Smt. Jayshree S. Jain, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2910/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9693 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 08-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANTONY PARIKH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

SMC-ITA NO. 2910/AHD/2016 JAYSHSHREE S JAIN VS. ITO AY : 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [ BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ITA NO. 2910/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 JAYSHREE S JAIN ............APPELLANT 6, SUGARWALA MARKET, SAKAR BAZAR, AHMEDABAD-380 002 [PAN : ABBPJ 6246 P] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER .......................RESPONDENT WARD 1(2)(2), AHMEDABAD APPEARANCES BY: VINIT MOONDRA, FOR THE APPELLANT ANTONY PARIKH, FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 29.06.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 20.09.2018 O R D E R 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT HA S CHALLENGED CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19 TH AUGUST 2016 PASSED BY THE BY THE CIT(A)-10, AHMEDA BAD, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GRIEVANCE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLO WS:- THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND F ACTS BY TREATING THE FOLLOWING TWO CREDITS. (I) SMT. NIDHI K. BASU - RS.1,50,000/- (II) SMT. JAGRUTI R. MODI RS.2,30,000/- WHEN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES FACTS THAT CONFIRMATION O F THE CREDITORS HAVE FILED ALONG WITH SOURCES OF DEPOSITS FROM THEIR BANK ACCO UNT. THAT BOTH THE CREDITS HAVE COME THROUGH BANKING CHA NNEL. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CASH CREDITS, INTER ALIA, FROM ONE SMT. JAGRU TI R. MODI (RS.2,30,000/-) AND FROM ONE SMT. NIDHI K. BUSA (RS.1,50,000/-). THE A MOUNT FROM BOTH THE PERSONS SMC-ITA NO. 2910/AHD/2016 JAYSHSHREE S JAIN VS. ITO AY : 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 6 WAS RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. SO FAR AS SM T. JAGRUTI MODI IS CONCERNED, THERE WERE THREE ENTRIES; ONE OF RS.80,000/- FROM H ER BANK ACCOUNT AND THE REMAINING TWO ENTRIES OF RS.1,30,000/- & RS.20,000/ - FROM M/S. P.D. TRADERS WHO HAD PAID ON HER BEHALF. AS REGARDS SMT. NIDHI K. B USA IS CONCERNED, THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM HER ACCOUNT BY CHEQUE. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT, AS REGARDS THE RECEIPT OF CHEQUE FROM M/S. P. D. TRADERS, IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO WHY THESE AMOUNTS WERE PAID BY M/S. P.D. TRADERS ON BEHALF OF SMT. MODI. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE DEPOSITORS HAVE NOT RESPONDED T O THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT OF SMT. BUSA DID NOT INSPIRE FAITH ABOUT HER CREDITWORTHINESS. HE THUS TREATED BOTH THESE ACCOUNTS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH ACCOUNTS, AND, RESULTANTLY MADE AD DITION OF RS.3,80,000/- TO THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN AP PEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. WHILE CONFIRMING T HE IMPUGNED ADDITION, THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS DETAILED ORDER OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 5. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT, THE MATE RIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE DISCUSSION UNDERSIGNED HAD WITH THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS WERE PERUSED AND CONSIDERED. THE SAME HAVE ALSO BEEN KEPT ON RECORD. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT IN CASE OF TWO UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLA NT DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO A Y. 2012-13. A LOAN OF RS 2 30,00 0/- WAS TAKEN FROM SMT JAGRUTI R. MODI AND A LOAN OF RS 1,50,000/- FROM SM T NEEDHI K. BUSA. THE AO HAS DISCUSSED IN DETAILS THE FACTS OF THE CASE W HICH ARE BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- THE CASE OF THE ASSESSES WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY FOR VERIFYING HER CLAIMS OF UNSECURED LOANS. THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMED TO HAVE TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.2,30,000/- FROM ONE SMT JAGRU TI R. MODI AND ANOTHER LOAN OF RS.1,50,000 FROM ONE SMT. NEEDHI K. BUSA, AMONG OTHERS. VIDE THE NOTICE U/S. 142(1) DATED 22-11-201 4, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF ALL THE UNSEC URED LOANS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY HIM DURING THE YEAR U NDER ASSESSMENT, WHETHER SQUARED UP OR NOT. IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE WA S GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES TO PROVE THAT ANY SUCH LOAN WAS REALL Y TAKEN BY HER FROM SMF JAGRUTI R. MODI AND FROM SMT. NEEDHI K. BU SA DESPITE ALL POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROV IDE THE REVENUE WITH THE BASIC CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SMT. NEEDHI K. BUSA. SIMILARLY, AS REGARDS, SOURCE OF LOAN OF RS.2,30,00 0/- FROM SMT. JAGRUTI R. MODI, THE ASSESSEE SUPPLIED THE COPIES O F BANK STATEMENT OF WHEREIN TRANSFER ENTRY DATED 08-06-2011 OF RS.80 ,000/- WAS THERE BUT WHOSE BANK STATEMENT IT PERTAINED TO WAS NOT AS CERTAINABLE AND FOR THE REMAINING RS.1,50,000/-, BANK STATEMENT OF ONE M/S.P.D. TRADERS WAS FURNISHED WHEREIN TWO TRANSFER ENTRIES OF RS.20,000/- AND RS.1,30,000/- ARE FOUND. WHAT IS THE RELATION B ETWEEN M/S. P D TRADERS AND SMT. JAGRUTI R. MODI IS NOT ASCERTAINAB LE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE SENT TO T HE ALLEGED SMC-ITA NO. 2910/AHD/2016 JAYSHSHREE S JAIN VS. ITO AY : 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 6 DEPOSITORS TWICE ONE ON 02-02-2015 AND 19-02-2015 A T THE ADDRESSES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT BOTH THE NOT ICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT IN BOTH THE CASES RETURNED UNSERVED AND WHEN THIS FACT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS S UBMITTED BY HER THAT BOTH THE ALLEGED DEPOSITORS WERE OUT OF STATIO N. HERE, IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT VIDE HER WRITTEN SUBMISSI ON DATED 10-03- 2015, THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THAT SMT. JAGRUTI R. MO DI IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE ALLEGED LOAN TRANSACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH SMT. NEEDHI K . BUSA AND SMT. NEEDHI K. BUSA REMAINED UNPROVED IN TERMS OF THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 106 OF THE EVI DENCE ACT AND SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961 WILL BE THAT APART FROM ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THE ASS ESSEE MUST ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AS WELL AS THE C REDITWORTHINESS OF HIS CREDITOR/LOANER/DEPOSITOR. NOW THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARE VISITED AND IT IS FOUND TH AT SECTION 68 EMPHASIZES - 'WHERE ANY SUM IF FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE ASSESSEE O FFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR.' IN THE INSTANT CASE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSME NT TOTAL AMOUNTS OF RS.3,80,000/- ARE FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE BUT SHE DID NOT OFFER PROPER, REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EXPLANATION AS REGARDS THE SAME. EXTERNAL ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY T HE REVENUE ALSO RESULTED IN NO-SERVICE OF THE NOTICES U/S 133( 6) SENT TO THE ALLEGED DEPOSITORS IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND F INDINGS, THE REVENUE HAS NO OPTION EXCEPT TO TREAT THE SO-CALLED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.3,80,000/- AS NON-GENUINE CASH CREDITS AND TR EAT THE SAME AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 1961 THEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS.3,80,000/- IS MADE U/S.68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C). 5.1 IT HAS CLEARLY BEEN OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT NO CONFIRMATIONS WHATSOEVER FROM THESE TWO LADIES WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. EVEN NOTICES ISSUED U/S. 13 3(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT RETURNED UN-SERVED IN BOTH THE CASES. THE N OTICES WERE SENT BY THE AO ON THE ADDRESSES GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. THIS FA CT WAS DULY BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT BY THE AO, IN REPLY TO WHICH, IT WAS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT BOTH THE DEPOSITORS WERE OUT OF STAT ION. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO EITHER FILE CONFIRMATION FROM T HESE TWO PARTIES OR PROVIDE SMC-ITA NO. 2910/AHD/2016 JAYSHSHREE S JAIN VS. ITO AY : 2012-13 PAGE 4 OF 6 CORRECT PRESENT ADDRESS, SO THAT ENQUIRIES COULD BE CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE COMPLETE IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD ADVANCED LOANS TO T HE APPELLANT. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE I DENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHO HAS ADVANCED LOANS DESPITE BEING GIVEN AMPLE OPPORT UNITIES BY THE AO. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO DISCHARGE IT'S ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THESE PERSONS. IT IS ALSO AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT BOTH THESE LADIE S WHO HAVE ADVANCED LOANS TO THE APPELLANT ARE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. EV EN IF THEY ARE NOT ASSESSED TO TAX, THE CONFIRMATION CAN STILL BE GIVE N BY THESE PERSONS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTI ON. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS GIVEN A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT NEEDHI K. BUSA MAINTAINED WITH BANK OF MAHARASHTRA. A PERUSAL OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT REVEALS THAT OTHER THAN THIS LOAN TRAN SACTION, THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT DURING THAT YEAR FOR THE PERIOD 22.10.2011 TO 23.12.2011 WAS NOT EVEN TOTALING TO RS 40,000/-. IN THAT ALSO, THERE IS AN ENTRY OF RS.35,000/-. IF THAT ENTRY IS NOT COUNTED, THE ONLY TRANSACTION IN THIS ACCOUNT IS RECEIPT OF DIVIDEND. THIS GOES ON TO PRO VE THAT SMT. NEEDHI K. BUSA DOES NOT HAVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS TO ADVANCE SUCH HUGE AMOUNT OF LOAN ESPECIALLY WHEN SHE IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX ALS O. MOREOVER, THERE IS ONE TRANSFER OF RS. 1,50,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT FROM 'MASTER NISHIT K.' ON 14-11-2011 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE AP PELLANT ON 26-11- 2011. NO ATTEMPT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT TO SUBMI T THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION OF DEPOSIT OF RS.1,50,000/- WHICH HAS A CTUALLY BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, TH E GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF THIS MONEY HAS ALSO NOT BEEN PROVED BY TH E APPELLANT. SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS NOT GIVEN THE CORRECT IDENTITY OF THI S PERSON, THE REVENUE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO VERIFY THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHIN ESS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IN THE ABSENCE OF CL EAR IDENTITY OF THE PERSON. THE ONUS TO PROVE THE IDENTITY CREDITWORTHI NESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS SHIFTS TO THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED BY HER EVEN AFTER BEING GIVEN AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES. THE REFORE, IT IS HELD THAT THE LOAN TAKEN FROM SMT. NEEDHI K. BUSA IS NOT GENUINE. 5.2 IN CASE OF SMT. JAGRUTI R MODI ALSO THE APPELLA NT COULD NOT FILE THE CONFIRMATION. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT SMT. JAGRUTI R . MODI IS ALSO NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED A LETTER FROM KAUSH IK D. BUSA (HUF) STATING THAT HE HAS GIVEN AN AMOUNT OF RS 1,50,000/- ON BEH ALF OF SMT. JAGRUTI R MODI WHO IS HIS YOUNGER SISTER. HOWEVER, NO DETAILS ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE FUNDS OR WHY THE MONEY HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE BROTHE R HAS NOT BEEN FILED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED. A B ANK ACCOUNT OF M/S. P.D. TRADERS MAINTAINED WITH KALUPUR COMMERCIAL CO- OPERATIVE BANK HAS BEEN FILED, BUT IT HAS NOT BEEN ELABORATED BY THE A PPELLANT AS TO WHY THE MONEY HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THIS FIRM. THE LOAN H AS BEEN TAKEN FROM SMT JAGRUTI R. MODI, HOWEVER, NO CONFIRMATION WHATS OEVER COULD BE FILED BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS A FACT THAT SMT. JAGRUTI R. MO DI IS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX AND THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO U/S 133(6) FOR VER IFICATION OF THE TRANSACTION HAS RETURNED UN-SERVED THOUGH THE NOTIC E WAS ISSUED ON THE SMC-ITA NO. 2910/AHD/2016 JAYSHSHREE S JAIN VS. ITO AY : 2012-13 PAGE 5 OF 6 ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. WHEN THIS FACT WAS CONFRONTED, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE THE CORRECT ADDRESS OR COU LD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTIES FOR VERIFICATION. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO FILE EVEN CONFIRMATION OF THESE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AS WELL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SMT JAGRUTI R MODI ALSO. 5.3 IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION SUPRA, IT I S HELD THAT THE PURPORTED LOAN TAKEN FROM SMT. JAGRUTI R. MODI AND SMT. NEEDH I K BUSA ARE NOT GENUINE AND THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ADDED THE SAME UNDER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS HELD THAT TH E PARTIES FROM WHOM THE LOAN HAS BEEN TAKEN ARE NOT GENUINE AND THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ADDED THE SAME U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND THE SAME IS SUSTAINED. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS DISMISSED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED. 5. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE ME. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 7. I FIND THAT SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,30,000/ - IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE SAME THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, AND , AS FOR RS.1,50,000/- RECEIVED THROUGH M/S. P.D. TRADERS, IT IS NOTED THA T, AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, M/S. P.D. TRADERS IS OWNED BY THE HUF OF T HE DEPOSITORS BROTHER. THE SAID M/S. P.D. TRADERS HAD THIS AMOUNT OF RS.1,50,0 00/- TO THE CREDIT OF THE DEPOSITOR IN QUESTION. IT CANNOT BE OPEN AT THIS S TAGE TO GET INTO QUESTION ABOUT THE ORIGIN AND EXPLANATION FOR THIS CREDIT IN THE A CCOUNTS OF M/S. P.D. TRADERS AS LONG AS THE FACT OF THIS AMOUNT BEING IN THE CREDIT OF M/S. P.D. TRADERS IS NOT IN DISPUTE, AS IN THE POSITION BEFORE US; THEREFORE, T HE AMOUNT TO THE CREDIT OF DEPOSITOR CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT F OR WANT OF EXPLANATION ABOUT THE MEANS OF CREDITORS. THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS .80,000/- HAS ALSO COME FROM BANKING CHANNELS. CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT, THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT CANNOT BE QUESTIONED EITHER. AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT RECEIVED FROM SMT. NIDHI BUSA, THE ONLY SPECIFIC OBJECTION TAKEN BY TH E CIT(A) STATES THAT THE TRANSACTIONS IN HER ACCOUNT DURING THE TWO MONTHS W ERE LESS THAN RS.40,000/-. HAVING PERUSED THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT IN QU ESTION, I FIND THAT THERE IS A CREDIT OF RS.1,50,000/- BY CHEQUE A FEW DAYS BEFORE THE AMOUNT WAS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THERE ARE, HOWEVER, NO CAS H DEPOSITS IN THE SAID ACCOUNT. CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF THE AMOUNT A ND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO CASH DEPOSITS IN SMT. BUSAS ACCOUNT, IN MY CONSIDE RED VIEW, IT WOULD NOT BE REALLY APPROPRIATE TO EXAMINE SOURCE OF SOURCE, I.E . AS TO WHAT WAS THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT OF FUNDS BY SMT. BUSA. SUFFICE TO SAY THAT THERE ARE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS ON RECORD THAT THE AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVED FROM BANKING C HANNELS AND THAT THERE ARE NO CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE LENDERS; THEREF ORE, CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTORS, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, THE AMOUNTS RECEIVE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SMT. JAGRUTI R. MODI AND SMT. NIDHI K. BASU CANNOT BE CO NSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH SMC-ITA NO. 2910/AHD/2016 JAYSHSHREE S JAIN VS. ITO AY : 2012-13 PAGE 6 OF 6 CREDITS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE. I, THEREFORE, DEE M IT FIT AND PROPER TO DELETE BOTH THESE ADDITIONS. ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDING LY. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED. PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 20 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 20 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2018 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: .....3 PAGES DICTATION PAD A TTACHED.....19.09.2018........... 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE T HE DICTATING MEMBER: ... 19.09.2018... 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR . P.S./P.S.: 20.09.2018.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: . 20.09.2018. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : . 20.09.2018.. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER : . 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......