The ACIT, Circle-9, Surat V. M/s. D & H Enterprise, Surat

ITA 1471/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 89715 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: RASESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 131; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE S/SHRI N. S. SAINI, AM & RAJPAL YADAV, JM. ITA NOS. 1471 & 1638 /HD/2011 ASST. YEARS : 2007-08 & 2006-07 .ASSTT. CIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT. VS M/S D & H ENTERPRISES, 28-29, SHRI KUBERJI CORPM HOUSE, NAWABVADI, OPP. NTM MARKET, SAHARA DARWAJA, SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PA NO.AAMFM8449D APPELLANT BY SHRI M. K. SINGH, SR.DR RESPONDENT BY SHRI RASESH SHAH, AR DATE OF HEARING: 04/06/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/06/2015 O R D E R PER SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER. THE PRESENT TWO APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE S EPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 20.01.2011 & 28.02.2011 PASSED FOR AYS 2007-08 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR AY 2006-07 AND FIVE GROUNDS IN AY 2007-08. ALL THESE GROUNDS A RE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE -8 OF ITAT RULES, 1963. THEY A RE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE. IN BRIEF ITS GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ISSUE I.E THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.81 LACS ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 2 AND RS.1,62,50,000/- WHICH WERE ADDED BY THE AO WIT H THE AID OF SECTION 68 IN AY 2007-08 & 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY. 3. THE FACTS ON ALL VITAL POINTS ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORD ER IN AY 2007- 08 ON 20 TH JANUARY, 2011 AND THIS ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN AY 2006-07. THEREFORE, FOR THE FACILITY OF REFERENCE W E ARE TAKING UP THE FACTS FROM AY 2007-08. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURNS OF INCOME ON 11/10/2006 AND 19/03/2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1,04,98,191 AND NIL IN AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT IN AY 2007-08 AND A NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 26.9.2008 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN AY 2006-07 THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SE CTION 143(3) ON 18.12.2008 WHEREBY INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DE TERMINED AT RS.1,05,52,580/-. ON THE BASIS OF FINDING RECORDED IN AY 2007-08 THE LD. AO HAS REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2006-07 B Y ISSUANCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT A SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 16.12.2005. THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS ENGAG ED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION AT TH E RELEVANT TIME. SINCE THE AO HAS ALSO BASED HIS FINDING IN THE REOP ENED ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2006-07 ON THE OUTCOME OF AY 2007-08, THEREF ORE, THERE IS ONE MORE REASON TO FIRST DEAL WITH THE APPEAL OF AY 2007-08. 4. AS STATED ABOVE, THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF LAND DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION. ON S CRUTINY OF THE ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 3 ACCOUNTS IF REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ADVANC ES OF RS.2,43,50,000/- FROM 84 PERSONS TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN LAND. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMA TIONS FROM THE INVESTORS. HOWEVER, VIDE ORDER SHEET DATED 4.12.200 9 THE LD. AO HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE FOLLOWING DETAILS NAME, ADDRESS, PAN OF ALL THE PERSONS WHO HAVE MADE ADVANCES TO TH E ASSESSEE AND ALSO PRODUCE ALL THESE PERSONS BEFORE HIM. THIS EXERCISE WAS TO BE CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 11.12.2009. T HE LD. AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT UPTO 18.12.2009 NO ONE HAD ATTENDED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, HE ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTIO N 131 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT TO THE INVESTORS. THE SUMMONS COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE INVESTORS BY THE PROCESS SERVER AND HE REP ORTED THAT THE ADDRESSES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE INCOMPLETE. THE AO VIDE NOTICE DATED 22.12.2009 CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY THESE ADVANCES BE NOT TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS OF T HE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSE SSEE THAT SECTION 68 IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THESE ADVANCES BECAUSE THES E WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADVANCE BOOKING AMOUNT IN THE OR DINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CONFIRMATIO NS FROM ALL THE PERSONS, COPIES OF THEIR PAN WITH THE INCOME-TAX DE PARTMENT, COPIES OF THEIR BANK STATEMENTS AND COPIES OF THE INCOME-T AX RETURNS FOR AY 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SUBMITTED A LIST OF 40 P ERSONS WHO HAVE FILED THEIR RETURNS FOR AY 2008-09. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE PERSONS WHO HAVE BOOKED THE PLOTS IN THE PROJECT OF ASSESSEE ARE ITS PROSPECTIVE CUSTOMERS AT THE TIME OF BOOKING. THE A SSESSEE USED TO NOTE THEIR ADDRESSES AND PAN. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CARRY OUT ANY INSPECTION OF THE AUTHENTICITY OF THE ADDRESSES SUB MITTED BY THEM. IT ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 4 HAD SUBMITTED THE ADDRESSES REFLECTED IN THREE DOCU MENTS NAMELY INCOME-TAX RETURN, PAN AND BANK STATEMENT. THE PAYM ENTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE LD . AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE. HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.81 LACS IN AY 2007-08 BECAUSE THIS MUCH OF MONEY OUT OF RS.2,43,50,000/- WAS RECEIVED DURING THE ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO THIS AY, AND THE BALANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.1,62,50 ,000/- RECEIVED IN ACCOUNTING PERIOD RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07 HAS BEEN A DDED IN AY 2006-07. 5. DISSATISFIED WITH THE ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL IN BOTH THE YEARS. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL FOR AY 2007-08 VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH JANUARY, 2009 AND THIS ORDER HAS BEEN FOLLOWED IN AY 2006-07. THE FIN DINGS RECORDED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IN BOTH THE ORDER S ARE VERBATIM. WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO TAKE NOTE OF THE FINDING OF CIT(A) RECORDED IN AY 207-08 WHICH READ AS UNDER :- 6. DECISION I HAVE CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER, REMAND REPORT AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE AD DITION OF TRADE ADVANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT APPROVED DUE TO FOLLOWING R EASONS: I. ALL THE DEPOSITS WHICH HAVE BEEN ADDED BY THE A .O. ARE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE ADVANCE BECAUSE THESE AMOUNTS OF AD VANCE WERE RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS BOOKING ADVANCE AGAINS T THE FUTURE SALE OF THE PLOTS. THESE ADVANCES CANNOT BE SAID TO BE L OANS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE, RESTRICT RULES OF CASH CREDIT AS ENVISAGED IN THE PROVISION OF SEC. 68 OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED ( SEE THE CASE LAW QUOTED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSIONS). ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 5 II. THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED ALL THE CUSTOMERS' DETAILS LIKE NAME, ADDRESS, PAN, COPY OF IT. RETURNS, BANK STATEMENT E TC. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND THUS HAD DISCHARGED IT PR IMARY ONUS AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF CIT V/S. ORISSA CORPORATION (P) LTD. (1986) 159 ITR78(SC). TN MY OPINION, AS PER LAW IT WAS THE DUTY OF A.O. T O VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS BY STRICTLY ENFOR CING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SEC. 131 OF THE ACT IF AT ALL THOSE CUSTOMER S WERE REQUIRED TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. ALTHOUGH IN MY OPINION, THE PHYSICAL PRESENCE OF THE CUSTOMERS WAS NOT REQUIRED AT ALL A S ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS RELATED TO THE CUSTOMERS WERE AVAILABLE WIT H THE A.O. JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE A.O., THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE NON-GENUINE AS HA S BEEN HELD IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS V/S. DY. CIT (2002) 76 TTJ (AND. TRIB.) 521 . AT THE MOST IT CAN BE SAID THAT THE ADVANCES REMAIN ED UNPROVED BUT NOT DISPROVED AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONORABLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL TEXTILES VS. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 IN WHICH IT HAD BEEN OBSERVED THAT 'IF AN ASSESSEE GIVES AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS UNPRO VED BUT NOT DISPROVED, I.E. IT IS NOT ACCEPTED BUT CIRCUMSTANCE S DO NOT LEAD TO THE REASONABLE AND POSITIVE INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE 'S CASE IS FALSE, THE EXPLANATION CANNOT HELP THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE THERE WILL BE NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WAS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ' III. AS ALL THE TRANSACTIONS I.E. ADVANCES RECEIVE D WERE THROUGH BANK ONLY, THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE VERIFIED THESE TRANSACTI ONS WITH THE RELATED BANKS AND SHOULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRIE S IN THIS REGARD WHICH HE HAS FAILED TO DO SO. IV. IN MOST OF THE CASES THE CUSTOMERS ARE FILING THEIR RETURN ON REGULAR BASIS. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLA NT HAS PRODUCED THE COPY OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 FOR VERIFICATION IN ITS SUPPORT. V. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE WHERE ANY EVI DENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON THE RECORD WHICH EVEN REMOTELY INDICATES THAT THE MONEY ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT AND IT HAD RET URNED BACK TO THE APPELLANT AGAIN. ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 6 VI. OTHER CASE LAWS MENTIONED BY THE APPELLANT A RE ALSO NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTION TAKEN BY THE A.O. VII. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS ABOUT ITS INABILIT Y (AS THE PROJECT WAS DELAYED THE CUSTOMERS WERE NOT IN SUPPORTIVE MOOD) TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. IN RIGHT PER SPECTIVE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN QUESTION. THE A.O.'S OBSERVAT ION IN PARA 5.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ' IF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO TRACK ITS OWN CUSTOMERS, IT ONLY MEANS THAT THE CUSTOMERS ARE NOT GENUINE IS IRRELEVANT AND MENTIONING SUCH REASONS IN DECIDING AN ISSUE SHOULD BE AVOIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS & POSITION OF LAW, THE A DDITION MADE BY THE AO IS HEREBY DELETED AND THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE AO COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE INVESTORS. THEREFORE, GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS COULD NO T BE PROVED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CONTENDED THAT LD. FIRST AP PELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PUT RELIANCE UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY TH E HONBLE SUPREME COURT ALSO. THE ASSESSEE HAS FULFILLED ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF SECTION 68 WHEREAS IT WAS A TRADING ADVANCE AND NOT A LOAN OR CREDIT. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THIS PROJECT ULTIMATELY C OULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED AND ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED ALL THESE AD VANCES STARTING FROM JULY, 2009 UPTO MARCH, 2010. HE PLACED ON RECO RD COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF RANDER PEOPLES CO-0P. BANK LTD. H E ALSO PLACED ON RECORD COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ALL THESE P ARTIES AND ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 7 SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH ESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF AO. THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF ALL THE PARTIES HAS ALSO BEEN PLACED ON PAGE NOS.246 TO 297 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. THE BANK STATEMENT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 298 TO 390. TH E LIST OF BOOKING AMOUNT IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 316. ON THE STRENGTH OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AYACHI CHANDRASHE KHAR NARSANGJI REPORTED IN 221 TAXMAN 146 (GUJARAT) HE CONTENDED T HAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS REPAID THE ALLEGED LOAN AND THE DEPART MENT HAS ACCEPTED THE REPAYMENT THEN, ITS GENUINENESS WOULD NOT BE DOUBTFUL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT REP AYMENT WAS MADE UPTO 31 ST MARCH, 2010. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT MADE ANY ADVER SE OBSERVATION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2010-11 OR A Y 2001-12. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD IN THE CASE OF M/S JINDAL (INDIA) TEXTILES VS. ITO IN ITA NO.125/A HD/2012. 8. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BE EN MADE BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF INCOME-TAX ACT. TH IS SECTION PROVIDES THAT WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS O F AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE AO SAT ISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. THERE IS NO DOUBT T HAT THE AMOUNTS WERE REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE ASSESSEE H AS EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF THE AMOUNTS AS ADVANCES TOWARDS BOOKING O F THE PLOTS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LAND ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 8 DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION. ACCORDING TO THE ASSE SSEE IT HAS LAUNCHED A PROJECT AND INVITED THE PROSPECTIVE CUST OMERS TO BOOK THE PLOTS. WHILE CONSTRUING SECTION 68 THE HONBLE SUPR EME COURT PROPOUNDED THAT IN ORDER TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS PUT UPON AN ASSESSEE BY VIRTUE OF THE SECTION, AN ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED T O PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR, HIS CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTION. THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRO DUCED COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS AS WELL AS PAN OF THE INVESTO RS. THEREFORE, AS FAR AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS IS CONCERNED THERE IS N O DISPUTE. SIMILARLY THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUES. IT IS TO BE ASSUMED THAT TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE UNLE SS PROVED OTHERWISE BY THE AO. THE SOLITARY GRIEVANCE OF THE AO IS THAT HE HAS TRIED TO SERVE THE NOTICE UPON THE INVESTORS BUT FA ILED TO SERVE. IN THIS CONNECTION IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT IN AY 2007- 08 EFFORT WAS MADE BY THE AO AFTER 18.12.2009 AND BEFORE 22.12.2009, B ECAUSE HE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31.12.2009. THE LIST OF THE CUSTOMERS IS AVAILABLE ON PAGES 318 TO 322 OF THE P APER BOOK. ALL THE CUSTOMERS ARE FROM SURAT BUT APPEARS TO BE FROM DIF FERENT AREAS. THE ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THE LIST IS ALSO THE ADDRESS REF LECTED ON THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS. THEN WHY THE LD. AO COULD NOT S ERVICE NOTICES UPON THESE PERSONS IS SPECIFICALLY NOT DISCERNIBLE. ACCORDING TO THE AO THE PROCESS SERVER HAS REPORTED THAT ADDRESSES A RE IN COMPLETE. IN THESE SITUATION WE HAVE TWO SETS OF EVIDENCES O NE THE ALLEGED ASSERTIONS OF THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED REPORT OF THE PROCESS SERVER WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY THE R EVENUE NOR REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE HA S NOT EVEN ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 9 MADE REFERENCE TO ANY PARTICULAR WITNESS IN WHOSE P RESENCE PROCESS SERVER HAD TRIED TO LOCATE THE ALLEGED INVESTORS. O N THE OTHER HAND, COPIES OF THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS, BANK STATEMENT, P AN COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN RETURNED THROUG H ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD ACCEP TED THIS EXPLANATION. IF WE WEIGH BOTH THESE SETS OF EVIDENC ES THEN THE SCALE WOULD TILT IN FAVOUR OF THE LD. CIT(A) BECAUSE THE ASSERTIONS OF THE AO IS NOT SUPPORTED WITH ANY CONCRETE MATERIAL ON THE RECORD. THE TIME GAP OF 2-3 DAYS REFERRED BY THE A.O. FOR SERVICE, G IVES A DOUBT TO OUR MIND ALSO WHETHER, PRACTICALLY THE PROCESS SERVER H AD ACTUALLY MADE AN ATTEMPT TO EFFECT THE SERVICES ON ALL THE INVEST ORS IN DIFFERENT CORNERS OF THE CITY IN THAT SHORT TIME. THEREFORE, ON AN OVERALL ANALYSIS OF THE RECORD WE ARE SATISFIED THAT LD. FIRST APPEL LATE AUTHORITY HAS APPRECIATED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN RIGHT PE RSPECTIVE AND NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERI T IN BOTH THE APPEALS. THEY ARE DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/6/2015 SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 24/6/2015 MAHATA/- ITA NOS.1638 & 1471/AHD/2011 ASST. YEARS 2006-07 & 2007-08 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 18/06/2015 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 18/06/2015 OTHER MEMBER: 3. DATE ON WHICH APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S./P.S.: 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: __________ 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE S R. P.S./P.S.: 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK: 24/6/2015 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK: 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER: 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: