Shri Hasmukhbhai Chottalal Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(5), Ahmedabad

ITA 150/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63205 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH SR DR
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Capital asset; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. ./ I.T.A.NO.150/AHD/2012 - / // / A.Y. 2008-09 2. ./ I.T.A.NO.151/AHD/2012 - / // / A.Y. 2008-09 1. HASMUKHBHAI CHOTTALAL PATEL 23, GOKUL TENEMENT SOC. NR.MADHUVAN SOC. GHATLODIA AHMEDABAD-380 061 PAN:AGNPP 9548 D 2. VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL 23, GOKUL TENEMENT SOC. GHATLODIA AHMEDABAD-380 061 PAN: ACPPP 9204 N / VS. 1. ITO, WARD-6(5) AHMEDABAD 2. ITO, WARD-6(5) AHMEDABAD ( / // / APPELLANTS ) .. ( ! / RESPONDENTS ) ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N.DIVATIA REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.SINGH SR.DR '# $ %&' / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 16.10.12 () $ %&' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14/12/2012 *+ / O R D E R PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FROM DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AR ISING FROM THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD BOTH DATED 18 /11/2011 PASSED FOR A.Y. 2008-09. BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED BEFOR E US THAT THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH CASES AND, THEREFORE, THE DECISION IS ONE CASE ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER. WE THUS PROCEED TO HEAR BOTH THE APPEALS AND PASS A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. ITA NO. 150/AHD/2012 IS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE S INCE ADMITTEDLY THE FACTS IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE COMMON. 2.1. THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE AS UNDER: 2.2. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITA L GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.7.2008 FOR AY 2008-09 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,63,330/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.12.2010 AND THE INCOME WAS DETE RMINED AT RS.1,34,65,541/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASS ESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11 .2011 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. GROUND NO 1.1,1.2 & 1.3 NOT PRESSED AND HENCE NO T ADJUDICATED. GROUND NO 2.1, 2.2 & 2.3 ARE CONNECTED HENCE CONSID ERED TOGETHER. THEY READ AS UNDER:- 1.1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 18.11.11 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 BY CIT(A)-XI, ABAD, IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AG AINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - 1.2. THE LD. AO HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED AND THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLAN T WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.84,25,909. 1.3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.84,25,909/- THOUGH IT WAS MADE BY AO AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT AN D SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREBY VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE AO HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ON 29-12-10 AND SERVED BY AFFIXTURE LA TE IN THE EVENING ON 30-12-10. BOTH THE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE AND ASSESSMENT MADE BY AO WERE ILLEGAL AND UNLAWFUL . THE APPELLANT SHOULD THEREFORE BE ALLOWED TO PRODUCE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND SHOULD BE ADMITTED. 2.1. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.84,25,909 IN RESPEC T OF THE LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.222/1 AS HAVING TRANSFER TAK EN PLACE IN THIS YEAR. 2.2 THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH AT LAND BEARING SURVEY NO.222/1 WAS TRANSFERRED DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND CAPITAL GAIN HAD ACCRUED IN A.Y. 2 008-09, THOUGH NEITHER ACTUAL AND VACANT POSSESSION OF LAND WAS DELIVERED NOR FULL CONSIDERATION REALIZED IN THIS Y EAR. IT WAS CATEGORICALLY POINTED OUT IN GROUND NO.3.2 BEFORE C IT(A) AND NECESSARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN THE PAPER BOOK. 2.3 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE HELD THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER OF LAND SURVEY NO.222/1 DURING THE YEAR AP PEAL AND INCOME WAS CHARGEABLE IN THIS YEAR. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THOUGH T HE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 19-3-2008, THE POSSESSION WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE SAID SALE DEED BUT IT WAS GIVEN ON 4-2 -2009 ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - UNDER REGISTERED AGREEMENT DATED 9-2-09 WITH THE SU B- REGISTRAR AND HENCE THE APPELLANT HAD RIGHTLY DISCL OSED CAPITAL GAIN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY FOR RS.1,69,88,400/- I N WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE WAS 50%. THE PURCHASE PRICE OF THE AFORESAID PROPERTY AS PER THE PURCHASE DEED WAS RS.1,36,581/-. ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME FROM ITS SALE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SALE VALUE AND PURCHASE VALUE OF PROPERTY WH ICH COMES TO RS.84,25,909/- (50% OF TOTAL) NOT BE ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SHOWN ANY INCOME FROM THE AFORESAI D TRANSACTION. SINCE THERE WAS NO REPLY BY ASSESSEE, THE AO ADDED RS.84, 25,909/- TO THE INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF AO, ASSESSEE CAR RIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 5.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS PAPERS FILED BY THE LD.A.R . IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT AND THE SAME IS VERIFIABLE WITH VARIO US DOCUMENTS THAT CONVEYANCE DEED FOR TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURE LA ND ADMEASURING 6,534 SQ.YDS. AT VADAJ, AHMEDABAD FOR A CONSIDERATI ON OF RS.84,25,909/- WAS EXECUTED ON 19-3-2008. ONCE CON VEYANCE DEED IS EXECUTED, IMMOVABLE PROPERTY IS TRANSFERRED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(I) IS CONCERNED. IN VI EW OF THESE FACTS, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD.A .O. AND ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS.84,25,909/- IS CONFIRMED . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING ABOUT 6534 SQ. YD AT VADAJ, AHMEDA BAD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS 1,69,88,400/- AND FOR WHICH BAN AKHAT WAS EXECUTED AND REGISTERED ON 18.12.2006 AND BANAKHAT MONEY OF RS 8.50 LACS WAS RECEIVED. THE CONVEYANCE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE AFO RESAID LAND WAS EXECUTED AND REGISTERED ON 19.3.2008. THE COPY OF T HE SALE DEED WAS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 48 TO 92 OF PAPER BOOK AND THE COPY OF ITS ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGE 94 TO 138. HE POINTED O UT TO CLAUSE 18 OF THE AGREEMENT (PAGE 117 OF THE PAPER BOOK) WHEREIN THE SCHEDULE OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS MENTIONED. FROM THE AFORESAID CLA USE HE POINTED OUT TO THE DATES OF THE CHEQUES TO SHOW THAT THE PAYMENT W AS MADE BY WAY OF POST DATED CHEQUES. HE POINTED OUT AT PAGE 128 OF T HE PB THE CLAUSE WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT THE VACANT AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION WILL BE HANDED OVER AFTER THE RECEIPT OF MONEY. SINCE THE S ALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID BY FORWARD DATED CHEQUES, THE ACTUAL POSSESSIO N OF THE LAND WAS NOT DELIVERED EVEN ON THE DATE OF EXECUTION OF THE CONV EYANCE DEED. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED HIS SHARE OF SALE CONSIDERATION O F RS.84,94,200/- OVER A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS I.E. RS.39,25,000/- IN AY 2008- 09 AND RS.45,69,200/- IN AY 2009-10. HE PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 139 TO 145 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE ENGLISH TRANSLATED COPY OF T HE DEED OF CONFIRMATION DATED 4.2.2009 ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE PURCHASER. FROM THE DEED HE POINTED OUT THAT THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND WAS HANDED ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - OVER ON 4.2.2009 AND THE PURCHASER BECAME THE OCCU PIER OF THE LAND FROM 4.2.2009 AND ACCORDINGLY THE PURCHASER WAS ENTITLED TO TRANSFER THE LAND IN HIS NAME IN THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS FROM 4/2/2009 . HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES SINCE THE TRANSFER O F LAND HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISCLOSE THE CAPITAL GAINS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED CAPITAL GAINS IN AY 2009-10. THE COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2009-10 WAS PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE NOS.154 TO 160 OF THE PAPE R BOOK. THE LD.A.R. THUS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NEITHER THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION AS STATED IN CONVEYANCE DEED WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED NOR THE AC TUAL AND VACANT POSSESSION OF THE SAID PROPERTY WAS DELIVERED, IT C ANNOT BE SAID THAT TRANSFER OF LAND HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND THEREFORE IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN THE YEAR UNDE R APPEAL. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO LOSS OF REVENUE BY CONSI DERING THE CAPITAL GAINS IN AY 2009-10. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISIONS I N THE CASE OF ITO VS SMT SATYAWATI DEVI VERMA (2010) 124 ITD 467 AND IN THE CASE OF SMT. RAJ RANI DEVI RAMNA VS CIT (1993) 201ITR 1032 (PAT) . 7. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE IN MARCH 2008 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS LIABLE TO TAX IN 2008. HE SUBMITTED THAT WITH THE EXECUTION O F THE DEED, THE TRANSFER WAS COMPLETED. HE POINTED OUT TO THE CLAUSES OF THE DEED ON PAGE NOS. 111, 113 AND 114 WHICH PROVES THAT ALL RIGHTS WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN 2008. HE THUS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO AND CIT(A). ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT ASSE SSEE HAD SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND ADMEASURING ABOUT 6534 SQ. YD AT VADAJ, AHMEDABAD FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,69,88,400/- AND F OR WHICH BANAKHAT WAS EXECUTED AND REGISTERED ON 18.12.2006 AND BANAKHAT MONEY OF RS.8.50 LACS WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CONV EYANCE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID LAND WAS EXECUTED AND REGI STERED ON 19.3.2008. AS PER THE COPY OF THE SALES DEED, THE ASSESSEE REC EIVED THE SALES CONSIDERATION IN INSTALLMENTS BY WAY OF FORWARD DAT ED CHEQUES. THE FIRST INSTALLMENT WAS BY WAY OF 2 CHEQUES DATED 16.12.200 6 OF RS.4.25 LACS EACH AND THE LAST CHEQUE WAS DATED 28.2.2009 WAS OF RS.21,69,200/-. AS PER THE AGREEMENT IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT ONLY AFTER THE ENCASHMENT OF THE CHEQUES, THE SELLER WILL HAND OVE R THE VACANT AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF THE LAND TO THE BUYER. FROM THE TRANSLATED COPY OF THE DEED OF CONFIRMATION DATED 4.2.2009 IT IS STATE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER THE VACANT AND PEACEFUL POSSESSION OF L AND TO THE PURCHASER ON 4.2.2009 AND THE PURCHASER BECAME THE OCCUPIER O F THE LAND FROM 4.2.2009 AND THE PURCHASER WAS ENTITLED TO TRANSFER THE LAND IN HIS NAME IN THE GOVERNMENT RECORDS FROM THAT DATE. THUS, THE I NTENTION OF THE PARTIES APPEARS TO TRANSFER THE POSSESSION OF LAND ON RECEI PT OF FINAL AMOUNT AND WHICH IN THIS PRESENT CASE HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 4/2/2 009.. FROM THE ABOVE FACTS IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR SALE ON 19.3.2008, THE ACTUAL RIGHTS AND BENEFI TS IN THE LAND WERE TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON RECEIPT OF THE FINAL INSTALLMENT I.E. IN AY 2009.10. THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE CAPITAL GAI NS IN THE RETURN IN AY ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - 2009-10. THE REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN IN A POSITION TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID FACTS BY BRINGING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL O N RECORD. 8.1. IN THE CASE OF SMT. RAJ RANI DEVI RAMNA VS C IT (1993) 201 ITR 1032 (PAT) THE HON'BLE HC HAS HELD THAT THE PROPERT IES DO NOT NECESSARILY PASS AS SOON AS THE INSTRUMENT IS REGISTERED, FOR T HE TRUE TEST IS THE INTENTION OF THE PARTIES. REGISTRATION IS PRIMA FAC IE PROOF OF AN INTENTION TO TRANSFER, BUT IT IS NO PROOF OF AN OPERATIVE TRA NSFER IF THERE IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT AS TO THE PAYMENT OF CONSIDERAT ION OR DELIVERY OF THE DEED. THUS THE SELLER MAY RETAIN THE DEED PENDING P AYMENT OF PRICE AND IN THAT CASE THERE IS NO TRANSFER UNTIL THE PRICE I S PAID AND THE DEED IS DELIVERED. 8.2. IN THE CASE OF ITO VS SMT SATYAWATI DEVI V ERMA (2010) 124 ITD 467, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONCLUDED AS UNDER: ASSESSEE HAVING EXECUTED AN AGREEMENT ON 19TH OCT. ,1995, WHICH ONLY CONTEMPLATED SALE OF A PROPERTY AT A FUTURE DA TE ON STIPULATED TERMS AND CONDITIONS WITHOUT TRANSFERRING ANY RIGHT OF OWNERSHIP, USE OR POSSESSION IN THE CORPUS OR THE INCOME ARISI NG FROM SUCH PROPERTY TO THE PURCHASES, AND EXECUTED THE REGISTE RED SALE DEED ON 20TH DEC., 2007, THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF PROP ERTY WAS NOT COMPLETED IN TERMS OF PROVISIONS OF S. 2(47)(V) OF IT ACT, 1961, R/W S. 53A OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, 1882, AT THE TI ME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT DT. 19TH OCT., 1995, AND THEREFORE, CA PITAL GAIN WAS NOT CHARGEABLE IN ASST. YR. 1996-97. ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - 9. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF THE H'BLE HC IN THE CASE OF RAJ RANI DEVI RAMNA (SUPRA) AND OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SATYAWATI DEVI VERMA (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE POSSESSION OF LAND IN FEBRUA RY-2009 TO THE PURCHASER AND THE PURCHASER COULD ENJOY THE FRUITS OF PROPERTY ONLY AFTER THAT DATE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VI EW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE TRANSFER OF LAND IN AY 2009-10 AND THEREFORE THE AO WAS NOT RIGHT IN TAXING THE INCOME ON SALE OF LAND IN AY 2008-09. THUS THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. WE THUS A LLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 10. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FA CTS AND ISSUES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE SIMILAR AND IDENTICAL TO THAT OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.150/AHD/2012(SUPRA) AND, THEREFORE, THEY HAVE SA ME SUBMISSIONS AND AGREEMENTS TO MAKE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ALSO. 11. AS IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE FACTS & ISSUES IN PRESENT APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF ITA NO.150/AHD/2012, THE FIN DINGS AND DECISION GIVEN IN THE ABOVE APPEAL THEREFORE MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO GROUNDS IN APPEAL IN PRESENT APPEAL ALSO. AS WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE GROUND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN ITA NO.150/AHD/2012(SUPRA), WE FOR SIMILAR REASONS AND OBSERVATIONS, ALLOW ITA NO.150/AHD/ 2012 (HASMUKHBHAI C.PATEL VS. ITO) & ITA NO.151/AHD/2012 (VASUDEV HASMUKHLAL PATEL VS. ITO) ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IN ITA NO.151/AHD/2012(SUPRA). THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. SD/- S D/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 14 / 12 /2012 ,&.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS *+ $ %- .*-% *+ $ %- .*-% *+ $ %- .*-% *+ $ %- .*-%/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % '/ / CONCERNED CIT 4. '/() / THE CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD 5. -23 % , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 34 5# / GUARD FILE. *+' *+' *+' *+' / BY ORDER, !-% % //TRUE COPY// 6 66 6/ // / 7 7 7 7 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DIRECT DICTATION ON COMPUTER DTD. 26.11.12 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.11.12 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S14.12.12 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 14.12.12 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER