The ITO, Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Satyabhama A. Chiripal, Ahmedabad

ITA 1033/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9715 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts
• Section: 143(3); 145

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER SR. NO. ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 1033/AHD/2011 2008-09 ITO, WARD 7(2) AHMEDABAD SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL D-93, PRITHVI TOWER, JODHPUR, AHMEDABAD PAN : AFVPC 9849 P 2 1034/AHD/2011 2007-08 ITO, WARD 7(2) AHMEDABAD SHRI DURGESH PRADIPBHAI CHIRIPAL, A-8, SONARIKA APARTMENT, PANJRAPOLE, ATIRA ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN : AHWPC 2333 D 3 1035/AHD/2011 2008-09 ITO, WARD 7(2) AHMEDABAD SMT. DURGESHWARI P. CHIRIPAL A-8, SONARIKA APARTMENT, PANJRAPOLE, ATIRA ROAD, AHMEDABAD PAN : AHWPC 2289 G 4-5 1038/AHD/2011 1039/AHD/2011 2007-08 2008-09 ITO, WARD 7(2) AHMEDABAD SMT. RAMDULARI S. AGARWAL D-93, PRUTHVI TOWER, JODHPUR, AHMEDABAD PAN : AJTPA 0345 E 6-7 1040/AHD/2011 1041/AHD/2011 2007-08 2008-09 ITO, WARD 7(2) AHMEDABAD SMT. RUKMANIDEVI P. AGARWAL 1, GOYAL PARK ROW HOUSE, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABAD PAN : AJUPA 0141 M REVENUE BY : SMT SONIA KUMAR, SR. DR. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI GAURAV NAHTA, AR / // / DATE OF HEARING : 24 /06/2015 !' / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/07/2015 #$ #$ #$ #$/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES HA S BEEN FILED AGAINST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS)-XIV, ITA NOS. 1033 TO 1035 & 1038 TO 1041/AHD/2011 -SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL & OTHERS 6CASES 2 AHMEDABAD. SINCE THESE APPEALS INVOLVE COMMON ISSU ES, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.1033/AHD/2011 REVENUES APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 2 THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVE NUE READS AS UNDER:- THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,36,11,736/- MADE ON A CCOUNT OF LOW GP, AFTER REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS STATED B Y THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FRO M TRADING OF CLOTH. FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, ON THE TURNOVER OF RS .56.48 CRORES, THE GP DISCLOSED WAS RS.5,22,224/- WHICH WAS 0.09%. THUS, CLEARLY THE GP DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ABNORMALLY LOW. THE A SSESSING OFFICER ALSO FOUND THAT THE OPENING CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.1,25,710/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY BUSINESS PREMISES OR GO -DOWN. SHE WAS ALSO NOT HAVING ANY EMPLOYEE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER RIGHTLY REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE D THE GROSS PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AT 2.50% OF THE SALES, WHICH RESULTED IN T HE ADDITION OF RS.1,36,11,736/-. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. HE, TH EREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED INTO A BUSINESS ARRANGEMENT WHEREIN AFTER RECEIVING THE ORDER OF TH E GOODS FROM ONE PARTY, ITA NOS. 1033 TO 1035 & 1038 TO 1041/AHD/2011 -SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL & OTHERS 6CASES 3 THE ASSESSEE ARRANGES FOR THE PARTY WHO WOULD FULFI LL THE REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDER. THE SELLER DIRECTLY SUPPLIES THE GOODS TO T HE BUYER AND AFTER RECEIVING PAYMENT FROM THE SELLER, THE PAYMENT IS M ADE TO THE BUYER. THUS, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF EITHER AN OFFICE PREMIS ES OR THE INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE ASSESSEE IS MORE OF AN INTERMEDIATOR BETWEEN THE SELLER AND BUYER AND THE ASSESSEE COULD ACHIEVE HUGE TURNOVER ONLY BY KEEPING HER MARGIN AT VERY LO W. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN MUCH RISK TO GAIN THE NOMINAL PROFIT. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE B USINESS MODEL FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE NO RISK WAS INVOLVED. HE FURTHER PO INTED OUT THAT ON THE IDENTICAL FACTS IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11, IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE GP RATE OF 0.13% ON THE TURNOVER OF RS.24.45 CRORES. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. VISHAL FINANCE CORPORA TION (A GROUP CONCERN) IN WHICH THE IDENTICAL ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE ITAT, VIDE ORDER DAT ED 15.05.2015 IN ITA NO.1042/AHD/2011, SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 5. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BO TH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS:- 4. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED BUT NOT ACCEPTABLE DUE TO THE GIVEN REASONS AS UNDER: I. COMPARE TO THE SAME STYLE OF BUSINESS II. IT IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE PRINCIPALLY THAT, THE ASS ESSEE HAS TAKEN SO MUCH RISK TO GAIN THE NOMINAL PROFIT BY DOING SUCH A HUGE TURNOVER. III. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE IS NOT USING ANY BUSIN ESS PREMISES FOR HER TRADING ACTIVITIES WHICH IS NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE LOOKING TO THE HUGE TURNOVER OF DIFFERENT KINDS OF CLOTHS EVEN THE ASSE SSEE IS KEEPING HUGE QUANTITY OF THE DIFFERENT TYPES OF CLOTHS AT THE EN D OF THE YEAR. ITA NOS. 1033 TO 1035 & 1038 TO 1041/AHD/2011 -SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL & OTHERS 6CASES 4 IV. MOREOVER, FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, IT IS SEEN THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUNDRY CREDITORS AND ALSO SHOWN THE SUNDRY DE BTORS WITH THE HUGE OUTSTANDING BALANCE. V. THE LOANS & ADVANCES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS.1, 35,00,000/- WHERE SHE HAS NOT EVEN HAVING ANY ASSETS IN HER BAL ANCE SHEET. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS HAVING HER OPENING CAPITAL ONLY OF RS. 1,25,710/-. FOR DOING SUCH SCALE OF BUSINESS THERE MUST BE REQUIRED SOME REASONABLE CAPITAL AND ALSO FOR DOING SUCH SCA LE OF BUSINESS THERE MUST BE REQUIRED SOME BASIC INFRASTRUCTURE LIKE, ST ATIONERY, BUSINESS PREMISES, COMPUTER (AS ALL THE BILLS ARE PREPARED O N THE COMPUTER) AND REASONABLE STRENGTH OF THE STAFF MEMBERS FOR THE OP ERATING THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. VI. ASSESSEE TAKEN PLEA THAT, NO EXPENSES INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS DUE TO ALL THE TRANSACTIONS EXECUTED AFTER ORDER RECEIVING FROM THE PURCHASER PARTY AND THEN THE SAME IS SOLD OUT AND GOODS DELIV ERED DIRECTLY TO MY PURCHASER FROM MY SELLER PARTIES. BUT THIS CONTAINS ALSO NOT SUPPORTED AS BEING A LADY SHE HAS NOT HAVING ANY PHONE OR ANY EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE OF THE STAFF MEMBERS. IT IS AL SO SEEN FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT THAT, THE ASSESSEE IS WITHDRAWING O NLY RS.19,000/-. 6. IN OUR OPINION, NONE OF THE ABOVE REASONS CAN JU STIFY THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND APPLICATION OF HIGHER GP RATE . SECTION 145, AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME, WHICH GIVES POWER TO THE ASSE SSING OFFICER TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE THE PROFIT READS AS UNDER:- 145. (1) INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES SHALL, S UBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (2), BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH EIT HER CASH OR MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY THE ASSE SSEE. (2) THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFIC IAL GAZETTE FROM TIME TO TIME ACCOUNTING STANDARDS TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLA SS OF ASSESSEES OR IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME. (3) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED AB OUT THE CORRECTNESS OR COMPLETENESS OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, OR WH ERE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OR ACCOUNTIN G STANDARDS AS NOTIFIED UNDER SUB-SECTION (2), HAVE NOT BEEN REGULARLY FOLL OWED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE AN ASSESSMENT IN THE MAN NER PROVIDED IN SECTION 144. ITA NOS. 1033 TO 1035 & 1038 TO 1041/AHD/2011 -SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL & OTHERS 6CASES 5 7. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IF, I. HE IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CORRECTNESS AND CO MPLETENESS OF ACCOUNTS; II. WHERE THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OR ACCOUNTING ST ANDARDS AS PRESCRIBED HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED REGULARLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE REJECTING THE BOOKS AC COUNTS, HAS NOT POINTED OUT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE IS I NCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE. SIMILARLY, HE HAS NO WHERE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FOLLOW THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING PROVIDED U/S 145(1) OR ACCOUNT ING STANDARDS AS PRESCRIBED U/S 145(2). THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, N O ADEQUATE REASONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REJECTION O F THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MERELY BECAUSE THE GROSS PROFIT IS LOW, IT WOULD NO T BE SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE LOW GROSS PROFIT CAN BE A RE ASON TO PROBE DEEP INTO THE ACCOUNTS SO AS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER THE ACCOUNT S ARE CORRECT OR NOT. BUT, THAT BY ITSELF IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. IN FACT, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER JUSTIFY THE LOW GROSS PROFIT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS A MEAGER CAPIT AL OF RS.1,25,000/-, SHE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BUSINESS PREMISES AND SHE DOES NO T HAVE ANY EMPLOYEES. IT ONLY SUPPORTS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THA T SHE IS SIMPLY WORKING AS AN INTERMEDIATOR BETWEEN THE BUYER AND THE SELLER. SHE FIRST BOOKS THE ORDER FROM THE BUYER AND THEN ARRANGES FOR THE SELLER. TH E GOODS IS SUPPLIED DIRECTLY BY THE SELLER TO THE BUYER AND THE PAYMENT TO THE SELLER IS MADE AFTER RECEIVING THE PAYMENT FROM THE BUYER. SHE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SHE HAS KEPT A VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF MARGIN SO AS TO ACH IEVE HUGE TURNOVER. ALL THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REJ ECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATION OF PROFIT DOES NOT SATISFY THE CONDI TIONS PRESCRIBED U/S 145(3) FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, THESE FACTS JUSTIFIED LOW GP DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. MOREOVE R, WE FIND THAT UNDER THE ITA NOS. 1033 TO 1035 & 1038 TO 1041/AHD/2011 -SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL & OTHERS 6CASES 6 IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11, AC CEPTED THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHEREIN THE GP RATE OF 0.13% IS D ISCLOSED. THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARAGRAPH 4 OF THE ORDER R EADS AS UNDER:- 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. DURING THE AY U NDER CONSIDERATION SHE WAS ENGAGED INTO THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN TEXTILE S VIZ. HOSIERY FABRIC, KNITTED GRAY CLOTH ETC. IN THE NAME & STYLE OF M/S KAMLESH TRADERS. FOR THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLOCKED TU RNOVER OF RS.24.45 CRORES AND DISCLOSED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.3,22,525/- WHICH WORKS OUT AT 0.13% OF TURNOVER. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE TURNOVE R, GP AND GP RATE FOR THE AY 2009-10 AT RS.20.80 CRORES; RS.2.50 LACS AND 0.1 2%. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VARIOUS DETAIL S WERE CALLED, WHICH WERE EXAMINED IN DETAIL AND COPIES OF NECESSARY DOCUMENT S AS DEEMED FIT WERE RETAINED AND KEPT ON RECORD. AFTER SCRUTINY OF VAR IOUS DETAILS FILED DURING THE PROCEEDINGS, THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSE E IS ACCEPTED. 8. ADMITTEDLY, THE NATURE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND METHOD OF ACCOUNTING IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS IDENT ICAL TO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS METHOD OF ACCOUNTING OF ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010-11 WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 143(2). WE ALSO FIND THAT UNDER THE IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THE ITAT-AHMEDABA D BENCH SUSTAINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF M/S. VISHAL FINA NCE CORPORATION, VIDE ITA NO.1042/AHD/2011, WHEREIN THE ITAT OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 7. FROM THE BARE READING OF THIS SECTION, IT WOULD REVEAL THAT IT PROVIDES THE MECHANISM HOW TO COMPUTE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDING TO SUB- CLAUSE (I), THE INCOME CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'P ROFITS AND GAINS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSIONS OR INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S' SHALL BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY EMPLOYED BY AN ASSESSEE REGULARLY SUBJECT TO THE SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. SUB-SECTION (2) PROVIDES THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOTIFY IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE FROM TIME TO TIME THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD REQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY ANY CLASS OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ANY CLASS OF INCOME . THUS, IT INDICATES THAT INCOME HAS TO BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ME THOD OF ACCOUNTANCY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE, I.E., CASH OR MERCANTILE. SUCH METHOD HAS TO BE FOLLOWED KEEPING IN VIEW THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD NO TIFIED BY THE CENTRAL ITA NOS. 1033 TO 1035 & 1038 TO 1041/AHD/2011 -SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL & OTHERS 6CASES 7 GOVERNMENT FROM TIME TO TIME. SUB-CLAUSE (3) PROVID ES A SITUATION, I.E., IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UNABLE TO DEDUCE THE TRUE INCO ME ON THE BASIS OF METHOD OF ACCOUNTANCY FOLLOWED BY AN ASSESSEE THEN HE CAN REJECT THE BOOK RESULTS AND ASSESS THE INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS ESTIMATE OR ACCO RDING TO HIS BEST JUDGMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THAT CASE IS REQ UIRED TO POINT OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE AND REQUIRE TO SEEK EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE QUA THOSE DEFECTS. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE DEFECTS THEN ON THE BASIS OF THE BOOK RESULTS, INCOME CANNOT BE DET ERMINED AND ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD COMPUTE THE INCOME ACCORDING TO HIS E STIMATION KEEPING IN VIEW THE GUIDING FACTOR FOR ESTIMATING SUCH INCOME. 8. THE FIRST OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN MAINTAINING CLOSING STOCK AND OPENING STOCK. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT WAS NOT HAVING ANY CLOSING STOCK, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIC ATION TO SUGGEST THAT STOCK STATEMENT IS TO BE PREPARED. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASON ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ABOVE REASON DOES NOT SUG GEST ANY DEFECT IN THE ACCOUNTS WHICH PROHIBITS HIM TO DEDUCE THE TRUE INC OME FROM THE ACCOUNTS. FALL IN GP CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTING THE BOO K RESULT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONE OF THE CORROBORATIVE FACT FOR T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DOUBT THE BOOKS BUT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HA VE POINTED OUT THE DEFECTS IN THE ACCOUNTS, ONLY THEREAFTER HE CAN ESTIMATE TH E GP. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY RE-APPRECIATED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE AND ONLY THEN DELETED THE ADDITION. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH IT. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVEN UE IS REJECTED. 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATI ON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHICH IS SUSTAINED AND THE REVE NUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. REVENUES APPEALS VIDE ITA NO.1034/AHD/2011 : ASSESSEE - SHRI DURGESH P CH IRIPAL : AY 2007-08 ITA NO.1035/AHD/2011 : ASSESSEE - SMT DURGESHWARI P CHIRIPAL : AY 2008-09 ITA NOS.1038 & 1039/AHD/2011 : ASSESSEE - SMT R.S. AGARWAL : AY 2007-08 & 08-09 ITA NOS.1040 & 1041/AHD/2011 : ASSESSEE - SMT R.P. AGARWAL : AY 2007-08 & 08-09 10. ALL THE ABOVE SIX APPEALS BY THE REVENUE INVOLV ED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WHEREIN THE CIT(A) DELETED THE GP ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ALL THE ABOVE PERSONS ARE THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE SAME GROUP AND THE SIMILAR TRADING ADDITION IS MADE IN ALL THE ABOVE C ASES WHICH ARE DELETED BY THE CIT(A). ITA NOS. 1033 TO 1035 & 1038 TO 1041/AHD/2011 -SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL & OTHERS 6CASES 8 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, BOTH THE PART IES FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF ABOVE SIX CASES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE F ACTS IN THE CASE OF SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENTS IN THE CASE OF SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL THE CASES. 12. WE HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF BOT H THE PARTIES IN THE CASE OF SMT. SATYABHAMA A. CHIRIPAL. FOR THE DETAI LED DISCUSSION ABOVE IN PARAGRAPH NOS. 5 TO 9, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT T HE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE GP ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. WE, THEREFORE, UPHOLD HIS ORDER AND DISMISS ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE. 13. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17 TH JULY 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 17/07/2015 BIJU T., PS #$ %& '#&' #$ %& '#&' #$ %& '#&' #$ %& '#&'/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. () / THE APPELLANT 2. %*() / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ++ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. , ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &/0 % , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 02 3 / GUARD FILE . #$ #$ #$ #$ / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 4 44 4/ // / +5 +5 +5 +5 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD