The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar V. Ashapura Proteins Pvt.Ltd., Bhavnagar

ITA 298/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85610 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH AHMEDABAD , BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NOS. 215/AHD/2008 & 200/AHD/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001-02) ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. SURVEY NO. 325, PLOT NO.10, GARIBSHA PIR, BHAVNAGAR, RAJKOT HIGHWAY, SIHOR APPELLANT VS. THE ITO, WARD 1(3), BHAVNAGAR RESPONDENT PAN: AACCA4482D ITA. NO. 298/AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001-02) ACIT, CIRCLE-1, BHAVNAGAR APPELLANT VS. ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. SURVEY NO. 325, PLOT NO.10, GARIBSHA PIR, BHAVNAGAR, RAJKOT HIGHWAY, SIHOR RESPONDENT / BY REVENUE :SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. D.R. / BY ASSESSEE : SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING :21.01.2015 !'# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.01.2015 I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 2 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THESE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE ARISING O UT FORM THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD, DATED 31.1 0.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 ON QUANTUM AND PEN ALTY. SO, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS COMMO N ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IN ITA NO. 215/AHD/2008 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 ON QUAN TUM, ASSESSEEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS: (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)- XX, AHMEDABAD HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,03,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES MADE BY MAGANBHAI S. MAKWANA AS REFERRED IN PARAGRAPH 4.3 OF HIS ORDE R UNDER APPEAL AND HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN TERMS OF THE REASONS RECORDED IN PARAGRAPH 4.3 TO 4.5 OF THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL. (2) SIMILARLY, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GRIEVOU SLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED LOANS/DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.2,40,000/-. MADE BY BHAVSANGHBHAI (96,000), GAGJIBHAI (48,000) AND DIPSINGHBHAI (96,000). (3) THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT AS SUPPORTED BY VOLUMINOUS EVIDENCE PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2.1 IN ITA NO. 298/AHD/2008 FOR A.Y. 2001-02 ON QUA NTUM, REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUN DS: 1. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIR ECTING TO DELETE RS.23,51,400/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.25,91,400/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRE CTING TO DELETE RS.67,17,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 3 RS.69,20,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES. 3. THE BACK GROUND OF CASE IS THAT ITAT VIDE ITS AP PEAL ORDER NO. ITA NO.05/RJT/2005 OF 1.09.05 HAS RESTORED THE MATTER T O THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER DIRECTING HIM TO DECI DE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSE E FOR EXPLAINING CREDITS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.25, 91,400/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOANS TAKEN AND ALSO IN RESPECT OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, OF RS.69,20,000/-. 3.1 ACCORDINGLY, ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO PRODUCE ALL DEPOSITORS / SHAREHOLDERS FOR VERIFICAT ION. MEANWHILE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO ISSUED SUMMONS TO DEPOSITORS/SHAREHOLDERS DIRECTLY, OUT OF WHICH SEVE N PERSONS HAD ATTENDED, AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED. A S MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER ONE SHRI DAYABHAI NAG JIBHAI AGREED TO HAVE CONFIRMED LOAN OF RS.3,30,900/- AND PRODUCED EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AS 7/12, 8A ETC., BUT ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THIS LOAN AS FARMER HAD TAKE N LOAN FROM FARMER'S CO, OP. SOCIETY AND LAND DEVELOPMENT BANK. HENCE, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REJECTED THIS LOAN AS NON-GEN UINE. ANOTHER PARTY SHRI JODHABHAI RATANSANGBHAI OF VILLA GE LAVARDA TA: SIHOR APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND AGREED TO HAVE INVESTED IN SHARES OF RS.4,50,000/- BY INSTALLMENT THROUGH PAY ORDER. THIS INVESTMENT IN SHARES WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS IN FACT PAYMEN T WAS MADE IN CASH. THIRD SHRI HATHISING D CHAUHAN ALSO APPEA RED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCEPTED HAVING GIVEN OF LOAN OF RS.1,89,000/-, FILED EVIDENCE OF HAVING AGRICULTURE LAND I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 4 HOLDING BUT ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THIS LOAN BE CAUSE THE DEPOSITOR / FARMER HAD OBTAINED LOAN FROM FARMER'S CO. OP. SOCIETY. FOURTH SHRI MANUBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI OF VILLA GE SARKADIA APPEARED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT REFU SED TO HAVE GIVEN LOAN RS.3,19,500/-. HENCE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED IT AS NON-GENUINE. REMAINING 3 FARMERS (I) GAGJIBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI (II) DIPSING SHAMBHUBHAI AND (III) BHAVSANGBHAI SAMBHUBHAI HAD ATTENDED IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S. 131(1) OF 10.10.06 AND 11.10.06 FOR LO AN OF RS.48,000/- IN THE NAME OF SHRI G.S.GOHIL AND RS.96 000/- EACH IN DIPSING AND BHAVSANG, BUT THEY REFUSED TO H AVE GIVEN ANY LOAN, AND HENCE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THIS AS NOT PROVED. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FURTHER WRITTEN LETT ER TO ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 27.10.06 TO PRODUCE ALL DEPOSITORS / SHA REHOLDERS AND HAD CALLED FOR ADDRESS OF 12 DEPOSITORS. HOWEVE R, SAME WAS NOT COMPLIED BY THE ASSESSES COMPANY. IT IS PLE A OF ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE HAD ISSUED SUMMONS U/S. 1 31(1) TWICE ON 20.09.06 AND 6.11.06 TO ALL CREDITORS EXCE PT 12 BUT NOBODY ATTENDED EXCEPT SEVEN. HENCE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FINALIZED ASSESSMENT MAKING ADDITION OF LOAN DEPOSI T OF RS.25,91,400/- AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.69 ,20,000/- TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE. 4. MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE. CIT(A) HAVING CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT HAS DELETED ADDITION OF RS.23,51,400/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.25,91,40 0/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT S AND FURTHER DIRECTED ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE ADDITI ON OF I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 5 RS.67,17,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.69,20,00 0/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN SHARES. BOTH PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BY WAY OF CROSS APPEALS, WHEREIN REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE DELETION OF ADDITIO N ON BOTH ACCOUNTS WHILE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST SUSTAINING ADDIT ION ON BOTH ACCOUNTS. 5. BOTH PARTIES GAVE DETAILED SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THEIR CLAIMS AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME WE FIND THAT TWO TYPES OF AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSE E U/S.68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, (I) AS UNEXPLAINED LOANS/DEPOSITS OF RS.25,91,400/- AND (II) AS UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF RS.6 9,20,000/-. ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER DIRECTIONS OF ITAT EXAMINE D THE MATTER AFRESH WITH DETAILED VERIFICATION AND SCRUTINY. AS SESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED SUMMONS TO ALL 38 SHARE HOLDERS AND 20 LOAN DEPOSITORS, OUT OF WHICH 29 SHARE HOLDERS AND 14 DEPOSITORS APPEARED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. STAT EMENTS OF ALL PERSONS WERE RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AND COPI ES OF SAME HAVE BEEN SENT WITH REMAND REPORT. THE REMAINING 6 DEPOSITORS AND 9 SHARE HOLDERS WHO COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER FILED THEIR AFFIDAVITS. IT WAS O BSERVED FROM THE LIST THAT FOUR SHAREHOLDERS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AND MOST OF OTHER DEPOSITORS AND SHAREHOLDERS ARE AGRICULTURIST S. AS IDENTITY OF PERSONS HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER. AFFIDAVITS OF ALL THE DEPOSITORS AND SHAREHOLDERS H AVE BEEN FILED. STATEMENTS OF ALL THE PERSONS WHO APPEARED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN RECORDED. THEREFORE, I DENTITY OF ALL THE CONCERNED PERSONS WAS ESTABLISHED. I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 6 5.1 IN REMAND REPORT, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN DETAILS OF EVIDENCES FILED BY DEPOSITORS AND SHAREHOLDERS IN T ABULAR FORM REGARDING THEIR LAND HOLDING IN FORM OF 8A & 7/12, THEIR SOURCE OF INCOME AS OUTCOME OF HIS ENQUIRY. ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN NAMES AND ADDRESS OF DEPOSITORS/SHAREHOLDERS, AMOUN T INVESTED DURING THE YEAR AND NUMBERS OF SHARE CERTI FICATES. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO ASSESSEE TH ROUGH DEMAND DRAFTS OR PAY ORDERS AND THIS HAS BEEN CONFI RMED BY ASSESSING OFFICER WITH BANK STATEMENT FILED BEFORE HIM. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FORWARDED THESE BANK STATEMEN TS WITH THE REMAND REPORT. IN THIS BACKGROUND, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT OBJECTED TO ANY OF THE ST ATEMENTS OR LETTERS AND HAS NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE EXC EPT IN THE FOLLOWING CASES: (I) SHRI MAGANBHAI SHIBABHAI MAKWANA (S/32 - RS.2,03,000/-) - IN THIS CASE, FROM DETAILS FILED A ND REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING IN RESPECT OF CAPACITY OF THE PERSON TH AT HE HAS NO ACCEPTABLE INCOME. DURING THE COURSE OF DISCUSSION WITH THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE, IT WAS NOTIC ED THAT IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUED TO SHRI MAGANBHAI S. MAK WANA, BY ASSESSING OFFICER HE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER AND HE FILED ONLY A WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN C OMPLIANCE. ACCORDING TO ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS NOT A FULL COMPLIANCE. FURTHER, IT WAS SEEN THAT SHARE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN P AID EITHER BY PAY ORDER OR IN CASH BEING THE AMOUNTS BELOW RS. 20,000/-. HE OWNS ONLY 7 BIGHAS OF LAND WITH OTHER CO-OWNERS AS PER DETAILS FILED IN FORM NO. 7/12 AND 8A. HE HAS NO O THER I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 7 SOURCES OF INCOME EXCEPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. IN VI EW OF ALL THE FACTS AND CONSIDERING THE SMALLNESS OF LAND HOLDING AND THAT THERE IS NO OTHER INCOME, HIS CAPABILITY TO INVEST IN SHARES OF RS.2,03,000/- WAS NOT PROVED. SINCE, HIS CREDITWORT HINESS HAS NOT BEEN PROVED TO ESTABLISH A GENUINE TRANSACTION U/S.68, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT PERSON INVESTED TO THAT EXTE NT FOR PURCHASING SHARES WAS NOT ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, FIND INGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD WERE UPHELD BY CIT (A) AND ADDITION MADE TO THE INCOME OF ASSESSEE OF RS.2,03, 000/- WAS CONFIRMED. STAND OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS BEEN TH AT MAGANBHAI S. MAKWANA IS CO-OWNERS OF 7 BIGHAS OF LA ND AS PER REVENUES REPORT. BUT THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING TO THE FACT THAT WHAT CROPS ARE GROWN ON THE SAID AGRICULTURAL HOLDING AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME. IT IS NOT CLEAR FROM THE D ISCUSSION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW WHETHER SAID AGRICULTURAL LAND OF SAID CREDITOR WAS IRRIGATED ONE OR NOT. SO, IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MA TTER TO HIM WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE MATTER AS PER RELEVANT AGRICULTURAL RECORD AND CIT(A) CAN ALSO LOOK INTO THE FACT THAT AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AT RELEVANT POINT OF TIME HAS BEEN SOLD. A CCORDINGLY, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS E ON THIS POINT. 5.2 NEXT ISSUE IN ASSESSEES APPEAL IS WITH REGARDS TO DEPOSITS MADE BY THE FOLLOWING PERSONS: (A) SHRI BHAVSANGBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI RS. 96,000/- (B) SHRI GAGJIBHAI SAMBHUBHAI RS. 48,000/- (C) SHRI DIPSINGHBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI RS. 96,000/- I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 8 ALL THE ABOVE PERSONS, IN COMPLIANCE OF SUMMONS ISS UED BY ASSESSING OFFICER APPEARED BEFORE HIM ON 10.10.2206 AND 11.10.2006 BUT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THEIR S TATEMENTS, THEY REFUSED OF GIVING LOAN TO ASSESSEE. DURING CO URSE OF REMAND REPORT PROCEEDING, THEY WERE CALLED BUT THEY DID NOT ATTEND IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. THEY HAVE SIMPLY FILED THEIR CONFIRMATORY AFFIDAVITS WHEREIN THEY CHANGED THEIR OPINION. IT IS SEEN THAT ABOVE MENTIONED 3 PERSONS ARE BROKERS AND THEY ARE AGRICU LTURISTS ONLY. ON PERUSAL OF AFFIDAVITS AND STATEMENTS, I T WAS OBSERVED THAT: (I) SHRI BHAVSANGBHAI SHAMBHUBHAI HAS IN HIS STATEM ENT STATED THAT HIS FAMILY CONSISTS OF 10 MEMBERS AND H IS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE IS RS. 1 LAKH ONLY. (II) SHRI GAGJIBHAI SAMBHUBHAI HAS STATED IN HIS ST ATEMENT THAT HIS FAMILY CONSISTS OF 11 MEMBERS AND HIS TOTA L EARNING OUT OF AGRICULTURAL OPERATION IS RS. 1 LAKH ONLY. (III) LIKE-WISE PERSON SHRI DIPSINGHBHAI SHAMBHUBH AI IN HI S STATEMENT STATED THAT HE HAS 4 FAMILY MEMBERS AND H E EARNS RS. 1 LAKH FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. ASSESSING OFFIC ER OBSERVED THAT ALL THE ABOVE THREE PERSONS WERE NOT CAPABLE TO DEPOSIT THE AMOUNTS (RS.96,000/-, RS.48,000/- & RS.96,000/-) RESPECTIVELY WITH ASSESSEE. SUMMONS WERE ISSUED IN THEIR CASES BUT THEY DID NOT ATTEND BEFORE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THEREFORE, THEIR SUBSEQUENT CONFIRMATION BY AFFIDAV ITS WAS FOUND TO BE ONLY A CHANGE OF MIND WHICH MAY BE AN O UTCOME OF TUTORED MIND. THEREFORE, DEPOSITS OF ABOVE 3 PERSO NS OF RS.96,000/-, RS.46,000/- AND RS.96,000/- IN THE LI GHT OF I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 9 ABOVE NARRATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER REMAINED UNEXP LAINED. ACCORDINGLY FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS R EGARD WAS UPHELD BY CIT(A). 6.1 WE FIND THAT ABOVE SAID PERSONS HAVE DEPOSED BY WAY OF AFFIDAVITS WITH REGARDS TO THEIR DEPOSITS. THE CONT ENTS OF AFFIDAVITS CANNOT BE REJECTED AS SUCH WITHOUT CONFR ONTING THE CONTENT OF AFFIDAVIT, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN TH IS CASE. SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE IS SET ASIDE AND MATTER IS RESTORED TO HIM WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AT HAND AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING D UE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO ASSESSEE. 6.2 SUMMING UP, WE FIND THAT ADDITION MADE BY ASSES SING OFFICER FOR UNEXPLAINED LOANS/DEPOSITS, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,40,000/- WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A), WHICH HAS BE EN SET ASIDE BY US AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. REST OF DEPOSITS OF RS.23,51,400/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.25,91,40 0/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) ON THE BASI S OF REASONED FINDING, WHEREIN CIT(A) RIGHTLY FOUND THAT DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.23,51,400/- WERE WELL IDENTIFIED H AVING CREDITWORTHINESS AND DEPOSITS WERE GIVEN TO ASSESSE E BY WAY OF GENUINE TRANSACTION. SO, THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.23,51,400/- HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY US. SIMILARLY WITH REGARDS TO ADDITION MADE TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN SHAR ES BY DIFFERENT PERSONS ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,03 ,000/- WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A), WHICH HAS BEEN SET ASIDE BY US AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. REST OF AMOUNT OF RS.67,17,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.69,20,000/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 10 DELETED BY CIT(A) BY REASONED FINDING, WHEREIN IT W AS FOUND THAT AMOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARE TO THAT EXTENT W AS GENUINE WHICH NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. 7. AS A RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE IS DISMISSE D AND THAT OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. COMING TO THE PENALTY APPEAL IN ITA NO. 200/AHD/ 2010 FILED BY ASSESSEE, WHEREIN GROUNDS ARE AS UNDER: (1) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XX, AHMADABAD HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER SECTIO N 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. (2) THAT ON FACTS AND EVIDENCE ON RECORD IT OUGHT T O HAVE BEEN HELD THAT NO PENALTY IS LEVIABLE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE I N QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. 8.1 ASSESSING OFFICER LEVIED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) TO THE EXTENT OF ADDITION OF RS.2,03,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.69,20,000/- AND RS.2,40,000/- OUT TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.25,91,400/- WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). AS WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO CIT(A) ON BOTH ACCOUNTS, SO, THE CONS EQUENTIAL PENALTY ON ABOVE ACCOUNT IS ALSO SET ASIDE AND MATT ER IS RESTORED TO CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAM E AS PER FINAL OUTCOME IN QUANTUM APPEAL ON THESE ACCOUNTS. 8.2 AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR PENALTY IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. I.T.A. NOS. 215 & 298/AHD/08 & 200/AHD/10 FOR A.Y. 01-02 (ASHAPURA PROTEINS P. LTD. VS. ITO) PAGE 11 9. AS A RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED WHILE ASSESSEES APPEAL ON QUANTUM AS WELL AS PENALTY IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (SHAILENDR A KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA $ $ $ $ &' &' &' &' ('# ('# ('# ('# / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. -- . / CONCERNED CIT 4. .- / CIT (A) 5. '23 &, , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 367 89 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / $ , :/ - , <