The ITO, Ward-6(3), Surat V. Smt. Rekhaben Nitinkumar Chabuksawar, Surat

ITA 1137/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51081 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Gift; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 133A; 147; 68; 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM ) ITA NO.1137/AHD/2007 A. Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT, ROOM NO.606E, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SMT. REKHABEN NITINKUMAR CHABUKSWAR, 6/519. SHRI NAVARANMDWAR, GALEMANDI, SURAT PA NO. AEXPC 6268 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.1140/AHD/2007 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT, ROOM NO.606E, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SHRI PARESHKUMAR MANILAL PATEL, 7/2904, NANI KADIA SHERI, SAIYEDPURA, SURAT PA NO. AKNPP 7681 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.1141/AHD/2007 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT, ROOM NO.606E, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SMT. PARULBEN JAYANTILAL KOYANI, 6/731, KHARADI SHERI, MANCHHARPURA, GALEMANDI, SURAT PA NO. ALVPK 3118 M 2 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.1143/AHD/2007 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT, ROOM NO.606E, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SMT. PUSPABEN ARPUTANAND MISHRA, SIR J.J. SCHOOL COMPOUND, SHAHPORE, SURAT PA NO. AJKPM 8941 R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.1144/AHD/2007 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), SURAT, ROOM NO.606D, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SHRI JAYANTIBHAI HIRALAL KOYANI, 6/731 KHARADI SHERI, MANCHARPURA, MAHIDHARPURA, GALEMANDI, SURAT PA NO. ALVPK 3116 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.1145/AHD/2007 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), SURAT, ROOM NO.606D, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SMT. JAGRUTIBEN SHARABHAI PATEL, 19, JAGRUTI SOCIETY, STATION ROAD, SURAT PA NO. AKOPP 0955 H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 3 APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.1147/AHD/2007 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), SURAT, ROOM NO.606D, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SMT. JAYASHREEBEN KANCHANLAL RANA, 6/42, 90-91, 3 RD FLOOR, SUTHAR FALIA, GALEMANDI, SURAT -03 PA NO. AGLPR 1188 F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.2284/AHD/2007 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT, ROOM NO.606E, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SHRI RAMSWAROOP RAJULAL RAJPUT, 6/519, NAVA RAMDWARA MAIN ROAD, GALEMANDI, SURAT PA NO. AGLPR 1193 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.4260/AHD/2007 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3), SURAT, ROOM NO.616, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SMT. RENUKABEN N. PASTAGIA, B-45, JARALAM SOCIETY, NO.3 PARVATPATIA, TA; CHORYASI, SURAT PA NO. AKNPP 7682 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 4 APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR ITA NO.223/AHD/2008 A.Y.: 2001-02 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(4), SURAT, ROOM NO.419, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SHRI SUNILKUMAR YOGESHBHAI PATEL, 1, SHAKTI KRUPA CO-OP. SOCIETY, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT PA NO. AKGPP 6644 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR ITA NO.284/AHD/2008 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(3), SURAT, ROOM NO.420, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SHRI RITESHKUMAR YOGESHBHAI PATEL, 1, SHAKTI KRUPA COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, VARACCHA ROAD, SURAT PA NO. AICPP 4404 B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR ITA NO.2061/AHD/2008 A.Y.: 1999-2000 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(4), SURAT, ROOM NO.613, 6 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SMT. SARJUBEN KISHORBHAI PATEL, 6/127, KHARADISHERI, MAHIDHARPURA, SURAT PA NO. AKLPP 7281 R 5 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY NONE ITA NO.2079/AHD/2008 A.Y.: 2001-02 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 9(1), SURAT, ROOM NO.422, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT VS SMT. DAXABEN YOGESHBHAI PATEL, 1, SHANTIKRUPA COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, VARACHHA ROAD, SURAT PA NO. AIPR 8842 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI ABHISHEK KUMAR, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR DATE OF HEARING: 26-12-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29-12-2011 O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS ORDER SHALL DISPOSE OF ALL THE ABOVE DEPARTME NTAL APPEALS WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED ON THE SAME GROUNDS O F APPEALS ON IDENTICAL ISSUE. IT IS STATED THAT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE IT ACT WERE INITIATED ON VERIFICATION OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, CHAR TERED ACCOUNTANT WHERE BALANCE SHEETS OF NUMBERS OF PERSONS WERE FOUND. ON VERIFICATION OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IT WAS FOUND THAT IN CERTAIN CASES BOGUS CAPITAL FORMATION EITHER BY CREDITING GIFTS OR BY INCREASING THE OPENING BALANC E OF CAPITAL ACCOUNTS HAS BEEN DONE. THE ASSESSEES WERE ONE OF SUCH PERSONS AND ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEALS IT WAS REVEALED THAT THERE WAS INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. THE AO ON ACCOU NT OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION RECEIVED FROM DDIT (INV.) SURAT DULY REC ORDED THE REASONS FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS. HOWEVER, THE NOTICES U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT WERE 6 NOT COMPLIED WITH AND DUE TO NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITU DE OF THE ASSESSEE, REASSESSMENTS U/S 144 / 147 OF THE IT ACT WERE MADE MAKING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT AS WELL AS ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS U/S 68 OF THE IT AC T IN THE FORM OF BOGUS GIFTS. THE ADDITIONS WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A) WHO HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS. THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS AS ABOVE. 2. THE LEARNED DR MAINLY ARGUED THE DEPARTMENTAL A PPEAL IN ITA NO.1137/AHD/2007 IN THE CASE OF REKHABEN NITINKUMAR CHABUKSAWAR AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN ALL THE RE MAINING CASES. THE LEARNED DR HEAVILY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITT ED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DANAWALA, CHARTERED AC COUNTANT BALANCE SHEETS OF NUMBERS OF PERSONS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEES WERE FOU ND WHICH REVEALED THAT THERE WAS A BOGUS CAPITAL FORMATION BY CREDITING GI FTS OR BY INCREASING THE OPENING BALANCE OF CAPITAL ACCOUNTS. HE HAS SUBMITT ED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT AND NO CLARIFICATION IS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ADDITIONS WERE RIGHTLY MADE U/ S 69 OF THE IT ACT AS WELL AS U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION BECAUSE ADDITION COULD BE MAD E ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER I. E. THE BALANCE SHEETS. THE LEARNED DR HOWEVER, S TATED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IT IS NOT CLEAR IF ANY BALANCE SHEET FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SURVEY FROM THE POSSESSION OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, CHARTERED A CCOUNTANT WAS USED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT ISSUE IS IDENTICAL IN ALL THE CASES AS HAVE BEEN ARGUED IN THE CASE OF SMT. REKHABEN NITIN KUMAR CHABUKSAWAR. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF SOME OF THE ASSESSEES. THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD IN THEIR CASES HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. SHRI M. K.PATEL, ADVOCATE REPRESENTED SOME OF THE A SSESSEES MENTIONED ABOVE AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEAR NED CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEES HAVE NOT FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOM E AND HAVE NOT USED ANY BALANCE SHEET FOR ANY PURPOSE FOUND FROM THE PREMIS ES OF SHRI PANKAJ 7 DANAWALA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT. HE HAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE BALANCE SHEETS WERE LOOSE AND WERE NOT SIGNED BY ANYBODY; THEREFOR E, SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ASSESSEES HAVE NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREFORE, ADDITIONS U/S 69 AND U/S 68 OF THE IT AC T WERE RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). HE HAS RELIED UPON ORDER OF ITAT, A HMEDABAD A BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO VS BABUBHAI KANJIBHAI PATEL, HUF IN ITA NO. 342 AND 4293/AHD/2007 DATED 26-03-2010 IN WHICH ON IDENTICA L FACTS DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL HAS BEEN DISMISSED. 4. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT DECISION IN TH E CASE OF SMT. REKHABEN NITINKUMAR CHABUKSAWAR MAY BE FOLLOWED IN OTHER CAS ES. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL OF A LL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, WE TAKE THE FACTS FROM THE CASE OF SMT. REKHABEN NITINKUMAR CHABUKSAWAR WHICH HAS BEEN ARGUED IN DETAIL BY THE LEARNED DR. DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. REKHABEN NI TINKUMAR CHABUKSAWAR 6. IN THIS CASE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION O F ADDITION OF RS.13,84,839/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT AND FURTHER CHALLENGED DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.2,47,796/- AN D INTEREST OF RS.48,730/- U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. 7. BRIEFLY THE FACTS ARE AS NOTED ABOVE ARE THAT SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED U/S 133A ON THE PREMISES OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHEREIN A NUMBERS OF BALANCE SHEETS PERTAINING TO VARIOUS PER SONS WERE FOUND AND IT WAS SEEN THAT THERE WAS HUGE OPENING CAPITAL WHICH WAS UTILIZED IN ADVANCING LOANS TO VARIOUS PERSONS AND INVESTMENTS IN IMMOVABLE PRO PERTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA ADMITTED THAT HE RE SORTED TO TWO METHODS OF CREATING BOGUS CAPITAL I.E. MANIPULATION OF OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE AND SHOWING BOGUS GIFTS AND INTEREST ON LOANS. THE MODUS OPERAN DI WAS OF CREATING BOGUS 8 CAPITAL AND INTEREST INCOME FROM EARLIER YEAR AS A RESULT OF WHICH, HUGE OPENING CAPITAL WAS CREATED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION . THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF T HE IT ACT AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE IT ACT AND SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHE D REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE, AO WAS LEFT WITH NO ALTERN ATIVE BUT TO TREAT THE ENTIRE OPENING CAPITAL, INTEREST CREDITED TO THE CAPITAL A CCOUNT AND THE ALLEGED GIFTS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT. FURTH ER ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT BECAUSE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE N ATURE AND SOURCE OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT AS ALSO THE CAPITAL BALANCE. IT WAS SUBM ITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE AO TREATED THE OPENING CAPITAL BALA NCE, INTEREST ON LOAN AND GIFTS AS UNEXPLAINED U/S 68 AND U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT BUT THE SAME WOULD NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD N OT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND SINCE NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAIN TAINED, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF FINLEY CORPORATION L TD., 86 ITD 626, OMPRAKASH & CO., ITA NO.1143/1996 OF ITAT MUMBAI AND SMT. SHANT ADEVI, 171 ITR 532 (PUNJAB & HARYANA).IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SI NCE THE SAID ITEMS OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET WERE BOGUS AND FICTITIOUS AND EXISTED ONLY ON PAPERS AND NO BENEFIT OR INCOME HAD ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSE E, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD DELETED THE ADDITION. HIS FI NDINGS ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SEC. 68 OF THE I. T. ACT IN ORDER TO MAKE THE ADDITIONS. AS PER THE S ECTION, A SUM SHOULD BE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSE SSEE AND FOR INVOCATION OF THE PROVISION, CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BO OKS IS A MUST. THE TERM BOOK ORDINARILY MEANS A COLLECTION OF SHEETS OF P APERS OR OTHER MATERIAL, BLANK, WRITTEN OR PRINTED, FASTENED OR BOUND TOGETH ER SO AS TO FORM A MATERIAL WHOLE. LOOSE SHEETS OR SCRAP OF PAPERS CAN NOT BE TERMED AS BOOK FOR THIS CAN BE EASILY DETACHED AND REPLACED . THEREFORE, SPIRAL NOTE BOOKS AND SPIRAL PADS COULD BE REGARDED AS BOOKS, WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEC. 68 BUT NOT THE LOOSE SHEETS CONTAINED IN A FILE. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CE NTRAL BUREAU OF 9 INVESTIGATION VS. V. C. SHUKLA (1998) [3 SCC 410]. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE CREDITS ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND ONLY A LOOSE SHEET IN THE FORM OF THE BALANCE S HEET WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ON THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PAR TY, SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA. THESE SHEETS WERE UNSIGNED AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AND THEREF ORE, INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECT. 68 IS NOT IN ORDER. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED AND IS D IRECTED TO BE DELETED. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY PLEA DED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH IN FACTS OF TH ESE CASES ARE THE PRE- CONDITION FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 68 AND U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT. SHRI M.K. PATEL, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SOME OF THE ASSESSEES POINTED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATEMENT OF FACTS THAT THEIR ASSESSEES HAVE NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THEM TO FILE OR TO USE THE BALANCE SHEET ALLEGEDLY PREPARED BY SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT. IN THE REMAINING CASES, LEARNED DR STATED THAT IN THE REASSESSMENT O RDERS IT IS NOT CLEAR IF ANY ALLEGED BALANCE SHEETS FOUND IN SURVEY FROM SHRI PA NKAJ DANAWALA WERE USED BY THE ASSESSEES AT ANY POINT OF TIME. IT WOULD, THERE FORE, MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO MATERIAL IS BROUGHT ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT THE BAL ANCE SHEETS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWAL WERE AT ALL FILED ALONG WITH ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT MAINTAINED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE BALANCE SHEETS FOUND FROM SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WERE UNSIGNED AND THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN USED BY THE ASSESSEES. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA WAS NOT CORROBORATED THROUGH ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDEN CE AND NO COMPLICITY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND FOR INDULGING IN PREPARATION OF ANY BOGUS BALANCE SHEET. NO ENTRIES OF INCREASE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR GIFTS WER E FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE AO MERELY MADE THE ADDIT IONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES ON ASSUMPTION OF CERTAIN FACTS WHICH WERE NOT PART OF RECORD. THE AO HAS NOT 10 BROUGHT ANY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO JUSTIF Y HIS CONCLUSION FOR MAKING ADDITIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES. 9. ITAT AHMEDABAD A BENCH IN THE CASE OF BABUBHA I KANJIBHAI PATEL, HUF (SUPRA) DISMISSED THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS IN WHICH THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS OF THE SIMILAR NATURE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON, THE ENTRIES MADE BY SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WAS NOT SUPPOR TED BY ANY INDEPENDENT CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE SO AS TO ESTABLISH THEIR GEN UINENESS AND THAT SHRI PANKAJ DANAWALA, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT ADMITTED TO HAVE CRE ATED THE ACCOUNTS HIMSELF AND THE COMPLICITY OF THE ASSESSEES IN SUCH CREATIO N WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LEARN ED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. THIS ORDER CLEARLY SUPPORT THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS. 10. WE FURTHER FIND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ORDE R DATED 30-04-2010 OF ITAT A BENCH IS ALSO PLACED ON RECORD IN WHICH GROUP APPEA LS OF THE DEPARTMENT HAVE BEEN DECIDED IN THE CASES OF ITO VS MISS MONA VIRAT TRIVEDI ETC. IN ITA NO.343/AHD/2007 ETC. IN WHICH ALSO THE TRIBUNAL ON THE IDENTICAL MATTER DISMISSED ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS. THE SAME WO ULD ALSO APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THESE CASES. 11. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITIONS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND CONFIRM HIS FINDINGS AND DISMISS THE DEP ARTMENTAL APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN ITA 1 137/AHD/2007 IN THE CASE OF SMT. REKHABEN NITINKUMAR CHABUKSAWAR IS DISMISSED. REMAINING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS 11 13. THE ISSUE AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS IN REM AINING DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE SAME. BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT . REKHABEN NITINKUMAR CHABUKSAWAR (SUPRA), THE REMAINING DEPARTMENTAL APP EALS ARE DISMISSED. 14. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER 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, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD