The ITO, Ward-9(2), Surat V. Shri Kishore C.Parmar, Surat

ITA 1069/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94428 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SEWAK
• Assessee Lawyers: SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Source of fund; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMADABAD , BEFORE: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I T A NO. 1069 /AHD/ 20 1 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 8 - 0 9 THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD.9(2), SURAT. V/S . SHRI KISHORE C. PARMAR PROP: M/S. PARMAR BOOT HOUSE, 11/215, BHAGA TALAV, SURAT - 395003 PAN NO. ADQPP1400Q (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) / BY REVENUE SHRI SHIVA SEWAK , SR. D.R. / BY ASSESSEE SHRI M. R. SHAH, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING 12 . 0 8 .201 5 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11 .0 9 .201 5 O R D E R PER : KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - V , SURAT , DATED 2 5 .0 1 .201 2 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 8 - 0 9 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.30 , 11 , 991 / - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT / DEPOSITS /INVESTMENT MADE IN BANK ACCOUNTS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S.69 OF THE I.T. ACT. I TA NO. 1069 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 8 - 0 9 ( IT O VS. SHRI KISHORE C. PARMAR ) PAGE 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW TH E LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,36 , 172 / - INSTEAD OF ADDITION OF RS.6,99,558/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF U/S.44AF OF THE I.T. ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT T O HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4 . IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. MAY BE UPHELD. 2 . BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 3 1 .12.20 1 0 . WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,99,558/ - BY ESTIMATING NET PROFIT @ 8% AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.55,64,745/ - BY INVOKING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED CASH DEPOSITS IN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT. 3. AGAINST THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, ADOPTED THE NET PROFIT @5.1% AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,36,172/ - AND IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS. LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.25,52,754/ - OUT OF RS.55,64,745/ - . 4. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.1 IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.30,11,991/ - MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S.69 OF THE ACT. LD. SR. D.R. , SHRI SHIVA SEWAK VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REDUCING THE ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDISCLOSED FACT IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THAT THE ACCO UNTS WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED AMOUNT CREDITED INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SAME WAS RIGHTLY TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT CANNOT BE I TA NO. 1069 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 8 - 0 9 ( IT O VS. SHRI KISHORE C. PARMAR ) PAGE 3 SUBJECTED TO TAX. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED PROFIT U/S.44AF. SO, THIS AMOUNT WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT OF SECTION 44AF. HE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ESTIMATION OF PROFIT. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN CASE OF CIT VS. PRADEEP SHANTILAL PATEL (20 14) 42 TAXMANN.COM 2 (GUJARAT HC), THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. LOVISH OBEROI (2015) 54 TAXMANN.COM 23 (DELHI HC) AND ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. SUBODH GUPTA (2015) 54 TAXMANN.COM 343 (DE LHI). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN CASE OF KESHARBHAI GHAMARBHAI CHAUDHARY VS. ITO (2012) 23 TAXMANN.COM273 (AHMEDABAD - TRIB.). ON THE CONTRARY, LD. D.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH REFERRED IN CASE OF THE ITO VS. SHRI KISHORBHAI CHHOTALAL PARMAR IN ITA NO.1469/AHD/2011. 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENT IONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD . THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECORDED THE FACTS THAT DURING COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE REVEALED THE FACT THAT HE WAS HAVING FOLLOWING BANK ACCOUNTS: (I) S.B. A/C. NO.60155 (II) CURR. A/C. NO.30355 (III) S.B. A/C. NO.9427 (IV) S.B. A/C. NO.61506 (V) S.B. A/C. NO.61175 (VI) S.B. A/C. NO.61095 (VII) ICICI BANK CURR. A/C. NO.2242 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE TOTAL UNRECO RDED INVESTMENT OF RS.55,64,745/ - AS THE DEEMED INCOME OF ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER: I TA NO. 1069 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 8 - 0 9 ( IT O VS. SHRI KISHORE C. PARMAR ) PAGE 4 6.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ARS. IT IS SEEN FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ARS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THEIR MAIN CONTENTIONS WERE THE SAME LAID BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEY PRODUCED BEFORE ME ALL THE SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH VARIOUS DETAILS AND ENCLOSURES FILED BEFORE THE AO. FROM THESE DETAILS IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE NON DISCLOSURE OF THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNTS NO. 9427, 61175, 61095 AND 61506 WITH THE SURAT PEOPLES CO OPERATIVE BANK LTD IN HIS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS UNDISPUTED. THE APPELLANT HAD FILED THE REVISED RETURN AND ADMITTED SOME INC OME RELATED TO THESE BANK ACCOUNTS AND EVEN DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAD CONFESSED THIS FACT. BUT THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS THAT THE ENTIRE DEPOSITS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL COULD NOT BE HIS INCOME AS VARIOUS CREDIT ENTRIES WERE REFLECTING DIFFERENT NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE EXPLANATION RELATED TO DIFFERENT DEPOSITS ALONGWITH EVIDENCES PLACED BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE DEPOSITS / INVEST MENTS OF RS. 55,64,745/ - IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS WERE MAINLY OF FOLLOWING NATURE. A. LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES B. INTEREST AND MATURITY OF INVESTMENTS IT IS WORTH WHILE TO MENTION HERE THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS ATTRIBUTABLE TO WHOLESALE TRADING OF THE APPELLANT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE AO FOR ESTIMATING THE PROFIT AND THE SAME WAS COVERED IN THE DISCUSSION IN EARLIER GROUND. THE REMAINING DEPOSITS, OTHER THEN THE CASH DEPOSITS, WERE MAINLY RELATED TO THE ABOVE REFERRED NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS AND THE ARS OF THE APPELLANT HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS BANK WISE FOR DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE SAME ARE DEALT WITH AS UNDER. IT IS OBSERVED FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE OTHER DEPOSITS IN THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNTS WERE RELATED TO INTEREST AND OTHER INCOME AND LOANS FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WHICH ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW. PARTICULARS A/C. NO. 9427 A/C. NO. 61095 A/C. NO.61175 A/C. NO.661506 TOTAL BANK INTEREST 313 363 579 317 1572 FDR INTEREST -- -- -- 59916 59916 BHUDARJI MITHAL LOAN 196750 -- 120000 -- 316750 CHANDAN K. PARMAR LOAN 98000 315450 45000 72000 530450 HANSABEN I. PARMAR LOAN 15250 -- -- -- 15250 JAYSHREE C. PARMAR LOAN 182000 340600 117000 344700 984300 BROKERAGE -- -- -- 48105 48105 MATURITY PROCEEDS OF 582191 432611 973697 1164383 3152882 I TA NO. 1069 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 8 - 0 9 ( IT O VS. SHRI KISHORE C. PARMAR ) PAGE 5 VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS GSFC FDR 153318 102212 51106 102212 408848 SUNDRY DEBTORS 49000 115500 89472 49000 302972 TRANSFER TO OTHER BANK -- 60000 95000 55000 210000 TOTAL 1276822 1366736 1491854 1895633 6031045 AS FAR AS BANK INTEREST, F D R INTEREST AND BROKERAGE INCOME ARE CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED THE SAME IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM AND THEREFORE, THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED DEPOSITS/LOANS.FROM SHRI BHUDARJI MITHAL OF RS. 1,96,750/ - AND RS. 1,20,000/ - IN BANK ACCOUNT NO. 9427 AND 61175 RESPECTIVELY. SIMILARLY, HE HAD RECEIVED LOAN FROM S MT. HANSABE N I. PARMAR OF RS. 15,250/ - IN BANK ACCOUNT NO. 9427 . ALSO THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED LOAN FROM SMT. CHANDANBEN K. P ARMAR OF RS. 5,30,450/ - AND SMT. JAYSHREEBEN C. PARMAR OF RS. 9,84, 300/ - IN ALL THESE FOUR ACCOUNT AS PER THE DETAILS IN THE ABOVE REFERRED CHART. FROM THE DET AILS SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED THEIR CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENTS AND IN SOME CASES, HE HAD ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THEIR RETURNS OF INCOME LIKE PAN, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ETC. B Y FURNISHING THESE DETAILS, THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED HIS INITIAL BURDEN OF ESTABLISHING THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND IDENTITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAD NOT REBUTTED THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLAN T AND ALSO DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER INQUIRY. THE AO ALSO COULD NOT LEAD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WHEN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS CREDITED IN THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT WAS EXPLAINED WITH E VIDENCE, THE ACTION OF THE AO TO TREAT THE AMOUNT OF LOAN AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS UNJUSTIFIABLE. I, THEREFORE DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS. 18,46,750 FROM B H UDARJI MITHAL, SMT. HANSABEN I. PARMAR, SMT. CHANDANBEN K. PARMAR AN D SMT. JAYSHREE C. PARMAR (RS. 3,16,750 + RS. 15250 + RS. 5,30,450 + RS. 9,84,300) AS EXPLAINED LOAN TRANSACTION AND NOT TO TREAT THE SAME AS AN INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE, GETS RELIEF OF RS. 18,46,750/ - . IT IS ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT VARIOUS DEPOSITS IN THE IMPUGNED FOUR BANK ACCOUNT INCLUDED THE MATURITY AMOUNT OF VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS AND TOTAL MATURITY PROCEEDS OF RS. 31,52,882/ - WERE FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN THE SAID BANK ACC OUNTS. THIS MATURI TY AMOUNT INCLUDED A SUM OF RS. 11,65,241/ - RECEIVED ON MATURITY OF FOUR MUTUAL FUNDS VIZ. DSP EQUITY FUND, F.T. INDIA FLEXI CAP, KOTAK OPPORTUNITIES AND RELIANCE EQ. OPPORTUNITY FUND AND THE COST OF THE SAME WAS RS. 8,00,000 / - . THE DETAIL S OF THE SAME ARE AS UNDER. PARTICULARS A/C. NO. 9427 SALE VALUE RS. A/C. NO. 61095 SALE VALUE RS. A/C. NO.61175 SALE VALUE RS. A/C. NO.661506 SALE VALUE RS. TOTAL SALE VALUE RS. DSP EQ. 40000 40000 40000 80000 200000 I TA NO. 1069 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 8 - 0 9 ( IT O VS. SHRI KISHORE C. PARMAR ) PAGE 6 FUND: COST SALES VALUE 55336 55336 55336 110673 276681 F. T. INDIA BLUE CHIP COST SALE VALUE 40000 58037 40000 58037 40000 58037 80000 83014 200000 257125 KOTAK OPPORTUNITIES COST SALE VALUE 40000 57378 40000 57378 40000 57378 80000 114755 200000 286889 RELIANCE EQ. OPPORTUNITY COST SALE VALUE 40000 68909 40000 68909 40000 68909 40000 137819 40000 344546 TOTAL COST SALE VALUE 800000 1165241 THE ARS CONTENTED THAT THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE SAME WAS INVESTED BY SMT. DAYSHREEBEN C. PARMAR AND SMT. CHANDANBEN K. PARMAR FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS DURING A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND THE NECESSARY ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THESE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF BOTH OF THEM IN AY. 2007 - 08. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, IT IS OBSERVED (HAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ARS ARE FOUN D TO BE CORRECT. THE APPELLANT HAP SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF BOTH THESE PERSONS FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE ORIGINAL INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 8,00,000/ - HAD ALREADY BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF BOTH THESE PERSONS AND THEREF ORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT AGAIN. SINCE ALL THESE ACCOUNTS WERE IN JOINT NAME, THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE DEPOSITED IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS. AS A RESULT THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.8,00,000/ - IN THE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF INVES TMENT AS ALREADY TAXED IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. SINCE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THESE MUTUAL FUNDS, THE CAPITAL GAIN ON MATURITY OF MUTUAL FUNDS OF RS.3,65,241/ - AS DEPOSITED IN THE IMPUGNED FOUR BANK ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT BECAUSE IT WAS A KIND OF LOAN TO THE APPELLANT. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO GIVE RELI EF OF RS. 11,65,241/ - TO THE APPELLANT AS EXPLAINED INVESTMENT. REGARDING FIXED DEPOSIT WITH GSFC, IT IS SEEN FROM THE DETAILS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD OFFERED ONLY INTEREST INCOME IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. HOWEVER, NO COGENT EVIDENCES OR EXPLANATION WERE SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO ESTABLISH THE INVESTMENT IN GSFC FIXED DEPOSITS AS EXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND THEREFORE, T HE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE ENTIRE MATURITY AMOUNT AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF SUNDRY DEBTORS AND INTER BANK TRANSFER ENTRIES, IT IS OBSERVED THAT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO HAS DULY TAKEN CARE OF THE SAME WHILE COMPUTING THE I NCOME AND HENCE THERE IS NO NEED TO INTERFERE IN THE ACTION OF THE AO. TO SUMMARIZE OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 55,64,745/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS. 30,11,991/ - (RS. 18,46,750 + RS. 11,65,241) AS DISCUSSE D HEREINABOVE AND THE ADDITION OF BALANCED AMOUNT OF RS. 25,52,754/ - IS SUSTAINED. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. I TA NO. 1069 /AHD/ 1 2 A.Y. 0 8 - 0 9 ( IT O VS. SHRI KISHORE C. PARMAR ) PAGE 7 WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FACT IN PARA 6.3 OF HIS ORDER . THIS F INDING IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REV ENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 6. GROUND NO.2 IS WITH REGARD TO RESTRICTED THE ADDITION OF RS.6,99,558/ - . T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN ADOPTING THE RATE OF PROFIT @ 8%. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED SECTION 44AF BUT ADOPTED 8% OF THE NET PROFIT ON TOTAL TURNOVER . LD. CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED PROFIT @ 5% WHICH IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THIS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY ADOPTED . AS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 44AF, THEN SECTION 44AF SPECIFIES O F 5% BUT NOT OF 8% . THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE ADOPTED PROFIT @ 8%. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. THE OTHER GROUNDS OF THE REVENUES APPEAL ARE GENERAL IN NATURE NEEDS NO SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . TH I S ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. - / CIT (A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,