Smt. Mamtadevi L. Raol, Bhavnagar V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Bhavnagar

ITA 3619/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2062 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 1991-1992
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2007
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D S CHAUDHARY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Onus to prove
• Section: 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH AHMEDABAD BENCH D DD D BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE BEFORE SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI N NN N. .. .S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI S. SAINI, , , , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND AND AND AND SHRI SHRI SHRI SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING :4 2 2011 DRAFTED ON:4-2 -2011 ITA NO. 3619 /AHD/ 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1991-92 SMT. MAMTADEVI L. RAOL, MANGALSINHJI MAHEL, MANGALSINHJI ROAD, BHAVNAGAR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BHAVNAGAR. PAN/GIR NO. : ADRPR0997M (A PPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI. RESPONDENT BY: SH RI D.S. CHAUDHARY, SR.D.R. O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, A HMEDABAD DATED 5-6- 2007. 2. GROUND NO.1 IS DIRECTED AGAINST CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDING `.4,50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- 5. THE SECOND GROUND RELATES TO AN ADDITION OF `.4 ,50,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION.68 OF THE INCOME TAX AS UNEXPLAINED C ASH CREDIT AND DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST. THE MAIN ISSUE INVOLVED I N THIS APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF `.4,50,000/- MADE UNDER SECT ION. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT BEING UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE NAMES OF NON- GENUINE BUSINESS CONCERNS I.E. M/S. PARSHVA SALES C ORPORATION, SHAKTI CORPORATION AND M. D. MEHTA & CO. DURING THE YEAR U NDER ASSESSMENT. AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED T O PROVE THE PAGE 2 OF 8 GENUINENESS, CREDITWORTHINESS AND EXISTENCE OF THE CREDITORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN DETAI L THROUGHOUT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MENTION ED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD WERE ALLOWED TO THE AS SESSEE TO PROVE THE CASH CREDIT. SUMMONS WAS RETURNED BACK UNSERVED . NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS EITHER BEEN PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE REGARDING THE CREDITS MADE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY WAY OF LOANS. THEREFORE, AFTER QUOTING THE DECISION OF HONBLE IT AT RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.L. KALATHIA (IND., BHA VNAGAR) VS. ACIT, CC- 2, RAJKOT (ITA NO.1135/AHD/1997 (1993-94), IN WHICH IT IS HELD THAT : IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITORS, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS O F THE TRANSACTION. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN SATISFACTORY WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT, WHICH HAVE BEEN CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, T HE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE RECEIPT HAS TO BE PROVED BY THE ASSES SEE AND IF HE FAILS TO PROVE SATISFACTORILY THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IS AT LIBERTY TO DRAW AN INFERENCE THAT THE RECEIPT IS ASSESSABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS THE DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITOR, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. MERE FURNISHING OF PARTICULARS IS NOT ENOUGH. MERE PAYMENT OF ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE CANNOT MAKE NON-GEN UINE ADDRESS OR GENUINE. IF THE CREDITOR IS NOT TRACEABL E, THEN THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED. THE QUESTION OF ESTABLISHMENT OF GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OR CREDITWORTHINESS OR CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITO R DOES NOT AND COULD NOT ARISE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE IDENTITY OR THE TWO C REDITORS REMAIN TO BE ESTABLISHED AND WITHOUT ESTABLISHING THE IDEN TITY, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS OR NO CONSEQUENCE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF `.2 LACS MA DE UNDER SECTION 68 IS UPHELD AND OUR INTERFERENCE IS NOT RE QUIRED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, HELD THAT `.4,50, 000/- CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY WAY OF LOAN OBTAINED BY THE ASS ESSEE FROM NON GENUINE BUSINESS CONCERNS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED AND THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE TAXED AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5.1. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE APPELLANT HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN WHICH IT IS EXPLAINED THAT THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENC ES WERE PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER DID NOT ACCEPT ANY OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT PROPERLY CONSIDERING AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD, REACHED TO A PREDETERMINED CONCLU SION THAT THE PAGE 3 OF 8 LOANS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT WERE NON-GENUINE AN D ADDED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IT HAS PROVED ALL TH E INGREDIENTS SUCH AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITOR AND CREDITWORTHINESS AND CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITOR BY P ROVIDING COPY OF PAN CARD AND COMPLETE INCOME TAX DETAILS COUPLED WI TH THE FACT THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUES. THE APPELLANT ALSO RELIES ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE NAMES AND ADDR ESSES OF THE CREDITORS, THE BURDEN IS ON THE REVENUE TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF THE INCOME OF THE SAID CREDITS, THEIR CREDIT WORTHINESS AND CAPACITY TO ADVANCE THE SAID LOAN.:- 1. MURLIDHAR LAHORIMA VS. CIT 280 ITR 512(GUJ ). 2. CIT VS. PRAGATI CO.OP. BANK LTD., (278 ITR -170)(GUJ) 3. CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION P. LTD.(1986) 1 59 ITR 78(SC) 4. NEEMI CHAND KOTHARI VS. CIT & ANOTHER (2003) 2 64 ITR 254(GAU) 5. DCIT VS. ROHINI BUILDERS (2002) 256 ITR-36 0 (GUJ.) 6. ROHINI BUILDERS VS. DCIT (2002) 76 TTJ 521 (AHD). 7. ADDL. CIT. BIHAR VS. HANUMAN AGARWAL (1985) 15 1 ITR0150(PAT) 8. SAROGI CREDIT CORPORATION VS. CIT, BIHAR (1976 ) 103 ITR- 344(PAT) 9. NIRMA INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT (2006) 283 ITR 402 (GUJ.) 5.2. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ITATS ORDER AS WELL AS THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. I HAVE GIVEN DUE THOUGHT TO THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ADDING THE AMOUNT OF `.4,50,000/- BY WAY OF LOANS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OUT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED S OURCES OF THE APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSION OF THE AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE IS CONSIDERED AND PERUSED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BU T THE SAME IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY. 5.3. AS PER THE DIRECTION OF HONBLE ITAT, THE APPE LLANT HAD BEEN GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INDIVIDUAL SHARE HOLDERS AN D CONSEQUENTLY THE GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTMENT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THEIR NAMES BUT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DISCHARGE I TS ONUS BY PROVING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS. IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE FACT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE C ASH CREDIT AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 68, THE ASSESSEE MUST P[ROVE 3 IMPORT ANT CONDITIONS NAMELY (1) THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON,(2) THE GENUI NENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND (3) THE CAPABILITY OF THE PERSON GI VEN THE CASH CREDIT AND ALL THE3 CONDITIONS SHOULD BE MET CUMULATIVELY. FAILURE TO PROVE/FULFILL ANY ONE OF THE CONDITIONS WOULD RENDE R THE CASH CREDIT AS UNEXPLAINED. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, EVEN THO UGH THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED, THE OTHER TWO C ONDITIONS NAMELY PAGE 4 OF 8 GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS HAVE NOT BEEN PROVED. 5.4. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO RESTORE THE ORIGINAL ADDITION MA DE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONU S, BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE ME, HENCE, I DECLINE TO I NTERFERE IN THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CORRECTLY INVOKED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 68 AND MADE ADDITION OF `. 4,50,000/-,WHICH IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CAS E OF AJAYKUMAR V. MEHTA, BHAVNAGAR WHERE IT CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT SOME BOGUS CONCERNS WERE FLOATED BY SHRI AJAY V. MEHTA A ND THAT THESE BOGUS CONCERNS OFFERED DEPOSITS TO VARIOUS PARTIES. FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT WITH CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD., AND DENA BANK, BHAVNAGAR FO R THE PERIOD 1-4-90 TO 31-3-91 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN LOAN FROM PARSHWA SALES CORPORATION, SHAKTI C OAL CORPORATION AND M.D. MEHTA AND CO., AGGREGATING TO RS.4,50,000/- AN D THAT ALL THE CONCERNS HAVE ADVANCED LOAN OUT OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNT WITH B HAVNAGAR WELFARE COOPERATIVE BANK AND DENA BANK BHAVNAGAR AND THAT D EPOSITS WERE MADE BY THESE CONCERNS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE BOGUS. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE LOAN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THESE CONCERNS WERE ALSO BOGUS AND MA DE ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SANJAY K. THAKKAR TAX APPEAL NOS.524 OF 2004, 525 AND 526 OF 2004 AND 579 TO 583 OF 2003 VIDE ORDER DATED 12-9-2005 HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE SHOWED THAT THE CREDITORS HAVE ADVANCED THE MONEY THROUGH BANK AND PLACED EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD ON RECORD, ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TA X THEN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE POSITION IN LAW IS WELL SETTLED T HAT IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CAPACITY OR THE CREDIT W ORTHINESS OF THE PARTY IN QUESTION OR AS TO THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THE CREDITO R HAS DEPOSITED THE PAGE 5 OF 8 AMOUNT, IT IS OPEN TO THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS AFTER MAKING APPROPRIATE INQUIRY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS P ROVED ALL THE INGREDIENTS SUCH AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT ION, IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITOR AND CREDITWORTHINESS AND CAPACITY OF THE DEPOSITOR BY PROVIDING COPY OF PAN CARD AND COMPLETE INCOME TAX DETAILS CO UPLED WITH THE FACT THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYE E CHEQUES. THEREFORE, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND THE ADDITION MADE REQUIRES T O BE DELETED. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME TAX TRIBUNAL IN T HE CASE OF SHRI SANDEEP J. MEHTA & OTHERS VS. ITO IN ITA NO.5823/AHD/1994 ETC. , VIDE CONSOLIDATED ORDER DATED 9-7-2003 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92 WHE RE THE SUCH ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.4,07,120/- FROM M.D. MEHTA & CO. AN D ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 WAS CONF IRMED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHERE THE SAI D ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THAT THE LENDER CANNOT DETECT TERMS AS TO HOW THE CREDITOR SHALL MA NAGE HIS AFFAIR. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO REASONS ARE GIVEN TO SHOW AS TO WHY WE SUSPECT THESE TRANSACTIONS AS BOGUS ON ACCOUNT OF LOW AVAILABILIT Y OF CASH. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF ACIT VS. SMT. SAROJBEN V. BHAYANI ITA NO.786/RJT/2003 ORDER DATED 15-12-2005 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE LOAN OF `.2 LACS WAS OB TAINED FROM M/S. M.D. MEHTA AND CO., ONE OF THE CONCERNS OF SHRI AJAY V. MEHTA OF BHAVNAGAR WHICH WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY CONS IDERING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM BOGUS CONCERNS AND THE SAME WAS DELET ED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN FURTHER AP PEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE RE VENUE. HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AC IT VS. MALAVI SHIP BREAKING CO., ITA NO.91/RJT/96 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992 -93 ORDER DATED 24-1- 2005 AND SUBMITTED THAT IN THAT CASE ALSO THE ASSES SEE HAD RECEIVED DEPOSIT FROM M.D. MEHTA & CO., `.7,50,000/- , PARSH WA SALES CORPORATION `.4,50,000/-, SHAKTI COAL CORPORATION `.3,50,000/- WHICH WERE ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE SAME WERE PAGE 6 OF 8 DELETED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT CONFIRMATIONS WERE FILED AND THE CREDIT ORS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE REVENUE THE TRIBUNAL DISMI SSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. THUS, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE ALLOWED AS THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE AS WELL AS THE DEPOSITORS ARE THE SAME. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON TH E HAND HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R. 5. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS F OUND THAT THE DEPOSITORS HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN THEIR ACCOUNT FROM WHERE THEY ISSUED THE CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER OPINED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS MADE BY THE CREDITOR WERE BO GUS AND THEREFORE NOT ACCEPTED THE CASH CREDIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THE CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOU NTS OF THE DEPOSITORS BEFORE ISSUING OF CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE. NO MATER IAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE SAID CASH DEPOSITS WERE MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE OR ANY MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT CASH WAS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE IN LIEU OF CHEQUES ISSUED. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SANDEEP J. MEHTA (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED MONEY THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND FILED TH E CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITOR AND ALSO PLACED EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DEPOSITORS ARE ASSESSED TO TAX THEN IF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THE CAPACITY OR CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITOR OR TH E SOURCE FROM WHICH THE CREDITOR HAS DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN HIS BANK ACCOU NT BEFORE THE ISSUE OF THE CHEQUE TO THE ASSESSEE THEN THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER CAN MAKE INQUIRY AND MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE CREDI TOR BUT THE DEPOSITS CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THUS, THE FACT OF THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE HONBL E HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE, THE DECISION SQUARELY APPLIES TO THE FAC TS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL DISCUSSED ABOVE ALSO SQUARELY COVERS THE INSTANT CASE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF `.4,50 ,000/- MADE UNDER SECTION.68 OF THE ACT AND ALLOW THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. PAGE 7 OF 8 6. GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIR MING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE ACT. 7. AS NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE LEARNED AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE H EARING, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 8. GROUND NO.4 OF THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E INITIATION OF THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 9. AS NO SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BY THE LEARNED AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF THE H EARING, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) (N.S. S AINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: AHMEDABAD, 15 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. COMPILED AND COMPARED BY: PATKI COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XIX, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD PAGE 8 OF 8 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 4-2-2011 ----------------- -- 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 10-2-2011 ------ ------------- 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED 10-2-2011 ------------ ------- JM BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED --------------- ---- --------------- JM/AM BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S ---------------- -- ------------------ 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON ---------------- --- ----------------- 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK ---------------- -------------------- 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE ---------------- -------------------- 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER ---------------- -- -------------------