Shri Kamleshbhai C.Patel, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-7, Ahmedabad

ITA 1141/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0853 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BIPUL B KHAMDHAR
• Keywords: Value adopted by valuation officer; Capital asset; Fair market value; Speculation loss; Corroborative evidences; Valuation report
• Section: 68; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA. NOS: 1141 TO 1146/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI KAMLESHBHAI C. PATEL 17, SUBHADRA COLONY B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. ARUPP7028A SHRI KUNAL KAMLESHBHAI PATEL 17, SUBHADRA COLONY B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. ARUPP7029B SHRI CHIRAG KAMLESHBHAI PATEL 17, SUBHADRA COLONY B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. ARUPP7029B SHRI DINESH BALDEVBHAI PATEL 17/18, AWASKUNJ SOCIETY, B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. AOUPP3730J V/S V/S V/S V/S CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 2 SHRI VIPUL BALDEVBHAI PATEL 17/18, AWASKUNJ SOCIETY, B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. AOUPP3731K SHRI VIPUL BALDEVBHAI PATEL 17/18, AWASKUNJ SOCIETY, B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. AOUPP3729D V/S V/S CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA. NOS: 1197 TO 1199/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI HARDIK MUKESHBHAI PATEL B-108, FALGUN SOCIETY SOCIETY, B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. ASSPP9149B SHRI SAVAN MUKESHBHAI PATEL B-108, FALGUN SOCIETY SOCIETY, B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. ASSPP9148A SHRI MUKESHBHAI M. PATEL B-108, FALGUN SOCIETY SOCIETY, B/H. JODHPUR GAM SATELLITE, AHMEDABAD380054 PAN NO. AMQPP2535H V/S V/S V/S CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD CIT, (APPEALS)-XIV, AHMEDABAD ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 3 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BIPUL B. KHAMDHAR, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAMES KURIAN, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 22-07-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 -08-2016 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THE CAPTIONED BUNCH OF APPEALS ARE BY DIFFERENT ASS ESSEES BELONGING TO THE SAME FAMILY HAVE COMMON ISSUES, THEREFORE, A LL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON GRIEVANCE OF ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED ASSE SSEES RELATE TO THE DETERMINATION OF THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01 .04.1981 BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS. 150 PER SQ. YD. AS AGAINST RS. 250 PE R SQ. YD. TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF THE RESPECTIVE SCRUTINY ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON THE SALE OF PLOT OF LAND. THE A.O NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEES HAVE ADOPTED THE VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981 AS DETERMINED BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER AT RS. 250 PER SQ. YD. ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 4 4. THE A.O. WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE VALUE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REASONS FURNISHED BY THE GOVERNMENT REGISTE RED APPROVED VALUER DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE IN THE YEAR 1981. TH E A.O., THEREFORE, REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFIC ER, AHMEDABAD TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE IMPUGNED PRO PERTY AS ON 01.04.1981. 5. THE DVO SENT HIS REPORT AND ESTIMATED THE FMV OF TH E IMPUGNED PROPERTY @ 94.51 PER SQ. YD. 6. THE DVOS REPORT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS ASKED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY THE DVO SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN. ON RECEIVING NO PLAUSIBLE REPLY, THE A.O. PR OCEEDED BY ADOPTING THE FMV OF THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY AS ON 01.04.1981 A T RS. 94.51 AND RE-COMPUTED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE RESPE CTIVE HANDS. 7. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND REITERATED ITS CLAIM OF FAIR MARKET VALUE AT RS. 250 PER SQ. YD. A S VALUED BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE TWO VALUATION REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER THE VALUATI ON DONE BY THE DVO AS APPROPRIATE BUT AT THE SAME TIME DID NOT ACCEPT THE VALUATION OF THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, WHILE FINDING SOME FORC E IN THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED AS UNDER:- THE REGISTERED VALUER OF APPELLANT HAS GIVEN RATIO NALE IN ITS APPROACH TOWARDS VALUATION OF PROPERTY AS ON 01/04/1981 AND QUOTED S IX SALE INSTANCES, THE HIGHEST BEING RS. I50/- PER SQ. YD. HOWEVER, DURING REBUTTA L HE HAS GONE OVERBOARD TO QUOTE TWO INSTANCES I.E. RS. 777.78 AND RS. 1133.33 /- PER SQ. YD. WHICH APPEAR TO ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 5 ME MORE AS EXCEPTION THAN THE RULE. !T APPEARS AS I F SPECIAL EFFORTS TO DIG OUT EXCEPTION WAS MADE BY REGISTERED VALUER ON BEHALF O F APPELLANT(S) TO CONFUSE THE DEPARTMENT. ALSO, THE AO IS IGNORANT ABOUT ANY SUCH SECOND REPOPT TILL THE FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT(S) IN THE SECOND SET OF GROUP ASSESSEES (7). 9. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS GROUP OF CASES HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT B Y ADOPTING THE VALUATION AS UNDER:- SL. NO. NAME OF GROUP ASSESSEE VALUATION PER SQ. YARD DETERMINED BY AO IN ASSESSMENT ORDER (RS.) VALUATION CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME (RS.) 1 MUKESH M. PATEL 148.05 250 2 SAVAN M. PATEL 148.05 250 3 VIPUL PATEL 94.51 250 4 BALDEVBHAI M. PATEL 94.51 250 5 CHIRAG C. PATEL 94.51 250 6 DINESH B. PATEL 94.51 250 7 HARDIK M. PATEL 94.51 250 KAMLESH PATEL 94.51 250 9 KRUNAL PATEL 94.51 250 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DIFFERENT APPROACH OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICERS FOR THE SAME SET OF PROPERTIES, THE LD. CIT(A) CONC LUDED AS UNDER:- IN VIEW OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE AS ANALYZED ABOVE, IT IS MY OPINION THAT THE AO OF SHRI MUKESHBHAI M. PATEL / S HRI SAVAN M. PATEL HAS TAKEN A JUDICIOUS DECISION OF DETERMINING THE VALUE PER S Q. YD. AT THE HIGHEST SALE INSTANCE QUOTED BY REGISTERED VALUER OF THE APPELLA NT. THEREFORE, I DECIDE THAT THE VALUE PER SQ. YD. AS ON 01/04/1981 TO BE TAKEN AT R S. 150. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 6 RE-COMPUTE THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWED. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEES ARE BEFORE US. 12. ALTHOUGH, THE REVENUE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BE FORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT REFERENCE TO THE DVO IS BAD IN LAW AS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE A.O. HAD NO AUTHORITY TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO FOR DETERM INING THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS ON 01.04.1981. THE LD. COUNSEL FURT HER STATED THAT THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WELL SUPPORTED BY A REPORT OF GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER AND THE SAME SHOULD BE A CCEPTED. 13. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FIN DINGS OF THE A.O. 14. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E VALUATION REPORT. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER, LET US, CONSIDER THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 55A OF THE ACT. REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER. 55A. WITH A VIEW TO ASCERTAINING THE FAIR MARKET VA LUE OF A CAPITAL ASSET FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER M AY REFER THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSET TO A VALUATION OFFICER- (A)IN A CASE WHERE THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ESTIMATE MADE BY A REGISTERED V ALUER, IF THE ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 7 [ASSESSING] OFFICER IS OF OPINION THAT THE VALUE SO CLAIMED [IS AT VARIANCE WITH ITS FAIR MARKET VALUE]; (B) IN ANY OTHER CASE, IF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER I S OF OPINION- (I) THAT THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE ASSET EXCEEDS THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BY MORE THAN SUCH PERCENTAG E OF THE VALUE OF THE ASSET AS SO CLAIMED OR BY MORE THAN SUCH AMOUNT AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED IN THIS BEHALF; OR (II) THAT HAVING REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE ASSET AND OTHER RELEVANT CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS NECESSARY SO TO DO, AND WHERE ANY SUCH REFERENCE IS MADE, THE PROVISION S OF SUB-SECTION (2), (3), (4), (5) AND (6) OF SECTION 16A, CLAUSES (HA) AND (I) OF SUB-SECTION (1) AND SUB-SECTIONS (3A) AND (4) OF SECTION 23, SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECT ION 24, SECTION 34AA, SECTION 35 AND SECTION 37 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1 957), SHALL WITH THE NECESSARY MODIFICATIONS, APPLY IN RELATION TO SUCH REFERENCE AS THEY APPLY IN RELATION TO A REFERENCE MADE BY THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 16A OF THE ACT. EXPLANATION- IN THIS SECTION, VALUATION OFFICER H AS THE SAME MEANING, AS IN CLAUSE (R) OF SECTION 2 OF THE WEALTH-TAX ACT, 1957 (27 OF 1957).] 86. SUBSTITUTED FOR IS LESS THAN ITS FAIR MARKET V ALUE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, W.E.F. 01.07.2012. 15. A PERUSAL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SECTION CLEARLY SHO WS THAT THE AMENDMENT IS WITH EFFECT FROM 01.07.2012, THEREFORE , IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT DOES NOT HAVE A R ETROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND ACCORDINGLY NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESS MENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION , THE REFERENCE TO THE DVO IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AND THE DVOS REP ORT IS VOID AB INITIO. ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 8 16. COMING BACK TO THE VALUATION REPORT OF THE GOVERNME NT APPROVED VALUER, THE COMPARABLE CASES CONSIDERED BY THE VALU ER WITH RESPECTIVE VALUATION IS AS UNDER:- SR. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT AREA RATE REG. DATE REMARK S NO. SUR. NO. /F.P. NO. RS. SQ. YDS. RS. NO. & DATE 1 SUR. NO. 510/1/P, PLOT NO. 42 30,000/- 200 150/- 9009 31-07-79 OPEN LAND 2 SUR. NO. 1163/2/A & 1163/1/S, S.P. NOS. 5 & 9 73290/- 1047 70/- 1985 28-01-80 OPEN LAND 3 SUR. NO. 1334/P 43,250/- 723.24 59.80 4598 19-03- 80 OPEN LAND 4 SUR. NO. 314/1/1 74052/- 731.60 101.22 1816 20-02-81 OPEN LAND 5 SUR. NO. 271/1/P, 44935/- 303.51 148.05 3954 05-08-81 OPEN LAND 6 SUR. NO. 314/1/1 176400/- 3000 58.80 2385, 17-02-83 OPEN LAND 7 SUR. NO. 520/1/P 70000 90 777.78 7293 18-07-80 8 SUR. NO. 520/1/P 51000 45 1133.33 2935 20-04-81 17. INTERESTINGLY, THE COMPARABLES REFERRED TO AT SERIA L NOS. 1 TO 6 WERE PART OF THE MAIN VALUATION REPORT AND COMPARAB LES AT SERIAL NO. 7 & 8 WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSEE. IF, TH E AVERAGE OF THE COMPARABLES AT SERIAL NOS. 1 TO 6 IS TAKEN INTO CON SIDERATION, THE SAME COMES TO 97.97 RS. PER SQ. YD. ITEMS AT SERIAL NO. 7 & 8 SHOW EXCEPTIONALLY HIGH VALUES WHICH MAY BE FOR SOME EXC EPTIONAL CASES AND CAN BE SAFELY IGNORED. CONSIDERING THIS AVERAGE OF 97.97 RS. PER SQ. YD. WITH THE VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IN T HE CASE OF SHRI MUKESH M. PATEL & SHRI SAVAN M. PATEL AT RS. 148.0 5 PER SQ. YD., THE RATE ADOPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS. 150 PER SQ. Y D. APPEARS TO BE JUDICIOUS AND FACTUALLY APPROPRIATE. ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 9 18. CONSIDERING THE VALUATION CHART EXHIBITED ELSEWHERE IN THE LIGHT OF THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY RE ASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE COMMON GRIEVANC E IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS BY ALL THE APPELLANTS IS DISMISSED. IN THE CASE OF KAMLESHBHAI C. PATEL IN ITA NO. 1141 /AHD/2013 19. ANOTHER GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE NO N ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME AND TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 20. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY ITS CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE INCOM E OF RS. 1,39,882/-. 21. ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS/PROOF IN RESPE CT OF THE AGRICULTURE INCOME OF RS. 1,39,882/-. THE A.O. WAS LEFT WITH NO CHOICE BUT TO TREAT THE SAME AS CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 IN THE GARB OF EXEMPT AGRICULTURE INCOME. 22. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) B UT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT NO PROOF WAS EVEN SUBMITTED DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN SPITE OF OPPORTUNITY BEING GIVEN. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD OF LAND HOLDING/SALE OF AGRICULTURE PRODUCE, THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. WERE CONFIRMED. 23. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE QU ANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL HOLDING NOR COULD BRING ANY EVIDENCE T O SHOW THAT THERE WERE AGRICULTURE PRODUCE WHICH WERE SOLD. IN THE AB SENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCES, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE. ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 10 IN THE CASE OF SHRI BALDEVBHAI MAFATBHAI PATEL IN I TA NO. 1146/AHD/2013 24. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 49,345/-. 25. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE A.O NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS. 1,19,507/- AND RS. 76,382/- RESPECTIVELY FROM SHARE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE SAME AND PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES IN RELATION TO THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS. ON RECEIVING NO REPLY/EVIDENCES/DETAILS, THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE CL AIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS AND LONG TERM CAPITAL LOSS AND MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,19,507/-. 26. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) A ND SUBMITTED LEDGER ACCOUNT, COPY OF MAGNUM EQUITY BROKING LIMIT ED GIVING DATE WISE DETAILS OF JOURNAL ENTRIES AND ALSO SUBMITTED DETAILED CHART OF TRANSACTIONS. 27. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT ENTRIES RELATING TO THE TRANSACTI ONS DONE IN RELIANCE COMMUNICATION AND TATA MOTORS DO NOT FIND PLACE IN THE ACCOUNT COPY OF MAGNUM EQUITY BROKING LTD. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHE R OBSERVED THAT IN THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS NEITHER ANY DELIVERY WAS TAK EN PLACE NOR THERE IS ANY EVIDENCE IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A ) WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS WERE NOTHING BUT SPECULATION LOSS WHICH COULD BE SET OFF ONLY AGAINST SPECULATION PRO FIT. THE LD. CIT(A) ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 11 ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 49234.43. 28. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 29. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT POINT OU T ANY FACTUAL ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. D. R. STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 30. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT OF SHORT TE RM CAPITAL GAINS CONSIDERED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND WHI CH IS AS UNDER:- STATEMENT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN U/S. 111A SR. NO. COMPANYS NAME NO. OF SHARE DATE OF SALE SALE PRICE NO. OF SHARE DATE OF PURCHASE PURCHASE PRICE NORMAL PROFIT/LOSS 1 AFTEK LTD. 300 28.08.2008 11916.00 300 29.05.200 8 14108.07 -2192.07 50 16.04.2008 2636.41 50 29.02.2008 2668.39 -31.9 8 2 DLF LTD. 50 23.07.2008 22392.15 50 29.05.2008 29 706.50 -7314.35 25 08.09.2008 12748.88 25 21.08.2008 12537.15 211 .73 50 01.12.2008 9781.05 50 15.09.2008 24168.00 -143 86.95 10 10.12.2998 2110.00 10 18.09.2008 4078.13 -1968 .13 20 10.12.2008 4220.37 20 01.10.2008 7552.50 -3332 .13 3 HIMACHAL FUTURISTI 100 10.04.2008 1981.04 100 13. 03.2008 1973.72 7.32 500 19.12.2008 4630.00 500 07.02.2008 15230.90 -1 0600.90 500 02.12.2008 3265.00 500 01.10.2008 6042.00 -27 77.00 500 02.12.2008 6905.32 500 08.10.2008 4885.00 -16 20.90 4 ICICI BANKING 20 02.12.2008 6905.32 20 18.09.200 8 11832.00 -4926.68 20 02.12.2008 69.05.32 20 01.10.2008 11479.80 -45 74.48 10 11.02.2009 4240.77 10 19.01.2009 4066.26 174.9 1 20 11.02.2009 8481.54 20 23.01.2009 7552.50 929.0 4 60 25.03.2009 20159.59 60 25.02.2009 22548.74 -23 89.15 25 25.03.209 8399.83 25 25.02.2009 8735.72 -335.8 9 ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 12 5 LARSEN & TUBRO 10 10.12.2008 7308.48 10 08.10.20 08 4924.62 -1469.98 6 MRF LTD. 5 08.08.2009 17005.12 5 08.02.2008 2365 7.45 -6652.33 7 OIL & NATURAL GAS 5 02.12.2008 3454.64 5 08.10.2 008 4924.62 -1469.98 8 RELIANCE CAPITAL 10 10.12.2008 4580.46 10 21.11. 2008 4592.32 -12.46 30 25.03.3009 9729.41 30 25.02.2009 11626.94 -189 6.91 9 RELIANCE COMMUNICATION 1105 31.03.2009 491907.82 1105 31.03.2009 541262.94 -49355.12 10 TATA LOM & STEEL 10 13.02.2009 1886.70 10 08.10 .2008 3474.15 -1587.45 10 25.03.3009 1822.64 10 28.01.2009 1676.15 146.4 9 11 TATA MOTORS 20 11.02.2009 2820.12 20` 23.01.200 9 2898.30 -78.18 30 16.02.2009 4279.33 30 23.01.2009 4347.44 -68.1 1 5 17.03.2009 814.26 5 17.03.009 60093.57 120.69 12 WALCHANCNADGRINDS 100 24.03.2009 8602.65 100 25.02.2009 8999.31 -396. 66 13 ZEE NEWS LTD. 50 19.12.2008 1807.26 50 31.01.200 8 3381.29 1574.03 14 SATYAM COMPUTER 200 31.01.2009 10923.00 200 12. 01.2009 8861.60 2061.40 TOTAL SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (119507. 23) 31. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE FOLLOWING TRANSACTIONS HAV E BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AS SPECULATIVE TRANSAC TION. SR. NO. COMPANYS NAME NO. OF SHARE DATE OF SALE SALE PRICE NO. OF SHARE DATE OF PURCHASE PURCHASE PRICE NORMAL PROFIT/LOS 1 RELIANCE COMMUNICATIO N 1105 31.03.2009 491907.82 1105 31.03.2009 541262.94 -49355.12 2 TATA MOTORS 5 17.03.2009 814.26 5 17.03.2009 60093.57 120.69 TOTAL SPECULATION LOSS 49234.43 32. A PERUSAL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CHART, IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY RELATED DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES MAKES THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FACTUALLY CORRECT. THEREFORE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFE RE. GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 13 33. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF AGRICULTUR E INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 34. WE HAVE CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE IN THE CASE O F SHRI KAMLESHBHAI C. PATEL (SUPRA). FOR OUR DETAILED DISC USSION THEREIN, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CI T(A). GROUND NO. 3 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. IN THE CASE OF MUKESHBHAI M. PATEL IN ITA NO. 119 9/AHD/2013 35. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,376/ - 36. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E A.O. FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INSURANCE EXPENSES OF RS. 11,776/- AND MAINTENANCE CHARGES OF RS. 2,000/-. THE ASSESSEE WA S ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THE ONLY REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCU RRED FOR CARRYING OUT THE BUSINESS. HOWEVER, NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WERE FURNISHED. THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 13,376/-. 37. WHEN THE MATTER WAS AGITATED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE W ITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED RS. 2, 000/- AS ALLOWABLE AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS. 11,776/- 38. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 39. EVEN, BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT FURNISH ANY SUPPORTIVE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ITS C LAIM OF EXPENDITURE. ITA NOS. 114 1 TO 1146 AND ITA NOS. 119 7 TO 1199/AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2009-10 14 THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE W ITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). GROUND NO. 2 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISS ED. 40. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE TREATMENT OF AGRICULTUR E INCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 41. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY US IN THE CASE OF SHRI KAMLESHBHAI C. PATEL IN ITA NO. 1141/AHD/2013 (SUPR A) QUA GROUND NO. 3 OF THAT APPEAL. FOR OUR DETAILED DISCUSSION T HEREIN, THIS GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 42. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 09- 08 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (S.K. YADAV) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD