Shri Ajay Jaysukhlal Mehta, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT, Circle-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 1329/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5306 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-09-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MUDIT NAGPAL HEARING CONCLUDE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1329/AHD/2014 AJAY JAYSUKHLAL MEHTA VS. ACIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] ITA NO.1329/AHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 AJAY JAYSUKHLAL MEHTA ....... ..... APPELLANT PROP. OF JAY JEWELLERS, 116, SUPER MALL, NR. LAL BUNGLOW, CG ROAD, AHMEDABAD [PAN: AAFPM 9793 D] VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ..................... RESPONDENT CIRCLE-10, AHMEDABAD APPEARANCES BY ASEEM L THAKKAR , FOR THE APPELLANT MUDIT NAGPAL , FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 02.07.2018 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 28.09.2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, AM: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY 2014 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER O F ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THAT , ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,64,955, AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT, BEING AMOUNT S TRANSFERRED TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF M/S. JAY JEWELLERS BY THE APPELLANT DE SPITE SPECIFIC FINDINGS, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE REMAND REPORT GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 3. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A RATHER NARROW COMP ASS OF MATERIAL FACTS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICE R NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SOLE PROPRIETOR OF JAY JEWELLERS AND HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT SHOWED CREDIT OF RS.1,85,64,955 BUT CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS PERSONAL AC COUNTS, REFLECTED CLOSING BALANCE OF ONLY RS.43,16,557. THE CREDIT ENTRY OF RS.1,85,64, 955 WAS THUS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED, AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTI ON 68. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING SEPARATE SET OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR H IMSELF, AS DISTINCT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF HIS SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN JAY JEW ELLERS. THEREFORE, IN SUBSTANCE, COMPARISON OF HIS PERSONAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT WITH THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF JEWELLERS WAS MEANINGLESS; WHAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SEEN WAS THE ACC OUNTS OF JAY JEWELLERS IN HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT VIS-A-VIS HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN T HE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN. IN RESPONSE TO THE SUBMISSIONS, WHICH INCLUDED ABOVE P LEA AS WELL, THE MATTER WAS ITA NO. 1329/AHD/2014 AJAY JAYSUKHLAL MEHTA VS. ACIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 2 OF 5 REFERRED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO ACCEPTED THE PLEA AND, INTER ALIA, OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- AFTER DETAILED VERIFICATION OF THE CONTENTS FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FORWARDED ALONG WITH THE REMAND REPOT, THE FOLLOWIN G SITUATION EMERGED. THE OPENING BALANCE OF SHRI AJAY JAYSUKHLAL MEHT A IS RS. 11,74,233/- AND CLOSING BALANCE OF RS 2,33,87,956/-. EQUALLY, JAY JEWELLERS HAS CREDIT OF RS.11,74,23 3/- AND DEBIT OF RS.2,33,87,954/- THUS, RS. 2,33,87,954/- THE SAID AMOUNT BECAME A N ADVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PERSONAL BOOKS WHICH HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN T HE BALANCE SHEET UNDER ASSET WITH A MENTION OF BALANCES WITH PROPRIETARY J AY JEWELLERS OF RS.2,33,87,955/-. THUS THE SOURCES OF SUCH ALLEGED CAPITAL IN THE P ERSONAL BOOKS STANDS EXPLAINED 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEVERTHELESS, MADE SOME O THER OBSERVATIONS WITH RESPECT TO INADEQUACY OF CAPITAL, WHICH ARE NOT REALLY RELE VANT FOR THE PRESENT PURPOSES, AS FOLLOWS:- THE ASSESSEES BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2009 SHOWN A TOTAL OF RS.8,95,74,579/-.THE BALANCE IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT SHO WS IS RS.43,16.656/- WHEREAS UNSECURED LOANS CONSTITUTE RS. 8,52,58,022/ - WHICH OBVIOUSLY THE BALANCE SHEET AND LIABILITIES SIDE WITH THE PROPERTIES, FIXED ASSETS, INVESTMENTS, ADVANCE, DEPOSITS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS MENTIONED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THUS, RS.2,33,87,955/- WAS TREATED AS AN ADV ANCE WHICH WAS INVESTED OUT OF THE UNSECURED LOANS AND INCIDENTALLY THE BALANCE OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT SHOWN AT RS. 43,16,557/- WHICH INCLUDES THE RECEIPTS OCCURRE D DURING THE F.Y. LIKE DIRECT REMUNERATION OF RS.1,95,000/- AND PROFIT FROM PROPR IETARY CONCERN OF RS.36,74,590/-. IT IS DEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE CONVEN IENTLY DIVERTED ALL THE LOANS TOWARDS THE ADVANCES DEPOSITS, INVESTMENTS DIVERSIO N OF FUNDS HAS OCCURRED FOR ACCUMULATING THE ASSETS. SO IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FA CTS THE APPEAL MAY BE DECIDED ON THE MERITS BASED ON THE FACTS STATED ABO VE. 5. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE CIT(A) CONFIRME D THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,65,955 BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS:- 4.3 A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REMAND REPORT SHOW S THAT THE AO IS IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ORIGI NAL AO HAS POSSIBLY COMMITTED A MISTAKE OF UNDERSTANDING AND APPRECIATION OF FACTS WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE AO HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS N O DISCREPANCY IN THE CONTRA FIGURES APPEARING IN LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF JAY JEWELLE RS BEING PROPRIETARY BUSINESS OF AJAY S MEHTA AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF AJAY S MEHTA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE AO HAS HOWEVER ALSO INDICATED TOWARDS A DIVERSI ON OF FUNDS FROM ONE ENTITY TO ANOTHER. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE PECULIA R FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORDS, IT IS NOTED THAT THE VIEWS OF THE AO GIVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS B ASED UPON SOME MISUNDERSTANDING OF FACTS CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. IN TH E INSTANT CASE, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION U/S. 68 AS THE SOURCES OF CAPITAL INT RODUCTION OF RS.1,85,64,955/- IN THE BOOKS OF ONE JAY JEWELLERS BEING PROPRIETARY BU SINESS OF APPELLANT I.E. AJAY S ITA NO. 1329/AHD/2014 AJAY JAYSUKHLAL MEHTA VS. ACIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 3 OF 5 MEHTA REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. TRUE, THERE EXISTS SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES IN THE FIGURES ADOPTED BY THE AO HOWEVER THE SAME WOUL D NOT BE A GRAVE MISCONDUCT SO AS TO WARRANT DELETION OF THE ENTIRE ADDITION. IN THIS CASE THERE ARE TWO SETS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. THUS , ONE SET PERTAINS TO ONE JAY JEWELLERS WHICH IS PROPRIETARY BUSINESS OF APPE LLANT I.E. AJAY S MEHTA AND OTHER SET PERTAIN TO APPELLANT I.E. AJAY S MEHTA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. ON EXAMINATION AND CONSIDERATION OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD S, IT IS NOTED THAT THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT I.E. .AJAY S MEHTA IN HIS INDIVIDUAL C APACITY ARE BEING USED TO ACT AS A CONDUIT TO JUSTIFY TRANSACTIONS IN JAY JEWELLERS WHICH IS PROPRIETARY BUSINESS OF APPELLANT I.E. AJAY S MEHTA. THUS, CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF JAY JEWELLERS SHOWS INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL OF RS. 1,85.64,955/-. THE S OURCE OF THE SAME IS REPORTED TO BE FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF AJAY S MEHTA MAINTAI NED IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. THE BALANCE SHEET OF AJAY S MEHTA (INDL CAPACITY) A S ON 31-3-2009, SHOWS THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 8,52,58,022/- WAS RECEIVED AS UNSE CURED LOANS FROM VARIOUS SOURCES IN PRIVATE AND INSTITUTIONAL DOMAIN. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT OUT OF ABOVE AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,91,19,400/- WAS RECEIVED FR OM ONE SINGLE PRIVATE PERSON. THE HYPOTHESIS OF APPELLANT ACTUALLY ACTING AS A CONDUIT FOR SOMEBODY, IS FURTHER EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 8,52,58,022/- THERE ARE NO MAJOR INTER EST OUTGOINGS ON SUCH HUGE LOANS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS PERSONAL BOOKS. THUS, LOANS RECEIVED BY AJAY S MEHTA (INDL CAPACITY) WERE PARTLY DIVERTED TO BE SHOWN AS CAPITAL IN THE HANDS OF JAY JEWELLERS. 4.4 THE APPELLANT HAS ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO JUSTI FICATION FOR MAKING THE ADDITION SINCE THE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IN THE CASE OF JAY J EWELLERS WAS FULLY EXPLAINED. THE QUESTION WHICH HOWEVER REMAINS IS THAT DOES IT THAN ABSOLVE THE APPELLANT OF ANY ONUS U/S. 68 OR NOT. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT OF THIS CASE THAT JAY JEWELLERS AND AJAY J MEHTA ARE NOT TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES BUT ARE ONE AND SAME. HYPOTHETICALLY CONCEDING, FOR THE SAKE OF ARGUMENT ONLY, ON PRESEN T FACTS CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IN THE CASE OF JAY JEWELLERS, COULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AS GENUINE IF, AJAY S MEHTA WAS A SEPARATE TAXABLE ENTITY. SECTION 68 OF THE AC T PROVIDES THAT A CREDIT APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF AN ASSESSEE F OR WHICH NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE, SOURCE THEREOF IS OFFERED WOULD B E TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. NOW IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT JAY JEWELLERS BUT THE ASSESSEE IS APPELLANT I.E. AJAY J MEHTA. SINCE THE BUSINESS OF JAY JEWELLERS IS DONE BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PROPR IETARY CAPACITY THEREFORE THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO FURNISH TO THE A O ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES U/S.68. MERELY BY SAYING THAT THE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IN J AY JEWELLERS HAS COME FROM APPELLANTS INDIVIDUAL BOOKS WOULD NOT SUFFICE MORE SO BECAUSE THE APPELLANT WAS NOT HAVING REQUISITE OWN FUNDS IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN HIS PERSONAL CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE VERY FACT THAT THE C APITAL INTRODUCTION IN THE BOOKS OF JAY JEWELLERS IN REALITY RELATE TO A LOAN IN APP ELLANTS PERSONAL BOOKS MAKES THE APPELLANT LIABLE FOR SUBMISSION OF ALL THE INFORMAT ION AND EVIDENCES REQUIRED U/S.68. THUS, THE APPELLANT WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE ES TABLISHED THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IN RESPECT OF LOANS TAKEN IN THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT MAY TAKE ARGUMENT T HAT THE SAME WERE NEVER REQUIRED BY THE AO AND THAT HE MERELY ATTEMPTED TO INVESTIGATE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IN THE BOOKS OF JAY JEWELLERS. THIS AR GUMENT WOULD BE IRRELEVANT FOR TWO REASONS FIRSTLY, BECAUSE THE CREDITS INQUIRED B Y THE AO WERE LINKED TO LOANS OBTAINED IN PERSONAL CAPACITY AND HENCE THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SAME WAS UPON THE APPELLANT AND SECONDLY BECAUSE AO WAS MAKING TH E ASSESSMENT OF AJAY J MEHTA AND NOT JAY JEWELLERS. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FA CT OF RECORD THAT NO EVIDENCE ITA NO. 1329/AHD/2014 AJAY JAYSUKHLAL MEHTA VS. ACIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 4 OF 5 WHAT SO EVER HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT U/S . 68 IN RESPECT OF LOANS OF RS. 8,52,58,022/-, TO WHICH CAPITAL INTRODUCTION OF RS.1,85,65,955/-.IN THE CASE OF JAY JEWELLERS IS LINKED EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN CURING THE CURRENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,85,65,955/- REPRESENTS AN AMOUNT OF CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT WHICH REMAINS UNEXPLAINED WITHIN MEANINGS OF SECTION 68. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO OF RS.1,85,65,955/- U/S 68 REPRE SENTING UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRODUCTION IS CONFIRMED AND THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS THEREFORE DISMISSED. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 8. LET US FIRST UNDERSTAND THE CASE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. HIS SHORT POINT WAS THAT SINCE CAPITAL SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF JAY JEWELLERS DOES NOT FIND CORRESPONDING ENTRIES IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ARE IN FACT MUCH MORE THAN CAPITAL ACCOUNT CREDIT IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AND, THEREFORE, THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN THE ACCOUNTS OF JAY JEWELLERS STANDS UNEXPLAINED. THIS POINT, AS NOTED IN THE REMAND REPORT, IS FALLACIOUS . THE ASSESSEE HAS ONE SET OF ACCOUNTS FOR HIMSELF, AS AN INDIVIDUAL, AND THE OTH ER SET OF ACCOUNTS FOR HIS SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN, JAY JEWELLERS. IT IS INDEE D TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN ARE ONE UNIT SO FAR AS TAXAB ILITY UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS CONCERNED, BUT, VIEWED FROM THE ACCOUNTING PERSP ECTIVE, THE MAINTENANCE OF SUCH SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE PERFECTLY IN ORDER. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ACCOUNTS, AND CAPITA L ACCOUNT OF JAY JEWELLERS, IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE MIRROR IMAGE OF EACH OT HER AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRONEOUSLY EXPECTED THESE ACCOUNTS TO BE. THIS COM PARISON WAS INCORRECT. IN A SITUATION IN WHICH ASSESSEE AND ITS PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN ARE MAINTAINING SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS IN THE PRESENT CASE, AN ASSE SSEE MAY HAVE HIS OWN CAPITAL OF X AMOUNT, AND YET HIS CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF A PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN CAN BE MORE THAN X AMOUNT BECAUSE SUCH FUNDING OF CAPITAL CAN BE NOT ONLY OUT OF OWN CAPITAL BUT OUT OF OTHER AVAILABLE FUNDS AS WELL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE COMPARED THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE JAY JEWELLERS, WITH THE ACCOUNT OF JAY JEWELLERS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, ITS PROPRIETOR. WE HAV E COMPARED THESE TWO ACCOUNTS, WHICH ARE PLACED BEFORE US AT PAGE 5 AND 6 OF THE P APER BOOK, AND THESE TWO ACCOUNTS ARE ACTUALLY MIRROR IMAGES OF EACH OTHER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, AS RIGHTLY ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, TH E CAPITAL INTRODUCTION OF RS.1,85,65,955/- STANDS EXPLAINED IN THE BOOKS OF J AY JEWELLERS. 9. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS, HOWEVER, GIVEN IT A DIFFEREN T TWIST. HE HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS, IN HIS PERSONAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, AC CEPTED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.8,52,58,022/-, INCLUDING AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,91,19 ,400/- FROM HARSHAD JEWELLERS, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED THEI R IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF LOANS TAK EN IN THE PERSONAL ACCOUNT. THAT, HOWEVER, WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY REQUISITION IN RESPECT OF THE SAME WAS MADE AT THE ASSESSMENT OR APPELLATE STAGE. THE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68, IN SUCH A CASE, SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE FOR RS.8,52,5 8,022/-, AND NOT RS.1,85,65,955/- - AS IS THE SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE. WHAT IS B EFORE US IS THE ADDITION OF RS.1,85,65,955/- AND THAT CREDIT IS REASONABLY EXPL AINED AND EVEN ADMITTED TO BE SO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED CIT(A) HAS MENTIONE D ABOUT THE NEED OF VERIFICATION ITA NO. 1329/AHD/2014 AJAY JAYSUKHLAL MEHTA VS. ACIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAGE 5 OF 5 ABOUT THE CREDITORS OF RS.8,52,58,022/- BUT MADE NO ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME. IT CANNOT BE OPEN TO US TO ENLARGE THE SCOPE OF PROCEE DINGS AT THIS STAGE, OR DEAL WITH AN ASPECT IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO ADDITIONS ARE MADE. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION IMPUGNED IN THIS APPEAL IS CONCERNED, AND THAT IS WHAT WE ARE C ONCERNED WITH, IT IS EXPLAINED AND WE DELETE THE RELATED ADDITIONS OF RS.1,85,65,955/-. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND BEARING I N MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.1,85,65,955/-. AS WE DO SO, WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT LEARNED COUNSEL HAS FILED COPIES OF CONFIRMATIONS I N RESPECT OF RS.8,52,58,022/- AND POINTED OUT HOW ALL THIS MATERIAL WAS DULY SUBMITTE D AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, BUT THEN WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO DEAL WITH THE SAME ON MERITS AT THIS STAGE. WE LEAVE IT AT THAT. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED.. PRONOUNC ED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEM BER) DATED: 28 TH SEPTEMBER, 2018 BT* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF TAKING DICTATION: ORDER PREPARED AS PE R 8 PAGES MANUSCRIPTS OF HONBLE AM, WHICH ARE ATTA CHED 28.09.2018 2. DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACED BEFORE THE DI CTATING MEMBER: 28.09.2018.. 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.: .........28.09.2018.................... ... 4. DT. ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: ......28.09.20 18...... 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK:.. .....28.09.2018............... 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: ..... 7. THE DT. ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASTT. REGISTR AR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: .................. ....... 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ................. .......