The DCIT, Central Circle-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. Smt. Jayaben Ratilal Sorathia, GANDHIDHAM

ITA 607/RJT/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0057 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 23-07-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANKUR GARG
• Assessee Lawyers: J C RANPURAC A
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT. BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA, JM AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA , AM ITA NO.607/RJT/2010. / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT. ( / APPELLANT) VS. SMT. JAYABEN RATILAL SORATHIA, PLOT NO.54/55, SECTOR-2, GANDHIDHAM. PAN: AHHPS0333E. / RESPONDENT C.O. NO.19/RJT/2010. / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. SMT. JAYABEN RATILAL SORATHIA, PLOT NO.54/55, SECTOR-2, GANDHIDHAM. PAN: AHHPS0333E. ( / APPELLANT) VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT. / RESPONDENT / REVENUE BY SHRI ANKUR GARG, D. R. ' / ASSESSEE BY SHRI J. C. RANPURA, C. A. & / DATE OF HEARING 23-07-2012. & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 - 08-2012. / / / / ORDER A. K. GARODIA, A. M. THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND C.O. OF THE ASSES SEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-IV, AHMEDABAD DATE D 21-10-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. FIRST WE TAKE UP THE C.O. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE C.O., ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT MAIN GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE IS THAT NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO U/S.153C IS NOT LEGALL Y VALID. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THA T AS PER INSTRUCTION OF THE ASSESSEE TO HIM, THE C.O. IS NOT PRESSED. ACCORDINGLY, THE C.O . OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA NO. 607 & CO.19/RJT/2010 2 4. NOW WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 5. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER:- I) THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.36,94,955/- WAS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFIT EARNED FROM ON SALE O F PLOTS OF LAND. II) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. III) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. C.I.T. (A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED TO THE AB OVE EXTENT. 6. THE ADDITION OF RS.36,94,955/- WAS MADE BY THE A O AS PER HIS OBSERVATIONS IN PARA- 3.1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BE LOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE:- 3.1 IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT PLOTS OF LAND ADMEASURING 6426.01 SQ. METERS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROJECT WERE SOLD IN AY 2005-06. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SHOWN ANY PROFIT AS DONE IN AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE SAME RATE AND RATIO OF PROFIT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE SALES WHICH TOOK PLACE IN AY 2005-06. THE MATTE R WAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED WITH THE ASSESSEES A.R. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILE D ANY REPLY OBJECTING TO THE PROPOSED ADDITION IN REPLY TO THIS SHOW CAUSE NOTIC E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT THAT PLOTS OF LAND ADMEASURIN G 6426.01 SQ. METERS WERE SOLD IN AY 2005-06. THE DECLARATION MADE IN STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) HAS BEEN DULY OWNED UP IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08. HENCE, APPLYING THE SAME RATE AND RATIO AND MODUS OPERANDI, THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON SALE OF PLOTS OF LAND ADMEASURING 6426.01 SQ. METERS SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, WORKS OUT TO RS.36,94,955/-, BEING THE EXTRA SALE PROCEEDS RE CEIVED ON SALE OF PLOTS OF LAND AT THE RATE OF RS.575/- PER SQ. METER AS DONE IN AYS 2 006-07 AND 2007-08. FOR THE DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THIS REGARD, IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER FOR ASSTT. YEARS 2006-07 (IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HERSELF, NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY) PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)C) OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED F OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 7. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT THE MA TTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAD DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT NO M ATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY AO TO JUSTIFY THAT THERE WAS ANY SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT ON SALE OF PLOTS OF LAND IN THE PRESENT YEAR AND NO DEFECT IS POINTED OUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE TH AT ON THE BASIS OF SAME SEARCH AND DIARY FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THAT SEARCH, THE ASSES SEE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.65 LACS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND FOR AY200 7-08 ALSO, PROFIT ON SALE OF PLOTS OF ITA NO. 607 & CO.19/RJT/2010 3 LAND AMOUNTING TO RS.16,29,612/- HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE, THERE IS A VALID BASIS IN THE ACTION OF THE AO IN P RESENT YEAR TO COMPUTE ON MONEY RECEIPT IN THE PRESENT YEAR FOR THE SALE OF PLOTS IN THE PRESE NT YEAR FOR THE SAME PROJECT TO THE EXTENT OF 6426.01 SQ. METERS AT RS.36,94,955/- APPLYING THE S AME RATE OF RS.575/- PER SQ. METER AS WAS DONE IN SUCCEEDING TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. 20 06-07 AND 2007-08. HE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. RELIANCE WAS PLACE BY HIM ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF M R. GOPAL LAL BHADRUKA VS. DY. CIT REPORTED IN TIOL-357-HC-AP-IT DATED 15-12-2011. HE SUBMITTED A COPY OF THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT. HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN THAT CASE, IT IS HELD BY HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT THAT FOR THE PURP OSE OF SECS.153A/153C OF THE I.T. ACT, THE AO CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MATERIAL OTHER T HAN WHAT WAS AVAILABLE DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION FOR MAKING THE ADDITION IN IN COME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR WITH THE FACTS IN THAT CASE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS REGARDI NG SUPPRESSION OF SALE PROCEEDS AND ESTIMATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT IN THAT CASE, ON THE BASIS OF 8 SALE DEEDS, WHETHER THE ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF OTHER 24 PLOTS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE ESTIMATED OR NOT ? HE SUBMITTED TH AT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SIMILAR AS TO WHETHER ON THE BASIS OF SEARCH MATERIAL FOR AY 2006-07 AND ADMISSION OF ASSESSEE IN AY 2007-08, WHETHER THE ON -MONEY RECEIPT IN THE PRESENT YEAR CAN BE ESTIMATED OR NOT? HE SUBMITTED THAT HENCE, THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT. REGARDING THE J UDGMENT OF SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DY. CIT AS REPORTED IN 23 TAXMANN.COM 103 (MUMBAI TRIB.) (SB) DATED 06-07-201 2, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COUR T, THIS DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL SHOULD NOT BE FOLLOWED AND THE JUDG MENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. 9. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTE D THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON MONEY IN THE EARLIER YEAR CANNOT BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF LATER YEAR. REGARDING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HI GH COURT CITED BY THE DR FOR REVENUE, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APP LICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IN THAT CASE, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE WAS REGARDING THE S AME ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS DIFFERENT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF ITA NO. 607 & CO.19/RJT/2010 4 HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT WAS DULY CONSIDER ED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD.(SUPRA). IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA-18 OF THE DECISION OF THE SPE CIAL BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL. 10. IN REJOINDER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. DR FO R REVENUE THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT CITED BY HIM, THE SPECIAL BENCH HAS SIMPLY DISTINGUISHED THE SAME JUDGMENT ON THIS BASI S THAT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF 8 PLOTS IN THAT CASE AND THEREFORE, I T WAS HELD BY HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT THAT AO CAN ESTIMATE ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF A LL 32 PLOTS AND IN THE CASE BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH, THE FACT NOTED WAS THIS THAT INCRIMI NATING MATERIAL WAS NOT FOUND. IT WAS NOTED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH THAT THE FACTS ARE DISTI NGUISHABLE. BUT THE JUDGMENT WAS NOT CONSIDERED REGARDING THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE ESTIMATION CAN BE MADE OR NOT IN RESPECT OF OTHER TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH NO INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUS ED THE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE JUDGMENT CI TED BY BOTH SIDES. WE FIND THAT IN PARA- 58 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL , IT WAS HELD BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN THOSE ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE ABATED , THE AO RETAINS THE ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AS WELL AS JURISDICTION CONFERRED ON HIM U/S.153A F OR WHICH ASSESSMENTS SHALL BE MADE FOR EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SEPARATELY. BUT I N OTHER CASES, IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND/DISCOVERED IN THE COUR SE OF SEARCH. SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DULY CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT OF HONBL E ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT CITED BY THE LD. DR OF THE REVENUE. THE OBJECTION OF THE LD . DR IS THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERED BY SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISTINGUISHING THE FACT OF THAT CASE WHICH WAS B EFORE THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT AND THE FACT OF THE CASE WHICH WAS BEFORE THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT WAS N OT CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER ESTIMATION CAN B E MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECS.153A/153C. REGARDING THIS OBJECTION OF THE LD . DR OF REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SITTING IN A DIVISION BENCH , WE CANNOT SAY THAT WHEN A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT WAS DULY IN THE N OTICE OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL AND THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED BY IT ALSO, TH E SAME WAS CONSIDERED FOR A LIMITED PURPOSE AND THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED FOR ALL THE ISSUES WHICH WERE DECIDED BY THE ITA NO. 607 & CO.19/RJT/2010 5 SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ? BE THAT AS IT MAY, BUT EVEN IF WE CONSIDER THE APPLICABILITY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COUR T CITED BY THE LD. DR OF REVENUE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAID JUDGMEN T IS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT. THE MAIN DIFFEREN CE IN FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND IN THAT CASE WHICH WAS BEFORE THE HONBLE ANDHRA PRADESH HI GH COURT ARE THAT IN THAT CASE, FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH REGARDING RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY FOR 8 PLOTS AND AO WANTED TO APPLY THE SAME RATE OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF REMAINING 24 PLOTS OF THE SAME PROJECT S OLD IN THE SAME YEAR. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ALTHOUGH THE PROJECT IS SAME FOR WHICH SOME P LOTS OF LAND WERE SOLD IN THE PRESENT YEAR BUT THE EVIDENCE FOUND REGARDING THE RECEIPT O F ON-MONEY IS IN RESPECT OF SUBSEQUENT YEAR I.E. AY 2006-07 ALTHOUGH, THE PROJECT IS SAME. NOW THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THE RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR CAN BE A VALID BASIS TO HOLD THAT ON-MONEY WAS ALSO RECEIVED IN THE PRESENT YEAR IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCR IMINATING MATERIALS HAVING BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ALSO IN ABSENCE OF ANY COR ROBORATING MATERIAL HAVING BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY AO IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO N THAT SIMILAR ON-MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO. WE HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT PRICES OF LAND KEEP ON CHANGING BY LAPSE OF TIME AND THE TREND DURING AY 2 005-06 AND 2007-08 WAS THAT THE PRICES WERE GENERALLY RISING. HENCE, IF EXTRA PRICE S WERE COMMANDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2006-07 AND 2007-08, IT CANNOT BE A VALID BASIS TO SAY THAT THE SAME PRICE WAS COMMANDED BY ASSESSEE IN AY 2005-06 ALSO WITHOUT AN Y INCRIMINATING MATERIAL OR CORROBORATING MATERIAL. THIS SHOULD ALSO BE KEPT IN MIND THAT THE PRESENT YEAR IS THE FIRST YEAR OF THE PROJECT AND THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS ARE SE COND AND THIRD YEAR OF THE PROJECT. THIS IS ALSO VERY RELEVANT IN REAL ESTATE BUSINESS THAT AFTER THE CREDENTIAL OF THE PROMOTER AND THE PROJECT IS ESTABLISHED AFTER AFFECTING OF SALE OF S OME PORTION OF THE PROJECT, THE PROJECT COMMANDS EXTRA PRICE IN THE MARKET AND THEREFORE, I T MAY BE POSSIBLE THAT IN THE FIRST YEAR I.E. IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SOLD SOME PL OTS ON A LOWER PRICE AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR, I.E. AYS 2006-07 AND 2007-08, THE ASSESSEE COMMANDED EXTRA PRICE AND RECEIVED THE SAM E IN THE FORM OF ON-MONEY. HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE REGARDING ON-MONEY RECEIPT IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS WITHOUT ANY DIRECT MATERIAL OR COR ROBORATING MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY IN A PRECEDING YEAR I.E. IN THE PRESENT YEAR, ADDITION MADE BY AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ITA NO. 607 & CO.19/RJT/2010 6 12. REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. VS. DY. CIT (SUPRA), THIS IS A RELEVANT FACT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT YE AR WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO ON 27.12.2007 AND THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PR EMISES OF SHRI SANJAY R. SORATHIA ON 11-10-2006 BUT THE ASSESSMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE W AS COMPLETED U/S 153C. AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 153C (1), FOR THE PURPOSE OF ABA TEMENT OF AN ASSESSMENT, IN PLACE OF DATE OF SEARCH, DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED BY THE A. O. OF THIS ASSESSEE IS RELEVANT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED ON 14.10.2008 BUT THE DATE ON WHICH THE A. O. OF THIS ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED IS NOT KNOWN. BUT THE ACTIONS OF THE A.O. TO COMPLETE THE PROCESSING U/S 143 (1) ON 22.03.2007, ISSUE OF NOTI CE U/S 143 (2) ON 27.07.2007 AND TO PASS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 (3) ON 27.12.2007 SUGGEST THAT THE SAME WERE NOT RECEIVED TILL THAT DATE I.E. 27.12.2007 AND THEREAF TER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PENDING AND HENCE, IT CANNOT ABATE. IN THE LIGHT OF THIS FACT, AS PER THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF TRIBUNAL RENDERED IN ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD . (SUPRA), ONLY THOSE ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WHICH IS ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN ADDITION TO T HE INCOME THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED THAT NO INCRIMINAT ING MATERIAL REGARDING RECEIPT OF ON- MONEY IN THE PRESENT YEAR WAS FOUND OR DISCOVERED I N THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE, NO FURTHER ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT U /S.153A IN ADDITION TO INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED. FOR THIS REASON ALSO, ADDITION MADE BY A O IS NOT JUSTIFIED PARTICULARLY WHEN EVEN NO CORROBORATING MATERIAL WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY AO REGARDING HIS ALLEGATION OF RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY IN THE PRESENT YEAR ALSO. WE THEREFORE, D ECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WEL L AS C.O. OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE D ATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD SD ( T. K. SHARMA ) ( A. K. GARODIA ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER +/ ORDER DATE 30-08-2012. /RAJKOT. NVA/- ITA NO. 607 & CO.19/RJT/2010 7 - - - - .- .- .- .- / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / APPELLANT-SMT. JAYABEN RATILAL SORATHIA, GANDHID HAM. 2. / RESPONDENT-.DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C ENTRAL CIRCLE-1, RAJKOT. 3. 4 / CONCERNED CIT-II, AHMEDABAD. 4. 4- / CIT (A)-IV, AHMEDABAD. 5.- , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , TRUE COPY SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, , INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT. :