The ITO, Ward-4, Navsari V. Smt. Vaishaliben Mineshkumar Bhojak, Navsari

ITA 363/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 36320514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Capital expenditure
• Section: 69; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI (APPELLANT) VS SMT. VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK, 21, PURNA CO-OP. HSG. SOC, LTD, STATION ROAD, NAVSARI-396445 PAN: AGYPB2531K (RESPONDENT) SMT. VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK, 21, PURNA CO-OP. HSG. SOC, LTD, STATION ROAD, NAVSARI-396445 PAN: AGYPB2531K (CROSS OBJECTOR) VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, NAVSARI (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI O.P. BATHEJA, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 07-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-20 13 ITA NO. 363/AHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CO NO. 104/AHD/2013 ( IN ITA NO. 363/AHD/2013) ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 I.T.A NO.363/AHD/2013 & CO NO 104/AHD/2013 A.Y . 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. SMT VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK 2 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THESE ARE THE REVENUES APPEAL AND ASSESSEES CO A GAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 31-10-2012. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WAS SERVED UPON HIM THROUGH LD DR ON 03-03-2013. SO WE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEA L OF REVENUE AND CO OF ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING LD. DR. FIRST WE WILL TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 3 63/AHD/2013 3. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING TWO GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 10,25,000/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE HONBLE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 10,00,000/- MADE U/S. 69B OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. FIRST GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 10,25,00 0/- U/S. 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED AND UNACCOUNTED CASH BEING D EPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT. 5. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS A T RAVEL AGENT ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROVIDING VEHICLES ON HIRE. THE ASSESS EE HAD HER OWN FLEET OF VEHICLES WHICH SHE PROVIDES ON HIRE. DURING THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, I.T.A NO.363/AHD/2013 & CO NO 104/AHD/2013 A.Y . 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. SMT VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK 3 AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 10 ,25,000/- IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO ASKED FOR EXPLANATION REGARDING SO URCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WA S THAT THIS CASH WAS DEPOSITED OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THREE VEHICLES CO NFIRMATION OF WHICH WERE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER AO DISBELIEVED THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MADE A N ADDITION OF RS. 10,25,000/- BY INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION REGARDING DATE OF SALE P ROCEEDS RECEIVED AS PER CONFIRMATION OF THE PURCHASER DID NOT MATCH WITH TH E DATE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT WHY THE ASSESSEE H AD NOT BEEN PAID SALE PROCEEDS OF THE VEHICLES BY THE BUYERS BY CHEQUE AN D CONSEQUENTLY WHEN SUCH CASH PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PIECEMEAL WHY THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT THE SAME FROM TIME TO TIME IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. 6. BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WAS THA T AO HAS ERRED IN INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS THE CASH OF RS. 1 0,25,000/- DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HAD BEEN EXPLAINED FROM THE SALE PROCE EDS RECEIVED BY HER OF THREE VEHICLES SOLD BY HER WHICH COULD BE CROSS CHE CKED WITH THE RTO RECORDS, CONFIRMATION OF BUYERS, SALE LETTERS FILED WITH RTO, ENTRIES IN THE CASH BOOK OF THE ASSESSEE ETC. IT WAS FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT AO DID NOT APPRECIATE THAT SALE PROCEEDS OF THREE VEHICLES HAS BEEN RECEIVED PRIOR TO DATE OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,25,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT AND AO WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER INQUIRY INTO THE MATTER ARBITRARILY IGNORED THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. I.T.A NO.363/AHD/2013 & CO NO 104/AHD/2013 A.Y . 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. SMT VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK 4 7. LD. CIT(A) AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE S UBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TAKING RELIANCE ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS D ELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 8. BEFORE US, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF AO. 9. AFTER HEARING LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT WHEN AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION WAS THAT THIS WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THREE VEHICLES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTIO N ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE BUYERS WHO PURCHASED VEHICLE S FROM THE ASSESSEE, THEIR ADDRESSES, COPIES OF RTO SALE LETTERS ETC. A O WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER INQUIRY IN THIS RESPECT HAS MADE THIS ADDIT ION IGNORING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT BRI NGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO THE CONTRARY WHICH ACCORDING TO US WAS NO T PROPER ON HIS PART. THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RI GHTLY DELETED THIS ADDITION OF RS. 10,25,000/- RELYING ON THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED HIS ONUS IN RESPECT OF SOUR CE OF DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMIS SED. 10. SECOND GROUND RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS. 10 LAC S U/S. 69B OF THE ACT. AO WHILE MAKING THIS ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS U/S. 6 9B OF THE ACT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 6.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN D THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN UNEARTHED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THREE VEHICLES BEARING VEHICLES BEARING NO. GJ -15-9565, GJ-15- U-9536 & GJ-21-T-9558. AS PER THE ESTABLISHED PROC EDURE THE PURCHASING PARTY HAS TO GET NO OBJECTION CERTIFICAT E FROM THE RTO OFFICE BEFORE REGISTRATION OF VEHICLES. ON GOING T HROUGH THE NOC I.T.A NO.363/AHD/2013 & CO NO 104/AHD/2013 A.Y . 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. SMT VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK 5 SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IT HAS BEEN GATHERED THAT THE PURCHASING PARTIES HAS GOT NOC FOR THE VEHICLES, BEARING VEHIC LES NOS. GJ-21T- 9565,GJ-21T-9536 & GJ-21T-9558. ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AS TO WHY THE DIFFERENCE T OOK PLACE IN HER WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND NOC ISSUED BY RTO OFFICE. I T WAS ALSO QUESTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED VEHICLES BEARING VEHICLE NO. GJ-21T-9565, GJ-21T-9536 BUT THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN IN HER BOOKS. THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SHOW CA USE AS WHY THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THESE VEHICLES SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT OUTSIDE BOOKS. 5.1 IN THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE THE REGISTRATION NUMBER HAS B EEN ENTERED WRONGLY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE VEH ICLES SOLD AS SHOWN IN HER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, ARE IN THE NAME O F OTHER PERSON. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD VEHICLES NO. GJ-15-9565 AND GJ-15-U-9536 BUT AT THIS STAGE SHE IS STATING THAT SHE HAS NOT O WNED THESE VEHICLES. THEREFORE, THIS IS AFTERTHOUGHT STORY MADE BY THE A SSESSEE TO HIDE THE FACTS UNEARTH DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. I T ALSO PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE OCCUPY TWO VEHICLES BEARING VEHICLES N O. GJ-21T-9565 AND GJ-21T-9536 WHICH HAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN HER BOOKS. THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE JUSTIFIABLE THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN THE AFORESAID VEHICLES OUTSIDE BOOKS AND UNDISCL OSED SOURCES. ON THIS ISSUE THE ASSESSEE WAS SHOW CAUSED AS TO WHY T HE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE VEHICLE NOS. GJ-21T-9565 AND GJ-21T-9536 SHOULD NOT BE MADE IN H ER TOTAL INCOME. ON THIS ASPECT, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO JUSTIFY THE CORRECTNESS. 5.2 THUS, A LUMP-SUM ADDITION U/S. 69B OF THE ACT O N ACCOUNT OF RS. 10,00,000/- IS ALSO MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN TWO VEHICLES I.E. GJ-21-T-9565 AND GJ-21-T-9536 SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY RTO OFFICE, WHICH IS NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 11. LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THIS ADDITION BY OBSERVI NG AS UNDER:- 6.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED CAREFULLY THE RIVAL CONTENTI ONS. I HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND F ORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN ANY VEHICLES HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT BUT ON THE CONTRARY THE COST OF CAPTIONED VEHICLES BEARING REGN. NO. GJ-21T-9565 AND GJ-21-T- 953, WHICH I.T.A NO.363/AHD/2013 & CO NO 104/AHD/2013 A.Y . 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. SMT VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK 6 WERE SOLD DURING THE YEAR HAVE BEEN PROPERLY RECORD ED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR OF ITS PURCHASE AND HAS B EEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS COMPUTATION OF WDV IN DEPRECIATION WORKING AS WELL AS COMPUTATION OF INCOME. BASED ON THE FACTUAL MATRIX AND EVIDENCES ON RECORD IT CAN BE INFERRED T HAT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR MADE BY THE ACCOUNTANT CAN IN NO WAY BE STARC HED TO IMAGINE AND HOLD THAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN VEHICLES HA S BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IN ORDER TO CHARGE UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT AS INCOME, THE BURDEN IS UPON THE REVENUE TO CONCLUSIVELY ESTA BLISH BY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL THE FACT OF INVESTMENT AND IN THE INSTA NT CASE NO SUCH INVESTMENT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE AO. SECTION 69 DOES NOT EMPOWER THE AO TO ASSESS THE INCOME MERELY ON THE B ASIS OF SUSPICION. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69 ALSO IS SELF EXPLANATORY AS IT PROVIDES THAT THE AO IN ORDER TO INVOKE SEC. 69 HAS TO HAVE COGENT EVIDENCE THAT INVESTMENT MADE BY THE APPELLANT IS N OT DISCLOSED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS SEC. 69 CLEARLY SPECIFIES THAT WHERE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IF ANY, MAINTAINED BY HIM FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE O F THE INVESTMENST OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT IN THE OPI NION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE VALUE OF THE INVESTMENTS MAY BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. IN THE CASE OF DILSHAD TRADING CO. PVT. LTD VS. ITO (49 ITD 348) WHEREIN FOLLOWING THREE FINDINGS ARE HELD TO HAVE C UMULATIVE EFFECT: THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 69 ARE APPLIED IN THE CONTEX T OF FOLLOWING SITUATION:- A. ASSESSEE MUST HAVE MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE ACCOU NTING YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR. B. SUCH INVESTMENTS MADE, ARE NOT RECORDED IN THE B OOKS IF ANY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ANY SOURCE OF INCOME . C. ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION REGARDING THE NAT URE AND SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OR THE EXPLANATION. THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT TWO VEHICLES VIZ. GJ-21-T-9565 AND GJ-21-T-9536 HAVE BEEN PURCHASED B Y THE APPELLANT IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS THE SAME HAVE BEEN REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IN PRECEDING PREVIOUS YEARS. THE PRECISE DATE I.T.A NO.363/AHD/2013 & CO NO 104/AHD/2013 A.Y . 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. SMT VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK 7 OF ACQUISITION OF THE TWO VEHICLES AS PER RTO RECOR DS ARE NARRATED BELOW:- REGN. NO. DATE OF REGISTRATION GJ-21-T-9565 01-03-2004 GJ-21-T-9536 03-10-2003 BASED ON THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL MATRIX AND GLARING F ACTS THAT THE CAPTIONED VEHICLES HAD BEEN PURCHASED IN THE PRECED ING PREVIOUS YEAR AND HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT FORM TIME TO TIME, I AM INCLINED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- MADE BY THE APPELLANT AS THE TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKE OF THE ACCOUNTANT WOULD NOT VITIATE THE FACT THAT NO UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I, THEREFORE, DELETE THE AD DITION OF RS. 10,00,000/- MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANTS GROUND NO. IS ALLOWED. 12. IN VIEW OF THE CATEGORICAL FINDING OF LD. CIT(A ) THAT TWO VEHICLES I.E. GJ-21-T-9565 AND GJ-21T-9536 WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT PURCHASED IN THE CURRENT YEAR AS THE SAME WERE REGI STERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN PRECEDING YEARS AND HAVE BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THOSE YEARS WHICH REMAINED U NCONTROVERTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO I NTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LACS MAD E BY AO AND THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. NOW COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO. 104/AHD/2013 13. THE ONLY GROUND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER:- 1. LOOKING TO THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESS EE AS TRAVEL AGENT, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE EXP ENDITURE MADE FOR IMPROVEMENT IN VEHICLE OF RS. 373080/-, TOWARDS REP AIRS CARRIED OUT TO THE VEHICLES OF CAPITAL NATURE AND THE SAME SHAL L BE CONSIDERED FOR THE COMPUTING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN FROM SALE OF THIS VEHICLES. I.T.A NO.363/AHD/2013 & CO NO 104/AHD/2013 A.Y . 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. SMT VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK 8 14. THE AO WHILE MAKING THIS ADDITION HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 6. ON VERIFICATION OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 24. 11.2011, POINT NO. 01(B), IT IS NOTED THAT EH ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN C OST OF IMPROVEMENT IN THE FOLLOWING VEHICLES ARE AS UNDER: COST OF IMPROVEMENT (I) GJ21T9565 RS. 2,43,370/- (REPAIRING O F CAPITAL NATURE) (II) GJ21T9536 RS. 1,29,710/- (REPAIRING OF CAPITAL NATURE) 6.1 ON VERIFICATION OF THE DEPRECIATION CHART ATTAC HED WITH THE RETURN OF INCOME, IT IS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FIRSTLY ADDED THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE IN THE WRITTEN DOWN VALUE OF TH E VEHICLES AND THEN SHE DEDUCTED THE SALE CONSIDERATION FORM IT. IN TH IS WAY, IT IS ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECREASED TH E VALUE OF CAPITAL GAIN. FURTHER IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY PROOFS IN REGARD OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE MADE TOWARDS THE VEHICLES. IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, HOW CAN IT IS JUSTIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CAPITAL EXPENSE. THEREFORE, I HAVE NO OPTION OTHER THAN TO DISALLOW THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE OF RS. 3,73,080/- AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 15. LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO AS UN DER:- 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE LD. AR HAS NOT DISPUTED THE POINTS RAISED BY THE AO THAT T HESE EXPENSES ARE CAPITAL IN NATURE. IF THAT BE SO, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE DURING THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDE RATION. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IS UPHELD. ACCORDI NGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 16. SINCE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE US DE SPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WAS SERVED UPON HIM, IT APPEARS THAT SHE HAS NOTHING TO SAY ON THIS GROUND AND THE SAME IS HEREB Y DISMISSED. I.T.A NO.363/AHD/2013 & CO NO 104/AHD/2013 A.Y . 2009-10 PAGE NO ITO VS. SMT VAISHALIBEN MINESHKUMAR BHOJAK 9 17. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AS WEL L AS CO FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 11/10/2013 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/ , / ,