Smt. Monaben Sureshsinhji Desai, Ahmedabad V. The ACIT.,Circle-10, Ahmedabad

ITA 2901/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1791 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 4 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: G A MEHTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 14A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2901/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT. MONABEN SURESHSINHJI DESAI, 361, PATDI HOUSE, NR. GUJARAT COLLEGE, PO ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD-380006 PAN : AAVPD 9394 H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ACIT, CIRCLE-10, AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.A. MEHTA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. DR. !'#$ / DATE OF HEARING : 08/04/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08/04/2016 / O R D E R PER MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 12.09.2011, PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2008-09. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 WAS FRAMED ON 24.11.2010 BY ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-10, AHMEDABAD. T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.5,01,175/- U/S 57(III) OF I.T. ACT AS PER THE FINDING IN PARA 2.1 OF THE APPEAL ORDER WHICH IS NOT VALID IN LAW AND WITHOUT CONTROVERTING THE FOLL OWING FACTS:- (I) THE INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.5,01,175/- DURING THE YE AR WAS CLAIMED U/S 57(III) OF I.T. ACT ON BORROWINGS OF RS.37,63,013/- A S ON 01.04.2007 WHICH WERE UTILIZED FOR MAKING THE ADVANCES OF RS.3 2,91,677/- AS ON ITA NO. 2901/AHD/2011 SMT. MONABEN SURESHSINHJI DESAI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2008-09 2 01.04.2007 ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS.4,04,868/- WAS E ARNED DURING THE YEAR WHICH WAS TAXED U/S 57(III) OF I.T. ACT. (II) THUS IT WAS ESTABLISHED THAT THERE WAS DIRECT NEXUS AND CO-RELATION BETWEEN INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.5,01,175/- AND INTER EST INCOME OF RS.4,04,868/- WHICH WAS TAXED U/S 57(III) OF I.T. AC T. 2. THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ER RED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,600/- BEING BO NUS PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES U/S 36(1)(II) AS PER PARA 3 OF THE APPEAL ORDER WHICH IS NOT VALID IN LAW. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTERE ST OF RS.40,288/- CHARGED U/S 234B OF I.T. ACT. 2. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS, AS CULLED OUT FROM THE REC ORDS, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN CHEMICALS. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2008, DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.12,60,800/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED INTE REST EXPENSE OF RS.5,21,887/- AGAINST INTEREST INCOME OF RS.4,12,79 2/- SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THEREBY CLAIMING LOSS OF RS.1,09,095/-. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE C LAIM OF EXPENSE WITH REFERENCE TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57(III) OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE ONLY FILED DETAILS FOR THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOAN TAKEN DURING T HE YEAR AND WAS ABLE TO JUSTIFY ONLY THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.20,712/- A S THE SAME WAS RELATED TO THE LOAN TAKEN DURING THE YEAR. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FRAMED ASSESSMENT ORDER BY ALLOWING INTEREST EXPENSES ONLY TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.20,712/- AND DISALLOWED THE REMAINING INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS .5,01,175/- (RS.5,21,887/- MINUS RS.20,712/-) AND ACCORDINGLY A DDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. ASSESSING O FFICER ALSO MADE TWO ADDITIONS FOR RS.11,600/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANC E OUT OF BONUS PAYMENTS AND RS.2,144/- FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 14A OF THE ACT AND IN TOTAL, AFTER ITA NO. 2901/AHD/2011 SMT. MONABEN SURESHSINHJI DESAI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2008-09 3 MAKING ADDITION OF RS.5,14,919/-, INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASSESSED AT RS.17,75,799/-. 3. THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ) BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED AND HER APPEAL WAS DISMISSED. 4. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. 5. FIRST, WE WILL TAKE GROUND NO.1, WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF R S.5,01,175/- U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT TAKEN ON WHICH INTEREST OF RS.5,01,175/- HAS BEEN P AID WAS USED FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME OF RS.4,04,868/- AND ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE NO. 5 TO 8 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF INTEREST PAID & RECEIVED FOR FY 2004-05 TO FY 2007-08 AND ALSO DETAILS OF OPENING BALANCE, CLO SING BALANCE AND INTEREST RECEIVED/INTEREST PAID FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AR E SHOWN. LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT MOST OF TH E LOANS WERE TAKEN IN THE PAST AND THEY WERE FURTHER ADVANCED FOR EARNING INTEREST INCOME AND THERE WAS A CLEAR NEXUS TO PROVE ON RECORD THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT ARE CORRECT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS GROUND IS AGAINST TH E DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAID OF RS.5,01,175/- U/S 57(III) OF THE ACT. WE F IND THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED FOLLOWING WHILE DENYING THE CL AIM OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,01,175./-. ITA NO. 2901/AHD/2011 SMT. MONABEN SURESHSINHJI DESAI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2008-09 4 4.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE. PROVISIONS OF SEC.57(III) OF THE ACT STIPULATES AS UNDER: 'ANY OTHER EXPENDITURE (NOT BEING IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE) LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME.' IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE PROVISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT T HE EXPENDITURE INCURRED SHALL BE WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR EARNING INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCES. EXCEPT FOR THE INTEREST PAID TO M/S. TRAGOPAN OILFIELD SERVICE S P. LTD. OF RS.20,712/- THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITU RE TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,01,175/- (RS.5,21,887/- MINUS RS.20,712/-) IS M ADE FOR THE PURPOSE OF EARNING OR MAKING THE INCOME. IN OTHER WORDS, THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT CO- RELATE THE SOURCE OF INCOME WITH THE EXPENDITURE IN CURRED AGGREGATING TO RS.5,01,175/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRO VE THAT THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED WERE WHOLLY & EXCLUSIVELY FOR EARNING INCO ME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SEC.57(III) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENDITU RE OF RS.5,01,175/- OUT OF INTEREST INCOME IS DISALLOWED AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 2.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL AND THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE CLAIM OF INTEREST EXPENSES O F RS. 5,21,887/- WAS MADE AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME OUT OF WHICH EXPENSES O F RS. 20,712/- WERE ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS RELATABLE TO THE INTEREST INCOME. THE LD. COUNSEL COULD NOT JUSTIFY THAT THE INTEREST SO PAID WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 4,12,792/-. THE PROVISI ONS OF SEC. 57(III) SAY THAT THE EXPENDITURE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXC LUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING INCOME MAY BE DEDUCTED. THE LE GISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAS USED THE WORD 'LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME' BY USING THE WORD 'WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY', THE LEGISLATURE CAST A DUTY ON THE AS SESSEE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE EXPENDITURE MADE WAS TO EARN INCOME AND NO FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PROVE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT THE INTEREST E XPENSES OF RS. 5,01,175/- WERE LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FO R THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS. 4,12,792/-. R ELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PUNJAB STATE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION [2009] 317 ITR 388 (PUNJ. & ITA NO. 2901/AHD/2011 SMT. MONABEN SURESHSINHJI DESAI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2008-09 5 HAR.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT 'ON READING THE PROVIS IONS TO SECTION 57(III), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE TERM 'PURPOSE' REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 57, FOR THE INSTANT CONTROVERSY, WAS RELATABLE TO THE ACTIV ITY OF THE ASSESSEE IN EARNING INCOME BY EXTENDING LOANS TO ITS EMPLOYEES. INSOFAR AS THE DEDUCTION UNDER CLAUSE (III) OF SECTION 57 IS CONCERNED, THE S AME IS RELATABLE ONLY TO EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE SAID 'PURPOSE'. IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND, IN FACT, COULD NOT BE ITS CLAIM THAT THE INTEREST BEING PAID BY IT TO NABARD WAS AN EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE 'PURPOS E' OF EARNING INTEREST INCOME. THUS, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE AL LOWED TO SET OFF THE INTEREST INCOME BEING DERIVED BY IT ON THE LOANS GIVEN FOR T HE WELFARE OF THE EMPLOYEES ENGAGED BY IT AGAINST THE INTEREST BEING PAID BY IT TO NABARD [PARA 5]'. IN VIEW THE LEGAL POSITION EXPLAINED IN THE AFORESAID DECISION AND CONSIDERING THE FACT OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.5,01,175/- CANNOT BE ALLOWED AGAINST THE INTERES T INCOME ASSESSABLE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THUS JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THESE INTEREST EXPENSES. THE FINDING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SUSTAINED AND THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTERE ST EXPENSES RS.5,01,175/- IS CONFIRMED. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORD INGLY DISMISSED. 9. ON GOING THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LOWER A UTHORITIES AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS MADE BY LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, WE ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL INTEREST PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE DURING FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 AT RS.5,21,887/-, THE ASSESS EE WAS ONLY ABLE TO JUSTIFY THE EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST PAID AT RS.20,712/- TO M/S. TRAGAPAN OILFIELD SERVICES PVT LTD ACCOUNT, AS THE LOAN OF RS. 20 LA C WAS TAKEN FROM M/S. TRAGAPAN OILFIELD SERVICES PVT LTD DURING THE YEAR ON INTEREST @ 6% AND WAS ADVANCED TO SURESHSINHJI P. DESAI @ 9% INTEREST . APART FROM THE INTEREST PAID TO M/S. TRAGAPAN OILFIELD SERVICES PV T LTDS ACCOUNT, THERE WERE FOUR OTHER PARTIES TO WHOM INTEREST WAS PAID, VIZ., TAPAN TRUST AT RS.5,566/-, KIRJISINHJI TRUST AT RS.63,915/-, SURES HSINHJI P. DESAI AT RS.66,271/- AND TAPAN S. DESAI AT RS.3,65,523/-. D URING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNAB LE TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS.5,01,175/- NOR HE HAS BEEN A BLE TO DEMONSTRATE BY FURNISHING THE DETAILS OF PRECEDING YEARS IN WHICH THE LOAN WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND THE MOVEMENT OF FUND THEREAFTER TO THE PARTIES FROM WHOM ITA NO. 2901/AHD/2011 SMT. MONABEN SURESHSINHJI DESAI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2008-09 6 INTEREST HAS BEEN RECEIVED. HOWEVER, BEFORE US, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT IF AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN, NEXUS CAN BE PROVED. WE ALSO OBSERVE THAT SHRI TAPAN S. DESAI T O WHOM INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AT RS.3,65,5 23, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE LOAN OF RS.40,000/- HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM SHRI TAPAN S. DESAI DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AT AN INTEREST OF 9%, BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN ADVANCED TO M /S. SUNIDHI SECURITIES & FINANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES. T HIS RAISES A QUESTION THAT WHAT WAS THE ACTUAL USE IN THE PAST OF THE FUNDS RE CEIVED FROM SHRI TAPAN S. DESAI, BECAUSE MAJOR AMOUNTS OF INTEREST EXPENDITUR E IS PERTAINING TO SHRI TAPAN S. DESAI WHICH IS SHOWN AT RS.3,65,523/-. I N THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WILL GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE NEXUS OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.5,01,175/- AS AGAINST THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.4,04,868/-, ALONGWITH PRODUCING DETAIL S OF MOVEMENT OF FUNDS IN THE YEARS IN WHICH LOAN WERE TAKEN AND WERE ADVA NCED FOR RECEIVING INTEREST, BECAUSE SECTION 57(III) ALLOWS THE ASSESS EE TO CLAIM ONLY THOSE EXPENDITURE WHICH IS LAID OUT OR EXPENDED WHOLLY AN D EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING OR EARNING SUCH INCOME SHOWN UNDE R THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF T HE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. NOW WE TAKE UP GROUND NO.2, WHEREIN THE ASSESSE E IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF RS.11,600/- BEING BONUS PAYMENT TO EMPLOYEES U/S 36(1)(II) OF T HE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER WENT THROUGH THE AUDITORS REPORT U/S 44AB OF THE ACT AND HE OBSERVE D THAT IN COLUMN NO.16(A) OF THE AUDITORS REPORT U/S 44AB IN FORM 3 CD WHICH RELATES TO PAYMENTS TO EMPLOYEES AS BONUS OR COMMISSION AS PRO FIT OR DIVIDEND IN ITA NO. 2901/AHD/2011 SMT. MONABEN SURESHSINHJI DESAI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2008-09 7 VIEW OF SECTION 36(1)(II) OF THE ACT, THE AMOUNT OF RS.11,600/- WAS MENTIONED. BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ADDED BACK TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THAT THE SUM OF RS.11,600/- NEEDS TO BE AD DED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED RS.11,600/-. 11. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ADDITION MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONFIRMED. 12. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 13. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RE FERRED TO PAGE NO.12 OF THE PAPER-BOOK, WHEREIN A LETTER HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 02.10.2010, CLARIFYING THAT THE AMOU NT MENTIONED AT COLUMN NO.16(A) AT RS.11,600/- WAS WRONGLY TYPED AT THE PL ACE OF ACTUAL AMOUNT WHICH STOOD AT RS.5800/-. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRE SENTATIVE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT TO BE DISALLOWED I S RS.5,800/- AND NOT RS.11,600/- AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION SHOULD BE S USTAINED ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,800/-. 14. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO CAN VERIFY FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE CORRECT NESS OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,800/-. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS GROUND RELATES TO DI SALLOWANCE OF RA.11,600/- MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BONUS P AYMENT, WHICH WAS SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT(A). WE FIND THAT LD. AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE HAS ITA NO. 2901/AHD/2011 SMT. MONABEN SURESHSINHJI DESAI VS. ITO FOR AY: 2008-09 8 REFERRED TO THE LETTER OF AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE D ATED 02.10.2010 APPEARING AT PAGE NO.12 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. WE ACCORDINGLY DECIDE TO DO THE SAME WITH THE DIREC TION THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD VERIFY THE ACTUAL AMOUNT S HOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.5,800/- WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND IF THE SA ME IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THEN THE ADDITION OF RS.11,600/- SHOULD BE SCALED D OWN TO RS.5,800/-. NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE RE -ADJUDICATING THIS MATTER. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 16. GROUND NO. 3 IS GENERAL IN NATURE. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 8 TH APRIL, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA K. YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (MANISH BORAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 08/04/2016 **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