The ITO, Ward-1 & TDS, Bharuch V. M/s. Kirti Corporation, Bharuch

ITA 1479/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50649 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y C SURTI
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business expenditure; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 147; 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND A. MOHAN ALAN KAMONY, AM) ITA NO.1479/AHD/2005 AY: 2001-02 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 & TDS, STATION ROAD, BHARUCH VS M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION, 127, PARISHRAM, PRITAM SOCIETY -2, BHARUCH PA NO. AACKF 8361 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1506/AHD/2005 AY: 2001-02 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION, 127, PARISHRAM, PRITAM SOCIETY -2, BHARUCH VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, STATION ROAD, BHARUCH PA NO. AACFK 8361 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3667/AHD/2007 AY: 2001-02 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA, C/O. KIRTI CORPORATION, PRITAM SOCIETY -2, BHARUCH VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, STATION ROAD, BHARUCH PA NO. AEEPK 3065 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.3668/AHD/2007 AY: 2001-02 MR. UMESH KOTIA, C/O. KIRTI CORPORATION, PRITAM SOCIETY -2,BHARUCH VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1, STATION ROAD, BHARUCH PA NO. AEEPK 3066 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 2 DEPARTMENT BY SHRI Y. C. SURTI, DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, AR DATE OF HEARING: 15-09-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23-09-2011 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: BRIEFLY, THE BACKGROUND OF FILING OF THESE APPEALS IS THAT M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION, THE A SSESSEE IS A FIRM. SMT. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND SHRI UMESH KOTIA, THE OTHER ASSESSEES ARE THE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION. BO TH THE PARTNERS HAVE INTRODUCED CAPITAL IN THE FIRM FOR WHICH ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN THE IN DIVIDUAL CAPACITY OF THE PARTNERS AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM. TH E ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN WHICH BOTH THE PARTNERS AND THE A SSESSEE FIRM ARE IN APPEAL. THE REVENUE IS ALSO IN APPEAL CHALLENGIN G THE DELETION OF ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION AND IN DELETING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ALSO IN APPEAL FOR RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION. SINCE, ALL THE MATTERS ARE CONNECTED, THEREFORE, THE SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND WE DISP OSE OF THE SAME THROUGH THIS COMMON CONSOLIDATED ORDER ISSUE-WISE A S UNDER. ISSUE NO.1 2. THE REVENUE ON GROUND NO.1 IN THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE FIRM CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN DELET ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EXPENSES O F ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 3 RS.7,65,705/-. THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS IN APPEAL ON GR OUND NO.2 CHALLENGING THE RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE OF 5% O N THE SAME ISSUE. IT IS BRIEFLY STATED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER THAT TH E AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM DEBITED BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION EXPE NSES OF RS.5,21,802/-. THE ASSESSEE FIRM COULD NOT FURNISH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT INCLUDING IDENTITY OF THE PERSO NS TO WHOM BROKERAGE WAS PAID AND PRODUCE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THESE PARTIES BEFORE THE AO EXCEPT FURNISHING ONLY COPY O F THE ACCOUNT WHICH CONTAINED ONLY SKETCHY NARRATION ABOUT THE EX PENSES. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT TOTAL COMMISSION CLAIMED ARE R S.7,65,706/- AND COMMISSION INCOME OF RS.2,43,904/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE FIRM. THE NET COMMISSION WAS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR RS.5,21,802/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FIRM FAILED TO FU RNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED WH OLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, THE AO DIS ALLOWED TOTAL AMOUNT OF EXPENSES OF RS.7,65,706/- WHICH WAS MORE THAN THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT W AS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE WITHO UT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. FATHER OF O NE OF THE PARTNERS WAS SERIOUSLY ILL AND THE AO DRAWN ADVERSE INFERENC E WITHOUT EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE AUDIT REPOR T. ALL THE EXPENSES ARE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE PARTIES TO WHOM COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE HAVE BEEN PAID ARE AS SESSED TO TAX AND HAVE CONFIRMED THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF C OMMISSION ON THE SALE OF COTTON ETC. THE NAMES OF THE PARTIES IN DICATING THE ENTRY AND BASIS OF PAYMENT DULY CONFIRMED BY THE PARTIES ARE FILED. IT WAS, ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 4 THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE DELET ED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WI TH DIRECTION TO EXAMINE COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FILED THE REMAND REPORT WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE AO BRIEFLY EXPLAINED TH AT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE SHRI VINAY BABDUA FOR EXAMINATION WHO WAS STATED TO BE OUT OF COUNTRY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT ALL THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BUSI NESS PURPOSE AND IN THE SAME LINE SUCH BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION ARE NORMAL BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. IT IS NOT CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AND THE AO MADE EXCESSIVE ADDITION. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON EXAMINATI ON OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOUND THAT GENERALL Y THE BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION HAVE BEEN PAID @ 5% TO 1 % ON THE AM OUNT OF COTTON SOLD WHICH CANNOT BE SAID TO BE UNREASONABLE OR EXCESSIVE. IT WAS FOUND THAT COMMISSION WAS NOT PAID TO ANY RELAT ED PARTIES. THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CHEQUE. SHRI VINAY BALDUA COU LD NOT BE PRODUCED BECAUSE HE WAS OUT OF COUNTRY. THE AO NOTE D ONLY INCONSEQUENTIAL DEFECTS IN THE DETAILS. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE PAID AS PER THE MARKET PRA CTICE AND THE SAME IS ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN THE EARLIER YEARS. ON EXAMINATION OF THE VOLUMINOUS CONFIRMATIONS AND DEBIT NOTES PRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESS EE, HOWEVER, FOR THE DEFECTS NOTED BY THE AO, 5% EXPENSES WAS CONFIR MED TO BE DISALLOWED AND REMAINING ADDITION WAS DELETED. ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 5 2.1 THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT NO DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO, THERE FORE, ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS WERE PRODUCED BEF ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR IN WHI CH NO MAJOR DEFECTS HAVE BEEN FOUND. HE HAS REITERATED THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT EVE N NO ADDITION OF 5% SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 2.2 ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND C ONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE DO NOT FIND A NY JUSTIFICATION TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON GOING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL FOUND THAT BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION WAS PAID AS PER MARKET PRACTICE WHICH IS REASONABLE AND IS NOT EXCESSIVE. PAYMENTS ARE MADE THROUGH CHEQUE AND NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO THE RELATED PERSONS/PARTIE S. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN T HE EARLIER YEARS BY THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, CONSIDERI NG THE EVIDENCES AND THE HISTORY OF THE ASSESSEE RIGHTLY DELETED THE SUBSTANTIAL ADDITIONS. FOR THE SMALL DEFECTS NOTED BY THE AO, T HE LEARNED CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE EXPENSES @ 5 % OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES. WE MAY ALSO NOTE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE C LAIMED DEDUCTION OF LESSER EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT & LOSS A CCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WAS UNJUSTIFIED. SINCE EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON WHICH REMAN D REPORT WAS CALLED FOR, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CON TENTION OF THE LEARNED ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 6 DR THAT NO EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. CONS IDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NOTED BY TH E LEARNED CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER. IN THE R ESULT, GROUND NO.1 OF THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL AND GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ARE DISMI SSED. ISSUE NO.2. 3. ON GROUND NO.2 IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN TH E CASE OF THE FIRM, THE REVENUE CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITI ON OF RS.2,23,541/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INTEREST INCOME ON T HE BASIS OF TDS CERTIFICATE. THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE TDS CERTIFICA TE ISSUED BY M/S. EURO COTSPIN LTD. THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAS EARNED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.2,23,541/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FIRM COULD NOT FURNISH SATISFACTORY REPLY OR DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS C LAIM WHETHER SUCH INCOME WAS REFLECTED, THE AO CONCLUDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE FIRM HAS NOT SHOWN SUCH INTEREST INCOME IN ITS ACCOUNT AND A DDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE TREATING THE INTEREST INCOME AS UN DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESS EE IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BY REF ERRING TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194A OF THE IT ACT SUBMITTED THAT THE TA X IS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUCTED AT THE TIME OF CREDIT OF SUCH INCOME TO T HE ACCOUNTS OF PAYEES OR INTEREST PAYABLE WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME ACCRUED AND DUE IN FINANCIAL YE AR 1999-2000 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001 I.E. PREC EDING ASSESSMENT YEAR PRIOR TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPE AL AS PER THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT GIVEN BY EURO COTSPIN LTD. SIN CE THE INTEREST ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 7 PERTAINS TO EARLIER YEAR, THEREFORE, IT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND IS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT O F THE ASSESSEE FIRM ALSO. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT TDS WAS CLAIM ED IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND CREDIT OF THE SAME SHALL HAVE TO BE GIVEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE CHEQUES WERE DISHON ORED, THEREFORE, LATER ON DEMAND DRAFT WAS ISSUED BY THE AFORESAID F IRM IN ORDER TO AVOID THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IT IS, THEREFORE, STAT ED THAT THE EXPLANATION WOULD SATISFY THE QUERY OF THE AO. THE MATTER WAS R EMANDED TO THE AO FOR FILING REMAND REPORT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CON SIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO FOUND THAT ADDITION IS UNJU STIFIED BECAUSE THE INTEREST INCOME PERTAINED TO THE EARLIER YEAR WHICH HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. INTEREST IN COME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE BECAUSE TDS CERTIFICATE WAS RECEIVED LA TE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE AO WAS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT FOR THE TDS IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AFTER VERI FYING THE TDS CERTIFICATE. 4. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE D O NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THE LEARNED DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). SINCE THE ASSES SEE HAS REFLECTED INTEREST INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEAR AS PER THE TDS CERTIFICATE, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT SINCE INTERES T WAS DUE IN THE EARLIER YEAR, THEREFORE, IT WAS CORRECTLY SHOWN IN THE EARLIER YEAR. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ONLY DIRECTED THE AO TO GIVE CREDIT OF THE TDS IN ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 8 EARLIER YEAR AFTER VERIFYING THE FACTS AND MATCHING THE INCOME WITH THE TDS CERTIFICATE. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INF IRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). WE CONFIRM HIS FINDING AND DISM ISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IN THE RESULT GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ISSUE NO.3 5. THE ASSESSEE FIRM, M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION, IN TH EIR APPEAL, ON GROUND NO.1 CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000 /- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEES BEING PARTNE RS IN M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION NAMELY MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMES H KOTIA HAVE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- EACH IN T HEIR CASES U/S 68/69 OF THE IT ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IT WAS OBSERVED BY TH E AO THAT MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA, PARTNERS OF THE FIRM HAD INTRODUCED A SUM OF RS.10,00,000/- EACH IN THEIR RE SPECTIVE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE FIRM. THE FIRM WAS ASKED TO FURNISH SOURCES OF INTRODUCTION OF SUCH CAPITAL BY THE PARTNERS. THE F IRM SIMPLY STATED THAT SUCH CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS BY TAKING LOANS FROM THE VADALI VIBHAGIA CO-OP. SOCIETY LTD., VADALIA (H EREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS SOCIETY) ON DIFFERENT DATES BUT COULD NOT FUR NISH ANY DETAILS SUCH AS CHEQUE NUMBER AND BANK ACCOUNT AND THE NAME OF T HE BANK ETC. THE ASSESSEE FIRM ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE CONFIRMATI ON LETTER FROM THE SOCIETY. IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTIONS, LETTE RS WERE WRITTEN BY THE AO TO THE SOCIETY TO CONFIRM THE LOAN IF ANY GIVEN BY IT TO THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AMOUNTING TO RS.10,00,000/- EACH DURING THE ASSESSMENT ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 9 YEAR UNDER APPEAL. NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED BY THE AO. FURTHER, NO CONFIRMATION BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM OR THE SOCIETY WA S PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THE AO, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT THE FIRM HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND SOU RCE OF THE ADDITIONS TO THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT AMOUNTIN G TO RS.20,00,000/- SATISFACTORILY AND THE SOURCE OF THESE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS WERE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM IN A SUM OF RS.20,00,000/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED TH E ADDITION BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND IT WAS ARGUED THAT BO TH THE PARTNERS RAISED THE LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH ON 04-05-2000 FROM THE SOCIETY AND FURTHER SUM OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH WAS ALSO RAIS ED BY BOTH THE PARTNERS ON 24-08-2000 FROM THE SOCIETY. CONFIRMATI ON LETTER FROM THE SOCIETY WAS ALSO FILED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CAPIT AL WAS INTRODUCED IN PARTNERS ACCOUNT IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO TAKE HIGHE R AMOUNT OF LOAN FROM THE BANK. THE MATTER WAS REMANDED TO THE AO FO R EXAMINATION OF THESE EVIDENCES. THE AO SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REP ORT WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE AO D IRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER/RESPONSIB LE PERSON OF THE SOCIETY. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SHRI BABUBHAI D PATE L, MANAGER OF THE SOCIETY AND HIS STATEMENT U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT WAS RECORDED ON 03-12-2004 IN RESPECT OF THE CREDIT OF RS.20,00,000 /-. THE AO NOTED THAT SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL FAILED TO PROVE HIS IDE NTITY AND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS PRODUCED TO PROVE GIVING OF LOAN OF RS.20,00,000/- TO THE PARTNERS. IT WAS ALSO FOUND T HAT THE SIGNATURE OF THE CONFIRMATION DIFFER FROM THAT OF SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL IN WHICH HE ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 10 HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE CLERK HAS SIGNED THE CONFIRM ATION LETTER WHICH WAS PRODUCED AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE LEARNED CI T(A) ALSO NOTED THAT SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL PRODUCED THE SUB-LEDGER OF THE SOCIETY WHEREIN THE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS LOAN BUT REGULAR BO OKS OF THE SOCIETY WERE NOT PRODUCED. THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONSI DERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES NOTED THAT BOTH THE PART NERS INTRODUCED RS.10,00,000/- EACH IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND THE AS SESSEE FIRM FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCES OF THE INTRODUCTION OF SUCH FUNDS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM DESPITE GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUN ITIES. ADDITION WAS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 5.1 IN THE CASES OF BOTH THE PARTNERS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO ARGUE THE APPEALS BUT NONE APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON T HE DATE OF HEARING, THEREFORE, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE DECIDED E X-PARTE. IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT AFTER MAKING THESE ADDITIONS IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM, THE CASES OF THE PARTNERS WERE REOPENED IN WHICH TH E PARTNERS ALSO FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS, THEREF ORE, ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- WAS MADE IN BOTH THEIR INDIVIDUAL CA SES VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21-03-2006 U/S 143(3) / 147 OF THE IT ACT. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO FOUND AT THE STAGE OF APPEL LATE PROCEEDINGS THAT ASSESSEES FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CAPITAL INTRODUCED IN THE FIRM AND THE ASSESSEES FAILED TO SUBMIT SEVERAL DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE LIKE BALANCE SHEET AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETU RN OF THE SOCIETY AND THE BANK STATEMENT OF SABARKANTHA CO-OP ERATIVE BANK LTD. THE LEARNED CIT(A), THEREFORE, NOTED THAT SINC E THE NOTICE OF THE ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 11 AO REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH, THEREFORE, ADDITION O F RS.10,00,000/- EACH WAS CONFIRMED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CASES OF BOTH THE PARTNERS WHO HAVE ALSO CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS IN THEIR SEPARAT E APPEALS MENTIONED ABOVE. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED BY BOTH THE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM AFTER TAKING LOANS FROM THE SOCIETY. THE FIRM AND THE PARTNERS A RE ASSESSED SEPARATELY. THE LOAN IS EXPLAINED IN THE INDIVIDUAL CASES. HE HAS REFERRED TO THE REPLIES FILED BEFORE THE AO IN THEI R INDIVIDUAL CASES IN WHICH THE DATE, NAME OF THE BANK, CHEQUE NUMBER, AM OUNT OF LOAN AND FUNDS TAKEN FROM THE SOCIETY AND THEIR PERMANEN T ACCOUNT NUMBER HAVE BEEN MENTIONED. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT S INCE THE PARTNERS OWNED THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL IN T HE FIRM, THEREFORE, NO ADDITION MAY BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM. HE HA S SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION CANNOT BE SIMULTANEOUSLY MADE OF THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM AS WELL AS IN THE CASES OF THE IND IVIDUAL PARTNERS. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH I N THE CASE OF M/S. MEERA TRADERS VS ITO IN ITA NO.2938/AHD/2006 D ATED 30-01-2009 IN WHICH THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PANKAJ DYE STUFF INDUSTRIES, IT REF NO.241 OF 1993 ORDER DATED 06-07-2005 DELETE D THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL INTRODUC ED BY THE PARTNERS. COPY OF THE ORDER IS PLACED ON RECORD. HE HAS SUBMI TTED THAT THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM IS, THEREFORE, UNJ USTIFIED. AS REGARDS ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 12 THE INDIVIDUAL CASES OF THE PARTNERS, HE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL, MANAGER O F THE SOCIETY BEFORE THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN WHICH HE HAS CONFIRMED TO HAVE GIVEN LOANS TO THE PARTNERS. THEREFORE, ONU S UPON THE ASSESSEE IS DISCHARGED AND NO ADDITION COULD BE MAD E EVEN IN THE CASES OF THE PARTNERS. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-7 REPL Y DATED 09-03-2006 FILED BEFORE THE AO IN WHICH IT WAS EXPL AINED THAT SUMMONS BE ISSUED AGAINST INDIAN BANK FOR SUBMISSIO N THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE BANK DENIED TO ISSUE BANK STATEMENT OF EARLIER PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NO T TAKEN ANY ACTION IN THE MATTER. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISI ONS OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS ROHINI BU ILDERS, 256 ITR 360 AND IN THE CASE OF MURLIDHAR LAHORIMAL VS CIT, 280 ITR 512 AND ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREM E COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ORISSA CORPORATION PVT. LTD., 159 IT R 78. HE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT IS UNJ USTIFIED. HE HAS REFERRED TO PAPER BOOK OF PAGES 17 FILED BY HIM. NO OTHER DOCUMENT IS REFERRED TO DURING THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT NO EVIDENCE OF TAKING LOAN FROM THE SOCIETY WAS FILED EITHER BE FORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE SIGNATURE ON THE CON FIRMATION FILED BY THE SOCIETY DID NOT BEAR THE SIGNATURE OF SHRI BABU BHAI D. PATEL. THEREFORE, ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN RIGHTLY MADE IN THE MATTER. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AS POINTED OUT BY BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS AD MITTED FACT THAT IN THE ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 13 CASE OF THE FIRM, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT CAPIT AL HAS BEEN INTRODUCED BY BOTH THE PARTNERS IN A SUM OF RS.10,0 0,000/- EACH. THE SOURCE OF INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL WAS EXPLAINED TO BE THE AMOUNT TAKEN BY THEM ON LOANS FROM THE SOCIETY. THOUGH, NO FURTHER DETAILS COULD BE FURNISHED BUT IT IS CLEAR THAT THE PARTNER S HAVE OWNED UP THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM. L ATER ON, THE INDIVIDUAL CASES OF THE BOTH PARTNERS WERE ALSO REO PENED IN WHICH SIMILAR ADDITIONS ON INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN THE FIRM HAVE BEEN MADE. IT, THEREFORE, STANDS PROVED THAT BOTH THE PA RTNERS HAVE CONFIRMED TO HAVE INTRODUCED THE AMOUNT OF RS.10,00 ,000/- EACH AS CAPITAL IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRO DUCED THE DATES OF TAKING OF THE LOAN FROM THE SOCIETY AS WELL AS T HE DETAILS LIKE NAME OF THE BANK, DATE, CHEQUE NUMBER ETC. BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT(A) TO EXPLAIN THAT CAPITAL HAVE BEEN INTRODUCED BY BOTH T HE PARTNERS. SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL, MANAGER OF THE SOCIETY WAS PRODU CED IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO IN WHICH THE CONFI RMATION ISSUED BY THE SOCIETY WAS REFERRED TO WHICH CONTAINED THE COMPLETE DETAILS. HE HAS ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/- EACH WERE GIVEN TO BOTH THE PARTNERS. THE AO HOWEVER, DI D NOT ACCEPT THE EXPLANATION OF SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL BECAUSE HIS I DENTITY WAS NOT PROVED AND NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF GIVING OF LOA N WAS FILED. ONCE A PERSON IS EXAMINED ON OATH BY THE PERSON EXA MINING HIM AND HE CONFIRMED HIS IDENTITY, NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IS R EQUIRED TO PROVE HIS IDENTITY. IN CASE OF ANY DOUBT, THE DEPONENT/MAKER SHOULD HAVE BEEN ASKED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD ON REC ORD BUT THE AO DID NOT ASK FURTHER WITH REGARD TO THE IDENTITY OF SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL. ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 14 SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL ALSO PRODUCED SUB-LEDGER OF THE SOCIETY BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT THE LOAN WA S GIVEN. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT IS CLEAR THAT EVEN IF THE SOURCE IS NOT EXPLAINED AS WAS DIRECTED BY THE AO, BUT IT IS PROVED SPECIFICAL LY THAT BOTH THE PARTNERS INTRODUCED CAPITAL IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM AN D THEY HAVE OWNED UP INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM. TH ESE FACTS WOULD CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE I N THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. MEERA TRADERS (SUPRA) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS PANKAJ DYESTUFF INDUSTR IES (SUPRA). IN THIS CASE CAPITAL WAS INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SOURCE; THEREFORE, AD DITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM PROTECTIVELY. THE HONBLE G UJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PANKAJ DYESTUFF INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) FOUN D THAT WHEN THE PARTNERS HAVE OWNED UP THE MONEY DEBITED IN THEIR A CCOUNT IN THE FIRM, THE AMOUNT CREDITED TO THE PARTNERS ACCOUNT C ANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. THE ITO IS ENTITLED TO PR OCEED AGAINST THE PARTNERS AND ASSESS THE SAME IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CA SES/HANDS, IF THEIR EXPLANATION IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY. THE TRIBUNAL FOLLOWING THIS DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM. BY FOLLOWING THE SAME DECISION, A DDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM, PARTICULARLY, WH EN SEPARATE ADDITIONS OF RS.10,00,000/- EACH HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASES OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS. THE SIMILAR ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE TWICE IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM AS WELL AS PARTNERS. IN THE CASE O F THE FIRM, THE INTRODUCTION OF THE CAPITAL IS EXPLAINED BY THE PAR TNERS BY OWNING UP ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 15 THE INTRODUCTION OF CAPITAL FROM THEIR SOURCE. THER EFORE, ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN THE CASE OF THE FIRM. WE WOUL D CONSIDER THE INDIVIDUAL CASES OF BOTH THE PARTNERS FOR THE PURPO SE OF CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ADDITIONS SEPARATELY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOV E DISCUSSIONS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/-. IN THE RESULT, GROUND NO.1 OF THE A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS ALLOWED. 9. NOW, WE CONSIDER THE CASES OF BOTH THE INDIVIDUA L PARTNERS IN WHICH THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/- EACH. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE SOCIETY BEFOR E THE AO. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS OF THE FIRM, SHRI BABUBHAI D. PA TEL WAS EXAMINED IN WHICH CONFIRMATION WAS REFERRED TO AND SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL ADMITTED THAT THE SIGNATURE APPENDED IN THIS CONFIRMATION DID NOT BELONG TO HIM AND IT BEARS SIGNATURE OF HIS CLE RK. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE SIGNATURE OF SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATE L APPENDED IN THE CONFIRMATION DID NOT BELONG TO HIM BECAUSE IT WAS T HE SIGNATURE OF HIS CLERK WHICH WAS CONTRARY TO THE STAND TAKEN BY THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS. THE CLERK IS NOT RESPONSIBLE PERSON ON BE HALF OF THE SOCIETY TO ISSUE SUCH CONFIRMATION. NO SIGNATURE OF RESPONS IBLE PERSON OF THE SOCIETY WAS FOUND ON THIS PAPER ACCORDING TO THE ST ATEMENT OF SHRI BABUBHAI D. PATEL BECAUSE THE SAME WAS SIGNED BY TH E CLERK. HE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ETC. T O PROVE THAT GENUINE LOANS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO BOTH THE PERSONS, BUT ORALLY HE HAS ADMITTED THAT THE SOCIETY HAS GIVEN LOANS TO BOTH T HE PARTNERS. HE HAS ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 16 PRODUCED LEDGER OF THE SOCIETY WHEREIN SUCH LOANS A RE APPEARING BUT THE REQUIRED BOOKS OF THE SOCIETY WERE NOT PRODUCED FOR EXAMINATION BEFORE THE AO. THESE FACTS WOULD MAKE IT CLEAR THAT BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF T HE CAPITAL INTRODUCED BY THEM IN THE FIRM. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT THAT ONC E THE MANAGER OF THE SOCIETY WAS EXAMINED BY THE AO, THERE WAS NO REASON NOT TO DIRECT HIM TO PRODUCE RELEVANT RECORDS BEFORE HIM FOR FURTHER EXAMINATION. THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 09-03-2006 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT DID NOT TAKE ANY PROPER ACTION ON THE SAME. THE AO CALLED FOR SEVERAL DETAILS FROM BOTH THE PAR TNERS ALSO AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE IN WHICH BOTH THE PARTNERS EXPLAIN ED TO HAVE TAKEN LOANS FROM THE SOCIETY IN WHICH THE DATE OF DEPOSIT , CHEQUE NUMBER, NAME OF THE BANK AND PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF TH E SOCIETY WAS MENTIONED. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE BANKER OF TH E ASSESSEE HAVE DENIED TO ISSUE BANK STATEMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION BECAUSE OF THE NON-OPERATING AND THE OLD BANK ACCOU NT. THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, REQUESTED THE AO TO ISSUE SUMM ONS TO THE BANK FOR PRODUCTION OF THE STATEMENT. THE AO DID NOT ACT UPON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMEN T. THE AO ALSO CALLED FOR THE RECORD OF THE SOCIETY LIKE THEI R AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THEIR RETURN OF INCOME . ONCE, THE MANAGER OF THE SOCIETY WAS EXAMINED ON OATH BY THE AO, THE AO SHOULD HAVE ASKED HIM TO PRODUCE THESE RELEVANT REC ORDS BEFORE HIM AND SHOULD CONTINUE WITH THE STATEMENT ON SUBSEQUEN T DATE. THE AO INSTEAD OF DOING ANY MEANINGFUL INVESTIGATION DID N OT ASK THE MANGER TO PRODUCE COMPLETE RECORD BEFORE HIM. FURTHER, THE BANK STATEMENT ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 17 OF SABARKANTHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. COULD HAVE BE EN SUMMONED AS PER THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HOWEVER, DID NOT DO ANYTHING IN THE MATTER. SINCE, SHRI BABUBHAI D. PAT EL IN HIS ORAL STATEMENT ON OATH CONFIRMED THAT THE SOCIETY HAS GI VEN LOANS TO BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS AND THE LEDGER ACCOUNT PROD UCED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO CONTAINED SUCH DETAILS, THEREFO RE, IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENC E BEFORE THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ISSUE. IT IS A CASE WHERE T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AS PE R THE REQUIREMENT OF THE AO AND SIMILARLY, THE AO DID NOT DO ANYTHING IN THE MATTER TO GET THE COMPLETE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PERSON UNDER OAT H BEFORE HIM AND ALSO FAILED TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE BANKER FOR PROD UCTION OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD PROVE THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. WE ACCORDIN GLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE CASE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARTNERS NAMELY MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DE CIDE THIS ISSUE BY GIVING REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO RE-EXAMINE SHRI BAB UBHAI D. PATEL U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT BY DIRECTING HIM TO PRODUCE A LL RELEVANT RECORD CONNECTED WITH BOTH THE INDIVIDUAL ASSESSEES. THE A O SHALL ALSO SUMMON THE BANKER OF THE ASSESSEES AS PER REQUEST O F THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR REPLY DATED 09-03-2006 AND SHALL DIRECT THEM TO PRODUCE THE BANK RECORD OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEES ARE ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE AO AND SHA LL PRODUCE ALL RELEVANT MATERIALS BEFORE THE AO FOR FINALIZATION O F THE ASSESSMENT ON ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 18 THIS ISSUE. IN CASE, BOTH THE ASSESSEES WOULD NOT C O-OPERATE WITH THE AO, THEN THE AO MAY PROCEED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED NOT TO SEEK UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE MATTER. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEA LS OF BOTH THE PARTNERS MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA AR E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SINCE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UN DER APPEAL IS OLD; THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO EXPEDITE THE MATTE R AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ON THIS ISSUE IS ALLOWED, HOWEVER, APPEALS OF THE BOTH THE INDIVIDUA L ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. NO OTHER POINT IS ARGUED OR PRESSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL IN THE C ASE OF THE FIRM IS DISMISSED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS PARTL Y ALLOWED. THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES, MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. COPY OF THIS ORDER BE PLACED IN ALL THE RELEVANT FILES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER LAKSHMIKANT/- ITA NO.1479 & 1506/AHD/2005 M/S. KIRTI CORPORATION ITA NO.3667 AND 3668/AHD/2007 MRS. KIRTIBEN KOTIA AND MR. UMESH KOTIA 19 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 D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD