The ITO, Ward-11(4), Ahmedabad V. Shri Babulal Ramprasad Agarwal,HUF, Ahmedabad

ITA 3494/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 349420514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAY RANJAN
• Keywords: Gift; Corroborative evidences; Accommodation entries
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3494/AHD/2010 A.YS. 2007-08 THE ITO, WARD-11(4), AHMEDABAD. VS BABULAL RAMPRASAD AGARWAL HUF, PROP. SHIVCO PRINTS, 283, NEW CLOTH MARKET, O/S RAIPUR GATE, AHMEDABAD. PAN: AACHB 2371K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI VIJAY RANJAN, A.R. / DATE OF HEARING : 28/05/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/05/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE GROUNDS RAISED ARE HEREBY DE CIDED AS FOLLOWS: (1) THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECUR ED LOAN U/S.68 OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE AO. (1.1) THE LD. CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS IN STATING THAT THE STATEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE AO CANNOT BE MADE FOR ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAMDINESH S HARMA RECORDED ON OATH DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IS AN EXTRE MELY IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE WHEREIN HE HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT H E WAS MANAGING THE BUSINESS, OPERATING THE BANK ACCOUNTS, ETC. OF THE PARTIES SURVEYED FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN THE UNSECURED LOAN AND THAT HE HAD GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOANS. ITA NO.3494/AHD/2010 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. BABULAL RAMPRASAD AGARWAL A.Y.2007-08 - 2 - (1.2) THE LD. CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LA W IN AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS AL SO SUPPORTED BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3), DATED 08.12.2009 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HUF IS A PROPRIETOR OF M/S. SHIVCO PRINTS AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF CLOTH. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.15 LACS FROM THE FOLLOW ING PARTIES: SR. NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT (RS.) 1. VISHNU INTERNATIONAL (PROP. HEMANT J. S HAH) 2,50,000/- 2. PANKAJ TRADING CO. (PROP. MAHENDRA M. SHAH) 2, 00,000/- 3. RAVIRAJ INTERNATIONAL (PROP. SANTOSH J. PATEL) 4,00,000/- 4. NARESH TRADING CO. (PROP. AMAR G. AGARWAL) 2,50,000/- 5. M.J. INTERNATIONAL (PROP. MANOJ J. JAIN) 4,00 ,000/- TOTAL 15,00,000/- 2.1 THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMAT ION AND COPY OF RETURN ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENT OF THOSE DEPOSITOR S. IN COMPLIANCE, THE DETAILS OF PAN WERE FURNISHED AS UNDER: SR. NO. NAME OF PERSON AMOUNT (RS.) PAN AO CHARGE 1. VISHNU INTERNATIONAL 2,50,000 ARHPS0597C 12(4) 2. PANKAJ TRADING CO. 2,00,000 ARHPS9413P 6(4) 3. RAVIRAJ INTERNATIONAL 4,00,000 AGAPP2970Q 6(4) 4. NARESH TRADING CO. 2,50,000 AENPA9022K 12(4) 5. M.J. INTERNATIONAL 4,00,000 AECPJ7083A 5(1) ITA NO.3494/AHD/2010 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. BABULAL RAMPRASAD AGARWAL A.Y.2007-08 - 3 - 2.2 IT WAS ALSO INFORMED THAT THE LOANS WERE TAKEN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE TRANS ACTION WHICH WAS MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT ALL THE DEPOSITORS WERE EXIST ING TAX PAYERS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PAID INTEREST TO THOSE DEPOSITORS AND TDS @ 10.2% HAS ALSO BEEN DEDUCTED. DETAILS OF THE TDS WERE FURNISH ED. AN ANOTHER FACT HAS ALSO BEEN INFORMED TO THE AO THAT THE LOANS WER E REPAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES OF T HE CITY BANK. THE ASSESSEE HAS, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE PRIMARY O NUS DISCHARGED. 2.3 HOWEVER THE AO WAS NOT CONVINCED. THE AO HAS NO TED THAT A SURVEY U/S.133A WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF ONE SRI LALIT S. SHARMA ON 31.08.2009. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT WAS NOT ED THAT ONE SRI RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARMA WAS MANAGING THE BUSINESS A FFAIRS AND BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE SAID PARTIES. IT WAS ADMITTED BY SR I RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARMA THAT HE HIMSELF HAD OPENED THE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE NAME OF THOSE DEPOSITORS AND DEPOSITED THE CASH AND ISSUED CHEQUE S TO VARIOUS PERSONS. SO, IT WAS NOTED THAT SRI RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARMA W AS INVOLVED IN ISSUING CHEQUES TO VARIOUS PARTIES. THE AO HAS CONC LUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF A SE CURED LOAN. ACCORDING TO AO, SRI RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARMA WAS MA NAGING THE ACCOUNTS OF 61 PERSONS INCLUDING THE ACCOUNTS OF TH E ABOVE MENTIONED 5 DEPOSITORS. THE AO HAD ADDED BACK THE LOAN AMOUNT A LONG WITH INTEREST THEREUPON U/S. 68 OF IT ACT. 3. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY, A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR. IN REMAND PROCEEDIN GS, A QUESTION OF ITA NO.3494/AHD/2010 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. BABULAL RAMPRASAD AGARWAL A.Y.2007-08 - 4 - CROSS-EXAMINATION HAD AROSE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD IN FORMED THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT HE WAS PRESENT IN THE OFFICE OF THE AO ON THE APPOINTED DAY FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF SRI RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARM A BUT THE AO HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE HIM. AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ASSIGNING THE FO LLOWING REASONS: 2.3.1 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND OBSERVATION OF THE AO. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED COPIES OF CONFIRMATIONS GIVING NAMES, ADDRESSES, PAN NUMBER, INCOME TAX RETURN COPIES OF THESE PARTIES A ND INITIALLY DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. FROM THE REMAND REPORT, IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO GIVE CROSS-EXAMINATION TO THE APPELLANT. AND HENCE THE S TATEMENT RELIED UPON BY THE AO CANNOT BE MADE FOR THE ADDITION. THE PAPER O N WHICH THE AO HAS RELIED ALSO DOES NOT SPEAK ABOUT THE LOAN BEING BOG US OR ONLY AN ARRANGEMENT OR ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. IN VIEW OF THIS REASON, I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT AND THE ADDITION OF THE LOAN, AS WELL AS DISALLOWANCE OF CONSEQUENT INTEREST IS DELETED. THESE GROUNDS OF AP PEAL ARE ALLOWED. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE REVENUE, LEARNED DR HAS SUB MITTED A SHORT PAPER BOOK CONTAINING THE STATEMENT OF SRI RAMDINES H RANJIT SHARMA RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY DATED 31.08.20 09. LEARNED DR HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE COPIES OF THE IMPOUNDING MATERIA L DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY DATED 31.08.2009. HE HAS INFORMED THAT AS PE R THE IMPOUNDING MATERIAL, THE ASSESSEES NAME WAS THERE AS LOAN REC EIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS, WHOM BANK ACCOUNTS WERE BORROWED BY SRI RA MDINESH RANJIT SHARMA. ON THE ISSUE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION, A LETTER IS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK DATED 11.08.2010. REFERRING THE REMAND REPORT AND ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO ATTEND OFFICE ON A PARTICULAR DATE TO C ROSS-EXAMINE SRI RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARMA. ON THE BASIS OF THESE EVID ENCES, LEARNED DR HAS EMPHASIZED THAT THE LOAN ENTRIES WERE BOGUS ENT RIES. BECAUSE SRI SHARMA HAS STATED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS THA T HE WAS MANAGING THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THOSE PERSONS AND PROVIDING TH E ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO VARIOUS PARTIES. LEARNED DR HAS CITED A DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M. PIRAI CHOODI, 334 ITR 262 ITA NO.3494/AHD/2010 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. BABULAL RAMPRASAD AGARWAL A.Y.2007-08 - 5 - (SC) FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT THE HIGH COURT SHOU LD HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO GRANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO CROSS -EXAMINE THE CONCERNED WITNESSES INSTEAD OF SETTING ASIDE ASSESS MENT ORDER. HE HAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER CAN BE RESTORED B ACK SO THAT MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE ISSUE OF CROSS-EXAMINATION THE ADD ITION IN QUESTION OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN DELETED BY LEARNED CIT(A). AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THAT FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASS ESSEE AN ORDER OF ITAT B BENCH AHMEDABAD PRONOUNCED IN THE CASE OF SHRI AMIKUMAR S. AGARWAL VS. ITO AHMEDABAD BEARING ITA NO.3498/AH D/2010, DATED 11.01.2013 HAS BEEN CITED BUT LEARNED DR HAS OBJECT ED THAT THE QUESTION OF ADDITION U/S.68 IS TO BE DECIDED ON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE, THEREFORE, THE ISSUE IN HAND SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS COVERED BY T HE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE RESPECTED TRIBUNAL. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS WORTH TO NOTE THAT THE VIEW IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT TAKEN BY LEARNED CIT (A) MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE SAID PARTY WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS NOT APPLICABLE ON THE PRESENT FACTS OF THE CASE. 5. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, LEARNE D AR, MR. VIJAY RANJAN HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE TR IBUNAL CITED SUPRA AND PLEADED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE TRIBUNAL HAS TA KEN A VIEW IN ASSESSEES FAVOUR, RELEVANT PARAGRAPH 6, 6.1 AND 6.2 ARE REPRO DUCED BELOW: 6. WE HAVE BOTH THE SIDES AT SOME LENGTH. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF THE COMPILATI ON FILED AND THE CASE LAWS CITED. AS FAR AS THE COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 68 ARE CONCERNED, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS, BANK STATEMENTS, ADDRESS VERI FICATION, PANS, TDS DETAILS, INCOME-TAX RETURNS OF THE DEPOSITORS AND THE INFORM ATION ABOUT THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN TO THOSE PERSONS. AS FAR AS THE QUESTION OF PE RSONAL APPEARANCE OF THOSE TWO DEPOSITORS WERE CONCERNED, FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASS ESSEE, IT WAS CLEARLY INFORMED THAT THOSE PARTIES WERE NOT HAVING ANY PERSONAL REL ATIONSHIP AND THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS WERE REPAID LONG BACK, THEREFORE THOSE PART IES WOULD NOT HEED TO THE ITA NO.3494/AHD/2010 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. BABULAL RAMPRASAD AGARWAL A.Y.2007-08 - 6 - REQUEST OF THE PERSONAL APPEARANCE, THEREFORE, IN T HE ALTERNATIVE, IT WAS PLEADED TO THE AO TO ISSUE SUMMONS DIRECTLY TO THOSE PARTIE S FOR THEIR PERSONAL APPEARANCE. DUE TO THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSEE'S FORE MOST ARGUMENT IS THAT THE PRIMARY ONUS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER LAW HAD BEEN DISCH ARGED. UPTO THIS EXTENT, WE ARE ALSO WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE W E HEREBY HOLD THAT THE RELIANCE PLACED BY ID. AR APTLY APPLY ON THE ISSUE IN HAND. 6.1. THE MAIN REASON FOR THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WAS A STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SURVEY OF ONE MR. SHARMA. THE SURVEY WAS NOT CONDUC TED, ON THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAID SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED IN SOME OTHER CASES. IN T HAT PROCEEDING, THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WAS THAT A STATEMENT OF O NE MR. SHARMA WAS RECORDED WHO HAD STATED THAT THE ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOANS. NOW THE QU ESTION IS THAT WHETHER THAT STATEMENT WAS SUFFICIENT TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 68 OF IT ACT. FIRST OF ALL, WE WANT TO MENTION THAT IN THE CASE OF PAUL MA THEWS AND SONS (SUPRA), IT WAS MADE CLEAR THAT A STATEMENT ELICITED DURING THE SUR VEY OPERATION HAD NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. SECONDLY, WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THA T THERE WAS NO COGENT REASON ASSIGNED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT FOR REJECTING SE VERAL OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTAB LISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS. ALL THOSE EVIDENCES WERE IN CORROBORATION OF THE SAID LOAN TRANSACTIONS AND FURNISHING OF THOSE EVIDENCES WERE INCONFIRMITY AND REQUIREMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE IT ACT. WE THEREFOR E HOLD THAT THERE WAS NO VALID REASON FOR REJECTING THE EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE AND PLACING RELIANCE BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ON A STATEMENT WHICH WAS NOT REC ORDED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THIS ASSESSEE. 6.2. AS FAR AS THE CASE LAWS FILED BY THE ID.DR ARE CONCERNED, FEW OF THEM ARE IN RESPECT OF THE GIFT TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND FOR T HAT REASON, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE REQUIREMENT OF ACCEPTANCE OF GIFT IS SOMEWHAT D IFFERENT THAN THE UNSECURED LOANS. RATHER, IN A DECISION OF CIT VS. RANCHHOD JI VABHAI NAKHAVA [2012] 21 TAXMAN.COM 159(GUJ.), THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T HAD HELD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS ESTABLISHED THAT THE MONEY WAS TAKEN BY WAY OF ACCO UNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THE LENDERS ARE SUBJECT TO INCOME-TAX, WHOSE PAN HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED AND THAT THEIR CONFIRMATIONS WERE PRODUCE D, THEN THE INITIAL BURDEN U/S.68 WAS DISCHARGED. THE HON'BLE COURT HAS OPINED THAT IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE AO TO ASCERTAIN FROM THE AO OF THOSE LENDERS, W HETHER IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURNS THEY HAVE SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF LOAN. THE AO CAN DECIDE TO EXAMINE THE LENDERS. IF THE AO IS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLAN ATION, THEN THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY QUESTION TO DISBELIEVE THE GENUINENESS OF TH E LOAN TRANSACTION AND THE AO HAD NO AUTHORITY TO DISPUTE THE CORRECTNESS OF T HE LOAN TRANSACTION. RESULTANTLY, WE HEREBY REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DIRECT TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE MAIN REASON OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 WAS A STATEMENT OF ONE SRI RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARMA. UNDISPUTEDLY THAT STATEMENT WAS RECORDED DU RING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE CONDUCTED U/S.133A ON 31.08. 2009 ON ONE SRI ITA NO.3494/AHD/2010 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. BABULAL RAMPRASAD AGARWAL A.Y.2007-08 - 7 - LALIT S. SHARMA. DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, STA TEMENT OF SRI RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARMA WAS RECORDED WHO HAS GIVEN A LONG LIST OF THE PARTIES AND INFORMED THAT THE ACCOUNTS OF THOSE PAR TIES HAVE BEEN MANAGED AND THE LOAN ENTRIES WERE PROVIDED BY HIM. IN THAT LIST, THERE WERE NAMES OF THE FIVE DEPOSITORS WHO HAVE ADVANCED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE; THE AMOUNTS AS LISTED ABOVE. SO, THE QUES TION WAS THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION U/S.68 WAS CORRECTLY MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON A STATEMENT WHICH WAS RECORD ED OF A PERSON DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS HELD IN THE CASE OF AN ANOTH ER PERSON. THIS QUESTION WAS DULY ADDRESSED BY THE RESPECTED CO-ORD INATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF SRI AMIT KUMAR S. AGARWAL, RELEVANT PARAGRA PHS REPRODUCED SUPRA. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS WORTH TO MENTION THA T IN THE CASE OF AMIT KUMAR S. AGARWAL (SUPRA) ALMOST ON IDENTICAL SITUAT ION THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 WERE INVOKED AND THE AO HAD MADE THE ADD ITION. IN THAT CASE AS WELL THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF SRI RAMDINESH RANJIT SHARMA. THAT STATEMENT WAS RECORDE D CONSEQUENCES UPON A SURVEY CONDUCTED ON SRI LALIT S. SHARMA, AS DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE APPEAL IN HAND. IN SHORT, WE CAN CONCLUDE TH AT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN A VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN IN ASS ESSEES FAVOUR THEN THERE IS NO OCCASION TO DEPART FROM THAT VIEW BUT T O FOLLOW THE SAME. MOREOVER, WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY DISCHARGED HIS PRIMARY ONUS OF PLACING ON RECORD THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS, PAN DETAILS, CHEQUE DETAILS, BANK TRANSACTIONS THROUGH WHICH THE LOANS TAKEN. THE ASSESSEE HAS INFORMED THAT THOSE PARTIES WERE EXIST ING TAX PAYERS. IMPORTANTLY, IT HAS ALSO BEEN INFORMED THAT THE INT EREST WAS PAID TO THOSE PARTIES BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TDS WAS DEDUCTED. F URTHER THE LOANS WERE REPAID IN A SUBSEQUENT YEARS THROUGH CITY BANK TRAN SACTION. UNDER THE ITA NO.3494/AHD/2010 ITO AHMEDABAD VS. BABULAL RAMPRASAD AGARWAL A.Y.2007-08 - 8 - TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE THEREFORE UPHOLD THE VIEW OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE. 7. GROUND NOS.2, 3 AND 4 ARE CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATUR E PERTAINING TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST; HENCE, DO NOT SURVIVE IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DECISION. HENCE DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) (MUK UL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/05/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD