The Income tax Office, Ward-6(4)., Ahmedabad V. M/s. Kamal Process, Ahmedabad

ITA 2860/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 286020514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 20-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SEWAK
• Assessee Lawyers: URVASHI SODHANA R
• Keywords: Deemed dividend

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.2860/AHD/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) THE ITO WARD-6(4) AHMEDABAD / VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS OPP.ARJUN WAY BRIDGE PIRANA ROAD PIPLAJ AHMEDABAD 382 315 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADFK 3017 E ( ' / APPELLANT ) .. ( #' / RESPONDENT ) ' $ / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SEWAK, SR.DR #' % $ / RESPONDENT BY : MS. URVASHI SODHAN, AR &'( % ) / DATE OF HEARING 12/08/2015 *+, % ) / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/09/2015 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XI, AHMEDABA D [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 22/10/2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EAR (AY) 2009-10. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APP EAL:- ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DE LETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S.2(22)(E) OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,88,065/-. II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,08,041/- MADE OUT OF INTEREST EXPE NSES U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. III) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN HOLD ING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ERRED IN REJECTING THE BOOK R ESULT EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED QUANTITATIVE D ETAILS OF RAW MATERIAL, FINISHED GOODS AND SHRINKAGE/WASTAGE AND HAD NOT MAINTAINED STOCK REGISTER. IV) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.33,59,168/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPR ESSION OF PRODUCTION. V) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,33,112/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN G.P. RATIO. VI) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPH ELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. VII) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD.C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 30/12/2011, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80IB OF THE ACT OF RS .96,966/-, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND OF RS.2,25,678/-, DISALL OWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.36(1)(III) AND ADDITION OF SUPPRESSION OF PRODU CTION OF RS.33,59,168/-. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THESE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWA NCES, PREFERRED AN ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. THE LD.CIT (A), OUT OF ADDITION OF RS.2,25,678/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND, D ELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,88,065/-, DELETED DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.3,08,041/- AND ALSO DELETED THE ADDITION OF SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCT ION OF RS.33,59,168/-. THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO HELD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE L D.CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION O F ADDITION OF RS.1,88,065/-. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. HE SUPPORTED A ND RELIED UPON THE FINDING OF THE AO. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT LD.CI T(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN FINDING ON FAC T IN PARA-3.2 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - 3.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAD DISCUSSED IN DETAIL ABOUT THE BASIC CONDIT IONS AS LAID DOWN U/S.2(22)(E) AND HOW THE SAME ARE FULFILLED IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. SUCH DISCUSSION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE A.O. IN PARA 3 .2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT CONTENDED THAT LENDING MONEY WAS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF BUSINESS OF M/S. K.V. FASHIONS PRINT PVT. LTD. IN VIEW OF THIS THE A PPELLANT CONTENDED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) ARE NOT ATTRACTED I N THIS CASE. TAKING THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS IN VIEW I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGRE E WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF ID. A.R. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) O NLY EXCEPTION IS THAT FOR ANY ADVANCE OR LOAN GIVEN IN THE ORDINARY COURS E OF BUSINESS OR WHERE THE LENDING OF MONEY IS A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE APPELLANT HAS FAIL ED TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT M/S. K.V. FASHIO N PRINTS PVT. LTD. HAD GIVEN ADVANCE TO THE APPELLANT IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS OR WHETHER GIVING ADVANCE WAS SUBSTANTIAL PART OF ITS BUSINESS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, I AM INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ID. A.O. THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) ARE ATTRACTED IN THE CAS E OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, I AM NOT INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE QUANTU M OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ID.A.O. HE HAS TAKEN ACCUMULATED PROFITS OF M/S. K.V. FASHIONS PVT. LTD. AS ON 31.3.2009. PERUSAL OF COPY OF ACCOU NT OF M/S. K.V. FASHIONS PVT. LTD. IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT I. E. M/S. KAMAL PROCESS REVEALS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE LAST IN STALLMENT OF RS.13,00,000/- ON 23.10.2008. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E) THE ACCUMULATED PROFITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF 2(22)(E) IS TO BE TAKEN AS ON 23.10.2008 AND NOT AS ON 31.3.2009 AS ADOPTED BY TH E ID. A.O. THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD FURTHER INDICATE THAT M/S. K.V. FASHIONS PVT. LTD. STARTED ITS BUSINESS FROM 1.10.2008. DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION M/S. K.V. FASHIONS PVT. LTD. HAS EARN ED A PROFIT OF RS.2,25,678/-. THIS WAY IT CAN BE SAID THAT M/S. K. V. FASHIONS HAS EARNED A MONTHLY PROFIT OF RS. 37,613/- (RS.2,25,67 8 / 6). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT CAN BE SAID THAT M/S. K.V. FASHIONS PVT. LTD. WAS HAVING ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS.37,613/- AT THE END OF OCT OBER, 2008. THIS WAY THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT AS ON 23.10.08 CAN AT THE MO ST BE TAKEN AT RS. 37,613/-. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, I HOLD THAT M /S. K.V. FASHIONS PVT. LTD. WAS HAVING ACCUMULATED PROFIT OF RS. 37,613/- AT THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF LOAN OF RS.13,00,000/- ON 23.10.2008 AND ACCUMULATED ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - PROFITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.37,613/- CAN ONLY BE TA XED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22)(E). ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.37,613/- IS CONFIRMED. THE APPELLANT WILL GET A RELIEF OF RS. 1,88,065/- (RS. 2,25,678 - 37,613). THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4.1. THE AFORESAID FINDING ON FACT OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE AN Y REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPH ELD. THUS, GROUND NO.1 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 5. SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.3,08,041/-. THE LD.SR.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING TH E ADDITION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING INTEREST ON PARTNERS CAPITAL AS WELL AS SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS. THEREFORE, INTEREST FREE FUND IS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. THE AS SESSEE HAS PAID INTEREST OF 2,93,035/- ON SECURED AND UNSECURED LOANS AND 15,006/- ON PARTNERS CAPITAL. THE TOTAL INTEREST PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IS 3,08,041/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN LOANS AND ADVANCES OF 1,17,30,982/-. ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 6 - 5.1. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDING OF THE AO IS MISPLACED. SHE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFICIE NT INTEREST-FREE FUNDS. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE FINDING OF THE AO THAT HE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED A NY NEXUS BETWEEN THE INTEREST-BEARING BORROWINGS AND INTEREST-FREE LENDI NGS. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING IN P ARA-4.7 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GOT HUGE INTEREST-FREE FUNDS OF RS.5,12,26,212/- [RS.4,84,86,738/- AS SUNDRY CREDITORS, RS.11,63,55 1/- AS ADVANCES FROM CUSTOMERS AND RS.15,75,923/- AS UNPAID EXPENSE] DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THIS FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NO T CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF T HE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APP EAL IS REJECTED. 7. THIRD GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST REJECTION OF B OOK OF ACCOUNT. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT J USTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT COLUMN NO.9(B) & (C), THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAI NTAINED AND ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 7 - EXAMINED DOES NOT INDICATE MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REG ISTER BY THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IN 3CD REPORT, THE AUDITOR HAS REMARKED AS UND ER: BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE IS OF JOB-WORK. AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, DUE TO NATURE OF BUSINESS MAINTENANCE OF QUANTITATIVE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF RAW-MATERIAL EXCEPT CLOTH ARE NOT FEASIBLE. HENCE, IT IS NOT BEEN MAINTAINED AND INFORMATION UN DER THIS CLAUSE IS NOT GIVEN. IN RESPECT OF YIELD OF FINISHED PROD UCTS, THE INFORMATION IS GIVEN TO THE EXTENT AVAILABLE. 7.1. THEREFORE, THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOK OF ACCOUNT AS THE TRUE PROFIT CO ULD NOT BE COMPUTED. 7.2. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE O PPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.SR.DR AND PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO NATURE OF BUS INESS, IT WAS CERTIFIED BY THE AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MAINTENANCE OF STOCK REGISTER WAS NOT POSSIBLE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT UPHELD THE BOOK OF ACCOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF SALES AND PURCHASE, QUANTITATI VE MONTHLY SUMMARY OF GREY CLOTH AND FINISHED CLOTH SALES. THE DETAILS OF INCOME AND EXPENDITURE WERE ALSO AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS EITHER IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OR IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 8 - BY THE APPELLANT. THE LD.CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT FOUND ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS EITHER IN THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS OR IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.CIT(A) RELIED ON THE JUDGE MENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. VIKRAM PLASTIC (239 ITR 161-GUJ.). THE AO HAS PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE BOOK OF ACCOUNTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE YIELD SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECT SINCE IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN YIELD AT 96.63% FOR AY 2010-11. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT ED THE FACT THAT THE CERTIFICATE DATED 12/11/2011 WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE BY ONE SHRI G.G.SHROFF, B.SC. (HONS) M.SC. TECH. (BOM.). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ENCLOSED THE TEST REPORT DATED 8/12/2011 OF AHMEDAB AD TEXTILE INDUSTRIES RESEARCH ASSOCIATION (ATIRA). THE AO HAS NOT COND UCTED ANY ENQUIRY ON THE FACTS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) , SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NO.3 OF REVENUES APPEAL I S REJECTED. 9. FOURTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.33,59,168/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF PR ODUCTION. THE LD.SR.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 9.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE R ELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 9 - 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT IN THE S UBSEQUENT YEAR, THE YIELD WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AT 96.63%, W HEREAS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE YIELD AT 94.70%. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT AS UNDER:- THE COST OF SUPPRESSED PRODUCTION AT THE RATE OF R S. 211.9 PER METER AS ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IS APPARENTLY WRONG. THE FAC TS AVAILABLE ON RECORDS INDICATE THAT THE APPELLANT MANUFACTURED 7, 77,184 MTRS OF CLOTH ON HIS OWN ACCOUNT. THIS CLOTH WAS SOLD FOR A SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,86,31,031/-. THIS WAY THE AVERAGE SELLING PRIC E OF CLOTH MANUFACTURED BY THE APPELLANT WORKS OUT TO RS.23.96 PER METER (18631031 / 777184). THUS THE COST OF PRODUCTION OF CLOTH CANNOT BE MORE THAN RS. 23.96 PER METER. IT IS SEEN THAT THE A.O. HAS TAKEN COST OF PRODUCTION AT RS.17,39,12,483 [COST OF RAW MATERIAL OF RS. 12,56,95,265/- + DIRECT MANUFACTURING EXPENSES OF R S. 4,82,17,218/-]. THESE EXPENSES INCLUDE, EXPENSES INCURRED ON JOB WO RK ALSO. SINCE, IN THE CASE OF JOB WORK, CLOTH IS NOT PRODUCED, CONSID ERING THESE EXPENSES FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION HAS G IVEN AN ERRONEOUS FIGURE. THESE FACTS, CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE A.O. HAD ADOPTED ERRONEOUS FIGURES FOR WORKING OUT THE VALUE OF SUPPRESSION WH ICH HAS RESULTED INTO DISPROPORTIONATE OR UNREALISTIC VALUE OF SUPPRESSIO N. 10.1. THE AFOREMENTIONED FINDING OF THE LD.CIT(A) I S NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE R OF THE LD.CIT(A), SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, GROUND NO.4 OF REVEN UES APPEAL IS REJECTED. ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 10 - 11. FIFTH GROUND OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETION OF A DDITION OF RS.24,33,112/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FALL IN G.P. RATI O. THE LD.SR.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS STATED IN HIS ORD ER THAT SINCE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SUPPRESSION OF PRODUCTION AN D DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST U/S.36(1)(III) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN MADE, T HEREFORE THE GROUND RAISED IS ILL-CONCEIVED. WE FIND THAT THE AO, HOWE VER, PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF RS.24,33,112/- AND DECIDED NOT TO MAKE SEPARATE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF FALL IN GP RATE. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND IS NOT ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND, HENCE, REJECTED. 12. GROUND NOS.6 & 7 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE WHICH RE QUIRE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON WEDNESDAY, THE 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/ 09 /2015 0)..& , '.&../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.2860/AHD /2012 ITO VS. M/S.KAMAL PROCESS ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 11 - !'#$%&%# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 123 4 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD 5. 5'6 &23 , ) 23 , , 1 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 689 :( / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, #5 //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 24.9.2015 (DICTATION-PAD 15 + PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..28.9.15 3. OTHER MEMBER... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR 6. PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.30.9.15 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.9.15 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER