Amit Krishan Khurana, Surat V. The Dy.CIT.,Circle-3., Surat

ITA 142/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2058 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T SANKAR
• Keywords: Capital asset; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Salary income; Tangible material

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA , VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 142/AHD/2008 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 AMIT KISHAN KHURANA, B/105, PODDAR AVENUE, GHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT V/S . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, SURAT PAN NO. A FMPK5852M (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) BY APPELLANT SHRI MEHUL SHAH, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT SHRI T. SANKAR, SR. D.R. /DATE OF HEARING 18.04.2013 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 10.05.2013 O R D E R PER : ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A)-II, SURAT, DATED 23.10.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 4-05. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS ARE AS U NDER: 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FR OM SALARY, INTEREST AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RE TURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 04-05 ON 15.03.2005 DECLARING TOTAL LOSS OF RS.11,45,590/ -. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAM ED U/S.143(3), VIDE ORDER DATED 28.12.2006 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINE D AT RS.13,84,190/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE CA RRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A), VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 23.10.200 7, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 2 THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER, TH E ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, HE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROU NDS: 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE L EARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 52,500/- FO R NOTIONAL SALARY INCOME ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLA NT WHICH NEEDS TO BE DELETED SINCE NO SUCH SALARY IS RECEIVED BY T HE APPELLANT. 2. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,000/- FO R ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM SALE OF OPENING STOCK WHICH NEEDS TO BE DELETED SINCE THE SALE THEREOF HAS ALREADY BEEN SHO WN BY THE APPELLANT . 3. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 64,000/- AS MADE U/S. 69A OF THE ACT FOR ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED IN T HE BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH NEEDS TO BE DELETED SINCE SUCH CASH DEPOSITS GET DULY REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE A PPELLANT. 4. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- FO R ALLEGED LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS, WHICH NEEDS TO BE DELETED AS BEING INCORRECT. 5. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,01,420/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT FOR ALLEGED NON-GENUINE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SH ARES, WHICH NEEDS TO BE DELETED SINCE THE APPELLANT HAD FULLY DISCHAR GED THE ONUS OF PROVING THE SAME BY FURNISHING THE FOLLOWING DETAIL S: I. BROKER'S BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF SH ARES ISSUED BY M/S. BUBNA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. II. COPY OF CONTRACT NOTES FOR SALE OF SHARES ISSUED BY THE SHARE BROKER PRAMODKUMAR KOTHARI. III. DEMAT ACCOUNT STATEMENT EVIDENCING THE PU RCHASE AND SALES OF SHARES. ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 3 IV. RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT OF THE BROKER EVID ENCING THE PAYMENT RECEIVED FOR SALE OF SHARES FROM BROKER. V. CONFIRMATION OF THE SELLING BROKER ALONGWIT H PAN. 4. GROUND NO.1 IS WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF R S.52,500/- AS A SALARY INCOME:- DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR IN TWO PRIVATE LTD. COMPANI ES AND WAS DRAWING SALARY FROM THOSE COMPANIES. HE FURTHER NOTICED TH AT THE SALARY INCOME FROM MINAXI FASHIONS PVT. LTD. WAS RS. 84,000/- IN THE I MMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WAS BROUGHT DOWN TO RS.31,500 /- DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THE RE ASON FOR THE DECREASE IN SALARY. THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, SUBMITTED THAT H E HAS RESIGNED FROM DIRECTORSHIP W.E.F. 15.08.2003. HE ALSO SUBMITTED A COPY OF SALARY CERTIFICATE FOR THE PERIOD UP TO 15.08.2003. SINCE, THE ASSESS EE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAIL FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 15.08.2003. A.O. CONSIDERED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.52,500/- (RS. 84,000/- LESS RS. 31,500/-) AS SALARY AND BROU GHT IT INTO TAX. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6. THE CRYPTIC SUBMISSION OF THE AR DOES NOT REBUT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSED HAD CEASED TO EARN ANY FURTHER SALARY INCO ME FROM MINAXI FASHIONS PVT. LTD. AFTER 15.8.2003. THE AO HAD REQ UESTED THE ASSESSED TO FURNISH A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE SAID COMPANY, WHICH WAS NOT DONE. NO DETAIL OR COPIES OF ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED SHOWING THE SALARY RECEIPTS FOR THE YEAR. IN SUCH A SITUATION, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO H AD NO OTHER ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 4 ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ASSUME THAT THE ASSESSED WOULD H AVE EARNED THE SAME SALARY INCOME FROM THE SAID COMPANY AS HE HAD EARNED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR. THE ADDITION OF THE SU M OF RS.52,500 IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RESIGNED FROM THE DIRECTORSHIP OF MINAXI FASHIONS PVT. LTD. W.E.F. 15 .08.2003 AND THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO ANY SALARY FROM THE DATE OF RES IGNATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE NO.16 THE COPY OF FORM NO. 32 FILED BY THE COMPANY WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES AS EVIDENCE OF RESI GNATION OF THE ASSESSEE. LD. A.R., THUS, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE H AS RESIGNED THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY SALARY AND THUS, THE ADDITION MADE, BE DELETED. LD. SR. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O . 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RESIGNED FROM THE DIRECTORSHIP OF MINAXI FASHIONS PVT. LTD. W.E.F . 13.08.2003 FOR WHICH IT ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE FORM SUBMITTED BY THE COMPANY BEFORE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES. THIS FACTUAL ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN CONTRO VERTED BY THE REVENUE NOR IT HAS BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD IN ITS SU PPORT. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION THAT T HE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE GOT SALARY FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.52,500/- IS UNCALLED F OR AND THUS, DIRECT ITS DELETION. HENCE, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 5 9. SECOND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS. 24,000/- FROM SALE OF OPENING STOCK:- A.O. NOTICED THAT IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN BUSINESS INCOME BUT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY APPEARING FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME. HE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN CLOSING STOCK O F RS.21,347/- ON 31.03.2003 BUT THERE WAS NO CLOSING STOCK APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.03.2004 NOR WAS THERE ANY CREDIT FOR SALE. T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE, INTER ALIA, SUBMIT TED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK OF RS.21,347/- WAS SOLD ON 20.09.2003 FOR RS.19,500/- AND THE DEPOSIT OF RS.40,000/- ON 25.09.2003 IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT I NCLUDED THE SALE VALUE OF CLOSING STOCK. THE A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS WI TH REGARD TO SALE OF STOCK AND THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.40,000/- & RS. 24,000/- ON 25/09/2003 AND 17/10/2003 RESPECTIVELY REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. HE, THUS, CONCLUDED THAT THE SALE OF CLOSING STOCK MUST HAVE GONE UNACCOUNTE D WITHOUT RECORDING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE, ACCORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION O F RS.24,000 AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.40,000/- FOR THE REASON THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. HE, THUS, MADE TOTAL ADDI TION OF RS.64,000/- (40,000/- + 24,000/-). CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 10. QUITE CLEARLY, THE VERY BRIEF SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN EXPLANATION AGAINST THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS TOTALING RS.64,000 REPRESENTED THE OPENING BALANCE OF CASH I N HAND. HOWEVER, SUCH AN EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTE D FOR THE SIMPLE ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 6 REASON THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN TWO INSTALMEN TS WITH A GAP OF ALMOST A MONTH. SECONDLY, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FUR NISHED TO SHOW THAT THESE DEPOSITS REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES OPEN ING CASH BALANCE FOR THE YEAR. THE ARS SUBMISSION IS THERE FORE REJECTED AND THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.64,000/- IS CONFIRMED . 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH OF RS.40,000/- DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 25.09.2003 COMPRISED O F THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF RS.19,500/- AND THE OPENING CA SH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2008. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.40,000/- (WHICH ALREADY INCLUDED THE SALE PROCEEDS OF STOCK) HAS AL READY BEEN ADDED, FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.24,000/- AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION A ND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE BE AT LEAST GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF RS.24,000/-. LD . SR. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINE D OR SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE SALE OF CLOSING STOCK. HE HAS JUST MADE A S UBMISSION WITHOUT SUBSTANTIATED THE SAME. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE A.O. THUS, THIS GROUND OF AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. THE THIRD GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.64,000/- U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DE POSITED RS.64,000/- COMPRISING RS.40,000/- ON 25.09.2003 AND RS.24,000/ - ON 17.10.2003 IN ITS BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT REASON OR ANY EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCE OF INCOME, THE A.O. MADE ADDI TION OF RS.64,000/- U/S.69A OF THE ACT. ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 7 13. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 10. QUITE CLEARLY, THE VERY BRIEF SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AN EXPLANATION AGAINST THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO. IT HAS BEEN CLAIMED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS TOTALING RS.64,000 REPRESENTED THE OPENING BALANCE OF CASH I N HAND. HOWEVER, SUCH AN EXPLANATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN TWO INSTALMEN TS WITH A GAP OF ALMOST A MONTH. SECONDLY, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FUR NISHED TO SHOW THAT THESE DEPOSITS REPRESENTED THE ASSESSEES OPEN ING CASH BALANCE FOR THE YEAR. THE ARS SUBMISSION IS THERE FORE REJECTED AND THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.64,000/- IS CONFIRMED . 14. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS AND THEREFORE T HE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE A.O. WAS TOTALLY UNJUST AND UNWARRANTED. HE FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD SEPARATELY ADDED A SUM OF RS.24,000/- AS AN UNA CCOUNTED SALE FOR WHICH NO TELESCOPING WAS GRANTED. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTE D TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. THE LD. SR. D.R., ON THE OTHER HA ND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBSTANT IATED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE THE CIT(A ) AND ALSO NOT BEFORE US. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT AN ADDITION OF RS.24,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. AND THE SAME HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY US IN GROUND NO.2 HE REINABOVE. THE PRESENT ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 8 ADDITION OF RS.64,000/- ALSO INCLUDES THE ADDITION OF RS.24,000/- WHICH ACCORDING TO US APPEARS TO BE DOUBLE ADDITION. WE THEREFORE DIRECT THE ADDITION TO BE SUSTAINED AT ONLY RS.40,000/- AS AGA INST RS.64,000/- MADE BY A.O. THIS ASSESSEES GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. GROUND NO.4 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.5 0,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS:- THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES BY THE ASSESSEE WAS JUST RS.25,000/- IN TH E ENTIRE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS ON HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT DETAILS OF RS.26,700/- FOR VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE ELECTRICITY, MOBILE, TELEPHONE ETC. ON ESTIMATED BA SIS. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THE WITHDRAWAL OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WAS APPARENTLY LOW AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES. HE , THUS, MADE A LUMP SUM OF ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- TO THE RETURN OF INCOME. 17. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 14. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITIONS . THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ANNUAL WITHDRAWALS OF ONLY RS.72,000 I.E. A MONTHLY WITHDRAWAL OF RS.6,000. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE S AID SUM WOULD HAVE BEEN GROSSLY INSUFFICIENT TO MEET ALL THE HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF EX PENSES INCURRED AMOUNTING TO RS.26,700 WHICH MEANT A MONTHLY EXPEND ITURE OF RS.2,225 PER MONTH, WHICH ACCORDING TO ME, WAS GROS SLY UNDERSTATED. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE I NCURRED SUCH EXPENSES ON ELECTRICITY, GAS, MOBILE AND MUNICIPAL TAX ETC. WHAT HE FAILED TO ACCEPT WAS THE EXPENSES HE WOULD NECESSAR ILY HAVE TO ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 9 INCUR ON DAILY PROVISIONS, CLOTHINGS, MEDICINES, DO MESTIC RENT AND TRANSPORT, ESPECIALLY SINCE HE DID NOT OWN ANY MOTO R CAR AS CLAIMED. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE WITHDRAWALS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN GROSSLY I NSUFFICIENT TO MEET THE REGULAR AND DAY-TO-DAY EXPENSES OF THE ASS ESSED. THIS WOULD MEAN THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE INCURRED SU CH EXPENSES OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREFORE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE AO WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS .50,000/- TO THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME. THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 18. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 19. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS UNMARRIED AND STAYS WITH HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BOTH THE PARENTS ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A M EMBER OF ANY CLUB NOR HAD ANY MOVABLE PROPERTY AND ALSO NOT OWING ANY VEH ICLE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES DONE BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS CORRECT AND NO ADDITION ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS WAS CA LLED FOR. LD. SR. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE IS A BACHELOR AND STAYING WITH HIS PARENTS WHO ARE INCOME TAX ASSESSEES. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY VEHICLE NOR ANY MOVABLE PROPERTY. HE IS A LSO NOT A MEMBER OF ANY CLUB. THESE FACTS COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY REVE NUE. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE A.O. ON AN ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 10 ESTIMATED BASIS, IS UNCALLED FOR. WE, THUS, DIRECT THE DELETION OF ADDITION. THUS, THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 21. GROUND NO.5 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.1 0,01,420/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT:- THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNE D LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS.9,53,262/- AND HAD PAID CON CESSIONAL RATE OF TAX 10% U/S.112D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FUR NISH THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE COPIES OF BROKERS BILLS OF M/S. BUBNA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES AND TWO CONTRACT NOTES FROM PRAMODKUMAR KOTHARI, SHARE BROKER TO WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE SHARES. ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED COPIES OF DEMAT ACC OUNT TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WERE GEN UINE. A.O. ISSUED SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT TO CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHAN GE AND SEBI. IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS, SEBI INFORMED THAT SOME CA LCUTTA BASED SHARE BROKERS WHO HAD DEALT IN SMALL CAP COMPANIES, WERE DEBARRED BY CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE AND THE DEBARRING ORDERS WERE CONFIR MED BY SEBI. IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT PRAMODKUMAR KOTHARIS, NAME APPE ARED IN THE AFORESAID SEBIS ORDER. A.O. ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE ACT TO M/S. BUBNA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. AND PRAMODKUMAR KOTHARI . NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM BOTH THE BROKERS. THE A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IS NOT TENABLE FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: (1) THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE HAVE INFORMED THAT NO PURCHASE OF SHARES ON 30.12.2002 AND ON 27.12.2002 OF THE SH ARES OF SHARDARAJ TRADEFIN LTD. WAS EXECUTED ON THE ONLINE SYSTEM OF THE EXCHANGE. ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 11 (2) IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT ON 22-11-2002, THE AS SESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE PURCHASED 2000 SHARES OF NAGESHWAR INVESTME NT LTD. BUT NO COPY OF CONTRACT NOTE IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE AND THAT THE TRADE NUMBER CANNOT BE MATCHED. (3) FOR THE ALLEGED PURCHASE OF THE SHARES OF NAGES HWAR INVESTMENT LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED XEROX COPY OF BILL AND NO CONTRACT IS FILED. THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE HAVE FURNISHED T HE INFORMATION THAT THERE WAS DEALING OF ONLY 400 SHARES AND THAT DEALING WAS IN THE CLIENT CODE NUMBER R059 FOR BOTH BUY AND SALE. (4) AS REGARDS SALE OF SHARES OF SHARDARA TRAEFIIN E LTD. ON 04- 02-2004, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANG E HAVE REPORTED THAT TWO CROSS DEALS IN TRADE NUMBER 4003 AND 4005 FOR THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IN THE SCRIP HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE CLIENT CODE 'SARASH' ( FOR BUY ) & 'RKS' ( FOR SALE ) AND FOR THE REVERSE CLIENT CODES IN THE CASE OF SECOND CROSS DEAL. (5) PRAMODKUMR KOTHARI HAD TWO SALE TRANSACTIONS AN D HAD EXECUTED TWO CROSS DEALS VIDE TRADE NOS. REFERRED TO ABOVE. IT MEANS THE SHARES PURCHASED AND SOLD IN FIRST TWO TRADE NUMBER S WERE CROSS DEALT SUBSEQUENTLY AND THE TRANSACTION WAS SQUARED UP AT THE END OF THE DAY. THIS DEALING WAS IN THE CLIENT CODE 'SARAS H' FOR BUY AND RKS FOR SALE. AS SUCH THE .DEAL HAD SQUARED UP AT T HE END OF THE DAY. (6) IT WAS A GLARING SCANDALOUS MATTER THAT SHARES BOUGHT AT RS.2.37, RS.2.82, RS.5.52 AND RS.7.72 PER SHARE HAD JUMPED T O THE MARKET PRICE OF RS.54.20, 60.35 AND 100.80 WITHIN A PERIOD OF JUST OVER A YEAR AND HAD BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN SOLD OUT AS SU CH. (7) FURTHER, AS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE THE CALCUTTA ST OCK EXCHANGE HAVE DENIED THAT NO SHARE TRANSACTION EITHER IN PHY SICAL AND DEMAT FORM IN THE ONLINE TRADING SYSTEM OF THE EXCHANGE H AD TAKEN PLACE IN ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 12 THE SHARES OF NAGESHWAR INVESTMENT LTD. FROM M/S PR OMODKUMAR KOTHARI ON 29-01-2004. (8) AS REGARDS, SALE OF SHARES OF SHARDARA TRADE FI NE LTD. AS ON 04- 02-2004, IT IS STATED THAT VIDE TRADE NO.4003 AND 4 005 SHARES IN THE CLIENT CODE 'SARASH' (FOR BUY) AND 'RKS' (FOR SALE) AND FOR THE REVERSE CLIENT CODES (9) AS SUCH THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE SOL D THE SHARES THROUGH DEMAT ACCOUNT, NO GENUINE SALE TRANSACTIONS TOOK PLACE ON CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AS CONFIRMED BY THE ASSESSEE'S BROKER. (10) THOUGH, THE SALE HAVE BEEN SHOWN AS HAVING T AKEN PLACE FROM DEMAT ACCOUNT, THE SAME WAS NOT TRADED ON STOCK EXC HANGE. HE, THUS, HELD THAT THE CREDIT OF RS.10,01,420/- FR OM PRAMOD KUMAR KOTHARI, CALCUTTA, WAS NOT GENUINE AND THUS, MADE ADDITION U /S.68 OF THE ACT. 22. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE AC TION OF THE A.O. BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 22. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION OF THE AO ON ONE HAND, AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AR ON TH E OTHER. AS WAS WITH THE AO, I ALSO DO NOT FIND ANY CORRESPONDE NCE OR CO- RELATION BETWEEN THE DETAILS OF PURCHASES AND SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO BY THE BILLS AND CONTRACT NOTES OF THE ALLEGED BROKERS ON ONE HAND, AS COMPARED WITH THE DETAILED INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE CSE. WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASES , WHILE THE PURCHASING BROKER, BSB, CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED 2 000 AND 10000 SHARES OF SHARDARAJ TRADEFIN LTD. ON 27.12.2 002, THE CSE INFORMED THAT THERE WAS NO TRANSACTION IN THE SAID SCRIP ON THE SAID ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 13 DATE EITHER IN PHYSICAL OR DEMAT FORM IN THE ON-LIN E TRADING SYSTEM OF THE EXCHANGE. ON 9.12.2002, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED T O HAVE PURCHASED 1000 SHARES OF NAGESHWAR INVESTMENTS LTD. WHEREAS, THE CSE INFORMED THAT ON THAT DATE, THERE WERE TWO TRANSACTIONS IN THE SAID SCRIP INVOLVING 400 SHARES EACH. THIS WAS DONE IN THE ON- LINE TRADING SYSTEM OF THE EXCHANGE. ON 22.11.2002, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED 2000 SHARES OF NAGESHWAR INVESTMENTS WHEREAS, AS PER THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE CS E, THE PURCHASING BROKER M/S.BSB HAD ENTERED INTO 5 CROSS DEALS IN THE SAID SCRIP ON THE SAID DATE INVOLVING A TOTAL OF 40 00, AND THEN 100, SHARES I.E, 4100 SHARES. QUITE CLEARLY THEN WHILE T HE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED ONLY A TOTAL OF 3000 SHAR ES OF NAGESHWAR INVESTMENTS, THE CSE REPORTED THAT THE SAID BROKER HAD PURCHASED A TOTAL OF 4900 SHARES. EVEN THOUGH, IT COULD BE CLAI MED THAT THE REMAINING SHARES COULD HAVE BEEN PURCHASED FOR SOME OTHER PARTIES YET, THE CSE HAD FURNISHED INFORMATION WHICH WAS SP ECIFIC TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN RELATION TO THE CONTRACT NOTES AND SETTLEMENT NOS. FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSES. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT EVEN THE CONTRACT NOTES AND THE SETTLEMENT NOS. DID NOT TALL Y. FURTHER, THE AR HAS VAGUELY CLAIMED THAT THE BROKER COULD HAVE PURC HASED THE SHARES OFF-LINE YET, THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY T HE CSE SHOWED THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY M/S.BSB WERE D ONE ON-LINE. 22.1 AS REGARDS THE SALE OF SHARES, THE ASSESSES C LAIMED TO HAVE SOLD 3000 SHARES OF NAGESHWAR INVESTMENTS ON 29.1.2 004. THIS WAS NOT CONFIRMED BY THE CSE. WITH REGARD TO THE S ALE OF THE SHARES OF SHARDARAJ TRADEFIN LTD., THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TH AT PK HAD SOLD 8000 SHARES ON 29.1.2004, 2000 AND AGAIN ANOTHE R 2000, SHARES ON 4.2.2004, I.E., A TOTAL OF 12,000 SHARES. AS A GAINST THIS, THE CSE INFORMED THAT PK HAD EXECUTED TWO CROSS DEALS IN TH E SCRIP OF SHARDARAJ TRADELIN LTD. ON 4 .2.2004 INVOLVING 5000 AND 6000 SHARES I.E. A TOTAL OF 11000 SHARES FOR ANOTHER CLIENT, AN D HAD SUBSEQUENTLY ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 14 REVERSED THE DEAL IN THE ON-LINE TRADING SYSTERN OF THE EXCHANGE. THIS ALSO CONTRADICTED THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM THAT ON 4.2.2004, A TOTAL OF 4000 SHARES OF THE SAID COMPANY HAD BEEN SOLD. 22.2 FROM THE ABOVE IT WOULD WOULD BE CLEARLY SEEN THAT THERE WERE A LARGE NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN WHAT WAS CL AIMED BY ASSESSEE AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS FURNISHED BV THE CSE. ALMOST ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE IN THE ON-LIN E TRADING SYSTEM OF THE EXCHANGE. BUT THE POINT TO NOTE IS THAT, TH E TRANSACTIONS THAT WERE REFLECTED AND CONFIRMED BY THE CSE WERE NOT TH E SAME WHICH WERE CLAIMED BY AASSSSEE. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE PU RCHASING BROKER M/S.BSB DID NOT EITHER RESPOND TO THE SUMMONS U/S.1 31 OF THE IT ACT OR PROVIDE ANY CONFIRMATION OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS WAS REQUIRED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE FURNISHED A CO NFIRMATION FROM PK, EVEN THOUGH THE AO CLAIMED (PARA-9) THAT N O CONFIRMATIVE LETTER WAS RECEIVED FROM PK. A PHOTOCOPY OF WHAT I S CLAIMED TO BE A CONFIRMATION FROM PK HAS BEEN SUBMITTED ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE ME. FIRSTLY, THE COPY IS QUITE I LLEGIBLE AND SECONDLY, IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE ES PECIALLY WHEN CONSIDERED AGAINST THE BACKGROUND OF WHAT WAS INFOR MED BY THE CSE . IN OTHER WORDS, THE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE ALLEG ED CONFIRMATION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS TRUE AND CORRECT . THE SAME IS THEREFORE REJECTED. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHICH WAS INQUIRED INTO AND ANALYSED I N CONSIDERABLE DETAIL BY THE AO, THERE WAS COMPLETE JUSTIFICATION IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SOURCE OF THE SUM OF RS.10,01,4 20 CREDITED TO THE ASSSSSEE'S BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS UNEXPLAINED, AN D CONSEQUENTLY, NOT GENUINE. 22.3 AS REGARDS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSED FOR CONCE SSIONAL RATE OF TAXATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 112 OF THE IT ACT, EVEN THOUGH THE CLAIM THAT THE SHARES ONLY NEEDED TO BE LISTED IN THE EXCHANGE ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 15 FOR THE ASSESSED TO GAIN BENEFIT OF THE CONCESSIONA L RATE OF TAX, WHEN THE TRANSACTIONS THEMSELVES WERE NOT PROVED TO BE GENUINE AND THE LTCG WAS NOT ESTABLISHED, THE QUESTION OF D ERIVING BENEFIT OF CONCESSIONAL RATE OF TAX, WHICH PERTAINS ONLY TO LTCG FROM A CAPITAL ASSET SIMPLY DOES NOT ARISE. THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS.10,01,420/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.68 OF TH E IT ACT, IS THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 23. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 24. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS PURCHASED AND SOLD THE SHARES FOR WHICH CONTRACT NOTES WERE SUBMI TTED BEFORE THE A.O. AND CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON SALE OF SHARE S, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE PAYMENTS FROM THE BROKERS AND IT TALLIED WITH T HE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE NO.29 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE BANK STATEMENT OF BROKER PRAMODKUMAR KOTHARI AND AT PAGE NO.25, HIS BANK STATEMENT AND POINTED OUT THE PAYMENTS DETAILS MATC HED WITH HIS BANK STATEMENT. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND HE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT COPIES OF THE PARTIES AND THEREFORE, HE HAS FULLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF SANJAY AGARWAL , WHERE TRANSACTIONS WERE ALSO THROUGH M/S. BUBNA STOCK BRO KING SERVICES LTD THE TRANSACTION OF SALE AND PURCHASE WAS ACCEPTED BY TH E CIT(A) AND WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY HONBLE ITAT. HE PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE NO.143 OF THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHRI SANJAYKUMAR AGARWAL IN ITA NO.3142/AHD/2007 AND AT PAGE NO.148, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE FU RTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 16 DECISION IN CASE OF MANOJKUMAR SARAWAGI HUF VS. ACIT IN ITA NOS. 3233 & 3156/AHD/2010. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE HE HAS FULLY DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON IT, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BY THE A.O. 25. THE SR. D.R. , ON THE OTHER HAND, IN ITS WRITTE N STATEMENT HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN AS TO WHOM THE PAYM ENT OF RS.42,100/- WAS MADE ON 09.01.2003 MORE SO WHEN THE INQUIRY WITH CA LCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE HAS REVEALED THAT NO SUCH TRADES HAD TAKEN PLACE ON THE FLOOR OF STOCK EXCHANGE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT M/S. BUBNA STO K BROKING SERVICES LTD. THROUGH WHOM PURCHASES WERE CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN MA DE, HAVE NOT RESPONDED TO THE NOTICE OF THE A.O. THE LD. SR. D .R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES OF NAGESHWAR INDUSTRIES WERE CREDITED IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT ONLY ON 01.04.2003 I.E. MUCH AFTER THE ALLEGED DATE OF PURC HASE ON 09.12.2002 AND 22.11.2002. NO VALID EXPLANATION OR REASON FOR DEL AY OF 4 TO 5 MONTHS IN THE RECEIPT OF SHARES IN THE DEMAT WERE SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. BUBNA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. WAS TOWARDS THE P URCHASE OF SHARES ONLY AND WAS NOT FOR ANY OTHER TRANSACTION OR WERE NOT I N THE NATURE OF ANY ADVANCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DATE OF PUR CHASE HAVE NOT PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE HAS CONFIRME D THAT THE TRADES WERE NOT EXECUTED ON THE SAID DATE AND M/S. BUBNA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. HAS NOT CONFIRMED THE DATE OF PURCHASE AND TRANSACT IONS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE DATE OF PURCHASE AND THE PERIOD OF HOLDING I.E. WHETHER HE WAS HOLDING SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS. AND THE REFORE IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE ASSESSEES HOLDING THE SHARES FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS WAS NOT PROVED ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 17 AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ALLOWED THE BENEFIT OF LON G TERM GAINS. HE, THUS, SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITI ON. 26. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS SAID TO HAVE PURCHASED THE SHARES THROUGH M/S. BUBNA STOCK BROKI NG SERVICES LTD. IN CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE AND SOLD THE SHARES THROUGH PRAMODKUMAR KOTHARI. IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS U/S. 131, CALCUTTA STOCK EXCHANGE HAS CONFIRMED THAT NO PURCHASE OF SHARES IN WHICH THE A SSESSEE HAD DEALT WAS EXECUTED FROM THE ON-LINE SYSTEM OF EXCHANGE. IT I S ALSO A FACT THAT A.O. HAD ISSUED SUMMONS U/S.131TO M/S. BUBNA STOCK BROKING S ERVICES LTD & PRAMODKUMAR KOTHARI BUT THE SAME WERE NOT RESPONDED BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT CONTRADICT TH E FINDINGS OF A.O. & CIT(A) BY BRINGING ANY TANGIBLE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE C ASE LAW RELIED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS PAPER BOOK HAS SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE BROKERS TO WHOM THE SHARES WERE SOLD AND HAS ALSO STATED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE SALE PROCEEDS BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. HOWEVER, THE PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM M/S. BUBNA STOCK BROKING SERVICES LTD. HAS NOT BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE SHARE WHICH IT HAD SOLD , HAS BEEN HELD BY HIM FOR A PERIOD EXCEEDING 1 YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES IN THE NATURE OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. SINCE HOLDING TH E SHARES FOR A PERIOD OF EXCEEDING 1 YEAR HAS NOT BEEN PROVED CONCLUSIVELY. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM THE PROFIT EARNED ON SALE OF SHARES AS LONG TERM ITA NO.142/AHD/2008 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 18 CAPITAL GAIN. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THAT THE PROFI T BE CONSIDERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND TAX ACCORDINGLY. THUS, THIS GROUN D OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 10.05.2013 SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT ME MBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA ! ! ! ! '! '! '! '! / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. '(' ) * / CONCERNED CIT 4. *- / CIT (A) 5. !./ ), ) , 12( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. /45 67 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , 8/ 1 ': ) , 12( ;