Shri Mahendra B. Bagdai, Rajkot V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1133/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6259 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALBINUS TIRKEY
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers
• Section: 69; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD A BENCH, (BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, VP AND BHAVNESH SAINI, JM) ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 A. Y.: 2005-06 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADAI, C/O. PANCHNATH MEDICAL STORES, NUTAN NAGAR SOCIETY SHOPPING CENTRE, RAJKOT VS THE D. C. I. T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), AHMEDABAD PA NO. ACHPB 0380 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE: SHRI S.N. SOPARKAR, AR FOR DEPARTMENT: SHRI ALBINUS TIRKEY, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A)- I, AHMEDABAD DATED 19-02-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF AL LEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE OF OFFICE AT DEV-SHOPS & OFF ICES. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE RELEVA NT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED AN OFFICE ADMEASURING 1271 S Q. FT. BEARING NO.2, ON 4 TH FLOOR IN A BUILDING KNOWN AS DEV-SHOPS & OFFICES S ITUATED AT C. G. ROAD, AHMEDABAD FROM M/S. DEV ENTERPRISE. MEANWHILE, ON 09-02-2005, SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF TH E IT ACT WAS ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADIA VS DCIT, CC- 1(1), AHMEDAB AD. 2 CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI DIPAK THAKKAR ON 09-02-2005. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TWO LOOSE PAPERS FILES MARKED AS ANNEXURES A-10 AND A-11 WERE SEIZED. THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES ON PAGE NO.26 OF ANNEXURE A-10 AND PAGE NO. 28 OF ANNEXURE A-11 HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH PAYM ENT OF RS.25,00,000/- TOWARDS PURCHASE OF ABOVE STATED OFF ICE AND ADDED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS PER PROVISION S OF SECTION 69B OF THE IT ACT. THE AO CONTENDED THAT THE SEIZED PAP ERS REVEAL THAT FOR BOOKING/PURCHASE OF THE SAID OFFICE FOLLOWING PAYME NTS HAVE BEEN MADE: S.NO . ANN. PG PROPERTY NAME DATE CASH CHEQUE 1 A-10 26 FF-4 MAHENDRA B. BAGADAI 17-5-04 2500000 500000 2 A-11 28 FF-4 MAHENDRA B. BAGADAI 24-5-04 0 500000 MAHENDRA B. BAGADAI 2500000 1000000 HOWEVER, AFTER VERIFICATION, THE AO REACHED TO THE CONCLUSION THAT FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE SAID PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CHEQUE PAYMENT OF ONLY RS.5,00,000/- BESIDES THE UNDISCLOS ED CASH PAYMENT OF RS.25,00,000/-. THE AO HAS ALSO REFERRED TO SIMI LAR SHOPS/OFFICES SOLD TO OTHER PARTIES, WHICH STAND RECORDED AT DIFF ERENT PAGES OF ANNEXURE 10 AND ANNEXURE 11 THE DETAILS ABOUT WHICH HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN PARA 2.6 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE PARTIES REFERRED TO BY THE AO ARE SHRI ASHISH ZAVERI AND JAYSHRI ZAV ERI, TEKWANI AND MANSHANI FAMILY, RAKESH SHAH HUF, KIRTI SHAH, ALL O F WHOM HAVE ADMITTED CASH PAYMENT OVER AND ABOVE AS ON MONEY FO R THE PURCHASE OF RESPECTIVE SHOPS BY THEM IN DEV COMPLEX . THE AO RELIED ON THE CASE OF ROHINI RAMNATH LELE 117 CTR 2 08 (MUM/TM) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT PREVAILING PRACTICE OF PAYI NG ON MONEY SHOULD ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADIA VS DCIT, CC- 1(1), AHMEDAB AD. 3 BE CONSIDERED EVEN IF THE PURCHASER DENIES. HE ALSO RELIED IN THE CASE OF GREEN VALLEY BUILDERS 149 TAXMAN 671 (KER.) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT IF HIGHER PRICE WAS PAID FOR PURCHASE OF LAND, ADDITION CAN BE MADE. HE ALSO QUOTED THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL 214 I TR 801 (SC) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES AND PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES SHOULD BE APPLIED TO DECIDE THE IS SUE IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE. THE AO HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE FAILED TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION PAID FOR PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY WAS LOWER THAN THAT PAID BY THE OTHER PURC HASERS. IN SUPPORT, HE RELIED IN THE CASE OF AMARKUMARI SURANA 226 ITR 344 (RAJ.) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLA NATION FOR LOWER CONSIDERATION, SALE INSTANCES OF COMPARABLE CASES S HOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ASCERTAINING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000/- AS UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF TH4E SHOP/OFFICE U/S 69B OF THE IT ACT. 3. IT WAS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE TOTAL PAYMENT OF ONLY RS.8,89,700/- THROUGH CHEQUES DETAI LS OF THE SAME HAVE BEEN NOTED IN PARA 5.3 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT NO OTHER PAYMENT HAS BEEN MA DE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT RECORD OF THIRD PARTY ARE NOT RELIAB LE AND THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY FOR ACQUIRING OFFICE UNDER CONS IDERATION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE LOOSE PAPER S FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADIA VS DCIT, CC- 1(1), AHMEDAB AD. 4 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE OFFICE PREMISES WAS PURCHA SED ON 4 TH FLOOR IN THE BUILDING KNOWN AS DEV SHOPS & OFFICES. HE HA S FILED A COPY OF THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD A BENCH IN THE CASE O F M/S. TRIDENT CREATION PVT. LTD. VS DCIT, CC-1(1) , AHMEDABAD IN ITA NO.1078/AHD/2009 DATED 01-09-2010 IN WHICH THE IDEN TICAL ADDITION HAS BEEN DELETED. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RE CORD TO SHOW THAT SEIZED PAPER IS SAME AND IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE M/S. TRIDENT CREATION PVT. LTD. PURCHASED SHOPS/OFFICES AT FIRST FLOOR OF THE SAME DEV COMPLEX. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 5. THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW. 6. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE I SSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. TRIDENT CREATION (SUPRA) IN THIS ON IDENTICAL FACTS SIMILAR ADDITION U/S 69 B OF THE IT ACT HAS BEEN DELETED ON THE SAME SEIZED PAPERS. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA 8 OF THE ORDER ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FIL E COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS IN QUESTION WHICH HAVE BEE N FILED ON RECORD WHICH SHOW THE DATE OF DOCUMENTS 1 0-04- 2008 AND THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION PAID FOR PURC HASE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE IS MENTIONED AT RS.60,40,2 97/-. ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADIA VS DCIT, CC- 1(1), AHMEDAB AD. 5 SIMILARLY, THE LEARNED D R WAS DIRECTED TO INTIMATE ABOUT PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PERSON IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND IF ANY STATEMENTS OF COMPARABLE CASES HAVE BEEN RECORDED. LEARNED D R FILED COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF FIRM M/S. DEV ENTER PRISES U/S 143 (3) OF THE IT ACT DATED 29-12-2006 IN WHICH SHRI DEEPAK THAKKAR WAS THE PARTNER IN WHOSE CASE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. LEARNED D R SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITI ON IS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LOOSE ANNEXURE A-10 AND A-11, BU T THE SAID FIRM MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS.74,44,290/- IN THE RETURN FILED ON 30-06-2006. IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.5,51,000/- IS MADE. THE LEARNED D R ADMITTED THAT NO STATEMENT OF THE BUILDER HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE A O AND THAT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY CO PY OF THEIR STATEMENT IF ANY. AS REGARDS THE STATEMENT, I F ANY RECORDED IN THE CASE OF COMPARABLE CASES, LEARNED D R FILED COPY OF THE LETTER DATED 16-08-2010 (SUPRA) I N WHICH IT IS NOWHERE MENTIONED IF STATEMENTS IN THE CASES OF COMPARABLE CASES HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN TH E LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, WE MAY NOTE THAT THE A O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF FIRM M/S. DEV ENTERPRISES IN WHICH SHRI DEEPAK THAKKAR AND SHRI SANJAY THAKKAR ARE PARTNERS HAVE CONSIDERED SEIZED PAPER A-10 AND A-11 REGARDING PAYMENT OF ON MONEY B UT FINALLY MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.5,51,000/- ONLY AFT ER SATISFYING FROM THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT. NO SI MILAR ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AS HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM DESPITE RECOVERY OF THE LOOSE PAPERS, THEY HAV E DENIED THEIR HAND-WRITING IN THE SEIZED PAPERS AND HAVE NOT ACCEPTED RECEIPT OF ANY ON MONEY FROM THE ASSES SEE. IT, THEREFORE, FOLLOWS THAT RECIPIENT AND PAYEE BOT H HAVE DENIED RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF ALLEGED ON MONEY IN CASH. THE ABOVE FACTS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM M/S. DEV ENTERPRISES PROVE THA T THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE HUGE ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THE SEIZED PA PERS THE AMOUNT OF SALE CONSIDERATION THROUGH CHEQUES PA ID IS RS.51 LACS, BUT ACCORDING TO THE MOU AND SALE DEEDS ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADIA VS DCIT, CC- 1(1), AHMEDAB AD. 6 FILED ON RECORD THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.60,40 ,297/- HAVE BEEN SETTLED AND PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND NOT BY TRIDENT (INDIA) WHOSE NAME IS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS. IT CONTRADICTS AND CREATES DOUBT IN THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE SEIZED PAPERS. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE MOU WAS SIGNED BY THE SELLER ON 05-05-2004 WHIC H CLEARLY MENTIONS THE SALE OF ALL THE PROPERTIES AT RS.60.40 LACS, THEREFORE, ON THE SAME DAY THERE IS NO QUESTI ON OF MAKING CASH PAYMENT OF RS.20 LACS AS PER THE WRITIN GS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS IN CASH COLUMN. FURT HER, WHEN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAVE DULY SIGNED ENFORCEABLE MOU, STATING THEREIN THAT THE SELLER SH ALL HAVE TO SELL THE PROPERTY AT RS.60.40 LACS, THERE I S NO QUESTION OF MAKING SUBSEQUENT PAYMENTS IN CASH ON VARIOUS DATES AS MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS. THE ABOVE DETAILS CONTAINED IN LOOSE SEIZED PAPERS AR E AGAINST HUMAN PROBABILITY. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HER E THAT SINCE NO SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURS E OF SURVEY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE PRESUMPTIONS U/S 132 (4A) AND SECTION 292 C COULD N OT BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE FINDINGS OF THE A O WOULD SHOW THAT A O HAS ASSUMED CERTAIN FACTS WHICH ARE NOT ON RECORD OF THE A O OR THAT THE SAME ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. A O HAS NOT BR OUGHT SUFFICIENT AND COGENT MATERIAL/EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATION SHO WN IN THE MOU AND SALE DEEDS. NO STATEMENT OF ANY PER SON HAS BEEN RECORDED IN WHOSE CASE LOOSE PAPERS WERE RECOVERED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES CONTAINED THEREIN. LEARNED D R ADMITTED THAT A O HAS NOT RELIED UPON A NY STATEMENT OF THE BUILDER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND T HAT NO SUCH COPY HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY HIM. SIMILARLY, NO STATEMENT IN THE COMPARABLE CASES HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE US. IT WOULD PROVE THAT EVEN IN THE COMPARAB LE CASES NO STATEMENT IS RECORDED AGAINST THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SURRENDER MADE IN 4 COMPARABLE CASES HAS NOT BEEN CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE NOTE ATT ACHED ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADIA VS DCIT, CC- 1(1), AHMEDAB AD. 7 WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF SHRI T. K. TEKWANI IN WHICH IT WAS MENTIONED THAT HE HAS SURRENDERED T HE AMOUNT TO BUY PEACE TO AVOID LITIGATION. SUCH A STA TEMENT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE AGAINS T THE INTEREST OF THE ASSESSEE. HOW ADMISSION IN COMPARAB LE CASES FOR PAYMENT OF ON MONEY IN THEIR CASES IS ADMISSIBLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS NOT KNOWN IN LAW BECAUSE THEY HAVE NEVER ADMITTED THAT ASSESSEE PAID ANY ON MONEY IN CASH. THE RATES OF ASSESSEE AS COMPARED WITH OTHERS AT GROUND FLOOR HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED. RATES OF THE ASSESSEE ARE HIGHER AT FIRST FLOOR. A O IN THE REMAND REPORT (PARA 4 OF REMAND REPORT NOT ED AT PAGE 18 OF THIS ORDER) ADMITTED THAT HE HAS NOT VER IFIED THE RATES, THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE ABOVE FACTS PROVE THAT TH ERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE SEIZED PAPER IS CONN ECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE OR THAT ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT MADE THE CASH PAYMENT TO THE BUILDERS OVER AND ABOVE THE AMO UNT MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENTS. NO EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL PAYMENT OF CASH WAS FOUND. NO EVIDENCE OF EXCESS AMOUNT PAID WAS FOUND. NO HAND-WRITING OF THE ASSESSEES DIRECTOR OR CONNECTED PERSON WAS FOUND O N THE SEIZED PAPERS. THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANY NEVER ADMITTED PAYMENT OF ON MONEY IN CASH IN HIS STATEMENT. SINCE, ASSESSEE IS A PURCHASER, THEREFOR E, SECTION 50 C OF THE IT ACT WOULD ALSO NOT APPLY IN ITS CASE AS IS HELD IN THE CASE OF ITO VS VENU PROTEINS INDU STRIES REPORTED IN 4 ITR (TRIBUNAL) 602 (AHMEDABAD). IT MA Y ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT IN THE SEIZED PAPERS THE NA MES OF SHRI JATIN PARIKH/ TRIDENT (INDIA) IS MENTIONED BUT THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS M/S. TRIDENT CREATIONS PVT. LTD., WHICH IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS WOULD P ROVE THAT THE SEIZED PAPERS DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSE E. THERE IS ALSO NO MENTION IN THE LOOSE PAPERS IF ANY CASH PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO THE BUILDERS. THE BUILDERS/SELLERS FROM WHOSE POSSESSIO N SEIZED PAPERS HAVE BEEN RECOVERED HAVE NOT MADE ANY STATEMENT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ENTR IES OR NOTINGS CONTAINED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND FROM TH E POSSESSION OF THE BUILDERS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO MA KE THE ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADIA VS DCIT, CC- 1(1), AHMEDAB AD. 8 ADDITION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL OR INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE AVAI LABLE ON RECORD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED D R ARE BASED UPON ASSUMPTION ONLY THAT SIN CE 4 PARTIES MADE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY TO THE BUILDER, THEREFORE, THERE IS A PRESUMPTION AGAINST THE ASSES SEE THAT ASSESSEE ALSO PAID ON MONEY IN CASH . BUT, E QUALLY OTHER BUYERS HAVE NOT PAID ANY ON MONEY TO THE BUILDERS. SINCE THE SEIZED PAPERS ARE NOT IN THE NA ME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS ALSO HAVING DIFFERENT AMOUNT OF CHEQUE AS AGAINST THE SALE CONSIDERATION SHOWN IN T HE MOU AND THE SALE DEEDS, THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPLE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY WOULD ALSO NOT APPLY A GAINST THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE A O WANTED TO TAX THE ALLE GED PAYMENT OF ON MONEY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE; THEREFORE, BURDEN WAS UPON THE A O TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF ON MONEY FROM UNDISCLOSE D SOURCES, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED IN THIS CASE . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE A O HAS NOT BROUGHT SUFFIC IENT MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE THE ABOVE ADDITION. THE A O MADE ADDITION MERELY ON SUSPICION AND ASSUMPTION OF FACTS, WHICH CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF LEG AL PROOF. IT IS THUS A CASE OF NO EVIDENCE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE A UTHORITIES BELOW WERE NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION AGA INST THE ASSESSEE. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION. 7. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF T HE TRIBUNAL, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND D ELETE THE ADDITION. ITA NO.1133/AHD/2009 SHRI MAHENDRA B. BAGADIA VS DCIT, CC- 1(1), AHMEDAB AD. 9 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30-06-2011. SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 30/06/2011 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// DY.R/AR, I TAT, AHMEDABAD