Shri Rameshbhai R.Thesia, Surat V. The ACIT.,Cent.Circle, Surat

ITA 516/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 51620514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 09-10-2012
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 17-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D P GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: M G PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 515 TO 521/ AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2004-05) SHRI RAMESHBHAI R THESIA, GAUTAM PARK, METAWADI CHAR RASTA, L H ROAD, SURAT VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AAOPT2567M (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI M G PATEL, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI D P GUPTA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 09.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.2012 O R D E R PER BENCH:- OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF SEVEN APPEALS, ALL THESE APPE ALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSE SSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2004-05. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) II, AHMEDABAD ALL DATED 19.09.2008. ALL THE SE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT FOR ASSESSM ENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2001-02, COMBINED ORDER IS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS ONLY ONE WHEREAS IN THE REMAINING THREE YEARS, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO THERE BUT APART FROM THIS ISSUE, THERE ARE SOM E OTHER ISSUES ALSO . HENCE, WE TAKE UP THESE FOUR APPEALS FIRST FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 TO 2001-02 IN I.T.A.NOS.515 TO 518/AHD/2009. IN THESE APPEALS, THE I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 2 GROUND RAISED IS IDENTICAL AND EVEN THE AMOUNT IS I DENTICAL AND HENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE GROUND TAKEN BY HE ASSESSEE IN ASSESS MENT YEAR 1998-99 I.E. IN I.T.A.NO. 515/AHD/2009. THE GROUND IS AS UNDER: 'THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE BY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.8,78,760/- MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF INTEREST ALLEGED TO HAVE ACCRUED ON EXPE NSES INCURRED OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES FOR AND ON BEHALF OF ROYAL F AMILY OF ERSTWHILE BARODA STATE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS TILL THE ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NO TED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4.2 TO 4.4 OF HIS ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF RE ADY REFERENCE, THESE PARAS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 4.2 A SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE I.T.ACT.1961 WAS CARRI ED OUT ON 10/12/2003 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES AT 16, KRISH NAKUNJ, SWASTIK SOCIETY, M. S. ROAD MO.2, VILE PARLE (WEST), MUMBAI , AS WELL AS THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AT SURAT & MU MBAI. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AND LOOSE P APERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. 4.3 ON PAGES 13, 17, 18 & 20 OF ANNEXURE A-1 IM POUNDED ON 10/12/2003 AT OFFICE OF M/S. P.ASHISH BROTHERS, R ANCH RATNA BUILDING, MUMBAI, THE NOTINGS WERE FOUND REGARDING TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED FOR VARIOUS PLACES. THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE EXPENSES INCURRED FROM 1993 TO 1997 ON BE HALF OF OWNER OF SOME PLOT AT JUHU, MUMBAI. THE LAND WAS OWNED BY ROYAL FAMILY OF ERSTWHILE BARODA STATE IN THE PAGES REFER RED, THE TOTAL EXPENSES ARE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN INCURRED AS BELOW A ND THERE IS ALSO THE WORKING OF INTEREST AT DIFFERENT RATE I.E. @ 1 %, 1.25%, 1.5% & 2%. THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES ARE AS BELOW: S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) 1 JUHU EXPENSES 32,96,000 2 NEPEANSEA ROAD 3,43,000 3 PALM GROVE 7,000 4 BARODA/GANDHINAGAR 98,000 5 GIDWANI 65,000 6 MAYUR VAKIL 30,000 7 JOINT EXPENSES 2,23,000 8 MAYUR VAKIL 20,000 9 LONDON EXPENSES 8,00,000 TOTAL 48,82,000 I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 3 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENSES INCURRED, THE PAYMENT HAD BEEN RECEIVED IN US S 687 50 ON 28.01.2002. THE EXCHANGE RATE ON THE SAID DATE WAS RS.48.75 PER DOLLAR. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED IN INDIAN CURRENCIES CO NIES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.33,51,000/-. THE ENTRY IN THIS REGARD HAD BEEN FOUND RECORDED ON PAGE 39 OF ANNEXURE A-1 IMPOUNDED FROM THE OFFICE OF P.ASHISH BROTHERS, RANCH RATNA BLDG., MUMBAI. TH E ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.33,51,000/- RECEIVED O N 28.01.2002 AS INTEREST RECEIVED AS EXPENSES INCURRED ON BEHALF OF ROYAL FAMILY OF BARODA AND AS POINTED OUT ABOVE. IT HAD BEEN SUB MITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INTEREST MAY BE TAXED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT I.E. A.Y.2002-03 PERTAINING TO F.Y.2001-02 BECAUSE THE A SSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. 4.4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESS EE'S CONTENTIONS BECAUSE THE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FROM 1993 ONWARD S. THE NOTINGS ON PAGES WERE FOR INTEREST CALCULATION @ 1% TO 2% BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE AVERAGE RATE OF INTER EST AT 1.5% P.M. AND ACCORDINGLY THE INTEREST ON ACCRUAL BASIS ON TH E AMOUNT SPENT I.E. RS.48,82,000/- WAS WORKED OUT AS BELOW: F.Y. A.Y. AMT. GIVEN OUT INTT.@1.5%P.M . I.E. 18% P.A. 97-98 98-99 48,82,000 8,78,760 98-99 99-00 48,82,000 8,78,760 99-00 00-01 48,82,000 8,78,760 00-01 01-02 48,82,000 8,78,760 01-02 02-03 48,82,000 8,78,760 02-03 03-04 48,82,000 8,78,760 03-04 04-05 48,82,000 8,78,760 THE INTEREST AS WORKED OUT ABOVE WAS BROUGHT TO TAX ON ACCRUAL BASIS IN THE RESPECTIVE YEAR I.E. RS.8,78,760/- IN EACH YEAR.- THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE INTEREST RECEIVED TO THE E XTENT OF RS.33,51,000/- IN A.Y.2002-03 ON RECEIPT BASIS. THE INTEREST OFFERED TO TAX ON RECEIPT 'OASIS WAS TAXED ON PROTE CTIVE BASIS IN A.Y.2002-03. I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 4 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW, THE ASSESSE E IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE FIRST ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. WAS THIS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.33.51 LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2002 -03 IS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST BUT IT IS THE AMOUNT OF REFUND RECEIVED FROM GAIKWAD FAMILY. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BENCH T HAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. ON PAGE 13 IN PARA 5.10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED INCOME OF RS.33.51 LACS IN ASSESSME NT YEAR 2002-03 ON THIS BASIS THAT THIS WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN REPLY, LD. A.R. HAD NOTHING TO SAY. THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING IN RESPECT OF I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THEREFORE, THE INTEREST INCOME EVEN IF IS TO BE TAXED, THE SAME SHOULD BE TAXED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON RECEI PT BASIS AND IT CANNOT BE TAXED ON MERCANTILE BASIS. AGAINST THIS SUBMISS ION OF THE LD. A.R., IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT AS PER THE RETUR N OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AS AVA ILABLE ON PAGE 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS STAT ED THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MERCANTILE A ND, THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE INCOME OF RS.8,78,760/- WAS ADDED BY THE A .O. IN ALL THESE SEVEN YEARS ON MERCANTILE BASIS BEING INTEREST @ 18% P.A. ON THE TOTAL AMOUNT GIVEN OUT OF RS.48.82 LACS. IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT (A) ALSO ON PAGE 4 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED INTEREST RE CEIVED TO THE EXTENT OF RS.33.51 LACS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON RECEIPT BASIS. THIS AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSES SMENT YEAR 2002-03 I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 5 WAS TAKEN AS INCOME THAT YEAR ALSO ON PROTECTIVE BA SIS. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THE A.O. HAS TAXED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.8,78,760/- IN ALL THESE SEVEN YEARS ON MERCANTILE BASIS. ADMITTEDLY, IN THE RETU RN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AS PER PAG E 62 OF THE PAPER BOOK FOR THAT YEAR, IT IS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT METHOD OF ACCOUNTING BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IS MERCANTILE BUT AS PER THIS COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, THE AS SESSEE HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAIN A ND NOT INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES I.E. INTEREST INCOME. HENCE, THIS ST ATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACC OUNTING, CANNOT BE ADOPTED FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES . HENCE, WE FIND NO BASIS TO REJECT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING WITH REGARD TO INTEREST INCOME . HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST INCOME O FFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON RECEIPT BASIS OF RS.3 3.51 LACS SHOULD BE TAXED IN THAT YEAR ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS INSTEAD OF PROTECTIVE BASIS AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN ALL THESE SEVEN YEARS OF RS.8,78,760/- IN EACH YEAR ON MERCANTILE BASIS SHOULD BE DELETED BEC AUSE SINCE WE CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF INTEREST INCOME ON RECEIPT BASIS, T HE SAME CANNOT BE TAXED TWICE UNDER MERCANTILE SYSTEM ALSO. HENCE, WE DIRE CT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY HIM OF INTEREST INCOME IN ALL THESE YEARS ON MERCANTILE BASIS OF RS.8,78,760/- IN EACH YEAR AND ADDITION MADE BY HIM IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 OF RS.33.51 LACS ON PROTECTIVE BASIS SHOULD BE TAKEN AS ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A LL THESE FOUR YEARS I.E. I.T.A. NOS. 515-518/AHD/2009, ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ARE ALLOWED. I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 6 8. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 I.E. I.T.A.NO. 519/AHD/2009. 9. GROUNDS NO.1, 2 & 3 ARE THE SAME AND HENCE, THES E GROUNDS ARE DECIDED ON SIMILAR LINES. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN THIS YEAR OF RS.8,78,760/- STANDS DELETED AND WE HAVE ALREADY CO NFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.33.51 LACS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 ON SUBS TANTIVE BASIS INSTEAD OF PROTECTIVE BASIS. HENCE, GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 OF TH E ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED AND GROUND NO.3 IS REJECTED 10. GROUNDS NO.4 & 5 ARE INTERCONNECTED WHICH ARE A S UNDER: 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-II, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY C ONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,52,18,230/- MADE BY THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE U NEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE UNACCOUNTED TRADING BUSINESS OF D IAMONDS IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARI NG ON THE SEIZED PAPERS WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE THIRD PARTIES AND H AVE BEEN FULLY AND SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY EVIDENCES LIKE PURC HASES, CONFIRMATIONS, COPIES OF ACCOUNTS ETC. FROM THE THI RD PARTIES INVOLVED IN THE TRANSACTIONS AND EVEN THOUGH THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ACCEPTED MAJORITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS GENUINE THIRD PARTY TRANSACTIONS DULY EXPLAINED AND HAS MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ONLY SOME OF THE TRANSACTION S AND FURTHER THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ACTING ONLY AS BROKER GETTING COM MISSION AT 1% ON THE TRANSACTION. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-II, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY H OLDING THAT NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT THOUGH IN FACT THERE IS NO SU CH ADMISSION BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ALLEGED ADMISSION IS BY THE A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. 11. BRIEF FACTS OF THIS ISSUE TILL ASSESSMENT STAGE ARE NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 3.2 TO 3.4 OF HIS ORDER AND FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THESE PARAS OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUC ED BELOW: 3.2 THE FACTS ARE THAT WHILE EXPLAINING SOME OF TH E IMPOUNDED PAPERS DURING THE POST SEARCH AND ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 13/1 /2004 THAT THESE I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 7 PAPERS CONTAIN DETAILS OF ACCOUNTED AND UNACCOUNTED ACTIVITIES BOTH AND DETAILS WILL BE FURNISHED LATER ON. 3.3 THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO QUANTIFY THE MA GNITUDE OF UNACCOUNTED TRADING AS ADMITTED BY HIM IN THE STATE MENT RECORDED ON 4.2.2004. THE ASSESSEE REPLIED IN QUESTION NOS. 12, 13. 14 & 15 AS UNDER: 'A.12. ON PAGE 98 OF ANNEXURE A-3, ALL THE ROUGH PU RCHASES OF THE GROUP ARE SHOWN WHICH INCLUDES ACCOUNTED AS WE!! AS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES. IN THE COLUMN 'ROUND' WHEREVER PAB [P. A SHISH BROTHERS] IS MENTIONED, THOSE TRANSACTIONS WILL BE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF P.ASHISH BROS. OTHER TRANSACTI ONS ARE UNACCOUNTED. THUS, TOTAL UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER AS PE R THIS PAGE IS RS.5,56,79,401/-. A.13 SIMILAR TO PAGE 98 WHEREVER PNB IS MENTIONED; IN COLUMN 'ROUND' THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AT M/S.P.ASHISH BROS. OTHER TRANSACTIONS ARE UNACCOUNT ED. THUS, TOTAL UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AS PER PAGE 97 IS RS.2,98,75, 443. A 14 THE ENTRIES UNDER THE HEADING PAB ARE REFLECTE D IN THE ROUGH PURCHASES OF M/S. P. ASHISH BROTHERS. ENTRIES UNDER THE HEADING DIRECT CAN BE CORRELATED WITH THE ROUGH PURCHASES S HOWN ON THE PAGE NO.98 OF ANNEXURE A-3. FOR EXAMPLE, FIRST ENTR Y ON PAGE 54 RELATES TO PURCHASE FROM AVI GEMS FOR US S 161574.5 1. THE SAME PURCHASE IS REFLECTED ON THE SEVENTH ROW IN PAGE 98 . HOWEVER, PAGE 98 CONTAINS ENTRIES FOR WHICH CREDIT WAS AVAIL ABLE UPTO 3.10.2003. THESE ARE FOUR ENTRIES ON PAGE 54 WHICH ARE AFTER THIS DATE AND THEY ARE NOT REFLECTED ON PAGE 98. THE TOT AL PURCHASES AS PER THESE 4 ENTRIES AMOUNT TO US$681724.30. A.15 SOME OF THE PURCHASES ARE AFFECTED FROM LOCAL MARKET AND PAYMENT FOR THE SAME IS MADE IN CASH/KIND. SOME OF THE PURCHASES ARE AFFECTED THROUGH IMPORTERS WHO MAKE $ PAYMENT T O OVERSEAS. PARTIES AND WE PAY THEM IN INDIAN RUPEES. ALL THE S ALES ARE MADE LOCALLY IN CASH/KIND. SOMETIMES IN CASE OF BROKERAG E, ONLY COMMISSION IS RECEIVED BY ME AND PAYMENT IS MADE BY PURCHASERS.' THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE APPEL LANT HAS 'UNCONDITIONALLY ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED TRADING DONE BY HIM AND THE TURNOVER OF SUCH TRADING WAS ADMITTED AS UNDER: RS. 5,56,79,401/- PAGE NO.98 RS. 2,98,75,443/- PAGE NO.97 I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 8 RS. 3,20,41,042/- PAGE NO.54 -RS. 11,75,95,886/- TOTAL 3.4 LATER ON, DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E APPELLANT TOOK THE STAND THAT HE ACTUALLY DID THE WORK AS COMMISSI ON AGENT AND RECEIVED COMMISSION @ 1%. THE APPELLANT FILED CONFI RMATION LETTERS FROM THE FOLLOWING 6 PARTIES CONFIRMING THA T THEY MADE PURCHASES AND THE PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THEM A.Y .2002-03 I) AASHI DIAMONDS II) ARIHAND DIAMONDS III) RAMANI EXPORTS IV)S.JOGANI & CO. V) KIRAN EXPORTS VI) B.ARVMDKUMAR & CO. TO VERIFY THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THEM BUT THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED THAT IT WOULD NOT BE POSSIBLE TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES OR THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR REGARDING BANK STATEMENT, PURCHASE VOUCH ERS ETC. THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED COMMISSION U/S.131 OF THE I.T.ACT. JDIT(LNV.), MUMBAI TO MAKE ENQUIRIES AND AFTER THE ENQUIRY, THE JDIT(LNV.), MUMBAI INFORMED THAT ADDRESS OF M/S.M/S .ARIHANT DIAMONDS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT WAS INCORRECT AND N ONE OF THE PARTIES, WHO FILED THE DETAILS, CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE NOT MADE ANY PURCHASES FROM SHRI RAINESH R.THESIA NOR PAID A NY COMMISSION TO HIM. THE DETAILS ARE DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 5.8, PAGE-10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R. THIS WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILED SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, IN RESPONSE TO THIS, T HE ASSESSEE'S REPRESENTATIVE ATTENDED AND FILED DETAILED SUBMISSI ONS ADMITTING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO UNACCOUNTED TRAD ING OF DIAMONDS AND OFFERED THE INITIAL CAPITAL INTRODUCED FOR THE SAID BUSINESS AS HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND OFFERED PROFIT @ 10% ON THE REMAINING TRANSACTIONS. THE RELEVANT PART FROM THE SUBMISSION IS QUOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS UNDER: AS INSTRUCTED AND DIRECTED BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI RA MESHBHAI R.THESIA TO BUY MENTAL PEACE AND AVOID FURTH ER LITIGATION, VOLUNTARILY AGREE TO SURRENDER SUM OF RS.2,95,99 ,081/- AS AN INCOME OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE BREAK UP AN D WORKING OF THE ABOVE SAID AMOUNT IS AS UNDER: PURCHASES/IMPORTS MADE I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 9 DURING F.Y.2001-02 US$395090 @RS.47 PER $ RS.1,85,69,230 GAIN/PROFIT ON TRADING OF THE IMPORT MADE DURING F.Y.02-03 US$970876 @RS.47 PER $ =RS.4,56,31,172 RS.45,63,117 F.Y.2003-04 US$1375901 @RS.47 PER $ =RS.6,46,67,347 RS.64,66,734 TOTAL RS.2,95,99,081 ACCORDINGLY, AFTER GIVING THE SET OFF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.33,51,0007- ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPT OF INTEREST ON EXPENSES IN A.Y.2002-03, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALCULATED THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER: S. NO. F.Y. A.Y. INCOME TAXED ON ACCOUNT OF TAXABLE INCOME (RS.) 1 2001- 02 2002-03 INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF ROUGH DIAMONDS AFTER SET OFF OF INCOME RECEIVED 1,52,18,230 (1,85,69,230 -33,51,000) 2 2002- 03 2003-04 PROFIT @ 10% ON THE SALES OF RS.4,56,31,172/- 45,63,117 3 2003- 04 2004-05 PROFIT @ 10% ON THE SALES OF RS.6,46,67,347/- 64,66,734 12. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESSES AND NOW, THE ASSES SEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. WAS THIS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENGAGED IN THE TRADING OF DIAMONDS AND GOLD JEWELLE RY AND ALL THE TRANSACTIONS NOTED ON PAGE 20 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE IN FACT REGARDING IMPORT FROM AVI GEMS IN THIS YEAR ON BEHALF OF M/S. P. ASHISH BROTHERS (PAB) AND NO ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE LD. C IT(A) AS PER LETTER DATED 26.04.2008 COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE S 108-112 OF THE I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 10 PAPER BOOK AND IN PARTICULAR, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRA WN TO PAGE 111 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHERE, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT MAJOR IMPORT WAS DONE BY PAB EXCEPT TWO ITEMS. OUT OF THIS ALSO, ON E ITEM WAS IMPORTED BY M/S. ARIHANT DIAMONDS OF MUMBAI AND THE REMAININ G ITEMS WERE IMPORTED BY M/S. SHANTILAL BROS & EXPORTERS AND HEN CE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. HE ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PAGES 12-14 OF THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE A.O. HAS REPRODUCED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH ASSESSEE HAD MADE SURRENDER OF RS.2,95,99,081/- AND ASKED FOR SET OFF OF RS.33.51 LACS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS DULY GRANTED SET OFF OF RS.33.51 LACS AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF SURRENDER WAS ADDED PARTLY IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND THE REMAINING TWO PARTS WERE A DDED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05. HE FURTHER S UBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS ON ACCOUNT OF INVES TMENT FOR PURCHASE OF ROUGH DIAMONDS AFTER SET OFF OF INCOME RECEIVED AND THE ADDITION IN THE SUCCEEDING TWO YEARS IS ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT @ 10% ON THE SALE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW SHOU LD BE CONFIRMED BECAUSE IT IS ON THE BASIS OF SURRENDER BY THE ASSE SSEE HIMSELF. IN THE REJOINDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT TH E ISSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF LD. CIT(A) IS AS PER PARAS 3.6 & 3.7 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 3.6 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISSION S OF THE APPELLANT. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT'S VI EW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 11 1) THE APPELLANT ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT D ATED 13/01/2004 & 04/02/2004 THAT HE IS DOING UNACCOUNTED TRADING O F DIAMONDS AND THE TOTAL TURN OVER OF DIAMOND TRADING IS TO THE EXTENT OF : RS.11,75,95,886/-(AS RE-PRODUCED IN PARA 3.3). 2) THIS IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE ENTRIES FOU ND IN THE SEIZED PAPERS. 3) THE APPELLANT FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADMITTING THAT HE HAS ENTERED INTO UNACCOUN T TRADING OF DIAMONDS AND OFFERED THE INITIAL CAPITAL INTRODUCED FOR THE SAID BUSINESS AS HIS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND OFFERED PROFIT @ 10% AND SURRENDERED THE INCOME TO . THE EXTENT OF RS.1,85,69,230/- FOR A.Y.2002-03, RS.45,63,117/- FO R A.Y.2003-04 & RS.64,66,734/-FOR A.Y.2004-05. AS PER THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMESHCHANDRA & CO. VS CIT 168 ITR 375, AN APPEAL D OES NOT LIE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSI ON MADE BY THE APPELLANT. . IN THE CASE OF STERLING MACHINE TOOLS VS CIT REPORT ED IN 143 ITR 181, ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT UPHELD ITAT'S FINDING THA T IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION MADE B Y THE APPELLANT, NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST SUCH ASSESSMENT M ADE ON AGREED BASIS. 4) THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION THAT HE WAS ONL Y ACTING AS COMMISSION AGENT AND-PURCHASES WERE MADE BY 6 PARTI ES HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND CORRECT FROM ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY JDIT (INV.), MEMBER AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5) THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT IS IN REGARD TO CONFIRMATION MADE BY THE M/S. ARIHANT DIAMONDS TO M /S. AVI GEMS AND IT IS NOT A CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF THE APPELLANT. HENCE, IT IS OF NO HELP TO THE APPELLANT. 6) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLIED 10% NET PROFIT RATE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF APPELLANT'S ADMISSION AND THIS RATE IS ALSO REASONABLE. THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSION FOR 1% RATE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 3.7 IN VIEW OF THE FACTS STATED ABOVE, THE ACT ION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED AND THE APPELLANT'S GROUND IS REJECTED. 17. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) , WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION ON THIS BASIS TH AT THE SAME IS MADE ON I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 12 AGREED BASIS ON THE BASIS OF SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED TWO JUDGEMENTS OF VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AS PER WHICH NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF AD MISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE, W E DECLINE TO INTERFERE ON THIS ISSUE. 18. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 19. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 IN I.T.A.NO. 520/AHD/2009: 20. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH THE SIDES THAT GROUNDS NO .1 & 2 ARE THE SAME AS IN FIRST FOUR YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-9 9 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND THE SAME CAN BE DECIDED ON SIMILAR LINE S. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THESE TWO GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 O N RECEIPT BASIS. 21. GROUND NO.3 IS AS UNDER: 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S)-II, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY C ONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.45,63,117/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS EARNED PROFIT FROM THE UNACCOUNTED TRADING BUSINESS OF DIAMONDS IN SPITE O F THE FACT THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS APPEARING ON THE SEIZED PAPERS WERE ENTERED INTO BY THE THIRD PARTIES AND HAVE BEEN FULLY AND S ATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY EVIDENCES LIKE PURCHASES, CONFIRMATION S, COPIES OF ACCOUNTS ETC. FROM THE THIRD PARTIES INVOLVED IN TH E TRANSACTIONS AND EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSE LF ACCEPTED MAJORITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS GENUINE THIRD PARTY TRANSACTIONS DULY EXPLAINED AND HAS MADE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ONLY SOME OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND FURTHER THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ACT ING ONLY AS BROKER GETTING COMMISSION AT 1% ON THE TRANSACTIONS . 22. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THE RATE OF PROFIT ADOPTED BY THE A.O. AND LD. CIT(A) @ 10% IS EXCESSIVE. AS AGA INST THIS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. THAT THIS ADDITION IS ALS O ON AGREED BASIS AS PER I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 13 THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND HENC E, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. 23. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) ON TH IS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER OF THIS MUCH PROFIT AND THE REFORE, NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5.6 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED PROFIT @ 5% ON THE TOTAL SALES. IT IS FURTHER NOTED IN PARA 5.9 THAT THE A.O. APPLIED 10% PROFIT RATE ON THE BASIS OF GROUP CONCERN SHRI DEEPESH R THESIA AND HENCE, T HE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING 10% PROFIT RATE. HENCE, IN THIS YEAR, THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT ON SURRENDER BASIS BUT THE RATE OF 10% P ROFIT WAS APPLIED ON THE BASIS OF SURRENDER IN DIFFERENT CASE. IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, 10% PROFIT RATE IN DIAMOND TRADING BUSINESS IS ON HIGHE R SIDE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, 5% PROFIT RATE IS REASONABLE AN D HENCE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ASSESSEE THE PROFIT @ 5% ON SALE INSTEAD OF 10%. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 24. GROUNDS NO.4 & 5 ARE INTERCONNECTED WHICH ARE A S UNDER: 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY C ONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.4,05,000/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE UNACCOUNTED TRAD ING OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -II, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY H OLDING THAT NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT THOUGH IN FACT THERE IS NO SU CH ADMISSION BY THE APPELLANT AND THE ALLEGED ADMISSION IS BY THE A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT. I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 14 25. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT THIS ADDI TION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IF THE ADDITION IS UPHELD IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 02-03 OF RS.1,52,18,230/- THEN THE ASSESSEE DESERVE TELESCOP YING AGAINST THIS ADDITION. WE FIND FORCE IN THIS SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R. AND HENCE, THIS ADDITION OF RS.4.05 LACS IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS DEL ETED BY ALLOWING TELESCOPING BECAUSE HUGE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED IN A SSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03. 26. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 27. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IN I.T.A.NO. 521/AHD/2009. IT WAS AGREED B Y BOTH THE SIDES THAT GROUNDS NO.1 & 2 REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.8,78,760/ - IS THE SAME AS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. ACCORDINGLY, THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED IN THIS YEAR ALSO. 28. REGARDING GROUND NO.3 ALSO, IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE SAME IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO.3 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 . LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF 10% PROFIT IS EXCESSIVE. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 29. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THIS ADDITION IS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) ON TH IS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE SURRENDER OF THIS MUCH PROFIT AND THE REFORE, NO APPEAL LIES AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON THE BASIS OF ADMISSI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT WE ALSO FIND THAT IT IS NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 5.6 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED PROFIT @ 5% ON THE TOTAL SALES. IT IS FURTHER NOTED IN PARA 5.9 THAT THE A.O. APPLIED 10% PROFIT RATE ON THE BASIS OF GROUP CONCERN SHRI DEEPESH R THESIA AND HENCE, T HE A.O. IS JUSTIFIED IN APPLYING 10% PROFIT RATE. HENCE, IN THIS YEAR, THIS IS NOT THE CASE OF ASSESSMENT ON SURRENDER BASIS BUT THE RATE OF 10% P ROFIT WAS APPLIED ON I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 15 THE BASIS OF SURRENDER IN DIFFERENT CASE. IN OUR C ONSIDERED OPINION, 10% PROFIT RATE IN DIAMOND TRADING BUSINESS IS ON HIGHE R SIDE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, 5% PROFIT RATE IS REASONABLE AN D HENCE, WE DIRECT THE A.O. TO ASSESSEE THE PROFIT @ 5% ON SALE INSTEAD OF 10%. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 30. GROUND NO.4 IS AS UNDER: 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY C ONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2,78,884/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSES SING OFFICER IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS EARNED PROFIT FROM UNACCOUNTED TRADING IN GOLD ORNA MENTS. 31. REGARDING THIS GROUND, IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE L D. A.R. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED COMMISSION INCOME WHICH IS MO RE THAN THIS AMOUNT OF RS.2,78,884/- AND HENCE, SEPARATE ADDITION ON TH IS ACCOUNT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 32. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BE LOW. 33. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME WAS RS.13,36,995/- AND AS PER THE LD. A.R., IT INCLUDE S INCOME OF BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION WHICH IS MORE THAN THIS AMOUNT OF RS .2,78,884/-. ON PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO, IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO RECEIVED INCOME FROM BROKERAGE AN D COMMISSION. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, WE FEEL THAT WHEN A COMMIS SION INCOME IS ALREADY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF IN COME, SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.2,78,884/- BEING 10% OF RS.27,88,842/- IS NOT CALLED FOR. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THIS ADDITION. GROUND NO.4 IS ALL OWED. 34. GROUNDS NO.5 & 6 ARE AS UNDER: I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 16 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS )-II, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY C ONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.18,01,158/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSE SSING OFFICER IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT T HE APPELLANT HAS MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT-, IN THE UNACCOUNTED TR ADING OF GOLD ORNAMENTS. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -II, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS BY C ONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.21,200/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSI NG OFFICER IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY. 35. REGARDING THESE TWO GROUNDS, IT WAS SUBMITTED B Y THE LD. A.R. THAT IF THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2-03 OF RS.1,52,18,230/-, THEN THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TELESC OPING BENEFIT AND, THEREFORE, THESE TWO ADDITIONS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 004-05 ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E LD. A.R. AND HENCE, WE DELETE THESE TWO ADDITIONS IN THE PRESENT YEAR B Y ALLOWING TELESCOPING OF THE ADDITION CONFIRMED BY US IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 OF RS.152.18 LACS. THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE ALLOWED. 36. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED. 37. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 1998-99 TO 2001-02 ARE ALLOWED WHEREAS THE RE MAINING THREE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 38. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (G. C. GUPTA) (A. K. GARODIA) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) I.T.A.NO. 515-521 /AHD/2009 17 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 12/10/2012 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 17/10/2012. OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 30/11/2012 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.30/11 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30/11/2012 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .