Shri Patel Paragbhai Ramanlal, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Ahmedabad Circle-3, Ahmedabad

CO 99/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0206 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: A L THAKKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 68; 145

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SHRI SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ACIT CIRCLE-3, 5TH FLOOR, INSURANCE BUILDING, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS SHRI PARAGBHAI RAMANLAL PATEL PRO. OF SHREE ARYA ENG. C-1/4GIDC AMBICA NAGAR ODHAV AHMEDABAD PAN: AAZPP290J (RESPONDENT) SHRI PATEL PARAGBHAI RAMANLAL PRO. OF SHREE ARYA ENG. C-1/4GIDC AMBICA NAGAR ODHAV AHMEDABAD PAN: AAZPP290J (APPELLANT) VS THE ACIT CIRCLE-3, 5TH FLOOR, INSURANCE BUILDING, INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI A.L. THAKKAR, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 30-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-01-2 015 / ORDER ITA NO. 832/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 C.O. NO. 99/AHD/2011 (IN ITA NO. 832/AHD/2011) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.T.A NO. 832/AHD/2011 & CO NO. 99/AHD/2011 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. PARAG RAMANLAL PATEL 2 PER : ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CO BY THE ASSE SSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 10 -01-2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD ARE AS UNDER. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF ELECTRICAL STAMPING. ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON 15-10-2007 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME, AT RS. 11,5,510/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATER 24-12-2009 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 22,08,475/-. AG GRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) W HO VIDE ORDER DATED 11/01/2011 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN AP PEAL BEFORE US AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED A CO. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DEL ETING THE ADDITIONS OF EXCISE DUTY TO CLOSING STOCK TO THE EX TENT IT HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN, OUT OF T OTAL ADDITION OF RS. 5,62,693/-. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,61,872/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE OF EXCESS INTEREST PAID U/S. 40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,41,200/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISAL LOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. I.T.A NO. 832/AHD/2011 & CO NO. 99/AHD/2011 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. PARAG RAMANLAL PATEL 3 ON THE OTHER HAND, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE CO READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RETAINING THE ADDIT ION IN PART FOR THE UNDERVALUATION OF CLOSING STOCK MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AFTER DELETING THE AMOUNT OF EXCISE DUTY PERTAINING TO THE CLOSING STOCK WHICH HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FI LING OF RETURN. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 37,200/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE ALLE GED CASH CREDITS (UNSECURED LOANS) U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 BEING AN AMOUNTS OF RS. 18650/- RECEIVED FORM VYAS UPENDRAKU MAR SOMERSHWAR AND RS. 18,550/- FROM VYAS MEHUL UPENDRA KUMAR. WE FIRST TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL 4. FIRST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDI TION OF EXCISE DUTY TO CLOSING STOCK. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS VALUED CLOSING STOCK AFTER EXCLUDING E XCISE AND VAT. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT EXCISE RECEIVABLE WAS RS. 1,13,44 0/- AND EXCISE CREDIT RECEIVABLE WAS RS. 4,49,253/-. AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE NON-INCLUSIVE METHOD ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VALUATION OF CLO SING STOCK HAS RESULTED INTO UNDERSTATEMENT OF CLOSING STOCK AND T HEREBY THE CORRECT PROFIT. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 145A OF THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE TAX/DEBTS/CESS/FEES RELATED TO ST OCK NEEDS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION FOR RS. 5,62,693/- TO THE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO D ELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF TAX ES TO THE CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN FULLY SETTLED. AS STATED BY THE AO I N VIEW OF THE I.T.A NO. 832/AHD/2011 & CO NO. 99/AHD/2011 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. PARAG RAMANLAL PATEL 4 DECISION OF HONORABLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF CR OYDON CHEMICAL WORKS LTD. 11 SOT 295, THE DECISION OF HON ORABLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MELMOULD CORPORATI ON 202 ITR 789, THE DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CARBORANDURN UNIVERSAL LTD 149 ITR 759, SP FABRICATORS PRIVATE L TD. 10 SOT 652 AND THE WEST COAST PAPER MILLS LTD AS PER THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 145A THE ASSESSES IS REQUIRED TO ADD EXCISE DUTY, T AX, CESS ETC. IN THE RAW MATERIAL, IN GOODS IN PROCESS, AND IN FINIS HED GOODS. IF THE ASSESSES IS FOLLOWING EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTIN G, THEN IN THE TAX AUDIT REPORT, IT IS REQUIRED TO GIVE AN ADJUSTMENT SHEET AND ALL THESE TAXES ARE REQUIRED TO BE ADDED AND THE DEVIATION IF ANY HAS TO BE ADDED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME TO THE OFFER FOR TAX. THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THAT IT HAS NEVER FOLLOWED TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS N O OPTION BUT TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 A BECAUSE THIS PROVISION IS THERE ON THE STATUTE BOOK. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 145A THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE THE EXCISE DUTY IN THE CLOSING STOCK. CONSEQUENT TO THIS THE ASSESSEE CAN DEBIT EQUAL AMO UNT OF EXCISE DUTY ON THE EXPENDITURE SIDE BUT AT THAT MOMENT SEC TION 43B COMES INTO PLAY. UNDER SECTION 43B THE SAME WOULD BE ALL OWED ONLY IF THE APPELLANT PAYS THIS DUTY ON OR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. THE HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF WEST COAST P APER MILLS LTD, [102 ITD 19] HAS STATED AS UNDER:- .. 2.3.3 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS EXCLUSIVE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING, STILL IT HAS TO GIV E EFFECT TO THE ADJUSTMENTS AS PER SECTION 145A. AS STATED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO ADD THE TAXES, DUTIES, ETC. TO BOTH OPE NING AND CLOSING STOCK AS WELL AS IN THE PURCHASES AND SALES. HOWEV ER, IN THE FIRST YEAR THE OPENING STOCK CANNOT BE CHANGED FROM THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE EARLIER YEAR AS PER THE BASIC ACCOUNTING PRINCI PLE AND AS DISCUSSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF WEST C OST PAPER MILLS LTD. (SUPRA). THIS PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY TH E HONBLE ITAT, AHMEDABAD ALSO IN THE CASE OF J.K. PAPER LTD. (SUPR A) 2.3.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE RE QUIREMENT OF SECTION 145A IS THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST INCLUDE TAX DUTIES, CESS ETC. FOR VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK. THE ASSESSEE CAN FOLLOW THE EXCLUSIVE METHOD FOR THE BOOK PURPOSES BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF TAX AUDIT REPORT AND DISALLOWANCE U/S. 43B IT IS NECESSARY THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST SHOW THE EFFECT OF SECTION 145A BY FOLLOWING THE IN CLUSIVE METHOD I.T.A NO. 832/AHD/2011 & CO NO. 99/AHD/2011 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. PARAG RAMANLAL PATEL 5 I.E. BY INCLUDING ALL TAX, DUTIES, CESS ETC. IN THE CLOSING STOCK. THESE TAXES, DUTIES, ETC, WILL HAVE TO BE ADDED TO THE CL OSING STOCK OF THE CURRENT YEAR IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO NECESSARILY FOLLOW THE CLOSING STOCK OF LAST YEAR AS OPENING STOCK OF THE CURRENT YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS REASON, THE ADDITION OF EXCISE DUTY TO THE CLOSING STOCK IS CORRECT. HOWEV ER, AS STATED ABOVE, THE SAME HAS TO BE ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 43B ON THE PAYMENT BASIS. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IT HA S PAID THE EXCISE DUTY PERTAINING TO THE CLOSING STOCK IN THE NEXT YE AR BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VE RIFY THE SAME AND THE ADDITION WILL BE DELETED ONLY TO THE EXTENT, THE EX CISE DUTY PERTAINING TO THE CLOSING STOCK HAS BEEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE D ATE OF THE FILING OF RETURN. IN VIEW OF THIS REASON, THIS GROUND OF APP EAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE VERIFICATION. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL. 7. BEFORE US, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. LD . AR ON THE OTHER REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD CI T(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF TO GIVE EFFECT TO SECTION 145A, A CHANGE IS MADE IN CLOSING STOCK, CORRESPONDING ADJUSTMENT MUST BE MADE IN OPENING ST OCK ALSO. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHAVIR ALLUMINIUM LTD 297 ITR 77 (DELHI), CIT VS . MAHALAXMI GLASS WORKS P. LTD (2009) 318 ITR 116 BOMBAY AND CIT VS. SANGAM ST RUCTURAL LTD (2013) 35 TAXMAN 82 (ALLAHABAD). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON DECISION OF BOMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RR KABEL LTD VS. ACIT (2012) 25 TAXM AN.COM 559 (MUMBAI). HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) AFTER RELYING ON THE DECISI ON CITED IN THE ORDER HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE MUST SHOW THE EFFECT OF SECTION 145A BY FOLLOWING THE INCLUSIVE METHOD I.E. BY INCLUDING ALL TAXES, DUES, CESS ETC IN THE CLOSING STOCK. HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT EXCISE DUTY WHICH IS ADDED TO THE CLOSING STOCK HAS TO BE ALLOWED U/S. 43B OF THE ACT ON PAYMENT BASIS. BEFO RE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FI NDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) NOR HAS I.T.A NO. 832/AHD/2011 & CO NO. 99/AHD/2011 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. PARAG RAMANLAL PATEL 6 BROUGHT ANY CONTRARY BINDING DECISION IN ITS SUPPO RT,. WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 9. SECOND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DISALLOWANCE MA DE U/S. 40(A)(2)(B) OF THE ACT. 10. ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF INTEREST TO PERSONS SPECIFIED U /S. 40(A)(2)(B) AT 18% (THE LIST OF SUCH PERSONS IS TABULATED AT PAGE 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD OF GENERAL RATE OF INTEREST FOR LOANS WAS AROUND 12% PER ANNUM AND THEREFORE THE INTEREST PAI D AT 18% WAS EXCESSIVE TO THE EXTENT OF 6%. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE INTE REST AT 6% (DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 18% PAID BY THE ASSESSEE AND 12% BEING THE GENERAL RATE AS PER AO) TO BE EXCESSIVE AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE EXCESS INT EREST PAID OF RS. 3,61,872/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WHO DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 3.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A PPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THE AO HAS BROUGHT NO MATER IAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE MARKET RATE WAS 12%. FURTHER, THE APPELLA NT HAS PAID 18% TO BOTH RELATED PARTIES AS WELL AS OUTSIDE PARTIES. T HEREFORE THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT AOS CONCLUSION THAT THE MARKET RATE ON WHICH THE FUNDS COULD BE BORROWED WAS 12% WAS NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. HE HAS FU RTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID 18% INTEREST TO BOTH RELATED PART IES AS WELL AS THE OUTSIDE PARTIES. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO I.T.A NO. 832/AHD/2011 & CO NO. 99/AHD/2011 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. PARAG RAMANLAL PATEL 7 CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFOR E FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND O F REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 13. GROUND NO. 3 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADD ITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 14. ON PERUSING THE DETAILS OF INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,41,200/- TO KAML ESH GUPTA TOWARDS INTEREST WITHOUT DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. HE AL SO NOTICED THAT FORM NO. 15G FILED BY SHRI GUPTA FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TDS WAS IN VALID. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE PAYMENT OF RS. 1,41,200/- U/S. 40(A) (IA) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 4.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED HE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE AP PELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OBTAINED FORM NUMBER 15G AND AFTER THAT THERE WAS N O LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TDS. IN VIEW OF THIS REASON, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 15. BEFORE US, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. O N THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED FORM NO. 15G FROM SHRI KAMLESH GUPTA AND T HEREFORE THERE WAS NO LIABILITY ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE TO DEDUCT TDS. B EFORE US, REVENUE HAS BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS O F LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED . NOW WE TAKE UP THE CO OF ASSESSEE I.T.A NO. 832/AHD/2011 & CO NO. 99/AHD/2011 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. PARAG RAMANLAL PATEL 8 18. BEFORE US LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INTERCONNECTED WITH GROUND NO. 1 RAISED BY REVEN UE. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE WHILE DECIDING GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEAL HEREINABOVE AND FOR THE REASO NS STATED THEREIN HAVE DISMISSED THE GROUND OF REVENUE. WE FOR SIMILAR RE ASON ALSO DISMISS THE PRESENT GROUND OF ASSESSEE ALSO. 19. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 20. ON PERUSING THE DETAILS OF UNSECURED LOAN ACCEP TED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 37,200/- (FROM VYAS UPENDRAKUMAR. SOMESHWAR AND RS. 18,550/- AND F ROM VYAS MEHUL UPENDRAKUMAR). FROM THE COPY OF THE FORM FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT THESE TWO PARTIES HAVE STATED TO HAVE GIVEN LO ANS IN F.Y. 2007-08 AND WAS ALSO REFLECTED IN ASSESSEES BALANCE OF F.Y. 2006-0 7. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 37,200/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSES SEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY H OLDING AS UNDER:- 5.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A PPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DENIE D THAT THE YEAR MENTIONED IS DIFFERENT AND NOT THE CURRENT YEAR. T HE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO RECTIFY THE CONFIRMATION, A ND HAS THEREFORE NOT FILED ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN DURING THE YEAR FROM THESE PARTIES. SINCE THESE PARTIES HAVE STATE D THAT THE LOAN WAS GIVEN IN THE DIFFERENT YEAR THESE CONFIRMATIONS CAN NOT BE APPLIED TO THE LOANS TAKEN DURING THE YEAR. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS THEREFORE CONFIRMED AND THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 21. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. I.T.A NO. 832/AHD/2011 & CO NO. 99/AHD/2011 A .Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. PARAG RAMANLAL PATEL 9 22. BEFORE US, LD. AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BEFORE AO AND LD. CIT(A). HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION B E DELETED. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD. CIT(A). 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, LD. CIT (A) HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO RECTIFY THE MISTAKE OF THE YEAR SHOWN IN THE FORM NOR HAD FILED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE LOAN WA S TAKEN DURING THE YEAR FROM THOSE PARTIES. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLA CED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A). IN T HE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 24. IN THE RESULT, THE 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/- (SHAILENDRA KR. YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD DATED 23/01/2015 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,