Shri Jafruddin Kaji, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1058/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8101 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 27-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT M TALSANIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset
• Section: 2(14); 68

Judgement Text

, ,L ,L,L ,L- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW;] ] ] ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1058/AHD/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12) SHRI JAFRUDIN KAJI, 202, SAKIB APARTMENT NEAR SARIFABAD SOCIETY, B/H JIVRAJ PARK, POLICE CHOWKY, AHMEDABAD 380 051 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 13(1) AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AEIPK 3923 L ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANKIT M. TALSANIA, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH MEENA, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 06/06/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/06/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-4, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE OLD APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-4/XV/XXI/1147/WD.13(1)/14-15 AND NEW APPEAL NO.CIT(A)- 4/68/WD.13(1)/14-15 DATED 13.02.2015 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 31.01.2014 RELEVANT TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR (AY) 2011-12. ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE ASSESSEE BEING A VILLAGER AND SERVICE IN GO VT. DEPARTMENT IS NOT MUCH AWARE ABOUT THE LAWS AND RULES LIKE BUSINE SSMAN. HE RELYING ON THE TAX CONSULTANT FILED A RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE A.Y 2011-12 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME RS. 4,22,790/-. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND EXEMPT U/S. 2(14) 82 LAKHS. HOWEVER, THE TAX CONSULTANT HAS SHO WN ONLY AMOUNT RECEIVED BY CHEQUE I.E RS.72 LAKHS. THE ASSE SSEE RECEIVED RS.10 LAKH IN CASH FOR THE SALE TRANSACTIO N, WHICH HE HAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK. BUT DUE TO ERROR OF THE TAX CONSULTANT THE SAME IS NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN. THE ITO HAS ADDED RS. 11.39 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME STATING IT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. 3. ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS INTEREST ACCRUED ON IN VESTMENT IN NSC RS.60,554/-. THE SAME IS NOT OFFERED TO INCOME AS I T IS RECOGNIZED ON CASH ACCOUNTING SYSTEM U/S 145(1), MOREOVER, NON E OF THEM HAVE BEEN MATURED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HENCE, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME FOLLOWING THE CASH BASIS. HOWEVER THE ITO HAS ADDED THE SAME TO THE TO TAL INCOME. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ALL THE TAX WITH INTERE ST AS ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3). THE COPY OF THE CHALLANS ARE ENCLOS ED. 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL TO THE CIT (A) AGAINST THE ORDER OF ITO. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS JUSTIFIED THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON BOTH THE GROUND S. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FURTHER APPEAL TO THE ITAT FOR T HE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE IS GENERAL AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE SAME. 4. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF AO BY SUSTAINING T HE ADDITION OF RS.11.39 LACS AS AN UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 3 - 5. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DECLARED HIS INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY & OTHER S OURCES. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 11.39 LAC S IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS EXPL AINED THE SOURCES OF CASH BY SUBMITTING THAT HE HAS SOLD AN AGRICULTURE LAND FOR RS.82 LACS ONLY DURING THE YEAR. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RE CEIVED FOR THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND IN A CHEQUE AS WELL AS IN CASH. AN AMOUNT OF RS. 72 LACS WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL, AND THE BALAN CE OF RS. 10 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN CASH, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY DEPOSI TED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY CLAIMED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IS NOT A CAPITAL ASSET AS PER THE DEFINITION OF SECTIO N 2(14) OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 82 LACS IS EXEMPT FROM TAX. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS. 1,44,000/- FROM THE BANK DURING THE YEAR AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.1,39, 000/- WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF SUCH AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME DURING THE YEAR. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE A SSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIV ED FOR RS. 72 LACS THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AS EVIDENT FROM THE SALE DE ED OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND SOLD DURING THE YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS RECEIVED SUM OF RS.10 LACS IN CASH AGAINST THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS REJECTED. ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 4 - THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR. THEREFORE, THE RE IS NO QUESTION OF HAVING INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY DURING THE YEAR. SIMILARLY, THE AO ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE MONEY HAD BEEN WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ON REGULAR INTERVALS WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN USED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR INCURRING HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF ABOVE THE AO TREATED THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT FOR RS. 11.39 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT A ND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEARN ED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT H E HAS SOLD AN AGRICULTURE LAND FOR RS.82 LACS. THE AGRICULTURE LA ND IS NOT CAPITAL ASSETS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(14) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CHARGING ANY INCOME UNDER THE HEAD CAPI TAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED A SU M OF RS.10 LACS FROM THE PARTY AGAINST THE SALE OF SUCH AGRICULTURAL LAN D IN CASH AND THEREFORE, THE AO ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF C ASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TO THIS EFFECT HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 5 - THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE REQUESTED THE A O TO TAKE THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PURCHASERS TO DETERMINE THE A CTUAL AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR THE IMPUGNED AGRICULTURAL LAND AF TER CROSS VERIFICATION WITH HIM. BUT THE AO HAS NOT ONLY TAKEN ANY CONFIR MATION FROM SUCH PURCHASERS AND ACCORDINGLY NO OPPORTUNITY FOR THE C ROSS-EXAMINATION WAS PROVIDED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS THE ONLY SO URCE OF INCOME FROM THE SALARY. THEREFORE, CASH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE TREA TED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN HIS HANDS. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.2 1 HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MA DE BY THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AS WELL. 4.2.1 THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT CANN OT BE ACCEPTED. THE FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE AS BELOW: 1. UNDISPUTEDLY, THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.11 ,39,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AND AS PER THE SALE DEED TOTAL CONSIDERATION WAS RS.72 LAKHS WHICH IS ALSO DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME OF THE SELLERS. 3. IN THE SALE DEED, THERE IS NO MENTION OF AN Y CASH COMPONENT OF RS.10 LAKHS OVER AND ABOVE RS.72 LAKHS . 4. THE ALLEGED CASH COMPONENT OF RS. 10 LAKHS IS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME 5. STAMP DUTY HAS BEEN PAID ON 72 LAKHS ONLY. 4.2.2 ALL THE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE S AID RURAL AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SOLD ONLY FOR THE 72 LAKHS. THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS A SELF-SERVING DOCUMENT WHICH CANNOT BE RELIED E SPECIALLY WHEN THE ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 6 - RELEVANT TRANSACTION AND THE RELEVANT SALE CONSIDER ATION HAS ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IF APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT OVER AND ABOVE TH E DISCLOSED CONSIDERATION, HE SHOULD HAVE FILED A REVISED RETUR N DISCLOSING SUCH EXTRA CONSIDERATION. THERE IS NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE BUYERS CONFIRMING PAYMENT OF CASH OF RS.10 LAKHS TO THE AP PELLANT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT APPELLANT COULD NOT EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.11,39,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, THE BURDEN IS ON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HE HAS F AILED TO DISCHARGE ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER OF RS.11,39,000/- IS, SUSTAINED. GROUND NUMBER 3 IS DI SMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) ASSESSE E IS IN THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK COMPRIS ING PAGES FROM 1 TO 11 AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS ALO NG WITH PAN NO. AND ADDRESS OF THE PURCHASERS WERE DULY FURNISHED BEFOR E THE AO BUT AO HAS NOT VERIFIED THE CLAIM MADE BY HIM ALONG WITH AN AF FIDAVIT FROM THESE PARTIES. AS SUCH THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED FOR R S. 10 LACS REPRESENTS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.1,39,000/- THE LEARN ED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS DEPOSITED FROM THE F OLLOWING SOURCES. 1. CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK 2. AGRICULTURE INCOME 3. PERSONAL SAVING OF THE EARLIER YEARS. THE LEARNED AR BEFORE US FURTHER PLEADED THAT THE L OWER AUTHORITIES FAILED TO OBTAIN THE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PURCHASERS ALTH OUGH ALL THE NECESSARY ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 7 - DETAILS ABOUT THE PURCHASERS WERE AVAILABLE WITH TH EM. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO RESTO RE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT TH E ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE SOLD LAND FOR RS.72 LAKHS AS EVIDENT FROM THE SALE DEED. THEREFOR E, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS REPRESENTS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF AGRICULTURE LA ND IS WITHOUT ANY SUBSTANCE. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THE AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN DULY FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FROM THE PURCHASERS OF AGRICULTURE LAND. THUS, IN SUCH CIRCU MSTANCES AND THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE, WE FEEL THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION FROM THE PURCHASERS FOR DETE RMINING THE ACTUAL SALE PRICE OF SUCH LAND AND AFTER PROVIDING THE OPP ORTUNITY OF CROSS- EXAMINATION TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE INCLINE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THE PURCHASE CONSIDERA TION FROM THE PURCHASERS FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LAND IN DISPUTE AND ACCORDINGLY, ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. SIMILARL Y, WE ALSO RESTORE THE ISSUE FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 1.39 LACS DEPOS ITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE PROVISIONS OF ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 8 - THE LAW. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. THE SECOND ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.60,554/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED ON INVESTMENT IN NSC. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT IN NSC, FDR AND S AVING BANK ACCOUNT BUT FAILED TO DECLARE THE INCOME ACCRUED ON SUCH INVESTMENTS IN INCOME TAX RETURN. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO DISCLOSE SUCH INCOME ON THE MATURITY OF SAME. HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE C ONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE INCOME ACCRUED ON SUCH INVESTMENT FOR RS.60,554/- AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE. 9. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LEARN ED CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT H E HAS BEEN FOLLOWING THE CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE, THE IN COME CORRESPONDING TO THE INVESTMENT WILL ONLY TO ACCOUNTED IN THE YEAR O F RECEIPT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R AS WELL. 5.2.1 ADMITTEDLY, APPELLANT HAS EARNED INTEREST IN COME OF RS.60,554/- ON NSC, FDR AND FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. SUCH INCO ME HAS ACCRUED TO THE APPELLANT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESS MENT YEAR. FOR ABOVE, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEM ENTS: ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 9 - 1] SDB CISCO (INDIA) LTD, V. ASST. GIT (2004) 88 IT D 373 (CHENNAI-TRI) : 'WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS SWITCHING OVER TO ACC RUAL INTERN ON A COMPULSION MADE TO THE COMPANY LAW, THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT ARGUE THAT IT IS NOT MAINTAINING ITS ACCOUNTS ON ACCRUAL SYSTE M FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT ITS DAY TO DAY ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED ON CASH BASIS.' 2] IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. SINGARI BAT (1945) 1 3 ITR 224 (ALL.) IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FOR THE PURPOS ES OF MORE CONVENIENTLY CARRYING ON HIS BUSINESS ADOPT THE CAS H SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. 5.2.2 IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT AO WAS JUS TIFIED IN TAXING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.60,554/- IN THIS ASSESSMENT Y EAR. GROUND NUMBER 4 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTI NG. THEREFORE, THE INCOME WILL BE OFFERED TO TAX IN THE YEAR OF RECEIP T. ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE ITR IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS OFFERED TO TAX, BUT COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SAME. HOWEVER, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLEADED B EFORE US TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO SO THAT HE CAN DEM ONSTRATE THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE ACCRUED INCOME HAS OF FERED TO TAX IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT. THE LEARNED DR DID NOT OBJECT IF T HE MATTER IS REFERRED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 10 - IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE HOLD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED THE INCOME ON INVESTMENT ON RECEIPT BASIS THEN CHARGING THE INTEREST INCOME ON AN ACCRUAL BASIS WILL LEAD TO DOUBLE ADDITION WH ICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISION OF LAW. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO RES TORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF LAW AND TO VERIFY WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME ON SUCH INVESTMENTS ON RECEIPT BASIS. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. GROUND NO.4 AND 5 ARE GENERAL AND DO NOT REQUIR E ANY ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, WE DISMISS BOTH THE GROUND S. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20/06/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN L; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/06/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS ITA NO.1058/AHD/2015 SHRI JAFRUNDIN KA JI VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2011-12 - 11 - !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-4, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 08/06/2018 (DICTATION-PAD 2 P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 13/06/2048 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S 19/06/2018 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER