ACIT (Inter. Taxa.)-1, Ahmedabad v. Dr. Ashit Jain, Delhi

ITSSA 275/AHD/2018 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 11-05-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 27520516 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN AGEPJ2339K
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITSSA 275/AHD/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant ACIT (Inter. Taxa.)-1, Ahmedabad
Respondent Dr. Ashit Jain, Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 11-05-2021
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 11-05-2021
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 08-10-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEM BER THE ACIT(INTERNATIONAL TAXATION)-1 250 2 ND FLOOR NAVJEEVAN TRUST BUILDING B/H GUJARAT VIDYAPITH ASHRAM ROAD AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS DR. ASHIT JAIN U-23 GREEN PARK EXTENSION NEW DELHI-110016 PAN: AGEPJ2339K (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI VIRENDRA OJHA CIT-D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.S. SOPARKAR A. R. DATE OF HEARING : 24-03-2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-05-202 1 /ORDER PER : AMARJIT SINGH ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ARISES FRO M ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-13 AHMEDABAD DATED 30-07-2018 IN PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPE AL:- I) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-13 AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO CASH COMPONENT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE IN PURCHA SE OF LAND FOR HOSPITAL PROJECT. II) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-13 AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN IGNORING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DULY SUPPORTED BY THE STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER OATH FROM THE CARDIAC SURGEON GROUP OF IT(SS)A NO. 275/AHD/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 I.T(SS).A NO. 275/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. DR. ASHIT JAIN 2 DOCTORS AS WELL AS THEIR SHARE OF CASH COMPONENT IN PURCHASE OF LAND FOR HOSPITAL PROJECT DULY REFLECTED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME WITH PAYMENT OF TAXES. III) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-13 AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN THAT THERE ARE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE. IV) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-13 AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT A CONSIDERATION AS APPEARING IN THE DOCUMENT REGISTER ED BY ONE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED SINCE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE CONS IDERATION APPEARING IN THE REGISTRATION DOCUMENT DOES NOT INCLUDE THE CASH COMPONENT PAID BY THE ASS ESSEE AND THE TWO TRANSACTIONS ARE THEREFORE SEPARATE. V) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-13 AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN F ACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THIRD PARTY STATEMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF ADDITION FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSE SINCE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE INCRIMINATING STATEMENTS MADE UNDER OATH A DMITTING CASH PAYMENTS ON WHICH TAXES WERE ALSO PAID BELONGED TO THE SAME TRANSACTION OF PURC HASE OF LAND OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE INVESTORS. VI) THAT THE LD. CIT(A)-13 AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN FACTS AND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS NOT MADE AN UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY IS CORRECT. 3. ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE A RE INTER CONNECTED THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THESE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL ARE ADJUDICATED TOGETHER AS FOLLOWS:- 4. THE ASSESSEE IS A NON-RESIDENT INDIAN FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 12 TH AUGUST 2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1 14 27 0/-. THE ASSESSEE IS A CARDIOLOGIST DOCTOR AND SETTLED IN U.S.A. HE WAS SHARE HOLDER IN THE COMPANY M/S CARE CARDIOVASCULAR CONSULTANTS PVT. LT D. (CCCPL) KNOWN AS CIMS HOSPITAL AHMEDABAD. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 13 2 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED ON 27 AUGUST 2008 IN RESPECT OF DOCTORS GR OUP OF AHMEDABAD. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL SATISFACTION W AS RECORDED ON 12 TH APRIL 2011 AND NOTICED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AN D DULY SERVED ON 6 TH JULY 2011. THE LAND FOR HOSPITAL PROJECT WAS PURC HASED IN THE NAME OF CCCPL. AS PER REGISTERED SALE DEED LAND ADMEASURIN G 13981 SQ. METER WAS PURCHASED FOR HOSPITAL PROJECT IN THE NAME OF CCCPL AND ITS DOCUMENT PRICE WAS RS. 2.5 CRORE AS PER THE HARD DISC SEIZED THE REGISTERED SALE DEED SHOW PAYMENT OF RS. 2.5 CRORES BUT THE DOCUMENT IN THE C OMPUTER HARD DISC SHOWS I.T(SS).A NO. 275/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. DR. ASHIT JAIN 3 THAT 85% OF THE COST WAS PAID IN CASH. IT REVEALED FROM INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 15.7 CRORES WAS PAID IN CASH FOR PURCHASE OF LAND WHICH WAS NOT REF LECTED IN THE BOOK OF THE COMPANY CCCPL. THE UNACCOUNTED CASH AMOUNT WAS CO NTRIBUTED BY THE VARIOUS SHAREHOLDER DOCTORS. THE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 PER SHARE WAS COLLECTED IN CHEQUE WHEREAS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 56.67 SHARES WA S COLLECTED IN CASH. BASED ON A NUMBER OF SHARES ALLOTTED TO DOCTORS THE CASH COMPONENT PAID BY THEM FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND WAS DETERMINED. IT W AS FOUND THAT DR. ASHIT JAIN WAS ALLOTTED THE SHARE OF THE COMPANY AS UNDER :- DATE OF ALLOTMENT OF SHARES NUMBER OF SHARES COST PER SHARE(RS.) AMOUNT (RS.) RECEIPT OF AMOUNT (RS.) DATE AMOUNT 03.02.2008 3 60 000 10/- 3 60 000 19.06.07 31.01.08 35 00 000 1 00 000 06.05.2008 2 53 560 80/- 2 02 84 800 31.07.2009 3 54 540 63/- 2 23 36 020 12.02.09 2 23 39 572 FROM THE AFORESAID TABLE IT IS FOUND THAT THE ALLOT MENT OF 3 60 000/- SHARES @ 10 PER SHARE WAS MADE ON 3 RD FEBRUARY 2018 TO SHRI ASHIT JAIN. THE ALLOTMENT OF THESE SHARES WERE DIRECTLY LINKED WITH PURCHASE OF LAND BY THE CCCPL COMPANY. IN THE CASE OF OTHER SHARE HOLDERS AND DOCTORS IT WAS HELD THAT ALLOTMENT OF SHARES AS ON 3 RD FEBRUARY 2008 WAS MADE @ RS. 66.67 PER SHARE WHICH INCLUDES RS. 56.67 PER SHARE IN CASH. ON THE BASIS OF THIS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DETERMINED THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 2 04 00 000/- WAS PAID BY ASSESSEE DR. ASHIT JAIN OUT OF BOOKS FOR ALLOTME NT OF 3 60 000 SHARES OF I.T(SS).A NO. 275/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. DR. ASHIT JAIN 4 THE CCCPL COMPANY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE COPY OF PRINT TAKEN FROM SEIZED COMPUTER HARD DISC AT PAGE NO. 70 TO 72 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THA T IN VIEW OF THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE CO MPUTER AT THE OFFICE OF CCCPL DR. ASHIT JAIN HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 2.4 CRORE IN CASH TO CCCPL FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND FOR THE HOSPITAL DUR ING F.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS OBJECTED THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NOT BELONGING TO HIM AND IN SOME DOCUMENTS EVEN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MENTIONED. IT IS ALSO STATED THAT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MAD E IN CASE OF OTHER DOCTORS VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) R. W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. IN THOSE CASES THE ITAT VIDE ORDER DATED 18 TH OCTOBER 2013 HAS HELD THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE NOT INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT AND DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS MADE. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT AGREED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2.4 CRORES AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE HAND OF ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. 5. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION AFTER FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD AS REFERRED ABOVE. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US THE LD. COUNSEL AT THE OUTSET HAS SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IN APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD ON IDENTICAL ISSUE AND SIMILAR FACTS ADJUDICATED IN THE CASE OF OTHER PERS ONS OF THE GROUP VIDE I.T(SS).A NO. 275/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. DR. ASHIT JAIN 5 IT(SS)A NOS. 604/AHD/2011 601/AHD/2011 603/AHD/201 1 612/AHD/2011 602/AHD/2011 634/AHD/2011 611/AHD/2011 PERTAINING TO DR. KEYRU PARIKEH & OTHERS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE IS FAIR ENOUGH NOT TO CONTROVERT THESE UNDISPUTED FACTS THAT THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE THE ABOVE CITED DECISION OF IT AT AHMEDABAD. 7. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES WE HAVE GONE THR OUGH THE DECISION OF ITAT AHMEDABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 VIDE IT(SS) N OS. 604/AHD/2011 601/AHD/2011 603/AHD/2011 612/AHD/2011 602/AHD/2 011 634/AHD/2011 611/AHD/2011 PERTAINING TO DR. KEYUR PARIKH AND OTHER DOCTORS OF THE GROUP. THE DECISION OF THE ITAT IS ALSO DISCUSSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS FINDING. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SA ME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 6.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON THE DOCUMENTS SUPPLIED TO HIM BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSONS WHO WERE SE ARCHED. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE PERSONS WHO WERE SEARC HED. IN THOSE CASES IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD IN FAVOUR O F THE PERSONS SEARCHED. IN THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER THE HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD HAS CO NSIDERED ALL THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT STATEMENTS RECORDED D URING SEARCH AND AFTER SEARCH U/S 132(4) AND 131 OF THE ACT OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD BEEN SEARCHE D SALE DEED OF LAND DETERMINATION OF MARKET PRICE BY STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY AND WHETHER REVENUE D EPARTMENT HAD GATHERED ANY EVIDENCE THROUGH WHICH IT COULD BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD GENERATED UNACCOUNTED INCOME WHICH WAS ALLEGEDLY USED FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) ARRIVED AT BETWEEN THE CCCPL (HOSPITAL) AND THE GROUP OF DO CTORS AND ACTION TAKEN AGAINST SELLER OF LAND TO TAX CAPITAL GAIN ON ALLEGED CASH COMPONENT. ONGO ING THROUGH THE APPELLATE ORDER OF HON'BLE ITAT AHMEDABAD I FIND THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS H ELD THAT 1) 'THE SALE DEED IN QUESTION WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN NUM BER OF ENTITIES; HENCE SUCH A MULTI-PARTY DEAL MUST NOT BE DOUBTED ESPECIALLY WHEN EACH PART Y OUGHT TO HAVE WATCHED THEIR RESPECTIVE INTEREST. 2) IF ONE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY HAS REGISTERED A DOCUME NT ON AN AMOUNT OF CONSIDERATION THEN THAT CONSIDERATION SHOULD NOT BE DOUBTED UNLESS AND UNTIL THERE IS CONCRETE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE SALE VALUE DECLARED. 3) DUE TO CONDITIONS MENTIONED IN THE MOU BETWEEN T HE HOSPITAL AND GROUP OF DOCTORS THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY OUTGOING DOCTORS IS NOT RELIABLE . 4) THIRD PARTY STATEMENT SHOULD NOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF ADDITION FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSE. THE TAX PROCEEDINGS SHOULD BE BASED UPON CERTAIN DIRECT EVI DENCE SO THAT THERE MUST NOT BE ANY MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. I.T(SS).A NO. 275/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. DR. ASHIT JAIN 6 5) MAKE AN OBSERVATION THAT FEW STATEMENTS OR THE FILI NG OF RETURN OF THOSE DOCTORS WHO HAVE PARTED-WAYS FROM THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE MADE THE SO LE BASIS FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 6) AS FAR AS THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN HAND IS CONCERNE D ONCE IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE GROUP OF DOCTORS HAVE DISASSOCIATED THEMSELVES DUE TO CER TAIN DIFFERENCES THEREFORE ANY OF THEIR ACTION CANNOT BE HELD TO BE UNBIASED OR IMPARTIAL. 7) WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT A CLINCHING INCRIMINATIN G MATERIAL CAN BE USED AGAINST A TAX PAYER IF UNEARTHED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE REFERRED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE FALLING UNDER THIS CATEGORY OF DOCUMENTS. THOSE WER E COMPUTER GENERATED DOCUMENT WHICH WERE NEITHER SIGNED BY ANY PERSON NOR PROPERLY DATED. BE THAT AS IT WAS BUT WHETHER THOSE DOCUMENTS CAN BE SAID TO BE AN AUTHENTIC DOCUMENT TO BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO ALLEGE THAT ON-MONEY WAS TRANSACTED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PREVAILING FACTS IT SHALL NOT BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO TAKE AN ADVE RSE VIEW AGAINST THE ASSESSEE MERELY ON CERTAIN SUPPOSITIONS. 8) IT WAS NOTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS CONV ERTED INTO NON-AGRICULTURAL BY THE EFFORTS OF THE ASSESSEE/CCCPL. NATURALLY NON-AGRICULTURAL LAND FE TCH HIGHER PRICE IN THE MARKET. WHEN THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS TRANSACTED THEN ITS NATURE WAS 'AGR ICULTURAL LAND'. AN ANOTHER ADVERSE FACTOR WAS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS UNDER DISPUTE AMONG T HE OWNERS. EARLIER THE LAND WAS OWNED BY FEW INDIVIDUAL PERSONS. THEN THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY W AS .FORMED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CERTAIN COMPANIES WERE FORMED. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INT O THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH THOSE PERSONS AND THEREAFTER COMPLETED THE PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. IN THAT SITUATION IT WAS DIFFICULT TO PRESUME THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ON-MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE S ALE PRICE AS DETERMINED BY THE REGISTRAR FOR STAMP DUTY PURPOSE. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT THE SAL E PRICE WAS ESCALATED BY- THE STAMP DUTY AUTHORITY TIME AND AGAIN TO MATCH WITH THE FAIR MAR KET PRICE OF THE LAND OF THAT AREA. DUE TO THIS REASON THE SALE PRICE AS DETERMINED BY THE STAMP D UTY OFFICER WAS AT PAR WITH THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE OF THE LAND. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON R ECORD THROUGH WHICH IT COULD BE DEMONSTRATED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT THAT AS PER SOME OTHER SA LE INSTANCE THERE WAS INDEED HIGHER PREVAILING MARKET PRICE THEN THE SALE PRICE RECORDE D IN THE SALE DEED. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE IT IS WRONG ON THE PART OF THE REVENUE DEP ARTMENT TO PRESUME THAT THE PREVAILING MARKET PRICE WAS HIGHER THAN THE SALE PRICE AS RECORDED IN THE REGISTERED SALE-DEED. 9) THERE WAS NO PROOF FOUND EVEN AFTER THE SEARCH T O ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GENERATED UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM MEDICAL PROFESSION EVEN IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE IN THE CASE OF THE CCCPL WHICH WAS IN THE NASCENT STAGE THAT THERE W AS A POSSIBILITY OF AVAILABILITY OF SUCH HUGE UNACCOUNTED CASH. 10) THE DEPARTMENT FAILED TO GIVE SATISFACTORY REPL Y IN RESPECT OF ACTION TAKEN AGAINST SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY TO TAX CAPITAL GAIN ON ALLEGED CASH COMPON ENT. 11) THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF COMPONENT USED FOR P URCHASE OF LAND WAS MADE ON SUSPICIOUS WITHOUT ANY STRONG EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED BOTH THESE QUESTIONS AND THEN ON CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF THE EVIDENCES AND UNDER THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE HER EBY HOLD THAT THOSE WERE NOT EVEN THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BUT SIMPLY COMPUTER GENERATE D PROJECTION SHEETS THEREFORE HARD TO SAY SYNONYMOUS TO CLINCHING MATERIAL EVIDENCE DEPICTING CASH TRANSACTION HENCE ERRONEOUSLY SUSPECTED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE IN POSSESSION OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D IN FACT MADE AN UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY.' 6.5 IT HAS BEEN HELD SUPRA THAT THERE ARE NO INCRIM INATING MATERIAL DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT 011 THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE. I HOLD THAT THE .CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION DA TED 18.10.2013 OF THE HON'BLE 1TAT AHMEDABAD IN CASE OF DR. KEYUR PARIKH AND OTHERS IN IT (SS) N O. 604/AHD/2011. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT I HOLD THAT TH ERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF CASH MADE AGAINST ACQUISITION OF SHARES OF CCCPL . THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS. 2 04 00 000/-. THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. I.T(SS).A NO. 275/AHD/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 PAGE NO ACIT VS. DR. ASHIT JAIN 7 AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE DECISIO N OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF FINDING OF ITAT AHMEDABAD IN RESPECT OF OT HER DOCTORS OF THE GROUP ON SIMILAR ISSUE ON IDENTICAL FACTS WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE THE GR OUNDS OF APPEAL (I) TO (VI) OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11-05-2021 SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) (AMARJIT SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 11/05/2021 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ /