The ACIT, (Asstt) Spl-Range-2, Ahmedabad V. Smt. Vidyaben H. Shah L/H of late Hemendra R Shah, Ahmedabad

ITA 419/AHD/1999

• Counselvise Citation: 41920514 RSA 1999
• Duration Of Justice: 12 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-1999
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B K S PANDYA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 80HHC; 234B

Judgement Text

-1- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'B' BEFORE SHRI D K TYAGI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A L GEHLOT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.419/AHD/1999 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-1995-96) THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT) SPECIAL RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD V/S SMT. VIDYABEN H SHAH, L/H OF LATE SHRI HEMENDRA R SHAH, 2, JAIN NAGAR, NEW SHARDA MANDIR ROAD, PALDI, AHMEDABAD-380 007 PAN/GIR NO. 31-000-PY-0118 [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] ITA NO.2548/AHD/1998 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-1995-96) SMT. VIDYABEN H SHAH, L/H OF LATE SHRI HEMENDRA R SHAH, 2, JAIN NAGAR, NEW SHARDA MANDIR ROAD, PALDI, AHMEDABAD-380 007 V/S THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT) SR-2, AHMEDABAD PAN/GIR NO. 31-000-PY-0118 [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] REVENUE BY :- SHRI B. K. S. PANDYA, CIT DR ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI S. N. SOPARKAR WITH MS. URVASHI SHODHN, ARS DATE OF HEARING:- 09-02-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:- 29-02-2012 O R D E R 2 PER D K TYAGI (JM) :- THESE CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 29-12-1998 PASSED BY THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, AHMEDABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE PARTIES ARE AS UNDER:- ITA NO.419/AHD/1999 REVENUES APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A)/DCIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW ON THE FACTS IN (I) DELETING SHORT FALL IN CASH SEIZED (II) DELETING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/EXPENSES (III) DELETING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/EXPENSES AS DIRY (IV) DELETING CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SUL ACID (V) DELETING CAPTIVE CONSUMPTION IN CALCULATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. SIMILARLY HE HAS ALSO ERRED IN DELETING CENT RAL SALES TAX AND EXCISE DUTY. (VI) TREATING NET INTEREST FOR CALCULATION OF DEDUC TION U/S 80I 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE LEARNED CIT(A)/DCIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF TH E AO. 3 IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE L EARNED CIT(A)/DCIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ORD ER OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. ITA NO.2548/AHD/1998 ASSESSEES APPEAL :- 1. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING A L UMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.30,000 TO THE APPELLANT'S TOTAL INCOME ON ACC OUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOUSEHOLD VALUABLES. 2. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDI TION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,61,500 ON THE BASIS OF THE FOLLOWING NOTING S IN THE SEIZED DIARY, MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER: 3 SR. NO. PAGE NO. DESCRIPTION AMOUNT (RS.) ------- ---------- -------------------- - ---------------- 1 7 H.R. (PANNALAL) 50,000 2 7 H.R. (PANNALAL) 20,000 3 7 H.R. 15,000 4 7A VIRAL BOMBAY 10,000 5 7A DECK VIRAL 31,500 6 8 PUNE VISHAL 20,000 7 8 ERIC 15,000 --------- 1,61,500 3. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,70,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE A LLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD/JEWELLERY ON THE BAS IS OF NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED DIARY. 4. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DI SALLOWANCE OF RS.12,594 OUT OF THE TELEPHONE EXPENSES, RS.20,162 OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND RS.30,563 OUT OF MOTOR CAR DEPRECIATIO N FOR THE ALLEGED PERSONAL USE OF THE TELEPHONE AND MOTOR CAR. 5. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN GIVING DIRECT IONS TO EXCLUDE THE NET INTEREST IN THE COMPUTATION OF ELIGIBLE PROFIT FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80-I INSTEAD OF GIVING DIRECTIONS NOT TO EXCLUDE ANY PAR T OF INTEREST. 6. IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE D ECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO INCLUDE CENTRAL EXCISE, SALES TAX OF THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS.34.30 LACS IN THE TOTAL T URNOVER OF THE APPELLANT WHILE COMPUTING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 6.1 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN FURTHER DIREC TING THE AO TO EXCLUDE THE NET INTEREST INCOME INSTEAD OF DIRECTIN G HIM NOT TO EXCLUDE ANY PART OF THE INTEREST INCOME FROM THE ALLEGED PR OFIT IN THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC. 4 7 IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RELATING TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 23 4B AND IN GIVING DIRECTIONS TO THE AO ONLY TO GIVE CONSEQUENTIAL REL IEF IN THE LEVY OF SUCH INTEREST. 8 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND AND / O R ALTER THE GROUND/S OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1(I) IN THE REVENUES APPEAL , THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO NOTED THAT IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THEY HAD ALREADY COMMUNICATED TO THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 94-95 T HAT DISCLOSURE MADE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS REF ERABLE TO THE ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WAS DULY EXPLAINED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 94-9 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE INCOME DISCLOS ED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AYS 1994-95 AND 1995-96 IS TO THE TUN E OF RS.70 LACS AND RS.33 LACS RESPECTIVELY WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN TOGETHER AND WHICH COVERS THE CASH FOUND DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AMOUNTING TO RS.36.40 LACS. BUT, ACCOR DING TO THE AO, THE FACT REMAINS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION I.E. AY 1995-96, THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY DISCLOSED RS.31 L ACS AS INCOME WHICH DOES NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAIN THE UNAC COUNTED CASH AVAILABLE IN THE PREMISES. APART FROM THE CASH SEIZ ED, THERE WERE ALSO OTHER ASSETS IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOULD COMMENSURATE WITH INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. TO THAT EXTENT, ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS LESS THAN THE ASSETS IDENTIFIED B Y THE ASSESSEE AND ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR AS ALSO EXPENDITURES M ADE DURING 5 THE YEAR. IN ITS LETTER DATED 9-3-98, THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH SEIZED OF RS.36.40, A SUM OF RS.10.51 LACS HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE AR, I.E. 1994- 95 BY WAY OF CASH / RECEIVABLES AND THE SAME IS REQ UIRED TO BE CONSIDERED AS FULLY EXPLAINED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTAB LE. SINCE THE INCOME DISCLOSED IS ONLY RS.31 LACS THIS DOES NOT C OVER THE CASH OF RS.36.40 LACS FOUND AND SEIZED IN COURSE OF SEAR CH. THEREFORE, THE SHORT FALL OF RS.5.40 LACS WAS REQUIRED TO BE T AXED AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. 3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FI LED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A ) DELETED THE ADDITION WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND DISCUSSION MADE BY CIT(A) FOR AY 1994-95 REGARDING CASH RECEIVABLE AFTER 31-3-94 AND IT IS SEEN THAT THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF RS.103 LAKHS WAS MADE FOR A Y 1994-95 WHICH INCLUDES A CASH OF RS.36.40 LAKHS. THE DISCLOSURE O F RS.70 LAKHS WAS MADE FOR THE AY 1994-95 WHICH INCLUDED CASH RECEIVA BLE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.10.51 LAKHS WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AS OPENING BA LANCE FOR AY 1995-96. SINCE CASH RECEIVABLE WAS RECEIVED DURING AY 1995-96, THIS AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED IN AY 1994-95 AS CASH RECEIVABLE. MOREOVER, THE TOTAL DISCLOSURE OF BOTH THE YEARS TO GETHER I.E. AY 1994- 95 AND 1995-96 COVERED THE CASH OF RS.36.40 LAKHS, I HOLD THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.5.40 LAKHS WHICH IS A SHORTFALL OF CASH SEIZED SINCE IT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED IN AY 1994-95 AS CASH RECEIVABLE. THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. 4 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF THE AO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 6 5 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE SUM OF RS.10.51 LAKHS H AS ALREADY BEEN TAXED IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR, REQUIRES VERIFICAT ION AND FOR THIS PURPOSE THIS GROUND DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR THIS VERIFICATION AND IF THE LEARNED CIT(A) FIN DING IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THEN NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE . THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6 GROUND NOS.1(II) & (III) IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND NO.1 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATE TO DELE TION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT / EXPENSES. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE AO HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED RS.5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE, FIXTURES AND VA LUABLES AS PER ANNEXURE-V. HE OBSERVED THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.1 03 LACS DOES NOT INCLUDE THIS ITEM. THIS POINT WAS DISCUSSED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 1994-95 AND IT IS NOTED THAT SINCE THE DATES OF UNEXPLAINED ACQUISITION ARE NOT KNOWN THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE IN THE TOTAL INCOME FOR AY 1995-96. THE AO HAS, THE REFORE, CONSIDERED VALUE OF RS.78,000/- OF 10 ITEMS ON ESTI MATED PRICE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.78,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIO N IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 4.2 IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:- NATIONAL VACCUM CLEANER RS. 4000 7 FREEZE-COOL A.C. RS.20000 SUPERFLAME BURNDERS RS. 3000 ALWYN REFRIGERATOR RS.10000 NATIONAL OVEN RS. 3000 ACQUAGUARD WATER FILTER RS. 3000 SUMIT WASHING MACHINE RS. 5000 MILCENT FLOUR MILL RS. 5000 AIR CONDITIONER RS.20000 SONY TAPE RECORDER WITH STEREO RS. 5000 ON PERUSAL OF THESE ITEMS IT IS SEEN THAT ALL SUCH ITEMS ARE ALWAYS AVAILABLE IN A RESPECTABLE FAMILY AND NO BUSINESSMA N CAN AFFORD TO KEEP THE VOUCHERS OF ALL THESE ITEMS AS THIS IS NOT A REQUIREMENT OF LAW. MOREOVER, ALL THE ITEMS ARE SUCH ITEMS WHICH ARE US ED FOR DAY-TO-DAY. THEREFORE, THE ITEMS ARE VERY OLD AND HAVE NOT BEEN PURCHASED IN THE YEAR OF SEARCH WHEREAS THE VALUE TAKEN BY THE AO IS OF PRESENT VALUE. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE ITEMS ARE VERY OLD AND VALUE TAKEN BY THE AO IS OF PRESENT DATE AND THE AP PELLANT HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT WITHDRAWAL IN THE PAST TO BUY SUCH ITEMS . KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTORS IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE A ND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO MAKE A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE OF RS.38,000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DE LETED. 8 THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). 9 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT ALL THE ITEMS ARE VERY OLD AND VALUE TAKEN BY THE AO IS OF PRESENT DATE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUFFICIENT WITHDRAWAL IN THE PAST TO BUY SUCH ITEMS . THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD THAT KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THESE FACTORS IT WOULD BE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO MAKE A LUMP SUM ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- ON THIS ACCOUNT AND THE BALANCE OF 8 RS.38,000/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. WE, THEREFOR E, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. GROUND NOS.1(I) AND (II) OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED 10 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1(IV), THE FACTS OF THE CAS E ARE THAT THE AO HAS NOTED THAT IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETA IL IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 1994-95 THAT THE AVERAGE CO NSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHONIC ACID PER BATCH SHOULD BE 2800 K G. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF CONSUMP TION OF CHLORO SULPHONIC ACID AND THE DETAILS HAVE BEEN SUB MITTED. IT IS FOUND FROM THE DETAILS THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED 129 BATCHES AND THE AVERAGE C ONSUMPTION HAS BEEN SHOWN RANGING MOSTLY FROM 3000 KG. TO 3300 KG. PER BATCH. IT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN DETAIL IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER FOR AY 1994-95 THAT THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION SHOULD BE 2 800 KG. PER BATCH. ACCORDINGLY, FOR 129 BATCHES, CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHONIC ACID FOR V S PLANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN 36120 0 KG. AS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN CONSUMPTION OF 408900 KG. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE AO, EXCESS CONSUMPTION AMOUN TS TO 47700 KG. THEREFORE, THE AO HELD THAT ADOPTING PRIC E OF RS.9 AS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 1994-95, EXCESS CONS UMPTION AMOUNTS TO RS.4,29,300/- AND HE DISALLOWED THE SAME AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR FOR AY 1994- 95. 9 12 BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES AGREED THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT YEAR ARE IDENTICAL TO THOSE AS IN AY 1994-9 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE SIMILAR. WE HAVE DELETED THE SIMI LAR ADDITION IN AY 1994-95 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 25 AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1(III) IN THE REVENUES AP PEAL RELATES TO DELETION OF THE ADDITION OF RS.4,29,453/- ON ACCOUN T OF EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE AO STATED THAT AS PER THE STATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE S OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI GHANSHYAM MEHTA AND SHRI J V CHOKSHI RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID PER BATCH SHOULD BE 2700 KGS., WHEREAS IN THE RECORD FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT RANGED BETWEEN 3000 KGS. TO 3700 KGS. PE R BATCH. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTENTS OF THE STATEMENTS . IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE GOODS ARE OF INFERIO R QUALITY, THEN THE CONSUMPTION IS LIKELY TO BE MORE TO THAT EXTENT. TH E AO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TOTAL CONSUMPTION OF 6,44,180 KG S. FOR 213 BATCHES AND THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION COMES TO 3024 KG. PER B ATCH. THE AO AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE NORMAL VARIATION WORK ED OUT THE EXCESS CONSUMPTION SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT 47,717 KGS., A ND VALUING THE SAME AT THE AVERAGE PURCHASE PRICE OF RS.9/- PER KG ., WORKED OUT VALUE OF EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID CLAI MED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.4,29,453/- AND DISALLOWED THE SAME. 26 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- 10.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, DIS CUSSION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHOR IC ACID PER BATCH SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS 3024 KGS. PER BATCH. AS P ER THE STATEMENT OF SHRI GHANSHYAM MEHTA, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY, RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE AVERAGE C ONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID PER BATCH SHOULD BE ABOUT 270 0 KGS. THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH HAS STATED THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID PER BATCH MAY BE BETWEEN 2700 KGS. TO 3000 KGS. OF THE REGULA R DENSITY. HE HAS 10 ALSO STATED THAT IF THE ACID IS OF INFERIOR QUALITY THAN THE CONSUMPTION IS LIKELY TO BE MORE TO THAT EXTENT. SHRI GHANSHAM MEHTA, IN HIS AFFIDAVIT DATED 14-7-94 FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS STATED THAT HIS STATEMEN T WAS RECORDED BY THE OFFICER-IN-CHARGE OF THE SEARCH PARTY AT 2 IN T HE NIGHT, AFTER HE RETURNED FROM BARODA AT ABOUT 10-30 P.M. AND HE WAS MENTALLY AND PHYSICALLY EXHAUSTED AT THAT TIME. HE ALSO STATED T HAT FACTS STATED BY HIM HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN CORRECTLY RECORDED. HE HAS A LSO STATED THAT THE ACID ALSO EVAPORATES WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME AND I TS DENSITY ALSO REDUCES. AFTER THE FILING OF AFFIDAVIT FROM GHANSHA M MEHTA, THE STATEMENT OF SHRI GHANSHAM MEHTA HAVE NOT BEEN RECO RDED BY THE AO. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, TH E AO ADOPTED THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID PER BA TCH AT 2800 KGS. AS AGAINST OF 3024 KGS. SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. CONS IDERING THE VARIOUS FACTS ON RECORD, THE AVERAGE CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID PER BATCH SHOWN AT 3024 KGS., APPEARS TO BE EXCESSI VE. HOWEVER, TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE VARIATION IN QUALITY AND DENSITY OF THE CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID USED BY THE APPELLANT AND THE EVAPORATION OF ACID WITH THE PASSAGE OF TIME, THE REASONABLE CONSU MPTION OF C.S. ACID MAY BE ABOUT 3000 KGS. PER BATCH. HOWEVER, TAK ING INTO ACCOUNT THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN PARA 10.2 ABOVE AND THE FACT THAT THE DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ASSETS AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH INCLUDED CASH OF RS.36.40 LACS , EVEN IF THERE WERE ANY SALES OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID RELATING TO THE ALLEGED EXCESS CONSUMPTION, CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, THE SALE PRO CEED WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE CASH / ASSETS FOUND AT THE TIM E OF THE SEARCH AND DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED, FOR THE AYS 1994-95 TO 1995-96. THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR THE EXCESS CONSUMPTION OF CHLORO SULPHORIC ACID. THUS, THE ADDITION OF RS.4,29,453/- MADE BY THE AO IS NOT JUS TIFIED AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 27 THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LEARNED DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO WHEREAS THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). 28 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS AND FIND AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DISCLOSURE HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ASSETS AS ON THE DATE OF S EARCH, WHICH INCLUDED CASH OF RS.36.40 LACS. THEREFORE, EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THERE WAS ANY SALE OF THE ALLEGED EXCESS CONSUMPTIO N, THE SAID WAS REFLECTED IN THE CASH / ASSETS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND DECLARED 11 BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY SEPARATE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FEEL TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE SAME IS HEREBY UPH ELD. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID ORDER FOR AY 1994-95, WE UP HOLD THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THIS YEAR ALSO. GROU ND NO.1(IV) OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 13 GROUND NO.1(V) OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AND GROUN D NO.6 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATE TO DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT SIMILA R ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY US IN AY 1994-95 IN ITA NO.205/AHD/199 8 WITH CO NO.247/AHD/2998, WHEREIN VIDE PARA-39 OF THE SAID O RDER, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE HAS BEEN DISMISSED, WH ICH READS AS UNDER:- 39 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS NOW COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS. LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS (2007) 290 ITR 667 (SC), WHEREIN IT H AS BEEN HELD THAT CENTRAL EXCISE DUTY AND SALES TAX CANNOT FORM PART OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUT ING DEDUCTION U/S 80HHC(3) OF THE ACT. WE, ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, DECIDE THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFO RE, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE GROUND RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION IS ALLOWED. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSE E BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F LAKSHMI MACHINE WORKS (SUPRA), FOLLOWING THE SAME, GROUND N O.1(V) RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO.6 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 12 14 GROUND NO.1(VI) IN THE REVENUES APPEAL AND GROU ND NO.5 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATE TO DEDUCTION U/S 80 I OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80I IN THE R ETURN AMOUNTING TO RS.2,56,157/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT TH E FOLLOWING AMOUNTS CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT ARE TO BE EXCLU DED FOR CALCULATING DEDUCTION:- (I) INCOME DISCLOSED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH RS.2,00 ,000/- (II) INTEREST INCOME RS. 80,113/- THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE EXCLUSION IS BEING MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE AO I N THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR. HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED THE CLAI M U/S 80I AMOUNTING TO RS.56,004/-. 15 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AS UNDER:- 14.1 THE AR OF THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT THE ISSUE REGARDING EXCLUSION OF THE DISCLOSED INCOME I N THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I WAS RAISED IN THE APPEAL FOR A Y 1994-95. THE CIT(A) HAS IN PARA 16.4 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DIRE CTED THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION U/S 80I ON THE INCOME DISCLOSED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH FOR THE REASON THAT IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE DI SCOUNT. FOR THE SAME REASON, I ALSO DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW DEDUCTION ON THIS AMOUNT FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION. THE CIT(A) HAS HOWEVER , IN THE APPELLANT ORDER FOR AY 1994-95 HAS CONFIRMED THE EXCLUSION OF INTEREST IN THE COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I AND FOR THE SAME R EASON I ALSO CONFIRM THE AOS ACTION OF EXCLUDING INTEREST IN TH E COMPUTATION OF DEDUCTION U/S 80I. 14.2 THE APPELLANT HAS IN THIS CONNECTION STATED THAT IT IS THE NET INTEREST WHICH IS TO BE EXCLUDED AND NOT THE GR OSS INTEREST. THE NET 13 INTEREST WORKS OUT TO RS.3193/-. FOR THIS THE APPEL LANT HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH IN THE CA SE OF HINDUSTAN FASHIONS LTD., DATED 6-10-1997 AND ALSO THE DECISIO N OF CIT(A)-V IN THE CASE OF JINDAL WORLDWIDE LTD., FOR AY 1995-96 A ND STATED THAT THE EXCLUSION SHOULD BE IN EXCESS OF THE NET INTEREST. FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID TWO DECISIONS I DIRECT THE AO TO VERIFY T HE NET AMOUNT OF INTEREST AS AGAINST THE INTEREST OF RS.80,113/- EXC LUDED BY HIM, PROVIDED INTEREST RECEIVED IS ON ACCOUNT OF BUSINES S TRANSACTION. 16 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. SINCE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE ORDER FOLLO WING THE ORDER OF THE ITAT AHMEDABAD BENCH (SUPRA), WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN T HIS REGARD. THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. GROUND NO.1(VI) RAISED BY TH E REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND GROUND NO.5 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALSO DISMISSED. 17 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 18 NOW COMING TO ASSESSEES APPEAL, GROUND NO.2 REL ATES TO CONFIRMATION OF AN ADDITION OF RS.1,61,500/- ON THE BASIS OF NOTING OF SEIZED DIARY. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE AO H AS NOTED THAT TOTAL AMOUNT OF EXPENDITURE INCURRED FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION AS PER VARIOUS PAGES OF THE SEIZED DI ARY FOR THE PERIOD 1-4-1994 TO THE DATE OF SEARCH WORKS OUT TO RS.20,19,500/- THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR EXPLANATION WITH REFERENCE TO THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY. HE HAS ON PAGE 7 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER NOTED THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY OF THE AGGREGATE AMO UNT OF RS.20,19,500/-. THE AO OBSERVED THAT OUT OF THIS AM OUNT LISTED IN 14 PAGE-7, THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF MAT HERAN TRIP AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,38,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PAYME NT TO ONE AJITBHAI FOR LAND HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN TH E TOTAL DISCLOSURE AND HENCE NO ADDITION WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAME WAS REQUIRED. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF R S.2,70,000/- WAS WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF GOLD AND APPEARED TO BE PURCHASE OF GOLD OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. HE HAS, THEREFORE, CONSIDERED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.11,61,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. 19 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITI ON OF RS.10 LAKHS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.1,61,500/- W ITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 6.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. AS DICU SSED IN EARLIER PARAGRAPH WITH REFERENCE TO ADDITION OF RS.5,40,000 /- THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAS MENTIONED THAT A SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS IS TO BE RECEIVED FROM CHANDRABHAI ON PAGE 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE BODY OF THE ORDER IN GRE AT DETAIL AND HE HAS MENTIONED THAT RS.10 LACS PAID TO CHANDRABHAI (CHAN DRAVAN PATEL) IS FORMING PART OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.33.86 LAKHS CONSIDERED ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIVABLE IN THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE APPELLANT. THIS AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED AGAINST THE NAME OF CHANDRAVAD AN R PATEL IN THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.103 LAKHS SHOWN IN THE RETURN. I , THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN ADDING THE SAME AGAIN FOR AY 1995-96 AS THE SAME WILL RESULT INTO TAXATION OF THE SAME AMOUNT T WICE. I, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF CHANDRABHAI, OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.11,61,50 0/- ADDED BY THE AO. 15 20 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LE ARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. 21 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE AFTER PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO GET ANY FURTHER R ELIEF ON THE ISSUE AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARN ED CIT(A) IS HEREBY UPHELD. GROUND NO.2 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 22 GROUND NO.3 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF AN ADDITION OF RS.2,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD / JEWELLERY. THE FACTS AS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER ARE THAT THE AO OBSERVED THAT T HE NOTINGS AGAINST THIS AMOUNT IN THE SEIZED DIARY CONTAIN DES CRIPTION OF GOLD AND SAME APPEALS TO BE PURCHASE OF GOLD OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE DESCRIPTION IN THE SEIZED DIARY ON PAGE 7(A) IS JAGDISHBHAI (GOLD). THE AO OBSERVED THAT THIS ENTRY IS MADE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1994-95 AND TH US IT IS NOT FORMING PART OF THE JEWELLERY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE WEALTH-TAX RETURN FOR EARLIER YEARS. 23 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 16 7.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE EXPLANA TION AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON VERIFICATION IT IS FOUND THAT AGAINST THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,70,000/- THE NOTINGS CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE S AME IS WITH REFERENCE TO GOLD. THE APPELLANTS ARGUMENTS THAT T OTAL GOLD FOUND IS TALLIED WITH THE WEALTH-TAX RETURNS AND, THEREFORE, THIS IS NOT REPRESENTING INVESTMENT IN UNEXPLAINED GOLD IS ACCE PTABLE. HOWEVER, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHAT IT REPRESENTED BY THESE NOTINGS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC EXPLANATION THE AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED TO BE AN EXPENDITURE (ACCEPTING THAT IT IS NOT FOR GOLD) AND IN THAT CASE FOR THE SAME THE ADDITION MADE IS JUSTIFIED. THE ADDITI ON OF RS.2,70,000/- MADE BY THE AO IS, THEREFORE, CONFIRMED. 24 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEA RNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). 25 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORD. WE FIND THAT BEFORE US ALSO NO SUBSTANTIAL MATERIAL HA S BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS TO DEVIATE FROM THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS HEREBY UPHELD. GROUND NO.3 OF THE ASSESSE ES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 26 GROUND NO.4 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATES TO CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,594 OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPEN SES, RS.20,162/- OUT OF MOTORCAR EXPENSES AND RS.30,563/ - OUT OF MOTORCAR DEPRECIATION. THE FACTS AS NOTED BY THE LE ARNED CIT(A) ARE THAT THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE AUDIT REPORT U/ S 44AB AND OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE AUDIT REPORT THE ASSESSEE HAS DETAILED PERSONAL ELEMENT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND MOTORCAR EXPENSES OF 17 RS.63,319/- BUT THE SAME IS NOT ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME. HE, THEREFORE, MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 27 ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDI TIONS WITH THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 9.2 I AGREE WITH AO THAT PERSONAL ELEMENT OF EXPE NDITURE IN RESPECT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES CANNOT BE DENIED. HE HAS, THE REFORE, IN MY VIEW, MADE A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OUT OF THE TOTAL E XPENDITURE AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.12,594/- MADE BY THE A O IS CONFIRMED. 10. IN THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS DISPUTED ADDITION OF RS.20,162/- OUT OF MOTOR CAR EXPENSES AND RS.30, 563/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION OF MOTOR CAR FOR TH E ESTIMATED PERSONAL USE. 10.1 THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE SIMILAR TO DISALL OWANCE RELATING TO TELEPHONE EXPENSES AND ACCORDINGLY THIS DISALLOWANC E OF RS.20,162/- AND RS.30,563/- MADE BY THE AO ARE CONFIRMED. 28 BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE R EITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEA RNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE LEARNED CIT(A). 29 WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORD. WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT PERS ONAL ELEMENT OF EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE DENIED. THEREFORE, WE FEEL NO NEED TO INTERFERE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) . THE SAME IS HEREBY UPHELD. GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. 18 30 GROUND NO.7 IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATES TO CONFIRMING THE INCLUSION OF NET INTEREST INCOME FROM THE ALLEG ED PROFITS U/S 80HHC OF THE ACT. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE AO HAS EXCLUDED 90% OF THE INTEREST INCOME OF RS.5,55,951/ - FROM THE PROFIT OF THE UNDERTAKING. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS C ONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, W E FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHRI RAM HONDA POWER EQUIP ( 2007) 289 ITR 475 (DELHI). IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAI R PLAY, WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF AFORE SAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 31 GROUND NO.8 OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT, WHICH IS CON SEQUENTIAL. THE AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. 32 IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 29-02-2012 SD/- SD/- (A L GEHLOT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (D K TYAGI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 29-02-2012 19 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. VIDYABEN H SHAH, L/H OF LATE SHRI HEMENDRA R SHAH, 2, JAIN NAGAR, NEW SHARDA MANDIR ROAD, PALDI, AHMEDABAD-380 007 2. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (ASSESSMENT ) SPECIAL RANGE-2, AHMEDABAD 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD BENCH-B, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD