Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri Pramod Choudhary

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 77 / 2004 Commissioner Of Income tax ----Appellant Versus Shri Pramod Choudhary ----Respondent _____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Anuroop Singhi For Respondent(s) : Mr. N.M. Ranka Sr. Counsel with Mr. N.K. Jain _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.S. JHAVERI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHURJudgment 17/01/2017 1. By way of this appeal, the appellant has assailed thejudgment and order of the tribunal whereby tribunal has partlyallowed the appeal of the assessee as well as department andmodified the order of the CIT (A). 2.This court while admitting the appeal on 20.7.2004 hadframed following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether on facts and in the circumstances ofthe case and in law the I.T.A.T. was right andjustified in deleting the addition of Rs.3,00,000/-on the pretext that the said amount was receivedin lieu of a sale agreement, even when the saidagreement was not registered with the NotaryPublic? 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the ITAT was right and justified in deletingthe addition of Rs.59,09,360/- on the ground thatadditions cannot be made on the basis ofdocuments found from the possession of a thirdparty even when the transactions leading to suchadditions, were admitted by the third party? 3. Whether in the facts and circumstances of thecase, the finding of the I.T.A.T. is perverse,contrary to the record and untenable in the eye of law?” 3.Counsel for the appellant Mr. Singhi has taken us to theorder of the CIT (A) observing as under:- “37. Ground No.17 to 20 are additions in connectionwith the papers found with Shri Ashok Jain. Inground nos 17 to 19 appellant has disputes suchadditions on the ground that the appellant was notgiven even copies of papers found with Shri AshokJain on the basis of which the peak investment of Rs59,09,360/- as on 29.10.99 has been worked out. Inground no.20, the appellant has disputed theaddition of Rs 2,06,000/- being interest earned ondeposit with Shri Ashok Jain. Ground no.9 alsorelates to the addition fo Rs 68,000/- being interestamount earned by the appellant as per account ofShri Ashok Jain. Grounds of appeal No.5 & 13 arealso taken together with these grounds in respect ofestimating of dalali income of Rs.3,00,000/- for eachof the assessment year 1999-2000 & 2000-01. 38. It is stated by ld. AO in the assessment orderthat simultaneous search was conducted at theresidential and business premises of Shri Ashok Jain,proprietor of M/s Rajdhani properties. The papersfound and seized with Shri Ashok Jain were referredto audit u/s 142(2A). Copy of account of Shri AshokJain with the appellant was got prepared by theauditors with the help of seized documents and copyof this account was supplied to the appellant. Onrequest of the appellant ld. AO allowed to crossexamine Shri Ashok Jain who confirmed transactionswith the appellant. On the basis of these accountsthe peak credit of Rs 59,09,360/- as on 29.10.99was added to the total income of the appellant.Similarly, total interest amount of Rs 2,74,000/- wasfound paid to the appellant by Shri Ashok Jain onvarious dates. Out of such interest Rs 68,000/-relating to the A.Y. 1999-2000 and Rs 2,06,000/-relating to the A.Y.2000-01 was noticed in thisaccount and accordingly added to the total income ofthe appellant in the block period for the respectiveyears. 39. Ld. AR of the appellant vehemently argued thatthere was no justification on the part of ld. AO tomake the additions to the total income of theappellant on the basis of materials found with a thirdparty. It is stated by ld. AR that none of the paperson the basis of which auditors have prepared theaccount of the appellant with Shri Ashok Jainbelonged to the appellant and it was not understoodas to how Shri Ashok Jain has mentioned the name of appellant and on what basis auditors haveprepared such copies of account. The appellant hasnot entered into any agreement for purchase of anyproperty from Shri Ashok Jain. It is stated that ShriAshok Jain mentioned that plot no.D-6/119,Chitrakoot colony was owned by Shri VasudevMotwani whereas the fact is that the assessee hasreceived brokerage for arranging sale of this plot ofland which belonged to Shri Padam Chand Jain, 9ATransport Nagar, Jaipur to Smt. Sashi Indolia. Theappellant has shown brokerage in respect of thistransaction which can be verified from seizedrecords. Shri Ashok Jain was nowhere in picture.Similarly, Shri Ashok Jain has mentioned that plotno.C-23 and C-321 were purchased by the appellantwhereas these plots were purchased by ShriMurarilal Gupta nad Shri Anand Sharma which canbe verfied. Ld. AR of the appellant stated that pages59 to 61 of Exhibit A-30 which have been seizedfrom M/s Rajdhani Properties are stated to relate tothe appellant. But as far as page 59 is concerned,there is no mention of the appellant’s name on thesaid page and as far as page no.60 is concerned itonly relates to the total amount of Rs 60,120/- andit mentions that a sum of Rs 7,870/- was to be takenby the appellant from some person whose name hasnot been mentioned. So far as page no.61 isconcerned, the same is not in the handwriting of theappellant and the appellant has no connection withthe said paper. Ld. AR of the appellant further statedthat before ld. AO it was clearly stated that theappellant denies any transaction of purchase andsale of property with Shri Ashok Jain. The statementof Shri Ashok Jain is totally incorrect and nodocument whatsoever was found from his possessionrelating to the appellant in respect of a singleproperty wherein the name of the appellant wasmentioned whereas Shri Ashok Jain has mentionedabout 20 properties in his statement. It is arguedthat if any inquiry is conducted form the presentowner of these properties it would become very clearthat Shri Pramod Choudhary has got no connectionwith the said properties except for three propertieswhich are C-23, C-321, Hanuman Nagar and G-154,Shyam Nagar which have been sold through ShriPramod Choudhary for which commission has beenduly disclosed.” 4.He also taken us through the order of the Tribunal wherein it has been held as under:- 17. Ground nos. 5 to 10 are related to the additionof Rs. 59,09,360/-.of Rs. 59,09,360/-. 18. During the course of argument, the ld. ARsubmitted that the assessee is a property dealer whohas also the business relations with another propertydealer Shri Ashok Jain. The search was alsoconducted separately at the residential and businesspremises of Shri Ashok Jain, from where someincriminating documents were found relating to theassessee. On the basis of these documents, theauditor has compiled the accounts (pages 90 to 96of the assessee’s paper book). On the basis of thiscompilation, the AO made the entries under thehead of balance amount and finally taken the totaladdition of Rs. 59,09,360/- as a peak deposit on29.10.99 and made the addition accordingly. 17. Ground nos. 5 to 10 are related to the additionof Rs. 59,09,360/-.of Rs. 59,09,360/-. 18. During the course of argument, the ld. ARsubmitted that the assessee is a property dealer whohas also the business relations with another propertydealer Shri Ashok Jain. The search was alsoconducted separately at the residential and businesspremises of Shri Ashok Jain, from where someincriminating documents were found relating to theassessee. On the basis of these documents, theauditor has compiled the accounts (pages 90 to 96of the assessee’s paper book). On the basis of thiscompilation, the AO made the entries under thehead of balance amount and finally taken the totaladdition of Rs. 59,09,360/- as a peak deposit on29.10.99 and made the addition accordingly. With this background, the ld. A/R has drown ourattention to pages 69 & 70 of the assessee’s paperbook. At page 70 of the assessee’s paper book, aMemorandum was found where the details of thedebit and credit was mentioned. It was stated by theassessee that “7870/- will have to be taken and upto21.7.99 the account is clear”. This statement wassigned by the assessee. This document was foundfrom the custody of Shri Ashok Jain. So the ld. A/Rsubmitted that this was the total amount(Rs.7870/-) which was due on Ashok Jain as on21.7.99 (also page 104 of the department paperbook). 19. Further the ld. A/R submitted that the ledgerprepared by the special auditor of Ashok Jain is notreliable. For this purpose, he has drown ourattention to page 90 of the assessee’s paper bookwhere the accounts start from June, 1996 (paper 69& 70 of the departmental paper book also) Further,on page 91 the account continue for June, 1996 andonwards but Suddenly on the same page the accountstart moving on reverse gear for April and May,1996. So he submitted that the account is not in arunning condition and adhoc entries were by theauditor/accountant. Further he has drawn our attention todepartment paper book at page 189 to 192.According to Id. A/R, this sale agreement was foundfrom the custody of the assessee. In the saidagreement it was mentioned that plot no 1/329Chitrakoot Residential Scheme, Ajmer Road Jaipurwas sold for a consideration of Rs. 1,25,000/- Out ofwhich Rs. 1,15,000/ (page 191) was received bycheque no . 808909 dated 17.3.1999 drawn on StateBank of India and balance amount of Rs. 10,000/-which was supposed to be paid after receiving thepossession. This agreement is between shri JugdishPrasad Mittal and Smt. Sashi Prabha Sharma(buyer). Thus Smt. Sashi Prabha Sharma has paid Rs. 1,15,000/- to Shri Jagdish Prasad Mittal bycheque and assessee has nothing to do with the saidagreement except receiving the dalali. But theamount of Rs. 1,15,000/- was reflected (pages 95 ofthe paper book) in the name of the assessee in theimpugned ledger. 20. Further, the Id. A/R submitted that in the saidaccount, the amount was shown as received fromthe assessee against sale of property. But no wherethe amount was shown paid to the property account.The said system is against the principle ofaccounting. So he submitted that the impugnedledger is not reliable and it is bogus, perhaps itbelongs to somebody else and put in the name ofthe assessee to save his skin. Rs. 1,15,000/- to Shri Jagdish Prasad Mittal bycheque and assessee has nothing to do with the saidagreement except receiving the dalali. But theamount of Rs. 1,15,000/- was reflected (pages 95 ofthe paper book) in the name of the assessee in theimpugned ledger. 20. Further, the Id. A/R submitted that in the saidaccount, the amount was shown as received fromthe assessee against sale of property. But no wherethe amount was shown paid to the property account.The said system is against the principle ofaccounting. So he submitted that the impugnedledger is not reliable and it is bogus, perhaps itbelongs to somebody else and put in the name ofthe assessee to save his skin. 21.On the other hand, the Id. D/R has drawn ourattention to Sauda register given by the assessee(page 10 of the departmental paper book) where thestatement of the assessee was recorded on16.11.99. In reply to question no. 16. it wassubmitted that the commission is not fixed and it isreceived from both the parties @ 1% to 3%. Further,at page 11, it was mentioned that the cost of theplot and size etc. were written in code words. 30 lacswere written as 30 pertaining to plot no. 1 and for 4lacs were written as 4 petti. The assessee wasagreed to pay the tax if there was some undisclosedincome. The Id. D/R submitted that the assessee hasaccepted the undisclosed income and all theaccounts, measurements, plot no. etc. were in codewords and lacs were written as petti or simply byremoving the words” Lacs”. 22.About the running of the ledger account inreverse order, he submitted that the account werestarted from the month June, 1996 (page 90 of theassessee’s paper book) onwards in a systematicmanner but at page 91( assessee’s paper book)again accounts were mentioned as April and May,1996 only for two months which was not mentionedearlier. So he submitted that there is no break andthis is not an irregularity. During the course ofargument, he accepted that in the ledger accountthe AO himself has made the entry in hishandwriting and peak credit was taken as on21.7.1999. So he justified the addition made by thelower authority. Further he read the AO’s orderpages 7 to 9 ( paras 13 to 13.4) and CIT(A)’s orderpages 14 to 22 (paras 37 to 49). Lastly he justifiedthe addition made by the lower authorities. 23. After hearing both the parties and on perusalof material available on record. We tried to reconsilethe figures from the seized material and the ledgerprepared by the auditor at the premises of Shri 23. After hearing both the parties and on perusalof material available on record. We tried to reconsilethe figures from the seized material and the ledgerprepared by the auditor at the premises of Shri Ashok Jain. The said ledger documents were notfound from the custody of the assessee. Thesedocuments were found the third party. Thedocuments pages 69 and 70 of the assessee’s paperbook and page 104 of the departmental paper bookare very vital where the signature of the assesseeare available. According to this papers, on 21.7.99the assessee has to take “ 7870/-” only as a finalsettlement of the account. If we take this amount incode word, then by making into lac this amount willcome to Rs. 78.70 crores which is impossible.Moreover, this figure of “7870/-” which was signedby the assessee on 21.7.99 is not reconcilinganywhere from the impugned ledger. It shows thatthe ledger was prepared in an arbitrary manner. Thesaid ledger was neither found from the custody ofthe assessee nor it was signed by the assessee. Onthe other hand, the document at page 70 of theassessee’s paper book was found from thepossession of Shri Ashok Jain on which signature ofassessee is available. So the document which issigned by the assessee is more authenticated thenthe document prepared by a third person behind theback of the assessee. Therefore, we accept thisdocument (page 70 supra) as genuine document forthe reason that it was signed by the assesseehimself on 21.7.99. Moreover, there are otherdiscrepancies as pointed out by the Id. A/R duringthe course of argument specifically the sale proceedsof Rs. 1,15,000/- pertaining to Chitrakoot Plot whichwas purchased by Smt. Sashi Prabha Sharma fromShri Jagdish Prasad Mittal. But this was shown in theaccount of the assessee in the impugned ledger. 24.By considering the totality of facts andcircumstance of the case, therefore, we are of theview that said impugned ledger is not reliable at all.Moreover, it was not found from the custody of theassessee and it was prepared, signed by a thirdparty to serve his purpose as simultaneously therewas a search and seizure operation in the businessand residential premises of Shri Ashok Jain. So thereare strong possibilities that shri Ashok Jain mighthave prepared the said ledger to serve his purposeand put the name of the assessee. We accept onlythe documents which were signed by the assesseeand found the custody of Shri Ashok Jain (pages 69&70 of the assessee’s paper book). When theimpugned ledger prepared by a third person andfound from the possession of third person is notreliable and full of discrepancies, then we find nojustification for making the addition on the basis ofimpugned ledger which are not signed by theassessee at all. Moreover, it may be mentioned thatthe ITAT Jodhpur Bench in the case of J.R.C. Bhandari Vs. Assistant CIT, 79 TTJ 1 observed that- “ A mere entry in a loose sheet found in thepossession of another/third person, by itself, withoutany supportive evidence or the sworn statement ofsaid person has hardly any evidentiary value. So theadditions in the hands of the assessee on the basisof loose sheet not legally sustainable.” 24A. Similar views were expressed in the followingcases:- T S. Venkatesan vs. Asstt. CIT 69 TTJ 66 (Cal) ITO vs M.A. Chidambaram 63 ITD 203 (Mad) In the light of above discussion and by consideringthe totality of the facts and circumstances, we setaside both the orders of the lower authorities, anddelete the addition made on the basis of said ledger.Thus ground nos. 5 to 10 are allowed in favour ofthe assessee. This addition is deleted.” 5.He contended that tribunal has committed serious error in not adding or deleting the amount of Rs.59,09,360/- which wasbased on the statement of Mr. Ashok Jain who was allowed tocross-examine and other documents supplied to assessee. 24A. Similar views were expressed in the followingcases:- T S. Venkatesan vs. Asstt. CIT 69 TTJ 66 (Cal) ITO vs M.A. Chidambaram 63 ITD 203 (Mad) In the light of above discussion and by consideringthe totality of the facts and circumstances, we setaside both the orders of the lower authorities, anddelete the addition made on the basis of said ledger.Thus ground nos. 5 to 10 are allowed in favour ofthe assessee. This addition is deleted.” 5.He contended that tribunal has committed serious error in not adding or deleting the amount of Rs.59,09,360/- which wasbased on the statement of Mr. Ashok Jain who was allowed tocross-examine and other documents supplied to assessee. 6.He has relied upon the judgment of Gujarat High Court inBhanuvijaysingh M. Vaghela vs. Income Tax Officer reported in353 ITR 146 (Gujarat) wherein it has been held as under:- “16. As can be seen from order of Tribunal, it haspassed a common order in tax appeals of Shri HiteshShah and that of present appellant. As far as deletionof addition of the said amount made by CIT(A) incase of Shri Hitesh Shah the Tribunal relied heavilyon the decision of CIT(A) and confirmed such deletionin the following manner: “7.4 We have carefully considered the rivalsubmissions and perused the material on record. Wehave also gone through the order of the authoritiesbelow. It was contended by the learned AuthorisedRepresentative before the CIT(A) that mere jottingsand notings should not be the basis for making anyaddition in the returned income, more particularlywhen almost all seized material have been explainedby incorporating the same in the form of booksprepared as per the directions of the then AO, inwhich the assets being more the unaccounted assets and the valuables are offered to tax and source beingless cannot be taxed twice. We find that the assesseehas also submitted that in the assessmentproceedings of Bhanuvijaysingh, the same has beentreated as an asset and taxed accordingly. However,the unaccounted assets as were found during thecourse of search represent the assets belonging toBhanuvijaysingh to the extent of liability of Rs. 30lacs as referred to in the seized material on whichneither the assessee possesses the ownership nor theassessee has any right to claim even. We therefore,do not find any infirmity in the order of CIT(A) indeleting the impugned addition. Thus, this issue ofthe Revenue’s appeal is dismissed.” 17. As far as the present appellant is concerned, heis representing the original appellant in his capacityas a legal heir; the Tribunal noted that the loosepaper attached with the paper book showed that thesame was signed by Shri Bhanuvijaysingh. Of course,evidence of the legal representative finds a referencewho stated that the amount was not received. But,Tribunal was of the opinion that the documents wereclearly indicative of the fact that the amount wasgiven as loan by Shri Bhanuvijaysingh, and therefore,it upheld the addition made by the AO. Clarifyingfurther that the liability to pay the tax would only beto the extent of assets of the appellant. Because, bythat time, Shri Bhanuvijaysingh had already passedaway and he was being represented by his legal heir-present appellant. 17. As far as the present appellant is concerned, heis representing the original appellant in his capacityas a legal heir; the Tribunal noted that the loosepaper attached with the paper book showed that thesame was signed by Shri Bhanuvijaysingh. Of course,evidence of the legal representative finds a referencewho stated that the amount was not received. But,Tribunal was of the opinion that the documents wereclearly indicative of the fact that the amount wasgiven as loan by Shri Bhanuvijaysingh, and therefore,it upheld the addition made by the AO. Clarifyingfurther that the liability to pay the tax would only beto the extent of assets of the appellant. Because, bythat time, Shri Bhanuvijaysingh had already passedaway and he was being represented by his legal heir-present appellant. 18. Moot question therefore to be answered iswhether any need arises to interfere with the order ofthe Tribunal. On due consideration it can be statedthat it would not be possible to uphold the contentionof the learned counsel for the appellant. The Tribunaldid not rely upon the affidavit of heir of Late ShriBhanuvijaysingh, of course it made only mention ofsuch an affidavit to hold that no liability had beenaccepted in the affidavit filed. It is true that noelaborate reasoning are given by the Tribunal toassail the order of CIT(A). However, that itself cannotbe a ground of this Court to set aside the order ofTribunal. The fact remains that the entire issue isbased on factual aspects and the Tribunal by givingcogent reasons deleted such an addition qua themaker of the statement while dealing with the taxappeal preferred by Shri Hitesh Shah by way ofcommon order only. What has predominantlyweighed with the Tribunal is the fact that the loosepaper had clearly indicated the amount given by ShriBhanuvijaysingh by way of loan. Moreover, it can benoted from the order of Tribunal that it hasreproduced the material portion of CIT(A)’s order before concluding the issue and therefore, it wouldnot be feasible to hold that Tribunal disregarded thematerials or orders and acted on the extraneousconsideration. On cumulative reading, there does not appear anyrequirement to interfere with the order of Tribunal asno question of law, much less substantial question oflaw arises for our consideration. There is noperversity in the conclusion arrived at, which couldgive rise to interference in this tax appeal. However,decision having been based overwhelmingly on facts,tax appeal deserves no further meritoriousconsideration, and hence is dismissed.” 7.He further contended that issue is required to be answeredin favour of the department and against the assessee. 8.Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ranka has taken us to thedocument and contended that entire addition of Rs.59,09,3690/-is solely based on material found in the search of Sh. Ashok Jainand on special audit in his case, no incriminating document wasfound in the search of the assessee. Such material cannot bebased for addition in special assessment of the assessee. 9.He has relied upon the following decisions:- 9.1Rajasthan High Court in C.I.T. vs. Rajendra Prasad Guptareported in (2001) 348 ITR 350 (Raj.) which reads as under:- 7.He further contended that issue is required to be answeredin favour of the department and against the assessee. 8.Counsel for the respondent Mr. Ranka has taken us to thedocument and contended that entire addition of Rs.59,09,3690/-is solely based on material found in the search of Sh. Ashok Jainand on special audit in his case, no incriminating document wasfound in the search of the assessee. Such material cannot bebased for addition in special assessment of the assessee. 9.He has relied upon the following decisions:- 9.1Rajasthan High Court in C.I.T. vs. Rajendra Prasad Guptareported in (2001) 348 ITR 350 (Raj.) which reads as under:- “However, under the scheme of the provisions forblock assessment it is apparent that it relates toassessment of 'Undisclosed income" of the assesseeexcluding the income subjected to regularassessment in pursuance of returns filed by theassessee for such period. It is also apparent from theperusal of section 158BB that the returns are alsorequired to be filed in pursuance of the notice undersection 158BC(1)(a) and the assessment is to beframed on that basis in the light of material that hascome in possession of the assessing authority duringthe course of search which is foundation of theproceedings. That being so, the correctness orotherwise of the returns filed in pursuance of thenotice under section 158BC(1)(a) has to be examinedwith reference to the material in possession of the assessing authority having nexus to assessment of'undisclosed income' which is with the assessingauthority, and premise of such proceedings.” 9.2 In C.I.T. vs. Chandra Chemoux P. Ltd. (2008) 298 ITR 98(Raj.) holding as under:- “We have gone through the provisions of Section158BB of the Income-tax Act and find that even inaccordance with the provision addition can be madeonly when evidence is available as a result of searchor a requisition of books of account, documents andother material, however, addition cannot be made onthe basis of inferences. Various Benches of theTribunal are following the principle that additions canbe made only on the basis of incriminatingdocuments/material collected during the course ofsearch. However, in the present matter, no such factsare available rather it says that additions were madeby the Assessing Officer based on inferences whichdoes not fall within the scope of Section 158BB of theIncome-tax Act. Therefore in our opinion the twoquestions raised for reference cannot be said to bereferable and thereby we find no fault in the order ofthe Tribunal. The factual position of the case hasalready been addressed by the Appellate Tribunalthus, the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunalcannot be made subject-matter of a reference.Therefore, we are not persuaded by any of thearguments of learned Counsel for the Revenue.Hence, both the reference petitions are herebydismissed.” 9.3In C.I.T. vs. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 250 ITR 382 (Del.) 145wherein it has been observed as under:- “The Special procedure of Chapter XIV-B is intendedto provide a mode of assessment of undisclosedincome, which has been detected as a result ofsearch. As the statutory provisions go to show, it isnot intended to be a substitute for regularassessment. Its scope and ambit is limited in thatsense to materials unearthed during search. It is inaddition to regular assessment already done or to bedone. Assessment for block period can only be doneon the basis of evidence found as a result of searchor requisition of books of accounts or documents andsuch other materials or information as are available with the assessing officer. Evidence found as a resultof search is clearly relatable to sections 132and132A.” 9.4In CIT vs. Pooja Forge Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 382 (Del.) 385holding as under:- with the assessing officer. Evidence found as a resultof search is clearly relatable to sections 132and132A.” 9.4In CIT vs. Pooja Forge Ltd. (2016) 389 ITR 382 (Del.) 385holding as under:- “Having heard learned counsel for the parties, thecourt is satisfied that the principal question is nolonger res integra and stands covered against theRevenue in a large number of judgments includingCIT vs. Ravi Kant Jain [2001] 250 ITR 141 (Delhi) inwhich, inter alia, it was held: The special procedure of Chapter XIV-B is intended toprovide a mode of assessment of undisclosed income,which has been detected as a result of search. As thestatutory provisions go to show, it is not intended tobe a substitute for regular assessment. Its scope andambit is limited in that sense to materials unearthedduring search. It is in addition to the regularassessment already done or to be done.” 10.Taking into consideration the evidence on record, whileconsidering the matter, the tribunal has modified the order of theCIT (A) and has rightly deleted addition of Rs.3,33,700/- in favourof the assessee. 11.In view of the fact that while conducting search of thirdparty, such addition on the part of the third party cannot be addedin the hands of the assessee since no document incriminating wasfound from the premises of the assessee. 12.In that view of the matter, the issues are required to beanswered in favour of the assessee and against the department. 13.The appeal stands dismissed. (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR)J. (K.S. JHAVERI)J.