The ACIT,(OSD)Circle-8, Ahmedabad V. Shri Rajesh Balwantbhai Brahmbhatt, Ahmedabad

ITA 3345/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73009 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Keywords: Business income; Salary income
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ACIT (OSD), CIRCLE-8, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT, 21, RAMBAUG, NR. RAMBAUG CLUB HOUSE, B/H KARNAVATI, S.G. HIGHWAY, AHMEDABAD- 380058 (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI P.L.KUREEL, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: SRI P.M. MEHTA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12-02-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-02-20 14 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XIV AHMEDABAD DATED 09-08-2012. ITA NO. 3345/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.T.A NO. 3345/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT 2 2. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO TAX, INCOME ARRIVED ON PURCHASE & S ALES OF SHARES UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAIN INSTEAD OF AS BUSINESS INCOME. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SH OWN SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 4,71,697/- AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN O F RS. 14,56,367/-. THE AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN OF RS. 147. 29 LACS AND PAID INTEREST OF RS. 3,12,748/-. THE INVESTMENT WAS SHOWN AT 62, 68,454/-. AO FURTHER FOUND THAT TOTAL PURCHASE OF SHARES IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 WERE OF RS. 4,90,94,200/- AND SALE VALUE OF SHARES SOLD WAS OF RS. 4,95,65,897/-. ON THE BASIS OF THESE DETAILS, HE PROPOSED TO CONSIDER THE CAPITAL GAINS AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY AO FROM PAGES 3 TO 12 OF ASSESSMENT O RDER. AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, AO ASSESSED THESE TWO AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS AS BUSINESS INCOME THEREBY MAKING A TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 19,28,064/- 4. IN APPEAL, THIS ADDITION WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT( A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE SUBMISSIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY HIM IN HIS ORDER. 3.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AND THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE MAIN CONT ENTION OF THE A.O. IS THAT (I) THE APPELLANT HAD 67 TRANSACTIONS IN PURCH ASE AND SALE OF SHARES, (II)THAT VOLUME IS VERY LARGE, (III) THAT T HE SHARES ARE HELD FOR SHORT PERIOD, (IV)THE INCOME FROM SALARY IS ONLY RS .12 LAKH WHEREAS THE SALE OF SHARES IS OF RS.5.50 CRORES AND (V) THA T THE APPELLANT HAD MADE BORROWINGS AND (VI) THAT THE DIVIDEND INCOME I S VERY SMALL AND THUS THE MOTIVE WAS TO EARN PROFIT AND NOT TO GET D IVIDEND INCOME. THE I.T.A NO. 3345/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT 3 APPELLANT HAS ON THE OTHER HAND SHOWN THAT THE PURC HASE AND SALE OF SHARES TRANSACTION IS ONLY ON 9 DAYS IN RESPECT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ONLY ON 7 DAYS IN RESPECT OF LONG TERM CAP ITAL GAINS. THE APPELLANT IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION AS A P ARTNER OR AS A DIRECTOR OF VARIOUS FIRMS OR COMPANIES AND HAS NOT SPECIFIC ESTABLISHMENT FOR CARRYING OUT SHARE TRADING ACTIVI TY. IT IS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED SHARE PROFIT F ROM PARTNERSHIP FIRMS, SALARY INCOME AND OTHER INCOMES OF THE AGG REGATE AMOUNT OF RS.1.41 CRORES. THUS THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES O F RS.5.50 CRORES CANNOT BE THE CRITERIA FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE. HE HAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT NO BORROWED FUNDS ARE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING SHARES. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO CITED THE FOLLOWING CASES: (A) RAJA BAHADUR KAMAKHYA NARAIN SINGH VS. CI T, 77 ITR 253. (B) CIT VS. RAJA JAGDISH PRATAP SAHI 70 ITK 2 35. (C) CIT VS. REWASHANKER A. KOTHARI-283 ITR 338 (GUJ ) (D) JANAK S. RANGWALLA VS. ACIT-11 SOT 627 (E) GOPAL PUROHIT VS. JCIT-29 SOT 117 (F) ACIT VS. HIPOLIN LTD IN ITA NO. 4259/AHD/2007 F OR THE A.Y. 2004-05 (G) SARNATH INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS. AC IT 122 TTJ 216 ON CONSIDERATION OF THE CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE SID ES I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE TRANSACTION IN TERMS OF RUPEES DO NOT JUST IFY THE DEPARTMENT'S CONTENTION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS IN THE BUSINESS O F TRADING IN SHARES. THE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS STATED BY THE A,O. IS NO T MATERIAL. APART FROM THIS, THE TRANSACTIONS ARE ON VERY FEW DAYS AN D NOT THROUGHOUT THE YEAR. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FROM YEAR TO YEAR TREATED SUCH TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS AS THAT OF INVESTMENT. TH E SHARES PURCHASE AND SALE ARE SUBJECT TO STT. THE INCOME TAX ACT ITS ELF SUGGEST THAT WHEN THE PERIOD OF HOLDING OF SHARES IS LESS THAN 1 2 MONTHS WHICH MAY BE RANGING FROM 1 DAY TO 365 DAYS IT WOULD BE C ONSIDERED AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPE CTS THERE WAS NO REASON FOR HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS IN THE BU SINESS OF TRADING IN SHARES, I NOTICED THAT SIMILAR VIEW IS TAKEN IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE IN THE A,Y. 2006-07 BY THE CIT(APPEALS) -XIV, AHMEDABA D VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DATED 30-03-2009. CONSIDERING ALL T HESE FACTS THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS SHOW N BY THE APPELLANT I.T.A NO. 3345/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT 4 INSTEAD OF CONSIDERING IT AS BUSINESS PROFIT. THE A PPEAL IS ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 200 6-07 WHICH WAS FOLLOWED BY LD. CIT(A) WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE A SSESSEE HAS BEEN UPHELD BY HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31/08/2012, T HEREFORE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) THIS YEAR MAY ALSO BE UPHELD. LD. DR ON TH E OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07 HAS BEEN ADMITTED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, THEREFORE THE MATTER MAY BE KEPT PENDING TILL THE MATTER IS D ECIDED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PURSING THE R ECORD, WE FIND THAT HONBLE ITAT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31/08/2012 HAS UP HELD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON SIMILAR FACTS BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER:- 7. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHO RITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARA 3.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THIS PARA OF LD. CIT(A)'S ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW : '3.3.1 HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E SUBMISSIONS AS GIVEN BY THE A.R, OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS, THE A.R. HAS RELIED UPON SEVERAL JUDIC IAL DECISIONS, AS ALSO THE PRESS NOTE ISSUED BY THE CBDT CLARIFYIN G THE POSITION VIS-A-VIS THE DRAFT OF THE CIRCULAR, WHICH HAD BEEN ISSUED EARLIER THAN THE CIRCULAR ITSELF. IT IS ALSO SEEN THE APPELLANT WAS IN FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT OF CONSTRUCTI ON BUSINESS TO EARN HIS LIVELIHOOD AND THE TRANSACTIONS IN SHAR ES OR OTHER FINANCIAL SECURITIES WERE ENTIRELY UNCONNECTED WITH HIS FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT. I FIND THAT JUST BECAUSE THE APPELLANT HAPPENED TO ENTER INTO LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS PRIMARILY B ECAUSE OF I.T.A NO. 3345/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT 5 RISING SHARE PRICES, HIS TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE CLA SSIFIED AS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. I ALSO FIND FORCE IN THE ARG UMENT OF THE A.R. THAT IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE EARNING LIVELI HOOD FROM FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT SUGGEST THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF SUCH AN ASSESSEE AMOUNT TO AN ADVEN TURE IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT AN ASSESSEE MAKES INVESTMENT IN FINANCIAL ASSETS NOT MERELY WITH A VI EW TO EARN PERIODICAL INCOME BY WAY OF DIVIDEND OR INTEREST, B UT ALSO WITH A VIEW TO GET APPRECIATION OF THE INVESTMENT PARTLY IN ORDER THAT HE IS PROTECTED FROM PERSISTENT INFLATION. BY FOLLO WING SEVERAL JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE A.R, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE SEEN AND IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT HAS BEEN STRONGLY PLEADED THAT THE INTE NTION OF THE APPELLANT WAS TO MAKE INVESTMENTS AND TO MAKE GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES AND IT WAS NOT TO DO SHARE TRADING .EVEN IN EARLIER YEAR I,E, A.Y. 2005-06 THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN SHORT TER M CAPITAL GAIN OF RS. 1,60 CRORES WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O, AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN , CONSIDERING THESE FACTS I HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND NO T BUSINESS INCOME AND SO 1 DIRECT THE A.O. TO TREAT THE INCOME AS SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN TAXABLE AT CONCESSIONAL RATE OF 1 0%.' 8. NOW, WE EXAMINE THE TRIBUNAL ORDER CITED BY THE LD. A.R. HAVING RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANISHA DIXIT SHAH ( SUPRA). IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE INCOME FRO M PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN AND THE SAME WAS TREATED BY THE A.O. AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DEALER IN SHARES. IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN TH AT CASE THAT EXCEPT FREQUENCY OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES, NO OTHER POINT HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE A,O, FOR TREATING THE FROM THE SALE OF SHARES AS BUSINESS INCOME. THE TRIBUNAL NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FUL L TIME SALARIED EMPLOYEE AND THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE OUT OF OWN MON EY WITHOUT ANY BORROWING FROM OUTSIDE AND NO OFFICE OR STAFF WAS M AINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WORKING FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARE S. IT WAS ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE EARLIER AS WELL AS IN THE SUBSEQU ENT YEARS, RECEIPT FROM THE SALE OF SHARES WAS ACCEPTED FOR THE CAPITA L GAIN. BY NOTING THESE FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT CA SE THAT THE RECEIPT ON SALE OF SHARES SHOULD BE TREATED AS SHORT TERM CAPI TAL GAIN. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE BASIS OF THE A.O'S DECISION IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED SHARES OF CERTAIN COMPANY IN DIF FERENT DATES AND I.T.A NO. 3345/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT 6 HAD SOLD THEM IN DIFFERENT DATES AND, THEREFORE, TR ANSACTIONS ARE CLEARLY IN THE NATURE OF TRADE. APART FORM THIS, THE 2 ND OBJECTION OF THE A.O. IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT THE MAGNITUDE OF T RANSACTION IS VERY LARGE AS PER THE A.O. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO HAVING OD ACCOUNT IN THE BANK AND HAS ALSO SHOWN UN SECURED LOAN AND HAS INCURRED INTERESTS EXPENDITURE OF RS.1,30 ,373/-, WHICH HAS BEEN DEBITED TO THE ASSESSEE'S CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE DIVIDEND INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS VERY SMALL I.E. RS.2,65,0 51/- AS AGAINST SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS, 149.S3 LACS. IN RESPECT OF THIS OBJECTION OF THE A.O. THAT ASSESSES HAS USED BORROWED FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES, WE FIND THAT AS PER THE BALANCE SHEE T OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2006, THERE IS CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 234.32 LACS AND THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.0 3.2006 IS ONLY RS.4.41 LACS AND RS. 14.35 LACS TOTALING RS. 18.76 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED INTEREST INCOME ALSO AGAINS T INTEREST OF RS.1.21 LACS AND HENCE, IT CANNOT BE SAID CONCLUSIVELY THAT BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR PURCHASE OF SHARES. REGARDING THE MAGNITUDE OF TRANSACTION AND FREQUENCY OF PURCHASE AND SALE, IT IS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE CITED BY LD, A.R. THAT THESE F ACTORS ALONE CANNOT BE DECISIVE TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. REGARDING OTHER ASP ECTS, IT WAS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT OF CONSTRUCTIO N BUSINESS TO EARN HIS LIVELIHOOD AND ITS TRANSACTION IN SHARES WAS EN TIRELY UNCONNECTED WITH HIS FULL TIME EMPLOYMENT. REGARDING THIS OB JECTION THAT EVEN DIVIDEND INCOME IS SMALL, IT WAS THE CLAIM OF DIE A SSESSES THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS NOT MADE FOR MERELY EARNING DIVIDEND INCOME BUT ALSO FOR APPRECIATION OF THE INVESTMENT. IN THE CASE O F CIT VS REWASHANKAR A KOTHARI (SUPRA), HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ALSO NOTED ITS EARLIER JUDGEMENT IN THE CASE OF PARI MAN GALDAS GIRDHARDAS VS CTT (1977) CTR 647 AND HAS ALSO REPRODUCED CERTA IN TESTS TO DETERMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE CAN BE SAID TO BE CARRYING ON BUSINESS. AS PER THE SAME, THE FIRST TEST IS WHETH ER THE INITIAL ACQUISITION OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF TRANSACTION WA S WITH THE INTENTION OF DEALING IN THE ITEM, OR WITH A VIEW TO MAKING AN INVESTMENT. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT IF THE TRANSACTION, SINCE THE INCE PTION, APPEARS TO BE IMPRESSED WITH THE CHARACTER OF A COMMERCIAL TRANSA CTION ENTERED INTO WITH A VIEW TO EARN PROFIT, IT WOULD FURNISH A VALU ABLE GUIDELINE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AOS DECISION IS NOT ON THE B ASIS OF INTENTION AT THE STAGE OF INITIAL ACQUISITION OF SHARES BUT HE I S DRAWING CONCLUSION I.T.A NO. 3345/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT 7 FORM THIS FACT THAT THE SHARES WERE SOLD WITHIN A V ERY SHORT PERIOD FORM THE DATE OF ACQUISITION. THERE ARE VARIOUS TESTS SUGGESTED BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THE MOST IMPORTANT T EST SUGGESTED IS REGARDING VOLUME, FREQUENCY, CONTINUITY AND REGULAR ITY FOR TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF GOODS CONCERNED . IF THE ASSESSEE IS UNDERTAKING 91 TRANSACTIONS IN 26 SCRIPTS DURING THE WHOLE YEAR, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT CONTINUITY AND REGULARITY OF TR ANSACTION IS THERE REGARDING PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES. IF THES E TWO ARE RULED OUT THEN THE ONLY ADVERSE FACTOR REMAINING VOLUME AND O N THIS BASIS ALONE, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES. ONE OF THE TESTS SU GGESTED BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS THAT WHETHER THE TRANSACTION WAS TREATED AS STOCK IN TRADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE BAL ANCE SHEET OR WHETHER IT WAS SHOWN AS INVESTMENT. ON THIS POINT, THE DECISION GOES IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ALTHOUGH IT IS NOT CONCLU SIVE. ONE OTHER TEST SUGGESTED BY HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS THE TREA TMENT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF SIMILAR ACTIVITIES IN T HE PRECEDING AND SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE RESULT OF SIMIL AR TRANSACTION WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAI N AND IT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT ALTHOUGH U/S 143(1) AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT SUCH OTHER ASSES SMENTS WERE REOPENED BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPIN ION AND AS PER THE JUDGEMENT OF HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT CITED BY LD . A.R. AND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MANISHA D SHAH (SUPRA), IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESS EE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES AND, THEREF ORE, THE SURPLUS ARISING ON SUCH PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES CANNOT BE TREATED AS BUSINESS PROFIT AND IT HAS TO BE TAXED AS SHORT TER M CAPITAL GAIN AS HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE JUDGEMENT OF HON' BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS GOPAL PUROHIT AS REPORTED IN 228 CTR 582 (MUM.) ALSO SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING ALL THESE JUDGEMENTS AND IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD- CIT(A) IN THE PRESENT CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND SINCE REVENUE HAS NOT POIN TED OUT ANY CHANGE IN FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. I.T.A NO. 3345/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ACIT VS. RAJESH BALWANTBHAI BRAHMBHATT 8 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 21/02/2014 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,