The DCIT, Circle-13, Ahmedabad V. Shri T.V. Krishnamurthy, Gandhinagar

ITA 2112/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5801 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S CHAUDHARY
• Assessee Lawyers: PF JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Capital receipt
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, ,L ,L,L ,L- -- -,E ,E,E ,E- -- -LH LHLH LH , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER !# I.T.A. NO.2112/AHD/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-13, AHMEDABAD. # VS. SHRI T.V. KRISHNAMURTHY PLOT NO.146, SECTOR 8, GANDHINAGAR 382008 $ # % & # PAN/GIR NO. : ABTPT 7611 E ( !$' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' # RESPONDENT ) !$') # APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.S.CHAUDHARY, SR.D.R. ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. F. JAIN, A.R. + ,*-. / DATE OF HEARING 09/03/2017 /012*-. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/05/2017 3# O R D E R PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XXI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 08/06/2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. 2. REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEA LS: I. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.37,50,000/- MADE U/S.68 OF THE IT AC T ON ACCOUNT ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT MADE IN S.B. ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH CORPORATION BANK, AHMEDABAD. II. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE R EASONS AND LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED BY THE AO VIDE PARA-4, 4.1 TO 4.5 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30/12/2010 ON THE BASIS OF W HICH ADDITION OF RS.37,50,000/- WAS MADE BY THE AO U/S.6 8 OF THE IT ACT. III. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE APPELLATE OR DER ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED DURING THE COUR SE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. BEFORE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION, NO OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE AO OF BEING HEARD. SINCE THE SAME IS AGAINST PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE APPELLAT E ORDER IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH CORPORATION BANK ON FOLLOWING DATES AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER: SR. NO. DATE AMOUNT RS. 1. 31.01.2008 5,00,000/- 2. 02.02.2008 5,00,000/- 3. 04.02.2008 4,50,000/- 4. 05.02.2008 5,00,000/ - 5. 15.03.2008 9,00,000/- 6. 17.03.2008 9,00,000/- TOTAL RS. 37,50,000/- ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - THE ASSESSEE AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESS MENT ORDER HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED AS ADVANCE MONEY AGAINST THE SALE OF PLOT NO. 120, 121 AND 122 EACH ADMEASURING 2660 SQ. FEET, PLOT NO.50, 51 ADMEASURING 3525 SQ. FEET IN T HE NAME OF HIS WIFE KALA KRISHNA MURTHY AND PLOT NO. 52, 53, 54 AND 55 ADMEASURING 9022 SQ. FEET, PLOT NO. 110, 111,123 ADMEASURING 7980 SQ . FEET BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE TOTAL AMOUNT AS ADVANCE MONEY AGA INST PROPOSED SALE OF THESE PROPERTIES IS RS.38,77,050/- AS PER INDIVI DUAL DETAILS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN SUPPORT OF ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE FOLLOWING EVIDE NCE. I. CASH BOOK AND BANK BOOK ALONG WITH BANK STATEMEN T. II. COPY OF CONVEYANCE DEEDS OF ABOVE PLOTS HELD BY ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. III. THE CONFIRMATION OF THE DEALING PARTY SHRI T. V. RAJGOPAL THROUGH WHOM THE ADVANCE MONEY HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF SOME DISPU TE IN THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS, THE SALE DEAL COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AND THE MONEY RECEIVED WAS RETURNED SUBSEQUENTLY. ALL THESE FACTS ARE DULY MENTIONED IN PARA 4.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 24/12/2010 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ASKING HIM TO EXPLAIN WHY THE AMOUNT OF RS.37,50,00 0/-SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED AND ADDED U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. AS ME NTIONED IN PARA 4.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSU ED BECAUSE I. LETTER DATED 06/12/2010 WAS ISSUED TO SHRI T.V. RAJ GOPAL TO CONFIRM THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NO REPLY WAS RECEIVED FROM HIM. II. LETTER DATED 06/12/2010 WAS ISSUED TO I.T.O., SALAR Y WARD 111(3), CHENNAI REQUESTING HER TO VERIFY THE ASSESS MENT RECORD OF SHRI T.V. RAJGOPAL AND CONDUCT NECESSARY INQUIRY . III. LETTER DATED 06/12/2010 WAS ISSUED TO CORPORATION B ANK TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ABOUT CASH DEPOSITS AND VIDE LE TTER DATED 22/12/2010 THE BANK WAS REQUESTED TO PROVIDE COPY O F PAYING IN SLIPS WHICH WAS PROVIDED BY THE BANK VIDE LETTER DATED 18/12/2010 AND 23/12/2010 SHOWING THAT THE SAID SLI PS CONTAINED SIGNATURE OF THE ASSESSEE. IV. SHRI RAJGOPAL IS ASSESSED IN CHENNAI AND IT HAS BEE N INFORMED BY THE I.T.O. THAT HE IS THE EMPLOYEE OF THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK AND HIS RETURN DETAILS SHOW THAT HE HAS NO CAP ACITY TO PAY ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 5 - SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT AND THEREFORE THE FACT THAT AMOU NT WAS RECEIVED FROM T.V. RAJGOPAL TOWARDS ADVANCE OF SALE OF PLOT IS INCORRECT. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO REPLY TO SHOW CAUSE BY 28/12/2010. AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A SSESSEE EXPLAINED AND REPLIED TO THE SHOW CAUSE AS UNDER: A) THE FACT THAT SHRI T. V. RAJGOPAL IS ASSESSED AT CH ENNAI, THAT HE IS EMPLOYEE OF INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, THAT HIS RETURNS SHOW THAT HE HAS NO CAPACITY TO PAY SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF RS.37.50 LAKHS, THAT THE BANK SLIP HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COR RECT BUT THE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BECAUSE TH E ASSESSEE HAS NEVER STATED THAT THE PLOTS HAVE BEEN SOLD TO SHRI T.V. RAJGOPAL. WHAT HE STATED IS THAT SHRI T.V. RAJGOPAL HAS AGREE D TO SELL THE PLOTS TO LOCAL BUYERS AT CHENNAI. THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.V. RAJGOPAL WAS SENT BY HIM AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FU RTHER EXPLAINED THAT HE ACTED AS INTERMEDIARY IN THIS DEA L, HE HAD NO STAKE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY IN THIS DEAL, HE IS YO UNGER BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND AS HE IS RESIDING AT CHENNAI WHERE THE SE PLOT ARE SITUATED HE WAS REQUESTED TO HAVE A DEAL AND SELL O UT THE PLOTS AS THE ASSESSEE WAS IN NEED OF MONEY FOR HIS SON'S STU DY AT ABROAD. ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 6 - BUT UNFORTUNATELY THE DEAL COULD NOT THE FINALIZED AND THE MONEY RECEIVED WAS RETURNED TO THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSE E BY CHEQUES AND CONFIRMATION IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN DULY SUBMI TTED. IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT AS THE DEAL FAILED THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AT PRESENT AND THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ACCEPTANCE OF HIS EXPLANATION AND NOT TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.37.5 0 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE AS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: I. NO DETAILS LIKE NAME ADDRESS OF THE BUYER HAS BEEN GIVEN, NO AGREEMENT FOR SALE IS PROVIDED. IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TH AT SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF MONEY IN CASH WILL BE PAID WITHOUT E NTERING INTO ANY AGREEMENT IN WRITING AND FURTHER THAT NO S INGLE RUPEE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. II. THE PLOTS UNDER SALE WERE PURCHASED ON 09/04/2008 A ND ON 25/02/2008 WHEREAS THE DATES OF MAJORITY DEPOSIT OF CASH IS ON OR BEFORE 05/02/2008 AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF RECEIVING MONEY TOWARDS SALE OF PLOT WHICH HE DID N OT OWN ON THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF MONEY DOES NOT ARISE. ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 7 - III. NO SUBSEQUENT CONFIRMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM T.V. RAJGOPAL. IV. THE A.O. OF T.V. RAJGOPAL HAS RECORDED STATEMENT OF HIM ON OATH ON 24/12/2010 AND IN THE SAID STATEMENT HE HAS DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY PAYMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS NOT CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS WORKING AS MEDIATOR FOR SALE OF ASSESSEE'S PLOT. V. THE CASH DEPOSIT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HIMS ELF. VI. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVIDED NAME AND ADDRESS OF T HE BUYERS AND SHRI T.V. RAJGOPAL DOES NOT HAVE ANY CAP ACITY TO PAY SUCH BIG AMOUNT AND HE HAS IN HIS STATEMENT CATEGORICALLY DENIED SUCH PAYMENT HAVING GIVEN TO T HE ASSESSEE. FOR ABOVE REASONS IT WAS CONCLUDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCE WITH REGARD T O SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT NO.5531 WITH CORPORATION BA NK WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED HIS I NCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IN CASH, AND ACCORDINGLY THE TOTAL AMOUNT O F CASH DEPOSIT HAS ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 8 - BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 AND ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS.37,50,000/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER ASSESSEE PREFERRED FIRST STATUTORY APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHO DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, MATERIAL PLACED IN PAPER BOOK FILED AND HAVE ALSO G ONE THROUGH THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.37.50 LAKH MADE DURING THE PERIOD FRO M 31/01/2008 TO 17/03/2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE O F CASH DEPOSIT AS ADVANCE RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF PLOTS AT CHE NNAI BELONGING TO HIM AND HIS WIFE. IN SUPPORT OF IT HE FURNISHED CONFIRM ATION OF T.V. RAJGOPAL WHO ACTED AS INTERMEDIARY. THE EXPLANATION OF THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER HIS FINDIN GS NARRATED IN PARA 4.4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER POINTING OUT THAT THE NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE BUYERS WAS NOT GIVEN, TWO OF THE SALE DEEDS HAS BEE N EXECUTED ON 09/04/2008 AND 25/02/2008 SUBSEQUENT TO THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCE MONEY, THAT SHRI T.V .RAJGOPAL DID NOT RESPOND TO T HE LETTER OF A.O., THAT AS PER HIS STATEMENT RECORDED HE HAS DENIED TO HAVE MADE ANY PAYMENT. FROM THE SUBMISSION DATED 28/12/2010 MADE TO ASSESS ING OFFICER PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.42 , THE ASSESSEE REPLIED THA T T.V. RAJGOPAL HAS ACTED AS INTERMEDIARY AND HE HAD NO STAKE DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY IN THE SALE OF PLOT AND THAT AS THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALI ZE THE MONEY WAS RETURNED AND THEREFORE HE IS NOT IN POSSESSION OF A NY PROOF OF SALE AGREEMENT. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE STATEMENT OF T. V. RAJGOPAL HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDING FOR REBUTTAL OR COMMENT. FROM THE STATEMENT BEARING DAT E OF DISPATCH 30/12/2010 PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGE NO. 27 TO 29 IT IS NOTICED ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 9 - THAT HE WAS NOT ASKED WITH REGARD TO HIS ACTING AS A INTERMEDIARY FOR SALE OF ASSESSEE'S PLOTS. BUT HE WAS ASKED REGARDIN G PLOT ADVANCE ACCOUNT CONFIRMED BY HIM TO WHICH HE REPLIED THAT H E SIGNED THE PAPERS WITHOUT KNOWING ITS IMPLICATIONS AND HE ALSO REPLIE D THAT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS NOT PURCHASED ANY PLOT FOR HIMSELF OR FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT SHOWS THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN ASKED WITH REGARD TO HIS SENDING MONEY FRO M THE PROSPECTIVE BUYERS AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONTENDED THAT THE CASH IN HIS ACCOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY HIM AND THEREFORE THE DEPOSITION DOES NOT BRING OUT THE CORRECT FACTS REGARDING SALE OF PLOTS AND HE HAS AL SO NOT DENIED THE PLOT ADVANCE ACCOUNT CONFIRMED BY HIM AND AS THE STATEME NT HAS NOT BEEN CROSS VERIFIED THE PROPOSITIONS LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE DECISIONS MENTIONED ABOVE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SU BMISSION WILL BE APPLICABLE. THERE IS ALSO FORCE IN THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE THE INTERMEDIARY HAS NOT RESPONDED TO HIS LETTER AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN POSSESSION OF SALE AGREEMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DEAL HAVING NOT BEEN FINALIZED AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS TA KEN PLACE AFTER TWO YEARS , THESE FACTS CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR DISBELIE VING THE ASSESSEE . IT CREATES DOUBT BUT THE SUSPICION CANNOT TAKE PLACE O F FACTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ALTERNATIVELY ARGUED THAT THE SECTION 68 U SES THE WORD ' MAY ' AND AS PER THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P.K. NOORJAHAN THE DISCRETION WHETHER THE INVESTMENT SHOULD BE TRE ATED AS INCOME OR NOT HAS TO BE EXERCISED BY THE A.O., KEEP ING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF A PARTICULAR CASE. THE APEX COU RT IN THE CASE OF P. MOHANKALA MENTIONED IN THE SUBMISSION HAS HELD THAT THE OPINI ON OF THE A.O. FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFER ED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT SATISFACTORY IS REQUIRED TO BE BASED ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL AND OTHER ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES AVAILABL E ON RECORD AND THE OPINION OF A.O. IS REQUIRED TO BE FORMED OBJECTIVEL Y WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE IN RECORD. IN THE CASE OF ROSHAN D. HATTI . THE ADDITION WAS DELETED FOR THE REASON THAT THE IM POSSIBILITY OF EARNING SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT WITHIN A FEW MONTHS WAS A CIRCU MSTANCE WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. IN THE CASE OF BHARAT ENGG. AND CONSTRUCTION THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO FALSE BUT THE CASE CREDIT WAS NOT HELD TO BE INCOME BECAUSE TRIBUNAL WAS OF E VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT HAVE EARN ED SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT AS PROFIT VERY SOON AFTER THE START OF BUSIN ESS AND THE SUPREME ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 10 - COURT INFERRED THAT IT WAS REASONABLE TO ASSUME THA T THOSE CASH CREDIT ENTRIES WERE CAPITAL RECEIPTS ALTHOUGH FOR ONE REAS ON OR OTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME OUT WITH THE TRUE STORY AS RE GARDS THE PERSONS FROM WHOM IT GOT THOSE AMOUNT. IN THE CASE OF ASSES SEE ALSO THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED WITH IN A SPAN OF ONE AND HALF M ONTHS AND IT HAS BEEN RIGHTLY POINTED OUT THAT KEEPING IN VIEW THE S OURCES OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE NOT DISPUTED, IT IS IMPOSSIB LE TO BELIEVE THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED SUCH INCOME DURING ONE A ND HALF MONTH. FURTHER THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECEIPT OF PLOT ADVANCE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND FALSE AS HE DOES POSSESS PLOTS AT CH ENNAI AND FURTHER THAT IN RESPECT OF PLOTS FOR WHICH SALE DEED WAS EX ECUTED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL 2008 BUT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE ON 23/11/2007 AND SIMILARLY FOR THE PLOTS FOR WHICH SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ON 25/ 02/2008 PAYMENT WAS MADE ON 23/11/2007 AS MENTIONED IN THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THERE BY THE FINDINGS OF THE A.O. GET REBUTTED. 6. KEEPING IN VIEW THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTA NCES, SUBMISSION MADE, MATERIAL PLACED IN PAPER BOOK AND THE PRINCIPLES LA ID DOWN IN THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF 37.50 LAKH MADE U/S. 68 IS DELETED. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE RELEVANT RECORD AND IMP UGNED ORDER. WE CAN SEE THAT IN PAGE NO.17 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER EACH AND EVERY DETAIL PERTAINING TO 37.50 LAKH HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.30 TO 35 ALL DETAILS HAVE BEEN F URNISHED. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSION WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, WE DISMISSED THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE. ITA NO.2112/AHD /2011 DCIT VS. SHRI T. V. KRISHNAMURTHY ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 11 - 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31/05/2017 SD/- SD/- ( ) 4 5 ( N.K. BILLAIYA ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/05/2017 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! # COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !$' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 67- + 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. + 8- 4!5 / THE CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD. 5. 9:;-67 !.!672 ! / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<=, # GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD TRUE COPY 1. DATE OF DICTATION 30/05/2017 (DICTATION-PAD 5 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 31/05/2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S 31/05/2017. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31/0 5/2017 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER