Shri Maheboobali R. Asaria,, Bhavnagar v. The DCIT, Circle -1,, Bhavnagar

ITA 1895/AHD/2013 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2016 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 189520514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AESPA0595A
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1895/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant Shri Maheboobali R. Asaria,, Bhavnagar
Respondent The DCIT, Circle -1,, Bhavnagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 29-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 08-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 08-09-2016
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 05-07-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA JM & SHRI MANISH BORAD AM. ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR: 2008-09 MAHEBOOBALI R. ASARIA 42-B DEVBAUG BHAVNAGAR. VS. DCIT CIRCLE-1 BHAVNAGAR. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN AESPA 0595A APPELLANT BY SHRI M. J. SHAH AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. CHANDEL SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 8/9/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29/9/2016 O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XX AHMEDABAD DATED 1.5.2013 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)- XX/452/10-11 PASSED AGAINST ORDER U/S 143(3) OF TH E IT ACT 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FRAMED ON 29.12.2010 BY DCIT CIRCLE -BHAVNAGAR. ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE DCIT TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11 96 087/- U/S 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE DCIT TOWARDS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22 44 344/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNCLAIMED CASH CREDIT. ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 2 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MAY B E CANCELLED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHIP HIRING A CTIVITIES AND TRADING IN SHARES/SECURITIES. E-RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.30 00 000/- AND CURREN T YEAR LOSS OF RS.2 50 80 293/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTIN Y ASSESSMENT. NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. INCOM E WAS ASSESSED AT RS.30 00 000/- AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS.2 25 56 687/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF RS.11 96 0 87/- UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.2 01 67 600/- AND CLAIM OF DEPRECIATIO N OF RS.11 93 000/- ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS SE T OFF OUT OF THE CURRENT YEARS LOSS OF RS.2 50 80 293/-. 3. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST TWO SUSTAINED ADDITION (I) OF RS.11.96 087/ - U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF TDS ON INTEREST EXPENSES AND (II) ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION SUSTAINED AT RS.22 44 344/- TOWARDS UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 5. FIRST WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.1 TOWARDS DISALLOWANC E U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT IS UNCALLED FOR AS THE ASSESSEE BEING INDIVIDUAL IS COVERED UNDER THE ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 3 PROVISIONS OF SEC.44AB OF THE ACT IF THE GROSS TURN OVER OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING FINANCIAL YEAR CROSS THE LIMI T U/S 44AB OF THE ACT WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS THE FIRST YEAR OF TAX AUDIT. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THIS DISALLOWANCE IS ALSO UNCALLED FOR FOR THE VERY REASON THAT THERE IS INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT WHICH IS DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE IN NATURE AND IT IS RETROSPECTIVE WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2005 BEING THE DATE FROM WHICH SUCH CLAUSE (IA) OF SECTION 40(A) WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT 2004. LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIPS PVT. LTD.(2015) 377 ITR 63 5 (DEL) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO TH E FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO VERIFY WHETHER THE AM OUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.11 96 087/- HAS BEEN SHOWN THE SAME IN THEIR REG ULAR RETURN OF INCOME AND PAID THE DUE TAXES THEREON. 6. LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIE S. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND GONE THR OUGH THE JUDGMENT AND DECISION REFERRED AND RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR. THROUGH THIS GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE OF DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.11 96 087/- U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT TOWARDS DED UCTION OF TDS ON INTEREST EXPENSES. WE OBSERVE THAT LD. AR HAS MADE TWO FOLD SUBMISSIONS. HOWEVER THE LD. AR COULD NOT SUBSTANT IATE MUCH TO PROVE THAT THIS IS THE FIRST YEAR OF AUDIT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE STRIKE DONE THE FIRST CONTE NTION. ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 4 NOW GOING THROUGH THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. ANSAL LANDMARK TOWNSHIPS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL VS. AC IT (2014) 149 ITD 363 (AGRA) WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE ARGUMENTS O F LD. AR THAT INSERTION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(IA) IS DECLAR ATORY AND CURATIVE IN NATURE WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL 2005. WE FIND THAT HON. DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL LANDM ARK TOWNSHIPS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS SPECIFICALLY APPROVED THE STA ND TAKEN BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH AGRA UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ACIT (SUPRA) BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER :- 9. ............................ NOW THAT THE LEGISLA TURE HAS BEEN COMPASSIONATE ENOUGH TO CURE THESE SHORTCOMINGS OF PROVISION AND THUS OBVIATE THE UNINT ENDED HARDSHIPS SUCH AN AMENDMENT IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE WELL SETTLED LEGAL POSITION TO THE EFFECT THAT A CURATIVE AMENDMENT TO AVOID UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS TO BE TREATED AS RET ROSPECTIVE IN NATURE EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT STATE SO SPECIFICALLY THE INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO MUST BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE RELATED LEGAL PROVISION WAS INTRODUCED. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS AS ALSO FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET OU T EARLIER WE CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT IT COULD HAVE BEEN AN 'INTENDED CONSEQUENCE' TO PUNISH THE ASSESSEES FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BY DECLINING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RELATED PAYMENTS EVEN WHEN THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS DULY BROUGHT TO TAX. THAT WILL BE GOING MUCH BEYOND THE OBVIOUS INTENTION OF THE SECTION. ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT THE INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE IN NATURE AND IT HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1ST APRIL 2005 BEING THE DATE FROM WHICH SUB CLAUSE (IA) OF SECTION 40(A) WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT 2004. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS WE DEEM IT FIT A ND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AND AFTER CARRYING OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATIONS REGARDING RELATED P AYMENTS HAVING BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE RECIPIENTS IN COMPUTATION OF THEIR INCOM E REGARDING PAYMENT OF TAXES IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME AND REGARDING FILING OF THE RELAT ED INCOME TAX RETURNS BY THE RECIPIENTS. WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THESE DIRECTIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE DUE AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE DECIDE T HE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. WE ORDER SO. 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HON. DELH I HIGH COURT AND THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH AS REFER RED ABOVE IN PARA 7 WE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 5 ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE OBSERVATION. WE FURTHER DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO CARRY OUT NECESSARY VERIFICATION REGARDING PAYMENTS AND ALSO TO VERIFY THE COMPUTATION OF INCO ME AND INCOME- TAX RETURN OF THE RESPONDENT OF THE IMPUGNED INTERE ST AMOUNT OF RS. 11 96 087/- AND TO SATISFY HIMSELF THAT THE IMPUGNE D AMOUNT HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX BY WAY OF INCLUDING IN THE TOTA L INCOME. WE FURTHER DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE MATTER I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 9. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.2 TOWARDS ADDITION SUST AINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22 44 3 44/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 10. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 22 44 344/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT FROM FO LLOWING 7 PARTIES:- SL.NO. NAME OF THE CREDITOR AMOUNT 1 JAYESHBHAI N. SHAH RS.2 13 200 2 LATABEN SANKARBHAI KUKREJA RS.2 12 867 3 MOHINIBEN G. ROHIDE RS.2 12 867 4 NITABEN SUNIL SHAH RS. 1 06 600 5 PADME TRADING CO. RS.2 13 600 6 ROOPABEN KIRITBHAI SHAH RS.2 13 200 7 SHIVANGI IMPEX RS.10 68 000 TOTAL RS.22 40 334 DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US LD. AR SUBM ITTED THAT ALL NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING A UTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PREPARATION OF REMAND REPORT AS PER THE DIRECTION OF LD. ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 6 CIT(A) AND ALL DETAILS INCLUDING CONFIRMATIONS LETT ERS WERE PROVIDED IN ALL THOSE CASES. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKH AVA (2012) 21 TAXMANN.COM 159(GUJ) HAS DECIDED SIMILAR ISSUE WHER EIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE PROVIDES PAN OF THE LEND ERS THEN IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THOSE LENDERS WHETHER IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN S THEY HAD SHOWN EXISTENCE OF SUCH AMOUNT OF MONEY AND HAD FURTHER S HOWN THAT THOSE AMOUNT OF MONEY HAD BEEN LENT TO THE ASSESSEE. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE JUDGMENT REFERRED BY THE LD. AR. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT TO ASCERTAIN THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE C ASH CREDITORS ON VARIOUS UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWE VER IN THE CASE OF 7 UNSECURED LOANS COPY OF PAN CARDS WERE NO T AVAILABLE NEITHER BANK STATEMENT WAS PROVIDED. WE HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE REMAND REPORT PLACED AT PAGES 41 OF THE PAPER BOOK ALONG WITH ABSTRACT OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 4.11.2011 AT PA GES 141 TO 144 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM GOING THROUGH THE SAME WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF THREE PARTIES NAMELY LATABEN SHANKARBHAI KUKREJ A MOHINI A. SHAH AND RUPABEN K. SHAH FROM WHOM ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.2 12 867/- RS. 2 12 867/- & R S.2 13 200/- RESPECTIVELY TOTALING TO RS.6 38 934/- ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 7 PROVIDE PAN AS WELL AS BANK STATEMENT. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE ANY INFO RMATION ABOUT THE PANS OF THESE THREE CASH CREDITORS. 13. AS FAR AS UNSECURED LOANS FROM JAYESH N. SHAH O F RS.2 13 200/- AND INDUMATI C. GANDHI OF RS.1 06 800 /- PADMA TRADING COMPANY AT RS.2 13 600/- AND SHIVANGI IMPEX AT RS.10 68 000/- ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE TH E CONFIRMATION LETTERS WHICH ALSO HAVE THE DETAILS OF PANS IN ALL THESE FOUR LETTERS. 14. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RANCHHOD J. NAKHAVA (SUPRA) HAS AD JUDICATED THE ISSUE RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND PAN H AS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ONUS WAS CASTED ON THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- HELD ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAS TAKEN MONEY BY WAY OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES FROM THE LENDERS WHO ARE ALL INCOME TAX ASS ESSEES WHOSE PAN HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED THE INITIAL BURDEN UNDER SECTION 68 WAS DISCHARGED. IT FURTHER APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTERS GIV EN BY THOSE LENDERS. [PARA 15] ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER GETS HOLD OF THE PAN OF THE LENDERS IT WAS HIS DUTY TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THOSE LENDE RS WHETHER IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS THEY HAD SHOWN EXISTENCE OF SUCH AMOUNT OF MONEY AN D HAD FURTHER SHOWN THAT THOSE AMOUNT OF MONEY HAD BEEN LENT TO THE ASSESSEE. IF B EFORE VERIFYING OF SUCH FACT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE LENDERS OF THE ASSESSEE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DECIDES TO EXAMINE THE LENDERS AND ASKS THE ASSESSEE TO FURTHER PROVE (HE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN UNDER SECTION 68. [PARA 16] IF ON VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THOSE LENDERS DID NOT DISCLOSE IN THEIR INCOME TAX RETURN THE TRANSACTION OR THAT THEY HAD NOT DISCLOS ED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD CALL FOR FURTHER EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 8 THE TRANSACTION OR CREDITS ORLHINESS OF THE SAME. H OWEVER WITHOUT VERIFYING SUCH FACT FROM THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE CREDITORS THE AC TION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN EXAMINING THE LENDERS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A WRONG A PPROACH. MOREOVER THOSE LENDERS HAVE MADE INCONSISTENT STATEMENTS AS POINTED OUT BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES BOTH THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL WERE JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ADDITION AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT TAKING STEP FOR VERIFICATION OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE CREDITORS TOOK UNNECE SSARY STEPS OF FURTHER EXAMINING THOSE CREDITORS. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OF THOSE CREDI TORS ARE SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE CREDITORS AS REGARDS THOSE TRANSACTION S THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN QUESTION HAS NO JUSTIFICATION TO DISBELIEVE THE TRANSACTIONS REF LECTED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS. IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DISPUTE THE CORRECTNESS OF ASSESSMENTS OF THE CREDITORS OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN A CO-ORDINATE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED WITH THE TRANSACTION. [PARA 17] THUS THE TRIBUNAL RIGHTLY SET ASIDE THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON ERRONEOUS APPROACH BY WRONGLY SHIFTING THE BURDEN A GAIN UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE CREDITORS. THE POSITION HOWEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN DIFFERENT IF THOSE CREDITORS WERE NOT INCOME TAX AS SESSEES OR IF THEY HAD NOT DISCLOSED THOSE TRANSACTIONS IN THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS OR I F SUCH RETURNS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THEIR ASSESSING OFFICER. [PARA 18] THERE WAS NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL AND SAME WAS TO BE DISMISSED. [PARA 19] 15. APPLYING THE RATIO OF THE ABOVE DECISION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT AS REGARDS UN SECURED LOANS FROM THREE PARTIES TOTALING TO RS. 6 38 934/- ASSES SEE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO PROVIDE ANY DETAIL OF PAN ETC. AND THEREF ORE WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN RELATION TO THE ABOVE THREE PARTIES AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 3 8 934/-. 16. FURTHER AS REGARDS THE BALANCE UNSECURED LOAN O F RS.16 05 415/- FROM THE ABOVE FOUR PARTIES WHERE TH E ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF PAN IN THE CONFIRMATIONS LETTERS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER FOR LIMITED PURPOSES OF VERIFYING THE PAN DETAILS OF THE FOUR P ARTIES IN THE LIGHT OF JUDGMENT OF HON. JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 9 RANCHHOD J. NAKHAVA (SUPRA) AND ALSO TO ASCERTAIN N ECESSARY DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF UNSECURED CASH CREDIT ORS AS TO WHETHER THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF LOANS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN THE REGULAR RETURNS OF INCOME. AFTER VERIF YING THE SAME LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER TO TH IS EFFECT AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF ASSE SSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. GROUND NO.3 IS OF GENERAL NATURE WHICH NEEDS N O ADJUDICATION. 15. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 SD/- SD/- (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 29/9/2016 MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASST. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD ITA NO. 1895/AHD/2013 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 10 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 20/09/2016 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 28/09/2016 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 29/9/2016 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: