Shri Mohmmad Rasheed Kaipally, Ahmedabad v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(2),, Ahmedabad

ITA 1215/AHD/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 121520514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AQEPS9060L
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1215/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Shri Mohmmad Rasheed Kaipally, Ahmedabad
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(2),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 10-11-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 06-11-2017
Next Hearing Date 06-11-2017
First Hearing Date 06-11-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 30-04-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD .. BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1215/AHD/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY PROP. TECHNOMECH ENGINEERS 18 GAYATRI COMPLEX NR. POWER HOUSE SABARMATI AHMEDABAD / VS. THE ITO WARD-9(2) AHMEDABAD $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AQEPS 9060 L ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENT ) $') / APPELLANT BY : NONE ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH SR.DR + *- / DATE OF HEARING 06/11/2017 ./0*- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10 / 11 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS )-XV AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 26/02/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2009-10. ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E READ AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWANCE OF OUT STANDING SALARY PAYABLE & INCOME ADDITION AMT TO RS.1216000/ - HAS TO BE SET ASIDE WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED DISALLOWANCE OF AMOUNT UNPROVED CREDITOR GENUINENESS & INCOME ADDITION AMT TO RS.11 93216/- HAS TO BE SET ASIDE WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DISALLOWANCE OF AM OUNT U/S.40(A)(IA) & INCOME ADDITION AMT TO RS.149300/- HAS TO BE SET ASIDE WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED CONSEQUENTLY SET ASIDE DEMAND FOR THE TAX AMT TO RS.1241996/- & THE INTEREST U/S.234A & 234D AMT TO RS.50347/- WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED DEMAND U/S.156 AMT TO 1091540/- TO BE SET ASIDE WHICH IS REQUESTED TO BE DELETED. 3. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON SEVEN TIMES. THREE TIMES NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND THREE TIMES REPR ESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT IN PAST. TODAY TH E MATTER WAS AGAIN CALLED FOR HEARING ON SEVENTH OCCASION BUT NONE ATT ENDED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. IN THE AFOREMENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE APPEAL FILED. ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) PLACED ON RECORD. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS THEREFORE PERUSED WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR EASY REFERENCE: 5. I HAVE PERUSED THE FACTS AS ENUMERATED BY A. O. IN THE ASSTT.ORDER AND AS SUBMITTED BY APPELLANT IN SUBMISSIONS. I HAVE PERU SED THE REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER TO REMAND REPORT ALSO. AFTER CAREFUL C ONSIDERATION OF FACTS SUBMISSION AND LEGAL PROPOSITION THE ADJUDICATION OF' GROUNDS ARE AS FOLLOWS: 5.1 THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DT. 04/06/12 (RECEIVE D ON 05/06/12) REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT. ACT. THOUGH THE SAME WERE SENT FOR A REMAND REPORT BUT IT IS OBSERV ED THAT- (A) IN RESPECT OF OUTSTANDING SALARY WHICH HAS BEEN PAID IN SUBSEQUENT PERIOD IN THE CASE OF 7 LABOUR/EMPLOYEE/ THE SAME WAS FILE D BEFORE A.O. AND DULY CONSIDERED BY A.O. AT PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSTT. ORDER HENCE THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. (B) IN RESPECT OF COPY OF LEDGER CONFIRMATION OF CR EDITORS FOR THREE PARTIES THE A.O. AT PARA 5.2 OF THE ASSTT. ORDER CONSIDERED THE SE EVIDENCES HENCE THESE ARE NOT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. FURTHER IT IS CLAIMED TH AT CONFIRMATION OF CREDITOR IS FILED BUT THE DETAILS SO FILED IS LEDGER ACCOUNT NO T SIGNED BY CREDITORS I.E. NOT CONFIRMATION OF CREDITORS. (C) COPY OF IDS SUMMARY & IDS CHALLAN WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE A.O. AND CONSIDERED BY HIM AT PARA 6.1 OF THE ASSTT. ORDER. IT IS THEREFORE THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS REQUESTED BY APPELLANT FOR ADMISSION HOWEVER TO DO THE JUSTICE WITH THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND OF APPEAL THE SAME ARE CONSIDERED AS ADMITTED AND REMAND REPO RT OF THE A.O. WILL ALSO BE CONSIDERED WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL. ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - 5.2 THE GROUND OF APPEAL THOUGH DESCRIPTIV E IN NATURE BUT SUMMARIZED IN THE PRAYERS HENCE NOW THE GROUND WIS E ADJUDICATION IS AS FOLLOWS: (A) GROUND NO. 1 IS TECHNICAL GROUND FOR QUASHING O F ASSTT. ON ACCOUNT OF A.O. BEING ERRED IN LAW & FACTS FOR SUCH ORDER U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY DETAILS FACTS OR EXPLANATION TO SUPPORT THIS GROUND. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AS DISCERNABLE FROM ASSTT. ORD ER THAT A.O. AFTER ISSUE OF STATUTORY NOTICES AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO A PPELLANT AND CONSIDERED THE DETAILS & EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT BE FORE COMPLETION OF ASSTT. WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT A.O. HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PRESCRIBED PROCEDURE OF ASSTT. THE APPELLANT'S GROU ND HAS NO SUBSTANCE HENCE DISMISSED. (B) (I) THE GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 12 16 000/- IN RESPECT OF OUTSTANDING SALARY IN THE NAME OF SEVEN EMPLOYEES B ECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE NATURE OF SERVICES RENDERED BY THESE PERSONS CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PERSON IDENTITY AND GENUNINITY OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. THE A.O. AT PARA 4.3 GIVES REASONS FOR DISALLOWING THE SAME AS BOGUS I.E. UNSUBSTANTIATED EXPENSES CLAIMED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. INITIALL Y BEFORE A.O. AS WELL AS BEFORE ME ONLY LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THESE EMPLOYEES A S APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT WERE SUBMITTED SHOWING OUTSTANDING SALARY IS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS. VIDE SUBMISSION DT. 14/02/13 AS REJOINDER TO REMAND REPORT COMPUTERIZED STATEMENT (LEDGER A/C) SUBMITTED WITH SIGNATURE I.E. CONFIRMATION OF THEIR EMPLOYEE BUT THE IDENTITY NATURE OF SERVI CES RENDERED IS STILL IN QUESTION. IN THE ABSENCE OF PAN AND ADDRESS OF THES E EMPLOYEE AS THAT OF REMOTE VILLAGE OF BIHAR THE SIGNATURE ON CONFIRMAT ION IS NOT EVIDENCED FOR IDENTITY THEREBY CREDIBILITY OF THESE CONFIRMATIONS NOT ESTABLISHED. TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THE FOLLOWING SUMMARY AS PREPA RED FROM THE DETAILS REQUIRED CONSIDERATION : SR. NO. NAME & ADDRESS OF EMPLOYEE OP. BAL. AS ON 01/04/09 SALARY FOR F.Y. 09-10 CL. BAL ON 31/03/10 REMARKS. 1 LALAN PRASAD VILL. BADKIDHON DIST. SEWAN BIHAR 1 84 000 1 44 000 3 28 000 REPAID IN CASH OF RS. 20000 & BELOW FROM 04/04/10 TO ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - 22/07/10 IN 18 INSTALLMENTS 2 JITEN DEV VILL KABIRPUR DISTT. SEWAN BIHAR 1 84 000 1 44 000 3 28 000 REPAID IN CASH OF RS. 20000 & BELOW FROM 04/04/10 TO 22/07/10 IN 18 INSTALLMENTS 3 BHAVDAS AT. POST. BIDADA TAL. MUNDRA KUTCH GUJARAT 96 000 NIL 96 000 PAID IN CASH IN F.Y. 09-10 10- 11 IN INSTALLMENTS & FINALLY ON 06/08/11 FOR RS. 45 000/- VIDE SBI A/C NO. 10419387524 (APPELLANT'S A/C.NO.) 4 RATANSINGH VILL. KABIR PUR DIST. SEWAN BIHAR 1 92 000 1 44 000 3 36 000 REPAID IN CASH OF RS. 20 000/- & BELOW FROM 01/04/10 TO 30/09/10 IN 19 INSTALLMENT. 5 ROBIN P. 45 DHAR MANAUD SOCIETY KATHOWADA ROAD NARODA A'BAD. 1 68 000 1 56 000 3 24 000 REPAID IN CASH JOURNAL ENTRY OF RS. 20 000/- & BELOW (EXCEPT RS. 35 000/-CASH ON 18/02/2012) FROM 01/05/10 TO 12/03/12 IN 20 INSTALLMENT ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - 6 SHAILENDRA SINGH VILL KABIRPUR DIST. SEWAN BIHAR 1 96 000 1 56 000 3 52 000 REPAID IN CASH AND SOMETIME THROUGH TRANSFER IN SBI A/C IN RS. 20 000/- & BELOW FROM 01/12/10 TO 03/12/11 IN 19 INSTALLMENT. 1 SUBRUMANI KESHAV NAGAR PRATAP CHALI SABARMATI AHMEDABAD. 1 96 000 1 56 000 3 52 000 REPAID IN CASH OF RS. 20000 & BELOW FROM 0L/04/10 TO 15/09/10 IN 19 INSTALLMENT. TOTAL 12 16 000 9 00 000 21 16 000 (II) IT IS THEREFORE THE A.O'S CONTENTIONS ARE CRE DIBLE THAT SUCH EMPLOYEE OF BIHAR KEPT THEIR SALARY OF ENTIRE YEAR AS WELL AS PREVIOUS YEAR WITH APPELLANT AND THEREAFTER IN NEXT YEAR RELEVANT TO A.Y. 11-12 THEY CAME TO APPELLANT TWICE AND THRICE IN A MONTH TO RECEIVE IN CASH THE ARREAR IN DENOMINATION OF RS. 20 000/- OR BELOW CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND IDENTIFIABLE TRANSACTION. THE APPELLANT EVEN FAILED TO SUBMIT THE SERVICES RE NDERED BY THEM. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY SALARY REGISTER OR R ECEIPT (ON STAMP) FOR SUCH CASH PAYMENT TO THESE PERSONS. THE DETAILS IN THE L EDGER CLEARLY REFLECTING THAT SUCH PAYMENT IN CASH IN F.Y. 2010-11 IS A CAMOUFLAG ED TRANSACTION IN CASH TO JUSTIFY THE SALARY IN TWO YEARS. THE CONFIRMATION NOW SUBMITTED WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSION WERE ALSO MAKE BELIEVE PAPERS SINCE TH ESE WERE NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE A.O. OR EVEN BEFORE ME IN INITIAL HEARING AN D IF THESE CONFIRMATION IS AFTER THAT I.E. AFTER INITIAL HEARING BEFORE ME DT. 06/06/12 THE APPELLANT SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED THEIR PRESENT ADDRESS (LOCAL ADDRESS OF AHMEDABAD) WHEN THEY CAME AND SIGNED THESE CONFIRMATION. THE AMOU NT SO DISALLOWED IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED. THE GROUND IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - (C) GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.11 9 3 216/- BEING UNPROVED CREDITORS/BOGUS LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF THREE PAR TIES. THE A.O. AT PARA 5 OF THE ASSTT. ORDER DISCUSSED THE REASONS WHY HE TREATED T HE CREDITORS (THREE PARTIES) WHOSE OUTSTANDING BALANCES TOTAL RS. 11 93 216/- AS UNPROVED OR BOGUS. IN THE EVENTUALITY THAT A.O'S INQUIRY LETTER U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT ON THE ADDRESSES OF THESE PARTIES AS GIVEN BY APPELLANT RETURNED BACK T HE APPELLANT WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THESE PARTIES BUT APPELLANT ONLY SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THESE PARTIES. THE APPELLANT VIDE SUBMISSION DT. 05/06/12 SUBMITTED COPY OF LEDGER CONFIRMATION OF CREDITORS. IT IS AGAIN FOUND THAT S UCH LEDGER ACCOUNT (PAGE 8 TO 12) ARE HAVING ADDRESS OF THESE PARTIES BUT NO SIGN ATURE IS THERE AS CONFIRMATION. FURTHER IN THE CASE OF M/S.DEVI ERAC TORS AND M/S.DEVI ENGG. THE SAME WAS CONTENDED TO BE PROP.CONCERN OF ONE LA TE SHRI TULSHIDHARAN PILLAI RESIDENT OF A-2 KALPNA NAGAR CHANDKHEDA G UJARAT WITH PAN AFBPP6411Q. A COPY OF DEATH CERTIFICATE OF SHRI TUL SHIDHARN PILLAI WAS ALSO FILED. M/S NEW STAR ENGG. WAS CLAIMED TO BE HAVING ADDRESS AT D-12 SIDDHI COMPLEX CHANDKHEDA GANDHINAGAR AHMEDABAD WITH P AN AAJPO9658F. THE DETAILS OF REPAYMENT IS AS FOLLOWS: SR.NO. NAME OP. BALANCE AS ON 1.4.2009 PAID ON (DATE) AMOUNT MODE 1 DEVI ERACTORS 6 79 216 11.5.2009 9 500 CASH 1.4.2011 6 69 716 NOT GIVEN (CLAIMED TO BE PAID TO RAJAN PILLAI) 2 DEVI ENGG. 3 66 000 11.5.2009 12 000 CASH 1.4.2011 3 54 000 NOT GIVEN (CLAIMED TO BE PAID TO RAJAN PILLAI) 3 NEW STAR ENGG. 1 48 000 11.5.2009 13 000 CASH 14.6.2011 50 000 SBI A/C. NO. 104193875 ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - 24 03.8.2011 10 000 SBI AC/ NO. 315492892 58 05.10.2011 10 000 -DO- 15.10.2011 15 000 CASH 25.10.2011 20 000 CASH 08.11.2011 15 000 CASH 20.11.2011 15 000 CASH THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT REJECTED THESE HOLLOW AND NON CREDIBLE EVIDENCES. THE APPELLANT REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS IN REJOINDER . I AM NOT INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS FAR AS M/S.DEVI ERACTORS AND M/S. DEVI ENGG. IS CONCERNED BECAUSE IN SUBSEQU ENT YEAR THE APPELLANT PAID SUBSTANTIAL OUTSTANDING AMOUNT TO SHRI RAJAN P ILLAI BUT THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI RAJAN PILLAI THAT WHETHER HE RECEIVED SUCH SUM. IT IS ALSO NOT ASCERTAINABLE WHETHER SUCH SUM IS REFLECTE D ANYWHERE I.E. IN THE BOOKS OF DECEASED TULSIDHARAN PILLAI OR OF SHRI RAJAN PIL LAI. THE MODE OF SUCH PAYMENT IS ALSO NOT GIVEN I.E. IF THE SAME IS THROU GH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE THEN APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY DETAIL OF THE SAME. TH E APPELLANT ALSO NOT FURNISHED THE DETAIL OF WORK FOR WHICH THIS SUM WAS OUTSTANDING SO AS TO JUSTIFY THAT THE OUTSTANDING WAS NOT VERY OLD. IT IS THEREF ORE I AM INCLINED TO TREAT THIS OUTSTANDING LIABILITY AS UNPROVED AND BOGUS AS TREA TED BY A.O. IN REFERENCE TO M/S.NEW STAR ENGG. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A CONFIR MATION COPY OF BANK PASS BOOK OF PROPRIETOR MR.ABDUL WAHAB K. S/O.K.CHEKKUTT Y MURUMANCHERY HOUSE PADINHATTUMURI P.O. VIA.KOOTILANGADI-676506 PAN CARD FOR PAN ASTPA7184J TO IDENTIFY THE SIGNATURE. HOWEVER THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT FROM 30.6.2008 TO 04.03.2010 DOES NOT REFLECT ANY O F THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER THE CONFIRMATION IN LEDGER ACCOU NT DULY SIGNED BY SHRI ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - ABDUL WAHAB K. REFLECT THAT AS AGAINST OUTSTANDING OF RS. 1 48 000 THE APPELLANT PAID RS.13 000 ON 11.5.2009 AND REMAINING BALANCE IS STILL OUTSTANDING. IT IS THEREFORE THE APPELLANT FAILED TO JUSTIFY HIS CONTENTION ABOUT PAYMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. I AM INCLINED WITH THE CONTENTION OF A.O. THAT THIS LIABILITY IS ALSO UNPROVED AND BOGUS. IN CONCLUSION THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. (D) GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE U/S.40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR RS. 1 49 300. THE A.O. DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE AT PARA 6 O F THE ASSTT.ORDER. THE APPELLANT CREDITED RS.71 000 AS LABOUR EXPENSES IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S.VIMAL INDUSTRIAL PRODUCT AND RS.78 300 IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI HARSHIL L PATEL AS LABOUR EXPENSES BUT THE ASSESSEE THOUGH DEDUCTED TH E TDS OUT OF SUCH PAYMENT IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY AND FEBRUARY BUT DEPOSITED IN THE GOVT. TREASURY IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF PROVIS IONS OF TDS ON WHICH SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS APPLICABLE. THE APP ELLANT SUBMITTED THE DETAIL OF TDS SO DEDUCTED AND DEPOSITED DURING ASSTT.PROCEEDI NGS AND IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. IT IS VERIFIED FROM THE SUMMARY AND CO PIES OF TDS PAYMENT CHALLAN THAT SAID TDS THOUGH DEPOSITED LATE BUT BEF ORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME FOR PREVIOUS YEAR. AS PER SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THE AMENDMENT SO BROUGHT IN SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE AC T IS HELD AS BENEFICIARY AND IF TDS SO DEDUCTED IS PAID BEFORE DUE DATE AS STIPU LATED IN SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT THE DISALLOWANCES U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. IT IS THEREFORE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW SUCH EXPENDITU RE AND DELETE THE ADDITION SO MADE OF RS. 1 49 300/-. THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF A CCORDINGLY. (E) GROUND NO. 5 HAS FIVE PRAYERS OUT OF WHICH THRE E ARE ALREADY ADJUDICATED ABOVE. THE (IV) TH PRAYER IS TO SET ASIDE THE DEMAND FOR THE TAX AMOU NT OF RS. 12 41 996/- & THE INTEREST U/S 234A & 234D AMOUNT T O RS. 50 347/- AND (V) TH IS TO SET ASIDE THE DEMAND U/S. 156 OF THE ACT OF RS. 10 91 540. SINCE MAIN GROUNDS ARE ALREADY ADJUDICATED THAT WILL GIVE A R ESULTANT DEMAND. SINCE CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234A & 234D IS MANDATORY B UT NOW CONSEQUENTIAL THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO COMPUTE SUCH INTEREST AFTER GIV ING EFFECT TO RELIEF GRANTED BY ME IN EARLIER PARAS. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE TREAT ED AS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1215/AHD /2013 SHRI MOHMMAD RASHEED KAIPALLY VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - 5. WE DO NOT FIND ANY PERVERSITY IN THE ORDER OF CI T(A) PER SE . IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL/DOCUMENTS TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED EX-PARTE. 6. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED EX-PARTE IN LIMINE. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10/ 11 /2017 (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 10/ 11 /2017 4..+ .+../ T.C. NAIR SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567- 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XV AHMEDABAD 5. 9:-+67 670 5 / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. < / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER (9-- //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD