The DCIT, Circle-9, Ahmedabad V. Shri Mahendrakumar D.Desai, Ahmedabad

ITA 2516/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94827 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N SOPARKAR
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Rejection of books of accounts; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 154

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD/2012 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 & 2009-10 DCIT, CIRCLE-9 AHMEDABAD .. APPELLANT VS SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI, PROP. BHAGWATI ASSOCAITES, 2 ND FLOOR, OM COMPLEX, CG ROAD, NAVRANGPURA AHMEDABAD .. RESPONDENT PAN : AAJPD 4857 H REVENUE BY MS. SANYOGITA NAGPAL, SR DR ASSESSEE(S) BY SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR, AR / DATE OF HEARING 30/11/2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/12/2015 / O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD, BOTH DATED 01.08.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10. SINCE BOTH THES E APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME ASSESSEE AND ALMOST IDENTIC AL ISSUES WERE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS; THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 2 - TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLID ATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 2515/AHD/2012 : AY 2008-09 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,45,770/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIM ATION OF GROSS PROFIT. 2) THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,95,799/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, I.E. NOOR & JAKAT. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. 4) IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2.1 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN COAL, COKE AND LIGNIT E STEAM-COAL, FIRE WOOD ETC., SHARES AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCE S. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS.18,92,05,641/- DISCLOSING GROSS PROF IT OF RS.41,44,254/- WHICH IN TERMS OF PERCENTAGE WORKS O UT TO 2.19% AS AGAINST 1.97% SHOWN IN THE PRECEDING YEAR FROM THE TURNOVER OF RS.9,52,62,305/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 3 - THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS BY WAY OF S HOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 09.12.2010 IN RESPECT OF LOW GP AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED REPLY DATED 14. 12.2010. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE REPLY OF ASS ESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD AS UNDER:- 'CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CONSIDERING TH E APPELLATE ORDERS WHICH CONFIRM THE REJECTION OF ASS ESSEE'S BOOKS, I REJECT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING, THE TOTALITY OF FACTS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FURNISHED ITEM-WISE AND OVERALL QUANTITATIVE DETAIL S, EVIDENCES NOW PRODUCED AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE APPELLATE ORDERS RECEIVED, REASONABILITY OF ADDITIO N ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT ON REJECTION OF BOOKS I S TO BE ESTIMATED SO AS TO MEET THE END OF JUSTICE AND TO C OVER UP ASSESSEE'S PLEA MADE BEFORE THE HIGHER AUTHORITY FO R REASONABILITY OF ADDITION. 6.1. AS MENTIONED IN THE CHART, THE PURCHASE/SALE O F CHARCOAL, DOC, FIRE-WOOD, GNS POWDER, WHITE-COAL ET C, ARE COMPARATIVELY OF SMALL SALES ITEM AND GROSS PRO FIT IS ALSO SMALL OR G.P. IS HIGHER OR LOWER MAKES NO DIFF ERENCE IN OVER ALL QUANTUM OF GROSS PROFIT. THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE NOT CONSIDERED WORTH FOR DETAILED DISCUSSION. THEREAFTER, THERE REMAINS ONLY TWO MAJOR ITEMS VIZ. LIGNITE AND STEAM COAL. THE ITEM OF LIGNITE IS BEING MAINLY PURCHASED FROM GMDC, A GOVT. OF GUJARAT CONCERN. SO FAR ANOTHER MAJOR ITEM OF STEAM-COAL, THE ASSESSEE PURC HASES THESE FROM OPEN MARKET IN BULK FROM IMPORTER AND SA LES IT TO HIS CUSTOMERS IN TRUCK LOAD. THE GROSS PROFIT IN THIS ITEM IS DISCLOSED AT 10.88% AGAINST PRECEDING YEAR' S G.P. OF 17.47% ON TOTAL SALES OF RS.9,33,89,929/- AND RS.4,25,01,700/- RESPECTIVELY. SALES WERE INCREASED TO ALMOST DOUBLE. ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 4 - 6.2. AS STATED ABOVE AND REGARDING READABILITY OF G ROSS PROFIT, IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVE R FURNISHED THE ELABORATE DETAILS/DATAS OF HIS TRADIN G BUSINESS IN THE PAST. THEREFORE, IT IS POSSIBLE FOR THE FIRST TIME TO MAKE ANALYTICAL STUDY IN ORDER TO REACH TO THE POSSIBLE REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF THE PROFIT, IN ABSE NCE OF SUCH DATA IN THE PAST, EVEN APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD ALSO REDUCED THE ADDITION OF GROSS PROFIT ON ADHOC BASIS ONLY. THEREFORE, THE EXERCISE IS BEING DONE FOR ESTIMATIN G CORRECT GROSS PROFIT ON THE BASIS OF DATA FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ABOVE DATA, SMALL SALES ITEMS AR E EXCLUDED FROM THE DISCUSSION SINCE THESE HAVE NO MU CH IMPACT ON OVERALL GROSS PROFIT CORRESPONDING TO THE HUGE TURNOVER OF LIGNITE AND STEAM-COAL. AS FAR AS LIGNI TE PURCHASE AND SALES ARE CONSIDERED, ITS PURCHASES AR E FROM GMDC -A GOVT. OF GUJARAT UNDERTAKING AND PURCHASE PRICE ARE ALWAYS FIXED AND OPEN IN THE MARKET AND VARIATION DEPENDS ON MARKET CONDITION. THE PROFIT DECLARED IN LIGNITE IS NOT DISTURBED. 6.3. WITH THE ABOVE BACK GROUND OF FACTS, ASSES SEE'S ARGUMENT TO JUSTIFY HIS GROSS PROFIT AND ANALYSIS O F PURCHASE/SALES DATA FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WE LL AS THE PROOF FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY THAT AS SESSES HAD GENERATED UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM THE BUSINESS, THERE IS NO HESITATION FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS AS AS SESSEE'S BOOKS SUFFER FROM THE DEFECTS AND SUNDRY CREDITORS LIST REPRESENT FICTITIOUS CREDIT. THERE IS STEEP FALL IN THE GROSS PROFIT RATIO IN THE TRADING OF STEAM COCK AS THE PR OFIT HAS FELL DOWN FROM 17.47% IN PRECEDING YEAR TO 10.83% I N CURRENT YEAR. AFTER CONSIDERING CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, TOTALITY OF FACTS AND DIRECTIONS ISSUED U /S.144A OF THE IT ACT, THE GROSS PROFIT AT THE RATE OF 12% IS ESTIMATED WHICH IS CONSIDERED BOTH FAIR AND REASONA BLE AND ACCORDINGLY THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITI ON FOR POSSIBLE LEAKAGE OF GROSS PROFIT ON SALE OF STEAM C OCK. AS SUCH, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT I S WORKED OUT AS UNDER: ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 5 - 12% GP ON SALES OF STEAM COCK RS.93389929 = RS.1,12,06,790 LESS: G.P. SHOWN ON THESE SALES = RS.1,01,6 1,020 DIFFERENCE = 10,45,770 THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. 2.2 THE SECOND ISSUE WAS REGARDING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,95,799/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES (NOOR AND JAKAT). IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.6,95,799/-, BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 'FURTHER ON GOING THROUGH THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT , IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED TRANSPORTATION ( NOOR & JAKAT) EXPENSES OF RS.69,57,990/-. DURING THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THEASSESSES WAS ASKED TO FURNISH FULL & COMPLETE DETAILS OF THIS EXPENSES AN D ALSO TO PRODUCE THE VOUCHERS OF PAYMENT FOR SUCH EXPENSE S. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN DETAILED A/C OF PAY MENT. ON GOING THROUGH THESE DETAILS, IT IS SEEN THAT ALL SUCH EXPENSES WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SELF PREPARED VOUCHERS AND IT DOES NOT CONTAIN THE COMPLETE DETAI LS AS WELL AS ADDRESSES OF THE PAYEE. ALSO THE PAYMENTS W ERE MADE ONLY IN CASH AND KEPT ALWAYS BELOW RS.20,000/- . ON SINGLE DAY HUGE CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE, IN EARL IER YEARS ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED SAME MODUS OPER ANDI AND THEREBY IT WAS NOTICED AT THE TIME OF VERIFICAT ION AND SURVEY OPERATION EARNER] OUT IN THIS CASE THAT EXPE NSES ARE NOT SUBJECT TO CHECK AND CROSS VERIFICATION. TH EREFORE ON A REASONABLE ESTIMATE 10% OF SUCH EXPENSE I.E. RS.6,95,799/- IS DISALLOWED FOR WANT OF FULL & COMP LETE VERIFIABLE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THIS TRANSPORTATION (NOOR & JAKAT) WAS TO BE PAID AS DON E IN THE PAST AS SAME SET OF FACTS PREVAILS. ACCORDINGLY , AN ADDITION OF RS.6,95,799/- IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS COUNT. ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 6 - 2.3. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,45,770/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF E STIMATION OF GROSS PROFIT AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,95,79 9/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES I.E. NOOR & JAKAT . THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE INTER ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF T HE ADDITION OF RS.10,45,770/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GRO SS PROFIT AND ALSO AGAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS .6,95,799/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES I.E. NOOR & JAKAT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SIMILAR ADDITIONS WER E MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR AS SESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2006-07 WHICH HAVE BEEN DELETED BY ITAT IN ITA NOS. 2835/AHD/2008 & 2937/AHD/2009. FOR ASSESS MENT YEAR 2007-08 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ALSO, THE GP AD DITION WAS ALSO DELETED BY ITAT VIDE ITA NO.1595/AHD/2010 FOLL OWING THE DECISION OF ITAT IN ITA NO.2835/AHD/2008, BY OBSERV ING AS UNDER:- 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDE R CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS STARTED LIGNITE TRA DE ON WHICH BROKERAGE HAD BEEN RECEIVED. IF THE LIGNITE T URNOVER ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 7 - REDUCED FROM THE TOTAL TURNOVER, THE GP WOULD BE NE AR ABOUT 15%. THE LD. A.O. HAD POINTED OUT VARIOUS DEF ECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, SUCH AS, QUANTITY STOCK HA D NOT BEEN MAINTAINED, OUTSTANDING LIABILITY OF THE TRANS PORTER INCREASING, THE SURVEY DISCLOSURE AND OTHER DEFECTS ARE NOT SUFFICIENT TO REJECT THE BOOK RESULT U/S.145(2) BECAUSE THE SURVEY WAS RELEVANT TO A.Y. 08-09. THE APPELLAN T WAS MAINTAINING QUANTITY STOCK AS MENTIONED ABOVE. THE REASONS WERE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT FOR DECLINE OF GP DUE TO TRADING IN LIGNITE. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ASS ESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS. 2835/AHD/2008 & 2937/AHD/2009 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 & 06-07 IN WHICH IDENTICAL ADDITIO N WAS MADE AND RESPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD AS UNDER: 2.2.5 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE A RE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRE SENT CASE, EVEN THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT PROPER AND EVEN IF REJECTION OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IS A CCEPTED, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF G.P. AD DITION AND DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF BOG US FREIGHT LIABILITY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WE, THEREFOR E, ALLOW ALL THESE THREE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CON SIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED DURING APPELLA NT PROCEEDING, WE HAVE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE REJECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S.145(2) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED ON TH E BASIS OF DEFECTS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. FURTHER, GP ADDI TION ALSO IS NOT REQUIRED DUE TO SUBSTANTIAL TRADING IN LIGNITE DURING THE YEAR. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IS BASED ON EVIDENCES. THUS, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE ON BOTH GROUNDS. 2.4 NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE O N BEHALF OF REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, FOLLOWING THE SAM E REASONING AS MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID CASE FOR AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFER E WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.10,47,770/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF GRO SS PROFIT; ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 8 - 3. WITH REGARD TO THE SECOND ISSUE REGARDING THE DE LETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,95,799/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION CHARGES (NOOR & JAKAT), IT WAS BROUG HT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE THAT THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOU R OF ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN AS SESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NOS.2835/AHD/2008 & 2937/AHD/2009 F OR AYS 2005-06 & 2006-07, WHEREIN SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DE CIDED AS UNDER:- 2.4.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE OR DERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY T HE A.O. ON PAGE 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO FURNISH FULL AND COMPLETE DETAILS BUT IT I S NOT SPECIFIED AS TO WHAT WERE THOSE DETAILS WHICH WERE CALLED FOR. THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF THE A.O. THAT PAYMENT OF NOOR JAKAT EXPENSES IS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE AS COMP ARED TO EARLIER YEARS. IT IS ALSO NOT MENTIONED THAT WHA T TYPE OF DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR AND MOREOVER, NO ACTUAL ADD ITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME I N PAGE 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IT HAS NOT BROU GHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE MISTAKE WAS RECTIFIED U/ S 154 WITHIN THE TIME ALLOWED UNDER THAT SECTION. EVEN IF THIS HAS BEEN RECTIFIED THEN ALSO WE FEEL THAT SUCH AD-H OC DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT POINTING OUT AS TO WHAT WAS TH E DETAILS CALLED FOR WHICH WERE NOT SUBMITTED, IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THIS DISALLOWANCE. THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED. 4. NOTHING CONTRARY WAS BROUGHT TO OUR KNOWLEDGE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, FOLLOWING THE SAM E REASONING AS MENTIONED IN THE AFORESAID CASE FOR AYS 2005-06 TO 2007-08 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFER E WITH THE ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 9 - FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.6,95,799/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION (NOOR JAKAT) EXPENSES; ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. 5. IN THE RESULT, THIS REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISS ED. ITA NO.2516/AHD/2012 : AY 2009-10 IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, FOLLOWING GROUNDS W ERE RAISED:- 1). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X V, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING ASSESSEE'S APPEAL AGAINST THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 2). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X V, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.18,98,614/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LIGNI TE FREIGHT LIABILITY. 3). THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X V AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.13,43,575/- MADE OUT OF NOOR & JAKAT EXPENSES. 4). ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5). IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 6 ON BOTH FACTS AND ISSUES IN THIS REVENUES APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO BOTH THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WHICH HAS BEEN DECIDED BY U S IN ITA NOS. 2515 & 2516/AHD /2012 DCIT VS. SHRI MAHENDRAKUMAR D. DESAI AY 2008-09 & 2009-10 - 10 - FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS OF THIS ORDER. SO, FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS MENTIONED IN ASSESS EES OWN CASE FOR AY 2008-09 (SUPRA), WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE ADDITION OF RS.18,98,614/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF LIGNI TE FREIGHT LIABILITY AND RS.13,43,575/- MADE OUT OF NOOR & JAK AT EXPENSES; ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES BOTH APPEALS FOR AYS 20 08-09 AND 2009-10 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8TH OF DECEMBER, 2 015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV ) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 08/12/2015 *BT / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. '# / THE APPELLANT 2. $%'# / THE RESPONDENT. 3. && ' / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ( ) / THE CIT(A), 5. ()* $++ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. *, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ! , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD