Abhishek Prakashchand Chhajed, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 113/AHD/2023

AI Insights

The case revolves around the appeal by Abhishek Prakashchand Chhajed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad, which upheld the additions made by the AO under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the Assessment Year 2017-2018. The additions pertained to Rs. 50,00,000 credited as sales and Rs. 4,65,000 as unsecured loans, both treated as unexplained cash credits. The assessee argued that these were legitimate business transactions related to his trading business of gold and silver, which he started just before the demonetization period in India. The Tribunal examined the evidence provided, including VAT registration, sales bills, and bank statements, and found that the AO had not adequately addressed these documents in his assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 135820 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2023
• Other Referred Cases: Mahesh Kumar Gupta vs. ACIT, Hirapana Jewellers vs. ITA No. 253/Viz/2020, Agson Gobal Private Limited vs. 115 taxmann.com 342, Keshav Social and Charitable Foundation vs. 278 ITR 152, CIT vs. P. Mohanakala, Mahendra Kumar Agarwal vs. ITA No. 172/JP/2022, Chandra Surana vs. ITA No. 166/JP/2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRICHETANAGARWAL; SELLINGTHEGOODSINCASHDIDNOTVIOLATES; INVOKINGTHEPROVISIONSOFSECTION ANDEVEN

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण , अहमदाबादनयायपीी INTHEINCOMETAXAPPELLATETRIBUNAL, ‘’C’’BENCH,AHMEDABAD BEFORESHRIWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER And MsMADHUMITAROY,JUDICIALMEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITANo.113/AHD/2023 धििाधरणवरध / Asstt.Year:2017-2018 AbhishekPrakashchandChhajed, 2NilkanthNagar, GordhanwadiTekra, Kankaria, Ahmedabad-380022. PAN:AMZPC3057C Vs. IncomeTaxOfficer, Ward5(3)(4), Ahmedabad. (Applicant)(Respondent) Assesseeby:ShriChetanAgarwal,A.R Revenueby:ShriTruptiPatel,Sr.D.R सुिवाईकीतारीख/DateofHearing:11/07/2023 घोरणाकीतारीख/DateofPronouncement:04/10/2023 आदेश/ORDER PERWASEEMAHMED,ACCOUNTANTMEMBER: ThecaptionedappealhasbeenfiledattheinstanceoftheAssesseeagainst theorderoftheLearnedCommissionerofIncomeTax(Appeals),Ahmedabad, arisinginthematterofassessmentorderpassedunders.143(3)oftheIncome TaxAct,1961(here-in-afterreferredtoas"theAct")relevanttotheAssessment Year2017-2018. ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 2 2.Theassesseehasraisedfollowinggroundsofappeal: 1.Ld.CIT(A)erredinlawaswellasonfactinupholdingadditionofRs.50,00,000u/s.68 beingsalescreditedtoprofitandlossaccountanddeclaredasincome. 2.Ld.CIT(A),erredinlawaswellasonfactinupholdingadditionofRs.4,65,000/-u/s.68 beingunsecuredloans. 3.ThefirstissueraisedbytheassesseeisthatthelearnedCIT(A)erredin confirmingtheadditionofcashdepositofRs.50Lakhasunexplainedcashcredit undersection68oftheAct. 4.Thefactsinbriefarethattheassesseeisanindividualwhoclaimedtobe engagedinthebusinessoftradingofgoldandsilveritemsunderthenameand styleofM/sAdheshwerJewelers.Theassesseeduringthedemonetizationperiod (08 th November2016to31 st December2016)depositedcashamountingtoRs.50 LakhinthebankaccountheldwithYesBankandUCOBank.Thedetailsofthe samestandasunder: 4.1Theassesseeregardingsourceofcashdepositsubmittedthatduringthe yearunderconsideration,hestartedbusinessoftradingofgoldandsilverfor whichitreceivedGumasthadharacertificates(shopestablishmentcertificate)from AMCason29-03-2016andopenedbankaccountinMay2016.Thebusiness startedon1 st October2016.Throughtheperiodfrom21 st October2016to31 st October2016,itmadecashsalesofRs.50,47,147/-duringthefestivaltimeof Diwali,DhanterasandPushnanakshatrawhichconsideredasgoodmahuratbythe Sr.No.Nameof Bank NameoftheBank AccountNo Dateof Deposit Cash Deposit(In Rs.) 1.YesBank2156340000000015311/11/201615,00,000/- 2.YesBank2156340000000015302/12/201610,00,000/- 3.UcoBank409021000330511/11/201615,00,000/- 4.Ucobank409021000330502/12/201610,00,000/- Total50,00,000 ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 3 peopleforpurchaseofjewelry.Sincerandomcustomerscameandpurchasedgold orsilverwantingdeliveryonsameday,thesalesweremadeincashinsteadof takingchequeagainstthesales.Theassesseeinsupportofhiscontention furnishedacopyofsalesbillsandcashbook.Theassesseefurthersubmittedthat theproceedsofcashsalesinthemonthofOctober2016wereheldinthe businessinsteadofdepositinginthebankastheperiodwasconsideredgoodfor businessandforthatheneededliquiditytoearnmoreprofits.AfterDiwali(30 th October2016),theassesseehasgoneonvacationwithfamily.Therefore,the cashwasnotdepositedinthefirstweekofNovemberalso.Whenhecameback fromvacation,theGovernmentannounceddemonetizationofhighvaluecurrency noteon8 th November.Theassesseeimmediatelyafterdemonetizationannounced depositedcashthebankininstalmentondifferentdates.Assuch,theassessee depositedcashamountingto30Lakhon11 th NovemberandremainingcashofRs. 20Lakhon2 nd December2016. 4.2However,theAOfoundcertaindeficienciesintheclaimmadebythe assesseedetailedasunder: -Evidenceofpurchasesofgoldorsilversuchasbills/voucher/weighingslip etc.wasnotprovided. -Stockregisteredwasnotmaintainedeventhoughthebooksofaccounts wereaudited. -TheassesseegotAMCpermissionforbusinesson29 th March2016andas perbankaccountseveraltransactionsweremadeduringtheyear.However, entiresalesweremadeduring21 st to31 st October2016onlyandthattoo incashonlywhichwasonlydepositedduringthedemonetizationperiod. -Asperthecashbooksubmittedbytheassessee,noexpenditurewas incurredoutofcashtillthedateofdemonetization. -Thedetailsofsupplierofgold/silverwerenotprovided.Further,salesbill issuedtocustomersdonotcontainfullname&addressofcustomers, descriptionofgoodsandweightofgoods. ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 4 -TheassesseetookVATregistrationandfiledVATreturnonlyafterscrutiny noticeundertheActissuedtohim. 4.3Inviewoftheabovefinding,theAOheldthattheentiresubmissionofthe assesseeshowingcashdepositsoutoftradingofgoldandsilveriscamouflaged andafterthought.Therefore,theAOrejectedthesame.Accordingly,theAO treatedtheentirecashdepositofRs.50Lakhasunexplainedcashcreditunder section68oftheActandaddedtototalincome. 5.AggrievedassesseepreferredanappealbeforethelearnedCIT(A)and reiteratedthesubmissionsmadeduringtheassessmentproceedings.Thelearned CIT(A)afterconsideringthefactsintotalityconfirmedtheadditionmadebythe AO. 6.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A)theassesseeinappeal beforeus. 7.ThelearnedARbeforeusfiledpaperbookrunningfrompages1to275and submittedthatthebusinessoftheassesseewasestablished06-05-2016whichis evidentfromVATregistrationcertificate,placedonpage90ofthePB.Theld.AR alsosubmittedthatthecashwasdepositedinthebankoutofthesaleproceeds. Theld.ARinsupportofhiscontentionhasdrawnourattentiontothecashbook, saleregister,stockregisterandVATreturnswhichareplacedinthepaperbook. 8.Ontheotherhand,thelearnedDRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 9.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecords.Admittedly,theassesseedepositedcashduringthe demonetizationperiodforRs.50lakhsintwodifferentbankaccounts.The sourcesofsuchdepositwereexplainedbytheassesseeassalesproceedsof ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 5 jewelrybusinessinwhichheindulgesduringthemonthofOctober2016.The assessee,insupportofhisexplanation,furnishedabusinesspermissionletter fromAMC,VATregistrationcertificate,salesbillsandVATreturnetc.However, theAO,withoutpointinganydefectinthedocumentaryevidencefiledbythe assesseeheldthecashdepositfromunaccountedsourcesmerelyonreasoning thattheassesseehasnotmaintainedstockregister.TheAOalsofoundthatthe assesseehastakenVATregistrationafterhiscasewasselectedforscrutiny assessment.Inthisregard,wehaveperusedtheVATregistrationcertificate availableonpage91ofpaperbookswhichclearlystatesthattheassesseewas registeredundertheVATw.e.f06-May-2016i.e.beforethedemonetizationperiod. Thus,thefindingoftheAOinthisregardisfactuallyincorrect.Wealsonotethat theassesseehasdulyshownthecashreceiptfromthesaleofgold/gold ornamentsdulyrecordedinauditedbooksoftheaccountsupportedbysalesbill andstockdetails.TheAOhasnotpointedoutanydefectinthebooksofaccounts. Therefore,inourconsideredtheopinion,theAOcannottreatthecashgenerated fromsalesdulyrecordedinbooksofaccountfromunexplained/unaccounted sourcesunlessbooksofaccountrejectedbasedonvalidreasons. 9.1WealsonotethatthecoordinatebenchofJaipurTribunalincaseof MaheshKumarGuptavs.ACITinITANO.149/JP/2022videorderdated23-03- 2023inthesimilarfactsandcircumstancesdeletedtheadditionmadebytheAO byobservingasunder: Noneoftheserecordsweredisputedbytheld.AO.Wehavealsoseenthateven theld.AOhasnotdealtwiththespecificsubmissionoftheassesseeandhehas merelywrittenoneparagraphconfirmingtheviewoftheld.AOwithoutdealing withthevariouscontentionsraisedandjudicialdecisioncitedbytheassessee eventheld.CIT(A)hasnotdealtwithanyofthejudgementreliedupontheld.AR oftheassesseewhiledealingwiththeappealoftheassessee. 9.2Theld.ARoftheassesseevehementlysubmittedthatlawnowhereprohibits cashsalestotheassessee.Assesseebysellingthegoodsincashdidnotviolates anyprovisionoftheIncomeTaxActandeventheld.AOhasnotmentionedany ofthelawprovisiontodisbelievethesalessomadebytheassessee.Allthesales madebytheassesseeissupportedbyacommercialinvoicedulycompliedwiththe valueaddedtax(VAT)provisionandtherelatedVATisalsopaidbytheassessee. ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 6 TheinvoicesissuedisalsoreportedinVATreturnfiledandthesaleshasbeen acceptedbytheVATauthoritywithoutanyadverseremarkandinfacteventheld. AOhasnotmadeanyadverseremarkonthesalesregisterandcashbook submittedbytheassesseetosupportthecontentionsofhavingbeensoldthe goods/jewelleryincash. 9.3Thebenchnotedtheld.ARoftheassesseehasrelieduponthevarious judgmentandthesomeofthejudgmentwhichhasdirectbearingonthedispute andhavingsimilarfactsareconsideredonebyoneinbrief.Decisioninthecaseof HirapanaJewellersinITAno.253/Viz/2020whereinitisheldthatsincethe assesseehasalreadyadmittedthesalesasrevenuereceipt,thereisnocasefor makingtheadditionu/s.68.Theseconddecisionrelieduponisinthecaseof AgsonGobalPrivateLimited115taxmann.com342whereinitisheldthat““Itis notthecaseoftherevenuethatassesseehasnotshowntherelevantstock registerbeforetheassessingofficer.Theassesseehasmaintainedthecomplete stocktallyinitsaccountingsoftware.Suchbooksofaccountsareaudited, quantitativerecordsproducedbeforethetaxauditor,suchquantitativerecordsare certifiedbytaxauditandnoquestionshavebeenraisedbytheassessingofficer. Thus,itcannotbesaidthatthefiguresofsalesandpurchasesarenotsupported bythequantitydetails.” 9.4Asregardstheapplicabilityofsection68inthiscasewehavepersuadedthe decisionofHon’bleDelhiHighCourtinthecaseofKeshavSocialandCharitable Foundation278ITR152whereinthecourtconsideredasituationwherethe assessee,acharitabletrust,haddiscloseddonationsreceivedbyitasitsincome, andclaimedexemptionu/s.11.TheAssessingOfficer,onfindingthatthe assesseewasunabletosatisfactorilyexplainthedonationsandthedonorswere fictitiouspersons,heldthattheassesseehadtriedtointroduceunaccounted moneyinitsbooksbywayofdonationsand,therefore,theamountwastobe treatedascashcreditu/s.68.TheDelhiHighCourtheldthatsection68didnot apply,astheassesseehaddisclosedsuchdonationsasitsincome. 9.5Thebenchhasalsonotedthattheld.AOacceptedtheopeningstock, purchase,aswellastheclosingstockattheyearendtobegenuineandcorrect.It isalsoworthwhiletomentionthattheld.AOhasnotrejectedthebooksof accountsoftheassesseebyinvokingtheprovisionsofSection145(3)andeven thereisnowhisperintheorderaboutanydefectsinthebooksofaccount.Theld. AOhasnotbroughtanymaterialonrecordtoestablishthatthesalebillswere bogusoranyevidencesindicatingthatsaleswerebogus.Theld.AOiswrongin notacceptingthedeclaredcashsalesasnotverifiablewhicharerecordedinbooks ofaccountswhichwerefoundtobecorrectandcomplete.Wehavealsonoted thattheassesseehasundertakencashsalesofRs.1,86,45,067.Outofthetotal cashsales,cashsalesamountingtoRs.80,00,000hasbeenfoundtobenon- genuineandaddedundersection68oftheAct.Explanationofferedto substantiatethecashsaleshasbeenarbitrarilyrejectedwithoutholdingthatthe salesisdulyrecordedinthebooksandisalsosupportedbythevariousrecords producedintheassessmentproceedings.Herewenotethatsimilarviewistaken inthecaseofCITvsP.Mohanakala(2007)291ITR278(SC),theApexCourt whiledealingwiththetruenatureandscopeofSection68oftheActhasheldthat theopinionoftheassessingofficerfornotacceptingtheexplanationofferedby ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 7 theassesseeasnotsatisfactoryisrequiredtobebasedonproperappreciationof materialandotherattendingcircumstancesavailableonrecord.Thecourtfurther heldthattheopinionoftheassessingofficerisrequiredtobeformedobjectively withreferencetothematerialavailableonrecord.Hence,applicationofmindis sinequanonforformingtheopinion.Theonlyreasonplacedbytheld.AOinhis orderthatthefullname,addressor/andPANofthecustomertowhomgoods weresoldincashduringthecourseofbusinessbelowtotheprescribedlimithas notbeengiven.Itisvoluntarytothecustomertoprovidetheirpersonal informationtotheassesseewhilegoodsbeingsoldandeventhelawdoesnot mandatetotheassesseeuptoanamountofRs.2lac.Thisviewisalsotakenby co-ordinatebenchofthisJaipurbenchinthecaseofMahendraKumarAgarwalin ITANo.172/JP/2022therelevantfindingisreiteratedhereinbelow: ********* 9.6Asregardsthefactthatason21.10.2016theopeningcashbalancewasRs. 11,63,263/-andthereafter,112cashsalesbillswereissuedbytheassesseeforan amountofRs.70,80,376/-tillthetimedemonetizationannounced.Tocounterthis facttheld.ARinhissubmissionstatedthatDiwaliwason30.10.2016and thereaftermarriageseasonstartedandasresultthecashsalesriseduringthese periods.Thecaselawcitedbytheld.AOwasdistinguishedbytheld.ARinthe submissionfiledbeforetheld.CIT(A).Thesaidfindinghasnotbeendisputedby therevenueintheappealbeforeus. 9.7Inthelightofthedetaileddiscussionsandfindingthathasbeenrecordedby usintheprecedingparaweareoftheconsideredviewthattheactionoftheld. AOmakinganadditionundersection68foranamountofRs.80,00,000/-as unexplainedcashdepositwithoutrejectingthebooksofaccountisunwarranted basedonthediscussionsorecordedhereinabove.Eventheld.AOhasnotfind anydefectsinthedetailssubmittedbytheassesseeandauditedbookswere consideredandacceptedwhilefinalizingtheassessment.Similarviewhasbeen takenbythiscoordinatebenchofJaipurinthecaseofChandraSuranainITANo. 166/JP/2022whereinthesimilarviewhasbeentaken.Therelevantfindingis reproducedhereinbelow; *****. 9.8Respectfullyfollowingtheconsistentviewandafterconsideringthefactual matrixofthecashonhandinourconsideredviewtheadditionmadecannot sustainandtherefore,wevacatetheadditionofRs.80,00,000/-madeunder section68oftheActasthesamecannotbemadewithoutrejectingthebooksof accountoftheassesseeregularlymaintainedbytheassesseeandthesaidcash depositedisdulysupportedbytheentriespassedinthebooksofaccountandpart ofthesaleacceptedbytheAO. 9.2Inviewoftheaboveandafterconsideringthefactsintotality,wehereby setasidethefindingofthelearnedCIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodeletetheaddition madebyhim.Hence,thegroundofappealraisedbytheassesseeishereby allowed. ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 8 10ThesecondissueraisedbytheassesseeisthattheLd.CIT(A)erredin confirmingtheadditionmadebytheAOforRs.4,65,000/-onlyonaccountof unexplainedcashcreditu/s68oftheAct. 11.TheAOduringtheassessmentproceedingsfoundthattheassesseehas shownloanofRs.4,65,000/-fromthefollowingparties. Sr.No.Nameof lendor/depositor Amount 1.AdheshwarFinance Corporation 2,00,000/- 2.ChhajedMotors50,000/- 3.KSMotors2,00,000/- Total4,65,000/- 12.Theassesseeinsupportoftheaboveunsecuredloanfiledthecopyofthe confirmationandPANoftheparties.TheassesseealsosubmittedthattheAOin theeventofhavinganydoubtcanalsocallfortheinformationbyissuingnotice u/s136oftheActfromtheloanparties.However,theAOwasoftheviewthat theassesseefailedtoestablishthegenuinenessofthetransactionand creditworthinessoftheloanparties.Therefore,theAOtreatedthesameas unexplainedcashcreditundersection68ofActandaddedtothetotalincomeof theassessee. 13.AggrievedassesseepreferredanappealtotheLd.CIT(A)whoconfirmed theorderoftheAO. 10.BeingaggrievedbytheorderofthelearnedCIT(A),theassesseeinappeal beforeus. 11.TheLd.A.Rbeforeussubmittedthattheassesseehasdulyfurnishedthe confirmationandthebankstatementofthepartiesalongwiththeIncome-tax returnwhichareplacedonpages161to231ofthepaperbook.Itwasfurther contendedbytheLd.ARthattheamountofloantakenfromthepartiesisranging ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 9 fromRs.50thousandto2lacsonlyandtherefore,consideringtheamountofloan, thecreditworthinessofthepartiescannotbequestioned. 12.Ontheotherhand,theLd.DRvehementlysupportedtheorderofthe authoritiesbelow. 13.Wehaveheardtherivalcontentionsofboththepartiesandperusedthe materialsavailableonrecord.Fromtheprecedingdiscussion,wenotethatthe assesseehasreceivedunsecuredloanofRs.4,65,000/-whichhasbeentreatedby theAOasunexplainedcreditu/s68oftheAct.TheorderoftheAOwas confirmedbytheLd.CIT(A)byobservingthatthecreditofunsecuredloanfrom thepartiescannotbetreatedasexplainedmerelybyprovidingPANandbank statementuntiltheproofofidentityandcreditworthinessofthepartiesare established.TherelevantfindingoftheLd.CIT(A)isextractedasunder: AnditisheldthatgenuinenessofunsecuredloanamountingofRs.4,65,000/- transactioncouldnotbeprovedmerelybyprovidingPANandbankstatementofthelender, thusitisevidentthattheassesseehasfailedtoproveidentity,creditworthinessofthe depositorandgenuinenessoftransactionandsameistreatedashisunexplainedcash creditsu/s.68oftheIncomeTaxAct. 13.1Theprovisionofsection68oftheActcastprimaryonusontheassesseeto explainthenatureandsourceofthesumcreditedinthebooksofaccount.This primaryonuscanbedischargedbyestablishing/furnishingtheproofoftheidentity ofthecreditor,theircreditworthinessandgenuinenessoftransaction.Oncethe primaryevidenceinrelationtotheidentity,genuinenessandcreditworthinessis furnishedbytheassessee,theburdenshiftsontherevenuetobringcredible materialbeforerejectingtheprimarydocumentfurnishedbytheassessee.From theaboveextractedfindingoftheLd.CIT(A)andmaterialsavailableonrecord, wenotethattheassesseehasdischargedtheonuscastuponhimbyfurnishing ledgerconfirmationfromthecreditor,theirPAN,theircopyofITR,andtheirBank statements.Inourconsideredview,theidentityofthecreditorwasduly establishedbyfurnishingtheirPAN,ITRandbankstatement.Likewise,the ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 10 genuinenessofthetransactionsalsogotestablishedbythefactthatthe transactionswerecarriedoutthroughbankingchannelwhichweredulyreflecting intheirrespectivebankstatementsanddulyrecordedinthebooksofaccountas loanwhichalsoconfirmedbythecreditor.Therevenueauthoritiesdonotbring anymaterialonrecordsuggestingotherwise.TheAOdoesnotpointoutany infirmitytheintheprimarydocumentsnorconducteddirectinvestigationfromthe creditors/partiesbyissuingnoticeu/s133(6)/131(1)oftheAct.Therefore,in suchfactsandcircumstancesweareoftheviewthatthegenuinenessof transactioncannotbedoubted. 13.2Comingtotheaspectofcreditworthinessofthecreditorwholentsuchsum totheassessee.Inthisregard,wenotethattheloanamountreceivedbythe assesseefromdifferentcreditorvaryingbetweenRs.50thousandtoRs.2lacs whicharenothugesum.InadditiontothattheassesseeprovidedPANdetailsas wellascopyofITR-Vofthecreditorbasedonwhichtherevenueauthorityshould haveaccesstofinancialdetailofthecreditor.Theassesseealsofurnishedcopyof bankstatementofthecreditorshowingtheavailabilityoffundbeforelending moneytotheassessee.Therevenueauthoritieswithoutpointinganyinfirmityin thedocumentaryevidencefurnishedbytheassesseeaswellaswithoutbringing independentmaterialonrecordsuggestingthatthecreditordoesnotpossessthe creditworthinesstolendmoney. 13.3Inviewoftheabovedetaileddiscussionandafterconsideringthefactsin totality,weareoftheviewthattheassesseehasdulydischargedtheonuscast uponhimu/s68oftheActandtheburdenshiftedupontheAO/revenueauthority tobringthematerialonrecordbeforerejectingtheexplanation/evidence submittedbyassesseeisnotsatisfactory.However,therevenueauthoritiesfailed todischargetheburdenshiftedonthem.Therefore,insuchfactsand circumstances,thesumcreditedinthebooksoftheassesseecannotbetreatedas unexplainedu/s68oftheAct.Hence,weherebysetasidethefindingsoftheLd. ITAno.113/AHD/2023 A.Y.2017-18 11 CIT(A)anddirecttheAOtodeletetheadditionmadebyhim.thus,thegroundof appealoftheassesseeisallowed. 14.Intheresult,theappealfiledbytheassesseeisherebyallowed. OrderpronouncedintheCourton04/10/2023atAhmedabad. Sd/-Sd/- (MADHUMITAROY)(WASEEMAHMED) JUDICIALMEMBERACCOUNTANTMEMBER (TrueCopy) Ahmedabad:Dated04/10/2023 Manish