Shri Krishnavtar J.Kabra, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Cent.Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2400/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 240020514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKAR SHARMAAR
• Keywords: Business income; Opportunity of being heard; Bad and doubtful debts; Onus to prove; Provision of bad debts; Capital expenditure

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMADABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI D.K.TYAGI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND .., SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !.. , ' # $ # $ # $ # $ ITA NO. 2400/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2004-05 KRISHNAVTAR J KABRA 3, RAJESH APARTMENT, BEHIND NAV GUJARAT COLLEGE, ASHRAM ROAD AHMADABAD-380014. V/S . ITO, CENTRAL WARD 1(1), AHMEDABAD. PAN NO. AGDPK556 3D (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) %& ' ( BY APPELLANT SHRI SAKAR SHARMA, A.R. )%& ' ( /BY RESPONDENT SHRI O. P. BHATEJA, SR. D.R. *+, ' -' /DATE OF HEARING 08.10.2013 ./0 ' -' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05.12.2013 O R D E R PER : SHRI T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WHI CH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, AHMEDABAD, DATED 17.05. 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER: 1. LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AN DIN LAW IN CONFIRM ING DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBTS OF RS.267745/-. 2. LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMI NG DISALLOWANCE OF RS.280629/- BEING INTEREST PAID TO KOTAK MAHINDRA I NVESTMENTS LTD. ON LOAN GRANTED FOR SUBSCRIBING SHARES OF PATN I COMPUTERS. 3. LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS IN LAW IN CONFIRMING D ISALLOWANCE OF RS.8000/- RELATED TO DAXABEN SUNILBHAI PATEL. ITA NO. 2400/AHD/10 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 2 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF BAD DEBT OF RS.2,67,745/-. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED BAD DEBTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.2,67,748/- IN P&L ACCOUNT U NDER HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE & SELLING EXPENSES. THE DETAILS OF BAD DEBTS WERE CA LLED FOR. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE SAME VIDE LETTER DATED 17.11.2006. O N VERIFICATION OF DETAILS OF BAD DEBTS, WHICH WAS FOUND BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED BAD DEBTS IN CASE OF ELEVEN PARTIES FOR TOTAL VALUE OF RS.3,48,810/-. THE ASSESSEE HAD, THEREAFTER, CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.81,062/- RECEIVED FROM DEBTORS DURING THE YEAR. THE NET AMOUNT OF RS.2,67,748/- H AD BEEN DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. ON THIS ISSUE, THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERI NG THE ASSESSEES REPLY, THE A.O. HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TO RESTRICT THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT TO THOSE DEBTS THAT HAD BECOME A WORTHLESS DEBT. THE FACTS WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED PAYMENTS DURING THE ACCOUNTING YEAR FO R THE PERIOD 01.04.2003 TO 31.03.2004 CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE DEBT WAS NOT WORTHLESS. THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS CONVENIENCE MAY DECIDE THAT THE DEBT WAS BA D AND IT WAS NOT WORTHWHILE TO PURSUE THE DEBTOR. HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES DECISION ON BECOMING DEBT AS BAD. THE ASSESSEES ATTITUDE I N TREATING THE DEBTORS AS WELL AS CREDITORS WERE FOUND CASUAL. AS PER SECTIO N 36(1)(VII), THE ASSESSEE HAD TO DEMONSTRATE HONESTLY THAT BAD DEBT HAD BECOM E BAD. THE ASSESSEE WAS OBTAINING UNSECURED LOAN EVERY YEAR AND DIVERT THE FUNDS TO THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES TO HIS OWN GROUP CONCERNS OR AT HIS C ONVENIENCE. NO INCOME FROM INTEREST BEARING FUND WAS SHOWN IN THE PREVIOU S YEAR. THE PROPRIETORS ITA NO. 2400/AHD/10 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 3 CAPITAL WAS ALSO IN DEBIT BALANCE FOR A.Y. 2003-04. ABOVE ALL, THE BAD DEBT CLAIMED PERTAINED TO A PROPRIETARY BUSINESS WHICH W AS CLOSED BY HIM IN F.Y. 2001-02. THE ASSESSEE WAS VERY MUCH SILENT ABOUT T HE INCOME PART AND CLAIM EXPENSES AT HIS CONVENIENCE BRINGING THE TAXI NG AMOUNT TO NIL. ALTERNATIVELY, THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF DEBT, I NCOME WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR I.E. PRE-CONDITIO N FOR WRITING TO BAD DEBT. FURTHER, STATUS OF THE FOLLOWING DEBTORS/PERSONS IS AS UNDER: 1. V. K. MOONDRA, C.A. IS ASSESSEE'S OWN PRESENT T AX AUDITOR 2. PUSHPABEN KABRA IS OWN FAMILY MEMBER 3. SONI SAHEB NO IDENTITY OF THE PERSON OR ACCOUNT IS GIVEN 4. DEBENTURE REDEMPTION ACCOUNT - NO IDENTITY AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR AND LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN HONEST ONE AND W AS TAKEN FOR HIS CONVENIENCE. THE DEPARTMENT DOES NOT INSIST ON DEMO NSTRATIVE OR INFALLIBLE PROOF FOR CLAIMING BAD DEBTS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CLAIM BAD DEBTS ON LOANS AND ADVANCES OR FOR THAT MATTER AS ACCOUNT S SHOWN AS CREDITORS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 36(2)(I). SIMILARLY, EVEN THE LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF BAD DEBTS CLAIM WOULD NOT PERMIT THE TAXING AUTHORI TIES TO ALLOW THE CLAIM OF DEBTS WHICH ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RECOVERY AS CAN B E SEEN IN CHART SHOWN IN PARA 4. AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 36(1)(VII) , SINCE THE SAID SECTION REFERS TO BAD DEBTS AND THE ONUS TO PROVE THAT THE DEBTS I S BAD STILL LIES THE ASSESSEE. THE AMENDED PROVISION OF BAD DEBTS ALLOWS THE ASSESSEE LIBERAL VIEW TO CLAIM BAD DEBTS IN A PARTICULAR YEAR. HOWEV ER, THERE HAS TO BE A DEBT WHICH IS BAD TO CLAIM SUCH DEDUCTION. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS ITA NO. 2400/AHD/10 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 4 CONVENIENCE HAS DECIDED THAT THE DEBT IS NOT WORTHW HILE TO PURSUE. EVEN AFTER THE AMENDMENT WITH EFFECT FROM 01/04/1989, IT IS NE CESSARY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE DEBT ACTUALLY 'BAD' AS HELD BY HONORABLE ITAT IN THE CASE OF INDIA THERMIT CORPORATION LTD. (56 I TD 307) (DELHI). THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBT BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT BONAFIDE AND HENCE THE BAD DEBT CLAIM OF RS. 2,67,748/- IS HEREBY DISALLOWED. PENALTY U/S. 271(1 )(C) IS INITIATED SEPARATELY. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPEL LANT. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTIONED THAT THESE DEBT S OF RS.2,67,745/- RELATES TO BUSINESS OF SUB-BROKING OF SHARE-BUSINES S IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. K.K, INVESTMENT, OF WHICH THE APP ELLANT WAS PROPRIETOR. THEREAFTER, M/S. K.K. INVESTMENT WAS CL OSED DOWN. IT IS THEREFORE, APPARENT THAT THE BAD DEBTS CLAIM OF RS.2,67,745/- RELATES TO THE SUB-BROKING BUSINESS OF EARLIER YEARS. IN TH E YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, SUCH BUSINESS ACTIVITIES HAVE ALREAD Y BEEN CLOSED DOWN. BESIDES, THE AMOUNTS WRITTEN OFF RELATES TO T HE PARTIES, WHO HAVE TRANSACTED WITH THE APPELLANT IN EARLIER YEARS , WHEN THE SUB- BROKING BUSINESS IN THE NAME OF M/S. K.K. INVESTMEN T WAS OPERATIONAL. THE DEBIT BALANCE WRITTEN OFF RELATES TO THOSE TRANSACTIONS, WHEREIN THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED THE LIABILITIES ON BEHALF OF ITS CLIENTS. IT IS, THEREF ORE, APPARENT THAT SUCH LIABILITIES MOSTLY RELATES TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT'S EARNING OF SUB-BROKERAGE COMMISSION FROM SUCH TRANS ACTIONS SHALL BE VERY NOMINAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEBIT BALANCE CLAIMED TO BE WRITTEN OFF RELATES TO CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. SUCH CA PITAL EXPENDITURE, ITA NO. 2400/AHD/10 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 5 WHICH MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN OFF IN THE ACCOUNTS, COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) OF THE I.T. ACT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS.2,67,745/- IS CON SIDERED JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 4. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT LIABILITY IS FO R CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANTS EARNING OF SUB-BROKERAGE COMMISSION FRO M SUCH TRANSACTION SHALL BE VERY NOMINAL. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEBIT BALANCE CLAIMED TO BE WRITTEN OFF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WHICH ARE NOT ALLOWABLE U/S.36( 1)(VII) R.W.S. 36(2) OF THE IT ACT. THE A.O. DISALLOWED THE BAD DEBT ON ACCOUNT O F NOT ESTABLISHING THE DEBT BECAME BAD. IT IS SQUARELY COVERED BY HONBLE SUPR EME COURTS DECISION IN CASE OF TRF LTD. VS. CIT 323 ITR 397 (SC), WHEREIN CONTROVERSY AS TO WHETHER ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO PROVE THAT AMOUNT W RITTEN OFF HAS BECOME BAD OR NOT HAS BEEN SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE. THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER AMOUNT WRITTEN OFF FROM SUCH ACTIVITIES BEI NG UNREALIZABLE IS ENTITLED DEDUCTION HAS BEEN SETTLED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN CASE OF ANGEL CAPITAL & DEBT MARKET LTD. VS. ACIT 118 TTJ (MUMBAI) 35. IDENTICAL VIEW IS ALSO TAKEN BY THE HONBLE ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH IN THE CASE OF INDIA INFOLINE SECURITIES P LTD. VS. ACIT 25 SOT 123 (MUM). ALTERNATIVELY, HE CLAIMED BUSINESS LOSS. AT THE O UTSET, LD. SR. D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE LD. A.R . IT IS FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE PROPRIETARY BUSINESS HAD BEEN CLOSED DOWN IN A.Y. 01-02 AND BAD ITA NO. 2400/AHD/10 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 6 DEBTS WERE CLAIMED IN A.Y. 04-05. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WROTE OFF THESE AMOUNTS IN THE ACCOUNTS OR NOT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THAT WHATEVER BAD DEBTS CLAIMED WERE SHOWN IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE CLOSED B USINESS. IT IS FURTHER NOT EXAMINED BY THE A.O. THAT BOTH THE BUSINESS ARE INT ERLACING OR INTER CONNECTED WITH PRESENT BUSINESS AS PER PAPER BOOK FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE, PAGE NO.1, THESE ARE SMALL AMOUNTS IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS NAME S. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD SHOWN THE RECOVERY FROM THE DEBTORS IN THIS ACC OUNT AND NET HAS BEEN DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBIT ED THESE BAD DEBTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE AND SELLING EXPENSES. ACCORDINGLY, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO EXAMINE THESE ENTRIES FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ALSO RELATION WITH PRESENT BUSINESS TO CLOSED BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 6. GROUND NOS.2 & 3 ARE AGAINST CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.2,80,629/- BEING INTEREST PAID TO KOTAK MAHINDRA INVESTMENTS LTD. ON LOAN GRANTED FOR SUBSCRIBING SHARES OF PATNI COMPUTERS A ND CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8000/- RELATED TO DAXABEN SUNILB HAI PATEL. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED IN P&L ACCOU NT MISCELLANEOUS SHARE INVESTMENT EXPENSE OF RS.2,88,525/-. THE A.O. GAVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD ON THIS ISSUE. AFTER CONSIDERING AS SESSEES REPLY, IT WAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED RS.8000/- IN THE NAME OF DAXABEN SUNILBHAI PATEL WHO HAS NO CONNECTION WITH THE BUSINESS OF AS SESSEE. NO PROOF OF EXPENSES IN THIS REGARD WAS FILED. THE BALANCE AMO UNT OF RS.2,80,525/- RELATED TO THE INTEREST PAID TO KOTAK MAHINDRA INVE STMENTS LTD. FOR A PERIOD ITA NO. 2400/AHD/10 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 7 FROM 06.02.2004 TO 23.02.2004 FOR A LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.3,10,50,000/-. ON VERIFICATION OF THE ACCOUNT, IT WAS FURTHER NOTICED BY THE A.O. THAT THIS LOAN WAS NOT UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUS INESS EXCEPT RS.8,74,000/- INVESTED IN PURCHASE OF 3800 SHARES OF PATNI COMPUT ERS. THEREFORE, THE A.O. ALLOWED INTEREST ON RS.8,74,000/- WHICH COMES TO RS .7,896/- AND REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2,80,629/- WAS ADDED BACK. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE AS SESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELL ANT. AS PER APPELLANT'S OWN SUBMISSION, THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,10,50,000/- WERE BORROWED FOR MAKING INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF PATNI COMPUTERS BY WAY OF SHARE APPLICATION FOR 1,50,000 SHARES BUT FI NALLY ALLOTTED 3,800 SHARES ONLY. IT IS, THEREFORE, APPARENT THAT THE A MOUNT OF RS.3,10,50,000 /- COULD NOT BE TERMED AS BORROWED 'FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THEREFORE, THE INTEREST CLAIMED ON SUCH BORROWINGS COULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES MAY ALSO YIELD TAX FREE D IVIDEND INCOME. IN SUCH SITUATIONS INTEREST PAYMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF SH ARES FOR EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED DEDUCT ION U/S.14A OF THE I.T. ACT. SIMILARLY, IF THE INVESTMENT IN SHARE S HAVE BEEN MADE TO EARN LONG TERM / SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN, THEN ALSO , THE INTEREST WOULD NOT QUALITY FOR DEDUCTION U/S. 36(1)(III) OF THE I. T. ACT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IS CONSIDERED JUSTIFIED AND ADDITION OF RS.2,80,629/- IS CONFIRMED. 8. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTI VITIES OF TRADING IN SHARES ITA NO. 2400/AHD/10 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 8 INCOME OF WHICH IS ASSESSED AS BUSINESS INCOME. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, APPELLANT BORROWED FUNDS FROM KOTAK MAHINDRA INVESTMENTS LTD. TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,10,50,000/- TO SUBSCRIBED 1,50,000 SHARES OF PATNI COMPUTERS IN THE IPO. AGAINST THE SHARE APPLICATIO N OF 1,50,000 SHARES, APPELLANT WAS ALLOTTED 3,800 SHARES WHICH WERE SOLD AND LOSS ARISING THERE FROM WAS OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD BUSIENSS INCOME A ND WAS ASSESSED AS SUCH. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION O N PAGE NO.23 TO DEMONSTRATE THAT ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED 1,50,000 SHAR ES OF PATNI COMPUTERS THROUGH KOTAK MAHINDRA INVESTMENTS LTD. THE KOTAK MAHINDRA INVESTMENTS LTD HAS CHARGED INTEREST FROM 06.02.2004 TO 23.02.2 004 AT RS.2,14,373/- AND SERVICE CHARGES AT RS.77,625/- AND DEMAT TRF CHARGE S FOR RS.437/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOTTED ONLY 3800 SHARES. THE NET OF THE INTEREST EARNED ON MARGIN GIVEN TO THE KOTAK MAHINDRA INVESTMENTS LTD. AND INTEREST PAID ON THE LOAN AMOUNT WAS CLAIMED AS DEDUCTION IN THE P&L ACC OUNT AGAINST BUSINESS INCOME FROM SHARE TRADING ACTIVITY AT RS.2,88,525/- . SHARES OF THE PATNI COMPUTERS WERE HELD AS STOCK IN TRADE IS EVIDENT FR OM THE SUMMARY OF THE OPENING STOCK, PURCHASE, SALE AND CLOSING STOCK. T HEREFORE, IT IS ALLOWABLE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.8000/- IN THE NAME OF DAXABEN SUNILBHAI PATEL, WHICH WAS INCLUDED IN ACCOUNT OF T HE MISCELLANEOUS SHARES AND INVESTMENTS LTD. ACTUALLY IT WAS BAD DEBT. AS PER ASSESSEES ARGUMENT, IT WAS POSSIBLE SETTLED AND DEDUCTED AGAINST TOWARDS T HE DIVIDEND. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING ON THIS ISSUE. BU T, THERE BEING A SMALL AMOUNT WHICH IS NOT PRESSED. AT THE OUTSET, LD. SR . D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ITA NO. 2400/AHD/10 A.Y. 04-05 PAGE 9 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS PER AUDIT REPORT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN IN VESTMENT AND SHARE TRADING. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INVESTMENT IN SCHEDULE-E OF CLOSING STOCK OF RS.15,09,100/- AND CLOSING STOCK OF TRADING RS.58,6 9,811/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS INCLUDED PURCHASE AND SALE OF PATNI SHARES IN T RADING AND ADJUSTED THE SALE OF LOSS IN TRADING AND DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCO UNT AT RS.47,052/- IN TOTO. THEREFORE, IT IS AN EXPENDITURE AND ALLOWABLE U/S. 36(1)(III) OF THE IT ACT. THEREFORE, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,000/- IS CONFIRMED AND REMAINING ADDITION OF RS.2,72,629/- IS DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 05.12.2013 SD/- SD/- ( D.K.TYAGI ) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA 1 1 1 1 ' '' ' )-2 )-2 )-2 )-2 320- 320- 320- 320- / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. %& / APPELLANT 2. )%& / RESPONDENT 3. - *7 / CONCERNED CIT 4. *7- / CIT (A) 5. 2; )-+ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. = >? / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ 1 , @/ B , $