Shri Adamji F.Chasmawala, Baroda V. The ACIT.,Circle-5, Baroda

ITA 3129/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6447 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-05-2011
• Assessment Year: 1993-1994
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S A BOHRA JT
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BEFORE SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NOS. 3129 AND 3130/ AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1994-95 RESPECTIVELY) ADAMJI F CHASMAWALA, CHASMAWALA HOUSE, PRATAPNAGAR ROAD, BARODA-390004 VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 5, BARODA PAN/GIR NO. : ABEPC 2915K (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: MS. URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY: MR. S. A. BOHRA, JT. CIT O R D E R PER SHRI D. K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE TWO APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 25.09.2002 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1994-95. THE COMMON GROUNDS TAKEN IN B OTH THESE APPEALS ARE AS UNDER: 1) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS INVENTORISED AT ANNEXURE A-1 OF THE PANCHNAMA DATED 20.10.1994 PERTAINED TO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF THE APPELLANT FOR RENOVATION OF THE HOUSE. I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 2 2) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT SUMMARY OF THE SE LOOSE PAPER MADE AT PAGE NO.154 AND 155 OF ANNEXURE A1 WAS OVER AND ABOVE THE OTHER LOOSE PAPERS FOUND IN THE SAID ANNEXURE A1. 3) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTIRE EXP ENDITURE PERTAINING TO THE RENOVATION OF HOUSE WAS TAXABLE I N THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE NAME OF SHRI HUSEINIBHAI BARODAWALA WAS ALSO MENTIONED IN THE LO SE PAPERS WHO WAS AN INDEPENDENT PERSON. 4) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WAS OV ER AND ABOVE THOSE LOSE PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT ADDITION OF RS.80, 823/-. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E FILED ITS RETURNS OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,59,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND RS.1,53,590/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1 994-95. THESE RETURNS WERE PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. SEARCH PROCE EDINGS U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WERE CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 20.10.1994. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VARIOUS LO OSE PAPERS WERE FOUND CONTAINING DETAILS OF RENOVATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1994-95. NOTICES U /S 148 WERE ISSUED FOR REOPENING OF THESE ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF LOOS E PAPERS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS FOR BOTH THESE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING INCOME AS SHOWN IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS A ND THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED BY THE A.O. U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BY ADDING MAINTENANCE EXPENSES OF RS.2,29,799/- AND RS .5,92,292/- AS COMPUTED FORM SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS 1993-94 AND 1994-95 RESPECTIVELY BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 3. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE HERE THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 21 ST OCTOBER 1994, THE ASSESSEE I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 3 HAD DISCLOSED A SUM OF RS.4 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF JEWE LLERY, CASH, OTHER EXPENSES, BILLS ETC. ON THE BASIS OF SAID DISCLOSU RE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.4 LACS IN I TS RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 4. IN QUANTUM APPEAL, IT WAS PLEADED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THIS DISCLOSURE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995 -96 HA COVERED THE EXPENSES INCURRED ON RENOVATION/REPAIRING OF THE HO USE INCURRED IN EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE FURTHER ADDITION BY THE A.O. WAS NO T WARRANTED. XEROX COPIES OF LOOSE PAPERS WERE FILED AND IT WAS PLEADE D THAT THESE LOOSE BILLS WERE REGARDING MATERIAL LIKE WOOD, HARDWARE, CARPET S ETC. AND ALSO INCLUDE CERTAIN ESTIMATES. FROM THE LOOSE PAPERS NO.154 AN D 155, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE RENOVATION/REPAIRS EXPENSES WERE SHOWN UND ER DIFFERENT HEADS AS UNDER: PAGE 154 MR. HUSEINIBHAI BARAODAWALA DATED 14 .02.93 TOTAL RS.1,25,025/-. PAGE 155 - MR ADAMJI CHASMAWALA - DATED 27.11. 1993 TOTAL RS.3,53,649/- 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT VARIOUS BILLS AT SL. NO.1 46 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND 48-150 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 199 4-95 WERE INCLUDED IN THE SUMMARY AT SL. NO.154 AND SL. NO.155 RESPECTIVE LY. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE A.O. INCORRECTLY TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE TO TAL BILLS FOUND FROM THE LOOSE PAPERS DID NOT TALLY WITH THE AMOUNT MENTIONE D IN THE ITEMS OF SUMMARY AT SL. NO.154 AND 155. THEREFORE, THE AMOU NTS MENTIONED AT SL. NOS. 154 AND 15 WERE WRONGLY TREATED AS DIFFERENT B Y THE A.O. FROM THE BILLS OF THE LOOSE PAPERS AND THUS ADDITIONS WERE WRONGLY MADE. A CHART WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) OF VARIOUS EXPENSES MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME ARE IN CO NSONANCE WITH VARIOUS I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 4 BILLS, VOUCHES ETC. FROM LOOSE PAPERS. THE TOTAL E XPENDITURE AS PER THESE BILLS / LOOSE PAPERS WERE SUMMARIZED BELOW: PAGES 1 46 - RS.1,00,054/- PERTAINING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 1993-94, PAGES 47-150 - RS.1,69,138/- PERTAINING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 1994-95. ON THE BASIS OF THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O .S CONCLUSION THAT TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 WAS R S.2,29,799/- AND FOR THAT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 WAS RS.5,92,292/-, WAS TOTALLY INCORRECT. VARIOUS OTHER DISCREPANCIES WERE ALSO POINTED OUT I N THE CALCULATION MADE BY THE A.O. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INVESTMENT CANNOT BE MORE THAN RS.4 LACS. 6. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THIS SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) DELETED BOTH THE ADDITIONS FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 1993-94 AND 1994-95 ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTE D ADDITION OF RS.6,03,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 UNDER KVSS AND HAD PAID DUE TAXES THEREON, NO FURTHER ADDITIONS WERE ESTIMA TED. 7. THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) HOWEVER, WAS SET ASIDE BY THE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 28.11.2005 VIDE I.T.A.NOS. 1616 AND 161 7/AHD/2002 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1994-95 AND THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. HOLDING AS UNDER: THUS IT IS SEEN THAT THE FINDINGS ON WHICH LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE FAC TUALLY WRONG. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PAY TAXES ON THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.6,03,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DELET ED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE DELETION WAS CONTESTED BY REVENUE BEFORE TR IBUNAL AND MATER HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 1995- 96. THE FINDINGS TO BE ARRIVED AT BY THE A.O. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 IN PURSUANCE TO AFOREMENTIONED ORDER OF TRI BUNAL WILL HAVE BEARING ON THE ADDITIONS FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSID ERATION. THEREFORE, IT IS CONSIDERED PROPER AND JUSTIFIED TO RESTORE THESE APPEALS ALSO TO BE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE DECIDED A S PER LAW AFTER TAKING I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 5 INTO CONSIDERATION THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY HIM IN RES PECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS, A.O. WILL READJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS. N EEDLESS TO OBSERVE THAT HE WILL GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TAKING THE FINAL DECISION. 8. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. WAS OF TH E VIEW THAT THE OTHER ADDITIONS OF RS.2,59,799/- AND RS.5,92,292/- IN ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND 1994-95 WERE BASED ON THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPERS AS PE R ANNEXURE A-1 AND THAT THE INCOME TAX DOES NOT ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO OFFER THE INCOME EARNED IN ONE YEAR OF ANY OTHER FINANCIAL AS PER HIS CONVENIENCE. ACCORDINGLY, RS.2,59,799/- AND RS.5,92,842/- WERE AGAIN ADDED FO R RENOVATION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN THE TWO YEARS UNDER APPEAL. A GGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF THE A.O., ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 9. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), PAPER BOOK CONTAINING COPY OF ANNEXURE A-1 WAS SUBMITTED AND IT WAS ADDED THAT THE SUM TOTAL OF TH E FIGURE OF EXPENSES MENTIONED ARE AS UNDER: 1) SUMMARY AT PAGE 154 RS.1,25,000/- 2) TOTAL OF LOOSE PAPERS AS PER PAGES 1-46 RS.1,03 ,247/- 3) SUMMARY AT PAGE 155 RS.3,53,649/- 4) SUMMARY AT PAGES 47-150 RS.2,38,643/- 10. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS INVENTOR IZED AT PAGES 1 150 ARE PART AND PARCEL OF SUMMARY MADE AT PAGES 154 AN D155. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 132(5), THE A.O. HAS S TATED THAT THE RENOVATION EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3,53,649/- AGAINST WHICH DISCLOSURE OF RS.4 LACS WAS MADE BY THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON PAGE 154, THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES OF RS.1,25,023/- INCURRED BY SHRI HUSEINIBHAI BARODAWALA IS MENTIONED WHICH C ANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT P REJUDICE, IT WAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT AN ATTEMPT HAS BEEN MADE TO RECONCIL E THE LOOSE PAPERS AND I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 6 THAT THE DETAILS ON PAGES 1-150 WITH THE SUMMARY AN D TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,78,411/- COULD BE RECONCILED WITH THE SUMMARY AT PAGES 154 AND 155. IT WAS THUS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION CAN AT BEST BE UPHELD TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,43,680 (RS.2,29,799 +RS.5,92,292 () RS.1,7841 1 () RS.4 LACS) 11. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, LD. CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 12.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SEIZED MATERI ALS, SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE ITAT A ND THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE IMPUGNED ORDERS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS, STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECORDED ON 20.10.94 AND IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.8, IT WAS STATED AS UNDER: Q.1. IT IS SEEN THAT THERE ARE MANY BILLS PERTAINI NG TO HOUSE REPAIRS AND A STATEMENT DATED 22.11.1993 SHOWING EXPENDITUR E OF RS.3,53,649/-. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THIS: ANS. THIS IS REPAIR WORK I HAVE DONE IN MY HOUSE WH ERE I AM STAYING. FURTHER, ON 21.11.1993 IN HIS REPLY THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED AS UNDER: Q.4. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? ANS. ON ACCOUNT OF CASH, JEWELLERY AND OTHER EXPEND ITURE, BILLS ETC. I SURRENDER RS.4,00,000/- (RS. FOUR LACS). KINDLY A LLOW ME EXEMPTION/IMMUNITY ON THIS AMOUNT AS PER INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 12.3 IN ORDER U/S 132(5) DATED 20.03.95, THE A.O. H AS MENTIONED AS UNDER: ON SCRUTINY OF SEIZED PAPER (PAGE 133 OF FILE NO.A -1) IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCREASED EXPENSES TO T HE EXTENT OF RS.3,53,649/- FOR FURNISHING THE FLAT AT 8A, AL MAD INA BLDG., CYRUS AVENUE, MOTIBHAI STREET, BOMBAY. DURING THE COURSE OF I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 7 STATEMENT RECORDED U/S132(4), THE ASSESSEE ASKED ( Q.9) TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENSES. IT WAS REPLIE D BY HIM THAT HE HAS RECEIVED THE MONEY FROM BARODA OFFICE AND WE LL EXPLAINED AFTER VERIFYING BOOKS. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 132(5) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISH ED ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD. IT MAY FURTHER B E NOTED THAT ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH INVESTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME OF RS.4,00,000/- (IN ALL). CONSIDERING T HIS FACT AND ALSO THE EXPENSES REMAINED UNEXPLAINED SAME IS TAX ED AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FURN ISHING THE FLAT AT BOMBAY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. 12.4 IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT PAGE NO.154 CONTAINS T HE HEADING HUSEINBHAI BARODAWALA DTD. 14.023.93 AND THIS CON TAINS SUMMARY OF VARIO0US EXPENSES OF FURNISHING, POLISHING, MASO N WORK, GLASS PAINTING, SOFA WORK ETC. AND THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE MENTIONED ON THIS PAGE IS RS.1,25,023/-. ON PAGE NO.155 OF ANNEXURE A-1, THE HEADING IS FURNITURE ACCOUNT OF MR. ADAMJI CHASMAWALAS DTD 22.11.93 AND THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE ON THIS PAGE IS RS.3,53,649/- . 12.5 FROM PERUSAL OF ABOVE SAID FACTS, IT IS APPARE NT THAT RS.1,25,023/- CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT BUT IT COULD BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI HUSEINBH AI BARODAWALA. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT PAGES 1-46 AND THE SEIZED DOCUMEN TS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND THE BALANCE PERTAIN TO 1994-95. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT LABOUR EXPENSES INDICATED ON PAGE NO.4 0 FIND MENTION IN THE SUMMARY AT PAGE NO.1544. SIMILARLY, LABOUR EXP ENSES OF RS.1,900/- INDICATED ON PAGE NO.2 AND RS.14,740/- O N PAGE NO.3 FIND MENTION AT TOTAL LABOUR EXPENSES OF RS.16,640/- AT PAGE 154. HOWEVER, NO OTHER BILLS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 COULD BE CORRELATED TO THE SUMMARY AT PAGE NO.154. CONSIDER ING THAT THE I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 8 SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF TH E APPELLANT AND THE BILLS REFERRED TO SUPPLIERS IN MUMBAI AND IT WA S ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AT ANNEXURE A-1 PERTAIN TO RENOVATION EXPENSES FOR HIS MUMBAI RESIDENCE, THE A DDITION FOR 1993- 94 IS SUSTAINED TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT. THE TOTAL OF THE BILLS/VOUCHERS IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS TOTALED BY THE AR WHICH DO N OT FORM PART OF SUMMARY AT PAGE 154: RS.1,04,799/- TOTAL OF EXPENSES AT PAGE 1-46 LESS: RS. 16,640/- LESS: RS. 7,336/- TOTAL RS. 80,823/- 12.6 SIMILARLY, IN REGARD TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-9 5 EXPENDITURE OF RS.42,705/- INDICATED AT PAGE NO.150 AND RS.2,160/- AT PAGE NO.139 FIND MATCHING ENTRIES ON PAGE NO.155. BESIDES, NO OTHER BILLS/VOUCHERS CAN BE CORRELATED WITH THE SUMMARY D ETAILS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT AT PAGES 50-55 PERTAIN TO PURCHASE OF CAR PETS ON 26.02.94 AMOUNTING TO RS.40,000/- HAVING NO CORRESPONDING HE AD OR REFERENCE IN THE SUMMARY. MEANING THEREBY, THAT MAJORITY OF THE VOUCHERS/BILLS IN ANNEXURE A-1 DO NOT FIND CORRESPONDING REFERENCE IN THE SUMMARY. IT IS SEEN THAT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 26.03.1998, THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT DISCLO SURE OF RS.4 LACS PERTAINS TO THE EXPENDITURE OF HOUSE REPAIRS NOD RE NOVATIONS AND THIS FACT WAS NOT CHALLENGED BY THE A.O. AND THE DISCLOS URE OF RS.4 LACS WERE ACCEPTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE EXPENDITURE MENTIONED IN LOOSE PAPERS AS WELL AS SUMMARI3ES ARE TO BE COMBINED AND ONLY T HE COMMON AMOUNTS BE FOUND IN SUMMARY AS WELL AS IN LOOSE PAP ERS ARE REMAINED I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 9 TO BE SET OFF. THE ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 94-95 IS THUS SUSTAINABLE TO THE FOLLOWING EXTENT: SUMMARY AT PAGE NO.155 RS.3,53,649/- TOTAL OF EXPENSES AT PAGE NOS. 47-150 RS.2,38,643 /- TOTAL RS.5,92,292/- LESS: ENTRIES AT PAGE NO.139 RS. 2,160/- LESS: ENTRIES AT PAGE NO.150 RS. 42,705/- NET RS.5,47,427/- LESS: DISCLOSURE ALREADY MADE RS,4,00,000/- BALANCE RS.1,47,427/- 12.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS.80.82 3/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 AND RS.1,47,427/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 ARE SUSTAINED. 12. FURTHER, AGGRIEVED WITH THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND PRAYED TH AT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.2,43,680/- ONLY CAN BE UPHELD AND TO T HAT EXTENT, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE MODIFIED. LD. D.R. ON TH E OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD . CIT(A). 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E RECORDS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED AND SPEAK ING ORDER AFTER PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. NO FURTHER REL IEF IS CALLED FOR AS BEFORE US ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CORRELATE ANY OTHE R BILL FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1994-95 TO THE SUMMARY AT PAGES 154 AND 155. IN VIEW OF THIS WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PA SSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. I.T.A.NO. 3129,3130/AHD/2009 10 15. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1993-94 AND 1994-95 ARE DISMISSED. 16. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST MAY 2011. SD./- SD./- (A. K. GARODIA) (D. K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED : 31 ST MAY, 2011 SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD 6. THE GUARD FILE 1. DATE OF DICTATION 18,05.11 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.05.11 OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.30.5.11 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30.5.11 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 31.5.11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.5 .11 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. ..