Shri Ramesh Verma, Prop.M/s.Kush International, Mumbai V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(3), Surat

ITA 3651/AHD/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0455 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-10-2009
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHELLEY JINDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI T.K.SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.C.AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 29.10.09 DRAFTED ON: 05/0 6/2009 ITA NO.3651/AHD/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02 SHRI RAMESH VERMA PROP. M/S.KUSH INTERNATION 626, PANCHRATNA OPERA HOUSE MUMBAI-400 004 VS. THE ITO WARD-6(3) SURAT PAN/GIR NO. :- (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.P. SHAH RESPONDENT BY: SHELLEY JINDAL, CIT-DR O R D E R PER D.C.AGRAWAL , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-IV, SURAT DATED 23/09/2004 PAS SED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, BY RAISING FOLLOWING GRO UNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS IV SURAT ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF SUM OF RS.21,24,445/- OUT OF GENUINE CA SH PURCHASE OF RS.84,97,780/-. 2. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS-IV, SURAT ERRED IN UPHOLDIN GS THE DISALLOWANCE OF PURCHASES OF RS.25,65,055 OUT OF GE NUINE PURCHASE MADE FROM M/S.JAYESH TRADING CO., SWETA E XPORTS, AND M.K. DIAMONDS. ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 2 - 3. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT T HE PURCHASE WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE FACTUM OF THE SALES THEREOF, THERE CANNOT BE SALES UNLESS THERE IS PURCHASES. 4. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS IV, SURAT ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,17,564 OUT OF INTEREST EXPENS ES. 5. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS-IV, SURAT ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G DISALLOWANCE OF RENT OF RS.22,200 U/S.40A(3). 6. THE LEARNED CIT APPEALS-IV, SURAT ERRED IN UPHOLDIN G DISALLOWANCE OF 1/5 TH OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR. 7. THE CIT APPEALS IV, SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN TOTO. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AND VARY A NY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE HA S ENGAGED IN TRADING OF ROUGH AND POLISHED DIAMONDS. THE RETURN OF INCO ME WAS FILED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.73,260/- ON 31/02/2001. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED TH AT THERE ARE TOTAL PURCHASES OF 3381.39 CARATS OF POLISHED DIAMONDS WO RTH RS.1,87,58,000/-. OUT OF THEM, 894.09 CARATS OF PO LISHED DIAMONDS WORTH RS.84,97,780/- WERE PURCHASED IN CASH AND REMAINING DIAMONDS WEIGHING 2487.3 CARATS WORTH RS.1,02,60,220/- WERE PURCHASED ON CREDIT ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 3 - FROM M/S.JAYESH TADING CO., M/S.SWETA EXPORTS AND M /S.J.M. JEWELLERS AMOUNTING TO RS.34,52,220/-, RS.60,00,000/- AND RS. 8,08,000/- RESPECTIVELY. IN RESPECT OF CASH PURCHASES, THE LD .AO NOTICED THAT SUCH PURCHASES HAVE BEEN MADE ON 21 DIFFERENT OCCASIONS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS RANGING FROM 10 TO 60. THE DETAILS OF THE SELLERS DID NOT CONTAIN THEIR ADDRESSES, EVEN COMPLETE NAMES ARE NOT MENTIO NED. ONLY THE FIRST NAME OF THE PERSONS APPEARS IN CASE OF FOUR PURCHAS ES. EVEN THE ADDRESSES OF THESE PURCHASERS ARE NOT MENTIONED. S INGLE PURCHASE DOES NOT EXCEED RS.20,000/-. THE RATE OF PURCHASE VARIE D FROM RS.2,000/- TO RS.66,000/- PER CARAT. IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THESE D IAMONDS WERE PURCHASED FROM SMALL PARTIES, BUT ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH COSTLY ITEM COULD NOT HAVE BEEN PU RCHASED FOR SUCH SMALL PARTIES AND THAT TOO FROM HUNDREDS OF SUCH P ARTIES. HE ACCORDINGLY, INFERRED THAT PURCHASE RATE AND ALSO G ENUINENESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES ARE CLAIMED ARE NOT VER IFIABLE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS TILL THE FINAL PASSING OF THE ORDER, EVENTHOUGH ASKED ON SEV ERAL OCCASIONS AS PER DETAILS GIVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER ACCORDINGLY, APPLIED THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF I TAT AHMEDABAD BENCH C IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. VS. ACIT (19 96) 55 TTJ 76 (AHD.): ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 4 - 58 ITD 428 AND DISALLOWED 25% OF SUCH CASH PURCHAS ES AND, ACCORDINGLY, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.21,24,445/-. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION UPHOLDING THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS INCORRECT TO APPLY RATIO OF TH E DECISION IN THE CASE OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD.(SUPRA), ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUC ED THE BILLS FROM DIFFERENT PARTIES. IT HAS SUBMITTED THE BILLS FOR M SOME PARTIES. FURTHER, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.314/AHD/2004 AND IN ITA NO.448/AHD/2004 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 -01 HELD UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES THAT PURCHASES ARE GENUINE. O NCE IT IS SO, THEN IT IS INCORRECT TO TAKE A DIFFERENT VIEW THIS YEAR AND AP PLY THE RATIO OF VIJAY PROTEINS LTD. CASE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 TO SUCH PURCHASES WHICH WAS NOT UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL BECAUSE EACH PURCHASE WAS LESS THAN RS.20,000/-. IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 4 0A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BUT HELD THAT SUCH PURCHASES ARE NOT GENUINE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 5 - THAT THE PURCHASES MADE IN CASH ARE APPARENTLY AT M UCH HIGHER RATE. HE SAID THAT FOR PURCHASING 894.09 CARATS OF DIAMONDS IN CASH HE HAS PAID RS.84,97,780-/- GIVING A RATE OF RS.9504.38 PER CAR AT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DIAMONDS PURCHASED ON CREDIT FROM THREE PARTIES FOR A SUM OF RS.1,02,60,220/- AND WEIGHING 2487.3 CARATS GAVE A RATE OF 4125.04 PER CARAT. THUS, WHERE DIAMOND IS PURCHASED ON CREDIT, IT WAS ALMOST AT HALF OF THE RATE AS COMPARED TO DIAMOND PURCHASED IN CAS H. ONCE THESE PURCHASES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE, THE RATIO OF VIJAY PR OTEINS LTD. WOULD BE APPLICABLE AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE SHOU LD BE UPHELD. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ADDITION REQUIRES TO BE UPHELD. IT IS UNDISP UTED FACT THAT THESE DIAMONDS PURCHASED IN CASH ARE NOT VERIFIABLE. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE RATES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ARE COMMENSURATE WIT H THE MARKET RATES. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE, THE POLISHED DIAMONDS WERE PURCHASED FROM THREE PARTIES ON CREDI T BASIS AT A RATE OF RS.4125.04. THUS, CLEARLY THE DIAMONDS PURCHASED I N CASH ARE SUBSTANTIALLY AT HIGHER RATE. IF WE EXCLUDE RS.21, 24,445/- FROM THE PURCHASE PRICE OF RS.84,97,780/- BEING PRICE PAID F OR CASH PURCHASES, ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 6 - THEN PRICE OF RS.984.09 CARATS OF POLISHED DIAMONDS WOULD COME TO RS.63,73,335/-. IF WE DIVIDED BY 894.09 CARATS, TH E RATE PER CARAT COMES TO RS.7128.29 CARATS WHICH IS STILL HIGHER THAN TO RS.4,125.04 PER CARAT IN RESPECT OF PURCHASED MADE ON CREDIT. 8. THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE ON THIS ISSUE AS THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS NOT INVOKED SECTION 40A(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. HE HAS HELD THE PURCHASES ARE NOT GENUINE IN THE SENSE THAT PURCHASERS RATES AND SELL ERS RATES ARE NOT VERIFIABLE AND, ACCORDINGLY, WE CONFIRM THE ADDITIO N. 9. GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 ARE RELATED TO PURCHASES OF R S.25,65,055/- FROM M/S.JAYESH TRADING COMPANY, M/S.SWETA EXPORTS AND J.M. JEWELLERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ALL THE PARTIES ARE SHOWN AS OUTSTANDING AS CREDITORS. THE PURCHASES ARE CLAIME D TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN DIFFERENT MONTHS STARTING FROM APRIL-2000, BUT N O PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO THEM DURING THE WHOLE YEAR AND WHOLE AMOUNT OF PURCHASES ARE OUTSTANDING AS ON 31/03/2001. NO CONFIRMATION, COM PLETE ADDRESSES AND PANS WERE FILED IN RESPECT OF THESE PARTIES. BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE ALSO NOT PRODUCED IN SPITE OF REPEATED REQUEST MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TIONS WITH THESE PARTIES COULD NOT BE VERIFIED. IT WAS EXPLAINED TH AT ASSESSEE HAS SOLD ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 7 - GOODS TO M/S.ALKA DIAMONDS INDUSTRIES LTD. WHICH HA S IN TURN SOLD THE GOODS ABROAD BUT ITS SALE PROCEEDS WERE HELD UP. A CCORDINGLY, M/S.ALKA DIAMONDS INDUSTRIES LTD. DID NOT MAKE THE PAYMENT T O THE ASSESSEE WHICH FACED FINANCIAL CRUNCH AND, ACCORDINGLY, COUL D NOT MAKE PAYMENTS TO M/S.JAYESH TRADING COMPANY AND M/S.SWETA EXPORTS . SUBSEQUENTLY, AN AMICABLE SOLUTION WITH THESE CREDITORS WAS REACH ED AND ACCOUNT WAS SETTLED BY EXCHANGE OF DIAMONDS. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CONSIDERED THESE STATEMENTS. HE HELD THAT NO EVIDENCE HAS BEE N FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT M/S.ALKA INDUSTRIES LTD. HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80-HHC OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 ON LOWER VALUE FOR NON-RECEIPT OF FO REIGN EXCHANGE ON ITS EXPORTS PROCEEDS. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN RE SPECT OF ALLEGED OBJECTION RAISED BY THE FOREIGN BUYER. EVEN LABOU R CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.5,97,780/- CHARGED BY M/S.JAYESH TRADING COMPAN Y WERE OUTSTANDING. THE ASSESSEE HAS SQUARED UP THESE ACC OUNTS WITH TWO PARTIES BY MERELY PASSING JOURNAL ENTRIES FOR WHICH THERE I S NO VERIFICATION. SIMILARLY, M/S.J.J.JEWELLERS REMAINED CREDITORS FOR ALMOST TOW YEARS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHY PAYMENTS WERE NOT INSISTED OR MADE TO THESE PARTIES. MERELY FILING OF CONFIRMATION FROM THESE PARTIES IS NOT SACROSANCT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED RATIO OF THE VIJAY PROTEINS LTD.(SUPRA) AND DISALLOWED 25% OF SUCH PURCHASES RE SULTING IN AN ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 8 - ADDITION OF RS.25,65,055/-. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE REASONING ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. BEFORE US, LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ONCE PANS AND COPY OF ACCOUNTS OF TH E CREDITORS ARE GIVEN, THEN ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE VERIFIE D. WITHOUT VERIFICATION, IT IS INCORRECT TO INFER THAT THE CRE DITORS ARE BOGUS OR THAT PURCHASERS ARE NOT GENUINE. THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT MAKING PAYMENTS TO THESE THREE PARTIES. IT IS BECAUSE PAY MENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE HELD UP AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, ACCOUNTS OF THE CRE DITORS WERE SETTLED BY EXCHANGING DIAMONDS AS PER NORMS OF THE INDUSTIRES. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINANCIAL CAPACITY OF THESE THRE E PARTIES HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED SO AS TO CREATE A BONA FIDE THAT THOSE PARTIES WOULD HAVE GIVEN CREDIT OF MORE THAN A YEAR TO THE ASSESSEE OVER A C RORE OF RUPEES WITHOUT CHARGING ANY INTEREST FROM THE ASSESSEE. FURTHE R, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE HAD SETTLED ACCOUNTS BY PARTING AWAY SOME ADVANCES. NO SUCH EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO THESE PARTIES. IT IS CLEA R THAT ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE DIAMONDS FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE AND PROC URED THE BILLS ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 9 - FROM THESE THREE PARTIES AND, SUBSEQUENTLY, SQUARED UP THE ACCOUNTS THROUGH BOOK ENTRIES ONLY. 12. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAR EFULLY PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FI LE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE WILL PROVI DE COMPLETE CURRENT ADDRESSES OF THESE THREE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WILL SUMMON THESE PARTIES ALSO AND EXAMINE THEIR FINANCIAL CAPA CITY SO AS TO SHOW THAT THEY CAN SELL ON CREDIT AND KEEP THE CREDIT FOR EN TIRE YEAR AND ALSO TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR AND SHOW HOW THE TRANSACTIONS HAS TAKEN PLACE AND WHEN THE ACCOUNTS WERE SQUARED UP WITH THE ASSESSEE. OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WILL BE G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. GROUND NO.4 RELATES TO PAYMENT OF INTEREST OF R S.10,17,564/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED A SUM OF RS.10,17,564/- UNDER THE HEAD ADMINISTRATIVE EXPEN SES. HE FOUND THAT THIS INTEREST IS DEBITED IN THE NAME OF M/S.M. K.DIAMOND. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS OUTSTANDING PAYABLE TO THA T PARTY AGAINST GOODS SUPPLIED BY THEM. THE PROPRIETOR OF M/S.M.K.DIAMO ND, NAMELY SHRI MITHALAL JAIN HAD EXPIRED. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE THO UGHT IT PROPER TO GIVE INTEREST ON HIS OUTSTANDING. ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 10 - 14. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE EXPLANATION BY HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED LOANS TO VARIOUS PERSONS BUT HAS NOT CHARGED INTEREST ON SALE, NO INTEREST HAS BEEN PAID TO THIS PARTY IN ANY EARLIER YEAR, NO COGENT EVIDENCE, SUCH AS, CONTRACT NOTE HAS BEEN PRODUCED SO AS TO PROVE THAT ASSESSEE HAS TO PAY IN TEREST ON OUTSTANDING AGAINST THIS PARTY, NO SUCH PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE T O THAT PARTY IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, NO PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE TO ANY O THER PARTY ON THEIR OUTSTANDING. ACCORDINGLY, HE DISALLOWED THE SAME. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE SAME REA SONING ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 15. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT A PAYMENT IS A BUSINESS EXPENDITURE, IT IS MAD E ON OUTSTANDING. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT IT SHOULD BE PAID IMMEDIATELY AS ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. THEREFORE, ON A CCRUAL BASIS IT HAS BEEN DEBITED. 16. AGAINST THIS, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM IS NOT GENUINE AS NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FU RNISHED THAT ANY SUCH PAYMENTS HAS BEEN MADE TO M/S.M.K. DIAMOND IN FUTUR E. ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 11 - 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THERE IS NO CASE FOR INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDE R OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). IT IS BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS USED CRED IT BALANCES AS AGAINST SUPPLY OF DIAMONDS FROM OTHER PARTIES, BUT NO SUCH PAYMENT OR INTEREST HAS BEEN MADE. IT IS NOT UNDERSTOOD AS TO HOW M/S. M.K.DIAMOND AS ALONE BEEN PICKED UP FOR CREDITING INTEREST TO IT. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HAS ADVANCED ITS OWN MONEY/SOLD GOODS ON CREDIT, BUT HA S NOT DECLARED TO RECEIVE ANY INTEREST ON ITS OWN OUTSTANDING. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT M/S.M.K.DIAMOND DECLARED SUCH INTEREST IN ITS RETUR N OF INCOME. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT ASSESSEE HAS SENT A FORMAL LETT ER TO THAT PARTY SHOWING THAT IT HAS BEEN CREDITED WITH THIS INTEREST. ACCO RDINGLY, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT M/S.M.K.DIAMOND OR ITS LEGAL HEIR HAV E BEEN PAID EITHER THE PRINCIPAL OR THE INTEREST AT ANY TIME THEREAFTE R. ACCORDINGLY, THE CLAIM IS NOT PROVED AND AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE SAME. 18. REGARDING GROUND NOS.5 TO 8 OF THE APPEAL, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT S ERIOUSLY PRESS THEM AND, HENCE, THEY ARE REJECTED AS SUCH. ITA NO. 3651 /AHD2004 SHRI RAMESH VERMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2001-02 - 12 - 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TR EATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13/11/2009. SD/- SD/- ( T.K.SHARMA ) ( D.C.AGRAWAL ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/11/2009 T.C. NAIR COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-IV, SURAT 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH 6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD