The ACIT,(OSD), Circle-9, Ahmedabad V. M/s. N.G. Patel & Associates, Ahmedabad

ITA 21/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0953 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 11 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Tax effect; TDS
• Section: 143(3); 201; 143(2); 43; 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THE ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE - 9, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 10 TH FLOOR, ASTRON TECH. PARK, OPP. FUN REPUBLIC SATELLITE , S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD - 380015 PAN: AACFN5395B (RESPONDENT) M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 10 TH FLOOR, ASTRON TECH. PARK, OPP. FUN REPUBLIC SATELLITE, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD - 380015 PAN: AACFN5395B (APPELLANT) VS THE ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE - 9, AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY : S H RI VINOD TANWANI , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI M.K. PATEL , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 26 - 11 - 2 019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 12 - 2 019 I T A NO . 21 / A HD/20 11 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ITA N O. 129 /AHD/20 11 ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 I.T.A NO S . 21 & 129 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO ACIT(OSD) VS. M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 2 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE AND ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007 - 08 , ARI SE FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 18 - 11 - 2 010 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61; IN SHORT THE ACT . ITA NO. 21/AHD/2011 FILED BY REVENUE 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME - TAX(A) - XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND , ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.19,42,636/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR UNACCOUNTED INCOME. 2) THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME - TAX(A) - XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.34,55,467/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIABILITY CEASED U/S.41 (1) OF THE ACT. 3) THE ID. COMMISSIONER OF LNCOME - TAX(A) - XV, AHMEDABAD H AS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,68,800/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF HIGHLY UNDERSTATEMENT / UNDERVALUATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF WARE HOUSE RESULTED IN TRANSFERRING OF PROFITS GENERATED IN OVERALL BUSINESS TO THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF PARTNERS WITHOUT SUBJECTING TO TAX. 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT[A] - XV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5) IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(A) - XV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET - ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT ASSESSEE HA S FI L E D RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 40 , 36 , 240/ - ON 10 TH OCTOBER, 200 7. THE CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 18 TH SEP, 2018. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS ASSESSED AT RS. 2 , 20 , 20 , 839/ - U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 24 TH DECEMB ER, 2009. THE ADDITION S CONTESTED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE ARE DISCUSSED WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPE AL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS FOLLOWS : - GROUND NO. 1 (DEL ETING ADDITION OF RS. 19 , 42 , 636/ - FOR UNACCOUNTED INCOME) 4. DURING THE COURSE OF AS S ESSMENT, ON VERIFICATION OF THE TDS RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED I.T.A NO S . 21 & 129 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO ACIT(OSD) VS. M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 3 CONTRACT RECEIPT FROM N.G. CORPORATION OF RS. 1 9 LACS AND TAX DEDUCTED AT SOUR CE WAS SHOWN AT RS. 42 , 126/ - . ON EXAMINATION OF THE N. G. CORPORATION (MALL) ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF THE AS SESSEE , IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 20 , 08 , 201 INCLUDING TDS AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT WAS ACCOUNTED IN THE RECEIPT FOR THE YEAR OF RS. 1 , 27 , 31 , 825/ - FROM A SHWARAJ BUNGLOWS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT AMOUNT PAID BY N.G. CORPORATION HAS NO CONNECTION WITH ASHWARAJ BUNGALOW. IN VIEW OF THIS , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT ASS ESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN AMOUNT OF RS . 20 , 08 ,201/ - PAID BY N G CORPORATION IN ITS ACCOUNT. T HEREFORE, RS. 20 , 08 , 201/ - WAS TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. A GGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 65,565/ - . 6 . HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT RS. 1 9 LAC +TDS OF RS. 42 , 126/ - TOTALING TO RS. 19 , 4 2, 126/ - HAD BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE AMOUNT OF R S. 1 , 27 , 31 , 825/ - RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM N.G. CORPORATI ON FOR CONSTRUCTION OF ASHWARJ BUNGALOW. OUT OF R S. 1,27,31,835/ - AMOUNT OF RS. 7 2 , 16 , 500/ - WAS DEBITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF M/S. N.G. AND RS. 55 , 15 , 335/ - WAS DIRECTLY DEBITED TO THE INDIVIDUAL BUNGALOW OWNERS WHOSE CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED . AFTER CONSIDE RING THE REPLY OF THE ASSE SSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTICED THAT THERE WA S A DIFFERENCE OF RS. 65,565/ - , THEREFORE, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITI ON TO THE SAID AMOUNT AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF R S. 20 , 08 , 201/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IN T HE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY I.T.A NO S . 21 & 129 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO ACIT(OSD) VS. M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 4 INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A), THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 ( DELETING ADDITION OF R S. 34 , 55 , 467/ - U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT) 7 . DURING THE ASSESSMENT ON V ERIFICATION OF THE BALANCE SHEET, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N AN AMOUNT OF RS. 30, 43 , 399 / - AS RETENTION MO NEY. FROM THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY T H E ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEEE WAS IN THE PR ACTICE OF WITH HOLDING CERTAIN PART OF PAYMENT TO THE PARTIES WHO HAD SUPPLIED MATERIAL OR RENDERED SMALL SERVICES IN THE CONSTRUCTION WO RK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT REMAINED UNPAI D FOR LONG TIME AND ASSUMED THAT THE SMALL PARTI ES WILL NOT COME TO RECEIVE THE AMOUNT DUE TO THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPUTED THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF OUTSTANDING PAYABLE TO T H E PARTIES TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 34 , 55 , 467/ - AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 41(1) OF THE ACT 8. THE AS SESSEE HAS CONTESTED THIS ISSUE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION FOR THE SAME REASON FOR WHICH ADDITION OF RETENTION MONEY HAS BEEN DELETED IN THE LAST ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 9. HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THE LEDGER A/C OF THE RETENTION MONEY A/C ALONG WITH LEDGER A/C OF PARTIES PLACED AT PAGE NO. 91 TO 95 OF THE PAPER BOOK WITH PARTICULARS OF BILL AMOUNT, PAYMENT MOD E AND OUTSTANDING PAYABLE ETC. O N IDEN TICAL ISSUE AND FACTS THE ITAT VIDE ITA NO. 282/AHD82010 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HELD THAT SUCH ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED . C ONSIDERING I.T.A NO S . 21 & 129 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO ACIT(OSD) VS. M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 5 THE ABOVE FACTS AND FINDINGS, WE OBSERVE THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ASSUMPTION BASIS WIT HOUT CONTRADICTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESEEE THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. GROU ND NO. 3 ( DELETING ADDITION O F RS. 1 , 17 , 68 , 800/ - OF UNDER VAL UA TION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION) 10 . DURING THE CO URS E OF ASSES SMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CONSTRUCTED ASHWAMEGH WAREHOUSE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT VILLAGE SARKHEJ TALUKA, AHMEDABA D ON THE LAND BELONGED TO GANPATBHAI G. PATEL MR. NAGINBHAI G. PATEL AND NARSI BHAI G. PATEL WHICH WAS PURCHASED IN 1998. THE SAME LAND WAS GIFTED TO THE SONS AND DAUGHTERS OF THREE BROTHERS AND THEIR FA MILIES. THEREAFTER, THESE DONEE HAVING ENTRUS TED CONSTRUCTION WORK OF THE GODOWN TO THE ASSESSEE F IRM IN 2005 . T HE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTNERS AND RELATIVES WITH CERTAIN AMOUNT TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF WAREHOUSE . H OWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE CONSTRU CTION RATE AT LOWER SIDE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE WAREHOUSE . T HEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED THE COST OF MATERIAL AND THE A VERAGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF R S. 400 PER SQ. FT AND ESTIMATED THE TOTAL VA L UE OF THE WAREHOUSE AT RS. 2 , 12 , 31 , 800/ - AND AFTER DEDUCTING THE AMOUNT DEBITED TO RELATIVES ACCOUNT , AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 , 17 , 68 , 800/ - WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS SUPPRESSED VALUE OF THE WAREHOUSE CONSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A NO S . 21 & 129 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO ACIT(OSD) VS. M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 6 11. THE ASSESSEE HAS FI L E D APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION STATING THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED THE CONSTRUCTION COST ON ASSUMPTION BASIS. 12 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THIS ISSUE. THE RELEVANT PAR T OF THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 15. AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS I FIND THAT THE ESTIMATION BY THE AO ABOUT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION PER SQ.FT. INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT AS AGAINST THE ONE DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT BY THE AO IN PARA 5.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION (RS.200 PER SQ.FT.) IS UNDERSTATED, AND THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE COST OF MATERIALS AND THE AVERAGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF RS.1000 PER SQ .FT. IN THE MARKET AT THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF WAREHOUSE HAS BEEN TAKEN AT RS.400 PER SQ.F T. AS THE FINDING OF THE AO IS NOT WELL SUBSTANTIATED AND THE DECISIONS C ITED BY THE APPELLANT (PLEASE R E FER TO PARA 14 ABOVE) - CIT VS STAR BUILDERS (2007) 294 ITR 338 (GUJ) AND CIT V$. EMERALD CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. (2007) 281 ITR 59 (RAJ) SUPPORT ITS EXPLANATION, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,17,68,800. AFTER PERUSAL OF THE FACTS ON T HIS ISSUE REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL WHICH DEMONSTRATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDERSTATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPROVED THE CONSTRUCTION COST RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 129/AHD/2011 FILED BY ASSESSEE 13 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) - XV HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW BY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4779907/ - MADE BY ADD. CIT RANGE - 9, AHMEDABAD BY TREATING THE ADVANCE PAYMENT RECEIV ED BY THE APPELLANT AS CONTRACT RECEIPT INCOME IN ASST YEAR 2007 - 08. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) XV AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4779907/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT RECEIPT MADE BY ADD. CIT RANGE - 9 AHMEDABAD. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 4779707/ - MADE BY THE LD. ADD. CIT - 9 AHMEDABAD BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED BY UPHOLDING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT. I.T.A NO S . 21 & 129 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO ACIT(OSD) VS. M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 7 14 . ALL THE THREE GROUNDS O F APPEAL ARE PERTAINED TO THE COMMON ISSUE OF ADDITION OF R S. 47 , 79 , 907/ - BY TREATING THE ADVANCE AS CONTRACT RECEIPT. 15 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 47 , 79 , 907/ - FROM N. G. DEVELOPERS AFTER DEDUCTION OF TA X OF RS. 1 , 04 , 033/ - . T HE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY SUCH RECEIPT IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THAT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR , THE FINAL CONTR ACT COULD NOT BE EXECUTED THEREFORE NO INCOME WAS RECOGNIZED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT AG REED WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT RECEIPT OF THIS YEAR HAS TO BE INCLUDED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT OF TAX AND IF THE SAME HAS BEEN PAID BACK , THE SAME HAS TO BE CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE RELEVANT YEAR. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 47 , 79 , 907/ - WAS TREATED AS SUPPRESSED RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 16 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT TDS CREDIT HAS BEEN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT OFFERING THE AMOUNT IN TAXABLE INCOME. 17. HEARD THE RIVAL CONTE NTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNT REC IEVED WAS ONLY ADVANCE RECEIPT AND THE SAME WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET PLACED AT PAGE NO. 25 & 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AMOUNT WAS REPAID IS IN THE NEXT YEAR AS CONTRACT WAS CANCELLED WITH N.G . DEVELOPER AND REFERRED PAGE NO. 86 OF THE PAPER BOOK I.T.A NO S . 21 & 129 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO ACIT(OSD) VS. M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 8 AND OTHER PAGES OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AND CONTRA ACCOUNTS PLACED AT PAGE 75 TO 80 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT IS ALSO PLEADED THAT SIMILAR ADDITION IN THE CASE OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS DELETED BY T H E ITAT VIDE ITA NO . 223/2010 IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AN D THE COPY OF THE ORDER WAS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOO K . THE RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDINGS OF THE ITAT IN THE ABOVE CITED ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 11. WE FIND THAT IT IS N OT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RETURNED RS. 84,64,516/ - TO THE CONTRACTEE AND THE PROJECT WAS ABANDONED. THUS, THIS UNDISPUTED FACT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTUALLY RECEIVED RS. 37,64,311/ - ONLY AND ALSO INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF EQUAL AMOUNT AND EARNED N O REAL INCOME FROM THIS PROJECT, WHICH WAS ABANDONED. IN THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, AS NO REAL INCOME WAS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE PROJECT IN QUESTION, NO INCOME IN RESPECT OF THAT PROJECT CAN BE MESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) ARE UNSUSTAINABLE. WE, TH EREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 35,35,789/ - . 12. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ORDER, W E WOULD LIKE TO MENTION THE AO HAS ALLOWED CREDIT FOR TDS RS. 1,48,920 TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE TREATING THE SUM OF RS.35,35,689/ - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE CREDIT OF THIS TDS AMOUNT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THIS ORDER, AS PER LAW. THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND FINDINGS OF THE ITAT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR IS SUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, WE ALLOW THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW THE CREDIT OF TDS AMOUNT WHILE GIVING TAX EFFECT TO THIS ORDER. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 18 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL ITA 21/AHD/2011 FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND APPEAL ITA 129/AHD/2011 FILED BY ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AS CITED ABVOE . ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 09 - 12 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO S . 21 & 129 /AHD/20 11 A.Y. 2007 - 08 PAGE NO ACIT(OSD) VS. M/S. N.G. PATEL & ASSOCIATES 9 AHME DABAD : DATED 09 /12 /2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,