Shri Balkrushna Ravichandra Mehta, Mumbai V. The DCIT, Circle-2, Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 2/RJT/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2818 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2021
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Competent authority
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 143(2); 64; 43; 13; 22; 132; 90

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER S. NO. APPEAL A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. IT(SS)A NO. 10/RJT/2018 2006-07 RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA 7 TH FLOOR, MANSAROVAR APARTMENTS, ROYAL PARK-6, KALAWAD ROAD, RAJKOT-360001 ( ALOPM4962A ) DCIT CENTRAL CIR-2, RAJKOT 2. IT(SS)A NO. 11/RJT/2018 2007-08 RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA 7 TH FLOOR, MANSAROVAR APARTMENTS, ROYAL PARK-6, KALAWAD ROAD, RAJKOT-360001 ( ALOPM4962A ) DCIT CENTRAL CIR-2, RAJKOT 3. IT(SS)A NO. 12/RJT/2018 2008-09 RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA 7 TH FLOOR, MANSAROVAR APARTMENTS, ROYAL PARK-6, KALAWAD ROAD, RAJKOT-360001 ( ALOPM4962A ) DCIT CENTRAL CIR-2, RAJKOT 4. IT(SS)A NO. 13/RJT/2018 2009-10 RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA 7 TH FLOOR, MANSAROVAR APARTMENTS, ROYAL PARK-6, KALAWAD ROAD, RAJKOT-360001 ( ALOPM4962A ) DCIT CENTRAL CIR-2, RAJKOT 5. ITA NO. 01/RJT/2021 2006-07 SHRI BALKRISHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA A-601, KAILASH TOWER, OPP. ODEON MALL, VALLABH BAUG LANE, GHATKOPAR (EAST), MUMBAI-400077 ( AJWPM9444P) DCIT CENTRAL CIR-2, RAJKOT 6. ITA NO. 02/RJT/2021 2007-08 SHRI BALKRISHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA A-601, KAILASH TOWER, OPP. ODEON MALL, VALLABH BAUG LANE, GHATKOPAR (EAST), MUMBAI-400077 ( AJWPM9444P) DCIT CENTRAL CIR-2, RAJKOT 7. ITA NO. 120/RJT/2020 2006-07 ACIT CENTRAL CIR-2, RAJKOT SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, 7 TH FLOOR, MANSROVAR APARTMENT, ROYAL PARK, KALAWAD ROAD, RAJKOT (AJWPM9444P) 8. ITA NO. 121/RJT/2020 2007-08 ACIT CENTRAL CIR-2, RAJKOT SHRI BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA, 7 TH FLOOR, MANSROVAR APARTMENT, ROYAL PARK, KALAWAD ROAD, RAJKOT ( AJWPM9444P) IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 2 - / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D. M. RINDANI, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI OM PRAKASH , CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING 29/04/2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22/06/2021 O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY, JM: THE BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-13, AHMED ABAD. ITEM NO. 1, 2, 3 & 4 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 13.10.2017 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008 -09 AND 2009-10. ITEM NO. 5 & 6 FILED BY SAME ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER DA TED 14.02.2020 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08. IT EM NOS. 7 & 8 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14.02. 2020 PASSED BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER ASSESSEE. SINCE MOST OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE SAID BUNCH OF APPEALS A RE IDENTICAL AND CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER, ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT RELATING TO COMMON SEARCH PROCEEDINGS THE MATTERS ARE HEARD ANALOGOUSLY AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITEM NO. 1 TO 4 (RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA VS. DCIT) A.Y S. 2006-07 TO 2009-10):- 2. ITEM NO. 1 IS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE. APPEAL HA S BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - 13, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,77,48,083/- BY WAY OF INTEREST IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. 2. THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - 13, AHMEDABAD CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,77 ,48,083/- ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND TREATING IT AS INCOME ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE SON OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW, MORE SO WHEN CREDIT OF TAX PAID BY SON IS NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -13, AHMEDABAD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT TREATED HIS FUNDS AS DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO SONS AND HENCE INCOME THEREON DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 3 - 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 13, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,85,904/- BY WAY O F INTEREST ON ABN AMRO BANK ACCOUNT NO. 208695A JOINTLY HELD WITH GRANDSON OF THE APPEL LANT. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 13, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,76,000/- BY ESTIM ATING 1% INTEREST INCOME P.A. ON USD OF RS. 54,00,000/- IN ABN AMRO BANK ACCOUNT NO. G-2081 64 JOINTLY HELD WITH SON AND GRANDSON OF THE APPELLANT AND ANOTHER ACCOUNT NO. 2 08695A HELD WITH GRANDSON OF THE APPELLANT IN THE SAME BANK. 3. GROUND NOS. 1, 2 & 3 ARE BASICALLY AGAINST THE A DDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SOLE FIND ING OF THE REVENUE THAT THE DEPOSITS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS HELD WITH THE TWO SON S AND GRANDSON BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. ON 20.03.2012 A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREUPON A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WA S ISSUED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 16.11.2012 WITH A DIRECTION UPON HIM TO FILE THE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE. PURSU ANT TO THE SAME THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21.03.2013 SHOWING THEREIN INCOME OF RS. 21,170/-. RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 143(2) DATED 08.03.2013 WAS ALSO THEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IT WAS FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE AND OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE HOLDING FOREIGN BANK ACCOUNTS WITH HSB C BANK GENEVA AND OTHER BANKS WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCOUNTS BEARING NO. 4432541 AND 4432533 WITH THE HSBC BANK GENEVA IN THE JOINT NAME OF SHRI JAWAHIR MEHTA (SON OF THE ASSESSEE) AN D SHRI BALKRISHNA MEHTA (SON OF THE ASSESSEE) RESPECTIVELY. THESE TWO ACCOUNTS W ERE OPENED ON 25.03.1998 AND THE FUNDS IN THESE ACCOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED FR OM THE A/C. NO. 130756 AND 4431675 WITH HSBC GENEVA RESPECTIVELY. THE A/C NO. 130756 WAS OPENED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 03.06.1970 AND THE A/C. NO. 4431675 WAS OPENED ON 30.09.1996. A BALANCE OF USD 93,44,047/- AND USD 87,79,478/- RE SPECTIVELY WAS FOUND AS ON FEBRUARY 2007 IN THESE TWO ACCOUNTS LYING WITH H SBC BANK, GENEVA. THOUGH A REFERENCE TO THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY WAS MA DE BY THE CIT (CENTRAL)-II, AHMEDABAD UNDER SECTION 90 OF THE ACT BY AND UNDER LETTER DATED 01.01.2013 IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 4 - WITH A REQUEST TO SUPPLY THE DETAILS OF FOREIGN BAN K ACCOUNTS WITH HSBC GENEVA AND ABN AMRO BANK, SUCH DETAILS, HOWEVER, WERE NOT RECEIVED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 5. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED UPON DETERMINATION O F THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,32,94,549/- AND RS. 1,44,53,534/- AS SHOWN IN TEREST INCOME BY TWO SONS OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY SHRI BAL KRISHNA MEHTA AND SHRI JAWAHIR MEHTA RESPECTIVELY AND ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 2, 77,48,083/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. (II) INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 27,85,904/- BEING THE INTEREST INCOME FROM ACCOUNT NO. 208695A WITH ABM AMRO BANK HAS BEEN ADD ED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, (III) INTEREST @1% OF USD 54,00,000 FOR THE PERIOD COMMENCING FROM 01.04.2005 TO 31.03.2006 I.E. USD 54,000 EQUIVALENT TO RS. 23,76,000/- AS INTEREST ON BANK ACCOUNTS NO. G-208164 HAS BEEN ADD ED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE; ALL ADDITIONS WERE, IN TURN, CONFIRME D BY THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE CASE IS THIS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS STAYING AT DUBAI AND RESIDING THERE ALMOST FOR 90 YEARS. HE D ID ALL HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES IN DUBAI AND THE ENTIRE EARNING THROUGHOUT HIS LIFETIM E WAS FROM HIS BUSINESS ACTIVITIES DONE ABROAD. DURING HIS LIFETIME THE AS SESSEE BEING THE THEN RESIDENT OF DUBAI HAS THOUGH IT FIT TO INVEST SOME PORTION OF H IS EARNING OUTSIDE DUBAI IN ORDER TO SAFE GUARD HIS FAMILY AND IN ORDER TO MAKE THEM FINANCIALLY STABLE DURING ADVERSE CIRCUMSTANCES, EARNED FROM BUSINESS IN DUBA I. SOME FUNDS, THEREFORE, WERE TRANSFERRED FROM UAE TO ABN AMRO BANK AND HSBC, GENEVA INITIALLY AND AFTER THE DEMISE OF HIS WIFE IN THE YEAR 1997, THE APPELLANT DECIDED TO DISTRIBUTE HIS ASSET/WEALTH EQUALLY TO HIS SONS AND ACCORDINGLY FUNDS WERE TRANSFERRED TO TWO SEPARATE JOINT ACCOUNTS HELD WIT H HIS SONS NAMELY BALKRISHNA AND JAWAHIR WHO WERE STAYING AT DUBAI. NONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS HAD ANY IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 5 - SOURCE OF INCOME IN INDIA EXCEPT INVESTMENT INCOME EARNED FROM THE FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM ABROAD. BOTH THE SONS OF THE ASSE SSEE SINCE WERE ENGAGED IN BUSINESS ACTIVITIES AT DUBAI AND COULD NOT BEEN ABL E TO TAKE CARE OF INVESTMENTS RECEIVED ON DISTRIBUTION IN THE FAMILY DUE TO SUCH ENGAGEMENT IN BUSINESS ABROAD, THE APPELLANT, FATHER TOOK THE INITIATIVE AND RESPO NSIBILITY, (WHO PRACTICALLY LEFT ALL BUSINESS INVESTMENTS DUE TO AGE AND RETURNED TO IND IA.) IN ORDER TO MANAGE INVESTMENTS OF HIS SONS IN A BETTER WAY KEPT STARTE D MANAGING THE FUNDS IN HIS MANAGERIAL/GUARDIAN CAPACITY. IT IS THE SONS OF TH E APPELLANT WHO HAD UTILIZED THEIR FUNDS BY MAKING DIFFERENT INVESTMENTS IN FUTU RE. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE, NUMBERS OF DOCUMENTS INCLUDING FAMILY ARRANGEMENTS WERE FOUND WHEREIN THE DIRECTIO N TO TRANSFER THE FUNDS FROM ONE BANK TO THE OTHER WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. FEW CORRESPONDENCE SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE INSTRUCTED THE CONCERNED BANK TO TRANS FER FUND FROM ONE ACCOUNT TO OTHER OR ONE BANK TO ANOTHER AND THEREFORE, THE REV ENUE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ABSOLUTE CONTROL OVER THE FU NDS IN ALL THE ACCOUNTS PARTICULARLY EVEN AFTER THE DEMISE OF ASSESSEES WI FE ON 1997 WHEN THE ASSESSEES INVESTMENTS/ASSETS WERE DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN HIS TWO SONS, THE ASSESSEE KEPT ON INSTRUCTING THE BANK AUTHORITIES FOR MAKING INVESTM ENT AND/OR TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AO RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER 1998-99 WHICH DEALT WITH DIFFERENT CORRESPONDENCES MADE TO DIFFERENT BANK AUTHORITIES BY THE ASSESSEE. RELEVA NT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN MOST OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS WAS HOLDING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY TO ACT ON BEHALF OF HIS SONS FOR GIVING INSTRUCTIONS FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS ON THEIR BEHALF FOR BETTER MANAGEMENT OF THEIR INVESTMENTS. 8. IT APPEARS FROM THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD. A O THAT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE FACT OF INSTRUCTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT T O THE BANK AUTHORITIES TO TRANSFER THE FUNDS TO OTHER ACCOUNT OR TO OTHER BAN K, THE REVENUE CAME TO A CONCLUSION THAT NONE BUT THE ASSESSEE IS THE REAL O WNER OF THE FUND AND THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,32,94,549/- EARNED ON THE FUND LYIN G IN ACCOUNT NO. 4432533 HELD WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS SON BALKRISHNA MEHTA AND RS. 1,44,53,534/- AS IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 6 - EARNED ON THE FUND LYING WITH ACCOUNT NO. 4432541 H ELD WITH HIS SON JAWAHIR MEHTA WITH HSBC BANK, GENEVA HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS HOLDING IT AS ASSESSEES FUND. 9. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED ON THE FACT OF THE S TATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING SEARCH WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED THE FACT OF MAKING DIVISION OF HIS WEALTH BETWEEN HIS TWO SONS IN 1979 WHICH WAS NEVER BEEN DEVIATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN LATER PERIOD. IT IS A FACT THAT THERE WAS FREQUENT AND CONTINUOUS TRANSFER OF FUNDS INTO TWO OR MORE B ANK ACCOUNTS OUT OF WHICH TRANSFER OF FUNDS BETWEEN TWO ACCOUNTS WITH HSBC-GE NEVA STARTED RIGHT FROM 1997-98 FOLLOWED BY OTHER ACCOUNTS INCLUDING IN IND IA WHEREIN HIS SONS WERE ALSO THE NAME HOLDERS. YEAR-WISE SUMMARY DETAILS D RAWN FROM THE STATEMENT OF VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DULY FILED WITH THE LD. AO BY AND UNDER THE LETTER DATED 17.02.2015 DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE DEPARTMEN T, WHICH WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE US BY WAY OF A SEPARATE COMPILATIO N OF 18 PAGES. IT WAS FURTHER STATED BY THE LD. SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT NO WHERE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEES FATHER HAS EVER ENJOYED OR BECAME BENEFICIAL USE OF THE FUNDS; THUS IT SHOWS THAT FUND LYING WITH THE DIFFE RENT BANK ACCOUNTS IN DISPUTE NEVER BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR. THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN TAXED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE TWO SONS NAMELY BALKRISHNA MEHTA AND JAWAHIR MEHTA BY THE LD. AO DURING THEIR A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HENCE, THE ADDITION OF THE SAID INTEREST INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS SUFF ERS FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE TAXATION AND THUS, BAD AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED AS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR. 10. THE LD. AR ON THIS ISSUE RELIED UPON THE ORDER P ASSED BY THE ALLAHABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH WINE AGENCIES VS. IN COME TAX OFFICER REPORTED IN 09 CCH 0116 38 TTJ 0039 (ALLAHABAD TRIB.) AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PUNE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF NATWARLAL RADHESHYAM BAGADIY A VS. ACIT (PUNE TRIB.) WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT THE RIGHT TO MAKE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IS GIVEN TO ITO IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 7 - AND NOT TO THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. RELYING ON THI S PARTICULAR JUDGMENT THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT ALTERING THE NATURE OF AD DITION ALREADY MADE IN THE HANDS OF BALKRISHNA BY THE LD. AO FROM SUBSTANTIVE B ASIS TO PROTECTIVE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND, THEREFORE, LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE O RDER PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE RELIED UPON DIFFERENT COMMUN ICATIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO THE DIFFERENT BANK AUTHORITIES FOR TRA NSFER OF FUNDS WHEREIN INSTRUCTIONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT SOME OF WHICH ARE AT PAGE 7 DATED 22.05.2007, PAGE 8 DATED 05.12.2008, PAGE 12 DATED 25.06.2004 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THROUGH THESE COMMUNICATIONS HE WANTED TO JUS TIFY THE FACT OF CONTROLLING THE FUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. ACCORDING TO LD. D R IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE REAL OWNER OF THE FUNDS AND, THEREFORE, THE ADD ITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUST AND PROPER. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS AN ERROR AND/OR MISTAKE ON THE PART OF THE LD. AO T O MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND LATER ON SUCH ERRORS HAVE RIGHTLY BEEN CURED BY THE LD. APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY REVERSING THE SAME FROM SUBSTANTIVE TO PROTECTIV E IN THE HANDS OF THE SONS. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, WE HAVE ALSO PE RUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 13. QUESTION BEFORE US IS AS TO WHETHER THE FUNDS L YING WITH THE BANK ACCOUNTS AS MENTIONED HEREINABOVE BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE US AND FINALLY THE INTEREST INCOME ARISING OUT OF THOSE FUNDS CAN BE ASSESSED I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. 14. WITHOUT REPEATING THE FACTS OF THE MATTER AND T HE CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE WE WOULD LIKE TO DEAL WITH THE DOCUMENTS R ELIED UPON BY THE RESPECTIVE PARTIES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ARGUMENTS. IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 8 - 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE CHART SUMMARIZING THE TR ANSFER OF FUND FROM HSBC, GENEVA ACCOUNT NO. 4432541 TO THE ACCOUNT LYI NG WITH JAWAHIR R. MEHTA AT DUBAI AND INDIA BANK ACCOUNTS FROM F.Y. 19 97-98 TO 2007-08 AS APPEARING AT PAGE 1-3 OF PAPER BOOK III. SIMILARLY WE HAVE PERUSED THE SUMMARIZED CHART SHOWING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM HSB C, GENEVA ACCOUNT BEING NO. 4432533 LYING WITH BALKRISHNA R. MEHTA FROM F.Y . 1997-98 TO 2011-12 IN THE SAME PAPER BOOK. FURTHER THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE HSBC BANK, GENEVA FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO HIS SONS NAMELY JAWAHIR MEHTA AND BALKRISHNA MEHTA ALONG WITH THE BANK STATEMENTS AS APPEARING FROM PAGE 7 TO 42 OF THE PAPER BOOK NO. III FILED BEFORE US BY THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY US. 16. THE LD. DR SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE ORDER PASSED BY THE REVENUE ON THE PREMISE THAT THE FUNDS IN QUESTION BELONGS TO THE A SSESSEE SINCE ALL THE INSTRUCTIONS TO THE HSBC BANK FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS IN FAVOUR OF HIS SONS IN THE ACCOUNTS OF HIS TWO SONS NAMELY JAWAHIR MEHTA AND B ALKRISHNA MEHTA WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE SUMMARIZED CHART SHOWING THAT TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM HSBC GENEVA TO THE CONCERNED ACCOUNTS OF TWO SONS I N HSBC BANK AT DUBAI AND INDIA GIVES NO INDICATION THAT THE FUND TRANSFE RRED FROM HSBC GENEVA TO HSBC DUBAI AND HSBC INDIA BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. APART FROM THAT, PERUSAL OF THE COMMUNICATIONS ISSUED BY THE HSBC BANK GENEV A DATED 23.03.2012 MERELY SHOWS THE STATUS OF THE ACCOUNT BEING NO. 44 32541 AND 4432533 WERE CLOSED ON 27.09.2007 AND 27.05.2008 RESPECTIVELY. 17. THE DETAILS OF FIXED DEPOSITS OF THE APPELLANT A ND HIS FAMILY AS ASSESSED BY REVENUE AS MADE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 47 TO 50 IN PAPER BOOK NO. III HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY US. IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDING NOWH ERE OF THE ENTIRE SET OF ABOVE DOCUMENTS GIVES ANY INDICATION THAT THE FUNDS TRANSFERRED FROM HSBC, GENEVA TO THE SONS ACCOUNTS LYING WITH HSBC DUBAI AND INDIA BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE. THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT SPEAK THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS THE REAL OWNER OF THE FUNDS LYING WITH THOSE BANKS. WE WOULD LIKE TO MEN TION HERE THAT THE REVENUE IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 9 - HAS ALSO FAILED TO RELY UPON ANY CLINCHING EVIDENCE WHICH SHOWS DIRECTLY THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE REAL OWNER OF THE FUNDS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION ON THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,32,94,549/- AND RS. 1,44,53,534/- A DMITTEDLY SHOWN AS INTEREST INCOME BY SHRI BALKRISH MEHTA AND SHRI JAWAHIR MEHT A RESPECTIVELY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS HOLDING HIM AS THE OWNER OF THE FUNDS OUT OF WHICH THE INTEREST INCOME HAS ARISEN IS PURE LY A GUESS WORK, BASED ON SURMISE AND CONJECTURE AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. M ORESO, IN VERY MANY OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS A CONSTITUTED ATTOR NEY OF HIS SONS TO MANAGE SUCH INVESTMENT ON THEIR BEHALF; SUCH ACTION DOES NOT ES TABLISH HIS RIGHT ON FUNDS. NEITHER ANY DOCUMENT HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE RE VENUE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED SUCH FUNDS FOR HIS OWN BENEFI T OR TRIED TO BE A BENEFICIARY OF THE FUNDS. MERE DIRECTIONS TO THE BANK DO NOT ESTA BLISH THE BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP AND ENJOYMENTS OF FUNDS LYING IN BANK ACCOUNTS. THE SE DIRECTIONS/INSTRUCTIONS, AS IT APPEARS ON RECORD, IS ONLY FOR FURTHER TRANSFER AND BIFURCATE FUNDS BETWEEN SEPARATE ACCOUNTS OF TWO SONS AND NOT BY WAY OF WIT HDRAWALS FOR FATHERS/APPELLANTS USE. ON THE OTHER HAND SUCH I NSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO TRANSFER FUNDS TO OTHER ACCOUNTS NEITHE R DISENTITLE THE SONS FROM CLAIMING OWNERSHIP OF THE FUNDS LYING IN THOSE ACCO UNTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE, IN MOST OF THE CASES INSTRUCTED THE BANK AUTHORITIES F OR TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO CERTAIN BANK ACCOUNTS LYING IN THE NAME OF HIS SONS THE REV ENUE WRONGLY CAME TO A FINDING THAT IT IS THE APPELLANT WHO WAS THE REAL O WNER OF THE FUNDS WHICH IS NOTHING BUT A PRODUCT OF SURMISE AND CONJECTURE IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. HENCE, THE INTEREST INCOME WAS HIS INCOM E AS OBSERVED BY THE REVENUE AND IMPOSING TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELL ANT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. THE ASSESSEE FATHER INSTRUCTED DIFFERE NT BANK AUTHORITIES FOR TRANSFER OF FUNDS NOT AS A NAME HOLDER BUT AS A POWER OF ATT ORNEY HOLDER WHICH IS AGAIN EVIDENT FROM THE BANKS LETTER DATED 04.07.2000 FORM ING PART OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS. WHEN THE NEW ACCOUNT WAS OPEN I N 2008 THE APPELLANT REMAINED CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY HOLDER THEREIN. FURT HER THAT THE EARLIER TWO ACCOUNTS AND THE NEW ACCOUNTS IN THE NAME OF TWO SO NS OPENED IN 2007 AND 2008 AS APPEARING FROM PAGE 43 TO 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK N O. III CONFIRMS THE INITIAL IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 10 - STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE MADE INTERNA L DIVISION BETWEEN THE TWO SONS AND, THEREFORE, IN EFFECT HE ACTED IN A FIDUCI ARY CAPACITY ALL THROUGHOUT. AS LONG AS THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS A CONSTITUTED ATTORNE Y OF HIS SONS, HE CANNOT SET TO BE THE OWNER AND/OR PRINCIPAL BUT AN AGENT. THEREFORE, THE FUND LYING IN THOSE ACCOUNTS BELONGED TO THE PRINCIPAL I.E. HIS SONS AN D NOT THE ASSESSEE WHO HAS ACTED MERELY AS AN AGENT. IN FACT, THIS PARTICULAR FACT IS STRENGTHEN BY THE ACTION MADE SUBSEQUENTLY BY HIS TWO SONS WHO HAVE OWNED UP AND DECLARED THE INTEREST INCOMES IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. IT FURTHER REVEALS THAT THE FIXED DEPOSIT WIT H THE BANK INCLUDING IN INDIA AS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND SEIZED THEREON STOO D MAINLY IN THE NAME OF SONS FAMILIES AND ONLY TWO OF THEM WERE KEPT IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT WHICH FURTHER GOES TO SHOW THAT HARDLY ANY INVESTMENT WAS LEFT FOR HIMSELF. HOWEVER, THE REVENUE FAILED TO SUBMIT ANY SUCH EVIDENCE WHIC H CLEARLY SHOWS THAT IT IS THE APPELLANT WHO IS THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THE FUND LYING WITH DIFFERENT ACCOUNTS HELD BY HIS SONS. 18. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA REPORTED IN [2012] 24 TAXMANN.COM 98 (DELHI) ON THE POINT OF REOPENING OF PROCEEDING WHICH HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY US. THE FAC T OF THE CASE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE MATTER WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVEN UE IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE FACT AVAILABLE BEFORE US IN THE CA SE IN HAND. HENCE, THE JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE. 19. THUS, UPON CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE ASPECT OF THE MATTER, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE DO NOT FIND ANY CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE REVE NUE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF THE FUNDS WHO HAS ACTED ON THE BASI S OF THE POWER OF ATTORNEY FOR GIVING INSTRUCTIONS TO TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM ONE A CCOUNT TO ANOTHER THAT TOO TO THE ACCOUNTS BELONG TO HIS TWO SONS IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY CLINCHING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID OBSERVATION AND CONCLUSION THER EON. IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 11 - 20. FURTHER FAULT IN MAKING ADDITION OF INCOME OF T HE SON BALKRISHNA MEHTA IS GLARING ON THE FACE OF THE RECORDS SINCE BALKRISHNA MEHTA HAS ALREADY SHOWN THE SAID INCOME IN HIS PERSONAL RETURN AND PAID TAX THE REON. WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF SHRI BALKRISHNA MEHTA ALL D ATED 27.02.2015 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RESPECTIVELY UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. IT IS EVIDENT THAT ADDITION WER E MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID ASSESSEE AS APPEARING FROM PAGE 88 TO 133 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 AND THE RETURNS SO FILED BY THE SAID ASSESSEE WERE ACCEPTED FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 AS APPEARING FROM PAGE 137 TO 143 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE US. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT NONE OF THESE ORDERS OF AS SESSMENT SPEAKS OF PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT AGAINST HIM. THE INTEREST INCOME FROM ACCOUNT NO. 4432533/10998573 AND 10978565 HELD WITH THE HSBC GE NEVA HAS BEEN ESTIMATED @10% PER ANNUM AND ADDED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI BALKRISHNA MEHTA ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S ALL DATED 27.02.2015 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 2009-10 UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER SON NAMELY JAWAHIR MEHT A AS APPEARING FROM PAGE 167 TO 187 WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE CAPITAL GA IN SHOWN AND INTEREST ON NRO ACCOUNT AND ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID JAWAHIR MEHTA. NOWHERE IT IS REFLECTING THAT THE SAID ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE ON P ROTECTIVE BASIS ON HIM. BE THAT AS IT MAY, IF THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF TH E FATHER RAVICHANDRA MEHTA IS MADE TO BE SUBSTANTIVE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID SONS NAMELY JAWAHIR MEHTA AND BALKRISHNA THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDERS ALL DATED 27.02.2015 IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE SONS DO NOT ALTER ITS NATURE FROM SUBSTANTIVE T O PROTECTIVE. LD. AO KNOWING FULLY WELL THE FACT AGAIN MADE ADDITION ON THE SAME ALLEGED INCOME ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH IS IS NOTHING BUT A CASE ON DOUBLE TAXATION. IN THIS RESPECT THE LD. AR RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F M. R. SHAH LOGISTICS PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2019) 308 CTR 0493. THE SAM E HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BY US. IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE BY TAKIN G THE SHELTER OF REOPENING THE AO SOUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE PETITIONER COM PANY OF THAT PARTICULAR INCOME WHICH WAS DECLARED BY ANOTHER PARTICULARLY WHEN SUC H DECLARATION WAS ACCEPTED IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 12 - BY THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND BY THREE INSTALLMENT S OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TAX WITH SURCHARGE AND PENALTY WAS DEPOSITED THEREON. THE SAME HAS BEEN DELETED ON THE GROUND OF DOUBLE TAXATION. 21. ANOTHER JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B. NANJI ENTERPRISE LTD. VS. DCIT REPORTED IN (2017) 84 T AXMAN.COM 155 (GUJ.) AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR HAS BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDE RED BY US WHEREIN THE LD. AO ADDED THE CASH SEIZED FROM THE BANK LOCKER OF TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY AS UNDISCLOSED CASH RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUE NTLY, TAX WAS PAID ON SUCH INCOME BY THE DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY UPON FILING SETTLEMENT APPLICATION OWNING UP SUCH AMOUNT AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. TH E ADDITION MADE ON THE COMPANY WAS THEN HELD TO BE BAD AND DELETED SINCE T HE SAME WAS SUFFERING FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE TAXATION. THE INCOME WHICH WAS TAXED IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNERSHIP FARM CANNOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF TH E PARTNER AGAIN AS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KANUBHAI MAGANLAL PATEL REPORTED IN (2017) 79 TAXMAN.COM 257 AS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR HAS ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED BY US. 22. THUS, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS AND PROPOSITIO N OF LAW WE DO NOT HESITATE TO HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HAND S OF THE ASSESSEE SUFFERS FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE TAXATION. NEEDLESS TO MENT ION THAT OUR VIEW HAS BEEN STRENGTHENED BY THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASES AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HENCE, THE ADDITI ON IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 23. WE HAVE FURTHER FOUND THAT IN THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDING THE LD. CIT (A) ALTERED THE NATURE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO I N THE CASE OF THE SON BALAKRISHNA ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FROM SUBSTANTIVE BA SIS. IT WAS AN ERROR MADE BY THE LD. AO WHILE MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF BAL KRISHNA ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AS THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE AR RELIED UPON UPON THE J UDGMENT PASSED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH WINE AG ENCIES VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REPORTED IN 09 CCH 0116 38 TTJ 0039 (ALLAHAB AD TRIB.) AND THE ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 13 - THE MATTER OF NETWARLAL RADHESHYAM BAGADIYA VS. ACI T BY THE PUNE BENCH WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ERROR IS FATAL IT IS NOT A CURABLE ERROR ESPECIALLY BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE RIGHT TO MAKE PROTE CTIVE ASSESSMENT IS THE RIGHT TO BE EXERCISED BY THE ITO AND NOT THE APPELLATE AUTHO RITY. ONCE ADDITION MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE SONS OF THE A SSESSEE AND TAX AND/OR PENALTY PAID THEREON THE SAID CATEGORY OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE ALTERED FROM SUBSTANTIVE TO PROTECTIVE BY INDICATING THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSM ENT AS AN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE LD. AO MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID INCOM E WAS ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS PROPOSITI ON AND CONCLUSION MADE THEREUPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE APPELLATE PROCEE DING IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY BASIS ARBITRARY, WHIMSICA L, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THIS OBSERVATION MA DE BY THE LD. CIT(A) THUS MAY TO BE EXPUNGED. THUS, FROM ALL CORNERS THE REVE NUE HAS FAILED TO SATISFY US TO HOW THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AT ALL BE SUSTAINABLE. THEREFORE, BY NO STRETCH OF IMAGINATION THE ADDITION MADE BY R EVENUE ON THE INTERESTS INCOME OF RS. 1,32,94,549/- & RS. 1,44,53,534/- ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HOLDING ASSESSEE AS THE OWNER OF TH E FUNDS OF THE ACCOUNT ONLY ON RELYING UPON THE INSTRUCTIONS TO TRANSFER THE FUND SOLELY ON THE BASIS OF SURMISE AND CONJECTURE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE JUSTIFIED IN TH E ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND/OR CLINCHING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF TH E SAME AND ALSO ON THE GROUND OF ASSESSMENT ALREADY MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME AS N ARRATED HEREINBEFORE. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION UNDER CHALLENGE IS HEREBY DELETED. 24. GROUND NO.4:- THIS GROUND RELATES TO SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 27,85,904/- ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE BY WAY OF INTEREST ON ABN AMRO BANK ACCOUNT BEARING NO. 208695A JOINTL Y HELD WITH GRANDSON OF THE APPELLANT. THE FACT RELATING TO THE ISSUE IS THIS THAT THE ASS ESSEE OPENED AN ACCOUNT IN ABN AMRO BANK JOINTLY IN HIS NAME AND HIS GRANDSON SHRI VICKY MEHTA. THE IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 14 - FUND WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE ACCOUNT NO. G208164 T O ACCOUNT NO. 208695A ABN AMRO BANK AND WHATEVER AMOUNT LYING IN THE ACCO UNT NO. G208164 THE SAME WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE NEWLY OPENED ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF R. V. MEHTA AND VICKY MEHTA. SUCH ACCOUNT IS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TRANSFERRED THE FUND TO HSBC BANK GENEVA. THE ENTIRE FUND WAS EARN ED IN DUBAI AND THE ASSESSEE MADE INTERNAL TRANSACTION IN VARIOUS BANKS . IT WAS PLACED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO GET THE CER TIFICATE FROM THE BANK CONFIRMING THE BALANCE BUT SINCE THE BANK WAS TOTALLY CLOSED A ND MERGED WITH RBS, THE OFFICIALS HAVE REFUSED TO PROVIDE THE BANK STATEMEN T. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE SAID VICKY MEHTA WAS ASSESSED BY THE SAME LD. AO WHO HAS BEEN ASSESSED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND PAID TAX THEREUPON. THE LD . AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ADDED THE SAME INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE SIMILAR MA NNER AS HAS BEEN DONE IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE SONS OF THE APPELLANT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND INCOME WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE GRANDSON ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. HOWEVER, THE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIO N MADE IN THE HANDS OF VICKY MEHTA ON THIS PARTICULAR AMOUNT OF INCOME IN RESPEC T OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS NOT BEEN DENIED BY THE REVENUE. NO EVIDENCE IS FORTHCOMING SO AS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE INCOME BELONGS TO TH E ASSESSEE AND NOT VICKY MEHTA UPON WHOM THE INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED ON S UBSTANTIVE BASIS. 25. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT IN THIS CASE ALSO SUCH ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS ON THE SAME AMOUNT AL READY ASSESSED AND ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE GRANDSON VICKY MEHTA ON SUBSTANTIV E SUFFERS FROM THE PRINCIPLE OF DOUBLE TAXATION. RELYING UPON THE OBSERVATION M ADE BY US HEREINABOVE ON THIS ISSUE IN CASE OF THE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE SONS, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,85,904/- BY WAY OF INTEREST ON A BN AMRO BANK ACCOUNT NO. 208695A AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT S USTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND, THUS, DELETED. IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 15 - 26. GROUND NO. 5:- THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE GROU ND AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF T HE MATTER. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. (IT(SS)A NO. 11/RJT/2018):- RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA VS. DCIT (A.Y. 2007-08):- 27. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - 13, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,58,05,279/- BY WAY OF INTEREST IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. (2) THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - 13, AHMEDABAD CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,58 ,05,279/- ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND TREATING IT AS INCOME ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE SON OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW, MORE SO WHEN CREDIT OF TAX PAID BY SON IS NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. (3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - 13, AHMEDABAD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT TREATED HIS FUNDS AS DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO SONS AND HENCE INCOME THEREON DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. (4) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) - 13, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 18,96,146/- BY WAY O F INTEREST ON ABN AMRO BANK ACCOUNT NO. 208695A JOINTLY HELD WITH GRANDSON OF THE APPEL LANT. (5) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-13, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,45,000/- BY ESTIMA TING 10% INTEREST INCOME ON FIXED DEPOSIT HELD WITH HDFC BANK BY THE APPELLANT. 28. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3:- THE IDENTICAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE HAVE ALRE ADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY C HANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 29. GROUND NO. 4:- THE IDENTICAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE HAS ALREAD Y BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CH ANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THE GROUND PR EFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 16 - 30. GROUND NO. 5:- THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PROCEED WITH THE GROU ND AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF T HE MATTER. HENCE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. IT(SS)A NO. 12/RJT/2018:- RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA VS. DCIT (A.Y. 2008-09):- 31. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - 13, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,70,91,517/- BY WAY OF INTEREST IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. (2) THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - 13, AHMEDABAD CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,70 ,91,5177- ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND TREATING IT AS INCOME ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE SON OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW, MORE SO WHEN CREDIT OF TAX PAID BY SON IS NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. (3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - 13, AHMEDABAD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT TREATED HIS FUNDS AS DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO SONS AND HENCE INCOME THEREON DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. 32. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3:- THE IDENTICAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE HAVE ALREA DY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY C HANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. IT(SS)A NO. 13/RJT/2018:- RAVICHANDRA V. MEHTA VS. DCIT (A.Y. 2009-10):- 33. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- ( 1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 13, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,56,54,476/- BY WAY OF INTEREST IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. (2) THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - 13, AHMEDABAD CONFIRMING THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,56,54,476/- ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT AND TREATING IT AS INCOME ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE SON OF THE APPELLANT IS BAD IN LAW, MORE SO WHEN CREDIT OF TAX PAID BY SON IS NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. (3) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) - 13, AHMEDABAD AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APP ELLANT TREATED HIS FUNDS AS DIVIDED BETWEEN TWO SONS AND HENCE INCOME THEREON DID NOT BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 17 - 34. GROUND NO. 1 TO 3:- THE IDENTICAL ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE CASE HAVE ALREA DY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HENCE, THESE GROUNDS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. BALKRISHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA VS. DCIT (A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08):- 35. BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRE CTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 14.02.2020 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-13 ARIS ING OUT OF THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015 UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS TO THE ACT) FOR A.Y. 200 6-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NO. 01/RJT/2021:- SHRI BALKRISHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA VS. DCIT (A.Y. 20 06-07):- 36. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS )-13, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN TREATING A SUBSTANTIVE INCOME OF RS. 1,31,94,550/- RETURNED B THE APPELLANT INTO A PROTECTIVE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -13, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN TREATING A SUBSTANTIVE INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPEL LANT INTO A PROTECTIVE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE IN TH IS REGARD AND HENCE THE SAID PART OF THE ORDER BEING BAD IN LAW BE QUASHED. WITHOUT REPEATING THE FACT OF THE CASE AS ALREADY NARRATED HEREINABOVE IN ITEM NO. 1 TO 4 WE WOULD LIKE TO RELY UPON OUT OBSE RVATION MADE AT PARAGRAPH 23 HEREINABOVE WHICH READS AS FOLLOWS:- WE HAVE FURTHER FOUND THAT IN THE APPELLATE PROCEE DING THE LD. CIT (A) ALTERED THE NATURE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO IN THE CASE OF THE S ON BALAKRISHNA ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FROM SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. IT WAS AN ERROR MADE BY THE LD. AO WHILE MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF BALKRISHNA ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AS THE OBSERVATI ON MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A). IN THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE THE LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE AR RELIED UPON UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PRAKASH WINE AGENCIES VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, REPORTED IN 09 CCH 0116 38 TTJ 0039 (A LLAHABAD TRIB.) AND THE ORDER IN THE MATTER OF NETWARLAL RADHESHYAM BAGADIYA VS. ACIT BY THE PUNE BENCH WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IF THE ERROR IS FATAL IT IS NOT A CURABLE ERROR ESPECIALLY BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE RIGHT TO MAKE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IS THE RIGH T TO BE EXERCISED BY THE ITO AND NOT THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ONCE ADDITION MADE ON SUBSTAN TIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE SONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAX AND/OR PENALTY PAID THEREON TH E SAID CATEGORY OF ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE ALTERED FROM SUBSTANTIVE TO PROTECTIVE BY INDICATIN G THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT AS AN ERROR ON THE PART OF THE LD. AO MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH IS PROPOSITION AND CONCLUSION MADE IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 18 - THEREUPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT THE APPELLATE PROCEE DING IS NOTHING BUT AN AFTERTHOUGHT, WITHOUT ANY BASIS ARBITRARY, WHIMSICAL, ERRONEOUS A ND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THIS OBSERVATION MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) THUS MAY TO BE EXPUNGED. 37. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TREATING THE SUBSTANTIVE INC OME OF RS. 1,31,94,550/- AS RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT INTO PROTECTIVE INCOME IN HIS HANDS. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. ADVOCATE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUT ATT ENTION TO THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE MATTER PREMKUMA RI SURANA VS. ITO, REPORTED IN 40 CCH 091 (MUMBAI TRIB.) AND THE JUDGME NT PASSED BY THE ANDHRA PRADESH BENCH IN THE MATTER BRAHMIYA VS. ITO, REPORTED IN 229 TAXMAN.COM 558 (AP). IT IS A SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT BEFORE MAKING SUCH ORDER THE PERSON CONCERN SHOULD BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD. THEREFORE, UNLESS THE PERSON IN WHOSE HAND THE INCOME IS DIRECTED TO BE A DDED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FROM SUBSTANTIVE BASIS THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE APPEL LATE AUTHORITY IS AN EXERCISE IN FUTILITY. THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE DISTUR BED IN THE MANNER AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE CASE IN HAND. TH IS DIRECTION IS, THUS, PATENTLY INCORRECT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE EFFECTED PARTY WHILE DISCHARGING JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS BY THE LD. CIT(A). I N THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER RELYING UPON THE DISCUSSION ON THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AS NARRATED HEREINABOVE THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN TREATING THE SUB STANTIVE INCOME OF RS. 1,31,550/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT INTO A PROTECT IVE INCOME IN HIS HANDS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW AND THUS THE SAME IS HEREBY EXPUNGED. ITA NO. 02/RJT/2021:- BALKRISHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA VS. DCIT(2007-08):- 38. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL WITH THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS )-13, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN TREATING A SUBSTANTIVE INCOME OF RS. 1,66,76,950/- RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT INTO A PROTECTIVE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) -13, AHMEDABAD ERRED IN TREATING A SUBSTANTIVE INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPEL LANT INTO A PROTECTIVE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ISSUING NOTICE IN TH IS REGARD AND HENCE THE SAID PART OF THE ORDER BEING BAD IN LAW BE QUASHED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER AND WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ANYTIME UP TO THE HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 19 - 39. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE HAS ALR EADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.01/RJT/2021 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND IN THE AB SENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS . HENCE, THE GROUND PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 120/RJT/2020:- ACIT VS. BALKRISHNA RAVICHANDRA MEHTA (2006-07):- 40. DELETING OF ADDITION OF RS. 43,99,544/- BY WAY OF INTEREST INCOME FROM HSBC ACCOUNT NO. 4432533 HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE. WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION THE LD. CIT(A) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO PASS ORDERS IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 5.12 IN THIS SUBMISSIONS THE LD. AR HAS ALLEGED TH AT THE AO HAS WRONGLY ARRIVED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME DURING A.Y. 2006-07 OF RS. 1M76,94, 093/- AS AGAINST INTEREST INCOME SHOWN OF RS. 1,32,94,549/- IN THE P&L ACCOUNT AND THE COM PUTATION OF INCOME. ALONG WITH THE SUBMISSION DATED 20.01.2016, THE LD. A.R. HAS FILED THE PRINT OUT OF THE COMPUTERIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AS PAPER BOOK WHICH HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO ALSO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. AT PAGE 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE FD HSBC SA INTEREST HAS BEEN SHOWN AT RS. 1,32,94,5 49/- AND SAME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. IN THE BALANCE SHEET AT PAGE 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK THE INVESTMENTS IN HSBC 4432533/10998565 AND 4432533/10998573 ARE RS. 1,36, 55,531/- AND RS. 74,06,740/- RESPECTIVELY. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDING IT WAS ORALLY EXPLAINED BY THE LD. AR THAT AMOUNT OF INTEREST RS. 1,76,94,093/- ADOPTED BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT BY THE AO BY APPLYING EXCHANGE RATE AS ON 31 ST MARCH OF THE YEAR, WHEREAS THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED THE EXCHANGE RATE S ON THE DATES THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS WERE CREDITED BY THE BANK. THE CONTENTION OF LD. A R IN CONTEXT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,32,94,549/- IS FOUND CORRECT AS PER THE RESPECTIV E LEDGER FURNISHED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THUS IT HAS TO BE HELD THAT THE AO HAD NO BASIS TO REJECT THE AMOUNT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT AND TO VARY THE AMOUNT ADOPTING A DIFFERENT EXCHANG E RATE AND MAKE FURTHER ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DIFFERENCE. THE AD DITION OF RS. 43,99,544/- (ON ACCOUNT OF DIFF OF RS. 1,32,94,549/- AND RS. 1,76,94,093/-) IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE RELATED GROUND SUCCEEDS. THE APPELLANT HAS APPLIED THE EXCHANGE RATE ON THE DATES THE RESPECTIVE INTERESTS WERE CREDITED BY THE BANK AND AS PER THE RESPECTIVE LEDGER FURNISHED BEFORE THE REVENUE. THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,32 ,94,549/- HAS BEEN FOUND CORRECT. THUS, THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 1,76,94,0 93/- AS ADMITTED BY THE LD. AO BY APPLYING THE EXCHANGE RATE AS ON 31 ST MARCH OF THAT YEAR HAS BEEN RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY DELETIO N OF ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF RS. 43,99,544/- IS IN OUR CONS IDERED OPINION JUST AND PROPER AND WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY SO AS TO WARRANT INTERFER ENCE. HENCE, THE GROUND OF IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 20 - APPEAL PREFERRED BY REVENUE IS FOUND TO BE DEVOID O F ANY MERIT AND, THUS, DISMISSED. ITA NO. 121/RJT/2020:- ACIT VS. BALKRISHN RAVICHANDRA MEHTA (2007-08):- 41. DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 11,19,948/- BEING D IFFERENCE OF RS. 1,67,76,947/- BEING THE INTEREST SHOWN IN THE P&L AC COUNT AND RS. 1,78,96,895/- I.E. THE INTEREST INCOME EARNED AS PER THE ACCOUNTS OF HSBC MADE DUE TO UNACCOUNTED INTEREST INCOME EARNED FROM FOREIGN BAN K HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. 42. THE IDENTICAL ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE CASE HAS ALR EADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO.120/RJT/2020 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS . HENCE, THE GROUND PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 43. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN (I) IT(SS)A NO. 10/RJT/2018 IS PARTLY ALLOWED (II) IT(SS)A NO. 11/RJT/2018 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. (III) IT(SS)A NO. 12/RJT/2018 IS ALLOWED. (IV) IT(SS)A NO. 13/RJT/2018 IS ALLOWED. (V) ITA NO. 01/RJT/2021 IS ALLOWED. (VI) ITA NO. 02/RJT/2021 IS ALLOWED. (VII) ITA NO. 120/RJT/2020 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED (VIII) ITA NO. 121/RJT/2020 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (AMRJIT SINGH) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 22/06/2021 TANMAY TRUE COPY THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22/06/2021 IT(SS)A NO.10/RJT/2018 & 07 OTHERS - 21 - / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- !' #$ / REVENUE %' / ASSESSEE &' '(')* + / CONCERNED CIT ,' +- / CIT (A) .' /01 22)*3 )*3 45( / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6' 178 9: / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 3 / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , #; / ITAT, RAJKOT 1.DATE OF DICTATION ON 05.05.2021 TO 28.05.2021 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER 06.05.2021 & 31.05.2021 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. .06.2021 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR . P.S./P.S 22.06.2021 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 22 .06.2021 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER