Shri Chandrakant Jashbhai Patel, Baroda V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2(4), Baroda

ITA 1912/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80563 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.1912/AHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:1995-96) CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL RAVI FARM AT KHANPUR, POST-SEVASI, DIST. BARODA APPELLANT VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(4), VADODARA RESPONDENT PAN: ACQPP7799B /BY APPELLANT : SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI, A.R. /BY RESPONDENT : SHRI V. K. SINGH, SR.D.R. !' /DATE OF HEARING : 08.12.2014 #$% !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.12.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, BARODA, DATED 28.02.2011 FOR A.Y. 1995-96 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 2 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II I, BARODA HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN HOL DING THAT THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HON'BLE ITAT BY ITS ORDE R IN I.T.A. NO. 2606/AHD/1998 AND 589/AHD/1999 FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR IN DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH DO NOT ENTAIL JURISDICTION TO HIM. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(A)-II I, BARODA, THE JURISDICTION COULD BE ASSUMED ONLY IF T HE APPELLANT'S APPLICATION WAS PENDING BEFORE THE SETT LEMENT COMMISSION. SINCE THERE WAS NO APPLICATION MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, NO VALID AN D LAWFUL JURISDICTION COULD BE EXERCISED BY HIM. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING SO IS IN DEFIANCE OF T HE DIRECTION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AND THAT THE LD. CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE DECIDED THE APPEALS AFRESH. 2. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III , BARODA HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN HOL DING THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS DECIDED BY HIS PREDEC ESSOR IN APPEAL NO. CAB/IV-90/98-99 SURVIVE AND THAT HE W AS NOT REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEALS AFRESH FOR W ANT OF LAWFUL JURISDICTION. 3. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III , BARODA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT DECIDIN G THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS DIRECTED BY THE HON' BLE TRIBUNAL: 1. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LA W AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,30,744/- OUT OF TOTAL UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLELRY OF RS.6,30,744 /-. THE ADDITION OF RS.1,30,744/- DESERVES TO BE DELETE D. 2. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LA W AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,000/- OUT OF TO TAL UNEXPLAINED CASH OF RS.75,203/-. THE ADDITION OF RS.24,000/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LA W AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,14,087/- REPRESENTING INTEREST ON DEPOSITS IN FCNR ACCOUNTS. . THE ADDITION OF RS.5,14,087/- DESERVES TO BE DELETE D. I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 3 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-IV, BARODA HAS ERRED IN LA W AND IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,500/- ON ACCOUN T OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE. THE ADDITION OF RS.10,500/- DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. ITAT HAD SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY OBSERVING THAT M/S KOTEL PROPERTIES PVT LTD. ( HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'KPPL' IN SHORT ) OWNED A PIECE OF L AND, WHICH WAS SOUGHT TO BE DEVELOPED SOMETIME IN THE YEAR 199 2 AND FOR THAT PURPOSE, IT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH MAD HAV ORGANIZERS PVT LTD. (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'MO PL' IN SHORT) APPOINTING IT AS BOOKING AGENT AND CONSULTANT. BY V IRTUE OF THIS AGREEMENT, MOPL WAS EMPOWERED TO NEGOTIATE AND FINA LIZE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF SHOPS/FLATS AND OFFICES BEING DEVELOPED AND CONSTRUCTED BY KPPL. AMOUNTS COLLECTE D FROM INTENDING CUSTOMERS COMPRISED OF ACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AS WELL AS 'ON MONEY' RECEIPT. AS PER AGREEMENT ENTERED IN TO WITH CUSTOMERS, TITLE IN THE PROPERTY PURCHASED WAS TO B E GIVEN BY OBTAINING ALLOTMENT OF SHARES REPRESENTING PROPORTI ONATE AREA OF PROPERTY PURCHASED (FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE MEMORA NDUM AND ARTICLES OF ASSOCIATION OF KPPL WAS TO BE AMENDED O N THE LINES OF THAT OF A CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY AND THUS, IT WAS INTENDED THAT KPPL STATUS SHALL BE THAT OF A MUTUAL SOCIETY) FROM EXISTING SHAREHOLDERS OF KPPL. THE AMOUNTS CO LLECTED WAS TO BE UTILIZED FOR OBTAINING THE AMOUNT OF SHAR ES AS REFERRED ABOVE AND ALSO FOR MEETING COST OF CONSTRU CTION BY KPPL. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN F.Y. 1994-95 OR 23 .03.1995 AND SEIZED MATERIALS CONTAINED PARTICULARS OF ON M ONEY' I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 4 COLLECTED AND ITS UTILIZATION AMOUNTING TO RS. 313 LAKHS FROM F.Y. 1991-92 I.E COMMENCEMENT OF THE PROJECT. IN T HE ASSESSMENTS, WHICH FOLLOWED GROSS AMOUNT OF 'ON MON EY' COLLECTED IN F.Y.1991-92 TO 1994-95 WAS TAXED AS OF PKKL AS MOPL WAS HELD TO BE AN AGENT. ON THE ACCOUNTED RECE IPTS, A PROFIT OF 25% WAS ESTIMATED BESIDES AN ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WAS ALSO MADE BASED ON CERTAIN ENTRIES/ NOTINGS FOUND TO BE RECORDED IN LOOSE PAPERS. AS OBSERVED FROM THE SAID ORDER OF ITAT, CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER: (I) PROFIT ON ACCOUNTED RECEIPTS IN THE CASE OF KPP L TO BE TAXED AT 10% (II) 'ON MONEY' COLLECTED BY MOPL WAS TO BE TAXED I N ITS CASE AND OF GROSS RECEIPTS, AN ABATMENT OF 80% TO B E ALLOWED TOWARDS EXPENSES BASED ON NOTINGS OF LOOSE PAPERS AND THUS 20% OF THE RECEIPTS WAS DIRECTED TO BE TAXED. (III) UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS DIRECTED TO BE DEL ETED. BEFORE ITAT, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT CASES HAVE BEARI NG WITH THE CASE OF ARPAN ASSOCIATES, ANAY DEVELOPERS PVT LTD. AND M/S YADAV DEVELOPERS. SETTLEMENT PETITION OF KPPL & MOP L WAS PENDING BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OUTCOME OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WILL HAVE IMPORTANT BEARING O N VARIOUS ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE IN ALL THESE CASES. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ITAT IN CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 12. 09.2005 IN CASE OF ARPAN DEVELOPERS, ANYA DEVELOPERS, M/S YADA V DEVELOPERS AND ASSOCIATE CONCERNS HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING THAT SINCE ANYA DEVELOPERS AND ARPAN ASSOCIATES FILED SETTLEME NT PETITION I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 5 WHICH ARE DULY ADMITTED AND ORDER DATED 24.04.2003 IS MADE BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SA ID APPEALS, IT WAS REALIZED THAT ORDER OF SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION WILL HAVE SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ISSUES OF ALL T HESE APPEALS. THEREFORE, ITAT SET ASIDE ALL THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE AFRESH KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THIS BEHALF. IN VIEW OF S AID DECISION IN CASE OF M/S ARPAN ASSOCIATES & OTHERS, WHEREIN I T WAS HELD THAT APPEALS BEING BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, AN D SAID ORDER SHALL HAVE BEARINGS ON THESE SET OF APPEALS O F ARPAN ASSOCIATES & OTHERS ETC), ITAT HAS RESTORED PRESENT APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF OUT COME OF THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND AFTE R GIVING BOTH THE PARTIES THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THIS REGARD. THE SAID DIRECTIONS FOLLOWED ON THE PREMISES THAT T HE SETTLEMENT PETITION OF M/S KOTEL PROPERTIES PVT LTD . AND MADHAV ORGANIZERS PVT LTD. ARE PENDING BEFORE HON'B LE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OUTCOME OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WILL HAVE IMPORTANT BEARING ON VARIOUS A DDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE IN ALL THESE CASES. AS DIRECTE D, THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED IN SET ASIDE PROCEEDING AND BOT H WERE HEARD WHO HAVE CATEGORICALLY DENIED THE PENDENCY BE FORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. HOWEVER, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS A SET ASIDE MATTER AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL SO AGITATED EARLIER AR E TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH. HE FURNISHED COPY OF ORDER OF S ETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN CASE OF ARPAN ASSOCIATES AND SUBMITTE D THAT I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 6 THOUGH ON DIFFERENT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE CONSIDERED IF IT HAS ANY BEARING. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE CIT(A) THAT YEAR UNDER REFERENCE I S NOT BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THERE IS NO QUESTION OF O RDER BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THEREFORE MATTER M AY BE DECIDED. HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, AS TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT IN THE SAID ORDER IN CASE OF ARPAN ASSOCIATES, ANYA DEVELOPERS, M/S YADAV DEVELOPERS & ASSOCIATE CONCER NS, MATTER WAS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBSERVING THAT SAID M/S ANYA DEVELOPERS AND ARPAN ASSOCIATES HAVE FILED SETTLEMENT PETITIONS WHICH WERE DULY ADMITTED AND T HE ORDER DATED 23.04.2003 HAD BEEN PASSED BY SETTLEMENT COMM ISSION. HENCE, ON SIMILAR LINES, HAVING HEARD RIVAL SUBMISS IONS, ITAT HAS RESTORED THE SAID APPEALS BACK TO THE FILE OF C IT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH IN LIGHT OF OUT COME OF ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND AFTER GIVING SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. THE SAID DIRE CTIONS FOLLOWED ON THE PREMISE THAT THE SETTLEMENT PETITION OF M/S KOTEL PROPERTIES PVT LTD. AND M/S MADHAV ORGANIZERS PVT L TD. ARE ALSO PENDING BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND OUTCO ME OF ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WILL HAVE IMPORTANT BEARING ON VARIOUS ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE IN ALL THESE CASES. FROM THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF ITAT THE JU RISDICTION CAN BE ASSUMED/EXERCISED BY THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE TH ESE APPEALS AFRESH ONLY IF THERE IS AN ORDER OF SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE, OF KPPL & MOPL BUT IT WAS F OUND THAT M/S KOTEL PORPERTIES PVT LTD & MADHAV ORGANIZER PVT LTD. ARE NOT BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND HENCE THERE WA S NO I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 7 QUESTION OF ANY ORDER BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN C ASES OF M/S KPPL & M/S MOPL. THUS, IT WAS FOUND THAT APPEA L OF ASSESSEE WAS SET ASIDE ON THE PREMISE THAT ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF HIS CASE T O SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BUT IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF LD. AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CONCERNED ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PETITION TO SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ADDING FURTHER THAT M/S ARPAN ASSOCIATES ONLY HAS PREFERRED PETITION WH ICH HAS SINCE BEEN DECIDED. THE PENDENCY BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF M/S KPPL & M/S MOPL WAS T HE FOUNDATION WHICH CONFERED THE RIGHTS TO EXERCISE TH E JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE APPEALS AFRESH IN THE LI GHT OF ALLEGED ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASES OF M/S KOTEL PROPERTIES PVT LTD. & M/S MADHAV ORGANIZERS PVT LTD AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF ITAT, AHMEDABAD. AS THE FOUNDATIO N ITSELF WAS NOT EXISTING, NO VALID AND LAWFUL JURISDICTION COULD BE STATED TO HAVE GOT BESTOWED UPON TO BE EXERCISED BY CIT(A) TO DECIDE APPEALS AFRESH. CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN CASE OF ARPAN ASSOCIATES A ND THAT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE HON'BLE HIG H COURT OF GUJARAT. HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ADMITTED T HE SAME FOR ADJUDICATION. THUS, EVEN THE ORDER OF M/S ARPAN ASSOCIATES HAVE NOT REACHED FINALITY. MOREOVER, THERE WAS NO D IRECTION THAT THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S ARPAN ASSOCIATES SHALL BE CONSIDERED TO DECIDE THESE APPEALS AFRESH. IT WAS R EFERRED TO BY ITAT TO DECIDE THE SET OF APPEALS IN A SIMILAR MANN ER. THE SET OF APPEALS IN CASE OF M/S ARPAN ASSOCIATES & OTHERS WERE TO BE I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 8 DECIDED BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER KEEPING IN VIEW THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND TAKING SIMILAR L INES, ITAT DIRECTED THE CIT(A) IN ASSESSEES CASE TO DECIDE TH ESE APPEALS AFRESH IN LIGHT OF OUTCOME OF ORDER OF SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION IN CASES OF M/S KOTEL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND M/S MAD HAV ORGANIZERS PVT. LTD. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. SINCE, TH ERE WAS NO APPLICATION TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WITH REGAR DS TO M/S KOTEL PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. AND M/S MADHAV ORGANIZER S PVT. LTD., SO, CIT(A) WAS HANDICAPPED TO FOLLOW THE SAME . ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 3. BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OU R ATTENTION TO THE ORDER OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN CASE OF CHANDRAKANT J PATEL VS. V N SRIVASTAVA IN SCA NO.31 93 OF 2001, WHEREIN HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: 17. ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AS TO WHETHER THE PE TITIONER WAS NOT ORDINARILY RESIDENT IN INDIA, THE COMMISSIONER HAS BY A SINGLE SENTENCE, OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN THE ACTUAL DAYS OF THE PETITIONERS STAY IN INDIA, AND HAS ACCORDINGLY NEGATIVED THE CLAIM OF THE PETITIONER, WITHOUT ENTE RING INTO ANY DISCUSSION IN RESPECT THEREOF. THE APEX C OURT IN THE CASE OF PRADIP J. MEHTA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (2008) 300 ITR 231, IN THE CONTEXT OF S UB- SECTION (6) OF SECTION 6 OF THE ACT. HAS AFTER REFE RRING TO A CIRCULAR ISSUED BY THE BOARD, HELD THAT A PERSON WILL BECOME ORDINARILY RESIDENT ONLY IF (A) HE HAS BEEN RSIDING IN INDIA IN NINE OUT OF TEN PRECEDING YEARS ; AND (B) HE HAS BEEN IN INDIA FOR AT LEAST 730 DAYS IN T HE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS. THUS, IF EITHER OF THE AFORE SAID CONDITIONS RE NOT SATISFIED A PERSON WOULD BE NOT ORDINARILY RESIDENT IN INDIA. EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID LEGA L I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 9 POSITION, IN THE MEMO OF THE REVISION APPLICATION, THE PETITIONER HAS SET OUT THE DETAILS OF HIS STAY IN I NDIA, WHICH CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE CONDITIONS PRECEDEN T FOR THE PETITIONER TO BE SAID TO BE RESIDENT IN INDIA I N THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE NOT SATISFIED. FROM T HE DETAILS GIVEN THE REVISION APPLICATION, IT IS APPAR ENT THAT THOUGH THE SECOND CONDITION IS SATISFIED, VIZ. , THE PETITIONER HAS BEEN IN INDIA FOR AT LEAST 730 DAYS IN THE PREVIOUS SEVEN YEARS; THE FIRST CONDITION, VIZ., TH AT THE PETITIONER SHOULD HAVE BEEN RESIDING IN INDIA IN NI NE OUT OF TEN PRECEDING YEARS, IS CLEARLY NOT SATISFIE D. BESIDES, AS IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF THE PRECEDING TWO YEARS AND THE SUBSEQUENT TWO YEARS, WHEREIN THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) UPON APPRECIATION OF THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD HAS, AS A MATTER OF FACT, FOUND THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ORDINARILY RESIDENT DURING T HE SAID PERIODS. THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLS BETWEEN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEARS. HENCE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE PETITIONER WAS NOT ORDINARILY RESIDENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE COMMISSIONER WAS, THEREFORE, NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJEC TING THE APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 264 OF THE ACT. 18. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, THE PETITION SUCCEED S AND IS, ACCORDINGLY, ALLOWED. THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.3.2001 MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BARODA, IS HEREBY QUASHED AND SET ASIDE. THE RESPONDENT IS, ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.7.2000 BY EXCLUDING THE INCOME OF RS.5,35,547/- BEING THE INTEREST INCOME O N FCNR DEPOSITS OF THE PETITIONER. RULE IS MADE ABSO LUTE ACCORDINGLY WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 4. IN THIS BACKGROUND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E REQUESTED TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO CIT(A) TO BE DEC IDED THE MATTER IN LIGHT OF DECISION IN CASE OF CHANDRAKANT J PATEL VS. V N SRIVASTAVA (SUPRA). NOTHING CONTRARY HAS BEEN BR OUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. FACTS BEING SI MILAR, SO FOLLOWING SAME REASONING WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO C IT(A) WITH I.T.A. NO. 1912/AHD/2011 A.Y. 95-96 (CHANDRAKANT JASHBHAI PATEL VS. ITO) PAGE 10 DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE MATTER IN LIGHT OF OBSERVAT ION IN CHANDRAKANT J PATEL (SUPRA) AND AS PER FACT AND LAW AVAILABLE AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME ON THE ISSUE. 5. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 22 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR Y ADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA & & & & ' ' ' ' ('% ('% ('% ('% / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. +, / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. // 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 0- / CIT (A) 5. '45 , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 589 :; / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / & ,