Shri Tulsibhai B Patel, Surat V. The Dcit Inv Cir-1(1), Surat

ITA 778/AHD/2001

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 73168 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 12 year(s) 11 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-03-2014
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2001
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K DHANESTA
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ I.T.A. NOS.778 & 781/AHD/2001 ( & '& & '& & '& & '& / / / / ASST.YEARS : 1996-97 & 1997-98 RESPECTIVELY ) SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL 12, RANGNAGAR SOCIETY LAMBE HANUMAN ROAD SURAT / VS. THE DCIT INV.CIR.1(1) SURAT ( !./)* !./ PAN/GIR NO. : - ( (+ / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENT ) (+ . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHWIN K.PAREKH, AR ,-(+ / . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K. DHANESTA, SR.D.R. ' 0 / $1 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 04/03/2014 23' / $1 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31/03/2014 4 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SURAT (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 23/02/2001 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT Y EARS (AYS) 1996-97 AND 1997-98. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED, THE SE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 2 - 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA N O.781/AHD/2001 FOR AY 1997-98. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 10% OUT OF LABOUR CHARGES FOR DIAMO ND CUTTING AND 20% OUT OF LABOUR CHARGES FOR WEAVING OF FABRICS. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO SUCH DISALLOWANCE IS CALLED FOR. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,70,000/- ( RS.2,70,000/- - FOR AY 1997-98 ) MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED CASH CRE DIT AND INTEREST THEREON. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING VARIOUS FACTS, SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATION S AND CLARIFICATIONS AS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE FURTHER ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AN D LAW IN THEIR PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 4. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A/B OF THE ACT IS UNJUSTIFI ED. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE T IME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2.1. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PICKED UP FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 31/03/1996, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO) MADE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT FOR D IAMOND CUTTING AND POLISHING AND FOR WEAVING OF FABRICS @ 20% AMOUNTIN G TO RS.11,24,900/- AND ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITUR E OF RS.77,400/- AND HE ALSO MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING RS.1,70,000/- AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 3 - CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APP EAL PERTAINING TO AY 1996-97 AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL PERTAINING TO AY 1 997-98. 3. APROPOS TO GROUND NO.1, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HE HAS ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WH ICH ARE ENCLOSED AT PAGE NOS.1 TO 13 OF THE PAPER-BOOK. HE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS AS WERE MADE IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE ISSUE IS DIRECTLY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF ITAT BENCH B AHMEDABAD ON IDENTICAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF APPELLANTS BROTHER SHRI JIVANBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.776/AHD/2001 F OR AY 1996-97 DATED 08/09/2006. 3.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE V IDE PARA-2.2 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER:- 2.2. BEFORE ME, APPELLANTS REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT TULSIBHAI PATEL HUF IS OWNING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIF IED IN TREATING THE LOANS FROM THIS PARTY FOR BOTH THE YEARS AS NON -GENUINE LOANS. AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S.ORISSA CORPORATION LIMITED, ALL THE LOANS SHOWN BY THE ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 4 - APPELLANT FOR BOTH THE YEARS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEP TED AS GENUINE LOANS. IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH THE YEARS MAY BE DELETED. 4.1. THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF SHRI JIVANBHAI BHA GWANBHAI PATEL FOR AY 1997-98(SUPRA). IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THAT CASE THE MATTER TRAVELED UPTO THE HON BLE TRIBUNAL AND THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS RESTORED THIS ISSUE BACK TO TH E FILE OF AO. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES BROTHER CASE IN ITA NO.776/AHD/2001 FOR AY 1996-97(SUPRA) THE ISSUE HAS BEEN RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. THE TRIBUNAL HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTY BEFORE US, AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE REVENUES CASE U/S.40A(2)(A) OF THE ACT, THE ONUS FOR WHICH I S ON THE REVENUE, EVEN AS WE ALSO OBSERVE THIS TO BE IN PART DUE TO T HE LACK OF PROPER ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. THIS HAS PERHAPS BEE MADE GOOD IN AY 1997-98, ON THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR WHICH YEAR T HE LEARNED CIT(A) RELIES, IN DIRECTING OF A SIMILAR RELIEF, ON THE GROUND THAT THE FACTS OF THE TWO YEARS ARE IDENTICAL. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PACED NEITHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR THE APPELLAT E ORDER FOR AY 1997-98 ON RECORD, RELYING ONLY ON GENERALIZED STAT EMENTS IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FOR THE PURPOSE. AS SUCH, WE A RE UNABLE TO FORM AN OPINION IN RESPECT OF A FINDING OF THE CIT( A) IN THE MATTER. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW GIVING A PROPER FINDING IN ALL MATERIAL RESPECTS AND AFTER A LLOWING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CA SE BEFORE HIM. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 5 - 4.2. THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS CASE AND THE R EVENUE HAS NOT CONTROVERTED THAT THE FACTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF SHRI JIVANBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL AND NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RE CORD. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DE CIDE IT AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.77 6/AHD/2001. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.2,70,000/- FOR AY 1997-98 (RS.1,70,000/- FOR AY 1996-97) MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 5.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AS ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER-BOOK AT PAGE-12. ON THE C ONTRARY, THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND S UBMITTED THAT IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS CASH DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN T HE DEPOSIT WITH THE CHEQUE WAS ISSUED AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GI VEN FINDING THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT HAVING CAPACITY TO ADVANCE SUCH AMOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BLESSING CONSTRUCTION VS. ITO (IN TAX APPEAL NO.16 OF 2013 DATED 13/03/2013). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE OBJECTION OF THE AO FOR MAKING THE ADDITION U/S .68 OF THE ACT IS GIVEN IN PARA-4.4 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 6 - 4.4 IN THIS CONNECTION, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT MERE FILING OF CONFIRMATION DOES NOT DISCHARGE THE ONUS THAT LI ES ON THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHAR ATI PVT.LTD. VS. CIT (111 ITR 951) AND CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F W.J. WALKER & CO. VS. CIT (117 ITR 690). MERE FURNISHING OF THE PARTICULARS IS NOT ENOUGH. MERE PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE IS NOT SACROSANCT NOR CAN IT MAKE A NON GENUINE TRANSACTION GENUINE AS HELD BY CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRECISION FINANCE PVT.LTD. (208 ITR 465). IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF LOANS, THE ASSESSEE MUST PROVE 3 IMPORTANT CONDITIONS NAMELY (1) THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON, (2) THE CAPACITY OF THE PERSON TO GIVE SUCH LOAN AND (3) TH E GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. (JALAN TIMBERS VS. CIT 223 ITR 11). THESE THREE THINGS MUST BE PROVED PRIMA FACIE BY THE ASSESSEE AD ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDUCED THE EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE T HE AFORESAID, THE ONUS WILL SHIFT TO THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE PRESEN T CASE, THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF ALL THE PARTIES WH O HAD GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUESTED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE VARIOUS PARTIES YET HE HAS NOT DONE SO FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATI ONS ARE PERTINENT FOR THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. (A) SMT. SHANTUBEN DHIRUBHAI MAKWAA WHO HAD GIVEN A LOA N OF RS.50,000 TO THE ASSESSEE DERIVED INCOME FROM LABO UR CHARGES AND INTEREST INCOME OF RS.6,750. SINCE SHE WAS A H OUSE WIFE, IT WAS STRANGE THAT LABOUR CHARGES INCOME FROM CUTTING AND POLISHING OF DIAMONDS WAS SHOW IN HER HANDS. HER H OUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR WERE AT RS.10,500 WHICH MEANT THAT HER MONTHLY SPENDING WOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED RS.870 . IT WAS STRANGE AS TO HOW A WOMAN OF SUCH MEAGRE MEANS WOUL D HAVE ADVANCED LOAN OF RS.50,000 TO THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF TOTAL CAPITAL OF RS.1,51,107 AS ON 31.3.1997, SMT.SHANTUBEN DHIRU BHAI MAKWANA HAD GIVEN LOAN OF RS.50,000 TO THE ASSESSEE AND RS.88,000 WAS SHOWN AS CASH IN HAND. THUS, IT WAS A CASE OF A CAPITAL FORMATION WHEREBY HER INCOME TAX RETURNS WE RE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE ULTIMATE B ENEFICIARY OF THIS PLANNING. (B) SHRI VITHALBHAI PUNABHAI WHO HAD GIVEN A LOAN OF RS .50,000 TO THE ASSESSEE DERIVED LABOUR CHARGES INCOME OF RS.37 ,652 AND INTEREST INCOME OF RS.3750 IN A.Y. 1997-98. HIS HO USE HOD ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 7 - WITHDRAWALS DURING THE YEAR WERE AT RS.19,910 WHICH MEANT THAT HIS MONTHLY SPENDING WOULD NOT HAVE EXCEEDED RS.165 0. IT WAS STRANGE AS TO HOW A MAN OF SUCH MEAGRE MEANS WOULD HAVE ADVANCED LOAN OF RS.50,000 TO THE ASSESSEE. OUT O F TOTAL CAPITAL OF RS.1.18.216 AS ON 31.3.1997. SHRI VITHALBHAI PU NABHAI HAD GIVEN LOAN OF RS.50,000 TO THE ASSESSEE AND RS.50,0 00 TO SHRI DHANJIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI, WHO WAS A CLOSE ASSOCIATE O F THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT WAS A CASE OF A CAPITAL FORMATI ON WHEREBY HIS INCOME TAX RETURNS WERE ALSO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARY OF THIS PLANN ING. (C) TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATE (HUF) HAD SHOWN NET AGRI CULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,98,365 IN A.Y. 1997-98. FROM THE BA LANCE HSEET, IT WAS FOUND THAT NO AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS SHOWN ON THE ASSET SIDE. THEREFORE, IT WAS QUITE STRANGE AND BAFFLING AS TO HOW THE SAID HUF HAD DERIVED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. OUT OF TOTAL CAPITAL OF RS.8,60,075 AS ON 31.3.1997, THE SAID HU F HAD GIVEN LOAN OF RS.3,40,000 TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT WAS A CASE OF A CAPITAL FORMATION AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARY OF THIS PLANNING. ALL OF THESE CREDITORS WERE THUS LABOURERS OR SALAR IED EMPLOYEES (WHO OWNED THEIR EXISTENCE VERY MUCH TO THE ASSESSE E). ALL OF THESE CREDITORS WERE MEN OF MEAGRE MEANS AS EVIDENC ED BY THEIR MONTHLY HOUSE HOLD WITHDRAWALS. IT WAS HARD TO BEL IEVE THAT CASH DEPOSITED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS (PRIOR TO ISS UE OF CHEQUES TO THE ASSESSEE) WAS OUT OF THEIR SAVINGS. AT THE SAME TIME, IT WAS TOTALLY PREPOSTEROUS TO PRESUME THAT THEY HAD KEPT THE SAID CASH WITH THEM FOR 8 MONTHS TO 1 AND HALF YEAR BEFORE DE POSITING THE SAME IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT SHOULD BE BORNE IN MI ND THAT MERE FILING OF INCOME TAX NUMBERS OF THE CREDITORS IS NO T ENOUGH TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF CASH CREDITS AS HELD BY CA LCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KORLAY TRADING CO.LTD. (232 ITR 820). SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE C REDIT WORTHINESS OF ALLEGED CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSAC TION, I AM CONSTRAINED TO ADD THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.2,70,0 00 TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.68 OF THE I.T.ACT. ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 8 - 6.1. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON THE BA SIS THAT THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN REPEATED OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS AND THE APPELLANT HAS FAIL ED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THESE LOANS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO DEPOSITORS IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE DEPOSITORS ATTENDED AND ADMITTED TO HAVE ADVANCED LOAN TO APPE LLANT. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS LYING ON APPELLANT WAS DISCHARGED IN VIEW OF VARIOUS CASE- LAWS WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGE NOS.12 &13 OF THE P APER-BOOK. WE FIND THAT MAJORITY OF THE CASE-LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSEE ARE NOT REPORTED AT THE PLACE WHERE IT HAVE BEEN REFLECTED. ANOTHE R CONTENTION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE PROOF OF EA RNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THESE EVIDENCES. BY NOT CONSID ERING THESE EVIDENCES, SERIOUS PREJUDICES CAUSED TO THE ASSESSE E. 6.2. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE EVIDENCES RELATED TO EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY ONE OF THE DEPOSITORS; NAMELY, SHRI TULSIBHAI B.PATEL (HUF) FR OM WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A LOAN OF RS.1,70,000/- IN THE Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THESE EVIDENCES AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS ALSO RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE IT AFRESH IN THE L IGHT OF OUR OBSERVATION MADE HEREINABOVE. THUS, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 9 - 7. GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL IS GENERAL IN NATURE REQUI RE NO INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 8. GROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE . 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 1997-98 IS ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.778/AHD/2001 FOR AY 199 6-97. 10. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL AS WERE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE BEARING ITA NO.781/AHD /2001 FOR AY 1997-98(SUPRA), WHEREIN WE HAVE RESTORED NOS.1 & 2 BACK TO THE FILE OF AO. SINCE THERE IS NO CHANGE IN THE FACTS IN THIS YEAR ALSO, FOR THE SAME REASONING, GROUND NOS.1 & 2 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. GROUND NOS.3 & 4 ARE BEING GENERAL AND CONSEQUENTI AL IN NATURE RESPECTIVELY. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR AY 1996-97 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 11 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HER EINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- ( .. ) (' #$) ( N.S. SAINI ) ( KUL BHARAT ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/ 03 /2014 71.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NOS.778 & 781/AH D/2001 SHRI TULSIBHAI BHAGWANBHAI PATEL VS. DCIT ASST.YEARS 1996-97 & 1997-98 - 10 - 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$ 4 / ,$8 98'$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ ': / CONCERNED CIT 4. ':() / THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT 5. 8 #; ,$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<& =0 / GUARD FILE. 4' 4' 4' 4' / BY ORDER, -8$ ,$ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / !) !) !) !) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 20.3.14(DICTATION-PAD 10-PA GES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 21/25..3.14 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 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.31.3.2014 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 31.3.2014 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER