The ITO, Ward-6(2),, Ahmedabad v. Shri Pareshbhai C.Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 1226/AHD/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 122620514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AESPS2176K
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1226/AHD/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-6(2),, Ahmedabad
Respondent Shri Pareshbhai C.Shah, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 31-07-2015
Date Of Final Hearing 27-07-2015
Next Hearing Date 27-07-2015
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 25-04-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH AHMEDABAD .. ( .) BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1226/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-6(2) AHMEDABAD / VS. SHRI PARESHBHAI C.SHAH F-401 SAHJANAND RESIDENCY OPP.UNIVERSITY GROUND NR.MEMNAGAR CROSS ROAD MEMNAGAR AHMEDABAD-380 052 % & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AESPS 2176 K ( %( / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*%( / RESPONDENT ) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 AY 2006-07 (IN ITA NO.1226/AHD/2011 AY 2006-07) SHRI PARESHBHAI C. SHAH VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER MEMNAGAR AHMEDABAD WARD-6(2) AHMEDABAD (CROSS OBJECTOR) .. (RESP ONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI NARENDRA SINGH SR.DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.V. GANDHI AR + - .& / DATE OF HEARING 27/07/2015 /012 - .& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/07/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 2 - TAX(APPEALS)-XI AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 28/02/2011 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2006-07. THE A PPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPO SED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E I.E. ITA NO.1226/AHD/2011. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOW ING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 8 00 850/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES. 2. THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING THE AO TO VERIFY THE CONTENTIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE REGARDING ADDITION OF 1 60 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS CASH-CREDIT I N CONTRAVENTION OF SEC.251. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 22/12/2008 THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 3 - ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES OF RS.9 62 850/- AND BOGUS CASH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS.1 60 000/-. THE ASSES SEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1 62 000/- OUT OF RS.9 62 850/- AND ALSO DIRE CTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS.1 60 000/-. 3. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQ UIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 4. THE FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.8 00 850/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.9 62 850/-. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME HAS DISCLOSED ONLY ONE DIVISION OF BUSINESS WHEREIN HE HAS SHOWN TOTAL SALE OF RS.39 66 370/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS CONTRAVERTED WITH T HE BANK DETAILS THEN HE CAME WITH AN EXPLANATION THAT HE HAS BEEN CARRIE D OUT TWO DIVISIONS OF BUSINESS. ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 4 - 4.1. ON THE CONTRARY LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE AO THE COPY OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANC E SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI PARESH C.SHAH WAS FILED. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT AS STATED AND THE COPY OF LEDGER ACC OUNT OF JAI JINENDRA ENTERPRISE FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED GOO DS AND THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE ALSO ENCLOSED WITH THE PAPER-BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.2.1 AS SEEN FROM HIS ACCOUNT NO.0811 0010 00212 3 WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK CHEQUE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO J AI JINENDRA ENT.(ASSESSED WITH THE SAME AO) FROM WHOM HE STATED TO HAVE MADE PURCHASES FOR RETAIL BUSINESS. AS AGAINS T TOTAL DEPOSITS (CASH + CHEQUE) MADE OF RS.16.62 LAKHS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT WITHDRAWALS OF RS.16.63 LAKHS WERE MADE (OPENING BA LANCE BEING RS.1022/- AND CLOSING BALANCE BEING RS.2.92). A.O. WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE SUBMISSIONS/EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT TREATED THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS AS INCOME OF THE AP PELLANT. HE DID NOTHING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURCHASE OF RETAIL BUSINESS HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PURCHASES OF WHOLE-SALE B USINESS. THEREFORE HIS OBSERVATION THAT APPELLANTS EXPLANA TION IS A CONCOCTED STORY DOES NOT STAND TO REASON. 2.2.2. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE I AM INCLI NED TO ACCEPT THE APPELLANTS PLEA THAT THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT BE TAKEN TO BE THE TURNOVER AND G.P. BE ESTIMATED. IT IS SEEN THAT G. P. OF THE ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 5 - APPELLANTS WHOLESALE BUSINESS IS 11.70%. SINCE TH E RETAIL BUSINESS IS MORE PROFITABLE G.P. OF RETAIL BUSINES S IS ESTIMATED AT 15%. ACCORDINGLY 15% OF 10.8 LAKHS WHICH WORKS OU T TO RS.1 62 000/- IS TAKEN TO BE THE G.P. SINCE APPELL ANT HAS NOT EVEN CLAIMED (LEAVE ALONE DEMONSTRATE) THAT ANY OTHER EX PENSES (OVER AND ABOVE THOSE INCURRED FOR WHOLE-SALE BUSINESS) W ERE INCURRED FOR RETAIL BUSINESS SAID AMOUNT OF RS.1 62 000/- I S TAKEN TO BE THE NET PROFIT FROM RETAIL BUSINESS (NOT REFLECTED IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT). ACCORDINGLY ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 62 000/- IS CONFIRMED. BALANCE ADDITION OF RS .8 00 850/- IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6.1. THE ABOVE FINDING ON FACT OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS THAT AS AGAINST TOTAL DEPOSITS (CASH + CHEQUE) MADE OF RS.16.62 LAKHS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WITHDRAWALS OF RS.16.63 LAKHS WERE MADE. THE AO WI THOUT CONTROVERTING THE SUBMISSIONS/EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO DID NOTHING TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE PURCHASE OF RETAIL BUSINESS HA D BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE PURCHASE OF WHOLE SALE BUSINESS. THE ABOVE FIN DING OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. UNDER THESE FACTS WE DO NOT ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 6 - 7. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR VERIFICATION. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F AO. 7.1. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE AND WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT HE HAS NOT VERIFIED THE DETAIL S AS DIRECTED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 13/07/2012 HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. HE SUBM ITTED THAT AGAINST THAT ORDER THE REVENUE HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) IN THE ORDER UNDER APPEA L AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS IN PARA-3.2 OF HIS ORDER HAD DIREC TED THE AO TO VERIFY THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS AND MODIFIED THE ORDER ACCOR DINGLY. THE RELEVANT PARA-3.2 IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT AND THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ARE THAT N O DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. AND THAT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ARE B EING FURNISHED. A.O. IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE APPELLANTS CONTENTIONS A ND MODIFY THE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL I TREATED AS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 7 - 8.1. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE WHILE GIVING APPEAL E FFECT THE AO HAD AGAIN SUSTAINED THE ADDITION WHICH WERE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N. AGAINST THAT ORDER THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL. SO FAR AS THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN RESTORING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE O F AO FOR VERIFYING THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIONS THAT THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE W AS ISSUED IS CONCERNED THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THE MERIT IN THE CASE. HOWEVER THE ISSUE WAS SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO THE EXTENT OF VERIFICATION WHETHER THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSU ED OR NOT. IN THE PAPER-BOOK THE ASSESSEE HAS ENCLOSED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) DATED 13/07/2012 WHEREIN THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS U NDER:- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED VARIOUS CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. I T IS SEEN THAT APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED SMALL LOANS OF RS.1 60 000/- FROM NINE PER SONS. OUT OF THESE NINE PERSONS FOLLOWING THREE PERSONS ARE ASSESSED TO TA X. SR.NO. NAME AMOUNT RELATIONSHIP PAN 1. BHARAT C.SHAH 18 000/- BROTHER AESPS2162M 2. KIRITBHAI H.TALSANIA 18 000/- BROTHER IN LAW ABWPT2317E 3. ABHISHABEN N.SHAH 16 000/- BROTHERS WIFE AYHPS8641J SINCE THESE PERSONS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND THEIR I DENTITY IS ALSO ESTABLISHED ACCORDINGLY APPELLANT HAS PROVED IDENTIFY GENUINEN ESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS IN RESPECT OF THESE PERSONS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LOANS RECEIVED FROM THESE PERSONS OF RS. 52 000/- SHOULD BE ACCEPTED. ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 8 - 4. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RECEIVED LOANS OF RS.1 08 000/- FROM OTHER SIX PERSONS. ALL THESE PERSONS ARE CLOSELY RELATED WITH THE APPELLANT. THE LOANS RECEIVED FROM THESE PERSONS ARE IN SMALL DENOMINATI ONS RANGING FROM RS. 16 000/- TO RS. 19 000/-. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISH ED SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THESE PERSONS. AS FAR AS GENU INENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IS CONCERNED CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PERSONS ARE A LREADY ON RECORD. SINCE AMOUNTS INVOLVED ARE SMALL AND THESE PERSONS ARE IN TIMATELY RELATED WITH THE APPELLANT IT CAN BE SAFELY ASSUMED THAT THESE AMOU NTS ARE ACCRUED WITH THESE PERSONS OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT HAS RIGHTLY PLACED RELIANCE ON SUNIL DUA V/S. CIT (2011) 330 ITR 413(D EL.) IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT LOANS OF RS .1 08 000/- FROM THESE PERSONS SHOULD ALSO BE ACCEPTED. IT WILL BE WORTHWH ILE TO MENTION HERE THAT MY PREDECESSOR IN APPEAL NO CIT(A)-XI/712/08-09 DTD .28-02-2011 HAS ALSO ALLOWED APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE SUBJECT TO VERIFICATIO N. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE I HOLD THAT LOANS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 60 000/- SHO ULD BE ACCEPTED. ACCORDINGLY THE A.O.IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS.1 60 000/-. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8.2. THE ABOVE FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT BEE N CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE AS ALSO NOT POINTED OUT THAT WHETHER AN Y APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AGAINST THIS ORDER. THEREFORE AFTER CONSIDE RING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS GROUND NO.2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. AS A RESULT REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. NOW WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION NO.111/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2006-07 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1226/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2006-07 - BY REVENUE) WHER EIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 9 - 1. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE A DDITION OF RS. 8 00 850/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALE. 2. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DIRECTED TO VE RIFY THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 1 60 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON GENUINE CASH CREDIT IN NON CONTRAVENTION OF SEC. 251. THE LD. A.O. HAD NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO EXPLAIN THE CA SH CREDIT. THERE IS A BREACH OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE AUTHORITIES HA VE NO POWER TO VERIFY CASH CREDIT WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 44AF ARE APPLIC ABLE. 3. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN NOT ALLOWING LOSS IN SHARES DERIVATIVE TRANSACTIONS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3 28 097/-. THIS IS A PURE BUSINESS LOSS. THE HON'BLE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE D ISALLOWED THE LOSS STATING THAT THE SAME WAS NOT CLAIMED IN RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE CAN FILE AND CLAIM ANYTHING DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS AS PER VIEW OF HON'BLE P & H H.C. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAMCO INT ERNATIONAL (2011) 332 ITR 306. 4. THE RESPONDENT (CROSS OBJECTOR) IN THE SAID MA TTER RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ADD AMEND ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF CROSS OBJE CTIONS BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING. 9.1. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NOS.1 & 3 OF THE CO AND T HEREFORE THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS SUCH. 10. SO FAR AS GROUND NO.2 IS CONCERNED THE LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NO POWER TO VERIFY THE CASH CREDIT WHERE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT ARE APPLICABLE. ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 10 - 10.1. ON THE CONTRARY LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THER E IS NO BAR U/S.44AF OF THE ACT THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES CANNOT VERIFY T HE CASH CREDIT AS STATED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS AL SO FILED A WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN WHICH HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE GI VING APPEAL EFFECT THE AO HAD ONCE AGAIN CONFIRMED THE ADDITION HOWEV ER IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION. UNDER THESE FACTS THE GROUND RAISED IN THE CROSS-OBJECTION HAS BECOME ACADEMIC AND THEREF ORE THE SAME IS REJECTED. 12. GROUND NO.4 IS GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH REQUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 13. IN THE RESULT REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSE SSEES CROSS- OBJECTION BOTH ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON FRIDAY THE 31 ST DAY OF JULY 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( .. ) ( ) ( . ) ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( KUL BHARAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/ 07 /2015 5...+ .+../ T.C. NAIR SR. PS ITA NO. 1226 /AHD/2011 (BY REVENUE) AND CO NO.111/AHD/2011 (BY ASSESSEE) ITO VS. PARESHBHAI C.SHAH ASST.YEAR 2006-07 - 11 - !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. %( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*%( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 678 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XI AHMEDABAD 5. :; )+78 . 782 6 / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. ;< = / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER *: ) //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 27.4.15 (DICTATION-PAD 1 2+ PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..28.7.15 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.31.7.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.7.15 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER