The ACIT, Circle-6, Ahmedabad V. Shri Vansraj Bhansali, Ahmedabad

ITA 226/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63308 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH SR DR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.194 & 226/AHD/2011 & ITA NO.1155/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2006-07 & 2008-09 VANSRAJ R BHANSALI A-13, PHASE-II, GIDC, ESTATE, VATVA, AHMEDABAD [ PAN NO.ABVPB 1004D ] ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-6, 2 ND FLOOR C.U. SHAH BUILDING, ASHRAM ROAD, AHMEDABAD V/S . V/S . ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (OSD), CIRCLE- 6, AHMEDABAD SHRI VANSRAJ R BHANSALI, M.P. UYOG, A-13, GIDC, VATVA, AHMEDABAD / APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE SHRI NITIN MEHTA, AR /BY REVENUE SHRI D.K. SINGH, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 12-12-2012 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21-12-2012 ' ' ' ' / // / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE THREE SET OF APPEALS ONE BY ASSESSEE AN D TWO BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XVI & XI, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) OF DIFFERENT DAT ED I.E. 24-11-2010 AND 20-03-2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS (AY) 2006-07 & 2008-09. AL L THESE ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF COMMON ORDER FOR TH E SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. FIRST WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.194/AH D/2011 FOR A.Y. 06-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SOLITARY GROUND, WHICH R EADS AS UNDER:- ITA NO.194,226/AHD/2011 & 1155/AHD/2012 A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09 SH VANSRAJA R BHANSALI V. ACIT (OSD) CIR-6, ABD PAGE 2 1. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW C.I.T.(A) OUGHT TO HAV E ALLOWED HE APPEAL AS THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED ACCOUNT CONFIRMATION AND P.A . NO. OF TWO DEPOSITOR COMPANIES AMOUNTING TO RS.10,00,000/-. 2.THAT C.I.T.(A) HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING TAT THE A SSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO REBUT THE INQUIRY OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INFORMED ABOUT NON AVAILABILI TY OF DEPOSITOR AT THE ADDRESS OF TWO DEPOSITORS BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO P ROVIDED ANY SHOW CAUSE TO EXPLAIN AND ANY INFORMATION AS TO MATERIAL GATHE RED ON THE BASIS OF INQUIRY MADE BY HIM NOR ANY CROSS EXAMINATION WAS ALLOWED. 2.1 THE BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS E NGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF STAINLESS STEEL SHEETS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WA S SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PERTAINING TO AY 2006-07. THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) WAS FRAMED THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.31 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. WHILE PARTLY ALLOWING THE APPEAL, LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10 LAKHS AND REST ADDITION OF RS.21 LA KHS WAS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 2.2 BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE HAVE CHALLENGED T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) BY FILING CROSS-APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSING OFFICER ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO REBUT INQUIRY OF AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIV EN PAN OF TWO COMPANIES I.E. ASHIYANA TECHNOCAST AND SCRAP PRIVATE LTD. AND VALI ANT PHARMACHEM LTD. HOWEVER, THE AO MADE INQUIRY ON THE GIVEN ADDRESSES AND FOUND THAT THE SAID COMPANIES WERE NOT HAVING ANY OFFICE AT THE GIVEN A DDRESSES AND TREATED THEM AS NON-EXISTENT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND REPAYMENT THEREOF WAS ALSO MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY PROVIDING PAN A S BOTH COMPANIES ARE ASSESSED TO TAX BUT AO FAILED TO MAKE FURTHER INQUI RIES IN RESPECT OF SAID COMPANIES, IF HE HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE TRANSACTION AND IN SU PPORT OF ITS CONTENTION HE RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH CO URT IN TAX APPEAL NO.50 OF 2011 DATED 20-03-2012 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA AND ITA NO.194,226/AHD/2011 & 1155/AHD/2012 A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09 SH VANSRAJA R BHANSALI V. ACIT (OSD) CIR-6, ABD PAGE 3 ALSO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ORISSA CORPORATION P. LTD. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE JU DGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE C ASE OF DCIT V. ROHINI BUILDERS (2002) 256 ITR 360 (GUJ). ON THE CONTRARY, LD. SR-D R SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. HE RELIED UPON THE JU DGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GUMANI RAM SIRI RAM V. CIT (1975) 98 ITR 337 (P&H). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER AND IDEN TITY OF THE CREDITORS. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. P MOHANAKALA & ORS. (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO N THAT IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE NATUR E AND SOURCE OF SUCH SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE IS IN T HE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF NOT SATISFACTORY AND SUCH OPINION FORMED ITSELF CONSTITUTES A PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCES AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THUS AO WAS JUST IFIED IN MAKING ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE JUDGMENTS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT UPON INQUIRY IT WA S FOUND OUT THAT NO SUCH COMPANY IS IN EXISTENCE ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ADMITTED POSITION, THAT ON THE GIVEN ADDRESSES THE COMPANIES , NAMELY, ASHIYANA TECHNOCAST AND SCRAP PRIVATE LTD. AND VALIANT PHARMACHEM LTD. DID NOT EXIST. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT SINCE THE A SSESSEE HAD PROVIDED PAN OF THE CONCERNED COMPANIES, THE REVENUE WAS IN POSITION OF ALL INFORMATION ABOUT THE SAID COMPANIES AND COULD HAVE VERIFIED FROM THERE OWN RE CORDS. SINCE THE AO HAS NOT MADE FURTHER INQUIRIES AND THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHAR GED ITS ONUS BY GIVING PAN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2011 RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RANCHHOD JIVABHAI NAKHAVA (SUPRA) AND JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT REND ERED IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION P. LTD. (SUPRA). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PLA CED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS (SUPRA). THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO THAT ONCE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PAN, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS BURDEN AND IT ITA NO.194,226/AHD/2011 & 1155/AHD/2012 A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09 SH VANSRAJA R BHANSALI V. ACIT (OSD) CIR-6, ABD PAGE 4 WAS UPON AO TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE ABOUT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. 5. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO TH E RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES, THE CASES AS RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CA SE. IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS (SUPRA) THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNIS HED THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS GIVING FALL ADDRESSES, GIR NUMBER / PAN ETC., OF ALL DEPOS ITORS. IN THE CASE IN HAND ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE COMPANIES WERE NO T EXISTING ON THIS BASIS AO CAME TO CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARG E ITS BURDEN. FURTHER, IT IS OBSERVED BY AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN COPY OF RETURN OF SHRI OMPRAKASH S BHANSALI WHO IS RESIDENT OF CHENNAI BUT IN THE CASE OF ASHIYANA TECHNOCAST & SCRAP PVT. LTD. AND VALIANT PHARMACHEM LTD. OF AHMEDABAD AND NEITHER RETURN OF INCOME NOR AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE LOAN FROM THE CONCERNE D PARTY WAS FURNISHED. THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT CONFIRMATION WAS DULY FURNISHED FROM THE SAID PARTIES. HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION A T PAGES 9 &10 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE THE CONFIRMATIONS OF THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNT IS GIVEN. THEREFORE, IT WOULD BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT THIS ISSUE IS REMIT TED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTE R FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO TO VERIFY WHETHER LENDEE-COMPANIES ARE ASSESSE D TO TAX. WITH THIS OBSERVATION, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THIS ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECI DE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS RELIED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.226/AHD/2011 F OR A.Y. 06-07. 7. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOLE GROUND WHICH READS A S UNDER:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) HAS ERRE D IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.21,00,000/- BEING UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDIT. 8. LD. SR-DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF ASSES SING OFFICER AND SUBMITTED THAT ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELET ING THIS ADDITION. ON THE CONTRARY LD. ITA NO.194,226/AHD/2011 & 1155/AHD/2012 A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09 SH VANSRAJA R BHANSALI V. ACIT (OSD) CIR-6, ABD PAGE 5 COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL REQUISITES DETAILS. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT I N RESPECT OF FIVE CREDITORS, SERIAL NO. 3 TO 7 AT PAGE-5 OF HIS ORDER THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION WITH NAME AND ADDRESS, PAN AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT BROU GHT ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUE AND THEREFORE THE FACTS ARE FULLY COVERED BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREM E COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION P. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE TAX APPEAL OF HONBLE JURISDICTION AL HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2011 (SUPRA), THE REV ENUE COULD NOT PLACE ON RECORD ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THE RELIANCE P LACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBEL SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ORISSA CORPORATION P. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE TAX APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2001 OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH C OURT (SUPRA) WAS NOT APPLICABLE UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CA SE. THEREFORE, IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY INTO THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. COMING TO REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1155/AHD/2012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. 11. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOLITARY GROUND WHICH RE ADS AS UNDER:- I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1027,890/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 40 (A)(IA) OF THE I.T. ACT. 12 BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT U/S . 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRA MED VIDE ORDER 18-11-2010 THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) MADE DISALLOWANCE U/S. 4 0(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF THE TAX AND ALSO MADE OTHER DISALLOWAN CES IN RESPECT OF CAR AND PETROL EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THIS OR DER FILED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASS ESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. 13. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), NOW REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO.194,226/AHD/2011 & 1155/AHD/2012 A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09 SH VANSRAJA R BHANSALI V. ACIT (OSD) CIR-6, ABD PAGE 6 14. LD. SR-DR OF THE REVENUE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UNDISPU TEDLY THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT NO DEDUCTION OF TAX WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF THE PAYMENT MADE FROM 01-04-2007 TO 31- 05-2007. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AO OBSERVED THA T THE ASSESSEES CASE IS NOT COVERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194C(1) OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LIABILITY TO DEDUCT TAX WOULD ARISE ONLY WITH EFFEC T FROM 1-6-2007 AS THE AMENDMENT CAME INTO FORCE ON 01-06-2007. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS IS SUE IN PARA-2.3 TO 2.4 OF HIS ORDER AND SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:- 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. PERUSAL OF SECTION 194C(1) REVEALS THAT SUB CLAUSE (I) TO SECTION 194C(1) WAS INSERTED VIDE FINANCE ACT, 2007 W.E.F. 1-6-2007. APPELLANTS CASE IS COVERED W ITH SUB CLAUSE (K) OF SECTION 194C(1). ACCORDINGLY, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW , PROVISIONS OF SECTION 194(1)(1C) WILL BE APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF APPELL ANT W.E.F. 1-6-2007 ONLY AND FOR THE MONTHS OF APRIL & MAY, 2007, APPELLANT IS N OT REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TAX ON JOB WORK EXPENSES. IN VIEW OF THIS, I HOLD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT FOR THE MONTHS OF APRIL AND MAY 2007.THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RIGHTLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE APPELLATE ORDER IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-XVI/ACIT CIR.6/972/09-10 DTD. 22-0-2010 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y 2007-08. THE CONCLUDING PARA OF THIS ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE A PPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT T HAT UPTO 1-6-2007 AND INDIVIDUAL WAS NOT CONSIDERED AS A PERSON WHO W AS REQUIRED TO DEDUCT TDS WHEN HE ENTERED INTO A CONTRACT WITH THE CONTRACTOR. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF S UB SECTION 2, WHICH APPLIES TO A CONTRACTOR WHO SUBCONTRACTS THE CONTRA CT RECEIVED BY IT TO A SUBCONTRACTOR. THE AO HAS AGREED THAT SUB SECTION 2 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANC E MADE BY THE AO IS DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 2.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS I AM OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(IA) ARE NOT ATTRACTED IN RESPECT OF JOB WORK EXPENSES OF RS.10,27,890/- INCURRED IN THE MONTHS OF APRIL AND MAY, 2007 BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, DISALLOWANCE OF RS.,10,27,8 90/- IS ORDERED TO BE DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.194,226/AHD/2011 & 1155/AHD/2012 A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09 SH VANSRAJA R BHANSALI V. ACIT (OSD) CIR-6, ABD PAGE 7 FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS NOT COMING OUT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS FROM THOSE AMOUNTS WHERE THE BILL IS O F A DATE PRIOR TO 01.06.2007 EVEN IF THE CREDIT OR PAYMENT WAS MADE AFTER 01-06- 2007 IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, EVEN IF THE BILL DATE IS OF PRIOR TO 01-06-2007 BUT THE CREDIT FOR THE SAME IS GIVEN IN THE BOOKS ON OR AFTER 01-06-2007 AND IF NO CREDIT IS GI VEN BUT PAYMENT IS MADE ON OR AFTER 01-06-2007, THEN TDS WAS REQUIRED TO BE DEDUC TED. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A FRESH DECISION AS PER ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDE. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 17. IN COMBINED RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.226/ AHD/2011 IS DISMISSED AND THAT OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1 94/AHD/2011 AND REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1155/AHD/2012 ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP #$%- 21/12/2012 *+, - ' ' ' ' ../ ../ ../ ../ 0/ 0/ 0/ 0/ / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. $,$.3 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4- / CIT (A) 5. / 78 ...3, .3!, *+, / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 8;< => / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ' , /TRUE COPY/ ?/* $ .3!, ITA NO.194,226/AHD/2011 & 1155/AHD/2012 A.YS. 06-07 & 08-09 SH VANSRAJA R BHANSALI V. ACIT (OSD) CIR-6, ABD PAGE 8 *+, - STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 12/12. 13/12 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 12/12, 13/12 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 19/12, 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 19/12, 19/12 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 20/12 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 21/12 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 21/12