The Inxome Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Hajiabdulgani T. Memon, Ahmedabad

ITA 2630/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6350 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 29-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 201; 69

Judgement Text

, B IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2630 /AHD/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012 - 13 ) THE ITO, WARD - 1(3)(2), AHMEDABAD - 380015 / VS. SHRI HAJIABDULGANI T MEMON, PROP: KOHINOOR TRANSPORT, 600/99, NR. ROSY CINEMA, SARANGPUR, AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AFTPM1187Q ( / APPELLA NT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI MUDIT NAGPAL, SR. DR / RESPONDENT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSION) / DATE OF HEARING 19/08 /2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 15 /10/2019 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS REVENUE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 , ARI SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 10, AHMEDABAD DATED 1 2 - 09 - 2 017 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO IT O VS. SHRI HAJIABDULGANI T. MEMON 2 2. THE REVEN UE HAS FILED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - (1) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FAN' AND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 1,80,40,947/ - . (2) THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND/OR ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 69 OF THE ACT OF RS.28,50,000/ - . 3. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 6 , 94 , 140/ - ON 29 TH SEP, 2012. THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 28 TH MA RCH, 2015 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 2 , 33 , 29 , 420/ - . THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN DE LETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE A SSESSEE OF RS. 1 , 80 , 40 , 947/ - AND DELETING THE OTHER ADDITION S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 69 OF THE ACT O F RS. 28.5 LAC S. THE FACTS IN BRIEF PERTAINING TO BOTH THE ISSUES IN APPEAL ARE DISCUSSED WHILE ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE REV ENUE AS UNDER: - GROUND NO. 1 4 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT , THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER EVIDENCES FOR VERIFICATION , H OWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY PRODUCED LEDGER ACCOUNT AND NOT PRODUCED THE OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , CONSEQUENTLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED 20% OF TOTAL EXPENSES TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1 , 97 , 85 , 279/ - . 5 . AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDIT ION TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17 , 44 , 665/ - . THE RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 5.1 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION ON COMMISSION BASIS AS I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO IT O VS. SHRI HAJIABDULGANI T. MEMON 3 WELL AS HAVING HIS OWN TRUCKS FOR LAST SEVERAL YEARS AND I REGULARLY ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 6,94,140/ - O N A TURNOVER OF RS. 9,70,90,518/ - . OUT OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS. 9.7 CRORES, THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN EXPENDITURE OF RS. 6.43 CRORES AS LORRY RENT EXPENSES, WHICH HAVE BEEN PAID TO TRUCK DRIVERS/OWNERS AND THE APPELLANT EARNED ONLY COMMISSION INCOME ON SUCH EXPENDITURE. ALL THESE EXPENDITURES HAVE BEEN FOUND PAID IN CASH AS CLONE IN PREVIOUS YEARS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y, 2011 - 12 AND 2013 - 14 PASSED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE OUT OF LORRY RENT EXPENDITURE. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ONLY REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS IS NON SUBMISSION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THAT DEFECT HAS BEEN RECTIFIED BY THE APPELLANT BY SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND THE SAME WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A SPECIFIC REQUEST TO SUBMIT THE REPORT AFTER MAKING NECESSARY INQUIRIES. BUT THE REMAND REPORT WAS NOT SUBM ITTED ON MERIT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WERE ALSO NOT REJECTED U/S. 145(3) OF THE ACCT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE OVERA LL FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE APPELLANT'S RETURNED INCOME IS RS. 6,94,140V - UPON WHICH ADDITION OF RS. 1.97 CRORES, WITHOUT HAVING ANY MATERIAL IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS FOUND EXCESSIVE. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT FACT TO MENTION THAT THE APPELL ANT IS IN THE SAME LINE OF BUSINESS AS IN IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR, I.E. A.Y. 2011 - 12, IN W HICH THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) WAS PASSED BY M AKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,72,455/ - , I .E. BY DISALLOWING 2% OF TYRE TU BE, AUTO PARTS AND BODY EXPENS ES, ETC. THE ASSESSME NT FOR A.Y. 2013 - 14 WAS ALSO MADE U/S. 143(3) AND ADDITIONS OF RS. 7 LACS WERE MADE BY DISALLOWING 3% OF SUCH EXPENDITURE. THESE FACTS FURTHER SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1.97 CRORES BY DISALLOWING 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE WITHOUT HAVING ANY EVIDENCES IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT FOUND JUSTIFIED. THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR TYRE TUBE, DIESEL, ETC., RELATED TO HIS OWN TRUCKS, 98% OF SUCH EXPENSES WERE PAID BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND NO INQUIRY FROM THE BANKS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIND OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THESE EXPENSES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ARE FOUND EXCESSIVE. AFTER GIVING THIS FINDING THAT THE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ARE EXCESSIVE, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN A.YS, 2011 - 12 AND 2013 - 14 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHICH THE APPELLANT DID NOT FILE APPEAL. THE APPELLANT MADE TOTAL PAYMENT OF LORRY RENT EXPENSES IN CASH AND SOME O F THE PAYMENTS OF TYRE S - LUBE EXPENDITURE/DIESEL EXPENDITURE WERE ALSO PAID IN CASH THE PAYMENTS MADE IN CASH ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS, WHOSE AUTHENTICITY CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FULLY. KEEPING IN VIEW THE OVERALL FACTS OF THE CASE. I CONSIDER IT R EASONABLE TO DISALLOW 1% OUT OF TOTAL LORRY RENT EXPENSES. THIS DISALLOWANCE COMES TO RS. 6,43,184/ - . ADDITION S TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 6,43,184/ - ARE CONFIRMED. FURTHER AS THE APPELLANT HAD ACCEPTED ADDITIONS OF 2% AND 3% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A.Y . 2011 - 12 AND 2013 - 14, IT IS CONSIDERED REASONABLE TO DISALLOW 4% OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENDITURE DIESEL & OIL EXPENSES RS. 1,63,65,706/ - TYRE & TUBE EXPENSES RS. 39,48,374 ROAD EXPENSES RS. 33,09,589/ - AUTO PARTS & REPAIRING EXPENDITUR E RS. 39,13,377/ - TOTAL RS. 2,75,37,046/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,75,37,046/ - AS MENTIONED ABOVE, 4% OF THE SAME, I.E. RS. 11,01,148/ - IS CONFIRMED. T HUS, ADDITIONS OF RS. 17,44,665/ - (RS. 6,43,110 + R S . 11,01,148) IS CONFIRMED AND RE MAINING ADDITIONS IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO IT O VS. SHRI HAJIABDULGANI T. MEMON 4 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, NOBODY HAS ATTENDED FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. TH E ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION AND MOST OF THE EXPENSES PERTAINED TO THE LORRY EXPENSES PAID TO THE TRUCK DRIVERS/OWNERS WHOSE TRUCKS WERE HIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ON COMMISSION BASIS AND THEY HAD BEEN PAID IN CASH. THE ASSESSEEE HA S ALSO INCURRED ROAD EXPENSES FOR PAYING TOLLNAKAS. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), T HE ASSESSEE HAD FURNIS HED THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES OF INCURRING VARIOUS EXPENSES AND T HE DETAIL S OF SUCH PAYMENTS WERE FORWARDED TO TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE REMAND REPORT PROCEED IN G S. IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AUDITED AND SAME HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCURRED THE SIMILA R KIND OF EXPENSES IN CASH MODE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 AND 2013 - 14 FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF LORRY RENT EXPENDITURE. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSE E HAS FURNISHED ALL THE EVIDENCES AND SAME WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES FULLY IN THE REMAND REPORT. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO IT O VS. SHRI HAJIABDULGANI T. MEMON 5 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REJECTED U/ S. 145(3) OF THE ACT. IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR TY RE , TUBE DIESEL ETC. 98 % OF SUCH EXPENSES WERE INCURRED BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND OUT ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THESE EXPENSES. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 1% OUT OF LORRY RENT EXPENSES AND 4% OF THE OTHER EX PENSES TO THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17 , 44 , 665/ - . T HEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 8 . DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF 28.5 LACS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT M AINTAINED WITH BOI SARKHEJ ROAD BRAN CH, AHMEDABAD. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH RECEIVED WAS PERTAINED TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN ADVANCE F R OM SALE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT KALUPUR TO MADRASAH MAARIFUL QURA A TRUST SITUATED AT KALUPUR. T HE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF FURTHER DETAIL I.E. COPY OF AGREEMENT, EXTRACT OF BALANCE SHEET OF MADRASAH MAA RIFUL QURA ETC, AND TREATED AFORESAID DEPOSIT OF RS. 28.5 LACS AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF T HE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9 . THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO IT O VS. SHRI HAJIABDULGANI T. MEMON 6 CL AIMED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT OF R S. 28.5 LACS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN ADVAN CE ON SALE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT KALUPUR. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED COPY OF CONFIRMATION , DEED OF SALE OF PROPERTY AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES WHICH COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FORWARDED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVE R , THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT GIVE COMMENTS ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN TH E REMAND REPORT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES , THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RELEVANT PART OF THE DECISION OF LD. CIT (A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - 6. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 28,50,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATING THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CASH WAS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE FOR AGREEMENT TO SALE OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT KALUPUR AND CONFIRMATION TO THAT EFFECT WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT FURTHER DETAILS AS MENTIONED IN PARA - 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITIONS. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT CASH WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCE FOR AGREEMENT TO SALE PROPERTY SITUATED AT KALUPUR MADRASA MAARIFUL QURAN, A TRUST SITUATED AT MOLENI POLE, KALUPUR. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED COPY OF TRUST'S CONFIRMATION, DEED OF SALE OF PROPERTIES AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THAT WHICH HE COULD NOT FILE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT WITHOUT ANY COMMENTS ON MERIT. THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT, I.E. SALE DEED OF PROPERTY SITUATED AT SURVEY NO. 4307, 4308, 4309 AND 4310 FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 75.50 LACS. IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED SALE DEED, IT IS MENTIONED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED IN VARIOUS INSTALMENTS IN CASH. THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT RS. 28,50,000/ - WAS RECEIVED DUR ING THIS YEAR AND RS. 10 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN THE LATER FINANCIAL YEAR, WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT HE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE VENDOR. 6. 1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT THAT IT IS AN ADVANCE AMOUNT RECEIVED AGAINST SALE OF PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE EVIDENCES EXCEPT THE CONFIRMATION OF THE OPPOSITE PARTY. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT PRODUCED SALE DEED OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY IN WHICH IT IS MENTIONED THAT RS. 75,50 LACS WAS PAID IN C ASH IN VARIOUS INSTALMENTS. AS THE CONTENTION WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS (WHICH WERE FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REMAND REPORT ), IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, HENCE THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 28,50,000/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT FOUND JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, IT IS DELETED. THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO IT O VS. SHRI HAJIABDULGANI T. MEMON 7 AFTER PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND FINDING OF LD. CIT(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT AS PER SALE DEED THE AFORESAID PROPERTY WAS SOLD FOR RS. 75.50 LACS AND IN THE SALE DEED, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RECEIVED IN VARIOUS INSTALLMENTS IN CASH. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED RELEVANT SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE CASH DEPOSITED WAS OUT OF THE S ALE CONSIDERATION ON THE SALE OF THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF CONFIR MATION OF TRUST , DEED OF SALE OF PROPERTY AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED THE REMAND REPORT WITHOUT CONTRADICTING THE AFORESAID MATERIAL SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). T HEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND A NY INFIRMITY IN THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 11 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 15 - 10 - 201 9 SD/ - SD/ - ( RAJPAL YADAV ) (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 15 /10 /2019 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. D R, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. I.T.A NO. 2630 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO IT O VS. SHRI HAJIABDULGANI T. MEMON 8 BY ORDER/ , / ,