The ITO, Ward-1(1)(2), Baroda V. M/s. Flexell Computer Forms Pvt. Ltd., Baroda

ITA 277/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0850 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K DEV
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Tax effect; Unabsorbed depreciation
• Section: 139

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMADABAD BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 277/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(2), VADODARA - 390007 V S . M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD., 883/1, GIDC ESTATE, MAKARPURA, VADODARA, PIN NO. 390010 (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) & ITA NO. 344/AHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD., 883/1, GIDC ESTATE, MAKARPURA, VADODARA, PIN NO. 390010 V S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BARODA - 390007 PAN NO. AAACF3356R (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY REVENUE SHRI S. K. DEV, SR. D.R. /BY ASSESSEE SHRI P. M. MEHTA, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING 28.11.2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03.12.2018 O R D E R ITA NOS. 277 & 344/AHD/15 A.Y.2008-09 (M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD.) PAGE 2 PER : RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, BARODA, DATED 01.11.2014 PASSED F OR A.Y. 2008-09. 2. AS FAR AS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS CONCERNED , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF RELIEF GIVEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS OF RS.9,23,660/- WHICH IS LESS THAN RS.20 LAKHS AND THEREFORE, THIS APPEAL IS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN VIEW OF THE LATEST IN STRUCTION BEARING NO. 3 OF 2018 DATED 11/07/2018 ISSUED BY THE BOARD. LEARNED DR WAS UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THIS CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL F OR THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE INSTRUCTION OF THE BOARD BEARING NO .3 OF 2018 DATED 11/07/2018 WHICH RESTRAINS THE SUBORDINATE AUTHORIT IES FROM FILING APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE TAX EFFECT BY VIRTUE OF THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) IS LESS THAN RS.20 LAKHS. THESE INSTRUCTION S HAVE BEEN MADE APPLICABLE EVEN ON PENDING APPEALS AS ON THE DATE O F ISSUANCE OF SUCH INSTRUCTIONS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE INST RUCTION, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. IT IS DISMISSED ACCOR DINGLY. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN CASE ON RE-VERIFICATION, LEARNED AO COMES OUT THAT THE CASE FALLS WITHIN THE EXCEPTIONS PROVIDED AT SERIAL NO.8 OF THE CIRCULAR OR TAX EFFECT IS MORE THAN REVENUE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPLY FO R RECALL OF THIS ORDER BUT SUCH APPLICATION WILL BE FILED WITHIN THE TIME LIMI T PROVIDED IN THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 3. NOW WE TAKE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. ITA NO. 344/AHD/2015. 4. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SIX GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH A RE NOT INCONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF ITAT RULES. THEY ARE DESCRIPTIVE AND ARGUMENTATIVE IN NATURE. LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROU ND NO.1 VIDE WHICH RE- ITA NOS. 277 & 344/AHD/15 A.Y.2008-09 (M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD.) PAGE 3 OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT WAS CHALLENGED. CONSIDER ING THE STAND OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS GROUND IS RE JECTED. 5. IN GROUND NO.5, ASSESSEE CHALLENGED INITIATION O F PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THIS PLEA IS A PREMA TURE ONE AND NOT MAINTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HENCE, THIS GR OUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 6. GROUND NO.6 IS A GENERAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH DOES NOT SPELL OUT ANY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS REJECT ED. 7. GROUND NOS. 2, 3 & 4 ARE INTERCONNECTED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN THESE GROUNDS, GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEAR NED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE STAND OF THE AO THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION AT RS .1,44,94,528/- DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. SINCE, THIS CLAIM WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE BOOK PROFIT UNDER S.115J B WAS NOT COMPUTED ACCORDING TO THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, GROUND NO.4 IS DEPENDENT UPON THE OUTCOME OF THE GROUND NOS. 2 & 3 IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,44,94,528/-. 8. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES, WE GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS CAREFULLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME ON 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT NIL AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF RS.8,48,966/-. AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143( 3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 13.12.2010 DETERMINING THEREIN TOTAL INCOME AT N IL AFTER SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS.9,34,521/- OUT OF TOTAL CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF RS.42,03,985/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS THEREAFTER REOP ENED BY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN THE R E-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ITA NOS. 277 & 344/AHD/15 A.Y.2008-09 (M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD.) PAGE 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD UNAB SORBED DEPRECIATION AT RS.1,45,03,028/- WHICH ULTIMATELY WAS REJECTED BY T HE AO. THE LEARNED CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE AO ON THIS ISSUE AND IT IS W ORTH TO NOTE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) WHICH READ AS UNDER: 3.3 THE REASONS AS MENTIONED BY THE AO FOR NOT CON SIDERING THE APPELLANT'S CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS. 1,45,03,328/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS ABOVE SUBMISSION OF AR OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE AR IS THA T THE CORRECT POSITION OF THE TOTAL UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION CAN BE VERIFIED F ROM THE SCHEDULE OF CARRY FORWARD LOSSES OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE RELEV ANT YEARS. IT IS MENTIONED THAT BY THE AR IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 15/10/2014 T HAT THE COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM A.Y. 1997-9 8 TO A.Y.2000-01 ARE ATTACHED WITH SUCH SUBMISSION. AS PER THE AR THE AM OUNT OF UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION PERTAINING TO THE A.Y.1994-95, A.Y.199 5-96 AND A.Y.1996-97 CAN BE VERIFIED FROM THE COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME O F A.Y. 1997-98. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED BY THE AR IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 15/10/2014 THAT THE COPIES OF RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM A.Y.2002-03 TO A.Y.2007-08 ARE ALSO ATTACHED WITH SUCH SUBMISSION. AS PER THE AR ON PERUSAL OF THESE RETURNS IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT SUCH BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION HAS NOT BEEN SET OFF AGAINS T INCOME TILL A.Y.2008- 09. IT IS PLEADED BY THE AR THAT ON PERUSAL OF THES E RETURNS OF INCOME IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE CORRECT POSITION OF BROUGHT FORWAR D UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION IS SUBSTANTIATED. BUT THIS SUBMISSION OF AR IS HIGHLY MISLEADING. THE AR HAS .MERELY FILED 'STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME' FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 1997-98 TO 2000 -01 AND FROM 2002-03 TO 2007-08. THE STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME AS ATTACHED BY THE AR WITH HIS ABOVE SUBMISSION DATED 15/10/2014 FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN NO WAY CAN BE SAID TO BE RETURNS OF INCOME. I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE APPEAL ORDER, THE COPY OF STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 1997-98 TO 2000-01 AND FURTHE R FROM 2002-03 TO 2007-08 (I.E. THE STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF INCO ME WHICH AS PER THE CLAIM OF AR OF THE APPELLANT ARE RETURNS OF INCOME) FOR REFERENCE. THERE ARE ONLY STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, DETAI LS OF INCOME FROM DIFFERENT HEADS AND DETAILS OF TDS AND DEPRECIATION CHART IN THE SO CALLED 'STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT, YEAR AND THE SAME ARE NOT SIGNED AND NOT CERTIFIED EITHER BY THE APPELLANT OR BY THE AR. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR ABOVE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS COPY OF WHICH ARE FILED BY THE AR WITHIN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 15/10/2014 ARE ACTUALLY FILED BY T HE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME, IN OTHER WORDS MERELY FROM T HE STATEMENTS OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE S AME ARE FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS ALONG WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME. THE FACT IS THAT NO COPY OF RETURNS OF INCOME FOR A NY OF THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ITA NOS. 277 & 344/AHD/15 A.Y.2008-09 (M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD.) PAGE 5 YEARS IS FILED BY THE AR. IT IS NOT CLEAR IN WHICH ITR, THE RETURNS OF INCOME ARE FILED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO SHOW THAT THE RETURNS OF I NCOME FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN FILED THE APPELLANT U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THIS IS IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT RETURNS FOR ABOVE ASSESSME NT YEARS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FILED U/S 139(1) ONLY FOR CLAIMING THE CARRIED FORW ARD DEPRECIATION AND LOSSES. THE AR HAS NOT FILED THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDG MENTS OF RECEIPTS AS A PROOF FOR FILING OF RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ABOVE ASS ESSMENT YEARS. IN MY OPINION, IF THE RETURNS OF INCOME HAVE BEEN FILED B Y THE APPELLANT FOR ABOVE DIFFERENT YEARS, THEN IN SUCH CASE THERE MUST BE A RUBBER STAMP WITH SERIAL NUMBERS EVIDENCING THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RECEIPT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, NO SUCH ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF RE CEIPT BEARING RUBBER STAMP WITH SERIAL NUMBERS ARE FILED OR PRODUCED BY THE AR TO SHOW THAT THE RETURNS OF INCOME HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN FILED FOR ABOV E ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THAT TOO IN TIME I.E. U/S 139(1) OF THE IT ACT. FUR THER, THE CLAIM OF LOSSES SHOULD BE MADE IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME AS PER THE SCHEDULE IN ITR. HOWEVER, AS MENTIONED ABOVE IF THERE IS NO PROOF FO R FILING OF RETURNS OF INCOME, THEN IN SUCH CASE IT WILL NOT BE KNOWN AS T O HOW THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE CLAIM OF CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES/DEPRECIATI ON BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT. HAD THE APPELLANT FILED THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS, IT WOULD HAVE ALSO GOT THE-INTIMA TION U/S 143(1)(A)/143(1) OF THE ACT; HOWEVER, NO COPY OF INTIMATIONS U/S 143 (1)(A)/143(1) OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE AR SHOWING THAT THE RETURNS OF INCOME WERE FILED BY THE APPELLANT IN TIME AND THE SAME WERE PROCESSED U /S 143(1)(A)/143(1) OF THE ACT AND FOR WHICH IT HAD RECEIVED INTIMATIONS. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT IS HELD THAT THE AR HAS MISERABLY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT AT THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS FROM 1997-98 TO 200 0-01 AND FROM 2002-03 TO 2007-08 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE APPELLANT U/S 139 (1) OF THE IT ACT CLAIMING THEREIN THE LOSSES/DEPRECIATION TO BE CARRIED FORWA RD FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS. 3.4 ANOTHER ASPECT WHICH REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT THE APPELLANT ITSELF HAD CLAIMED MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS. 42,03,985/- IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET SUBMITTED TO T HE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT IS MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE RE- ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT EVEN THE SAME WAS NOT THE COR RECT AMOUNT AS THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF TOTAL BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF R S. 39,23,711/- WAS REPORTED IN THE AUDIT REPORT (I.E. AS PER ANNEXURE- VII OF THE AUDIT REPORT IN FORM 3CD) AS WELL AS IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET SUBMI TTED DURING THESE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN MY OPINION, IF THE AUDIT OR IN THE AUDIT REPORT HAS MENTIONED THE BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS. 39,23,7 11/-, THEN CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES IN ITS CASE W AS RS.1,45,03,328/- CANNOT BE ACCEPTED OTHERWISE ALSO. IN THE CASE OF A PPELLANT, THE AUDITOR HIMSELF IS REPORTING IN AUDIT REPORT THE BROUGHT FO RWARD LOSSES OF RS. 39,23,711/- AND THEREFORE A DIFFERENT VERSION OF TH E APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM OF CARRIED FORWARD LOSSES AND THAT TOO WI THOUT ANY BASIS IN NO WAY CAN BE ACCEPTED. IT IS ALSO MENTIONED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ITA NOS. 277 & 344/AHD/15 A.Y.2008-09 (M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD.) PAGE 6 NO RECORD IS AVAILABLE TO SHOW THAT AT ANY GIVEN PO INT OF TIME THE APPELLANT HAD EVER BEFORE CLAIMED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES TOTA LING TO RS.1,45,03,028/-. IT IS MENTIONED BY THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT PROVID ED COPY OF E-FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29-09-2008 AND AS PER SCH EDULE BFLA AND SCHEDULE CFL THEREOF THE APPELLANT CLAIMED CARRY FO RWARD OF LOSSES OF RS. 33,55,019/- AFTER SET OFF OF LOSSES OF RS. 8,48,966 /-. AS PER THE AO THUS, IN THE RETURN ALSO, THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED BROUGHT FORW ARD LOSSES TOTALING TO RS. 42,03,985/- ONLY (I.E. 8,48,966 + 33,55,019), AS PE R THE AO EVEN IN THE COMPUTATION SHEET SUBMITTED DURING THE RE-ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS. 39,23,711/- ONLY. AS PER THE AO THUS, NEITHER IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME NOR IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ANY CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS. 1,45,03,028/- WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. AS PER THE AO THERE IS NO DOCUMENT AVAILABLE ON THE RECORDS SUPPORTING APPELL ANT'S THIS CLAIM AND NO SUCH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS EVER PRODUCED BY THE A PPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. AS PER THE AO ON THE CONTRARY THE APPELLANT ITSELF REDUCED THE CLAIM OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES FROM RS. 42,03,985/ - TO RS. 39,23,711/- IN THE COMPUTATION SUBMITTED ON 22-08-2013 I.E. DURING THESE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES MENTIONED IN THE ANNEXURE-VII OF THE AUDIT REPORT I N FORM 3CD. 3.5 IN VIEW OF THE DISCUSSION AS MADE IN PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, IT IS HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO BROU GHT FORWARD LOSSES OF RS. 1,45,03,028/- IS FALSE AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS NO T ACCEPTABLE. I THEREFORE HOLD-THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY CONSIDERED THE AMOUN T OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES AT RS.39,23,711/- AND SUCH ACTION OF THE AO IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. THUS, THE GROUND OF APPEALNO.2 OF THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED. 9. SHRI P. M. MEHTA WHILE IMPUGNING THE ABOVE FINDI NGS OF CIT(A) CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURNS OF IN COME FOR AY 1994-95 TO AY 2000-01. IT HAS ALSO FILED RETURNS FROM 2002-03 TO 2007-08. DURING THE COURSE OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAS F ILED COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURNS. THE LEA RNED AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN RECORDING A FINDING THAT THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE. HE SUBMITTED THAT LET THIS ISSUE BE REMITTED BACK TO T HE FILE OF AO FOR FURTHER INQUIRY AND RECORDING OF SPECIFIC FINDING. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ITA NOS. 277 & 344/AHD/15 A.Y.2008-09 (M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD.) PAGE 7 10. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAS FILED RETURN IN THE PAST AND ALSO COMPUTATION OF INCOME IF THOSE COMPUTATIONS ARE PER USED THEN UNABSORBED DEPRECIATION WOULD BE CALCULATED AT A HIGHER FIGURE THAN ONE ACCEPTED BY THE AO. FOR BUTTRESSING THIS CLAIM, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TOWARDS THE COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN AVAI LABLE ON PAGE 51. SIMILARLY, ON PAGE 52 THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT EXHIBITIN G FILING OF RETURN IN AY 1999-2000 HAS BEEN PLACED. BOTH THESE DOCUMENTS HA VE NOT BEEN RELIED UPON RATHER THEY ARE BELIED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES IN A CONCURRENT FINDING. WE HAVE PERUSED THESE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ALONGWITH OTHER ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE FIND THAT THE DIARY NUMBER/RECEIPT NUMBER SHOWING SUBMISSION OF RETURNS ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WERE RELUCTANT IN PUTTING THEIR RELIANCE ON THESE D OCUMENTS FOR ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY HAVE RECORDED A FINDIN G OF FACT. WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR REMITTING THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO. THESE DOCUMENTAT IONS HAVE BEEN SPECIFICALLY EXAMINED AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO CREATE A DENT IN TH E FINDING RECORDED BY THE AO. WE COULD APPRECIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IF IT HAS SOME NEW MATERIALS WHICH REQUIRED TO BE INVESTIGATED AND IF INVESTIGATED IT CAN GIVE RISE TO DIFFERENT RESULT. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, WE HAVE DIRECTED THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW US THE ORIGINAL CO PIES OF THESE ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS SO THAT WE CAN MAKE SOME DECISIONS ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENT. WE HAVE ALSO DESIRED LET THE DIRECTORS WHO HAVE SIGNED THOSE RETURNS FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS SO THAT SOME NEW ANGLE OF INQUIRY COULD BE EXPLORED BUT LEARNED COUNSEL HAS E XPRESSED HIS INABILITY IN FILING THE AFFIDAVITS OF THE DIRECTORS/AUTHORIZED P ERSONS WHO SIGNED THESE RETURNS AS WELL AS ORIGINAL COPIES OF THESE ACKNOWL EDGEMENTS. WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO REMIT ANY ISSUE TO AO FOR RE-ANALYZIN G THOSE VERY DETAILS WHICH HAVE BEEN GONE THROUGH BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES. TH E LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS RECORDED A FINDING IN DETAIL (EXTRACT ED SUPRA). AFTER GOING ITA NOS. 277 & 344/AHD/15 A.Y.2008-09 (M/S. FLEXELL COMPUTER FORMS PVT. LTD.) PAGE 8 THROUGH THE ABOVE FINDING WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN IT. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THESE GROUND S OF APPEAL. THEY ARE REJECTED. 11. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 03/12/20 18 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 03/12/2018 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. !'!#$ % / CONCERNED CIT 4. % - / CIT (A) 5. &'( ))#$ , #$ , ' / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (,- / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ! #$ , '