DILIP KUMAR LODHA, DURG V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHILAI

ITA 108/RPR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5793 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Invalid notice; Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Accommodation entries; Speculative transactions; Set aside
• Section: 147; 131; 148; 154; 143(3); 234B; 43(5); 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ं. / ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 / Assessment Year : 2009-10 & 2010-11 Sh. Dilip Kumar Lodha C/o Dilip Construction Co., Dallirajhara, Durg (CG) PAN : AAWPL 9959 M ....... Appellant / V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhilai ...... ! / Respondent Assessee by : Sh. Praveen Khandelwal, CA & Sh. Praveen Goyal, CA Revenue by : Shri G. N. Singh, Sr. DR " # $ % / Date of Hearing : 10.06.2022 &' # $ % / Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2022 (े* / ORDER PER RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM: These two-appeal marched by the assessee aggrieved from a common order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals-II, 2 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 Raipur [ C. G.] [ Here in after referred as Ld. CIT(A) ] dated 13.03.2019 for the assessment year 2009-10 & 2010-11. Both the related assessment orders were passed by the Income tax Officer, 1(2) Bhilai under section 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act on 23.12.2017. 2. Since, the issue and grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are common and therefore, the same is disposed off by this common order. The related facts and contentions raised by both the parties are taken from the folder of A. Y. 2009-10 and the same is considered as lead case. 3. Before us the assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the ad- hoc addition on account of interest charges of Rs. 8,17,303/- out of total interest charges of Rs. 19,18,951/-. ii) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has not followed the principles of natural justice while passing the appellate order. iii) That on the facts and circumstance of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) while passing the order made a mistake for which appellant has moved an application u/s 154 of the Act. iv) The appellant craves to add, alter or delete any of the above grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings. 3 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 4. The case was fixed for hearing after issuing notices to both the parties. 5. The fact as culled out from the records is that the case was reopened u/s. 148 after recording reasons. The department was having possession of credible information form the investigation Wing. Accordingly, the assessee was issued notice under section 142(1). The assessee requested for supply of reasons which was furnished to him. The assessee was also issued summons to record his statement so that investigation and verification of records and documents could be made possible. The assessee was shown exbibits of information available with the department regarding assessee’s taking accommodation entries in the form of bogus short term capital loss. On the basis of the documents available the assessee was shown that the assessee has claimed loss during the financial year 2008-09 to the tune of Rs. 1,97,436/- out of penny stock shares. The assessee in his reply categorically denied to have entered into any such trade and did not rely upon the bits of information available with the department. Accordingly, the assessee was asked to produce his complete books of account for the relevant accounting period i.e., 1/4/2008 to 31/03/2009 reflecting there in the details of scrips in which trading activities were 4 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 done, separate working of short term and long-term capital shares in which trading activities were done. The assessee was also asked to produce Share Trading & Profit and Loss account. The assessee even denied to this on the pretext that as these documents are very old hence, he is not in a position to retrieve them. The assessee's contention not considered as acceptable, as the onus of proof lies on the assessee once a set of documents are shown to him which clearly evidence that such bogus short term, share transaction in penny stock were in fact done by him. The trading and Profit & Loss account for the period 1/4/08 to 31/03/09 were examined. The assessee has shown gross profit from Share Trading activities to the tune of Rs. 17,09,636/-. However, ongoing through his Profit & Loss account it is found that he has debited expenses paid on account of interest payment to Shri Dilip Lodha (HUF), M/s. Dilip Construction Co., and Shri H.C., Sarkar to the tune of Rs. 19,18,951/-. As assessee's income is out of speculation business which is evident from the credible information available with the department, any expenses or losses from other heads of income is not allowable. Similarly, the share of profit and remuneration claimed from other firms is treated as his income from other than speculation business. Hence, the same is also added back to his income separately. 5 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 5.1 As regards the information available with the department regarding assessee taking accommodation entries in the form of bogus short term capital loss, clinching evidence in the form of detailed schedule from the site of BSE wherein investment in penny stock is clearly visible. As the assessee has failed to appear and explain the matter, and instead chose not to file the details of his investment even after showing the exhibits of the relevant documents, the ld. AO has no way but to add back the claim of bogus investment short term capital loss in shell companies based in Kolkata to the tune of Rs. 1,97,436/-. Thus, a sum of Rs.1,97,436/-. is added back to the assessee’s total income. 6. Aggrieved from the order of the ld. AO making the two additions the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The findings of the ld. CIT(A) in this regards is as under:- 2.3 Regarding the interest expenses assessee has stated that his share trading includes day trading(speculation) and also delivery based trading. As per the details furnished the speculative trading was for Rs. 2,65,01,186/- and delivery based trading was for Rs. 3,19,34,721/-. Therefore only that part of the interest which is proportionate to the speculative trading will be disallowed. Out of the disallowance of Rs. 19,18,951/- proportionate amount of Rs. 8,17,303/- is sustained in assessment year 2009-10 and balance addition is deleted. In AY 2010-11 the interest disallowance is Rs. 17,02,980/-. Assessee has undertaken speculative trading of Rs. 33,12,338/- and delivery based trading for Rs. 76,86,439/-. The proportionate interest of Rs. 5,12,845/- is hereby sustained and balance addition is deleted. Regarding disallowance of capital loss, the AO has not provided any details/ computation for arriving at the figure of Rs. 1,97,436/- in AY 2009-10. Based on the details trading of the assessee it is see that assessee has purchased 2000 shares of Dhanus Tech at different rates of Rs. 35.3, Rs 30 and total purchase amount was Rs. 69,125/-. Assessee has sold 500 shares during the FY 2008-09 relevant to the AY 2009-10 and further 1500 shares in FY 2009-10 relevant to the assessment year 2010-11. In AY 2009-10 the proportionate purchase price of 500 shares was Rs. 17,287/- these were sold for Rs. 15,235/- and assessee had incurred loss of Rs. 2,052/-. The 6 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 disallowance of Rs. 2,052/- is hereby sustained and balanco disallowance is deleted. The balance 1500 shares were sold in the AY 2010-11 for Rs. 36,150/-. Proportionate price of these shares was Rs. 53,890/- and assessee had incurred loss of Rs. 17,380/-. Disallowance of Rs. 17,380/- is hereby sustained and balance addition is deleted. 3. The appeal is partly allowed. 7. As the assessee could not get success in appeal before ld. CIT(A) fully he has filed the appeal for the sustained addition before us. The ld. AR of the assessee has relied on the written submission filed before the ld. CIT(A) which we have extracted here in below for the sake convenience : Ground No: 1 The learned Assessing Officer has erred in lawand in facts in passing the order u/s. 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and in determining the total income for the assessmentyear at Rs.34,07,270/- as against returned income of Rs. 4,58,290/-. Ground No: 2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned A.O. has erred in making disallowances of Rs. 19,18,951/- on account of interest paid. The appellant is engaged in the business of share trading and also engaged in business of civil construction as a partner in partnership firm. The appellant has paid interest of Rs. 19,18,951/- to the lenders from whom appellant has taken loan for the purpose of business. But the assessing officer denied the claim of the appellant and disallowed the claim of interest by stating in para 3 of the order, that the assessee's income is out of speculation business which is evident from the credible information available with the department. The order passed by the assessing officer is bad in facts and law because business of shares can be normal business. The assessing officer has never confronted such information with the appellant which he is referring for drawing his conclusion regarding nature of business but simply considered the business of assessee as speculation business by mentioning the nature of business as "SPECULATIVE TRADE IN SHARES AND STOCKS" in the order. 7 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 We would like to brought in your notice that section 43(5) defines the definition of speculative business: Speculative transaction means transaction in which a contract for the purchase or sales of any commodity including stocks and shares is periodically or ultimately settled otherwise than. the actual delivery or transfer of the commodity or scrips. In appellant's case, the total turnover of Rs. 6,99,44379/- which includes both intra-day trading (speculative business turnover) i.e.in which a contract for the purchase or sales is settled otherwise than by the actual delivery and the turnover with delivery and the breakup of the same is as under: Particulars Turnover of as per books Gross Profit / (Loss) Correct Turnover Normal business of shares 36,602,195 12,65,471 36,602,195 Speculative ( Intra day ) trading in shares 33,342,184 4,44,166 4,84,514 The nature of intra-day transaction (speculative transaction) is that the person buy some shares or commodities and the same is sold by him at the end of the day (same day), whether in profit or in loss. In such transaction the person is not required to invest entire amount of purchase value, only he is required to deposit margin money which varies from 5% to 10% only and the same is required by rotation of transactions only. The appellant is having interest free funds on account of capital balance of Rs.3704893/- as on 31.03.2009, when the appellant is having sufficient interest free funds then question of disallowances of interest expenses could not arise. Your honour will observed from the above table that we have mention correct turnover from speculative business is Rs.4,84,514./- only because the turnover of speculation business has been defined as the magnitude of profit and loss in value term. The same view has been taken by guidance note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India to confirm the same we are enclosing herewith the copy of the same for your perusal. During the year under consideration assessee has earned gross profit of Rs.444166/- from the speculation business which has been offered for tax. Therefore, assessment order passed by the assessing officer is incorrect in facts and law because the addition has been made by considering entire business as speculative business as the question of investing the amount in intra-day transaction cannot arise at all. The assessing officer failed to understand the nature of the transaction of intra-day transactions. When the 8 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 appellant has not incurred any expenditure on speculation trading or intra- day trading, then question of any disallowances cannot arise. As per provisions of section 36 of the Act, any amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purpose of business or profession shall be allowed as expenditure while computing the total income. In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by the assessing officer is incorrect and need to be deleted. Ground No: 3 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned A.O. has erred in making lumpsum addition of Rs. 1,97,436/- on account of short term capital loss. Ground No: 6The AO has erred in passing the assessment order without giving effective opportunity of being heard to the appellant. Hence, the assessment order has been passed in gross violations of principles of natural justice. Facts of the case: The case of the appellant was selected for re-assessment u/s 147 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessing officer supplied copy of reason recorded for re opening the case of the appellant u/s 147 of the Act. The reason recorded by the assessing officer reads as under: As per the information available with this office, the assesse has taken accommodation entries in the form of bogus Short Term Capital Loss by trading in penny stocks. The assesse has booked these losses through the nexus of Kolkata based brokers and shell companies. The assesse has booked loss in the form of short term capital loss. The entire amount of capital loss is bogus and no set off against these bogus losses be allowed. Total trade done by the assesse during the FY 2008-09 amounting to Rs. 1,97,436/- through the nexus of Kolkata Based brokers and shell companies. The return of income filed by the assesse on 16.03.2010 which was processed on 08.09.2010 u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and a refund of Rs. 120/- issued to the assesse. During the Financial year 2008-09 the assesse has not shown any capital gain/loss in the return of income, however, he has done huge share trading amounting to Rs. 16,98,500/- as per CIB information. The assesse has also booked loss in the form of Short Term Capital Loss amounting to Rs. 1,97,436/-, setoff of which should not be allowed from the income of the assessee. Thus, the assesse has suppressed income of Rs. 1,97,436/- for the AY 2009-10. 9 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 Therefore I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.1,97,436/- for AY 2009-10 has escaped assessment. The assessing officer in the copy of reason recorded mentioned that he has credible information that the assessee has taken bogus accommodation entries in the form of short-term capital loss through Kolkata based brokers and through shell companies. But the fact is that the appellant has done trading in shares through the broker namely Anand Rathi Securities only. The assessing officer is referring to in reason recorded that assessee has booked loss in the form of Short term capital loss amounting to Rs.197,436/- but the assessee has not booked any such loss and also the para 4 of the order says that screen short reflecting investment made in penny stock has been scanned in the order but we have not found any such scanned details in the order. However, information regarding stocks which was considered as penny stock by the learned assessing officer has been provided to us and the same is showing one company named "SHEETALB" but the assessee has purchased the 100000 no. of shares of said company for Rs. 149678.58/- and not sold the same in the year under consideration. A statement showing details of sale, purchase and profit/loss claimed by the appellant on the shares referred by the assessing officer is enclosed herewith along with copy of information provided by the assessing officer. The appellant is engaged in business of share trading during the year under consideration, through the broker namely Wallfort Financial Services Ltd in recognized stock exchange and hence the question of income chargeable under the capital gain cannot arise in respect of business of share. When the assessing officer is not providing the correct details and information which he using against the appellant, then how it is possible for the appellant to submit his arguments on the same. During the year under consideration, the appellant has done share trading in many shares. The reason recorded by the assessing officer is grossly incorrect and incomplete. The assessing officer by issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act has done roving enquiry only. The assessing officer failed to bring any cogent evidence which supports his reason recorded for re-opening the case of the appellant. Therefore, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid and void ab-initio. Any assessment order passed on the basis of illegal or invalid notices is also invalid and incorrect. The assessing officer failed to appreciate the facts of the case and completely misunderstood the proceedings under the Act, when the appellant has not claimed any loss under the head Short Term Capital Loss, then question of disallowing the same should not arise at all. During the 10 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 course of assessment proceedings, when asked about such transaction, the appellant catogarily denied with regard to such penny stock transaction and also denied the same in the statement recorded u/s 131 of the Act. Now it is responsibility and duty of the assessing officer to prove that the appellant has claimed short term capital loss in penny stock. The assessing officer without bringing on record that the appellant has claimed loss under the head short term capital loss added the sum of Rs. 1,97,436/- to the total income of the appellant. In the assessment order at para no. 4, it is mentioned that "As regard the information available with the department regarding taking accommodation entries in the form of bogus Short Term Capital Loss clinching evidences in the form of detailed schedule from the site of BSE wherein investment in penny stock is clearly visible. A screen shot of the same is made part of this order." In this regard appellant submits that no such information was provided by the assessing officer during the course of assessment proceedings and also no such screen shot of site of BSE is annexed with the assessment order, it shows a causal approach of the assessing officer while passing assessment order. It is very settled law that any assessment order passed under any act should be a speaking order, on proper & cogent evidences and an effective opportunity of being heard should be provided to the appellant. Therefore, the assessing officer while drawing conclusion against the appellant did not confronted the material which he used against the appellant such action of the assessing officer is against the principles of natural justice and any addition based on deified of principles of natural justice deserves to be deleted. The appellant relies on following judicial pronouncements in support of the above submission: a. Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs CIT, 1955 AIR 65, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: In this case we are of the opinion that the Tribunal violated certain fundamental rules of justice in reaching its conclusions. Firstly, it did not disclose to the assessee what information had been supplied to it by the departmental representative. Next, it did not give any opportunity to the company to rebut the material furnished to it by him, and, lastly, it declined to take all the material that the assessee wanted to produce in support of its case. The result is that the assessee had not had a fair hearing. The estimate of the gross rate of profit on sales, both by the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal seems to be based on surmises, suspicions and conjectures. It is somewhat surprising that the Tribunal took from the representative of the department a statement of gross profit rates of other cotton mills without showing that statement to the 11 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 assessee and without giving him an opportunity to show that statement had no relevancy whatsoever to the case of the mill in question. It is not known whether the mills which had disclosed these rates were situate in Bengal or elsewhere, and whether these mills were similarly situated and circumstances. Not only did the Tribunal not show the information given by the representative of the department to the appellant, but it refused even to look at the trunk load of books and papers which Mr. Banerjee produced before the Accountant-Member in his chamber. No harm would have been done if after notice to the department the trunk had been opened and some time devoted to see what it contained. The assessment this case and in the connected appeal, we are told, was above the figure of Rs. 55 lakhs and it was meet and proper when dealing with a matter of this magnitude not to employ civil Appeal NO- 218 Of 1953, not reported, unnecessary haste and show impatience, particularly when it was known to the department that the books of the assessee were in the custody of. the Sub-Divisional Officer, Narayanganj. We think that both the Income-tax Officer and the Tribunal in estimating the gross profit rate on sales did not act on any material but acted on pure guess and suspicion. It is thus a fit case for the exercise of our power under article 136 In the result we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the Tribunal and remand the case to it with directions that in arriving at its estimate of gross profits and sales it should give full opportunity to the assessee to place any relevant material on the point that it has before the Tribunal, whether it is found in the books of account or elsewhere and it should also disclose to the assessee the material on which the Tribunal is going to found its estimate and then afford him full opportunity to meet the substance of any private inquiries made by the Income-tax Officer if it is intended to make the estimate on the foot of those enquiries. It will also be open to the department to place any evidence or material on the record to support the estimate made by the Income-tax Officer or by the Tribunal in its judgment. The Tribunal if it thinks fit may remit the case to the Income-tax Officer for making a fresh assessment after taking such further evidence as is furnished by the assessee or by the department. The coats; of these proceedings will abide the result. Case remitted. b. Ram Chander vs Union of India & Ors 1986 SCC (4) 12, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: The elementary principle of Natural Justice in the Law of Taxation is that the assessee should have knowledge of the material which is being used against him by the assessing officer so that he may be able to meet it. In an Income tax case of Ram Chander, the Income Tax Tribunal relied on certain data supplied by the Income Tax Department behind the back of the assessee and without giving an opportunity to the assessee to rebut the same. 12 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 "In principle, there ought to be an observance of natural justice called equally at both stages...... If natural justice is violated at the first stage, the right to appeal is not so much a true right of appeal as a corrected initial hearing. instead of fair trial followed by appeal, the procedure is reduced to unfair trial followed by fair trial" In view of above facts and circumstances of the case, the addition made by the assessing officer is incorrect and need to be deleted. Ground No: 40n the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned A.O. has erred in making lumpsum addition of Rs. 8,32,593/- on account of interest and remuneration received from partnership firm... During the year under consideration, the appellant has received interest on capital balance with firm and remuneration from the partnership firm in which the appellant is partner. The appellant while filing his return of income duly disclosed the same as his business income and paid taxes accordingly. That the income from partnership firm is taken by the appellant in his return of income. Copy of profit & loss account of the year under consideration is enclosed herewith. Details of addition made by the assessing officer in the assessment order is as under: Particulars Amount Income as per return 4,58,290/- Add: As discussed in para 3 of the assessment order 19,18,951/- As discussed in para 3 of the assessment order 1,97,436/- Other Income a. Remunration: From Dilip Construction 2,14,359/- From Nakoda Construction 1,57,023/- b. Interest From Dilip Construction 2,36,211/- From Nakoda Construction 2,25,000/- 8,32,593/- Assessed Income 34,07,270/- ======== 13 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 The assessing officer while passing the assessment order has taken profit as per profit & loss account, which includes interest & remuneration received from partnership firm. The assessing officer while passing the assessment order added the same income again and passed the assessment order, which leads to tax the income again which is already taxed. The assessing officer taxed the same income twice while passing the assessment order, which is incorrect and need to be deleted. Ground No: 5 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned A.O has erred on facts and in law in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C. Ground No:7The appellant craves leave to add, urge, alter or withdraw any ground/ground(s) at the time or before the date of hearing These grounds are consequential in nature. 8. Per contra the Ld. DR supported the orders of the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that the substantial relief has already been granted to the assessee. He has heavily relied upon the findings of the ld. AO that the assessee is engaged in the trading of penny stock company and bogus short term loss and supported the orders of the lower authorities. 9. The ld. AR of the assessee submitted that neither the ld. CIT(A) nor the ld. AO placed on record any remarks or contrary findings so as to what has been recorded in the books. The assessment has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and assessee has filed the details what has been called for and has also extended full co-operation. 9.1 The ld. AR of the assessee further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has only considered the arguments of the assessee in parts. He has bifurcated the turnover of the speculative trading and delivery-based transaction and sustained the addition based on the turnover of the 14 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 speculative trading transaction. Against this ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the nature of intra-day transaction (speculative transaction) is that the person buy some shares or commodities and the same is sold by him at the end of the day (same day), whether in profit or in loss. In such transaction the person is not required to invest entire amount of purchase value, only he is required to deposit some margin money only which varies from 5% to 10% and the same is required by rotation of transactions only. Therefore, the view taken by the ld. CIT(A) is against the facts available on record. He has further submitted that the assessee is having interest free funds on account of capital balance of Rs.37,04,893/- as on 31.03.2009, when the appellant is having sufficient interest free funds then question of disallowances of interest expenses could not arise merely on the speculative turnover where he is required to pay the margin money only to the extent of the speculative transaction. The assessee submitted the date wise speculative profit earned by him at page 9-11 of his paper book. On careful consideration we found force in the arguments of the assessee and agree that correct turnover from speculative business is Rs.4,84,514./- only. Because the turnover of speculation business has been defined as the magnitude of profit and loss in value term. The same view has been taken in the guidance note issued by the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India. Whatever profit that the assessee earned on these speculative transactions are already offered for tax and the assessee is having sufficient capital to undertake these speculative transactions for which he is required to pay only the margin money and the same is sufficiently meet with the capital of the assessee. We gone through the submission of the assessee and 15 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 orders of the lower authorities. It is undisputed that the assessee has undertaken speculative transactions and these type of transaction only margin money is deployed. We find force in the arguments of the assessee and there being no contrary view or arguments placed by the revenue the addition sustained by the ld. CIT(A) at Rs. 8,17,903/- is required to be deleted as the assessee is having sufficient fund to undertake this speculative transactions. Thus, the Ground no. 1 raised by the assessee is allowed. 10. The ground no. 2 & 4 raised by the assessee is in the nature of general ground and since we have already considered the arguments on merits the same is not required to be adjudicated. 11. The ground no. 3 raised is regarding the fact that the assessee has moved an application before ld. CIT(A) u/s. 154 of the Act. As the assessee has not placed any arguments in this regard and we found that the ld. CIT(A) has given his detailed finding while dealing with the application of the assessee and since the assessee has not placed anything before us expressing the nature of grievance of the assessee this ground no. 3 being general in nature the same is dismissed. 12. In the result the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 108/RPR/2019 for Assessment year 2009-10 is partly allowed. 13. The fact of the case in ITA No. 109/RPR/2019 is similar to the case in ITA No. 108/RPR/2019 and we have heard both the parties and persuaded the materials available on record. The bench has 16 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 noticed that the issues raised by the assessee in this appeal No. 109/RPR/2019 is equally similar on set of facts and grounds. Therefore, it is not imperative to repeat the facts and various grounds raised. Hence, the bench feels that the decision taken by us in ITA No. 108/RPR/2019 for the Assessment Year 2009-10 shall apply mutatis mutandis in the case of Dilip Kumar Lodha in ITA No. 109/RPR/2019 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 14. In the result, both the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced under rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, by placing the details on the notice board. Sd/- Sd/- RAVISH SOOD RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / RAIPUR ; +( ं / Dated : 19 th July, 2022 Ganesh Kumar (े* # $, - .े- $ / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. / The Appellant. 2. ! / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G) 4. The Pr. CIT-1, Raipur (C.G) 5. - / 0 $ , , 1, / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. 6. 0 2 3 4 / Guard File. (े* / BY ORDER, 5 1 / Private Secretary 17 ITA Nos. 108 & 109/RPR/2019 A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 , / ITAT, Raipur. Date 1 Draft dictated on Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order