The ITO, Ward-2(2),, Surat v. Smt. Pinkyben B.Chokhawala, Surat

ITA 4015/AHD/2008 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 401520514 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAMPC2379Q
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 4015/AHD/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-2(2),, Surat
Respondent Smt. Pinkyben B.Chokhawala, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-03-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 18-03-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 10-03-2011
Next Hearing Date 10-03-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 12-12-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD D BENCH (BEFORE S/SHRI G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT AND MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.3938/AHD/2008 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-2006] SMT. PINKYBEN B. CHOKHAWALA SHED NO.153 UMA INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. SOCIETY UDHNA MAGDALLA ROAD SURAT. PAN : AAMPC 2379 Q VS. ITO (OSD)-I RANGE-2 SURAT. ITA NO.4015/AHD/2008 [ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-2006] ITO (OSD)-I RANGE-2 SURAT. VS. SMT. PINKYBEN B. CHOKHAWALA SHED NO.153 UMA INDUSTRIAL CO-OP. SOCIETY UDHNA MAGDALLA ROAD SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MITISH MODI REVENUE BY : SHRI G.S. SOURYAWANSI O R D E R PER G.D. AGARWAL VICE-PRESIDENT : THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II SURAT. WE DISPOSE OF BOTH THESE A PPEALS BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. 3938/AHD/2008. GROUND NO.1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON TH E FACTS WHILE CONFIRMING THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT PASSED B Y THE ITO(OSD)-I MAKING ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.16 34 700/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE ACT AND HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO.3938 AND 4015/AHD/2008 -2- 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT THE ADD ITION MADE BY THE AO IS SOLELY BASED ON THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AUTHORITY AND HENCE THE ADDITION DERIVED BY THE AO FOR THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY BEING OPEN PLOT OF LAND AND VALUE OF THE S AID PROPERTY FOR PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THAT TH E PROPERTY WAS UNDER VALUED IN THE DOCUMENT OF PURCHASE AND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE THE ADDITION MADE U/S.69 OF TH E ACT FOR THE ALLEGED DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT OF THE VALUATION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE ACCOUN TING YEAR RELATING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE P URCHASED TWO PROPERTIES IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE AO FOUND THAT THE STAMP DUTY V ALUATION WAS MORE THAN THE PURCHASE PRICE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO THERE FORE TREATED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 6 9 OF THE I.T.ACT. WHILE DOING SO THE AO ALSO RELIED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C. ON APPEAL THE CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE AO AND HE H ELD THAT THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 50C WOULD ALSO BE APPLICABLE I N THE CASE OF A BUYER BECAUSE WHEN IN THE CASE OF THE SELLER IT IS HELD F OR THE PURPOSE OF CAPITAL GAIN THAT THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR A PARTICULAR SUM IT NATURALLY FOLLOWS THAT IT WAS BOUGHT AT THE SAME PRICE. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED W ITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. SECTION 50C READS AS UNDER: 50C. SPECIAL PROVISION FOR FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERAT ION IN CERTAIN CASES.(1) WHERE THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCR UING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER BY AN ASSESSEE OF A CAPITAL ASSET BEING LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH IS LESS THAN THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A STATE GOVERNMENT (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE STAM P VALUATION AUTHORITY) FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUT Y IN RESPECT OF SUCH TRANSFER THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSABLE SHALL FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECTION 48 B E DEEMED TO BE ITA NO.3938 AND 4015/AHD/2008 -3- THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACC RUING AS A RESULT OF SUCH TRANSFER. (2) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECT ION (1) WHERE (A) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS BEFORE ANY ASSESSING OFFIC ER THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED **OR ASSESSED OR ASSE SSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) EXCEEDS THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER ; (B) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSED OR ASSESSED O R ASSESSABLE BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY UNDER S UB- SECTION (1) HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED IN ANY APPEAL OR REVISION OR NO REFERENCE HAS BEEN MADE BEFORE ANY OTHER AUTH ORITY COURT OR THE HIGH COURT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY REFER THE VALUATION OF TH E CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTIONS (2) (3) (4) (5) AND ( 6) OF SECTION 16A CLAUSE (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (6) AND (7) OF SECTION 23A SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 24 SECTION 34AA SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT 1957 (27 O F 1957) SHALL WITH NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THA T ACT. XXX XXX (3) SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SUB-SECT ION (2) WHERE THE VALUE ASCERTAINED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) EXCEEDS THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORIT Y REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) THE VALUE SO ADOPTED OR ASSESSE D BY SUCH AUTHORITY SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE FULL VALUE OF THE C ONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF THE TRANSFER. 5. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EVIDENT THAT AS PER SECTIO N 50C WHERE THE STAMP VALUATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY IS HIGHER T HAN THE CONSIDERATION SHOWN FOR THE TRANSFER OF AN ASSET THEN FOR THE PURPOSE O F SECTION 48 THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION SHALL BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF H E CONSIDERATION FOR SUCH TRANSFER. AS PER THE ABOVE PROVISION THIS DEEMING PROVISION IS APPLICABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THA T ANY DEEMING PROVISION IS TO BE ITA NO.3938 AND 4015/AHD/2008 -4- STRICTLY INTERPRETED. A DEEMING PROVISION PROVIDE S FOR CERTAIN PRESUMPTIONS AND SUCH PRESUMPTION CANNOT BE EXTENDED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF DEEMING PROVISION. IF THE STATUTE MAKES SECTION 50C APPLIC ABLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48 THEN THE DEEMING PROVISION OF SECTION 5 0C CANNOT BE APPLIED IN RESPECT OF OTHER SECTIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. W E FIND THAT SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF I TO VS. HARLEY STREET PHARMACEUTICALS LTD. 38 SOT 486 (AHD) WHEREIN THE ITAT HELD AS UNDER: IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD APP LIED THIS PROVISION OF SECTION 50C FOR THE COMPUTATION OF UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT TINDER SECTION 69B WHICH WAS NOR PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ACT . APART FRONT THE STAMP DUTY VALUATION THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD W HICH SUGGESTED THAT THE REVENUE HAD PROVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPT ED OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAD BEEN RECORDED AS PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE LAND IN THE INSTRUMENT I.E. THE SALE DEED. THE ASSESSEE HAD R IGHTLY CONTENDED THAT SECTION 50C WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF PURCH ASER AND THIS PROVISION BEING A DEEMING PROVISION WOULD APPLY FOR DETERMINING THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSETS FOR THE PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION OF CAPITAL GAINS UNDER SECT ION 48. FURTHER THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE CO NSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAD BEEN RECORDED IN THE SALE DEED HAD BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME NO ADDITIO N OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT COULD BE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69B. ACCORDINGLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DELETING THE ADDITION WAS TO BE CONFIRMED AND THE R EVENUE'S APPEAL WAS TO BE DISMISSED. SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HA RYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHANDNI BHUCHAR 191 TAXMAN 142 WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE RELEVANT OBS ERVATIONS AT PAGE NO.143 AND 144 OF THE REPORT READ AS UNDER: STATE GAZETTE UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE PROVED. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO HELD THAT VALUATION DONE BY ANY STATE AGENCY FOR THE PURPOSE TAMP DUTY WOULD NOT IPSO FACTO SUBSTITUTE T HE ACTUAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS BEING PASSED ON TO THE SELLER BY T HE PURCHASER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS OBLIGED TO BRING ON RECORD POSITIVE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE PR ICE ASSESSED BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF STAMP DUTY. THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS CLEAR FROM PAIN 7 OF ITS ORDER WHICH R EADS THUS:- ITA NO.3938 AND 4015/AHD/2008 -5- FROM A PLAIN READING OF THIS PROVISION IT EMERGES OUT THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED OR ASSESSED BY ANY AUTHORITY OF A ST ATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY IN RESPECT OF LAND OR BUILDING OR BOTH SHALL FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 48 BE DEEMED TO BE THE FULL VALUE OF THE CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING AS A RESULT OF TRANSFER. IT NOWHERE PROVID ES THAT THE VALUATION DONE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT FOR THE PURP OSE OF STAMP DUTY ETC. WOULD IPSO FACTO TAKE PLACE THE ACTUAL CO NSIDERATION AS BEING PASSED ON TO THE SELLER BY THE PURCHASER IN T HE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REQUIR ED TO BRING POSITIVE EVIDENCE ON RECORD INDICATING THE FACT THA T ASSESSEE HAS PAID ANYTHING MORE THAN THE ONE DISCLOSED IN THE PU RCHASE DECD. THE DEPARTMENT HAS TAKEN AN ARGUMENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO MAKE A REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER UNDER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT . IT ALSO RAISED A PLEA THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MADE A RE FERENCE OF SECTION 5OC WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION IN FACT THE ADDITION IS MADE UNDER SECTION 69B ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. WE HAVE TAKEN COGNIZANCE OF BOTH THES E ARGUMENTS. IT IS THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HIMSELF OUGHT TO HA VE COLLECTED THE EVIDENCE INDICATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID MORE MONEY THAN THE ONE DISCLOSED IN THE PURCHASE DEED. THE IT AT WHILE SITTING IN THE SECOND APPEAL IS NOT SUPPOSED TO GIV E DIRECTIONS ON THE APPEAL OF REVENUE THAT A REFERENCE TO THE VALUA TION OFFICER IS TO BE MADE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION. T HE STEPS WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE TAKEN IF NOT TAKEN TH EN THAT LACUNNA CANNOT BE FILLED UP AT THE END OF THE 1TAT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE EXHIBITING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE HOUSE PROPERTY NO ADDITION CAN B E JUSTIFIED. LEARNED 1ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON THIS GROUND. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS REJECTED. 3. HAVING HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSEL WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WHI LE ACCEPTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT APPEALS) DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY. 6. THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE CASE ARE IDENTICAL. I N THIS CASE ALSO THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STAMP DUTY VAL UATION. NO EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE OVER AND ABOVE THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IS BROUGHT ON RECORD. WE THEREFORE RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION ITA NO.3938 AND 4015/AHD/2008 -6- OF THE HONBLE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AS WEL L AS ITAT AHMEDABAD B BENCH DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.16 37 700/- MAD E UNDER SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 7. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS UN DER: 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LUMP SUM DISALLOWANCES OF PETROL EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION O N VEHICLES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12 337/- AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 078/- AND HENCE NOT JUSTIFIED. 8. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US NO SPECIFIC AR GUMENTS WERE RAISED AGAINST THIS DISALLOWANCE. THE AO DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OUT OF VEHICLE EXPENSES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES. PERSONAL USER OF THE VEHICLE C ANNOT BE RULED OUT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THIS POINT. WE THEREFORE REJE CT THE GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. 9. GROUND NO.4 IS OF GENERAL NATURE NEEDS NO SEPARA TE ADJUDICATION HENCE DISMISSED. ITA NO.4015/AHD/2008: 10. IN THIS APPEAL THE REVENUE HAS RAISED ONLY ONE GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS .6 0 732/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY UNDER S EC. 41(1) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONDITION OF THE CESSATION OF T HE LIABILITIES WAS NOT SATISFIED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE AO APPLIED SECTION 41(1) IN RESPECT OF FIV E CREDITORS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH CONFIRMATIONS OF THE SE CREDITORS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THESE P ERSONS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS WELL AS THE PRECEDING AND SUBSEQUE NT YEARS WHICH SHOWED THAT ITA NO.3938 AND 4015/AHD/2008 -7- THERE WAS TRANSACTION WITH THOSE PARTIES AND PART P AYMENT WAS MADE IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AS WELL AS SUBSEQUENT YE AR. THE CIT(A) WITH THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS DELETED THE ADDITION: FROM THE COPIES OF THE LETTERS ADDRESSED TO THE A O IT IS CLEARLY SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ONLY FURNISHED COPIE S OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID FIVE PARTIES IN HER BOOKS COP Y OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SURAT PEOPLE'S CO-OP BANK WAS ALSO FURNISHED TO SHOW THAT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR THERE W ERE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SAID ENTITIES. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAM E DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE ME AND I FIND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE AR IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THERE HAVE BEEN PAYMENTS MADE T O THEM IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PREVIOUS/FINANCIAL YEAR WHICH MEANS THAT THE SAID LIABILITIES WERE STILL ALIVE AND HAD NOT CEAS ED. MOST IMPORTANTLY THE OUTSTANDINGS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR AND A COMPARISON WITH THE BALANCE SH EET AT THE END OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLEARLY SHOWS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT THAT THERE HAD BEEN TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAID PARTIES DURING THE YEAR. SINCE THE VERY BASIC CONDITION OF THE CES SATION OF THE LIABILITIES WAS NOT SATISFIED THERE WAS SIMPLY NO GROUND FOR T HE AO TO MAKE IN A DISALLOWANCE U/S 41(1) OF THE IT ACT. CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.6 80 732 WILL STAND DELETED. THE AGGRIEVED REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE CIT(A) AFTER EXAMINING THE DETAILS FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TRA NSACTIONS WITH THOSE PARTIES IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEARS. PAYMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN MADE TO THESE PARTIES IN THE PRECEDING YEARS. THEREFORE THERE W AS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD WITH REGARD TO CESSATION OF LIABILITY IN THE NAME OF AFO RESAID FIVE CREDITORS. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LIABILITY HAS CEASED. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE ITA NO.3938 AND 4015/AHD/2008 -8- CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITORS WHICH WERE OLD BALAN CES SECTION 41(1) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) THAT THE VERY BASIC CONDITION OF CESSATION OF LIABILITY WAS NOT SATISFIED HAS NOT BE EN CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTI FICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. 13. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLO WED WHILE THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MARCH 2011 SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGARWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 18-03-2011 C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR ITAT AHMEDABAD