Shri Kirankumar Valjibhai Bhalodia, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Assistant Commr. Income Tax,Cen.Cir-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 283/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2341 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: YOGESH PANDEY
• Assessee Lawyers: HARISH RANPURA
• Keywords: Business income; Search and seizure; Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH , RAJKOT BEFORE: S H RI PRAMOD KUMAR , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER [CONDUCTED THROUGH E - COURT AT AHMEDABAD] SHRI KIRANKUMAR VALJIBHAI BHALO DIA , SITA APARTMENT , 5 TH FLOOR, KASHI VISHWANATH PLOT, RAJKOT PAN: ABPPB7561B (APPELLANT) VS THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, RAJKOT (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI YOGESH PANDEY , D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI HARISH RANPURA , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 04 - 12 - 2 016 DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 22 - 01 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THE S E FIVE ASSESSEES APPEALS APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006 - 07 TO 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 2012 - 13 , AR ISE FROM ORDER S OF THE CIT(A) - 11, AHMEDABAD DATED 2 4 - 03 - 2015 (IN ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS EXCEPT THE LAST ONE) AND 12 - 03 - 2015 IN APPEAL NOS. CIT(A) - 11 / 627,628,629,630 I T A NO . 280 - 284 / RJT /20 15 A Y 200 6 - 07 TO 07 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 2012 - 13 I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 2 & 631 - R/CC.1/2014 - 15 ; RESPECTIVELY. THE RELEVANT PROCEEDINGS ARE U/S. 153(A ) R.W.S. 1 43(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE LAST ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVES PROCEEDINGS U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . WE PROCEED ASSESSMENT YEAR - WISE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ITA 280/RJT/2015 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THREE SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS IN THE INSTANT APPEAL INTER ALIA CHALLENG ING VALIDITY OF SECTION 153A PROCEEDINGS FOLLOWED BY HIS AVERMEN TS ON MERITS AGAINST SECTION 57 DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS. 1,96,534/ - IN EARNING OF INTEREST INCOME AND THE ONE U/S. 14A AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,498/ - ; RESPECTIVELY. W E COME TO ASSESSEE S LEGAL GROUND FIRST. 3. THIS ASSESSEE/INDIVIDUAL DERIVES BUSINESS INCOME AND FROM OTHER SOURCES. HE FILED HIS REGULAR RETURN ON 10 - 07 - 2006 U/S. 139(1) SHOWING INCOME OF RS. 6,97,320/ - . A PERUSAL OF F ORM 35 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED A REGULAR ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING THE SAME IN TOTO. THIS WAS FOLLOWED BY THE IMPUGNED SEARCH ACTION DATED 08 - 09 - 2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SECTION 153A NOTICE DATED 12 - 06 - 2012. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE REITERATED THE VERY INCOME DECL ARED EARLIER IN HIS FRES H RETURN 31 - 10 - 2012. THE ASSESSING I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 3 O FFICER COMPLETED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MAKING THE ABOVE STATED DISALLOWANCES ON 28 - 02 - 2014. 4. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. HE INTER ALIA ARGUED ON LEGALITY ASPECT THAT HIS RETURN STOOD ACCEPTED AND TIME FOR ISSUING SECTION 143(2) NOTICE WAS OVER. NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. NOR THERE WAS ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH. THE CIT(A) REJECTS THIS LEGAL GROUND BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - 6. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND THE DECISIONS RELIED WERE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH AND IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DECISIONS RELIED BY THE APPELLANT WERE NO MORE RELEVANT AS THE LAW IS CLEAR ON THIS ISSUE. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNALS AND THE COURTS I N THE CASES OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA 211 TAXMAN 453(DELHI), FILATEX LTD.(2014)49 TAXMANN.COM 465(DELHI), SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS & WEDDING CENTRE 362 ITR 664(KERALA) AND HOTEL MARIYA (2011)332 ITR 537 (KERALA) HAVE GIVEN THEIR FINDINGS THAT ACCORDING TO PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 153A, THE A.O. IS OBLIGED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 153A IN RESPECT OF 6 ASSESSMENT YEARS PRECEDING THE YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED. THEREAFTER, HE HAS TO ASSESS OR RE - ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THESE SIX YEARS AS PROVIDED U/S 153A (1) (B). IT WAS FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT ONLY THE ASSESSMENTS OR RE - ASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION SHALL ABATE. THE SECOND PROVISO DOES NOT CONTAIN ANY WORD OR WORDS TO THE EFFECT THAT NO REASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS. THE COURTS HAVE UNANIMOUS VIEW THAT THE LANGUAGE IS CLEAR IN THIS BEHALF AND THEREFORE, LITERAL INTERPRETATION SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. THE BOMBAY TRIBUNAL (SPECIAL BENCH) HELD THAT SUCH INTERPRETATION DOES NOT PRODUCE ANY MANI FESTLY ABSURD OR UNJUST RESULTS AS SECTION 153A(1)(B) AND THE FIRST PROVISO CLEARLY PROVIDE FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF ALL SIX YEARS. 6.1 THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE ASSESSMENTS ALREADY MADE CANNOT BE RE - OPENED U/S153A I S NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 4 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES. IT IS EVIDENT TO US THAT EVEN THE LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS NOWH ERE SPECIFICALLY REBUT ASSESSEE S CONTENTION QUOTING ABSENCE OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. HE REITERATES THE VERY ARGUMENT BEFORE US THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ITSELF IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED ON THIS GROUND ALONE AS HELD BY HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JAYABEN RATILAL TAX APPEAL NO. 914 OF 2012 DECIDED ON 02 - 07 - 2013, HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. MGF AUTOMOBILE LTD ITA 13 OF 2014 DECIDED ON 13 - 08 - 2015 AND IN ITA 707 OF 2014 DOD 28 - 08 - 2015 AS WELL SPECIAL BENCH DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ALCARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD VS. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (MUMBAI). |HIS FURTHER ARGUMENT IS THAT HIS REGULA R ASSESSMENTS ARE DEED ED TO HAVE BEEN COMPLETED SINCE LIMITATION FOR ISSUING SECTION 143(2) NOTICE WAS OVER ON 30 - 09 - 2007 TURNING OUT TO BE MUCH BEFORE THE IMPUGNED SEARCH DATED 08 - 09 - 2011. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE INSTANT APPE AL ON THIS LEGAL ASPECT. 6. THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CIT(A) ORDER AND PRAYS FOR UPHOLDING THE SAME. IT QUOTES CASE LAW OF CIT VS. RAJKUMAR ARORA (2014) 367 ITR 517 (ALLAHABAD) TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETES A SUMMA RY ON REGULAR ASSESSMENT THAT ITSELF COME IN THE WAY OF REOPENING AND REASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME IN VIEW OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. AND THAT SECTION 153A IN THE NATURE OF NON - OBSTANTE CLAUSE REMOVES ALL FE TTERS IMPOSED UPON THE /ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 147/148. NEXT DECISION IS (2012) 346 ITR 106 (AP) GOPAL LAL BHADRUKA VS. DCIT THAT A ASSESSING OFFICER CAN TAKE INTO I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 5 CONSIDERATION ANY MATERIAL OTHER THAN WHAT WAS ALREADY AVAILABLE DURING SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPLETING A SEARCH ASSESSMENT. THEN COMES THE DECISION OF (2014) 362 ITR 664 (KERALA) SUNNY JACOB JEWELLERS AND WEDDING CENTRE VS. DCIT PROPOUNDING A PROPOSITION THAT THERE IS NO PROHIBITION OR EMBARGO ON THE DEPARTMENT TO CO NSIDER ANY INFORMATION FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CONTEMPLATES U/S. 153A. THE REVENUE ACCORDINGLY PRAYS FOR REJECTION OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. 7. BOTH PARTIES HEARD. RELEVANT RECORD PERUSED. THE ASSESSE E S FIRST SUBSTANTIVE ARGUMENT SEEKS TO QUASH T HE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S. 153A FOR WANT OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE REITERATE THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW NOWHERE REBUT SPECIFIC AVERMENT IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT A REGULAR ASSESSMENT ALREADY STO OD FRAMED IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE FIND IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ALL THE JUDGMENTS QUOTED AT THE ASSESSEE S BEHEST INCLUDING THAT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HEREINABOVE HOLD THAT NO ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN FRAMING OF SEARCH ASSESSMENT WITHOU T THERE BEING ANY IN ANY INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ITSELF. THE REVENUE S CASE LAW (SUPRA) DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY JUDGMENT OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT. WE FOLLOW HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISION IN T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES AND HOLD THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE WRONGLY INITIATED SECTION 153A PROCEEDINGS IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE. WE ACCEPT AS S ESSEE S ARGUMENT ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 6 THE IMPUGNED SEARCH ASSESSMENT ITSELF STANDS QUASHED. THIS R ENDERS ASSESSEE S OTHER GROUNDS AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. ITA 280/AHD/2015 IS ACCEPTED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 ITA 281/RJT/2015 8 . THE ASSESSEE S TWIN SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS ASSAIL VALIDITY OF SECTION 153A PROCEEDINGS AND SECTION 14A DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 97,469/ - ON MERITS. BOTH PARTIES AGREED THAT OUR FINDINGS ON LEGAL GROUND HEREINABOVE IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR APPLY IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINCTION ON FACTS OR LAW. WE APPRECIATE THIS FAIR SUBMISSION. THE ASSESSEE S LEGAL GROUND IS ACCEPT ED . IMP UGNED SEARCH ASSESSMENT IS QUASHED ON LEGALITY ITSELF. ITA 281/RJT/2015 IS ACCEPTED. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 ITA 282 /RJT/2015 9 . THE ASSESSEE S TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL CHALLENGES VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF SECTION 153A PROCEED INGS AND CORRECTNESS OF ADDITION OF RS. 1,57,753/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED ELECTION EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE INVITES OUR ATTENTION TO CORRESPONDING FINDING ON THE FORME R ISSUE AS DECIDED IN PRECEDING TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE FIND THAT FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE ARE NOT SIMILAR. WE FIND THAT HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30 - 07 - 2010. THE IMPUGNED SEARCH IS DATED 08 - 09 - 2011. THE ASSESSEE I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 7 DOES NOT PLACE ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD A REGULAR OR SECURITY ASSESSMENT ALREADY STOOD FRAMED IN HIS CASE. EVEN TIME LIMI TA T I ON U/S. 143(2)(PROVISO) STIPULATING TIME PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR OF FILING THE RETURN HAS NOT EXPIRED. THIS IS NOT FOUND TO BE A CASE OF EITHER DEEMED COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. WE ACCORDINGLY ACCEPT REVENUE S ARGUMENT THAT SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HAS RIGHTLY BEEN INVOKED IN CASE OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ALREADY PENDING. THIS FIRST GROUND FAILS. 10. WE COME TO ASSESSEE S SECOND SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RELATING TO UNEXPLAINED ELEC TION EXPENDITURE ADDITION OF RS. 1,57,753/ - . HE APPEARS TO HAVE CONTESTED 2009 PARLIAMENTARY ELECTION. THIS INVOLVED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 17,53,609/ - . THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT HE COULD EXPLAIN THE SAME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 15,95,856/ - BY LINKING IT TO HIS O WN/BROTHER S WITHDRAWALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED HIS EXPLANATION ATTRIBUTING THE IMPUGNED SUM TO HAVE BEEN POLITICAL PARTY S CONTRIBUTION. THIS RESULTED IN THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. THE CIT(A) UPHOLDS ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION. 11 . WE HAVE HEAR D BOTH THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE FILES BEFORE US PROOF OF PAYMENT OF THE IMPUGNED SUM AMOUNTING TO RS. 1,57,753/ - IN PRESCRIBED FORM APPENDIX - 1 IN THE SHAPE OF REGISTER OF MAINTENANCE OF DAY TO DAY ACCOUNT. PHOTOCOPY OF THE DOCUMENT IS ALSO ATTACHED. TH E ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY PRAYS FOR THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . THE REVENUE STRONGLY OBJECTS TO THIS ADMISSION AND PRAYS FOR AFFIRMING THE I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 8 IMPUGNED FINDINGS. WE TEND TO DIFFER WITH THIS TECHNICAL OBJECTION. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT GENUINENESS THEREOF. WE OBSERVE IN THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY SHALL NOT COME IN THE WAY OF SUBSTANTIVE JUSTICE. WE PROCEED ON THIS PROPOSITION AND ADMIT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO MAKE NECESSARY VERIFICATION AN D PASS A CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF THE HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND IS REMITT ED TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. ITA 282/RJT/2015 PARTLY ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 ITA 283 /RJT/2015 12 . THIS APPEAL RAISES TWO SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS QUA VALIDITY OF SECTION 153A PROCEEDINGS AND DISALLOWANCE OF INDEXATION BENEFIT CLAIMED ON SALE OF FURNITURE OF RS. 3,11,610/ - ALONG WITH FLAT SOLD. BOTH PARTIES CONCEDE THAT OUR FINDINGS ON LEGAL GROUN DS IN PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR SQUARELY COVER THE FORMER ISSUE. WE FOLLOW SUIT HEREIN AS WELL FOR REJECTING FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FAIRLY STATES THAT THE LATTER GROUND BE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED KEEPING IN MIND SMALLNESS OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED. THE REVENUE DOES NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION. WE ACCEPT ASSESSEE S PRAYER. THIS SECOND GROUND IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA 283/RJT/2015 FAILS . ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 14 ITA 284/RJT/2015 I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 9 13 . THE ASSESS EE S FIRST SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGES ADDITION OF RS. 2,76774/ - ON THE VALUE OF GOLD JEWELRY WEIGHING 112.5 GMS REMAINED TO BE EXPLAINED OUT OF THE TOTAL FOUND 7711.54 GMS. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE SUCCEEDED IN PRODUCING EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO JEW ELRY W E IGHT OF 6912.180 GMS AND 686.85 GMS IN THE HANDS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE IMPUGNED BALANCE WEIGHT WAS ATTRIBUTED TO HAVE BEEN RELIEVED ON VARIOUS SOCIAL OCCASION S . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT ORDER QUOTED LACK OF EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A) AL SO TREADS ON THE SAME PATH. 14. HEARTH BOTH SIDES. CASE FILE PERUSED . THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPLAINED JEWELRY WEIGHT IS 1.46% OF THE TOTAL WEIGHT FOUND DURING SEARCH. THIS IS NOT THE REVENUE S CASE THAT THIS JEWELRY DOES NOT CONTAIN S TONES AND IMPURITIES THEREIN. BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ALSO NOWHERE TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE S SOCIAL ECONOMIC STATUS. WE ARE ALSO ALIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE PLEA TO HAVE RECEIVED THE IMPUGNED JEWELRY ON VARIOUS SOCIAL OCCASIONS. WE DRAW INFERENCE FROM ASSESSEE S AND HIS FAMILIES SOCIAL ECONOMIC STA TUS AND HOLD THAT THE IMPUGNED JEWELRY CAN BE WELL SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED ON VARIOUS FAMILY FUNCTIONS AND PAST SAVINGS THEREOF. WE DE CIDE THIS GROUND IN ASSESSEE S FAVOUR ACCORDINGLY. 15. THIS LEAVES WITH US ASSESSEE S S ECOND GROUND COVERS FOREIGN TRA VEL DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 51,782/ - . WE FIND THESE EXPENSE S TO HAVE BEEN DEBITED TO PERSONAL ACCOUNT IN PERSONAL BOOKS AND BALANCE TO I.T.A NO. 280 - 284 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2006 - 0 7 T O 2007 - 08 & 2010 - 11 TO 20 12 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KIRANKUMAR VA LJIBHAI BHALODIA VS. ACIT 10 H AVE BEEN MET FROM SAVING ACCOUNT IN CORPORATION BANK. THIS MADE BOTH AUTHORITIES TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED. THE SAME FACTUAL POSITION CONTINUES HEREIN AS WELL SINCE THE RELEVANT CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR TRUST S ACCOUNT S ARE NOWHERE PRODUCED BEFORE US WH ERE THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO BE SERVING. WE AFFIRM LOWER APPELLATE FINDINGS ACCORDINGLY . THIS GROUND IS REJECTED . ITA 284/RJT/2015 PARTLY SUCCEEDS. 16. ASSESSEE APPEALS ITA 280 AND 281/RJT/2015 ARE ALLOWED, ITA 282/RJT/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES, ITA 283/RJT/2015 IS DISMISSED AND 284/RJT/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED . ORDERED ACCORDINGLY ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 22 - 01 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - (PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 22 /01/2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT