The ITO, Ward-3(2),, Surat v. Shri Laxmanbhai Rambhai Jalu,HUF, Surat

ITA 875/AHD/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 87520514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN SFROM1972A
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 875/AHD/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant The ITO, Ward-3(2),, Surat
Respondent Shri Laxmanbhai Rambhai Jalu,HUF, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 19-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 19-07-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 20-03-2009
Judgment Text
- 1 - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND A. MOHAN ALANK AMONY AM INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 3(2) SURAT. VS. SHRI LAXMANBHAI R. JALU (HUF) 71 KASTURBA CO-OP. HOUSING SOCIETY NR. NEW ERA SCHOOL RANDER ROAD SURAT. (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI P. R. GHOSH DR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI RAJESH M. UPADHYAY AR O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-II SURAT IN APPEAL NO. CAS/II/297/07 -08 DATED 30/12/2008. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING FO UR GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL WHEREIN THE GROUND NO.3 &4 ARE GENERAL IN NA TURE AND DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION:- (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED C!T(A)-II SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.20 20 212/- MADE BY A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL UNDER THE GUISE OF ACCUMULA TED SURPLUS OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S FURNISHED THE AGREEMENT BEFORE THE A.O. TO SHOW THAT HE HAD JOINT LY CULTIVATED ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 2 THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH HIS FATHER AND UNCLE AND HAS MAINTAINED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 45 950/- TREATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS 'NON-AGRICULTURAL INCOME' HOLDING THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE AGREEMENT BEFORE THE A.O. TO SHOW THA T HE HAD JOINTLY CULTIVATED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH HIS FATHER AN D UNCLE AND HAS MAINTAINED INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT IN RESPEC T OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. (3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (4) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICE-R MAY BE RESTORED TO T HE ABOVE EXTENT. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS E NGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AND ALSO CARRYING ON A GRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BEARING S. NO.119/2/01 11 9/4 325 AND 310 ADMEASURING 80 BIGHAS LOCATED AT VILLAGE VADASADA DIST. JUNAGADH UNDER AN AGREEMENT DATED 6.12.1993 EXECUTED WITH MR. RAMB HAI N. JALU THE FATHER AND MR. BHIMABHAI K.JALU THE UNCLE OF THE MEMBER/MEMBERS OF THE HUF. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 18.10.2 005 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2 12 948/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1 45 950/-. INITIALLY THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S 14 3(1) OF THE ACT ON 14.07.2006. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT WAS ISSUED ON 18.10.20 06 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 20.10.2006. SUBSEQUENTLY A DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE DT.01.12.2006 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESS EE ON 06.12.2006. ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 3 FURTHER NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED ON 02.11.2007 AND SERVICED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE AO THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS MAINTAINED THE COMPLETE RECORDS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY IT OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. THE COPY OF THE AGREEMENT FOR HOLDING THE AG RICULTURAL LAND FROM THE FATHER AND UNCLE OF THE HUFS MEMBER/S WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. AO. FURTHER BOTH THE FATHER AND UNCLE OF T HE ASSESSEE HUFS MEMBER/S HAD CONFIRMED THESE FACTS BY AN AFFIDAVI T DATED 5.4.2007 COPY OF WHICH WAS FILED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1 45 950/- FROM 80 BIGHAS OF FERTILE AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR A LONG WITH AN ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OF RS. 20 20 210/- FOR THE EARL IER YEARS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO FOR DETERMINATION OF EXACT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HE ALSO FILED BALANCE SHEET A ND CERTAIN OTHER STATEMENTS FOR THE PERIOD AY 1998-99 TO AY 2005-06 TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS AN ACCUMULATED SAVINGS OUT OF AGRICULTURA L ACTIVITY FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20 20 210/-.. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMI TTED CONFIRMATION LETTER OF THE BUYER WHO PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCES FROM THE ASSESSEE DULY SIGNED VERIFIED AND FURNISHED THEIR PAN. HOW EVER THE LD. AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND EVIDENCES OF ASSESS EE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE EARLIER Y EARS BROUGHT FORWARD ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 4 CAPITAL OF RS.20 20 210/- AS WELL AS CURRENT YEARS AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1 45 950/-AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. TH E OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD.AO ARE LISTED HEREUNDER:- A. SURPLUS AMOUNT FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ARE SHO WN IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS LOANS AND ADVANCES OR CASH BALANCE . B. THE LOANS AND ADVANCES ARE NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH A NY EVIDENCE. C. THE ASSESSEE OR ITS MEMBERS ARE NOT THE OWNERS OF T HE AGRICULTURAL LAND BUT HAVE OBTAINED THE SAME FROM T HE FATHER AND UNCLE OF THE HUFS MEMBER/S. D. LARGE CASH BALANCE WAS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE F OR OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS. E. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BANK BALANCE OR B ANK DEPOSITS FOR THE MONEY EARNED FROM AGRICULTURAL OPE RATIONS INSTEAD PREFERRED TO KEEP SUCH SURPLUS BY WAY OF CA SH IN HAND WHICH IS QUITE UNUSUAL. F. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED SOME BILLS OF SALE PROCE EDS OF TUVER MANGFALI AND WHEAT HOWEVER THE 7/12 EXTRACT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THE CROPS CULTIVATED MAINLY A RE COTTON SEEDS. G. THE 7/12 EXTRACTS ALSO SHOW THE CULTIVATORS NAME AS THAT OF THE OWNERS OF THE LAND AND NOT THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 5 H. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE OWNERS OF THE LAND ARE NOT CLAIMING THE BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN FACT THERE ARE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT SHRI RAMBHAI JALU THE FATHER OF THE HUFS MEMBER/S IS DERIVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS P ER HIS GIFT DECLARATION. I. THUS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCHARGE ITS PRIMARY ONU S CASTED UPON TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE OPENING CASH B ALANCE OF RS. 20 20 210/- OR EARNING ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 4. THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. AR OF T HE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) :- ( I) DHARMESH J. DOSHI VS. ITO WARD 8(2) SURAT (AHM EDABAD ITAT) (II) CIT VS. PARMESHWAR BOHRA (2007) 208 CTR 218 (R AJ HC) (III) CIT VS. JAISWAL GRAIN STORES (2004) 191 CTR 1 87 (ALL HC) (IV) ITO VS. RESHMA DEVI (2005) 094 TTJ 0761 (JOD TRIB) (V) SMT. BHANUBEN CHIMANLAL MALVIA VS. ITO (2006 ) 100 TTJ 337 (RAJKOT). 5. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.20 20 212/- AND RS.1 45 950/- WI TH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS :- 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. THE AO HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE SUM OF RS.20 20 212/- REPRESENTED THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE DISCLOSED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON. IF THAT BE SO NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED COMPLETE ACCOUNTS OF HIS AG RICULTURAL ACTIVITY COPIES OF WHICH HAD BEEN DULY FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO SHOWING THEREIN ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 6 THE GENERATION OF SURPLUS CAPITAL. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FURNISHED A COPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BY HIM WITH HIS FATHE R AND UNCLE FOR THE PURPOSE OF CARRYING OUT AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ON T HE LAND OWNED BY THEM. THIS WAS COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE AO. GIVEN SUCH F ACTS IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE AO SIMPLY DID NOT HAVE ANY BASIS FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.20 20 212/- WILL STAND DE LETED. 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AQ ON ONE HAND THE SUBMISSION OF THE AR ALONG-WITH THE NUMEROUS D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES ENCLOSED WITH THE SUBMISSION ALL OF WHIC H WERE APPARENTLY FILED BEFORE THE AQ. 1 FIND THAT THE AO DEALT WITH THE ISSUE IN A VERY SUMMARY MANNER WITH THE INTENTION OF MAKING THE AD DITION. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY HIM ARE THEREFORE FLIMSY TO SAY THE LEAST. FIRSTLY THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSES LIVES IN SURAT AND CONDUCTS AGRICULTURAL A CTIVITY IN JUNAGADH CANNOT BE A GROUND TO REJECT THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME ESPECIALLY WHEN ALL CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES WERE PL ACED ON RECORD ESTABLISHING THE POSSESSION OF LAND COPIES OF 7/12 EXTRACTS AND FORM 8A R THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND COPIES OF S ALE BILLS ETC- THE COPIES OF THE 7/12 EXTRACTS CLEARLY MENTIONED THE C ROP GROWN AS MANGFALI WHICH IS WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD. THE AO'S OBSER VATION THAT THE 7/12 EXTRACTS MENTIONED ONLY COTTON SEED WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. IT IS THUS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE AO WAS SIMPLY NOT JUSTIFI ED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS 1 45 950 AS INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES. HE IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS 1 45 95 0/-. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. AO AND CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN MAINTAINING LARGE CASH BALANC E WHICH IS QUITE UNNATURAL. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT POSSESS ANY AGRICUL TURAL LAND. IN FACT THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE FATHER AND UNCLE OF THE HUFS MEMBERS. THE BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FOR THE VAR IOUS YEARS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE REVENUE FOR THE FIRST TIME DUR ING THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. LD DR HEAVILY RELIED ON THE DECISI ON OF THE CASE ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 7 RENDERED BY THE HON. APPEX COURT IN SUMATI DAYAL V/ S. CIT REPORTED IN 214 ITR 801 AND FORCEFULLY SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN REGARD TO THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 20 20 210 /- AND THE CURRENT YEARS INCOME OF RS.1 45 950/- BEING DERIVED FROM A GRICULTURAL OPERATIONS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE GENUINE AND THEREFORE THE ORDE R OF THE LD.AO MAY BE UPHELD. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AR REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.20 20 212/- AND RS. 1 45 950/- MADE BY THE AO. THE LD AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINT AINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR ALL THE YEARS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. REVENUE RECORDS WERE ALSO MAINTAINED SO ON AND SO FORTH. TH E LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING 1 TO 88 PAGES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT APPEARS FROM THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY IT IS QUIT QUESTIONABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALLEG ES TO HAVE MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS METICULOUSLY FOR AN ACTIVITY WHIC H IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. HOWEVER ALL THE SURPLUS FROM SUCH ACTIVITY IS EITHE R RETAINED AS CASH IN HAND OR ADVANCED TO VARIOUS PARTIES FOR WHICH NO DE TAILS OR CONFORMATION LETTERS ARE PRODUCED. FOR SUCH A VOLUMINOUS SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 8 SUFFICIENT VOUCHERS FROM THE MANDI/MARKET OR BUYERS ARE NOT MAINTAINED. FROM THE ELABORATE NARRATION OF THE LD. AR IT APPEA RS THAT ALL THESE ARRANGEMENTS ARE MADE FOR CONVENIENCE TO DOCUMENTAR Y ESTABLISH THAT THE OPENING CASH BALANCE OF RS. 20 20 212/- AND THE CUR RENT YEARS INCOME OF RS. 1 45 950/- HAVE BEEN DERIVED FROM AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS. AT THIS JUNCTURE THE CASE LAW CITED BY THE LD. DR SEEMS TO BE VERY RELEVANT. THE GIST OF THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE:- THE APPELLANT CARRIED ON BUSINESS AS A DEALER IN ART PIECES ANTIQUES AND CURIOS IN BANGALORE. DURING THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 1971-72 SHE CLAIMED THAT SHE RECEIVED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 3 11 831 BY WAY OF RACE WINNINGS IN JACKPOTS AND TREBLE EVENTS IN RACE S AT TURF CLUBS IN BANGALORE MADRAS AND HYDERABAD. THE SAID AMOUNT WA S SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS. FOR THE ASST. YEAR 1972-73 SHE CLAIMED RECEIPTS OF RS.93 500/- AS RACE WINNING S IN TWO JACKPOTS AT BANGALORE AND MADRAS AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CREDIT ED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER INCLUD ED THESE AMOUNTS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND ASSESSED THEM. THE AP PELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER CONFIRMED THE ORDER. THE APPELLANT REF ERRED THE MATTER TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIO N BY A MAJORITY HELD THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT G ENUINE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : (I) THE APPELLANTS KNOWLEDGE O F RACING WAS VERY MEAGER (II) A JACKPOT IS A STAKE OF FIVE EVENTS IN A SINGLE DAY AND ONE CAN BELIEVE A REGULAR AND EXPERIENCED PUNTER CLEARING A JACKPOT OCCASIONALLY BUT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT OF HAVING WON A NUMB ER OF JACKPOTS IN THREE OR FOUR SEASONS NOT MERELY AT ONE PLACE BUT AT THRE E DIFFERENT CENTRES ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 9 NAMELY MADRAS BANGALORE AND HYDERABAD APPEARED PR IMA FACIE TO BE WILD AND CONTRARY TO STATISTICAL THEORIES AND EXPER IENCE OF FREQUENCIES AND PROBABILITIES (III) THE APPELLANTS BOOKS DID NOT SHOW ANY DRAWINGS ON RACE DAYS OR ON THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING DAYS F OR THE PURCHASE OF JACKPOT COMBINATION TICKETS WHICH ENTAILED SIZABLE AMOUNTS VARYING GENERALLY BETWEEN RS.2 000 AND RS.3 000. THE DRAWIN GS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS COULD NOT BE CO-RELATED TO THE VARIOUS RACING EVENTS AT WHICH THE APPELLANT MADE THE ALLEGED WINNINGS. (IV) WHILE THE APPELLANTS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED WITH THE GROSS AMOUNT OF RACE WINNINGS THERE WERE NO DEBITS EITHER FOR EXPENSES AND PURCHASES OF TICK ETS OR FOR LOSSES (V) IN VIEW OF THE EXCEPTIONAL LUCK CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN E NJOYED BY THE APPELLANT HER LOSS OF INTEREST IN RACES FROM 1972 ASSUMED SIGNIFICANCE. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION TOOK THE VIEW THAT WINNIN GS IN RACING BECAME LIABLE TO INCOME-TAX FROM APRIL 1 1972 BUT ONE WOU LD NOT GIVE UP AN ACTIVITY YIELDING OR LIKELY TO YIELD A LARGE INCOME MERELY BECAUSE THE INCOME WOULD SUFFER TAX AND THAT THE POSITION WOULD BE DIFFERENT HOWEVER IF THE CLAIM OF WINNINGS IN RACES WAS FALS E AND WHAT WERE PASSED OFF AS SUCH WINNINGS REALLY REPRESENTED THE APPELLANTS TAXABLE INCOME FROM SOME UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. ON APPEAL TO THE SUPREME COURT: HELD DISMISSING THE APPEAL THAT THE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION AFTER CONSIDERING THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND APPLY ING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HAD RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANTS CLAIM ABOUT THE AMOUNT BEING HER WINNINGS FROM RACES WAS NOT GENUINE (SEE P.808E). FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS LAID OUT BY THE APPELLANT IN A SYSTEMATIC MANNER COUPLED WITH METIC ULOUS MAINTENANCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEEMS TO BE VERY APPEALING HOWEV ER THE CRUCIAL ASPECT ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 10 OF RETAINING CASH BALANCE IN HAND OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS AND ADVANCING FUNDS ON LOAN WITHOUT PROVIDING THE DETAILS OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE LOAN OR PRODUCING THEIR CONFIRMATION MAKES THE WHOLE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE UNBELIEVABLE. FURTHER RELYING UPON THE DECISION RE NDERED BY HON. APPEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT CITED BY THE LD. DR SUPRA WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD.A O. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22/7/11. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AHMEDABAD DATED : 22/7/11. MAHATA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)- 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD ITA NO.875/AHD/2009 ASST. YEAR 2005-06 11 1.DATE OF DICTATION 19/7/11. 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 19/7/11. /OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT.. 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK .. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..