Shri Harshadkumar H.Patel, Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 100/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8093 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-06-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-05-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV SRDR
• Assessee Lawyers: P M MEHTA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 142(1); 153A; 131; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI, A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.100 TO 107/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 SHRI HARSHADKUMAR H PATEL, C/O MAHENDRAKUMAR & CO. JATAPLUR TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.ACNPP1671R SHRI DILIP H PATEL, C/O. VISHNU RICE MILLS, JETALPUR, TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.ACNPP1669B SHRI SWAPNIL M PATEL PROP. VISHNU RICE & PULSE MILL, JETALPUR, TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.AOZPP0446D PINALKUMAR M PATEL, C/O. PADMAVATI TRADING, JETALPUR, TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.ACNPP1709L PARESH M PATEL C/O. PADMAVATI TRADING, JETALPUR, TAL. DASCROIL, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.ACNPP1709L ANANDIBEN M PATEL, C/O. PADMAVATI TRADING, JETALPUR, TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.ACMPO3642E V/S . V/S . V/S . V/S . V/S . V/S . DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD IT(SS)A NO.100-107/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PATEL GROUP V. DCIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 2 SMT. PADMABEN V PATEL, C/O. PADMAVATI TRADING, JETALPUR, TAL. DASKROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.ADMPP3634P SHRI NITINKUMAR V PATEL, PROP. PADMAVATI TRADING, JETALPUR, TAL. DASCROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD PAN NO.ACOPP7665A V/S . V/S . DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(1), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) /BY ASSESSEE SHRI P.M.MEHTA, AR /BY REVENUE SHRI B.L.YADAV, SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 23-05-2012 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT -06-2012 O R D E R PER BENCH:- THESE ARE EIGHT APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSE ES DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS)-III, AHMEDABAD BY EVEN DATE I.E. 11-11-2009 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. SINCE THE COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE RAISED EXCEPT THE CHANGE OF FIGURES TO ARISING FROM THE RESULT OF SEARCH OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) IN THE CASE OF SANJAY R SHAH AND MEEGHMANI GROUP THEREFORE ALL HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEIN G DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.100/AHD/ 2010 (A.Y.06-07) 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANTS CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES T O BE CANCELLED AS HE HAS PASSED AN ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND APPR ECIATING THE FACTS OF CASE OF APPELLANT. IT(SS)A NO.100-107/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PATEL GROUP V. DCIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 3 2(A) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE APPELLANTS CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT UNDER WHICH T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FRAMED IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT I QUESTION AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AUT HORITIES BELOW INITIO. IT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. (B) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ASSES SMENT ORDER PASSED BY AO IS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE CANCELLED. 3.(A) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING T HE ADDITION OF RS.1,82,437 FOR UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAIN. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETE D SUCH ADDITION MADE BY AO. (B) IN LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E APPELLANTS CASE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT SALES CON SIDERATION DECLARED BY APPELLANT IS WHAT HE HAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND O UGHT TO HEAVE HELD THAT SALES CONSIDERATION MENTIONED IN SEIZED MATERI AL FOUND FROM PREMISES OF THIRD PARTY CANNOT BE CONSIDERED OR APP LIED IN CASE OF APPELLANT. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, AMOUNT OF RS.44 LACS MENTIONED AS UNPAID AMOUNT IN SEIZED MATERIAL CANNOT BE CONSIDER ED AS PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION FOR VARIOUS AGRICULTURE LANDS MENTION ED IN SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENT. 4. IN THE LAW AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE APPELLANT DENIES HIS LIABILITY TO PAY INTEREST. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH OPERATIO N U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS T HE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF SANJAY R SHAH AND MEEGHMANI GROUP BY ISSUING A WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT ON 26-09-2005 AND VARIOUS DOCUMENTS/ BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES WERE FOUND AND S EIZED FROM THE VARIOUS PREMISES COVERED U/S. 132(1) AND 132(1A) OF THE ACT . A NOTICE U/S. 143(2), 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 20-08-2007 AND SERVED BY SPEED POST UPON THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO FINALIZE THE ASSESSMENT U/S.153C R.WS. 153A RWS 153B(1)(B) OF TH E ACT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS U/S. 144 RWS 153A RWS 153C RWS 153B(1)(B), WHEREBY A SUM OF RS.4,78,5 35/- WAS ADDED ON IT(SS)A NO.100-107/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PATEL GROUP V. DCIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 4 ACCOUNT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS (LTCG FOR SHORT) AND RS.96,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. AGAINST THIS ORDER, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) RAISING VARIOUS GROUND. THE GROUN DS RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- 1. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND HENCE DESERVES T O BE CANCELLED. 2. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE PRESENT ORDER WITH OUT HAVING ANY JURISDICTION ON THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ASSESSME NT ORDER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND THUS ILLEGAL AND VOID AUTHORITIES BELOW INITIO. 3. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX UNDER WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FRAMED IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION AND THUS T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED IS ILLEGAL AND VOID AUTHORITIES BELOW INITIO IT REQUIRES TO BE CANCELLED ON THIS GROUND ITSELF. 4. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE A DDITION OF RS.96,000 FOR UNEXPLAINED HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WHEN NO SUCH ADD ITION IS CALLED FOR. IT MAY BE DELETED. 7. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAKING THE A DDITION OF RS.3,64,777 FOR UNDISCLOSED CAPITAL GAINS WHEN NO S UCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. IT MAY BE DELETED. 8. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CHARGING INT EREST U/S. 234A, 234B, 234C AND 234D OF THE I.T. ACT, WHEN NO SUCH I NTEREST IS CHARGEABLE. IT MAY BE DELETED. 9. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN INITIATING T HE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WHEN NO SUCH PENALT Y IS LEVIABLE. HE MAY BE DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW SUCH PROCEEDINGS. 10. IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN INITIATING T HE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) WHEN NO SUCH PENALT Y IS LEVIABLE. HE MAY BE DIRECTED TO WITHDRAW SUCH PROCEEDINGS. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS LD. CIT(A) PARTY ALLOWE D THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. IT(SS)A NO.100-107/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PATEL GROUP V. DCIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 5 4. THE ASSESSEE FEELING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FILED SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED ON 18-05-2012 AND PLACED O N RECORD ON 31-05-2012. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BUT THIS GROUND HAS NOT BEE N DECIDED BY LD. CIT(A). IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD AR THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN OBSE RVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 143A R.W.S. 153B(1) OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE CONTRARY LD. SR-DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE FOR THE REVENUE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LD. AR HAS RELIED UPON THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS, SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW:- ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 HEARING OF THE ABOVE REFERRED PART-HEARD MATTERS IS FIXED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS ON 23-5-2012 . IN THIS CONNECTION, WE HAVE TO SUBMIT AS UNDER:- AT THE OUTSET, WE SUBMIT THAT IN ALL THE ABOVE REF ERRED ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER VIDE GROUND NO.2[A] RAISED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAVE SOLD AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN VILLAGE JETALPUR, TALUKA DASKROI, DIST. AHMEDABAD. THE SAID VILLAGE JETALPUR IS HAVING SEPARATE GRAM PANCHYAT A ND ITS POPULATION, AS PER THE LAST CENSUS IS BELOW 10000. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN THE IR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF BLOC K NOS. 95, 96 AND 113, SOLD TO SHRI LALITBHAI K PATEL AND SHRI KANTIBHAI M PATEL ON 12-5-2005. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT AS A RESULT OF SEARCH A T MEGHMANI GROUP, VARIOUS DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI LALITB HAI K IT(SS)A NO.100-107/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PATEL GROUP V. DCIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 6 PATEL AND SHRI KANTIBAHI M PATEL. OUT OF THE SAID S EIZED DOCUMENTS, PAGE NO.94 OF ANNEXURE-A/4 CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF SALE CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME AND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132[4] OF THE ACT ON 22-9-2005 OF SHRI LALITBHAI K PATEL, SON OF SHRI KANTIBHAI M PATEL HAS ADMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON PAGE NO.94 OF ANNEXURE A-4 ARE TRUE AND CORRECT. MOREOVER, DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH INVESTIG ATION, SHRI LALITBHAI K PATEL HAS CLARIFIED IN HIS STATEME NT RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT ON 15-11-2005 THAT HE AND HIS F AMILY HAVE MADE PAYMENTS, BOTH, THROUGH CHEQUES AND CASH TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF LAND IN THE NAME OF SHRI LA LITBHAI K PATEL AT JETALPUR. HENCE, ON THE BASIS OF THE SAI D DOCUMENTS I.E. PAGE NO.94 AT ANNEXURE A-4, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL GAINS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THEE IS NO SEARCH AT THE PREMI SES OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INVO KED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSME NT. IN THE ENTIRE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC FINDING THAT DOCUMENT RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS SUCH, THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE ITS GROUND NO.2[A] RAIS ED BEFORE YOUR HONOURS AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE REQ UESTS YOR HONOURS TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE AND CANCEL THE AM FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U /S. 153C OF THE I.T. ACT. MOREOVER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGED AMOUNT R EFLECTED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND FROM THE THIRD PARTY C ANNOT BE THE BASE FOR MAKING ADDITION IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE AND THAT TO, WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVI DENCE THAT THE AMOUNT NOTED IN SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL HAS B EEN ACTUALLY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE OR RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF NOTING OF THE THIRD PARTY AND WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD, THE ACTUAL FL OW OF CASH FROM SUCH PARTY TO THE ASSESSEES GROUP, THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESERVES TO BE DELETED. LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 4 TO 6 OF HIS ORDER, SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY:- IT(SS)A NO.100-107/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PATEL GROUP V. DCIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 7 4. THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENGE THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A/153C ITSELF. AS HELD IN THE CASE OF SHRI DHANANJAY KUMAR, THE CIT(A) IS NOT THE PROPER FORUM TO DECIDE ON THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS . HENCE THIS LEGAL OBJECTION CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AND THE RELATED GRO UND OF APPEAL IS REJECTED. 5. THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS THE A SSESSMENT ORDER IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT ARE SIMILAR TO THAT IN THE CA SE OF SHRI DHANANJAYKUMAR, DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 11/11/2009 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)-III/359/CC-1(1)/07-08. FOR THE REASONS DISCU SSED IN THE ORDER OF SHRI DHANANJAY KUAMAR FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE ADDITIO N MADE FOR THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IS DELETED. 6. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS FOR UNDISCLOSED CAPI TAL GAINS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TO THE SALE CONSIDERATION IN RESPECT OF LAND IN BLOCK NO. 95 & 96 IS CONFIRMED WHILE THE ADDITION MADE FOR BL OCK NO.113 IS DELETED FOR THE REASONS AS DISCUSSED IN THE APPELLA TE ORDER OF SHRI DHANANJAY KUMAR. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED JURISDICTION A S WELL AS VALIDITY OF THE INITIATION THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153A/153C. IT IS THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT ADMITTEDLY NO SEAR CH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND NO DOCUMENT WAS RECOVERED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) H AS NOT DECIDED THIS ISSUE DESPITE A SPECIFIC GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THE OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) IS THAT THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 153A/153C OF THE ACT WAS CHALLENGED AND ANY GROUND OF APPEAL CHA LLENGING THE CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE FORMING THE PROVISIO NS. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THIS ISSUE OF HIS JURISDICTION AND VALI DITY OF ASSESSMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT OF SPECIFIC GROUND HAD BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THIS MATTER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT BACK T HIS MATTER TO LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT(SS)A NO.100-107/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PATEL GROUP V. DCIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 8 9. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE AP PEALS OF ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO. 102 TO 107/AHD/2010 AND TAKING A CONSIS TENT VIEW IN TERMS OF IT(SS)A NO.100/AHD/2010, ALL THE APPEALS ARE REMITT ED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED F OR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. NEXT GROUND IN IT(SS)A NO.103/AHD/2010 HAS RAISED BY ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- 4. IN LAW AND IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE AP PELLANTS CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISAL LOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF RS.1,052/-. HE OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED SUCH ADDITION MADE BY AO. 12. AS REGARDS TO THE MAIN ISSUES ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION HENCE, THE INTER-CONNECTED I SSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THIS GRO UND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 13. IN COMBINED RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, *DKP - 0706/2012 '#$ % & ' ' ' ' ())*+, ())*+, ())*+, ())*+, '-+ '-+ '-+ '-+ / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ',/* 01 / APPELLANT 2. (2301 / RESPONDENT 3. %)5 3 36 / CONCERNED CIT IT(SS)A NO.100-107/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PATEL GROUP V. DCIT CC-1(1), ABD PAGE 9 4. 3 36- ',/* / CIT (A) 5. +9 :/3 ()))5, 3 ',/*/3 ')5, '#$ % / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. : <= > ?* / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ ' , /TRUE COPY/ @,/# 3 , / 3 ',/*/3 ')5, '#$ % & STRENGTHEN PREPARATION & DELIVERY O F ORDERS IN THE ITAT 1) DATE OF TAKING DICTATION 04/06 2) DIRECT DICTATION BY MEMBER STRAIGHT ON COMPUTER/LAPTOP/DRAGON DICTATE NO 3) DATE OF TYPING & DRAFT ORDER PLACE BEFORE MEMBER 04/06, 05/06 4) DATE OF CORRECTION 06/06 5) DATE OF FURTHER CORRECTION 6) DATE OF INITIAL SIGN BY MEMBERS 06/06 7) ORDER UPLOADED ON 07/06 8) ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD-PART HAS BEEN ENCLOSED IN THE FILE YES 9) FINAL ORDER AND 2 ND COPY SEND TO BENCH CLERK ON 07/06