Shri Mohammad Aliji Nandolia, Mumbai v. The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(4),, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 124/AHD/2007 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 12420516 RSA 2007
Assessee PAN ABUPN1521G
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 124/AHD/2007
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant Shri Mohammad Aliji Nandolia, Mumbai
Respondent The ACIT., Cent.Circle-1(4),, Ahmedabad
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-04-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 30-04-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 22-04-2010
Next Hearing Date 22-04-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 31-07-2007
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C. AGRAWAL ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 22/04/2010 DRAFTED ON: 23.04 .2010 1. ITA NO.124/AHD/2007 AND 2. ITA NO.125/AHD/2007 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA UNIT NO.19 AAREY MILK COLONY GOREGAON (EAST) MUMBAI 400 065 VS. ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIR.1(4) AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. : ABUPN 1521 G (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI NARENDRA BRAHMBHATT RESPONDENT BY: SHRI M.C. PANDIT SR.DR O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL SHRAWAT JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE; ON E IS IN RESPECT OF QUANTUM ADDITION AND THE OTHER IS IN RESPECT OF PEN ALTY LEVIED U/S.158BFA(2) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED AND HEREBY DECID ED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. (A) IT(SS)A NO.125/AHD/2007 2. THIS APPEAL HAS EMERGED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IV AHMEDABAD DATED 08/03/2007 AND THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- IT(SS)A NOS.124 & 125/AHD/2007 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 - 2 - 1. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTIN G RS.2 58 332/- (RS.13 12 000 RS.10 53 668) AS HAVI NG BEEN INVESTED BY THE APPELLANT TO PURCHASE THE BUFFALOES OUT OF THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT HIS WIFE SMT. SHAMIMBEN H IS SONS MR. REHAN AND MR. FARDIN FROM THEIR INCOME OF THE Y EARS IN WHICH THEIR INCOME DID EXCEED THE MINIMUM TAXABLE L IMIT AND IN ONLY ACCEPTING THAT THEY COULD CONTRIBUTE ON LY IN THOSE YEARS WHERE THEIR INCOME WAS LITTLE ABOVE THE TAXABLE LIMIT AND THEY HAD FILED THEIR RETURNS AND GIVING T HE CREDIT OF THEIR CONTRIBUTION IN THE YEARS IN WHICH THEY HAD F ILED THE RETURN. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCE PTING THAT THE SAVINGS OF RS.1 58 465/- AS NET SURPLUS DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1990-91 WHICH WAS UTILIZED IN MAKIN G PAY7MENT TO PURCHASE BUFFALOES AS THIS WAS THE REAL SURPLUS IN HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IN BEGINNING OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPT ING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 TO 1998-99 WHICH WAS UTILIZED IN MAKING PAY MENT TO PURCHASE THE BUFFALOES SINCE RETURNS OF INCOME N OT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSE SSEE WAS OWNING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND AGRICULTURAL OPERATION S WERE DONE ON THE LAND. 3. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ORDER PASSED U/S.158BC(C) R.W.S.143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 DAT ED 31/03/2006 WERE THAT A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON NANDOLIYA GROUP OF CASES. THE START POINT OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS AN OBSERVATION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELEVANT PORTION REPRODUCED BELOW. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION OCCUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE A LOOSE PAPER WAS FOUND W HICH WAS IT(SS)A NOS.124 & 125/AHD/2007 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 - 3 - SEIZED VIDE NO.25 IN THE FILE MARKED A/6. THIS PAP ER IS AN ORDINARY PAPER AND REGARDING SALE AGREEMENT OF UNIT NO. LIC ENSE OF GOVT.OF MAHARASHTRA AND WITH 32 BUFFALOES. THIS ENTIRE SAL E I.E. LICENSE TO RUN UNIT BUFFALOES AND THE SHARE WAS AGREED TO TRA NSFER FOR A VALUE OF RS.18 56 000/- AND OUT OF WHICH IT WAS AGREED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT THAT TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH A SUM OF RS.13 12 000/- HAS ALREADY BEEN PAID. 3.1. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF APPEAL THE FIRST APPELL ATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE MAJOR ADDITION AND IN RESPECT OF THE REST OF T HE ADDITION HIS OBSERVATION WAS THAT ON THE BASIS OF A LOOSE-PAPER 25 OF ANNEXURE A-6 THE TOTAL PAYMENT MADE TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS RS.13 12 000/- SO ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENT TIL L THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS OF THE SAID AMOUNT. THEREFORE THE LEARNED CI T(APPEALS) HAS CONCLUDED THAT SINCE AN ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF R S.14 55 000/- HAD ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED THEREFORE THERE WAS NO RE QUIREMENT OF ANY SEPARATE ADDITION. THE SAID ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A PPEALS) WAS CONTESTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS BY THE REVENUE . WHILE ADJUDICATING UPON THE MATTER RELATING TO THE INVESTMENT IN BUFFA LOES OF RS.18 60 000/- THE RESPECTED ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH HAD SET ASIDE TH E ISSUE BY SAYING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A LOOSE-PAPER WAS FOUND WHICH PERTAINED TO THE SHARES OF THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO BE TRANSFER RED FOR RS.18 56 000/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN BUFFALOES. IT WAS ALSO OBSER VED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT SEPARATE ADDITION WAS NOT MADE BECAUSE THE PRO FIT OF THE BLOCK PERIOD HAD COVERED THE SAID INVESTMENT. HOWEVER AFTER C ONSIDERING RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE STAGE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE DE NOVO AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS CLAIMED TO BE ALREADY ON RECORD. BECAUSE OF THAT REASON T HE PRESENT ASSESSMENT IT(SS)A NOS.124 & 125/AHD/2007 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 - 4 - WAS MADE AND IN THAT ASSESSMENT NOW CHALLENGED BEF ORE US IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TOTAL U NACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEM BERS HAD A SURPLUS OF RS.5 98 097/- WHICH WAS CONSIDERED TOWARDS THE INVE STMENT HOWEVER THE BALANCE AMOUNT WHICH REMAINED TO BE EXPLAINED W AS TAXED AS PER THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS:- NET SURPLUS AS PER ABOVE WORKING COMES TO RS.5 98 097/-. IN ADDITION TO THAT TOTAL ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF 5% OF GROSS SALE OF MILK OF RS.4 55 563/- HAS ALREADY BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED OVER AND ABOVE O F THE NET SURPLUS AS COMPUTED ABOVE. CONSIDERING THE SAME T OTAL COMES TO RS.10 53 668/-. TOTAL PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH IS RS.15 68 000/- AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND TOT AL EXPLAINED SURPLUS AND ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT COMES TO RS.10 53 668/-. THEREFORE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5 14 332/- IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 3.2. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REITERATED T HE SUBMISSIONS AND ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION VIDE PARAGRAPH NO.6 AS FO LLOWS:- 6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ACCOUNTANT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS GO NE THROUGH THE RECORDS. FURTHER THE MATTER RELATING TO INVESTME NT IN BUFFALOES AMOUNTING TO RS.18 60 000/- WAS REMITTED BACK TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER BY HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH WITH THE DI RECTIONS TO DECIDE IT AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW SINCE A.O. DID NOT MADE SEPARATE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT BECAUSE HE HAD ES TIMATED UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR BLOCK PERIOD MORE THAN THAT AMOUNT. BUT NECESSARY DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE A.O. HOWEV ER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A LOOSE PAPER WAS FOUND WHICH IS PERTAINING TO SHARE OF ASSESSEE AGREED TO TRANSFER FOR RS.18 56 0 00/- IS THE IT(SS)A NOS.124 & 125/AHD/2007 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 - 5 - INVESTMENT IN BUFFALOES. SEPARATE ADDITION WAS NOT MADE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PROFIT OF BLOCK PERIOD WAS ESTIMATE D WHICH COVERED THIS INVESTMENT. FURTHER IN ADDITION TO TOTAL AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF 5% OF GROSS SALES OF MILK OF RS.4 55 563/- WAS A LSO CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED OVER A ND ABOVE OF THE NET SURPLUS AS COMPUTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAIN MADE ADDITION OF DIFFERENCE OF RS.5 1 4 332/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE TOTAL PAY MENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS RS.15 68 0 00/- AND EXPLAINED SURPLUS AS CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT COMES TO RS.10 53 668/-. THE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT MAINTAIN ING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE DETAILS OF ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE BY SHR I MOHAMMED ALIJI NANDOLIA WAS NOTED BY HIM ON PAGE NO.9 OF ANN EXURE A-6 SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H. THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD HAS TO BE D ETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS FOUN D AS RESULT OF SEARCH. THE ENTRIES WERE MADE UPTO 14-08-2000 ON T HE SEIZED PAGE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ADOPT TH E TOTAL OF RS.13 12 000/- AS ACTUAL PAYMENT MADE. HOWEVER TH E EXPLAINED SURPLUS AS CONFIRMED BY THE ITAT IS TO BE REDUCED F ROM THIS INCOME AND REMAINING BALANCE AMOUNT IS HEREBY CONFIRMED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD. HENCE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FROM TENTH TO FOURTEENTH ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE FIRST AND FOREMOST CONTENTI ON OF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE APPELLA NT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX IN THE PAST THEREFORE FURNISHED A DETAILED CHART OF ANNUAL INCOME OF LAST FEW YEARS. IN THIS CONNECTION OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN ON THE TABULATION REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE SAID TABULATED CHART THE NET SURPLUS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMI LY MEMBERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1989-90 TO 2001-02 WAS COMPUTED AT RS.15 05 869/-. IT(SS)A NOS.124 & 125/AHD/2007 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 - 6 - HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE NET SURPLUS WAS OF ONLY RS.5 98 097/-. THE REASON FOR THE SAID DIFFER ENCE WAS THE EXCLUSION OF THAT PART OF THE INCOME WHICH WAS FOUND BELOW TH E TAXABLE LIMIT IN THOSE YEARS. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HA S CLARIFIED THAT WHILE COMPUTING THE NET SURPLUS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S IGNORED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OF TH OSE YEARS FOR WHICH RETURNS WERE NOT FILED. HOWEVER HE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE REASON FOR NON-FILING OF RETURN WAS VERY BASIC THAT IN THOSE Y EARS THE INCOME EARNED WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT THEREFORE ASSESSEE WA S ADVISED NOT TO FILE THE RETURNS. HE HAS SAID THAT IF THE INCOME OF A LL THOSE YEARS THOUGH BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT BE ALSO CONSIDERED OR ADDED IN THE NET SURPLUS AS ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN THERE WIL L BE NO QUESTION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TOWARDS PURCHASE OF BUFFALOE S. WE FIND FORCE IN THIS SUBMISSION OF LD.AR BECAUSE APPARENTLY WHIL E COMPUTING THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS IGNORED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SO ME OF THE YEAR ALTHOUGH DISCLOSED DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1993-94 TO 1998-99. NEXT IS THE QUESTION ABOUT TOTAL INVESTMENT TOWARDS PURCHAS E OF BUFFALOES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADOPTED THE FIGURE OF RS.15 6 8 000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHICH WAS MADE TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER WHEN THE ISSUE WAS DEALT WITH BY THE LD. L EARNED CIT(APPEALS) HE HAS REDUCED THE SAME TO RS.13 12 0 00/-. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS PARTLY RED UCED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HOWEVER THE EMPHASIS WAS ON THE PRELIMINARY GROUND THAT IF THE ENTIRE INCOME FOR ALL THOSE YEAR S THOUGH BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT WAS ALSO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE IT(SS)A NOS.124 & 125/AHD/2007 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 - 7 - OF NET SURPLUS CLAIMED TO BE UTILIZED TOWARDS THE S AID INVESTMENT THEN THERE WILL BE NO SHORTAGE OF THE SURPLUS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. BY THAT CALCULATION THE ASSESSEE WAS STATED TO BE HAV ING SUFFICIENT SURPLUS FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT WAS MADE CLAIMED TO BE THOROUGHLY EXPLAINED. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF ALL THESE FACTS AND COMPARING THE CHARTS AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD.AR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD LEFT THE FIGURE BLANK FOR SOM E OF THE YEARS WHILE ARRIVING AT THE FIGURE OF NET SURPLUS FOR THE RELEV ANT PERIOD. WE FIND NO LOGIC AS TO WHY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IGNORED T HE INCOME OF THOSE YEARS THOUGH IT COULD BE BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT BUT WHICH OUGHT TO BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INV ESTMENT. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT DURING THOSE YEARS NO INC OME WAS EARNED OR GENERATED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ADMITTED POSITIO N IS THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS WERE CLAIMED TO BE IN THE BU SINESS WITHOUT ANY HINDRANCE. WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT ONCE THIS VERY APPELLANT HAD ALREADY TRAVELLED UPTO THE STAGE OF TRIBUNAL AND W ITH CERTAIN DIRECTIONS THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND NOW THIS FORUM I.E. TRIBUNAL IS HEARING THE CASE FOR THE SE COND TIME AND EVEN THEN THE REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THEIR SUPPORT TO PROVE THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BUFFALOES WAS NOT OUT OF THE KNOWN RESOURCES OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE DESERVES LEGITIMATE RELIEF. RATHER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH CONTRARY EVIDENC E WE HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF PAST RECORD OF THE CASE. THERE WAS NO SUFFICIENT OR VALID REASON FOUND IN LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER TO GRANT PART RELIEF BUT THE A SSESSEE APPEARS TO BE IT(SS)A NOS.124 & 125/AHD/2007 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 - 8 - ENTITLED FOR THE FULL RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF BUFFALOES. THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 5. ONCE WE HAVE TAKEN A VIEW THAT THE NET SURPLUS W AS ADEQUATE TO EXPLAIN THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT THEREFORE REST OF THE GROUNDS I.E. GROUND NOS.2 & 3 NEED NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 6. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL I.E. IT(SS)A N O.125/AHD/2007 IS ALLOWED. (B) IT(SS)A NO.124/AHD/2007 7. THIS APPEAL IS IN RESPONSE TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S.158BFA(2) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 OF RS.3 65 435/-. 8. IN THE CORRESPONDING PENALTY ORDER DATED 30/03/2 006 THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED THE PAST HISTORY AND THE DECISION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. HE HAS NOTED THAT ON RESTO RATION OF THE ISSUE BY THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESS ING OFFICER A FRESH ASSESSMENT WAS MADE AND A REVISED UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS.5 20 564/-. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS SUBJECT TO CONC EALMENT OF PENALTY WITH THE RESULT OF A MINIMUM PENALTY OF RS.3 65 435 /- WAS IMPOSED. THE SAID ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CHALLE NGED. 9. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THE APPELLANT WAS THE GUILTY OF THE IT(SS)A NOS.124 & 125/AHD/2007 SHRI MOHAMMAD ALIJI NANDOLIA VS. ACIT BLOCK PERIOD : 1.4.1991 TO 9.1.2001 - 9 - CONCEALMENT OF INCOME HENCE THE PENALTY WAS RIGHT LY IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. AS IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW THE PRIMARY REASON IN THE IMPOSITION OF CONCEALMENT PEN ALTY WAS THE ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF BUFF ALOES. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE SAID QUANTUM APPEAL IN THE FORE GOING PARAGRAPHS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECTED TO DELETE THE S AID ADDITION. ONCE A QUANTUM ADDITION WHICH WAS THE BASIS OF THE LEVY OF THE IMPUGNED PENALTY HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED THEREFORE THERE IS NO OCCASION LEFT FOR LEVY OF THIS PENALTY. HENCE DIRECTED TO DELETE T HE SAME. 11. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEAL I.E. IT(SS)A NO.124/AHD/2007 IS ALSO ALLOWED. 12. AS A RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30/04/2010. SD/- SD/- ( D.C. AGRAWAL) ( MUKUL SHRAWAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/ 04 /2010 T.C. NAIR SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-IV AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR AHMEDABAD BENCH. 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ITAT AHMEDABAD