The ITO, Ward-3(2),, Surat v. Shri Babubhai Kanjibhai Patel,HUF, Surat

ITA 342/AHD/2007 | 1998-1999
Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 34220514 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN AADHP5810H
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 342/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-3(2),, Surat
Respondent Shri Babubhai Kanjibhai Patel,HUF, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 26-03-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 26-03-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 23-03-2010
Next Hearing Date 23-03-2010
Assessment Year 1998-1999
Appeal Filed On 19-01-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 23/03/2010 DRAFTED ON: 24 /03/2010 ITA NOS.342 AND 4293/AHD/2007 ASSESSMENT YEARS :1998-99 & 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(2) SURAT VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL HUF 107 INDRAPRASTHA APARTMENTS OPP. GIRDHARWAR SOCIETY UDHNA MAGDALLA ROAD SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AADHP 5810 H (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.MADHUSUDAN SR.D.R. RESPONDENT BY: WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS O R D E R PER SHRI T.K.SHARMA JUDICIAL MEMBER :- BOTH THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAIN ST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 21/11/2006 & 28/09/2007 OF THE LEARNE D CIT(APPEALS)-II SURAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 & 1999-2000 RES PECTIVELY. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS ARE THAT THE SURVEY PR OCEEDINGS U/S.133A OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA C.A. THE FILE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS IMPOUNDED AS PER ANNEXURE A-516. SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA C.A. WAS INDULGED IN CREATION OF BOGUS CA PITAL WITH AN INTENTION TO PROVIDE ENTRIES OF CASH CREDIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF VARIOUS PARTIES. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 IN THE CA SE OF ASSESSEE-HUF ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 2 - FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 & 1999-2000. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE IMPOUN DED FILE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED FINAL SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE DA TED 17/03/2006 REQUESTING THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL AVAILABLE RE CORDS INCLUDING BANK PASSBOOK DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES ETC. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE FOR INSPECTION OF IMPOU NDED DOCUMENTS ON 22 ND MARCH-2006. THE SAID OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY FRAMED THE ASSESS MENT U/S.144 R.W.S.147 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 ON 18/10/2006 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 WHEREIN HE TREATED RS.8 36 536/- AS UNEXPLA INED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 2.1. ON SIMILAR BASIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAME D THE ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ON 29/02/2006 WHEREIN HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.8 84 137/- ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING BALANCE OF CAPI TAL ACCOUNT. 3. ON APPEAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HELD THAT ASSESSING OF FICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE UNSIGNED AND UNAUTHE NTICATED ENTRIES IN LOOSE-SHEETS OF PAPER FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PARTY I.E. THE C.A. SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WHO HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE CREA TED SUCH ACCOUNTS HIMSELF. THESE ENTRIES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE SO AS TO ESTABLISH THEIR GEN UINENESS. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) ALSO FOUND THAT SIMILAR VIEW TAKEN BY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CBI VS. V.C. SHUKLA (1998) 3 S CC 410. HE ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 3 - ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER OF RS.8 36 536/- U/S.68 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. 3.1. IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 ALSO THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THA T THERE WAS A MIS-APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND LACK OF APPLICATI ON OF MIND STATING THAT THE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WAS CONDUCTED SOMEWHERE IN 2005 AND IN THE COURSE OF SU RVEY A STATEMENT OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE HAS AD MITTED TO HAVE CREATED BOGUS CAPITAL ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF HIS C LIENTS. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FURTHER STATED THAT THE CREATION OF SH RI PANKAJ DANAWALA C.A. REMAINED CONFINED TO THE PAPERS THAT WERE FOUN D IN HIS POSSESSION. NO ENTRY WAS MADE OF SUCH AMOUNTS IN THE REGULAR BO OKS OF THE A AND SINCE THERE WAS NO ENTRY IN THE BOOKS THE PROVISIO N OF SECTION 68 COULD NOT BE INVOKED AND CONSEQUENTLY NO ADDITION COUL D BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE PAPERS DID NOT CO NTAIN THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE NOR WERE THE AMOUNTS ENTERED THEREIN W ERE UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ANY CLAIM OR SEEK ANY RELIEF FROM THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER(S) OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE SHRI K.MADHUSUDAN LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A PPEARED AND ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 4 - FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 HE CONTENDED THAT THE O PENING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF BALANCE-SHEET AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED DURING THE COURSE OF S URVEY IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA. THEY ARE NOT LOOSE-PAPER SH EETS BUT COMPLETE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE-SHEET GIVING D ETAILS OF EACH AND EVERY ENTRY ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.YS 1999-2000 TO 2003-04 HAD BEEN FILED BECAUSE IN THE BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31/03/20 04 FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2003-04 BALANCE IN CAPIT AL AS ON 31/03/1998 OF RS.8 36 536/- WAS ONLY CARRIED FORWARD BY THE A SSESSEE. THEREFORE IT IS INCORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIM ED ANY RELIEF ON THE BASIS OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE-SHEET FOUND DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA. FURTHER TH E CAPITAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS SUPPORTED BY THE CORRESPONDING ASSETS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEETS. THUS THE APPLICATION OF CAPITAL HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN BY THE A IN THE BALANCE-SHEET THEREFORE IT IS ALSO WRONG TO SAY THAT THE CAPITAL SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORROBORATED BY OTHER EVIDENCE. SO FAR AS THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF C BI VS. V.C.SHUKLA IS CONCERNED THE DECISION WAS GIVEN BY THE SUPREME CO URT IN CRIMINAL PROCEEDING AND NOT IN INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS. THER EFORE THE SAME CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MADE UN DER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE DECISION OF THE L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THIS CA SE IS RS.5 37 223/-. ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 5 - 5.1. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE LEARNED DEP ARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEA LS) HAS NOT RIGHTLY APPRECIATED THE EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER IN BRINGING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO TAX. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA HAS MAINTAINED CERTAIN FILES OF HIS CLIENT FOR THE PURPOSE WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THAT OF ASSESSEE SH RI BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF. IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DU RING THE SURVEY HE HAS CLEAR-CUT ADMITTED THE FACT THAT THE FILES MAINTAINED BY HIM/FOUND FROM HIS OFFICE ARE MEANT FOR ENTRIES TO CREATE BOGUS CAPITAL. THE CREATION OF BOGUS CAPITAL WAS DONE B Y HIM IN THE FILES OF HIS CLIENTS AT THE INSTANCE OF HIS ASSESSEES/CL IENTS ONLY. HAD IT NOT BEEN IN THE CASE WHY THE FILE PAN BANK ACCOU NT AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL HUF WERE FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA. AS C AN BE SEEN FROM THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THOUGH THERE IS NO SOURCE OF INCOME OF ASSESSEE HUF IT IS SURPRISING TO NOTE TH AT WHEREFROM THE CAPITAL HAD COME FROM I.E. IN THE GUISE OF GIFTS AN D CASH ONLY WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE VERIFIED BANK ACCOUNT OF THE A SSESSEE. SECONDLY IF IT WAS NOT SO WHY SHRI PANKAJ DANAWAL A WILL ADMIT THE THINGS OF CREATION OF BOGUS CAPITAL IN THE NAME OF HIS CLIENTS. THIRDLY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE QUESTION OF VERIFICATION OR ANY SUPPORTING PROOF DO ES NOT ARISE. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE CREATOR SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED TO HAVE CREATED THE ENTRIES WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 6 - ANY FURTHER PROOF TO PROVE THE SUBJECT. MOST IMPORT ANTLY IT IS TO BE MENTIONED HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN ILLITERATE M AN WHO DO NOT KNOW THE MEANING OF HUF EVEN WHO HAS NEVER MADE OR RECEIVED GIFTS IN HIS LIFE FOR THE REASON HE WAS A TOTALLY A GRICULTURIST BUT WITH THE HELP OF SUCH CREATORS (PANKAJ DAANAWALA) HE HAS MADE THAT MUCH CAPITAL WHICH IS NOTHING BUT THE CREATION OF CAPITA L THROUGH DUBIOUS METHODS. THE SAID FACT IS SUPPORTED BY THE STATEMEN T GIVEN BY SHRI PANAKAJ DANAWALA. THEREFORE IT DOES NOT REQUIRE MO RE CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES AS ASKED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE HE OUG HT TO HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED THE ADDITION INSTEAD OF DELETING THE ADDI TION RELYING ON THE CONCOCTED STORY OF THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NONE WAS PRESENT. H OWEVER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED WHEREIN IT WAS CONTE NDED THAT THERE IS NO CREATION OF CAPITAL BY THE ASSESSEE-HUF IN TH E YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE EARNED ANY INCOME DU RING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE NO RETURN OF IN COME FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE FILED. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDE D THAT NO ADDITION U/S.68 CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT BROUGHT FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEARS. TO SUM UP IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IT WAS CONTENDED THAT VIEW TAKEN BY TH E LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE THEREFORE THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BE DISMISSED. ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 7 - 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER REGARDING RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. HOWEVER ON MERITS HE DELETED THE ADDI TION AND REASONS GIVEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ARE CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH NO.10.11 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE IN THE FOLLOWING T ERMS:- 10.11 SUMMARISING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS HELD THAT T HE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RELYING UPON THE UNSIGNED AND UNAUTHENTICATED ENTRIES IN LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER FOUND FROM THE PRE MISES OF A THIRD PARTY THAT IS THE C.A. SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WHO HAD ADM ITTED TO HAVE CREATED SUCH ACCOUNTS HIMSELF. FOR THE CONDITIONS U /S. 68 TO BE SATISFIED AND FOR ANY ADDITION TO BE MADE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH -CREDIT THE CREDIT SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSEE'S BOOKS OF AC COUNT KEPT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. SINCE THE C.A. HAD ADM ITTED TO HAVE CREATED THE ACCOUNTS HIMSELF AND THE COMPLICITY OF THE ASS ESSEE IN SUCH CREATION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE CREDIT ENTRIES IN SUCH ACC OUNTS IN LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER COULD NOT BE TREATED AS ENTRIES IN THE AS SESSEE'S OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT KEPT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. MOS T IMPORTANTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WHICH MEANT THAT SUCH ENTRIES/ ACCOUNTS HAD NOT BEEN UTILISED DURING THE YEAR BY THE ASSESSEE TO MA KE ANY CLAIM OR SEEK ANY RELIEF BEFORE THE REVENUE OR EVEN TO INTRODUCE ANY UNACCOUNTED INCOME. FURTHER THESE ENTRIES WERE NOT SUPPORTED B Y ANY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE SO AS TO ESTABLISH THEIR GEN UINENESS AS ALSO TO SUPPORT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 8 - CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.8 36 53 6 UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I. T. ACT WILL STAN D DELETED. 7.1. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE LEARNED CIT(APPE ALS) DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NOS.6 6.1 & 6.2 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE IN THE FOL LOWING TERMS:- 6. I FIND MYSELF IN AGREEMENT WITH THE AR THAT T HE ADDITION OF RS.8 84 137/- WAS MADE BY THE AO WITHOUT PROPER APP LICATION OF MIND. IN THE A.Y 1998-99 HE MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.8 36 537/- WHICH WAS THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUN T OF THE SAID YEAR. THE CLOSING BALANCE WAS RS.8 58 287/- BECAME THE OP ENING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT THIS YEAR. EVEN THOUGH THE AO S OUGHT TO TREAT THIS SUM AS UNEXPLAINED ON THE GROUND THAT NO EXPLANATIO N WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCE YET HE ENDED UP ADDING THE CLOSING BALANCE OF RS.8 84 137/-. THERE WAS THUS CLEARLY A MISAPPRECIATION OF THE FACTS AND A LACK OF APPLICATION OF MIND. 6.1 THE POINT TO NOTE HERE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AD FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 28-03-2001 WHERE IT HAD DECLARED A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.49 850/- . THE SURVEY OF THE PREMISES OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WAS CONDUCTED SOME TIMES IN 2005. IN COURSE OF THE SURVEY SHRI DANAWALA IN HIS STATEM ENT RECORDED HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT HE HAD CREATED BOGUS CAPITAL AC COUNTS IN THE NAMES OF HIS CLIENTS. HOWEVER HIS CREATIONS REMAINED CON FINED TO THE PAPERS THAT WERE FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION. NO ENTRY WAS MAD E OF SUCH AMOUNTS IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WAS NO ENTRY IN THE BOOKS THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.68 COULD NOT BE INVOKE D AND CONSEQUENTLY NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THESE PAPERS DID NOT CONTAIN THE SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSE E NOR WERE THE AMOUNTS ENTERED THEREIN UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ANY CLAIM OR SEEK ANY RELIEF FROM THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. NO R WAS ANY ATTEMPT MADE TO INTRODUCE ANY UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNT KEPT AND MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR COURS E OF BUSINESS. MOST IMPORTANTLY SUCH ENTRIES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. THESE WERE THE FINDINGS GIV EN WHILE DECIDING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL FOR THE A.Y 1998-99. ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 9 - 6.2 IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO THE SAME FINDINGS WILL APPLY. EVEN OTHERWISE THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY ADDI TION OF THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT SINCE IF TH E SAID SUM WAS TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED IT COULD ONLY BE DEALT WITH IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHEN THE BOGUS CAPITAL IF ANY MAY HAVE BEEN GENER ATED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT COULD BE ADD ED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE A. O. THEREFORE IS DIRECT ED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.8 84 137/-. 8 . FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 ON THE GROUND THAT- (I) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. (II) THE ENTRIES MADE BY CA SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WERE N OT SUPPORTED BY ANY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE SO AS TO ESTABLISH THEIR GENUINENESS. (III) THE C.A. SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA ADMITTED TO H AVE CREATED THE ACCOUNTS HIMSELF AND THE COMPLICITY OF THE ASS ESSEE IN SUCH CREATION WAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE CREDIT ENTRI ES IN SUCH ACCOUNTS IN LOOSE-SHEETS OF PAPER COULD NOT BE TRE ATED AS ENTRIES IN THE ASSESSEES OWN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT KEPT IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. 8.2. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT- (I) THE OPENING BALANCE OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT CANN OT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BECAUSE IT COULD ONLY BE DEALT WITH IN EARLIER YEARS. ITA NOS.342 & 4293/AH D/2007 ITO VS. BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL-HUF ASST.YEARS - 1998-99 & 1999-2000 - 10 - (II) WHEN THE BOGUS CAPITAL IF ANY MAY HAVE BEEN GENERATED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE LEARNED CIT(APPEA LS) HAS GIVEN COGENT REASONS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION(S) FOR BOT H THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE THEREFORE INCLINE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 10. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26/03/2010. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL ) ( T.K.SHARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/ 03 /2010 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II SURAT 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD