The ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar V. M/s. Madhav Enterprise Pvt.Ltd., Bhavnagar

ITA 2910/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 63238 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K SINGH
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL C HATURVEDI, A.M.) I.T. A. NO. 2910/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEA R: 2006-07) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(2), BHAVNAGAR. (APPELLANT) VS. M/S. MADHAV ENTERPRISE PVT. LTD., 347 MADHAV HILL, WAGHAWADI ROAD, BHAVNAGAR-374002. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AABCM 4322K APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.K. SINGH, SR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 20- 09- 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14-12-2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE DELETION OF PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDITIONAL C.I.T., RANG E-1, BHAVNAGAR ON 9-4- 2009 U/S. 271E OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006-07. THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND READS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LD. CIT (A)-XX, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE PENALTY OF RS./15,92,940/- LEVIED B Y THE A.O. U/S. 271E ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 2 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATIN G THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE A.O. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE ORDERS AR E AS UNDER:- 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN T HE CITY OF BHAVNAGAR. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DOING VARIOUS PROJECTS AT DIFFERE NT SITES DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONSTRUCTED TWO COMMERCIAL/RESIDEN TIAL PROJECTS DURING THE PAST 5 YEARS AND SOLD TOTAL 264 UNITS IN THOSE TWO PROJECTS. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID CERTAIN DEPOSITS EXCEEDING RS.2 0,000/- OTHERWISE THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES TO DIFFERENT PARTIES AND THE AGGREGATE CREDIT AMOUNT OF REPAYMENT WAS RS.15,92,940/- A.O. WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ACT OF REPAYING THE DEPOSIT OTHERWISE THAN BY A CCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES RESULTED INTO VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 269T OF THE ACT ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR REPAYMENT BY BEARER CHEQUES. THE ASSESSE E INTERALIA SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD RECEIVED EARNEST MONEY FROM THE CUSTOME RS FOR BOOKING OF FLAT/OFFICE/SHOP PREMISES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IT HAD SOLD 264 UNITS IN THE TWO PROJECTS AND HAD RETURNED THE EARNEST MO NEY ONLY TO 18 PARTIES. THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE WAS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS AND WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY T HE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE EARNEST MONEY RECEIVED BY IT DOES NOT FALL UNDE R THE HEAD LOAN OR ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 3 DEPOSIT AND ACCORDINGLY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T ARE NOT APPLICABLE AND THEREFORE PENALTY U/S.271E IS ALSO NOT LEVIABLE . THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED CONFIRMATORY LETTERS. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE A.O. HE OBSERVED THAT ALMOST AL L THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE MONEYS HAVE BEEN RETURNED HAVE BEEN PAID BY BEA RER CHEQUE INSTEAD OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. FURTHER ON VERIFICATION O F THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT A.O. OBSERVED THAT CASH HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN AND THE NARRATION MENTIONED WAS TO CASH SELF OR TO CASH. HE WAS T HUS OF THE VIEW THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO REPAYMENTS VIOLATE D THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T. AS THE ASSESSEE HAD REPAID THE LOAN O THER THAN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, THE A.O. VIDE ORDER DATED 9-4-2009 L EVIED PENALTY OF RS.15,92,940/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSE SSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 5. BEFORE CIT (A), ASSESSEE MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIO NS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, CIT (A ) DELETED THE PENALTY BY HOLDING AS UNDER:- 2.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT AND HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THRO UGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDER. THE APPE LLANT IS AN ENTERPRISE CONSTRUCTING SEVERAL BUILDINGS LIKE, FLA TS, SHOPS, OFFICE ETC. DURING THE LAST FIVE YEARS, THE APPELLANT HAS CONST RUCTED TWO PROJECTS. THE TOTAL UNITS CONSTRUCTED BY THE APPELLANT ARE 26 4 INCLUDING FLATS, SHOPS, OFFICES, ETC. FOR THESE PROJECTS, THE APPELL ANT USED TO TAKE EARNEST MONEY FOR BOOKING OF FLATS, SHOP, OFFICE ET C FROM THE INTERESTED PARTIES AND IT HAS ALMOST ALLOTTED EVERY PERSONS/PARTIES, THE OFFICE/SHOP/FLATS, THEY BOOKED WITH THE APPELLANT. THE LD. A.R. HAS CLARIFIED THAT THE AMOUNT WHICH WERE REPAID TO THE PARTIES, WERE REFLECTED AS ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WAS ACCORDINGLY REPORTED AS ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS IN THE AUDIT ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 4 REPORT PREPARED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT FOR THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE LD. A.R. ALSO PLACED BEFORE ME A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING COPY OF ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE BOOKING ADVANCE WERE RETURNED, STATING THAT THE SAME WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ADDL. CIT. ONLY 25 PARTIES WER E REFUNDED THEIR ADVANCE MONEY (WITHOUT INTEREST) BECAUSE OF VARIOUS REASONS. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269SS ARE APPLICABLE WHERE LOAN OR DEPOSIT HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED OR REPAID OTHERWISE THAN ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUE. HERE, CUSTOMERS HAVE GIVEN EARNEST MONEY (BOOKING A DVANCE) FOR PURCHASE OF A SHOP/OFFICE/FLAT. MANY OF THE ADVANCE S WERE RECEIVED BY CHEQUES AND IN SOME CASES BY CASH. CONSIDERING T HE NATURE OF THE REPAYMENT, WHICH DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATEGO RY OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269T R.W.S. 271E AR E NOT APPLICABLE TO THIS CASE. IT IS ALSO INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT WHIL E ACCEPTING THE ADVANCE MONEY, IN SOME OF THE CASES, THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED THE SAME IN CASH EXCEEDING RS.20,000/- WHICH WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE RELEVANT TIME BUT T HE A.O. HAS NOT APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271D OF THE ACT. THE A.O. HAS CONSIDERED THE ADVANCE-MONEY TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT AS RETURN OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT WHICH IS ACTUALLY NOT THE FACT IN T HIS CASE. IT CANNOT BE TERMED AS DEPOSITS AS HELD BY THE A.O. BECAUSE THE SAME WERE ADVANCE-MONEY AND WERE REFUNDED TO THE PARTIES WITH OUT INTEREST. HAD THERE BEEN ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT, THE APPELLANT C ERTAINLY WOULD HAVE PAID INTEREST ON IT WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE . MOREOVER, THERE IS NO BAR IN THE ACT AGAINST ACCEPTING THE CASH FOR SA LE OF AN IMMOVABLE ASSET. IN THIS CASE, IT IS ALSO NOT THE FACT THAT T HE ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS HAVE BEEN CONVERTED INT O LOAN OR DEPOSIT AND HENCE, THE CASE-LAW RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT IN THE CASE OF SUNFLOWER BUILDERS (P) LTD. VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.623/PN/1995 OF PUNE ITAT. IS ALSO APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT FAC TS OF THE CASE. FURTHER, THE A.O. HAS NOT COMMENTED ON THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PENALTY PROC EEDINGS AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FULL FACTS HAS IMPOSED PENALTY ONL Y BECAUSE THE REFUNDS WERE MADE BY THE BEARER CHEQUES. FROM THE A BOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE C ASE-LAWS CITED BY THE APPELLANT, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY OF RS.15,92,940/- U/S. 271E WHICH IS HEREBY CANCELLED. ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 5 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT (A) THE DEPARTMENT IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269T OF THE ACT BY REPAYING THE AMOUNT BY MODE OTHER THAN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE/BANK DRAFTS TO VARIOUS PE RSONS. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT TOTAL RS.15,92,940/- WAS RETURNED TO DIFFERENT PERSONS AND ALMOST ALL THE PERSONS WERE REPAID THE AMOUNT BY BE ARER CHEQUES INSTEAD ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. THE RELEVANT BANK ACCOUNT AL SO REVEALED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH. THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269T OF THE ACT A ND THEREFORE THE A.O. HAD RIGHTLY LEVIED THE PENALTY. THE LD. D.R. FURTH ER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT SO RETURNED WAS IN THE NATURE OF DEPOSIT AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT I T WAS IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISIO N IN THE CASE OF CHAUBEY OVERSEAS CORPORATION VS. CIT (2008) 303 ITR -9 (ALL .) AND THE CASE OF BHALOTIA ENGINEERING WORKS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (2005) 275 ITR 399 (JHAR). HE THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENALTY U/S. 271E AND URGED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O. BE UPHELD. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS A REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDIN G COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. IT IS AN ESTABLISHED SYSTEM IN THE FIELD OF CONSTRUCTION THAT THE CUSTOMER PAYS THE EARNEST MONEY WHILE BOOK ING A FLAT AND PAYS REMAINING AMOUNT IN INSTALLMENTS. MANY A TIMES IT HAPPENS THAT A BUYER AFTER BOOKING A FLAT AND AFTER GIVING EARNEST MONEY SUBSEQUENTLY CANCELS THE DEAL DUE TO VARIOUS REASONS AND IN SUCH A CASE, THE ADVANCE MONEY ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 6 RECEIVED FROM THE BUYER IS RETURNED. DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE RETURNED THE ADVANCE PAYMENT OF RS.15, 92,940/- TO 25 BUYERS DUE TO CANCELLATION OF THE BOOKING OUT OF TO TAL 264 UNITS SOLD. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FU RNISHED THE COPIES OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTIES TO WHOM THE EARNEST MONEY WA S RETURNED. HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGE 137 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER B OOK COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTE D THAT THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS WAS SHOWN IN THE BALANC E SHEET UNDER THE HEAD ADVANCE FROM CUSTOMERS SINCE 2000-01. THE AS SESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE EARNEST MONEY IN CASH AS WELL AS BY CH EQUES. THE RECEIPT OF ADVANCE MONEY IN CASH IN THE PAST HAS NOT BEEN DISP UTED BY THE REVENUE. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE TERM AMOUN T OF DEPOSIT HAS BEEN DEFINED U/S. 269T AS LOAN OR DEPOSIT WHICH IS REPAY ABLE AFTER NOTICE OR REPAYABLE AFTER THE PERIOD. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE EARNEST MONEY WITH THE CONDITION TO RE PAY AFTER AN INTERVAL OF TIME. LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE VARIOUS C IRCULARS ISSUED BY THE BOARD EXPLAINS AND CLARIFY THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S EC. 269T WERE INTRODUCED WITH A VIEW TO COUNTERING THE VARIOUS DEVISED ADOPT ED BY THE TAX EVADERS FOR EXPLAINING UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF OR INTRODUCING THEIR UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE FORM OF LOANS AND D EPOSIT AND IT WAS INTRODUCED FOR COUNTERING THE MAJOR ECONOMIC EVIL OF PROLIFERATION OF BLACK MONEY ETC. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ALL THE EARN EST MONEY RECEIVED STANDS FULLY EXPLAINED AND ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTME NT IN THE YEARS IN WHICH THEY WERE RECEIVED. FURTHER THE PARTIES WHO H AVE GIVEN EARNEST MONEY HAVE CONFIRMED HAVING GIVEN SO. THE LD. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE MONEY WAS REFUNDED AND NO INTEREST WAS PAID ON THE SAME. ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 7 THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KAILASH CHANDRA DEEPAK KUMAR (2009) 317 ITR 351 (ALL.). HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. SHIV ENTERPRISE IN (ITA NO.2911/AHD/2009 ORDER DATED 14-10-2011) WHEREIN THE PENALTY WAS DELETED. THE LD. A.R. THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269T ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E PRESENT CASE AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 271E CANNOT BE LE VIED. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL; SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDING PROPERTIES AT VARIOUS SITE S. THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD 264 UNITS IN HIS PROJECT AND IN THE CASE OF 18 PART IES THE AMOUNT AGGREGATING TO RS.15,92,940/- WAS RETURNED TO THE P ARTIES IN CASH. IT IS A FACT THAT THE AMOUNT RETURNED REPRESENTED THE EARNE ST MONEY RECEIVED BY IT ON SALE OF UNITS. THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED THE AD VANCE RECEIVED IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE EARLIER YEARS. THE ADVANCES RECEIVED ALSO INCLUDED RECEIPT IN CASH. THE AMOUNTS REFUNDED DID NOT INCLUDE ANY INTEREST. 10. IN THE CASE OF THE CIT VS. RUGMINI RAM RAGAV SP INNERS P. LTD. (2008) 304 ITR 417 HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE PENALTY U/S. 271E IS NOT AUTOMATIC AND IS TO BE LEVIED ONLY IN T HE ABSENCE OF REASONABLE CAUSE. THE RATIONALE BEHIND PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS AND 269T IS TO PREVENT TAX EVASION, I.E. THE LAUNDERING OF CONCEAL ED INCOME BY THE PARTIES IN THE GUISE OF CASH LOANS OR DEPOSITS IN OR OUTSID E THE ACCOUNTS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T THEREFORE HAVE APPLICATION ONLY IN A ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 8 LIMITED WAY IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS OR LOANS. WHEN I T IS NEITHER DEPOSIT NOR LOAN, THE [PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS AND 269T HAV E NO APPLICATION AT ALL. 11. THE TERM LOAN OR DEPOSIT AS PER EXPLANATION TO SECTION 269T MEANS ANY LOAN OR DEPOSIT OF MONEY WHICH IS REPAYABLE AFT ER NOTICE OR REPAYABLE AFTER A PERIOD. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE AD VANCE MONEY/EARNEST MONEY WAS NOT ACCEPTED WITH ANY PRE-CONDITIONS OF R EPAYMENT ON OR AFTER AN INTERVAL OF TIME. CIT (A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING TH AT CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF REPAYMENT THE AMOUNT RETURNED DOES NOT FALL UNDE R THE NARRATION OF LOAN OR DEPOSIT. FURTHER HE HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING TH AT THE ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS HAS NOT BEEN CONVERTED INTO LOAN OR DEPOSIT. HE HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN SOME CASES THE ASSE SSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE ADVANCE MONEY IN CASH IN EXCESS OF RS.20,000/- WHICH WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF A.O BUT A.O. HAD NOT APPLIED THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 271D OF THE ACT. HE HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THERE IS NO BAN I N THE ACT AGAINST ACCEPTING CASH FOR SALE OF AN IMMOVEABLE ASSET. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ADVANCE IS FOR PURCHASE OF SHOP/PREMISES WHICH IS A CCEPTED ASSET. CIT (A) HAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT A.O. HAD NOT COMMENTED ON THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF P ENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FULL FACTS A.O. HAS LEVIED PENALTY ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT THE REFUNDS WERE MADE BY THE CHEQUES. N OTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FIND INGS OF CIT (A) FURTHER THE CASES LAWS RELIED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALSO DISTI NGUISHABLE ON FACTS. 12. IN THE CASE OF SHIV ENTERPRISES (ITA NO.291/AHD /2009 ORDER DATED 14-10-2011), THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH RELYING ON THE C BDT CIRCULAR NO.387 ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 9 DATED 6-7-1984 HELD RECEIVING ADVANCE AND RE-PAYMEN T OF ADVANCES IS A BUSINESS TRANSACTION. PROVISIONS OF SEC. 269SS IS C ONFINED TO LOANS AND DEPOSITS ONLY AND DOES NOT EXTEND TO PURCHASE/SALE TRANSACTION. 13. IN VIEW OF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND RELYING ON THE DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SHIV ENTERPRISE (SUPR A), WE AGREE WITH THE FINDING OF CIT(A) AND WE ARE OF THE VIEWS THAT NO I NTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND WE THUS UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14- 12- 2012. SD/- SD/- (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) XX, AHMEDABAD. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD ITA NO 2910/ AHD/2009. . ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2006- 07 . 10 1.DATE OF DICTATION 5 - 10 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 29 / 11/ 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S - -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT - -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S - -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK - -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER