ITO, Ward-3(3)(10), Ahmedabad V. Haresh Dahyalal Modi-HUF, Ahmedabad

ITA 1334/AHD/2018

AI Insights

The case involves two appeals by the Revenue against Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF concerning reassessment orders for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12. The primary issue was the treatment of unsecured loans as non-genuine transactions under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, leading to additions of Rs. 4.25 crores and Rs. 4.05 crores for the respective years, along with disallowances of interest expenses. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted these additions, a decision which the Tribunal upheld, citing the assessee's provision of adequate evidence and the lack of independent verification by the Assessing Officer.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114241 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 24-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2018
• Other Referred Cases: Jute Corporation of India Ltd. - 187 ITR 688 (SC), CIT VIS RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA - 208 Taxmann 35, DCIT v. Rohini Builders - 256 ITR 360 (Guj), CIT vs. Dharamdev Finance Pvt. Ltd. - 43 Taxmann 395 (Guj), Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT - 280 ITR 512 (Guj), CIT VS Pragati Co-op Bank Ltd. - 278 ITR 170 (Guj), CIT VS Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. - 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT vs. Sanjay K. Thakkar - Tax Appeal Nos 524 of 2004, 525 and 526 of 2004 and 579 to 583 of 2003, ITO Vs Kailpar Credit & Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. - ITA No.421/Ahd/2008, Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji - 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj), CIT Vs. Shri Mahavir Crimpers - [2018] 95 taxmann.com 323 (Guj), ITO Vs. Shanti Enterprise - [2016] 71 taxmann.com 275
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries; TDS
• Section: 68; 148; 143(3); 251; 208

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “C” BENCH Before: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member And Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar, Judicial Member Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(10), Ahmedabad (Appellant) Vs Haresh Dahyalal Modi- HUF, Prop.: Amba Corporation, 13 Shreedhar Bungalow, Nr. Auda Garden, Opp. Pakwan Hotel, Bodakdev, Ahmedabad PAN: AADHH4365N (Respondent) Assessee Represented: Shri K.C. Thaker, A.R. Revenue Represented: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 25-07-2023 Date of pronouncement : 04-08-2023 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- These two appeals are filed by the Revenue as against two separate appellate orders dated 21-03-2018 & 22-03-2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ahmedabad as against the reassessment orders passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Years (A.Ys) 2010-11 & 2011-12 ITA Nos: 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 2 respectively. The common issue involved in both the appeals is the unsecured loan availed by the assessee treated as non-genuine transactions and made addition u/s. 68 of the Act of Rs. 4.25 crores and 4.05 crores for the Assessment Years 2010-11 and 2011-12 and consequential disallowance of Interest expenses of Rs. 4,26,171/- and Rs. 48,24,109/- for the above assessment years. As common issues are involved in both the appeals the same are disposed of by this common order. 2. The Revenue is in appeal before us raising identical grounds of appeal except change in figures of disallowance. For the sake of convenience, we take ITA No. 1322/Ahd/2018 for the Assessment Year 2010-11 as the lead case. 2.1. The Grounds of Appeal raised by the Revenue is as follows: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.4,25,00,000/- made by A.0. u/s. 68 of the Act without considering the fact that the transactions were proved as non-genuine transactions and they were just accommodation entries established during the search proceedings in the case of Bhanwarlal Jain Group. 2. The Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition on account of unexplained interest expenses of Rs.4,26,171/- only without considering the fact that the same were on non-genuine loans/deposit. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer in respect of above issues. 4. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (A) may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 3. The brief facts of the case is that the assessee is the Karta of HUF and engaged in the business of Money Lending and Sarafi in the name and style of ‘Amba Corporation’. For the Assessment Year 2010-11, the assessee filed its Return of Income declaring total I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 3 income of Rs. 30,93,822/-. Assessee’s case was reopened by issuing a notice u/s. 148 based on the information from the Investigation Wing, Mumbai that the assessee is providing accommodation entries with various benami concerns thereby reassessment were completed making addition of Rs. 4.25 crores as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act and disallowed the interest payment of Rs. 4,26,171/-. 4. Aggrieved against the same, the assessee filed an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). The Ld. CIT(A) considered both the additions made u/s. 68 and disallowance of interest by the A.O. and after consideration of various details, deleted the same by observing as follows: “....4.2 Decision I have considered the facts mentioned in the assessment order and the submission of the appellant carefully. The AO's decision to make addition of the cash credits and interest thereon, is basically based on the report received from Investigation Department, Mumbai. The appellant submitted a copy of certain orders by CIT(A)-30, Mumbai dated 19.09.2016 and 21.10.2016 in the case of M/s. Ahimsa Exports (A.Y.2007-08) and Ms. Sangeeta K. Rathod (A.Y.2007-08) respectively and submitted that addition in relation to search and seizure action in Shri Bhanwarlal Jain group cases has not resulted into confirmation of the addition of the impugned amount. However, I am not going by findings of any other CIT(A) as the assessment year involved are not same. I decide to examine the facts before me and take decision based on widely accepted principles of judicial prudence. While doing so, I will try to examine the ratio laid down in number of case laws relied by the appellant and make inquiry if required as per jurisdictional ratio laid down in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. - 187 ITR 688 (SC). Further it is seen that during assessment proceedings the appellant has submitted reply which is quoted in assessment order as under: "In response to details called for maximum Jems Lucky Export, Laxmi Trading Co we hereby state that transaction are for business purpose only. We have already furnished following details in earlier submissions: 1. Copy of confirmation A/c of said parties 2 Copy of IT Acknowledgement of said parties 3. Copy of our Bank statement (highlighting transactions with said parties)" I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 4 Similar information was submitted and discussed during appellate proceedings. Further inquiry was conducted by this office as to whether the repayment of the impugned loan has been done or not, as per mandate given to the undersigned through the ratio laid down in the case of Jute Corporation of India Ltd. - 187 ITR 688 (SC). The issue of the loans from said parties is in assessment year 2010-11 to 2012-13. The appellant filed ledger account copy in its books of account of following parties: i) White Stone ii) Surya Diam iii) Maximus Jems iv) Meridian Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. v) Lucky Exports vi) Laxmi Trading Co. vii) Aastha Impex viii) Impex Gems I have examined the accounts of the concerns mentioned above and see that the amount has been repaid through banking channel after deducting TDS on or before 05.03.2014 in the case of M/s. White Stone. As regards M/s. Surya Diam repayment of loan has been done on 22.01.2015 through banking channel. As regards Maximus Jems repayment of loan has been done on 22.01.2015 through banking channel. As regards Meridian Jewellery Pvt. Ltd. repayment of loan has been done on 22.01.2015 through banking channel. As regards Lucky Exports repayment of loan has been done on 22.01.2015 through banking channel. As regards Laxmi Trading Co. repayment of loan has been done on 22.01.2015 through banking channel. As regards Aastha Impex repayment of loan has been done on 22.01.2015 through banking channel. As regards Impex Gems repayment of loan has been done on 26.11.2000 through banking channel after deducting TDS on interest paid. During appellate proceedings, appellant submitted that contentions raised in submissions dated 28.11.2016 and 26.12.2016 have not been considered by the AO and same were resubmitted to this office as under: i. The appellant is not aware about any Bhanwarlal Jain Group which is stated to have been subjected to search proceedings by Investigation Wing, Mumbai. ii. The appellant has not dealt with any such Group called 'Bhanwarlal Jain Group’. iii. The appellant is therefore not concerned as to what are the activities of that Group or whatever is found or discovered as a result of search in that Group iv. The appellant owes money to the concerns listed in the Order-sheet by the AO and the said parties appear as creditors in the books of accounts. v. The appellant, however, has no knowledge if these parties have anything to do with the so-called Bhanwarlal Jain Group vi. The appellant has no knowledge as to why the listed concerns are described as 'bill provider and what does that mean. I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 5 vii. The appellant only knows that these concerns are in the business of sharafi/money lending activity in the course of which the appellant has dealt with them and received funds from them. viii. The appellant neither knows nor is concerned if these concerns are, apart from having creditor/debtor relationship with the appellant in the normal course of business, carry on any other activities. ix. The appellant emphatically denies allegation of having 'availed accommodation entries' from the so-called Bhanwarlal Jain Group. Appellant is not aware of any such Group and therefore the allegation of having 'availed accommodation entries' from that Group is completely misplaced and baseless. x. The appellant cannot be asked to furnish complete details with justification for the 'accommodation entries' allegedly taken from the so- called Bhanwarlal Group, as the appellant has not taken 'accommodation entries". xi. The AO has also not shown with supporting evidence that the appellant has indeed taken accommodation entries from the so-called Bhanwarlal Group. xii. The appellant has informed the AO that the listed concerns are appellant's creditors for some years in past and that they are paid interest as may be due to them from year after year The appellant has also deducted the tax @ source as may be required from interest payments and paid to government account. xiii. The appellant has supplied PAN of these concerns which proves they are borne on the record of the Department xiv. The appellant has furnished the details of interest paid and tax deducted in the year under appeal. xv. The appellant has also filed copies of the ledger accounts of all these concerns with copy of the Form No. 16A being certificate of deduction of tax issued to the parties concerned. xvi. The appellant, in submission dt.26-12-2016, contended that the AO would not be justified in relying upon the comments/reports of some other authorities. xvii. The appellant stated that comments/reports cannot be adopted as 'readymade conclusion and taken as established facts to be applied in the appellant's case. xviii. The appellant also contended that the AO had legal obligations and procedures to follow before relying upon the third party reports/materials and that it would be legally wholly untenable for the AO to proceed to adopt and apply such readymade conclusions contained in third party reports to the prejudice/detriment of the appellant without discharging his legal obligations towards the appellant. I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 6 The AO is of the opinion that the identity of creditors and genuineness of the transaction is not proved. However. I find that the appellant has submitted date- wise trail of incoming of impugned funds and subsequently repayment of the same through banking channel. It is submitted that it was sarafi loan taken through banking channel and shown in books of accounts. The appellant has submitted name/address/PAN/copy of bank statement/acknowledgement of ITR/Statement of Income and confirmation of ledger accounts in the assessment proceedings itself. The appellant has repaid the entire loan alongwith interest on or before A.Y 2015-16. The appellant has relied on the ratio laid down by jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT VIS RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA reported at 208 Taxmann 35 wherein it is held - "Once the Assessing Officer gets hold of the PAN of the lenders, it was his duty to ascertain from the Assessing Officer of those lenders, whether in their respective return they had shown existence of such amount of money and had further shown that those amounts of money had been lent to the assessee. If before verifying of such fact from the Assessing Officer of the lenders of the assessee, the Assessing Officer decides to examine the lenders and asks the assessee to further prove the genuineness and creditworthiness of the transaction, in our opinion, the Assessing Officer did not follow the principle laid down under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act If on verification, it was found that those lenders did not disclose in their income tax return the transaction or that they had not disclosed the aforesaid amount the Assessing Officer could call for further explanation from the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction or creditworthiness of the same However, without verifying such fact from the income tax return of the creditors, the action taken by the Assessing Officer in examining the lenders of the assessee was a wrong approach Moreover, we find that those lenders have made inconsistent statement as pointed out by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and in such circumstances, we find that both the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the Tribunal were justified in setting aside the deletion as the Assessing Officer, without taking step for verification of the Income Tax Return of the creditors, took unnecessary step of further examining those creditors. If the Assessing Officers of those creditors are satisfied with the explanation given by the creditors as regards those transactions, the Assessing Officer in question has no justification to disbelieve the transactions reflected in the account of the creditors. In other words, the Assessing Officer had no authority to dispute the correctness of assessments of the creditors of the assessee when a co-ordinate Assessing Officer is satisfied with the transaction. We, thus, find that in the case before us the Tribunal below rightly set- aside the deletion made by the Assessing Officer, based on erroneous approach by wrongly shifting the burden again upon the assessee without verifying the Income Tax return of the creditors. The position, however, would have been different if those creditors were not income tax assessees or if they had not disclosed those transactions in their income tax returns or if such returns were not accepted by their Assessing Officers” The appellant vehemently argued that the onus has been discharged and the same has been shifted to AO who has not been able to discharge the same by I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 7 collecting/producing any credible document as per record. The confirmations have been filed giving PAN No. of the creditors. The creditworthiness of the creditor(s) cannot be decided by the AO of the appellant. In fact, the AO of appellant can get the matter investigated through the AO of the creditors. The AO of appellant cannot become AO of the creditors. It is not the case of AO that the impugned amount is appellant's own money generated out of books of account and the same is introduced in its books of accounts through bogus creditors. If that is so, what evidences AO has collected to place it on record. Once confirmations have been filed, further action, if any, is required to be taken in case of creditor and not in case of appellant. Explanation about 'source of source' or 'origins of origin' cannot be asked from the appellant while making inquiry under section 68 as per ratio laid down in the case of DCIT v. Rohini Builders (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj): "Mere identification of the source of the creditors even without evidence as to the nature of the income could justify acceptance, where the assesseee has given the GIR number /PAN of the creditor and also shows that the amounts were received by account payee cheques. It was further held that it is not necessary, that there should be an explanation as to the source of the money on the part of the creditors in every case." Reliance is also placed on another case i.e. CIT vs. Dharamdev Finance Pvt. Ltd. 43 Taxmann 395 (Guj.) wherein it is held, "No addition on account of cash credits could be made, where assessee had given PAN of creditors, their confirmations and their bank statements which established their creditability". There are other case laws supporting the case of the appellant as under. i) Murlidhar Lahorimal Vs. CIT 280 ITR 512 (Guj.) ii) CIT VS. Pragati Co-op Bank Ltd. 278 ITR 170 (Guj.) iii) CIT VS Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. 159 ITR 78 (SC) iv) CIT vs. Sanjay K. Thakkar Tax Appeal Nos 524 of 2004, 525 and 526 of 2004 and 579 to 583 of 2003 dated 12-9-2005 (Guj. HC) v) ITO Vs Kailpar Credit & Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.421/Ahd/2008 (ITAT. Ahd.) I am not inclined to accept the findings of the AO. Appellant has denied to have indulged in any wrong doing with Bhanwarlal Jain Group. There is no independent evidence against the appellant. The AO has neither made any independent verification nor he has attempted to issue notice u/s. 133(6)/131 of the IT Act, 1961. Even if Bhanwarlal Group has done something against law, the appellant argued that they cannot be punished. The appellant is not required to suffer tax liability for default of related party as it has been held in CIT VS. CARBO IND HOLD LTD 244 ITR 0422 (Cal) such as "if share broker, even after issue of summons does not appear, for that reason, the claim of assessee should not be denied, especially in the cases when the existence of broker is not in dispute, nor the payment is in dispute. Merely because some broker failed to appear, assessee should not be punished for the default of a broker and on mere suspicion the claim of assessee should not be denied." More so, as the plethora of I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 8 evidences on record cannot channel/TDS/confirmation/repayment etc. be ignored such as banking In view of facts of the case and the ratio laid down by case laws (Supra), the addition made by the AO of Rs.4,50,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 is hereby deleted. As regards interest claim of Rs.4,26,171/-, the assessing officer has made addition as per para 5.3 of assessment order of an amount of Rs.4,26,171/-, the interest claim on the amount which according to him was unproved cash credits. The appellant has submitted as under: "6. The next ground of appeal is against the disallowance of interest of Rs.4,26,171/- made by the AO relatable to the above named creditors. The AO has mentioned that the appellant's explanation as to why the interest should not be disallowed was called for. The AO has also admitted that the appellant produced copy of P & L Account, details of interest paid, and details of interest received was "simply filed. The AO has made the disallowance because ledger account, confirmation, PAN and address details are not given. This again is strange. The confirmation of account shows interest details, return shows PAN and address of the creditors. Still the disallowance has been made by the AO for no reason at all. The disallowance of Rs.4,26,171/ is therefore unwarranted on facts and is therefore liable to be deleted. It is therefore prayed that the disallowance of Rs.4,26,171/- may kindly be deleted." I have carefully examined the submission of the appellant and the facts brought on record. The findings of the AO have not been approved and the addition u/s.68 of impugned principle amount has been deleted as per finding contained above in this order. Consequently, the interest claim of Rs. 4,26,171/- is also allowed. The addition of Rs. 4,26,171/- made by A.O. is hereby deleted. The ground nos. 2 to 5 appeal are accordingly allowed.” 5. We have heard rival submission at length and then given our thoughtful consideration and perused the materials available on record. The addition made by the Assessing Officer invoking Section 68 does not hold it good, since the assessee has filed the confirmation letter from the lenders, Bank statements, Income Tax Return and statement of total income of the various lenders. Thus the assessee has discharged its initial onus namely identity of the creditors, genuineness of the transactions and creditworthiness of the creditors. Further the A.O. has disbelieved the same, but has not doubted the interest paid by the assessee against the above loans, with appropriate TDS. The Ld. CIT(A) has considered in I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 9 details of the documents filed by the assessee, (for the sake of brevity the same already reproduced in preceding paragraph). Therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act is not sustainable in law. 5.1. The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji wherein it was held that when the loan is repaid, addition u/s. 68 is liable to be deleted as follows: “Section 68, read with section 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credit [Loans] -Assessment year 2006-07 - Assessing Officer framed assessment under section 143(3) wherein he made addition of Rs. 1.45 crore under section 68 on ground that loan taken from one ‘IA’ was not explained satisfactorily - On appeal, Commissioner (Appeals) was satisfied with respect to genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of MA' and, therefore, deleted addition - It was found that total loan of Rs. 1.60 crore was advanced to assessee, out of which Rs.15 lakh was repaid - Therefore, an amount of Rs.1.45 crore remained outstanding to be paid to ‘IA’ - Balance loan amount was repaid by assessee in immediately next financial year - Whether when Department had accepted same, addition made by Assessing Officer was to be deleted - Held, yes [Para 6] [In favour of assessee]” 5.2. Further Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Shri Mahavir Crimpers, [2018] 95 taxmann.com 323 (Guj.) wherein it has been held as follows: "5. We have heard both the parties. There is no dispute so far as identity of the creditor party M/s. Raj Capital & Finance Pvt. Ltd. is concerned. There is further no quarrel that the Assessing Officer does not dispute the fact that the assessee has not availed any cash loan from the said entity. His only case is that the assessee has not been able to prove source along with genuineness and creditworthiness of the above stated entity. It emanates from above extracted portion that the assessee has filed all relevant details along with assessment records of the said entity explaining source of the loans to the above entity's balance sheet indicating sufficient reserves, surplus and share premium as followed by repayment in succeeding assessment year. Learned Departmental Representative fails to rebut CIT (A)'s conclusion that the assessee has been having regular loan transactions with the said entity. We notice in this backdrop that Hon'ble Jurisdictional high court's decision in DCIT v. Rohini Builders, (2002) 256 ITR 360 (Guj) upholding tribunal's conclusion I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 10 deleting Section 68 addition in view of identical details; squarely applies here. So in their lordships' latter decision in CIT v. Ayachi Chandrashekhar Narsangji (2014) 42 taxmann.com 251 (Guj) confirming this tribunal's another decision reversing Section 68 addition wherein the department had accepted repayment of loan in subsequent year to be correct. We take into account all these facts and judicial precedents to affirm CIT(A)'s findings under challenge deleting the impugned addition. This first substantive ground is accordingly declined." 5.3. In the case of ITO Vs. Shanti Enterprise, [2016] 71 taxmann.com 275 wherein it has been held as follows: ".....amounts were received by the assessee by account payee cheques and initial burden of proving the credits was discharged. It is held that the assessee need not prove the source of the credits and the fact that the explanation was not satisfactory would not automatically result in deeming amounts as income of the assessee...." 5.4. Respectfully following the above ratio of the judgments rendered by the Jurisdictional High Court, we have no hesitation in confirming the order of the Ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer u/s. 68 of the Act. Thus the ground no. 1 raised by the Revenue does not hold good on merits and the same is dismissed. 5.5. Similarly the assessee made payment of interest on the above loans through banking channels with appropriate TDS. The assessee also filed the copies of the ledger accounts of all these creditors with copy of Form No. 16A being certificate of deduction of tax issued to the parties concerned. The assessee also repaid the above loans through banking channel which is not been doubted by the Assessing Officer. Consequently the above addition is liable to be deleted. Thus the Ground No. 2 raised by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is rejected. I.T.A Nos. 1322 & 1334/Ahd/2018 A.Ys. 2010-11 & 2011-12 Page No ITO Vs. Haresh Dahyalal Modi HUF 11 5.6. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are general in nature, the same are consequently dismissed. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 1322/Ahd/2018 is hereby dismissed. 7. ITA No. 1334/Ahd/2018 is relating to the Assessment Year 2011-12 is on identical set of facts except change in the figures of disallowances. Respectfully following our decision in ITA No. 1322/Ahd/2018, the present appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA No. 1334/Ahd/2018 is hereby dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 04-08-2023 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER True Copy JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 04/08/2023 आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, अहमदाबाद