M/s. Fortune Fiscal Ltd., Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(2), Baroda

ITA 1473/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63173 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) ITA NO. 1473/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2005-06 M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD., 208, BLUE CHIP COMPLEX, SAYAJIGUNJ, BARODA, P. A. NO. AAACF 3359 A VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (2), BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. G. PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI D. K. SINGH, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 30-10-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 07-12-2012 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BARODA DATED 24-02-2010 IN APPEAL NO. CAB-I/406/07-08, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PASSED U/S 250 READ WITH SE CTION 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN ITS APP EAL WHEREIN GROUND NO.3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND DOES NOT SURVI VE FOR ADJUDICATION. THE OTHER TWO RELEVANT GROUNDS ARE RE PRODUCED HEREIN IN BELOW FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 2 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-I, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CON FIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,40,000/- IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAYMENT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -I, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CON FIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,20,000/- IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAYMENTS MADE TO VINAY B. PAEL AND KAUSHIK J. PATEL. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROU ND WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR OUR CONSIDERATION: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, BAR ODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,20,000/- (60000 X 2) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAYMENT TO DAXA SHAH AND AARTI SHAH. 2.2 CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THOUGH THE L EARNED DR OBJECTED, WE HEREBY ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SINCE THE RELE VANT FACTS AND ISSUES WERE CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED BY BOTH THE REVENUE A UTHORITIES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ORDERS. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E, A LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE BROKING FI LED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2005-06 ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2005 DECLARING INCOME AT RS.1,37,560/-. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143 (1) OF THE ACT ON 01- 02-2006. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY AS PER CASS BY SERVING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THERE AFTER, A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 27-02-2006 AND THE STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHR I VRAJESH R. SHAH WAS RECORDED WHEREIN HE ADMITTED BEFORE THE DD IT (INV.) THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,50,865/- WAS DEBITED TOWARDS SAL ARY TO STAFF ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 3 WHICH INCLUDED SALARY @ RS.5,000/- PER MONTH PAID TO 12 PERSONS AGGREGATING TO RS.7,20,000/- (RS.5000/- X 12 X 12). THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THESE EMPLOYEES WERE NOT AVAILABLE WIT H THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY SHRI V. R. SHA H THAT THE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS APART FROM THE PAYMENT OF RS.7,2 0,000/- WERE NOT GENUINE, AGGREGATING TO RS.7,75,000/- (7,20,000 + 5 5,000) :- I) SHRI H. D. PATEL RS.10,000/- II) SHRI JIGNESH D. SATWARA RS.10,000/- III) AARTIBEN B. SHAH RS.15,000/- IV) PURVI A. BHAVSAR RS.20,000/- TOTAL RS.55,000/- BASED ON THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BEFORE THE DDIT(INV.), THE LEARNED AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.7,75,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 FURTHER, ON EXAMINATION OF THE SALARY REGISTER IMPOUNDED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THE LEARNED AO NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN SALARY PAYMENT OF RS.4,75,865/- AGAINST 1 2 PERSONS. HOWEVER, IT WAS FURTHER REVEALED THAT THE NAMES OF PERSONS APPEARING AT SR. NO.11 AND 12 OF THE LIST SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT APPEAR IN THE SALARY REGISTER AGAINST WHOM PAYMENT OF RS.60,000/- EACH HAD BEEN SHOWN WHICH ESTABLISHED T HAT AS PER SALARY REGISTER THERE WAS NO ACTUAL SALARY PAYMENT TO THESE TWO PERSONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED AO MADE FURTHER A DDITION OF RS.1,20,000/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A), CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SUBMISSION OF THE ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 4 ASSESSEE AND THE REPORT OF THE LEARNED AO RESTRICTE D THE FIRST ADDITION OF RS.7,75,000/- TO RS.2,40,000/- & RS.1,20,000 AND CONFIRMED THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.1,20,000/-. RELEVANT PORTION OF HIS FINDINGS ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN UNDER FOR REFERENCE: 3.4 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A R, REPORT OF THE AO AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AFFIDAVITS, COPIES OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS, COMPUTATI ON OF INCOME AND FORM NO.16 OF TEN PERSONS. THE DETAILS ARE AS U NDER: SR. NO. NAME AMOUNT (RS.) DATE OF FILING OF RETURN 1. P. L. SHAH 60,000 31.10.2005 2. MEENA J. THAKKAR 35,000 30.8.2005 3. CHIRAYU J SHAH 60,000 27.10.2005 4. HITESH K. PATEL 20,000 22.3.2006 5. BHAVINI PATEL 60,000 10.2.2006 6. PURVI A BHAVSAR 60,000 30.10.2005 7. DAXA Y SHAH 60,000 1.3.2006 8. MILIND V. THAKKAR 60,000 31.8.2005 9. H D PATEL 60,000 31.1-.2005 10. AARTI B SHAH 60,000 20.3.2006 TOTAL 5,35,000 3.5 HOWEVER, NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE EXCEPT AFFIDAVI TS COULD BE FILED IN RESPECT OF THE FOLLOWING:- SR. NO. NAME AMOUNT [RS.] 1. NIRIN PATEL 60,000 2. JIGNESH G. SATHWARA 60,000 3. PHALGUNI M SHAH 60,000 4. DHAWAL R PATEL 60,000 TOTAL 2,40,000 3.6 THE SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A TOOK PLACE ON 27.2.2 006. THE BOOKS INCLUDING SALARY REGISTER FOR FY 2004-05 WERE EXAMINED AND A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,75,000/- WAS MADE IN RES PECT OF 14 PERSONS. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE REMAND REPORT UNDER RULE 46A HAS STATED THAT MORE W EIGHTAGE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE CONTEMPORANEOUS STATEMENT OF ONE OF ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 5 THE DIRECTORS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT GENUINE, AS COMPARED TO THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT THE TEN PERSONS LIST ED PARA 3.4 ABOVE FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME ON VARIOUS DATES RANGING FROM 30.8.2005 TO 23.3.2006. SEVEN OF THE RETURNS WERE F ILED BEFORE THE DATE OF SURVEY. IN THE CASE OF 3 PERSONS, HITES H PATEL, DAXA SHAH AND AARTI SHAH, THE RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER T HE SURVEY. IN THE CASE OF HITESH PATEL, HOWEVER, THE RETURNED INC OME IS RS.9,92,046/- FOR AY 2005-06, WHICH INCLUDES THE SA LARY RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. HENCE, HIS CASE IS HELD TO BE GENUINE. HOWEVER, IN THE OTHER TWO CASES, THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE RETURNS WERE FILED AR E HIGHLY SUSPICIOUS. THE LAST DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN WAS 30.7.2005. NO RETURN WAS FILED FOR 7 MONTHS AFTER THE DUE DATE. S UDDENLY, AFTER THE SURVEY, THESE TWO PERSONS WOKE UP AND FILED THE IR RETURNS WITHIN A MONTH. THE GENUINENESS OF THESE TWO EMPLO YEES CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWANCES IN THE CASE OF DAXA SHAH AND AARTI SH AH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,20,000/- (60,00 X 2) ARE CONFIRM ED . IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE FILED AND THE EXPLANATION STATING T HAT THE DIRECTORS HAVING KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE DAY TO DAY RUN NING OF THE COMPANY WERE NOT QUESTIONED, I AM OF THE OPINION TH AT THE APPELLANT WAS ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TH E FACT THAT SALARY WAS PAID GENUINELY TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED 8 PERSONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS DELETED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,15,000. /-. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF 4 PERSONS LISTED AT PARA 3.5 ABOVE, NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FIL ED IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,40,000 /-, WHICH IS CONFIRMED. 4. GROUND NO . 2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,20,000/- THE AO MADE THE DISALLOWANCE ON THE GROUND THAT DUR ING THE SURVEY OPERATION ON 27.2.2006 AT THE BUSINESS PREMI SES OF THE ASSESSEE, THE NAMES OF VINAY B. PATEL AND KAUSHIK J PATEL WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE SALARY REGISTER OR THE AT TENDANCE REGISTER. THE CLAIM OF SALARY @ RS.5,000/- PER MONT H TO THOSE TWO PERSONS WAS ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED. ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 6 4.1 IN APPEAL, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE NAMES OF THE PERSONS DID NOT APPEAR IN THE SALARY REGISTE R OR ATTENDANCE REGISTER DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY WERE NEW EMPLOYEE BUT WERE PAID HIGHER SALARIES AND HAD THIS FACT BEEN RECORDED IN THE REGISTER, THE OTHER EMPLOYEES WOULD HAVE AGITATED. THE COPY OF INCOME-TAX RETURN FILED BY SH RI VINAY B PATEL WAS PLACED ON RECORD. 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR AND FACTS OF THE CASE. I FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF KAUSHIK J P ATEL NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN FILED REGARDING HIS EM PLOYMENT IN THE COMPANY. EVEN IN THE CASE OF VINAY B. PATEL THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 28.2.2006, THE VERY NEXT D AY AFTER TH E SURVEY. THIS APPEARS TO BE TOO MUCH OF A COINCIDENCE AND DOES NO T APPEAR TO BE GENUINE. IN ANY CASE, IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD HO W THE PRESENCE OF THESE TWO NAMES IN THE ATTENDANCE REGIS TER COULD HAVE CAUSED RESENTMENT AMONGST THE OTHER EMPLOYEES, WHEN NO FINANCIAL DETAILS RELATING TO THE EMPLOYMENT WER E RECORDED IN THE ATTENDANCE REGISTER. ACCORDINGLY, THE DISALLOWA NCES IN RESPECT OF BOTH VINAY B PATEL AND KAUSHIK J PATEL A RE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIED AND ARE CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND THUS FA ILS. AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WHERE I N THE FOLLOWING THREE ADDITIONS ARE CONFIRMED VIZ. ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF BOGUS SALARY PAYMENT TO (A) (I) NIRIN PATEL RS.60,000/-, (II) JIGNESH G. SATHWARA RS.60,000/- (III) PHALGUNI M SHAH RS.60,00 0/- AND (IV) DHAWAL R PATEL RS.60,000/- AGGREGATING TO RS 2,40,000/-, (B) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS SALARY PAYMENT TO (I) DAXA SHAH RS.60,000/- AND (II) AARTI SHAH RS.60,000 AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,20,000 AND (C) ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS SALARY PAYMENT TO (I) VINAY B PATEL RS.60,000, AND KAUSHIK J PATEL RS.60, 000 AGGREGATING TO RS. 1,20,000; THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 7 5. THE LEARNED AR REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE B EFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE FURTHER, RELYING ON THE DECIS IONS (I) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS S. KHADER KHAN SON REPORTED IN 210 TAXMAN 248 (SC) AND (II) CIT VS K. KHADER KHAN SON REPORTED IN 300 ITR 157 (MAD.) PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALL OWANCE OF SALARY PAYMENTS TO STAFF MAY BE DELETED BY SETTING ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED DR ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND PRAYED THAT T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RUNNING TO 50 PAGES. 6.1 GROUND NO.1:- DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,40,000/-. THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2.40,000/- TOWARDS BOGUS PAYMENT OF SALARY WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED AO WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), DUE TO THE REASON THAT THE SALARY PAID TO F OUR PERSONS @ RS.60,000/- PER ANNUM NAMELY (1) NIRIN PATEL, (2) J IGNESH G. SATHWARA ,(3) PHALGUNI M. SHAH AND DHAWAL R. PATE L, APPEARED TO BE BOGUS SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY E VIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, ON OUR PERUSAL OF THE PAPER BOOK F ROM PAGE NO.28 TO 31 WE FIND THAT ALL THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS HAD F URNISHED AFFIDAVITS DATED 11-07-2008 WHICH ARE ALSO DULY NOTARIZED STAT ING THAT HE/SHE WAS AN EMPLOYEE IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CITING THEI R RESPECTIVE DESIGNATION AND AMOUNT OF SALARY DRAWN BY THEM. THE Y HAVE ALSO FURNISHED THE PAN NUMBERS. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE REVENUE HAS TOTALLY DISREGARDED THESE VALUABLE DOCUMENTS PRODUC ED BY THE ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 8 ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE REVENUE HAS M ISERABLY FAILED TO EXAMINE THESE DOCUMENTS IN ORDER TO JUDGE THE VERAC ITY OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE DET AILS OF THE EMPLOYEES AND, THEREFORE, DISCHARGED THE ONUS THRUS T UPON THEM SINCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE AFFIDAVITS HAS NOT BEE N PROVED OTHERWISE. IT APPEARS THAT THE REVENUE HAS PROCEEDE D PURELY BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES WITH REGARD TO THE ADDI TION MADE FOR RS.2,40,000/- BY HOLDING THAT THE SALARY PAYMENT MA DE TO THE FOUR EMPLOYEES CITED SUPRA ARE BOGUS. THEREFORE, WE HERE BY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,40,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED AO AN D SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 IS DEC IDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.2 GROUND NO.2:- DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,20,000/-. THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,20,000/- WAS MADE BY THE LEARN ED AO WHICH WAS FURTHER CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON ACCO UNT OF BOGUS PAYMENT OF SALARY TO MR. VINAY B. PATEL AND MR. KAU SHIK J. PATEL FOR RS.60,000/- EACH PER ANNUM. THE REVENUE HAD DISALLO WED THIS EXPENSE BECAUSE THE NAMES OF THESE TWO EMPLOYEES WE RE NOT ENTERED IN THE SALARY REGISTER AND IN THE CASE VINA Y B. PATEL THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 28-02-2006 I.E. THE VERY NEX T DAY AFTER THE DATE OF THE SURVEY AND IN THE CASE OF KAUSHIK J. PA TEL NO EVIDENCE HAD BEEN FILED REGARDING HIS EMPLOYMENT. ON PERUSIN G THE PAPER BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AT PAGE NO.33 AND 34 , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE XEROX COPY OF THE RE TURN OF INCOME OF VINAY B. PATEL AND THE AFFIDAVIT OF KAUSHIK J. PATE L BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. IT APPEARS THAT THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 9 THESE RELEVANT DOCUMENT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING OUR DECISION TAKEN FOR GROUND NO.1 CITED SUPRA IN THIS APPEAL, WE HEREBY DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,20,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HELD IN ITS FAVOUR. 6.3 ADDITIONAL GROUND: - DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,20,000/-. THE LEARNED AO HAD DISALLOWED THE SALARY PAYMENT TO DAX A SHAH AND AARTI SHAH AMOUNTING TO RS.60,000/- EACH PER ANNUM AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE SAME. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION SINCE IN CASE OF BOTH THE E MPLOYEES DAXA SHAH AND AARTI SHAH RETURNS WERE FILED AFTER THE DA TE OF SURVEY AND THEREFORE APPEARED TO BE SUSPICIOUS. THE LAST DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN WAS 30-07-2005 AND THE RETURN WAS FILED AFTER A PER IOD OF SEVEN MONTHS BEYOND THE DUE DATE. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE THAT THESE EMPLOYEES HAD FURNISHED THEIR PARTICULARS BEFORE TH E REVENUE WHICH WAS SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE AND CONCLUSION WAS DRAWN O N THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION TAKEN BY US FOR THE SIMILAR GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HE REIN ABOVE, WE DELETE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR RS.1,20,000/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED IN ITS FAVOUR. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 07-12-2012. SD/- SD/- (G. C. GUPTA) VICE PRESIDENT (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1473/AHD/2010 (AY: 2005-06) M/S. FORTUNE FISCAL LTD. VS ITO, W-1(2), AHMEDABAD 10 LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANT LAKSHMIKANTA AA A DEKA DEKA DEKA DEKA / // / 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 ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: 23-11-12/03-12-12(DIRECT ON COMPUTER) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: 26-11-12/ 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: 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: