Shri Arvindbhai Chhabildas Zaveri, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-4, Surat

ITA 747/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5934 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 131; 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 747/AHD/2011 & 2354/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY ARVINDBHAI CHHABILDAS ZAVERI, 5/B, RATNAKUNJ RAVINDHAM COMPLEX, NR. PANJRAPOLE, GHOD DOD ROAD, SURAT PAN : AAWPT 9614 K VS ACIT/DCIT, CIRCLE-4, SURAT / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RUSHI PAREKH WITH SHRI MK PATEL, ARS REVENUE BY : SHRI K. MADHUSUDAN, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 17/04/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 01/05/2017 / O R D E R PER AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) -II, AHMEDABAD DATED 30.12.2010 AND ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, SRUAT DATED 07.07.2011 FOR AYS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. AY 2007-08 2. FOR AY 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/- FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68. 2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.45,368/-BEING INTEREST ON UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOW ANCE OUT OF VEHICLES TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE EXPENSES. ITA NOS. 747 & 2354/AHD/2011 ASSESSEE-ARVINDBHAI CHHABILDAS ZAVERI AY : 2007-08 & 2008-09 2 4. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT WAITING FOR REMAND REPORT WHICH HE CALLED FOR FROM A.O. IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS EVIDENCES IN TH E FORM OF CONFIRMATION OF DEPOSITOR, WITH PAN NO. & BANK STATEMENT WHICH WERE SUBMITTED TO CIT(A) ON WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR AS INFORMED T O THE A.R. 5. THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE & AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM HAD BEEN VIOLATED. IT BE SO HELD NOW & ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SE T ASIDE. 6. THE ORDER CIT(A) IS BEING ILLEGAL & BAD IN LAW, MAY KINDLY BE SET ASIDE. GROUND NO.1, 2 & 4 SINCE GROUNDS NOS. 1, 2 & 4 ARE INTER-CONNECTED, THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, THEY ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF AS UNDER:- 3. IN THIS CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.44,58,362/- WAS FILED ON 31.10.2007. THEREAFTER , THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143( 2) OF THE ACT 30.07.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBTAINED UNSECURED LOANS TO T HE TUNE OF RS.20,00,000/- FROM VARIOUS INDIVIDUALS. ON ENQUIRY, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOUND THAT THE CREDITORS WERE PEOPLE WITH LIMITED MEANS AND WERE N OT CAPABLE OF ADVANCING HUGE LOANS OUT OF THEIR SAVINGS AND THE F INDINGS OF THE RANGE INSPECTOR OBTAINED IN THIS REGARD HAVE BEEN NARRATE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1 SHRI BHURALAL D. MEHTA - THIS MAN IS 80 YEARS OL D HE WAS FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S. 1 31 WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN WORKING SINCE PASSED 7 TO 8 YE ARS. HE IS DEPENDENT ON HIS SON AND HE HAS NOT EARNED INCOME FROM LAST 7 TO 8 YEARS. IT IS FURTHER REPORTED THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE NAME OF PRACHI ENTERPRISES HAS NO BOOKS ETC WERE FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. T HE PERSON HAVE ALSO STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BANK ACC OUNT. 2. SHRI GUNVANTLAL N. MEHTA - IT WAS LEARNED THAT T HIS PERSON IS A PUJARI IN THE TEMPLE. NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS FOUND AT THE S AID ADDRESS. HOWEVER, AS PER THE P&L ACCOUNT FILED WITH THE CONFIRMATION BY THE ASSESSEE THE SAID INDIVIDUAL IS SUPPOSED TO RECEIVED DIAMOND LABOUR I NCOME. WHICH WAS IN PERSON DENIED. THE SAID FAMILY APPEARED TO THE BELO NGING TO LOWER MIDDLE ITA NOS. 747 & 2354/AHD/2011 ASSESSEE-ARVINDBHAI CHHABILDAS ZAVERI AY : 2007-08 & 2008-09 3 CLASS WITH ABSOLUTELY NO ASSETS AND OBVIOUSLY NO CA PACITY OF LANDING RS. 5,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR. 3. SHRI SURESH J. SANGVI (HUF) - ON INQUIRING SIS TER IN LAW OF THE SAID PERSON WAS FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS THAT WHO STAT ED THAT SHRI SURESH IS WORKING AS LOW TIME DIAMOND LABOURER IN THE DIAMOND MARKET HE HAS NO OFFICE OF HIS OWN. THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY O R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND ON THIS ADDRESS. AGAIN THE SAID PERSON WAS FOUND TO BE OF POOR MEANS WITH HARDLY ANY CAPACITY TO LEND RS. 5,00,000/- TO THE A SSESSEE. 4. SHRI NAILESH B. MEHTA. - THIS PERSON WAS ALSO FO UND TO BE WORKING AS A DIAMOND LABOURER IN THE DIAMOND MARKET WITHOUT ANY OFFICE OF HIS OWN. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS FOUN D AT THIS ADDRESS. HIS WIFE STATED THAT SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY LOAN ADVANCE TO HIM BY HER HUSBAND. 4. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS TO ESTABLISH T HE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AND THEREFORE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANS ACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE SUM OF RS.20 LACS A S UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND RS. 45,358/-BEING INTEREST CLAIMED ON THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS ALSO DISALLOWED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) WHO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS VIEWS. ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS FILE D CONFIRMATIONS, PA NOS ETC. AND DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS AS PER DECISIO N OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ROHINI BUILDERS. HOWEVER, AFT ER FILING THESE DETAILS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONDUCTED FURTHER ENQUIRIES A ND FOUND THAT THESE PERSONS HAVE NO CAPACITY TO GIVE THE LOANS. THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS SHOW VERY LITTLE INCOME. ALTHOUGH SHRI BHURALAL D. MEHTA WAS FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED U/S 131 BUT HE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN WORKING SINCE PAST 7 TO 8 YEARS. HE IS DE PENDENT ON HIS SON AND HE HAS NOT EARNED INCOME FROM LAST 7 TO 8 YEARS. IT IS FURTHER REPORTED THAT THERE IS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY IN THE NAME OF PRACHI ENTER PRIESES AS NO BOOKS ETC. ITA NOS. 747 & 2354/AHD/2011 ASSESSEE-ARVINDBHAI CHHABILDAS ZAVERI AY : 2007-08 & 2008-09 4 WERE FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS. THE PERSON HAS AL SO STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BAN ACCOUNT. IN RESPECT O F SHRI GUNVANTLAL N. MEHTA, IT WAS LEARNT THAT HE IS A PUJARI IN THE TEM PLE. NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS FOUND AT THE SAID ADDRESS. HOWEVER, AS PER THE P&L ACCOUNT FILED WITH THE CONFIRMATION BY THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID INDIVIDU AL IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE RECEIVED DIAMOND LABOUR INCOME WHICH WAS IN PERSON DENIED. IN RESPECT OF SHRI SURESH J. SANGVI (HUF), HIS SISTER IN LAW WAS FOUND AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS WHO STATED THAT SHRI SURESH IS WORKING AS L OW TIME DIAMOND LABOURER IN THE DIAMOND MARKET. HE HAS NO OFFICE O F HIS OWN. THERE WAS NO BUSINESS ACTIVITY OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOUND ON THIS ADDRESS. SHRI NAILESH B. MEHTA WAS ALSO FOUND TO BE WORKING AS A DIAMOND LAB OURER IN THE DIAMOND MARKET WITHOUT ANY OFFICE OF HIS OWN. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS FOUND AT THIS ADDRESS. THEREFORE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THESE PERSON HAVE NO CAPACITY TO GIVE THE LOANS. WHEN THESE FAC TS WERE CONTENDED TO THE APPELLANT, THE ONUS AGAIN SHIFTS ON HIM TO PRODUCE THESE PERSONS AND PROVE THEIR CAPACITY WHICH THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DO. I N VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN MA KING THE ADDITION FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND DISALLOWING THE INTERES T THEREON. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED AND BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE REJECTED. 6. FURTHER AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE PAPER-BOOK FILED BY THE LD. C OUNSEL, WHICH CONTAINED THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER, COPY OF PASS-BOOK, REPLY TO NOTICE UNDER 133(6), COPY OF IN SPECTORS ENQUIRY REPORT, COPY OF BANK CERTIFICATE ETC. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPOSITORS HAVE FILED THE INCOME-TAX RETURNS AND TH EIR BANK ACCOUNTS WERE SHOWING SEVERAL ENTRIES INCLUDING ADVANCES MADE BY THEM. HE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE SO-CALLED ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY T HE WARD INSPECTOR WAS CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER NO SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF E NQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE FILED THE SUPPORTING D OCUMENTS ON 21.12.2009 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS FRAMED ON 31.12.2009 W ITHOUT ANY FURTHER ITA NOS. 747 & 2354/AHD/2011 ASSESSEE-ARVINDBHAI CHHABILDAS ZAVERI AY : 2007-08 & 2008-09 5 COMMUNICATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIR CUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITIES HAVE NOT BEEN PRO VIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE WERE NOT FULLY CONSIDERED. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING T HE ASSESSEE DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO S. 1, 2 & 4 OF ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 2007-08 ARE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. GROUND NO.3 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OUT OF V EHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES . 9. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASS ESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED RS.58,005/- UNDER THE HEAD OF VEHICLE FUEL EXPENSES. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,62,902/- BEING THE DEPRE CIATION ON MOTORCAR COMPARED TO RS.5,79,946/- CLAIMED LAST YEAR. ASSESS EE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS THEREOF IN THIS REGARD; HOWEVER, ASSESS EE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO ITS CLAIM. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES AMOUNTING T O RS.11,600/- BEING THE 1/5 TH OF THE TOTAL VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES OF RS.58,000 /-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED 1/5 TH OF THE DEPRECIATION ON MOTOR CAR WHICH WORKED OUT TO RS.2,52,580/-. THUS, IN AGGREGATE, A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,64,180/- HAS BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF VEHICLE RUNNING EXPENSES. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWE VER, LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THIS DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT THE ITA NOS. 747 & 2354/AHD/2011 ASSESSEE-ARVINDBHAI CHHABILDAS ZAVERI AY : 2007-08 & 2008-09 6 ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USAGE CANNOT BE RULED OUT AS NO LOG BOOK WAS MAINTAINED FOR VEHICLE RUNNING. 11. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE ASSES SEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING LOG BOOK TOWA RDS THE RUNNING OF VEHICLES FOR THE OFFICE PURPOSES. THEREFORE, THE AC TION OF LD. CIT(A) IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO 10% OF THESE EXPENSES I S FOUND JUSTIFIABLE. THUS, THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERF ERENCE ON THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSE E IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A Y 2007-08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. AY 2008-09 14. IN THIS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS:_ 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, AS WELL AS ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.30,328/- BEING 20% OF RS.1,51,639/- TOWARDS TELEPHONE, MOBILE AND VEHI CLE FUEL EXPENSES TREATING IT AS NON-BUSINESS EXPENDITURE WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, AS WELL AS ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION IN RESPECT OF INTEREST CLAIMED TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,84,084/- TREATING IT AS BOGUS WITHOUT ANY COGENT EVIDENCE. 15. THE FIRST GROUND IS RELATED TO DISALLOWANCE MAD E OUT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES LIKE TELEPHONE & MOBILE EXPENSES AND VEHIC LE FUEL EXPENSES. THIS YEAR ALSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT ITA NOS. 747 & 2354/AHD/2011 ASSESSEE-ARVINDBHAI CHHABILDAS ZAVERI AY : 2007-08 & 2008-09 7 PROCEEDINGS, OBSERVED THAT MOST OF THE VOUCHERS REL ATED TO TELEPHONE & MOBILE EXPENSES AS WELL AS VEHICLE FUEL EXPENSES AR E NOT VERIFIABLE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED OF RS.1,51,639/-, WHICH COMES TO RS.30,328/ -. 16. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE G ROUND THAT THE VOUCHERS WERE NOT VERIFIABLE BECAUSE DETAILS OF ACTIVITY FOR WHICH EXPENSES ARE INCURRED WERE NOT MENTIONED IN THE VOUCHERS; THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE ENTIRE EXPENSES WERE INCURRED FOR BUSI NESS PURPOSES. 17. FURTHER AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR WANT OF VERIFICATION OF P ROPER SUPPORTING VOUCHERS/EVIDENCES WHICH COULD NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS BEHALF, WHICH IS UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 19. SECOND GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE DI SALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.1,84,084/- ON THE AMOUNT OF LOAN OBTAINED DUR ING FY 2006-07 TO THE TUNE OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH FROM FOUR PERSONS NAMELY , SHRI B.D. MEHTA, SHRI G.N. MEHTA, SHRI S.J. SANGHVI AND SHRI N. B. MEHTA. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND CONFIRMED THIS ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL A GAINST THE ADDITION OF THE ITA NOS. 747 & 2354/AHD/2011 ASSESSEE-ARVINDBHAI CHHABILDAS ZAVERI AY : 2007-08 & 2008-09 8 PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF LOAN OF RS.5,00,000/- IN EACH C ASES IN THE AY 2007-08 HAS BEEN DISMISSED 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WE HAVE ALREADY SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASS ESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE SAME AFRESH AS REFERRED ABOVE IN THE ORDER FOR AY 2007-08 (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH ALONGWITH AY 2007-08. THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ACCOR DINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 21. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST MAY, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 01/05/2017 *BIJU T. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD