Shri Ishwarlal B. Gogia, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITA 53/RJT/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2406 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RD LALCHANDANI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Salary income; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 153A; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH E-COURT AT AHMEDABAD] (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NOS: 51 & 52/RJT/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 SMT. GODAVARIBEN ISHWARLAL GOGIA C/O. M/S. NARERNDRA GLASS WORKS, RAMNIK HOUSE- SHOP NO. 3 & 4, JUBELEE CHOWK, RAJKOT-360001 PAN NO. ACPPG4006 V/S THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 53/RJT/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07) SHRI ISHAWARLAL B. GOGIA GOGIA C/O. M/S. NARERNDRA GLASS WORKS, RAMNIK HOUSE- SHOP NO. 3 & 4, JUBELEE CHOWK, RAJKOT- 360001 PAN NO. ABTPG5526H V/S THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 51 TO 53 & 55, 56/AHD/14 . A.YS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2010-2011 2 ITA NOS. 55 & 56/RJT/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-2011 SHRI AJAYBHAI ISHAWALAL GOGIA. C/O. M/S. NARERNDRA GLASS WORKS, RAMNIK HOUSE- SHOP NO. 3 & 4, JUBELEE CHOWK, RAJKOT-360001 PAN NO. ABFPG8977N M/S. SNEH POWER SYSTEMS PVT. LTD. C/O. M/S. NARERNDRA GLASS WORKS, RAMNIK HOUSE- SHOP NO. 3 & 4, JUBELEE CHOWK, RAJKOT-360001 PAN NO. AADCS0146F V/S V/S THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT THE D.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, RAJKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : R.D. LALCHANDANI, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI YOGESH PANDEY, SR. D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 08-12-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01-01-2016 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THESE 5 APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATED 12.12.2013 FOR A.YS. 200 5-06, 2006-07 & 2010-2011. ITA NOS. 51 TO 53 & 55, 56/AHD/14 . A.YS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2010-2011 3 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THA T THOUGH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE RELATES TO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AND DIFFERE NT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT THE ASSESSEES ARE RELATED, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL THE CASES ARE SIMILAR EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSEES, ASSESSMENT YEARS AND AMOU NTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO COMMON FOR ALL THE APPEALS AND THEREFORE A LL THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. LD D.R DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORES AID SUBMISSIONS OF LD. A.R. WE THEREFORE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF ALL THE APP EALS TOGETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND PROCEED WITH THE FACTS IN THE CA SE OF SMT. GODAVARIBEN ISHAWARLAL GOGIA FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 51/RJT /2014. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 4. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVING INCOM E FROM HOUSING PROPERTY, SHARE OF PROFIT FROM FIRMS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES. A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 24.06.2010 A T THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VARIOUS MATER IALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THEREAFTER PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED BY ISSUING NOTICE DATED 04.01.2011 AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH AS SESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON 12.04.2011 SHOWING TO TAL INCOME OF RS. NIL. THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 153A R.W.S. 1 43(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT R S. 1,97,400/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 12.12.2013 DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. C IT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS:- 1. THE CIT ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,9 7,400/- MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTI FIED. ITA NOS. 51 TO 53 & 55, 56/AHD/14 . A.YS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2010-2011 4 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1, THE ADDITION IS COVERED BY THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE CASE OF DHIRAJ GOGIA. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE A DOUBLE ADDITION. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 & 2 THE ADDITION DOES NOT ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON VERI FICATION OF THE DETAILS, A.O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED CASH LOANS F ROM 10 PARTIES, EACH LOAN BEING BELOW RS. 20,000/- AND THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT O F LOAN WAS RS. 1,97,400/- (DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH IDENTITY PROOF AN D PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND THE CASH CREDITS AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH E DEPOSITORS. ON PERUSING THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE, A.O NOTICED THAT MOST OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED LOANS WERE SALARIED PERSONS HAVING SALARY INCOME OF AROUND RS. 5,000/- TO 8,000/- PER MONTH, THEY HAD GIVEN CASH LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. CONS IDERING THE SMALLNESS OF INCOME OF THE DEPOSITORS, A.O WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE DEPOSITORS WERE NOT IN A POSITION TO GIVE LOAN OF AROUND RS. 20,000/- I N CASH TO THE ASSESSEE. HE WAS FURTHER OF THE VIEW THAT MERELY FILING OF CONFI RMATIONS AND DETAILS OF OCCUPATION AND RESIDENTIAL PROOF OF THE DEPOSITORS DO NOT ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF DEPOSITS. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,97,400/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 O F THE ACT AND MADE ITS ADDITION. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O B Y HOLDING AS UNDER:- WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE APPELLANT ALSO SUB MITTED COPIES OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM ALL THESE PERSONS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EVI DENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FOLLOWING FACTS EMERGE : ITA NOS. 51 TO 53 & 55, 56/AHD/14 . A.YS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2010-2011 5 (I) ADMITTEDLY, THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN SMALL LOANS RAN GING AROUND RS. 19,000/-FROM 10 PERSONS WHICH IS VERY STRANGE. NORMALLY, IN THE CASE OF UNSECURED LOANS THE AMOUNT TAKEN FROM DIFFERENT DEPOSITORS ARE OF VARIE D AMOUNTS. (II) THE CONDITIONS FOR THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 68 ARE: (A) THE EXISTENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE HIMSELF; (B) A CREDIT ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT; AND (C) THE ABSENCE OF A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION BY THE AS SESSEE ABOUT THE FOLLOWING: (I) IDENTITY OF CREDITOR (II) CAPACITY OF CREDITOR, AND (III) GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION (III) THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO SUBMIT ONLY NA ME, ADDRESS OF THE DEPOSITORS. AS A PROOF OF IDENTITY, COPIES OF DRIVING LICENSE, ELECT ION CARD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED ONLY IN THE CASE OF FOUR DEPOSITORS. THESE EVIDENCES ARE SUFFIC IENT ONLY TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE DEPOSITORS. IN CASE OF REMAINING 6 DEPOSITORS, NO P ROOF OF IDENTITY HAS BEEN FILED. IN CASE OF NAME OF THE DEPOSITORS, PAN DETAILS HAVE BEEN GI VEN. (IV) THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE EVI DENCES FOR PROVING THE CAPACITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DEPOSITORS AS ONLY THE AMO UNT OF THEIR MONTHLY SALARY HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLANT. (V) NO DETAILS OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED BY DEPOS ITORS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED EITHER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR THROUGH APPEAL PROCEEDING S. EVEN THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NO. OF NONE OF THE DEPOSITOR HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. TH IS SHOWS THAT DEPOSITORS ARE PROBABLY NOT FILING ANY RETURNS OF INCOME. (VI) EVEN THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE DEPOSITOR S HAVE NOT BEEN SUBMITTED SO AS TO ESTABLISH THEIR CAPACITY TO ADVANCE LOANS TO THE AP PELLANT. (VII) THE APPELLANT HAS JUST MENTIONED IN THE SUBMI SSION THAT THE DEPOSITORS ARE WORKING AS TEACHER, MANAGER, SALESMAN ETC. BUT NO PROOFS OF DEPOSITORS HAVING A JOB LIKE SALARY CERTIFICATE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED IN THE CASE OF DEPOS ITORS. (VIII) A VERY IMPORTANT FACT IS THAT ALL THE DEPOSI TS HAVE BEEN SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED IN CASH, THEREFORE, THE GENUINENESS OF LOANS TRANSACTI ONS IS ALSO DOUBTFUL. (IX) THE RELIANCE OF THE APPELLANT ON VARIOUS JUDIC IAL PRONOUNCEMENTS IN HIS SUBMISSION IS ALSO NOT CORRECT AS IN MOST OF THOSE CASES THE LOAN S WERE TAKEN THROUGH A/C PAYEE ITA NOS. 51 TO 53 & 55, 56/AHD/14 . A.YS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2010-2011 6 CHEQUES WHICH IS NOT THE CASE HERE. THE FACT THAT L OANS WERE TAKEN IN CASH COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT NON-SUBMISSION OF SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE S ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF DEPOSITS, RAISES SERIOUS DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF LOAN TRANSAC TIONS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. (X) IF THE APPELLANT IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THE CAPAC ITY OF THE DEPOSITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THEN THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN TREAT ING CREDITS AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS U/S 68 OF THE ACT. FOR THIS RELIANCE IS PLACED ON FOLLOWIN G JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT DESPITE GIVING OPP ORTUNITY BY THE AO, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT DETAILS TO PROV E THE CAPACITY OF DEPOSITORS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. ONLY THE IDENTITY OF F EW OF THE DEPOSITORS HAVE BEEN PROVED WHICH IS NOT SUFFICIENT FOR FULFILLING THE CONDITIO NS PRESCRIBED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS HELD THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING ALL TH ESE DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND ADDING THE SAME TO INCOME OF THE APPELLANT U/S 68 O F THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AS SESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS AND ARISING OUT OF THE SAME SEARCH IN THE CASE OF MR. DHIRAJLAL GOGIA, THE RELATIVE OF ASSESSEE, SIMILAR ADDITIONS WAS MADE BY A.O. THE AD DITION MADE BY A.O WAS DELETED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL BY ORDER DATED 10.10.2014 IN ITA NO. 381/RJT/2013 AND 54/RJT/2014. HE PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID ORDER AND FROM IT HE POINTED TO THE R ELEVANT GROUND AND THE RELEVANT FINDING BY THE TRIBUNAL. HE THEREFORE SUBM ITTED THAT SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF MR. DHIRAJLAL GOGIA AND WHEN SIMILAR ADDITION IN HIS CASE HAS BEEN DELETED, THE ADDITION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ALSO NEEDS TO BE DELETED. LD. D.R.ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE R ECEIPT OF LOAN IN CASH ITA NOS. 51 TO 53 & 55, 56/AHD/14 . A.YS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2010-2011 7 SHOWS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT GENUINE AND THE SELF SERVING STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITORS ABOUT THEIR EMPLOYMENT DO NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS MORE SO, WHEN THE LENDERS WERE NOT FILING THE INCOM E TAX RETURN. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAJKUMAR ARORA (2014) 367 ITR 517 (ALLAHABAD), GOPAL KRISHNA BHADRUKA VS. DCIT (2012) 346 ITR 106 (A.P). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ABOUT ADDITION U/S . 68. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL ADDITION WAS MADE IN T HE CASE OF DHIRAJ GOGIA AND THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BEN CH OF TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O IN THE CASE OF DHIRAJBHAI GOGIA WAS DELETED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL BY HOL DING AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 54/RJT/2014 : AY 2009-10 6.THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E AS UNDER:- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED IN CONFIRMI NG THE ADDITION OF RS.455370/- MADE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1, THE ADDITION IS COVERED BY THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE CASE OF DHIRAJ GOGIA. THE ADDITION IS T HEREFORE A DOUBLE ADDITION. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 AND 2 THE ADDIT ION DOES NOT ARISE ON ACCOUNT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. 7. THE ID. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE CASH CREDITS WERE LESS THAN RS.20,000/- EACH AND COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS OF T HE DEPOSITORS WERE FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CONFIRMATION OF THE CREDITOR S AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF T HE CREDITORS. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPORTING EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ELE CTION CARD/DRIVING LICENSE/IDENTITY CARD OF THE BAR ASSOCIATION ETC. OF ALL THE CREDITO RS. IN ONE OF THE CREDITORS' CASE, NAMELY, SHRI DUBAL RAJA; HE IS WORKING IN LIC AS AN OFFICER AND HIS PAN NUMBER WAS GIVEN. ONE ITA NOS. 51 TO 53 & 55, 56/AHD/14 . A.YS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2010-2011 8 MS SHUT PANNABEN, SHE WAS PRACTICING AS AN ADVOCATE AND HER IDENTITY CARD OF BAR ASSOCIATION WAS FURNISHED. FURTHER HE SUBMITTED THA T THE DISCLOSURE OF RS 1 CRORE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ALSO COVERS THE ADDITION MADE. 8. THE ID. DR HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ID . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS AND GE NUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE PROVED BY THE ASSESSEE. MERELY FILING THE COMPLE TE ADDRESS DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS O F THE CREDITORS. HE RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE A.O. AND CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSE D THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PLACED BEFORE US. W E FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF ALL THE CREDITORS BEYOND DOUBT. THE IR COMPLETE ADDRESS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCE VIZ. ELECTION CARD/DRIVING LICENSE/IDENTIT Y CARD OF BAR ASSOCIATION ETC. WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONE OF THE CREDITORS IS A LIC OFFICER AND HIS PAN NUMBER WAS PROVIDED. ONE CREDITOR WAS PRACTICING AS AN ADVOCA TE AND HER IDENTITY CARD OF BAR ASSOCIATION WAS FURNISHED. ALL THE CREDITORS HAVE C ONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOAN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PLACED ANY EVIDENCE RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY TH E ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE THE AMOUNTS OF LOAN WERE RECEIVED IN CASH, IS NOT DECIS IVE OF THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE MADE FURTHER INQUIRY IN THIS MATTER BEFO RE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN THIS CASE. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT CONTROVERT; AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9. BEFORE US, IT IS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE FAC TS OF THE CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF DHIRAJ GOGIA AND THE ADDITION ALSO ARISES OUT OF THE SAME SEARCH ACTION. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT CONT ROVERTED THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF LD. A.R. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD AND POINTED AS TO HOW THE FACTS IN THE CA SE OF DHIRAJBHAI GOGIA (SUPRA) ARE NOT SIMILAR TO THAT OF THAT OF THE PRES ENT CASE AND THEREFORE THE ITA NOS. 51 TO 53 & 55, 56/AHD/14 . A.YS. 2005-0 6, 2006-07 & 2010-2011 9 DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND FOLLOWING THE REASO NING GIVEN BY THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DHIRAJBHAI GOGIA (SUP RA) AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY A.O. IN THE RES ULT, THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. NOW WE TAKE UP IN ITA NOS. 52, 53, 55 & 56/RJT/2014 (FOR A.YS. 2006-07 & 2010-2011) 11. IN THE PRESENT CASES, SINCE BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE A DMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF ALL THE CASES ARE IDENTICAL TO THA T OF SMT. GODAVARIBEN ISHWARLAL GOGIA IN ITA NO. 51/RJT/2014 WHICH WE HAV E DECIDED HEREINABOVE, WE THEREFORE FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS S TATED HEREINABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IN ITA NO. 51/ RJT/2014 (SUPRA) AND FOR SIMILAR REASONS ALLOW THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 12. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLO WED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 01 - 01 - 2016. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT.