Irfan Mohamed Ismail Patel, Surat V. The ACIT., CIRCLE-6, Surat

ITA 2396/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: 239620514 RSA 2007
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MATHIVANAN
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift
• Section: 44AD; 40A(3); 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, A BENCH . .. . . .. . , !'# !'# !'# !'#, , , , $ $ $ $ %&' ( ) %&' ( ) %&' ( ) %&' ( ) , , , , &* + &* + &* + &* + & # & # & # & # BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND BIJENDRA PAUL JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2001-2002] IRFAN MOHAMED ISMAL PATEL B-22, AKSHA NAGAR M.G. ROAD, BARDOLI DIST : SURAT 394 601. /VS. ACIT, CIR.6 SURAT. ( (( (-. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( (/0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 12 3 4 &/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.P. SHAH + 3 4 &/ REVENUE BY : SHRI M. MATHIVANAN 6 3 27*/ DATE OF HEARING : 16 TH DECEMBER, 2011 89: 3 27*/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-01-2012 &; / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE THREE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.2001-2002 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), SURAT. THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF WITH THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004 2. GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS AS UN DER: 1. THE LD.CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED ON FACTS & IN LAW I N CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON INVALID, ILLEGAL & BAD IN LA W, AS THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.143(2) IS BARRED BY LIMITATION OF TIME A ND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION THIS ISSUE WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) BY ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 -2- THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4-8-2006 AND THER EFORE REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION AT THIS STAGE. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORT ED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES. IN VIEW OF THE PLEADING OF THE PARTIES, WE HOLD THAT THIS ISSUE RE QUIRES NO ADJUDICATION ON OUR PART AS THE SAME WAS ALREADY DECIDED BY THE TRI BUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 4-8-2006 IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION BEF ORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 IS DISMISSED. 5. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL READS A S UNDER: 2. THE LD.CIT(A) GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,58,912 MADE BY THE ACIT WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE APPELLANTS CASE. 6. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ADDITION OF RS.11,58,912/- MADE BY THE AO CONSISTING OF FOLLOWI NG THREE ITEMS: I) GIFT FROM GRAND FATHER : RS.7,07,562/- II) UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT : RS. 77,800/- III) DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) : RS.4,31,762/-. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.7,07,562/- ON ACCOUNT OF G IFT FROM GRAND FATHER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT BY FILI NG AFFIDAVIT OF THE GRAND FATHER, THE DONOR, WHEREIN THE GRAND FATHER HAS STA TED ON OATH THAT HE HAS LAND ABOUT 34 BIGHAS AND DO AGRICULTURE WORK BY TAK ING LAND ON LEASE. HE WAS CULTIVATING CROPS LIKE, MOONG , WHEAT, PADDY , TUVAR , JUVAR ETC AND OUT OF WHICH HE EARNED INCOME OF RS.5 TO RS.7 LAKHS PER ANNUM APPROXIMATELY. THAT HE HAS GIVEN GIFT OF RS.7,07,5 62/- ON VARIOUS DATES ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 -3- OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION AND OUT OF THE PR OPERTY OF HIS INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP. THE DONOR HAS CLAIMED THAT HE WAS NOT H OLDING ANY BANK OR POST OFFICE ACCOUNTS AND THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN G IVEN IN CASH AS GIFT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMIT TED THAT THE DONOR HAS CLAIMED THAT HE HAD NOT MADE ANY CAPITAL INVESTMENT AT ANY PLACES OR IN COMPANY, PERSON OR IN ANY GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OR IN SHARES AND SECURITIES OF THE COMPANY AND THAT HIS INCOME WAS N OT LIABLE TO TAX. HE HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE REVENUE RECORDS IN THE COMPILATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO ON THE MERE PLEA THAT THE ONUS IS SQUARELY ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE FACT AND THAT NO PROOF IN SUPPORT HAS BEEN OFFERED EITHER IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT NO COLLABORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING RECEIVED GIFT OF SUCH HUGE AMOUNT COULD BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED SELF-SERVING DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE AND REFER TO THE R ELEVANT PORTIONS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVE NUE. HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTITY O F THE DONOR IS NOT IN DISPUTE IN THIS CASE. THE DONOR IS GRAND FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION BETWEEN THE DONOR AND DO NEE NEED NO FURTHER EVIDENCE IN THIS BEHALF. THE DONOR HAS CONFIRMED T HAT HE HAS GIFTED THE SUM OF RS.7,07,562/- ON VARIOUS DATES IN CASH TO TH E DONEE. THE DONOR HAS ALSO FILED COPIES OF THE REVENUE RECORDS TO EST ABLISH THAT HE WAS ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 -4- HAVING ABOUT 34 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND CULTIVATING CROPS. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE ELEMENT OF OVERSTATING OF AGRICULTURE INCOME FROM 34 BIGHAS OF LAND CANNOT BE RULED OUT IN THIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY FURTHER COLLABORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SHO W THAT THE AGRICULTURE LAND OF THE DONOR WAS WELL IRRIGATED AND WAS CAPABL E OF PRODUCING THE CROP WORTH RUPEES FIVE TO SEVEN LAKHS IN A YEAR. N O EVIDENCE OF TAKING OTHER LANDS ON CULTIVATION BY THE DONOR, WHO IS STA TED TO BE OF THE AGE 75 YEARS WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO OR THE CIT(A). T HE DONOR HAS OTHER RELATIVES AND DESCENDENTS AND IS LIVING IN THE VILL AGE SEPARATELY FROM DONEE AND THE POSSIBILITY OF GIVING THE ENTIRE SAVI NGS FROM AGRICULTURE PRODUCE TO THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WITHOUT REASONABLE D OUBT. THE AO COULD HAVE VERIFIED THESE FACTS BY SUMMONING THE DONOR AN D RECORDED HIS STATEMENT ON OATH. NO SUCH EFFORT WAS MADE BY THE AO. IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IT WOU LD SUFFICE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS.3,07,562/- ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT RECEIV ED TO MEET ENDS OF THE JUSTICE AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.7,07,562/- SU STAINED BY THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE GETS A RELIEF OF RS.4 LAKHS ON THIS ISSUE. 8. THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.77,800/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDITS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AMO UNT OF RS.77,800/- CONSISTS OF CASH CREDITS RANGING FROM RS.19,000/- T O RS.19,500/- RECEIVED FROM FOUR PERSONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING BY FILING CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM THE CREDITORS, ENGLISH TRANSLATIONS OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED IN THE COMPIL ATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CR EDITORS IS NOT IN DISPUTE AND THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE R EVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE CREDIT ENTRIES WERE NOT PROVED. THE LEARNED D R RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT MERE EVID ENCE OF IDENTITY IS ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 -5- NOT SUFFICIENT AND THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PROVED THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE GO NE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS IS NOT IN DISPUTE. THE CREDIT AMOUNTS RANGE FROM R S.19,000/- TO RS.19,500/-. THE CREDITOR, SHRI MALLEK ALIBHAI RAH IMBHAI HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AND HIS AGRICULTURE IN COME WAS RUPEES ONE LAKH PER ANNUM AND THE MONEY HAS ALREADY BEEN RETUR NED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIM. THE OTHER CREDITOR, SHRI MALLEK RAFIQBHAI ALIBHAI HAS CONFIRMED THAT HE WAS WORKING AS SUPERVISOR IN TELEPHONE DEPA RTMENT AND HE HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT BACK FROM THE ASSESSEE IN MARCH , 2003. THE CREDITOR, SMT. SAHENABEN H. PATEL HAS CONFIRMED THA T SHE EARNS INCOME OF RS.35,000/- PER ANNUM AND HER HUSBAND WAS DOING SER VICE IN THE COURT AND HAS RECEIVED BACK THE MONEY LENT IN MARCH, 2002 . THE OTHER CREDITOR, SMT. SAMIN H. PATEL CONFIRMED THAT SHE WAS EARNING RS.25,000/- PER ANNUM OUT OF TUITION AND RECEIVED BACK THE SAID MON EY IN MARCH, 2003 FROM THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT ALL THE FOUR CREDI TORS ARE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAVE MENTIONED THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BEFORE THE AO. IN THES E FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL TO DOUBT THE GENUINENES S OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY , CREDIT-WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN, AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITI ON OF RS.77,800/- IS DELETED. 10. COMING TO THIRD ADDITION OF RS.4,31,732/-, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 -6- HAVE BEEN REJECTED AND A FLAT RATE OF GP HAS BEEN A PPLIED AT THE RATE OF 8%, NO SEPARATE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF TH E ACT SHOULD BE MADE AND THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCHES IN THE CASE OF NEW NARAYAN BUILDERS VS. ITO, (1992) 43 TTJ (AHD) 508. THE LEARNED DR RELIE D ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HA S DIRECTED THE AO TO APPLY A FLAT RATE OF 8% AS NET PROFIT IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AD OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, NO FURTHER DI SALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) WAS CALLED FOR. HOWEVER, WE FIND TH AT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) HAS BEEN RESTRICTED BY THE CIT (A) TO RS.2,15,870/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ALLOWED A REL IEF OF RS.2,15,870/- ON THIS COUNT. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1612/AHD/2007 12. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE ABOVE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS BASICALLY INVALID, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW AS ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT SERVE THE NOTICE U/S. 143 (2) OF THE ACT WITHIN STATUTORY TIME LIMIT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.05.2004 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AS SESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.7,07,562/- FOR ALLEGED GIF T RECEIVED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 -7- ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.05.2004 HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AS SESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.77,800/- FOR ALLEGED UNEXP LAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.05,2004 HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING INCOME AT 8% ON TOTAL RECEIPTS OF RS.85,13,929/- U/S. 44AD OF THE ACT AND THEREBY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,47,42 4/- AS AGAINST ADDITIONS OF RS.24,16,382/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFIC ER. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 25.05.2004 HAS ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.2,15,870/- OUT OF RS.4,31,732/- MADE BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER U/S. 40A(3) OF THE ACT. 6. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT ASSESSMENT MADE BY A SSESSING OFFICER U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT MAY PLEASE BE CANCEL LED AND/OR ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER M AY PLEASE BE DELETED. 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PR ESSED THESE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL, WHICH ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.2396/AHD/2007 14. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE READS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN PARTLY C ONFIRMING THE PENALTY ON SUSTAINED ADDITIONS OF RS.7,07,562/- FOR UNEXPLAINED GIFT AND RS.77,800/- FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITORS OUT OF TOTAL PENALTY OF RS.3,30,095/- IMPOSED BY THE AO U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IMPOSED ONLY ON TW O ISSUES I.E. ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 -8- UNEXPLAINED GIFT OF RS.7,07,562/- BY THE GRAND FATH ER AND ADDITION OF RS.77,8000/- FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. 16. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. WE FIND THAT I N VIEW OF OUR ORDER IN THE FOREGOING PARAS OF THIS ORDER, WHILE DISPOSI NG OF THE QUANTUM APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004 THER E REMAINS ONLY ADDITION OF RS.3,07,562/- OUT OF GIFT OF RS.7,07,56 2/- GIVEN BY THE GRAND FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER ADDITIONS ON WHICH THE PENALTY WAS IMPOSED HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL. 17. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.3,07,562/- SU STAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL, ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED GIFT FROM THE GRAN D FATHER, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN PARTLY CONFIRMED ON ESTIMATE BASIS ONLY. THE IDENTITY OF THE DONOR HAS BEEN PROVED BY THE ASSESS EE BEYOND DOUBT. THE DONOR WAS HAVING 34 BIGHAS OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND HAS CULTIVATED VARIOUS TYPES OF CROPS AS MENTIONED IN THE COPY OF THE AFFI DAVIT FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN CON TROVERTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DONOR HAS CONFIRMED THE GIFT BY FILING AFFIDAVIT AND HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT HE HAS MADE NO OTHER INVESTMENT IN ANY BANK OR POST OFFICE OR IN COMPANY AND IN ANY SHARES AND SECURITI ES OF ANY OTHER COMPANIES. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE DONOR OF HAVI NG GIFTED THE SUM OF RS.7,07,562/- TO THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTLY ACCEPTED B Y THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND DUE TO THE ELEMENT OF MAKING A REASONABLE ESTIMATE. WE FIND IN THE SCHEDULE ANN EXED TO AND FORMING PART OF THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THE FACT OF GIFT OF RS.7,07,562/-. THE A SSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED MATERIAL FACTS RELEVANT TO ITS ASSESSMENT AT THE FI RST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE AO. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FIL ED IN THIS BEHALF COULD ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004, ITA NO.1612 AND 2396/AHD/2007 -9- NOT BE STATED TO BE NOT BONA FIDE . IN THESE FACTS OF THE CASE, SINCE PART OF THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON ESTIMATE BASIS, WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY CANCELLED AND THE GRO UND OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.2230/AHD/2004 IS PARTLY A LLOWED, ITA NO.1612/AHD/2007 IS DISMISSED AND ITA NO.2396/AHD/2 007 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&' ( ) %&' ( ) %&' ( ) %&' ( ) /B.P. JAIN &* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !'# !'# !'# !'# /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD