Shri Bhavin M.Dagli, Bhavnagar V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

CO 284/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0132 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ROOP CHAND
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT JUDICI AL MEMBER ACIT, CIRCLE-2, BHAVNAGAR (APPELLANT) VS SHRI BHAVIN M. DAGLI, 509, KAHAN JYOT, OPP DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR, SONGADH, DIST: BHAVNAGAR PAN: ADYPD0074C (RESPONDENT) SHRI BHAVIN M. DAGLI, 509, KAHAN JYOT, OPP DIGAMBER JAIN MANDIR, SONGADH, DIST: BHAVNAGAR PAN: ADYPD0074C (CROSS OBJECTOR) VS ACI, CIRCLE-2, BHAVNAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI ROOPCHAND, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, A.R . DATE OF HEARING : 27-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-12-20 14 / ORDER ITA NO. 2466/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 C.O. NO. 284/AHD/2010 (IN ITA NO. 2466/AHD/2010) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 2 PER : ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THE REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CO ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 20-05-2010 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE DERIVING INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN FOR A.Y. 2007-08 O N 31/03/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 87,53,453/-. THE CASE WAS SEL ECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VI DE ORDER DATED 31-12- 2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 1,2 9,35,278/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 20-05-2010 GRANTED SUBS TANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A CO. THE INITIAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE WERE LATER ON CONCISE D VIDE THEIR LETTER DATED 05-04-2013 AND THE REVISED CONCISE GROUND REA DS AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS 60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF NSC MATURITY RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08 TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. THE LD CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN LAW IN ALLOWING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HEARD TO THE AO IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. 2. THE LD. CLT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN AL LOWING RELIEF OF RS 3,42,934/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS 4,07,238/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME FROM VARIOUS SB A/CS OF THE ASSESSE E. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS IN ALL OWING R ELIEF OF RS 10,40,000/- OUT OF ADDITION OF RS 12,18,981/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF HDFC BONDS. 4 THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN D ELETING ADDITION OF RS 4,84,434/-ON ACCOUNT OF ACCRUED INTEREST INCOME U/S 64(II) OF THE IT ACT. I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 3 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 19,22,500/- PM ACCOUNT OF INTEREST RECEIVED FRO M FAMILY MEMBERS. ON THE OTHER HAND, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I N CO READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING OF RS. 54,072/- BEING INTERE ST COMPONENT OF NSC. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED SUCH ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES PLEA THAT IT WAS NOT AT ALL A FIT CASE FOR LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234B OF THE I.T. ACT. WE FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2466/A HD/2010 4. 1ST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DEDUCTION OF ADDIT ION OF RS. 60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF NSC MATURITY. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ON VERIFICATION OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WITH FEDERAL B ANK, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,14,072/- ON A CCOUNT OF NSC MATURITY. AO ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT DE CLARED INVESTMENT IN NSC IN HIS BOOK OF ACCOUNT OF EARLIER YEARS AND FUR THER HAD NOT FURNISHED DETAILS OF SOURCE OF FUNDS OF INVESTMENT IN NSC. H E THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT INVESTED IN NSC AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. HE ALSO NOTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED ON NSC IN EARLIER YEARS HENCE IN THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT FOR RS. 1,14,072/- WAS CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 4 4.2 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOTICED TH AT THE INVESTMENT IN NSC WAS MADE IN OCTOBER 2000. THE AMOUNT WAS INVEST ED BY ISSUE OF CHEQUE FROM APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT NO.459 WITH FE DERAL BANK FOR RS.60,000/-. THUS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS ESTAB LISHED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY INTEREST OF NSC ON ACCRU AL BASIS IN EARLIER YEARS. THEREFORE, THE A.O. WAS JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME ENTIRELY IN THIS YEAR. THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT AVAILABILITY OF DEDUCTION U/S.80C IS NOT ACCEPTABLE PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT SUCH INTEREST IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE APPELLANT'S R ETURN OF INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS. APART FROM THIS, SUCH EXEMPTION WOULD BE AVA ILABLE IN RESPECTIVE YEARS WHERE INCOME IS INCLUDED IN THE APPELLANTS T OTAL INCOME. HOWEVER, AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IS ESTABLISHED, THE ADD ITION FOR THE AMOUNT OF ORIGINAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 60,000/- IS NOT JUSTIFIE D. THE INTEREST ELEMENT OF RS. 54,072/- IS RIGHTLY TAXED. THUS THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF FOR RS. 60,000/- AND THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US LD. DR POINTED TO THE FINDINGS OF AO A ND SUPPORTED HIS ORDER. LD. AR ON THE OTHER HAND REITERATED THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE INTEREST FOR THE YEAR CAN ONLY BE SUBJECTED TO TAX AND NOT INTEREST OF EARLIER YEARS. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING PAR TIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY CHEQUE FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH FEDERAL BANK AND THUS THE S OURCE OF INVESTMENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. WITH RESPECT TO TAXING OF IN TEREST OF 54,072/- HE HAS NOTED THAT SUCH INTEREST WAS NOT REFLECTED IN ASSES SEES RETURN OF INCOME OF EARLIER YEARS. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE INTERES T TO HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY TAXED. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATE RIAL TO CONTROVERT THE I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 5 FINDING OF LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. 9. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF INTE REST INCOME FROM VARIOUS SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS. 10. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 2,46,2 63/-. ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME FROM VARIOUS SAVING BANK ACCOUNTS INCLUDING INTERES TS ON FIXED DEPOSITS RECEIPTS WORK TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,03,501/-, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE LISTED AT PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED TH E DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INTEREST INCOME DECLARED AND INTEREST WORKED OUT BY HIM AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,70,238/- AS UNDER STATED INTEREST INCOME AND ACCO RDINGLY ADDED TO THE INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESS EE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 5.3. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS SESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. AFTER CONSID ERING THE DETAILS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME IT IS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAX BANK INTEREST OF RS. 5,89,197/-. THEREFORE, THE SHORT FALL IN INCOME OF FERED ON THIS COUNT WAS OF RS. 64,304/- AS AGAINST DIFFERENCE OF RS. 4, 07,238/- ADDED BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION IS REDUCED TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 64,304/- AND APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 3,42,934/ -. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. BEFORE US LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD . CIT(A) AND THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 6 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTED THAT THE INTE REST FROM BANK AGGREGATING TO RS. 5,89,197/- HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFE RED TO TAX AND THE SHORTFALL WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 64,304/- AS AGAI NST THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 4,07,238/- WORKED BY THE AO. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT BY RS. 64,304/-. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THESE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 14. GROUND NO. 3 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF HDFC BONDS. 15. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED IN BONDS OF HDFC BEARING RATE OF INTEREST AT 8%. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF INTERE ST ACCRUED ON HDFC BONDS WHICH AO NOTED WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE. HE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE ACCRUED INTEREST AT RS. 12,81,981/- AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASS ESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS NOTICED THA T THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN SPECIFIC EXPLANATION THAT HE HELD RBI BONDS O N WHICH INTEREST WAS OFFERED FOR TAX AT RS. 10,40, 000/-. IT IS FURTHER NOTICED THAT AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSES THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AUTHORIZED HDF C TO ISSUE BONDS AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE INVESTMENT IN GOVERNMENT BONDS WITH HDFC AS ABOVE. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED FOR TAX ONLY SIMPLE INTEREST AT 8% WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS.10 ,40,000/-. HOWEVER, AS I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 7 PER THE BOND ISSUED, IT WAS CUMULATIVE BOND AND, TH EREFORE, INTEREST ACCRUED ON SUCH BONDS WAS WORKED OUT BY THE A.O. AT RS.12,80,981/-. THUS IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT SUCH INTEREST WA S NOT AT ALL SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THE INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS AND BOND B EING CUMULATIVE BOND, WAS CORRECTLY WORKED OUT AT RS. 12,80,981/- WHICH F IGURE IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT. AS AGAINST IT, THE INTEREST OFFERED FOR TAX WAS AT RS.10,40,000/-BEING SIMPLE INTEREST. AS THE INTERES T OF RS.10,40,000/- IS ALREADY INCLUDED IN THE RETUNED INCOME, THE A.O. WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION FOR THE ENTIRE ACCRUED INTEREST . HE COULD HAVE MADE ADDITION FOR THE BALANCE INTEREST OF RS. 1,78,981/- (INTEREST ACCRUED AT RS. 12,80,981/- LESS INTEREST INCLUDED IN THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 10,40,000/-) ONLY. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE, REDU CED BY RS. 10,40,000/-. THIS GROUND IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. BEFORE US LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD . CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED FOR TA XATION INTEREST ON HDFC BONDS ON THE BASIS OF CALCULATION OF SIMPLE IN TEREST AT 8% AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,40,000/- WHEREAS AS PER TERMS AND CONDITI ONS OF THE BONDS, THE INTEREST WAS ON CUMULATIVE BASIS. LD. CIT(A) HAS F URTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT AS AGAINST THE INTEREST OF RS. 12,81,981/- WOR KED OUT BY THE AO, ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED FOR TAXATION INTEREST ON HDFC BONDS OF RS. 10,40,000/- AND THEREFORE ADDITION OF ONLY DIFFEREN TIAL AMOUNT OF RS. 1,78,981/- WAS UPHELD. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND THEREF ORE THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 8 19. GROUND NO. 4 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETING ADDITI ON OF ACCRUED INTEREST U/S. 64(2) OF THE ACT. 20. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD GRANTED LOAN TO HIS WIFE NEHAL AND ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS. 6,87,500/- WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ALSO N OTED THAT AMOUNT OF LOAN WHICH WAS TRANSFERRED TO HIS WIFE WAS USED BY HER FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN HDFC BONDS. AS PER CALCULATION MAD E BY THE AO, INTEREST ACCRUED ON HDFC BONDS TO HIS WIFE WAS RS. 11,72,234 /-. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAD TRANSFERRED THE FUNDS WITHOU T ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 4(2) WERE APPLICABLE. HE THEREAFTER APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 64 (2) CONSIDERED THE DIFFERENTIAL INTEREST (11,72,234/ 6,87,500/-) AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 64(2) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION B Y HOLDING AS UNDER:- 7.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, ASSES SMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 64 ALONG WITH EXPLAN ATION 3 THERETO, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. WAS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 64(II) WHICH HAS BEEN INVOKED BY THE A.O . EVEN SECTION 64(IV) ALSO IS NOT APPLICABLE ON PLAIN READING OF THE PROV ISIONS OF THE SAID SECTION READ WITH EXPLANATION 3 THERETO. THE INVESTMENT IN BOND IS NOT ENVISAGED AS PER EXPLANATION 3 FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLUBBING SE CTION. ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IS DELETED. 21. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE I S NOW APPEAL BEFORE US. 22. BEFORE US LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A ) AND SUPPORTED HIS ORDER. I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 9 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 64 WERE NOT APPLICA BLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND WE THEREF ORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THI S GROUND IS DISMISSED. 24. GROUND NO. 5 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADD ITION OF RS. 19,22,500/- ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIVED FROM FAMILY MEMB ERS. 25. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS GRANTED LOAN TO FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 19,22,500/- WAS NOT DECLARED BY THE A SSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE INTEREST OF RS. 19,22,500/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 26. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOL DING AS UNDER: 8.3 ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE APPELLAN T'S CASE IT IS NOTICED THAT THE INTEREST OF RS. 19,22,500/- ACCRUED ON LOANS GIVEN TO RELATIVES BY THE APPELLANT HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED FOR TAX IN T HE RETURN AS PART OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.85.05 LAKH. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO RE ASON FOR THE ADDITIONS FOR THE SAID AMOUNT SEPARATELY. THE A.O, HAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 85 LAKH WAS CLAIMED TO BE INCLUSIVE OF RS.19.22 LAKH BUT HE STATES THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN FOR NOT INCLUDING THIS AMO UNT. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS WHICH IS FORMING PART OF COM PUTATION OF INCOME IT IS SEEN THAT THE INCOME IS ALREADY FORMING PART OF THE RETURNED INCOME AS ABOVE. THE ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 27. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 10 28. BEFORE US, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A ) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDIN G THAT THE INTEREST OF RS. 19,22,500/- ACCRUED ON LOANS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FORMED PART OF THE INCOME OF RS. 85.05 LACS THAT WAS OFFERED BY AS SESSEE TO TAX AND THUS THE AMOUNT WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX. BEFORE US, R EVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FI NDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. 30. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 31. BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED AS IT HAS NO SUBSTANCE. WE THEREFORE DIS MISS THE CO OF THE ASSESSEE. 32. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CO OF ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 12/12/2014 AK I.T.A NO. 2644/AHD/2010 & CO NO. 284/AHD/2010 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. BHAVIN M. DOGLI 11 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE ( 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,