The ACIT, Circle-3, Surat V. Shri Izrar Ahmed Abdul Rashid Shaikh, Surat

ITA 876/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 87620514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Fair market value; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 69C; 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 528/ AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) IZRAR AHMED ABDUL RASHID SHAIKH, PROP. M/S. AKSHAR ROADLINES, F-2/102, SNEH SMRUTI SHIPPING, ADAJAN, SURAT VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 3, SURAT I.T.A.NO. 876/AHD/2009 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ACIT, CIRCLE 3, VS. IZRAR AHMED ABDUL RASHID SHAIKH SURAT PROP. M/S. AKSHAR ROADLINES, F-2/102, SNEH SMRUTI SHIPPING, ADAJAN, SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AFXPS2598M (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SAPNESH R SETH, AR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B L YADAV, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 23.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15.06.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS FIELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) II, SU RAT DATED 15.12.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 1. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I.T.A .NO. 528/AHD/2009 1.1 GROUND NO.1 IS AS UNDER: I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5 ,00,000/- BEING THE GIFTS MADE BY THREE DONORS AND TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BY THE AO SPECIALLY WHEN THE ID. CIT(A) HAS AGREED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASKING THE APPELLA NT TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AS ALSO REQUISITE EXPLANATIONS WITH REG ARD TO THE OPENING BALANCES OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE THREE DONORS. 1.1.1 BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE TILL THE ASSESSMENT S TAGE ARE NOTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 4 & 4.1 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRO DUCED BELOW: THE GIFTS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REPRODU CED IN PARA-4, PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED COPIES OF GIFT DEEDS AND CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE DO NORS AS ON 31-03- 2004. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE OPENING BALANCES IN EACH OF THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE . THE AO THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DONORS FOR PERSONAL VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT TWO OF TH E DONORS SMT. AFROZBANU ARAB AND MR. AZIZBHAI ARAB WERE OUT OF TO WN, WHILE THE THIRD DONOR, SHRI ABDUL RASHID A. SHAIKH WAS 78 YEARS OF AGE AND COULD NOT APPEAR PERSONALLY BEFORE THE AO. HOWE VER, ON 26- 11-2007, SHRI AZIZBHAI ARAB AND SMT AFROZBANU ARAB APPEARED BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDING TO THE AO, IN THEIR STATEM ENTS, BOTH OF THEM STATED THAT THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE SO URCE OF THE DEPOSITS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS WITH UCO BANK, MUGL ISARA, SURAT. THEY FURTHER STATED THAT THEIR CHEQUE BOOKS AND OTH ER DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE GENERALLY KEPT WITH THE ASSESSEE. WHILE BOTH THE DONORS HAD CLAIMED THAT TH E GIFTS HAD BEEN MADE BY CHEQUES YET, AS PER THE GIFT DEEDS, TH E GIFTS WERE GIVEN IN CASH. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH FINDINGS, THE A O ISSUED A SHOW- CAUSE NOTICE ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE GIFTS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED (PARA-4.2, PAGES 3-4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A DETAILE D SUBMISSION (PARA-4.3). REFERRING TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF TH E DONORS, IT WAS ARGUED THAT ALL THE THREE DONORS HAD REQUISITE FUND S AVAILABLE WITH THEM, AND HENCE, HAD THE CAPACITY TO GIVE THE GIFTS . TWO OF THE DONORS HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON THE APPOINTED DATE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THEY HAD APPEARED BEFORE A GOVERNMEN T OFFICER FOR THE FIRST TIME AND THEREFORE, THEY WERE UNDER A LOT OF STRESS, HENCE NO ADVERSE VIEW MAY BE TAKEN REGARDING THE STATEMEN TS MADE BY I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 3 THEM. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO REQUESTED FOR CROSS-EXA MINATION. AS REGARDS THE THIRD DONOR, IT WAS REITERATED THAT, BE CAUSE OF HIS OLD AGE, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR HIM TO APPEAR BEFORE T HE AO. 4.1 THE AO REJECTED THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION AND L ISTED OUT THE REASONS FOR SUCH REJECTION IN PARA-4.4, PAGES 5-6 O F THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE FIRST REASON WAS THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN UNABLE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS OF THE OPENING BALANCES IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS OF THE THREE DONORS. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT T HE STATEMENTS OF THE TWO DONORS WAS RECORDED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE ASSESSEE'S AR, AND THEREFORE, THEIR CROSS-EXAMINATION COULD NOT BE ALLOWED SINCE THEY WERE THE ASSESSEE'S WITNESSES. THE AR WHO WAS PRESENT HAD NOT REQUESTED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION. FURTHER, WITH REGARD TO THE THIRD DONOR, NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED TO PROVE THA T HE WAS UNWELL AND INCAPABLE OF APPEARING BEFORE THE AO. THE STATE MENTS OF THE TWO DONORS CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THEY DID NOT HAVE AN Y SOURCE OF INCOME. EVEN THOUGH THEY HAD MADE THE GIFTS IN INST ALMENTS OF SMALL AMOUNTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THEIR GIFTS B Y WAY OF CASH OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT. FINALLY, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE HABIT OF RECEIVING GIFTS EVERY YEAR. IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN GIFTS FROM 6 PERSONS TOTALLING RS 11,50,000. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD S URRENDERED THE SAME AND OFFERED FOR TAXATION. IN THE YEAR BEFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GIFTS OF RS 31 LAKHS. BASED ON SUCH OBSERVATI ONS, THE AO TREATED THE GIFTS OF RS 5 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED, AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME. 1.1.2 BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW, THE ASSESSE E IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 1.1.3 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT OUT OF THIS GIFT OF RS.5 LACS FROM THREE DONORS, ONE DONOR SHRI ABDUL RASHID A SH AIKH, WHO HAS GIVEN A GIFT OF RS.2 LACS, IS FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE IS 74 YEARS OF AGE AND BECAUSE OF HIS OLD AGE, HE C OULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. FOR EXAMINATION AND, THEREFORE, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE SHOULD BE DRAWN DUE TO THIS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DONOR IS ALSO INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND THE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED A LONG WITH PHOTOCOPY I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 4 OF PAN CARD, INCOME TAX RETURN FILED FOR THIS VERY YEAR, COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENT ETC. ARE AVA ILABLE IN HE PAPER BOOK ON PAGES 24-31 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND HENCE, NO ADDITION IS JUSTIFIED WITH REGARD TO THIS GIFT WHICH IS RECEIVED BY THE A SSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER. REGARDING TWO OTHER GIFTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH ESE TWO DONORS WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O. AND THEY HAVE DULY CONFIRM ED BEFORE THE A.O. REGARDING THESE TWO GIFTS GIVEN BY THEM TO THE ASSE SSEE. BUT THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED ABOUT THEIR SOURCES BUT STILL THEY HA VE CONFIRMED THE GIVING OF GIFT AND, THEREFORE, ADDITION IN THE PRESET CASE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IT IS REQUESTED THAT INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENT OR DONORS MAY BE REOPENED AS PER LAW. 1.1.4 LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 1.1.5 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT OUT OF THREE GIFTS TOTALING RS.5 LACS, ONE GIF T OF RS.2 LACS IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS FATHER. IT IS ALSO SEEN T HAT HIS FATHER IS INCOME TAX ASSESSEE AND THE GIFT GIVEN BY HIM IS DULY SHOW N IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT COPY OF WHICH IS AVAILABLE ON PAGE 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE WAS HAVING OPENING BALANCE OF RS.4.10 LACS. HE HAS SHOWN INCO ME OF RS.0.51 LACS IN THE PRESENT YEAR. HE IS ALSO INCOME TAX ASSESSEE A ND HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THIS VERY YEAR ON 18.01.2006. CONSIDE RING ALL THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THIS GIFT RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE REJECTED AS BOGUS BECAUSE THE DONOR IS THE FATHE R OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE IS INCOME TAX ASSESSEE ALSO. REGARDING THIS THAT H E WAS NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O., THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE A PPEARS TO BE REASONABLE THAT BECAUSE OF HIS OLD AGE, HE COULD NOT BE PRODUC ED. THEREFORE, THIS ADDITION OF GIFT IS DELETED. REGARDING THE REMAINI NG TWO GIFTS, IT WAS I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 5 NOTED THAT THESE TWO PERSONS ARE NOT RELATIVES OF T HE ASSESSEE AND THEY COULD NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCES ALSO A ND IF WE GO BY HUMAN PROBABILITIES, GIFTS OF SUCH A HUGE AMOUNT BY AN OU TSIDER IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO DOUBT AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT MATERIAL ON RECORD REGARDING SOURCES AND OCCASION OF GIFTS ETC, SUCH GIFT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS GENUINE AND THEREFORE, THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.3 LACS IS SUSTAINED. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 1.2 GROUND NO.2 IS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 5964/- MADE BY THE AO OUT OR TELEPHONE EXPENSE. 1.2.1 WE FIND THAT OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSE OF RS.1 ,29,822/-, THE A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.25,962/- BEING 20% OF S UCH EXPENSES ON THIS BASIS THAT THE SAME IS OF PERSONAL NATURE. LD . CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS DISALLOWANCE BY HOLDING THAT THE ELEMENT OF PE RSONAL USE CANNOT BE RULED OUT. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT T HIS DISALLOWANCES IS EXCESSIVE. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT( A). 1.2.2 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES, THE A.O. HAS MADE D ISALLOWANCE OF 20% BY HOLDING THAT TO THIS EXTENT, THE EXPENSES ARE PE RSONAL IN NATURE. SINCE, ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY PERSONAL TELEPHONE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THIS DISALLOWANCE IS NOT EXCESSIVE AND HEN CE, WE CONFIRM THE SAME. THIS GROUND IS REJECTED. 1.3 GROUND NO.3 IS AS UNDER: 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 9490/- MADE I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 6 BY THE AO OUT OF INTEREST PAID TO CHANDAN COMMERCIA L CORPORATION. 1.3.1 THIS DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THI S BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST @ 24% TO THIS CONCERN AS AGAINST THE RATE OF 18% PAID TO OTHER ENTITIES. WHEN CONFRONTED, IT WA S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. THAT THIS PARTY IS A FINAN CIER AND, THEREFORE, THEY CHARGE HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST AS COMPARED TO OTHER ORDINARY LENDERS. THE A.O. WAS NOT SATISFIED AND HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS INTEREST PAID TO THE EXTENT OF 6%, WHICH WAS WORKED OUT BY HE A.O . AT RS.19,490/-. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD . CIT(A) BUT THIS GROUND WAS REJECTED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THA T THE LD. A.R. HAS NOT MADE ANY SUBMISSION ON THIS ISSUE AND, THEREFORE, H E DREW AN INFERENCE THAT HE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, HE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY REFERENCE TO THE SAME. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 1.3.2 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. A.R. BEFORE US TH AT THE SUBMISSIONS WERE MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ABOUT THIS ISSUE ALSO A ND, THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THIS GROUND. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE RATE OF INTEREST CHARGED BY ORDINARY DEPOSITOR AND LENDER C ANNOT BE COMPARED WITH THE FINANCIER AND, THEREFORE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 1.3.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. IN ADDITION TO THE SUBMISSION, NO EVIDENCE HAVE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD EVEN BEFORE US THAT THIS PARTY IS A FINANCIER AND OTHER FINANCI ERS WERE ALSO CHARGING SIMILAR RATE OF INTEREST. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS G ROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 7 1.4 GROUND NO.4 IS AS UNDER: 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE ID. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.8 3403/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 69C OUT OF PURCHASES FROM M/S VOLVO I NDIA (P) LTD. 1.4.1 BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE A.O. MADE ADDITION O F RS.83,403/- BEING UNEXPLAINED PURCHASES SHOWN FORM M/S. VOLVO (INDIA) PVT. LTD. IN THE COURSE OF VERIFYING THE PURCHASES, THE A.O. ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) BUT NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED FORM THIS PARTY. THE ASSE SSEE FURNISHED CONTRA ACCOUNT FROM THE SAID PARTY AND IT IS OBSERVED BY T HE A.O. THAT THIS PARTY HAD CONFIRMED SALE OF RS.4,51,989/- WHILE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN PURCHASES OF RS.5,35,392/- AND THE A.O. MADE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OFRS.83,403/- U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. BEING AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CI T(A) BUT WITHOUT SUCCESS AND NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 1.4.2 IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. THAT SINCE THE P URCHASES WITH THIS PARTY ARE DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS, NO ADDITI ON IS JUSTIFIED U/S 69C. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1.4.3 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69C OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. SECTION 69C IS APPLICABLE WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE AND IT COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SOURCE OF INCURRING THE EXPENDITU RE IS NOT IN DOUBT BECAUSE THE SOURCE OF EXPENDITURE IS FROM BOOKS AND , THEREFORE, SECTION 69C IS NOT APPLICABLE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS SEEN THAT AS PER THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE PARTY M/S. VOLVO (INDIA) PVT. LTD. SUBMITTED BY THE I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 8 ASSESSEE TO THE A.O., THIS PARTY HAS SHOWN SALES OF RS.4,51,989/- BUT THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING PURCHASES OF RS.5,35,392/- AND DIFFERENCE OF RS.83,403/- COULD NOT BE RECONCILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE A.O. OR BEFORE LD. CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US. HENCE, THIS I S A CASE OF BOGUS PURCHASES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, W E DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BECAUSE TH E ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN OR RECONCILE THIS DIFFERENCE. THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED. 1.5 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 2. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I.T .A.NO. 876/AHD/2009. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: (1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-II, SURAT HAS ERRED IN - A. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,13,800/- ON ACC OUNT OF UNVERIFIABLE PURCHASES. B, RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,63,026/- OUT O F VARIOUS EXPENSES TO RS.25,964/-. C. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,30,239/- OUT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. D. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS .80,330/- & RS.25,470/-U/S.40A(2)(B) OF THE ACT. E. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.97,892/- OUT O F MESSING EXPENSES AND RS.6,70,938/- OUT OF TRUCK-TRIP EXPENS ES. F. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,80,320/- OUT OF FREIGHT EXPENSES. G. DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,28,381/- OUT OF CLAIM OF INSURANCE PAYMENT. H. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.71,339/- ON ACCOUNT OF INGENUINE PURCHASES. I. DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.36,000/- OUT OF ADDITION MADE OF RS.50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD E XPENSES. (2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 9 (3) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2.1 IN RESPECT OF ALL THE GROUNDS, THE LD. D.R. SUP PORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF I NSURANCE PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS BASIS THAT THIS IS THE AMO UNT OF PREPAID INSURANCE AND, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN T HE PRESENT YEAR. LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED EVEN THIS DISALLOWANCE WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. LD. A.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). 2.1.1 WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PER USED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW. REGARDING GROUND NO.1.A, WE FIND THAT HIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARA 10 OF HIS ORDER WHICH IS REPRODU CED BELOW: 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED BOTH THE POSITIONS . I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE AO WAS NOT REALLY JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED TOWARD S THE PURCHASE OF TRUCK SPARE PARTS AND TYRES. THE MAIN GROUND TAK EN BY HIM WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR THE SALE PR OCEEDS OF THE OLD TYRES. IT IS A KNOWN FACT THAT TRANSPORTERS USUALLY USE TYRES UNTIL THEY ARE COMPLETELY WORN OUT. IT IS ALSO A FACT THA T RETREADED TYRES CANNOT BE REUSED, NOR CAN THE TYRES WHICH BURST. IT THEREFORE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE COULD NOT BE ANY RESALE VALU E OF SUCH TYRES. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE A R THAT WHATEVER NOMINAL AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVABLE AGAINST THE SALE OF SUCH TYRES IS ADJUSTED BY THE TRUCK REPAIRERS OR GARAGE OWNERS AGAINST THE EXPENSES TO BE INCURRED ON REPAIRING PUNCTURES AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REPAIRS. WHAT IS ALSO TO BE CONSIDERE D IS THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED NOT ONLY A COPY OF THE S AID ACCOUNT BUT ALL RELEVANT DETAILS INCLUDING COMPLETE BILLS AND V OUCHERS PERTAINING TO THE SAID EXPENDITURE. THE AO WAS UNAB LE TO POINT OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE ACCOUNTS OR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, A PERCENTAGE DISALLOWANCE ON ESTIMATE WA S REALLY NOT WARRANTED. THE ADDITION OF THE SUM OF RS7,13,800 WI LL THEREFORE, STAND DELETED. I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 10 2.1.2 FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), WE FIND THAT A CLEAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) THAT THE USED TYRES BY THE TRANSPORTER IS GENERALLY NOT HAVING ANY RESALE VALUE AND WHATEV ER NOMINAL AMOUNTS ARE RECEIVABLE AGAINST THE SAID TYRES IS ADJUSTED B Y THE TRUCK DRIVER AGAINST MINOR REPAIR/PUNCTURE AND OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REPA IRS. THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) COULD NOT BE CONTROVERTED BY LD. D.R. AN D HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISS UE. GROUND NO. 1.A OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 2.2 GROUND NO.1.B OF THE REVENUES APPEAL, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARA 14 OF HIS OR DER WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 14. I FIND THE AR'S CONTENTION TO HE CORRECT THAT THE VEHICLE EXPENSES OF RS 4,07,128 ACTUALLY REPRESENTED THE IN SURANCE PREMIUM PAID ON THE TRUCKS. AS REGARDS THE ADVERTIS EMENT EXPENSES, DIWALI GIFTS, OFFICE EXPENSES, STATIONARY AND PRINTING, AND XEROX EXPENSES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT NO DISALLOWAN CE COULD BE MADE OUT OF THESE EXPENSES. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SUCH EXPENSES ARE ALWAYS VERY PETTY IN NATURE AND C OMPRISE OF SMALL ITEMS INCURRED ON A DAY-TO-DAY BASIS IN ANY B USINESS. THE PERSONS TO WHOM SUCH PAYMENTS ARE MADE DO NOT USUAL LY HAVE ANY BANK ACCOUNT, WHICH MEANS THAT MOST OF SUCH EXPENSE S HAVE TO BE INCURRED IN CASH. NOR DO THEY PROVIDE ANY BILL OR V OUCHER OR EVEN A CASH RECEIPT WHICH MEANS THAT THE BUSINESS PERSON H AS TO PREPARE HIS OWN VOUCHERS AFTER CONSOLIDATION OF SUCH EXPENS ES ON WEEKLY OR MONTHLY BASIS. THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE OR SHOULD BE MADE OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES, SIMPLY ON THE GROUND OF NON-VERIFLABILITY. IN ANY CASE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY PERSONAL ELEMENT IN SUCH EXPENSES, THE AO ON HIS PART HAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO SHOW OR PROVE ANY ITEM OF EXPENDITURE INCLUDED UNDER THE SA ID HEAD, AS EITHER NOT GENUINE OR NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLU SIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS. THEREFORE, THE IS ALLOWANCE OF RS.1,37,061 MADE OUT OF SUCH EXPENSES, WILL STAND DELETED. 2.2.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A ), WE FIND THAT IT IS HELD BY LD. CIT(A) THAT DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE PETTY I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 11 EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS THAT EXPENS ES ARE NOT FULLY VERIFIABLE AND THERE IS NO ALLEGATION OF THE A.O. T HAT THE EXPENDITURE ARE PERSONAL IN NATURE. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTE RFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. GROUND NO.1.B IS ALSO R EJECTED. 2.3 REGARDING GROUND NO.1.C, WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT ED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT INTEREST FREE L OANS AND ADVANCES WERE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO THREE PERSONS TOTALING RS. 18.77 LACS AND AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE ON RECO RD, THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING HIS OWN CAPITAL OF RS.78.92 LACS IN THE BEGI NNING OF THE YEAR AND RS.90.18 LACS AT THE CLOSE OF THE YEAR. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT THE SUFFICIENT OWN INTEREST FREE FUNDS WERE AVAILABLE W ITH THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS JUSTIFIED IN RESPECT OF THESE INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTER FERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 2.4 REGARDING GROUND NO.1.D, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARA 20, 20.1 AND 20.2 AND THE SE PARAS OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 20. I FULLY AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE AR. A N EXPENDITURE CAN EITHER BE GENUINE OR NOT GENUINE. IN THIS PARTI CULAR CASE, BY SEEKING EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SERVICES RENDERED BY M/S ARROW LOGISTICS, THE AO HAD ACTUALLY QUESTIONED THE GENUI NENESS OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. IF THAT BE SO, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE DISALLOWED THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE AND NOT MADE ONLY A PERCENTA GE DISALLOWANCE. IT WAS VERY CLEAR AT THE OUTSET THAT M/S ARROW LOGISTICS WAS THE ONLY PARTY DOING SUPERVISION WORK FOR THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WAS ERRONEOUS ON THE PART O F THE AO TO SEEK COMPARISON WITH THE PAYMENT MADE TO OTHER SUPERVISO RS, INSTEAD OF ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT, ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE INITIAL BURDEN OF FURNI SHING THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES ALONG WITH THE OTHER DETAILS, TH E ONUS HAD SHIFTED ON TO THE AO TO MAKE INQUIRIES AND TO BRING RELEVANT EVIDENCE ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM BEFORE MAKING I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 12 ANY DISALLOWANCE OR ADDITION. THIS HOWEVER, THE AO FAILED TO DO. MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE AO WAS NOT ABLE TO SHOW HOW M /S ARROW LOGISTICS WAS A PERSON SPECIFIED UNDER CLAUSE-(B) T O SECTION 40A (2) OF THE ACT. ; 20.1 AS REGARDS THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM OF RS1,27,08 4 TO M/S ARROW LOGISTICS ON ACCOUNT OF RATE DIFFERENCE, IT W AS THE AO'S CASE THAT THERE COULD NOT BE RECEIPTS OF SHORT PAYMENTS FROM THE CLIENTS OR CUSTOMERS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE TRUCKS OWNED BY M/S ARROW LOGISTICS. THE POINT HOWEVER IS THAT, M/S ARROW LOG ISTICS WAS PERHAPS THE BIGGEST SUPPLIER OF THE TRUCKS TO THE A SSESSEE, WHO IN TURN HIRED OUT SUCH TRUCKS TO DIFFERENT CLIENTS/CUS TOMERS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE NECESSARILY HAD TO HAVE A SPECIAL FINA NCIAL ARRANGEMENT WITH THE SAID PARTY, WHICH MEANT THAT W HENEVER THERE WAS RECEIPT OF SHORT PAYMENT FROM A CUSTOMER, THE A SSESSEE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE GOOD THE SHORTAGE WHILE REIMBURSING M/ S ARROW LOGISTICS SUCH AMOUNTS. THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHIN G UNUSUAL OR UNREASONABLE ABOUT SUCH AN ARRANGEMENT. ONCE AGAIN, THE ONUS WAS ON THE AO TO DISPROVE THE ASSESSEE'S CLAIM. HE COUL D HAVE SUMMONED M/S ARROW LOGISTICS TO VERIFY, THE CLAIM M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 20.2 TAKING INTO ACCOUNT SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO JU STIFICATION ON THE PART OF THE A.O. IN MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITIONS OF THE SUMS OF RS.80,330/- AND OF RS. 25,417/- WILL STAND DELETED. 2.4.1 WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AS PER ABOVE PARAS, WE FIND THAT THE REASONING GIVEN BY LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THIS DISALLOWANCE ARE CONVINCING AND HENCE, WE DECLINE T O INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. 2.5 REGARDING GROUND NO.1.E OF THE REVENUES APPEAL , WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) AS PER PARA 22 OF H IS ORDER. LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED HIS OWN ORDER IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AND NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US BY LD. D.R. OF THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN ASSESSMENT I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 13 YEAR 2004-05 WAS REVERSED OR IS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BE FO RE THE A.O. AS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. IN PARA 14 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT WHEN A DRIVER GOES ON LONG TRIPS, THE AMOUNT IS GIVEN TO H IM FOR EXPENSES SUCH AS DIESEL, RTO AND OTHER UNFORESEEN EXPENSES. ON RETU RN, THE DRIVER GIVES ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES WITH RECEIPT/BILLS ETC. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THERE MAY BE SOME ITEMS WHICH CANNOT BE DESCRIBED I N ITS PARTICULARS GIVEN BY THE DRIVER. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT EV EN IF IT IS TO BE EXAMINED FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(2B), IT HAS TO BE SHOWN AS EXCESSIVE OR UNREASONABLE HAVING REGARD TO THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE GOODS OR SERVICES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT IS MADE OR IT IS NOT FOR THE NEED OF THE BUSINESS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE PAYMENTS TO OUTSIDER AND THERE IS NO OBSERVANCE OF UNREASONABLE PAYMENTS. THE DIS ALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THIS BASIS THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS ACCOUNTING FOR, ALL THE SPECIFIC EXPENSES SEPARATELY SUCH AS VEHICLE REPAIR ING, RTO AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, WHAT IS JUSTIFICATION OF TH IS SEPARATE EXPENSES OF TRUCK TRIP EXPENSES. HE HAD FINALLY MADE DISALLOWAN CE ON THIS BASIS THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED TO SUBSTANTIAT E THE CLAIM OF THAT PAYMENTS ARE MADE AT MARKET RATES TO M/S. ASIAN ROA D LINES. HE DISALLOWED 50% OF THE TRUCK TRIP EXPENSES. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MAKING SUCH DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES O N SUSPICION ALONE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. WHILE HOLDING SO, WE ARE KEEP ING IN MIND THIS ASPECT THAT WHEN EXPENDITURE ARE INCURRED LOCALLY, IT CAN BE ACCOUNTED FOR UNDER SPECIFIC HEADS OF EXPENDITURE BUT WHEN TRUCK DRIVER GOES ON A LONG TRIP AND INCUR PETTY EXPENSES DURING THE TRIP, HE I S NOT EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN HEAD WISE DETAILS OF SUCH EXPENDITURE BEIN G ILLITERATE OR SEMI LITERATE. THE BUSINESSMAN KNOWS VERY WELL THAT HOW MUCH EXPENDITURE IN I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 14 A TRIP IS REASONABLE AND IF SUCH CLAIM OF THE DRIVE R REGARDING EXPENSES IS NEAR ABOUT TO SUCH REASONABLE LIMIT, THEN THE PAYME NT OF SUCH EXPENDITURE TO THE DRIVER CANNOT BE QUESTIONED EVEN IF THE SAME IS NOT SUPPORTED BY PROPER EVIDENCE. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND GROUN D BUSINESS REALITY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION WITHOUT BRINGING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WE, THEREFORE, DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS GROUND OF THE REVE NUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 2.6 REGARDING GROUND NO.1.F, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN ORDER FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. IN PA RA 13 THAT A SUM OF RS.190.16 LACS HAS BEEN DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE UND ER THE HEAD FREIGHT EXPENSES. THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE C OPIES OF THE LEDGER WITH BILLS/VOUCHERS AND IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED RELEVANT BOOKS AND VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATI ON BUT THOSE VOUCHERS ARE SELF MADE CASH VOUCHERS AND THERE WAS NO SIGNAT URE OF RECIPIENT ON SOME OF THEM. THE A.O. HAS MADE DISALLOWANCE ON TH IS BASIS THAT THE POSSIBILITY OF INFLATED EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OU T AND HE MADE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF 2% OF THE TOTAL EXPEN DITURE. AS PER THE CHART SHOWING GROSS PROFIT, NET PROFIT AND EXPENSES RATIO, WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT YEAR, THE PERCENTAGE OF EXPENDITURE UND ER THIS HEAD IS ONLY 43.96% AS AGAINST 60.66% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND 49.33% IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR AND GP RATIO IN THE PRESENT YEAR IS ALSO BETTER AS COMPARED TO EARLIER TWO YEARS. IN THE PRESENT YEAR , THE GP RATIO IS 25.39% WHEREAS IT WAS 24.18% IN THE PRECEDING YEAR AND 21. 53% IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS AND IN V IEW OF THIS FACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE A.O. ON AD HOC BASIS W ITHOUT BRINGING ANY I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 15 ADVERSE MATERIAL ON RECORD, NO INTERFERENCE IS CALL ED FOR IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. 2.7 REGARDING GROUND NO.1.G, WE FIND THAT THE DISAL LOWANCE WAS MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF PREPAID INSURANCE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME WAS DELETED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THAT T HIS AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THIS YEAR ON THE BASIS OF N OTICE RECEIVED FROM INSURANCE COMPANY AND THEREFORE, THE LIABILITY ACCR UED DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NOTICE. W E ARE NOT SATISFIED ON THIS ASPECT BECAUSE THE LIABILITY NEITHER ACCRUES O N THE BASIS OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE NOR ON PAYMENT IF THE INSURANCE PREMIUM IS P AID FOR A SUBSEQUENT PERIOD, THE SAME IS NOT ALLOWABLE IN THE PRESENT YE AR AND, THEREFORE, ON THIS ISSUE, WE REVERSE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THAT OF THE A.O. THIS IS CONSEQUENTIAL THAT THE DEDUCTION ON THIS AC COUNT HAS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE NEXT YEAR TO WHICH THE EXPENSES ARE RELATED TO. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 2.8 REGARDING GROUND 1.H, WE FIND THAT HIS ISSUE WA S DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THAT THE A.O. HAD CLEARLY FAIL ED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT BOTH THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS ONE IN THE NAME OF ACHAL R OAD-LINES AND OTHER IN THE NAME OF MR. I A SAIKH. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT IF BOTH THE ACCOUNTS ARE CONSIDERED TOG ETHER, THE ENTIRE EXPENSES GET RECONCILED. LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDING THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS SATISFACTORY A ND IS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE ALSO. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS ALSO REJECTED. I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 16 2.9 REGARDING GROUND NO.1.I, WE FIND THAT THIS ISSU E WAS DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A) ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEES WIFE H AS SHOWN WITHDRAWAL OF RS.36,000/- AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION HAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO RS.14,000/- ONLY AFTER REDUCING THIS AMOUNT OF RS.36,000/- FROM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. OF RS.50,000/-. LD. D.R. COULD NOT CONTRO VERT THIS FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) THAT ASSESSEES WIFE HAS WITHDRAWN RS.36,000 /- WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE A.O. HENCE, WE DECLINE TO INTERF ERE IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. THIS GROUND IS ALSO REJECTED . 2.10 THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE GENERAL. 2.11 IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 3. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (KUL BHARAT) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD I.T.A.NO. 528,876 /AHD/2009 17 1. DATE OF DICTATION 29/5, 30/5 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 04/06. OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 7/6 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 15/6 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S.15/6 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 15/6 /12 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.