA No.1822/Ahd/2008 : A.Y.2001-02 (Assessee s appeal) 29. Ground No.1 and 2 of this appeal challenging addition of ₹ 42,30, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ingh. The sale deed dated 14-6-2002 however shows the consideration of ₹ 10 lakhs only. The AO referred the matter to District Valuation Officer at Jaipur for ascertaining the total investment in this property and obtained a copy of the report dated 28-3-2007 of the DVO. The DVO estimated the total investment at ₹ 90.20 lakhs. In the reply dated 12-7-2007, the assessee contended that the building purchased was worn out and the area was used for keeping horses/cattle with the idea that the old structure be demolished and a show room of textile/carpet would be constructed. In addition, one flat at Sarojini Marg, Jaipur was also purchased for ₹ 9 lakhs. The entries on seized page 54 of Annexure A-4 showed the figure of 85 under the head estimates while the figure of 10 (DDS) is the cost of the Tabela and the figure of 9 under the head flat is the cost of the flat. The figure of 85 was an estimate for renovation of Tabela. The old structure however could not be demolished as the Tabela was a part of heritage property. Hence only about ₹ 55 lakhs were spent for modification/ addition to the same structure for strengthening it. Thus the total expenditure also ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sh from January to April, 2002 alone. Similarly, other details of both cash and cheque payments were noted in the hand writings of the assessee and the entries are mostly dated after the date of purchase. The entries therein are authentic in the sense that the cheque payments shown as per these seized pages also co-relate with the cheque payments shown in the relevant records. The AO felt that the expenditure towards such modification/alteration was ₹ 61.67 lakhs as against ₹ 55.87 lakhs as per the assessee. Further the excess expenditure was relevant for A.Y.2005-06 as the related work was carried out in the later stages of modification. The AO therefore added the difference as under: A.Y. Actual investment made by assessee (s per above para) Investment accounted for in the books constructed Unaccounted investment. 2003-04 Rs.50,50,774/- (Rs.33,32,350 + ₹ 17,18,424) Rs.26,88,000/- (Rs.10 lakh + ₹ 16.88 lakhs) Rs.23,62,000/- 2004-05 Rs.23,42,474/- Rs.23,01,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nted 20% deduction of the valuation. 38. We have considered the rival submissions and material available on record. The assessee explained that the land value was ₹ 10 lakhs as per the sale deed duly registered with the sub-registrar. The AO however did not take any step for the purpose of verifying the cost of the land and have not examined any of the sellers in this regard. The AO merely acted upon the report of the DVO. The assessee gave several reasons for the lesser price of the land because the building so purchased was used for keeping horses and cattle and that initially the assessee wanted to demolish the property but it could not be demolished and only renovation have been done. The assessee therefore rightly submitted that the seized papers contained the details of the estimate only which have not been supported any corroborative evidences. Considering the location of the property and its entry from the side showed that the value of the property was not so as is estimated by the DVO. We have also seen the report of the DVO and as per the Annexure-2, the DVO has given the value of the land at ₹ 33,32,350/- on the basis of DLC rates which according to the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ature and is mandatory and accordingly rejected. 46. Ground No. 5, 6 and 7 of the appeals are initiation of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) and under Section 269SS and 269T of the IT Act, which is independent proceedings and therefore these grounds are premature and are dismissed. 47. In the result, Appeal of the assessee in ITANo.1824/ahd/2008 is partly allowed. ITA No.1825 /Ahd/2008 : A.Y.2005-06 (Assessee s appeal) 48. Ground Nos.1 and 2 in the assessee s appeal challenge the addition on account of report of DVO in respect of Samod Haveli. It is noted above that these additions have already deleted by the learned CIT(A) and therefore these grounds have become infructous and are accordingly dismissed. 49. Ground No.3 of both the appeals is regarding charging of the interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C which is consequential in nature and is mandatory and accordingly rejected. 50. Ground No. 4 and 5 of the appeals are initiation of the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), which is independent proceedings and therefore these grounds are premature and are dismissed. 51. In the result, all the Departmental appeals are dismissed and the assessees appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
