M/s. Laser Technologies, Ahmedabad V. ITO, Ward-5(2)(5), Ahmedabad

ITA 2495/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1779 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 28-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Set aside; CHAPTER IV
• Section: 28; 69C; 143(3); 22; 20

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS . MADHUMITA ROY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2495 /AHD/2018 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2015 - 2016 M/S LASER TECHNOLOGIES , 202, PANALI COMPLEX , NR. SARDAR PATEL SEVA SAMAJ HALL, C.G. ROAD , MITHAKHALI , AHMEDABAD . PAN : AADFL0441M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD - 5(2)(5 ) , AHMEDABAD . (APPLICANT) ( RESPON D ENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI , WITH SHRI PARIN SHAH, A.R S REVENUE BY : SHRI VINOD TANWANI , CIT. D.R WITH SHRI R.R. MAKWANA, SR .D. R / DATE OF HEARING : 0 6 / 01 / 2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22 / 02 /2021 / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 5, AHMEDABAD , DATED 26/11 /2018 ARISING IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S. 143(3) ITA NO.2495 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2015 - 16 2 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HERE - IN - AFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 20 16 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF MAKING AN ADDITION OF IMPORTS OF RS.1,42,33,172/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF AO OF MAKING AN ADDITION OF IMPORT DUTY OF RS.21,06,856/ - AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN REJECTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IF AT ALL, THE ADDITION BE LIMITED TO THE PROFIT ELEMENT. 4. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND THEY FURTHER ERRED IN GRO SSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITT4D BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO QUASHED. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD.AO IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S.234A/B/C OF THE ACT. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CA SE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD.AO IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, EDIT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3 . THE INTERCONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO BY SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,42,33,172/ - AND RS. 21,06,856/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTIO N 6 9C OF THE ACT. 4 . THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF LASER PRINTER, PLOTTER, SPARE PARTS OF XEROX MACHINE ETC . T HE ASSESSEE IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N HAS IMPORTED GOODS WORTH OF RS. 2,21,48,951/ - AND INCURRED AN EXPENSE OF RS. 32,89,364 TOWARDS THE CUSTOM DUTY. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES OF RS. 79,15,799/ - ITA NO.2495 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2015 - 16 3 AND THE CUSTOM DUTY OF RS. 11,82,508/ - IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME , MEANING THEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN PURCHASE OF RS. 142,33,172/ - AND CUSTOM DUTY OF RS. RS. 21,06,856/ - ONLY . NEVERTHELESS, THE ASSESSEE ON QUESTION BY THE AO, WORKED OUT THE PROFIT OF RS. 5,16,268/ - AGAINST SUCH UNACCOUNTED/UNDISCLOSED IMPORT OF THE GOODS. THUS TH E ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF PROFIT FOR RS. 5,16,268/ - TO TAX AND ALSO FILED A PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF IT . 4 .1 HOWEVER, THE AO DISREGARDED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASS ESSEE WILFULLY DID NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE IMPORT OF THE GOODS. ACCORDINGLY THE AO TREATED THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES OF 1, 42 , 33 , 172 / - AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CUSTOM DUTY PAID BY IT FOR 2 1 , 06 , 856 .00 AS UNEXPLAIN ED EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 6 9C OF THE ACT. THUS THE AO ADDED THE SUM OF 1 , 63 , 40 , 028 / - TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE LEARNED CIT (A). 5 .1 THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) CLAIMED THAT TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE ISSUE ON HAND I.E. UNACCOUNTED IMPORT AND CUSTOM DUTY. FOR ATTRACTING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 69C THERE MUST BE NON - EXPLANATION OF SOURCE FROM THE ASSESSEE BUT IN THIS CASE IT EXP LAINED THE SOURCE BY FIL ING THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH ALL TRANSACTIONS TAKE PLACE. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IN CASE OF TRADING CONCERN ENTIRE PURCHASE AMOUNT OR UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OR PAYMENT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO THE TAX. AS SUCH ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT EMBE DDED IN SUCH TRANSACTION SHOULD BE BROUGHT TO THE PREVIEW OF TAX. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD PLACED ITS RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. BABUL K DAGA REPORTED IN 79 TAXMANN.COM 337. 6. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT (A) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: ITA NO.2495 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2015 - 16 4 3.5 THE APPELLANT MERELY CONTENDED ON TECHNICAL GROUND. THE APPELLANT S MAIN CONTENTION THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE APPLYING WRONG SECTION 69C OF THE IT ACT AS PAYMENT WAS MADE OUT OF AXIS BANK OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY THUS SOURCE WAS PROPERLY EXPLAINED IS NOT TENA BLE. SINCE IT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE IMPORT PURCHASES AND DUTY PAYMENT FROM BANK WAS NOT DISCLOSED AT ALL AND THERE IS NO PROPER JUSTIFICATION FOR NOT DISCLOSING THE SAME. SINCE THE PAYMENT FROM AXIS BANK AND ICICI BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT DISCLOS ED, THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT PAYMENT /EXPENDITURE REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT THE ADDITION MADE BY AO THE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69C OF THE ACT IS CONFIRMED. 3.6 THE APPELLANT FURTHER ALTERNATIVELY CONTENDED THAT S INCE THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING OF LASER PRINTER, PLOTTERS, SPARE PARTS, XEROX, TONNER, CARTRIDGE AND APPELLANT PURCHASE THE GOODS WHICH IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE THEREFORE ONLY PROFIT OUT OF THE TRANSACTION SHOULD BE A DDED. THE APPELLANT FURTHER CONTENDED THAT IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN IN CASE OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT OF A BUSINESSMEN ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT CAN BE TAXED AND NOT THE ENTIR E AMOUNT AND RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF BABUL K. DAGA. 3.7 THE APPELLANT S ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION THAT INSTEAD OF TOTAL PURCHASE ONLY THE PROFIT SHOULD BE TAXED IN VIEW OF THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF BABULAL DAGA AND OTHER DECISIONS IS CAREFULLY CONSIDERED HOWEVER SAME IS NOT TENABLE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE CASE OF BABULAL K DAGA AND OTHER CASES RELIED BY THE APPELLANT ARE DIFFERENT AND DISTINGUISHABLE. IF THIS CASE, THE HON BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO ASSESS THE PR OFIT ON THE UNACCOUNTED RECEIPT WHICH SHOULD BE TAXED. HOWEVER, IN THE APPEAL UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PURCHASE OUT OF UNDISCLOSED AXIS BANK ACCOUNT. THUS THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT INSTEAD OF IMPORT PU RCHASE AND DUTY PAYMENT ONLY PROFIT SHOULD BE TAXED IS NOT TENABLE AS THE ENTIRE BANK ACCOUNT AND IMPORT PAYMENT AND DUTY PAYMENT WENT UNDISCLOSED THEREFORE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION FOR THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED IMPORT AND UNDISCLOSED DUTY PAYMENT OF RS.1,63,40,028/ - 7 . BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER THE OF LEARNED CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US 8 . THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 247 AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT AS THE TRANSACTION WAS FULLY EXPLAINED. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ONLY PROFIT ELEMENT CAN BE ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE LD. AR REITERATED THE CONTENTION MADE BEFORE THE A UTHORITIES BELOW . 9 . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DR BEFORE US CONTENDED THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE QUA TO THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS ITA NO.2495 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2015 - 16 5 WAS NOT VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE LD. DR BEFORE US VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDING OF THE LOWER AUTHORIT IES. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPORTED THE GOODS WORTH OF RS. 1,42,33,172/ - AND INCURRED THE CUSTOM DUTY EXPENSES FOR RS. 21,06,856/ - WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE LIMITED QUESTION THAT ARISES BEFORE US FOR OUR ADJUDICATION WHETHER THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED IMPORT AND THE CUSTOM DUTY REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. INDEED THE EX PENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CONNECTION WITH THE INCOME HAS TO BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE ENGAGED IN THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS. THUS THE PROFIT FROM SUCH UNDISCLO SED BUSINESS HAS TO BE DETERMINED IN THE MANNER AS PROVIDED UNDER CHAPTER IV OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT SECTION 28 OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER: 28. THE FOLLOWING INCOME SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME - TAX UNDER THE HEAD 'PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS OR PROFESSION', ( I ) T HE PROFITS AND GAINS OF ANY BUSINESS OR PROFESSION WHICH WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR ; 10 .1 THE ABOVE PROVISIONS STATES THAT PROFIT AND GAINS OF ANY BUSINESS WHICH WAS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR SHALL BE CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND PROFESSION. IN THE AFORESAID SECTION, THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION WHETHER THE BUSINESS WAS DISCLOSED OR UNDISCLOSED. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PRINCIPLES WHICH ARE APPLICABLE TO DETERMINE TH E INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY WHICH WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME SHALL HAVE TO BE APPLIED IN THE SAME MANNER TO DETERMINE THE INCOME FROM THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF UND ISCLOSED PURCHASES AND EXPENDITURE ON THE CUSTOM DUTY CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH THE AMOUNT OF PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN SUCH UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE BROUGHT TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. IN THIS REGA RD WE DRAW SUP PORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDG MENT OF HON BLE ITA NO.2495 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2015 - 16 6 JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. BABUL K. DAGA (SUPRA) WHERE IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: THAT EVEN IN CASE OF UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS OF A BUSINESSMAN, IT IS ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED IN THE BUSINESS WHICH CAN BE TAXED AND NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE ASSESSEE CAN POINT OUT THAT EVEN ON UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS, EXPENDITURE WAS ALSO INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS, IT WOULD BE ONLY THE REASONABLE PROFIT ON SUCH RECEIPT S WHICH SHOULD BE TAXED. THUS, REVISION ORDER WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 10.2 NOW THE QUESTION ARISES FOR THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME/PROFIT EMBEDDED IN THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. CERTAINLY, THE ONUS LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE TO WORK OUT THE PROFIT E LEMENT IN SUCH BUSINESS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ONUS HAS BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FURNISHING THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, PLACED ON PAGE 245 OF THE PAPER BOOK, DEPICTING THE PROFIT EARNED BY IT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ONUS NOW SHIFTED UPON THE AO TO PROVE THE ASSESSEE WRONG BASED ON COGENT REASONS. BUT WE FIND THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. AS SUCH WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO WHISPER IN THE OR DER OF THE AO ABOUT SUCH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DESPITE IT WAS FILED AND AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM (THE AO) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT APPEARS THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED SUCH PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. 10.3 THUS THE NEXT PROBLEM ARISES WHETHER THE REVENUE SHOULD BE GIVEN ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO CONSIDER THE CORRECTNESS OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WILL BE INJUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SIMPLE REA SON THAT THERE WAS NO FAULT ATTRIBUTABLE TO IT (THE ASSESSEE) FOR NON - CONSIDERATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT BY THE AO. IN HOLDING SO WE DRAW SUP PORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDG MENT OF HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ITO VS. SANJEEV GHEI REPORTED IN 104 TAXMANN.COM 81 WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE INABILITY OF THE AO TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION TO BRING TO TAX THOSE AMOUNTS AND (UNLIKE IN THE CASE THAT THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE PNB WHICH WAS SO BROUGHT TO TAX BY ADDIT ION IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT), IN THE OPINION OF THE COURT WOULD NOT AFFORD THE REVENUE A SECOND CHANCE. 10.4 BEFORE PARTING, A QUESTION ALSO CAME TO OUR MIND THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE MADE SOME INVESTMENTS IN SUCH UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS WHICH SHOULD BE B ROUGHT ITA NO.2495 /AHD/2018 ASSTT. YEAR 2015 - 16 7 TO TAX. HOWEVER, IN THIS CONNECTION WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO HAS CONTENDED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SUCH UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS WAS MADE OUT OF THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM THE BANK NAMELY NUTAN NAGRIK SAHKARI BANK. FURTHERMORE, THE IMPORTS WER E MADE IN TRENCHES M EANING THEREBY THE AMOUNT REALIZ ED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SALE MADE OF THE 1 ST IMPORT WAS UTILI Z ED FOR THE 2 ND IMPORT OF THE GOODS. THE RELEVANT CONTENTION AS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO READS AS UNDER: ALSO THE FACT THE AFORESAID IMPORTS WERE MADE BY YOUR ASSESSEE THROUGH 14 IMPORT TRANSACTIONS WE ARE IDENTIFIED BY THE IMPORTS BILLS SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF, AND NOT IN A SINGLE TRANSACTION. SINCE THE IMPORTS WERE MADE IN 14 TRANCHES AND NOT IN SINGLE TRANS ACTION IMPLIED THAT THE AFORESAID IMPORTS WERE FUNDED FROM THE SALES PROCEEDS REALISED BY ASSESSEE AND THE OVERDRAFT AVAILED BY YOUR ASSESSEE FROM NAGRIK SAHAKARI BANK DETAILS OF WHICH ARE SUBMITTED BEFORE YOUR GOODSELF IN OUR EARLIER REPLIED AND NOT UNEXP LAINED SOURCES. 10.5 HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPROVED THE AFORESAID CONTENTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN TOTALITY AND PARTICULARLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE REMARK BY T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW, IT SEEMS THAT THERE WAS NO INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUCH UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO TREAT THE SUM OF 5,16,268/ - SHOWN AS PROFIT, COMPUTED BY THE A SSESSEE AS TAXABLE INCOME AND DELETE THE REMAINING AMOUNT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 22 /02 / 2021 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/ - SD/ - (MADHUMITA ROY ) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (TRUE COPY) A HMEDABAD; DATED 22 / 02 /2021 M ANISH