M/s Parmar Builders & Developers, Vapi V. The Asstt. Comm. of Income Tax, Cen. Circle-2, Surat

ITSSA 110/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0198 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-06-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-04-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMALENDU VERMA; K C MATHEWS SR DRS
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Validity of assessment; Block assessment

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! '# '# '# '# $ %&, ! BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER 1. (SS) #./ I.T(SS)A. NO.110/AHD/2005 BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 2. (SS) #./ I.T(SS)A. NO.158/AHD/2005 BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7 .02 1. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS 11, GURUDEV COMPLEX OPP. IMRAN NAGAR VAPI SILVASSA ROAD,VAPI 2. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,SURAT / VS. 1. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 SURAT 2. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, VAPI. !( #./)* #./ PAN/GIR NO. : AADFP 1939 J ( (+ / // / APPELLANTS ) .. ( ,-(+ / RESPONDENTS ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.P.SHAH, AR REVENUE BY: SHRI VIMALENDU VERMA, CIT & SHRI K.C.MATHEWS, SR.DRS $'. / & / / / / DATE OF HEARING 04/06/2014 012 / & / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11/07/2014 3 / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) -II, AHMEDABAD (CIT(A) IN SHORT) DATED 28/02/2005 PERTAINING TO BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96- 97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDAT ED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 2 - 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS )A NO.110/AHD/2015 FOR BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS O F APPEAL:- (I) VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT :- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) ERRED IN HOLDING ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC(C) OF THE ACT VALID , WHEN NO ACTION U/S.132 HAD TAKEN PLACE IN CASE OF THE AP PELLANT AND ONLY A SURVEY HAD TAKEN PLACE. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASS ESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE CANCELLED. (II) UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS :- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ON SAL E OF SHOPS AT RS.7,39,800/- WHEN IN FACT NO SUCH PROFIT WAS EARNED. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PARTICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY A CONTRACT OR, NO ADDITION OF SO CALLED ON MONEY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN HIS HANDS. (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIF ICATION FOR MAKING ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SALE OF ANY SHOP MADE PRIOR TO 10.10.2001 I.E. THE DATE FROM WHICH THE AP PELLANT BECAME A CONTRACTOR. (4) THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR UPHOLDING ANY ADDITION OF ON MON EY IN RESPECT OF SHOPS CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE DATE OF SEAR CH. (III) UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ON SALE OF SHOPS :- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ON SALE O F SHOPS AT RS.26,43,300/- WHEN IN FACT THERE WAS NO SUCH PROFI T EARNED. (2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND PART ICULARLY WHEN THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY A CONTRACTOR, NO ADDITI ON OF SO CALLED ON MONEY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN HIS HA NDS. IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 3 - (3) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIF ICATION FOR MAKING ADDITION IN RESPECT OF SALE O ANY SHOP MADE PRIOR TO 10.10.2001 I.E. THE DATE FROM WHICH THE APPELLANT B ECAME A CONTRACTOR. (4) THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THERE WAS NO JUS TIFICATION FOR UPHOLDING ANY ADDITION OF ON MONEY IN RESPECT OF SHOPS CONSTRUCTED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. (IV) GENERAL :- (1) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) OU GHT TO HAVE DELETED INTEREST U/S.158BFA(1) OF THE ACT. (2) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR VARY AN Y OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND: SECTION 158BC ORDER ON ASSESSEE IS BAD AS THE EVIDE NCE RELIED ON FOR MAKING ADDITION IS NOT SEIZED FROM ASSESSEE AND N FACT NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND FROM ASSESSEE. 2.1.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE MOD IFIED GROUND NO.1 READS AS UNDER:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SEC.158BC WAS VAL ID INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH AD DITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN MADE WAS FOUND IN SURVE Y ON THE ASSESSEE, AS PER THE RECEIPT GIVEN BY THE INCOME TA X OFFICER AT THE TIME OF SURVEY (ANNEXED HEREWITH), ALSO AS ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN QUESTION NO.11 TO SEHUL DSA I ACCOUNTANT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING SURVEY. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE ON 17/07/2002. SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICE U/S.158BC OF THE I.T. ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.2.2003. THE ASSESSMENT U/S.1 58BC(C) OF THE ACT IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 4 - WAS FRAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 30/07/2004; WHEREBY TOT AL INCOME ASSESSED AT RS.84,63,900/-. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILE D AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS, P ARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. NOW, BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 4. FIRST GROUND IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSE SSMENT PASSED U/S.158BC OF THE ACT. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATERIAL USED FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S.58BC OF THE A CT WAS GATHERED DURING THE SURVEY ACTION. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS F ACT IS NOT REMAINED UNDISPUTED. INS SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION, LD.COUN SEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PROVISION OF SECTION 158B (B )(1) AND VARIOUS FOLLOWING CASE-LAWS:- 1. CIT VS. G.K.SENNIAPPAN (2006) 284 ITR 220 (MAD. ) 2. CIT VS. AJIT KUMAR 300 ITR 152(MAD.) 3. ACIT VS. FERTILIZER TRADE 83 TTJ (ALL.) 473. 4. PRAKASH TULSIDAS VS. ACIT 73 ITD 444 (MAG). 5. SMT.BOMMANA SWARNA REKHA VS. ACIT 94 TTJ (VISA KHA) 885. 6. GMS TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. DCIT 93 TTJ (DEL) 21 8. 7. LN EXPORTS VS. ACIT 95 TTJ (CTK) 186. 8. GAUTAM CHAND BHANDARI VS. DCIT 95 TTJ (BAN.) 2 88. 9. DESARI SRI SAILENDRA KUMAR VS. DCIT 111 TTJ (V ISAKHA) 101. 4.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED WRI TTEN SYNOPSIS. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.CIT-DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THA T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS VALID. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON T HE JUDGEMENT OF IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 5 - HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF S RI LAXMI FINANCE VS. DY.CIT REPORTED AT (2011) 13 TAXMANN.COM 134 (M AD.). 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE PARTIE S. THE UNDISPUTED FACT REMAINS THAT THE MATERIAL USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF M AKING ADDITION IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BC OF THE ACT WERE COLLECTED RUI NG THE COURSE O SURVEY. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. G.K.SENNIAPPAN(SUPRA) HELD THAT INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 158BB. AS PER THE SECTIO N, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD SHOULD BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AND SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMATION A S ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELATABLE TO SUCH EVIDENC E, AS REDUCED BY THE AGGREGATE OF THE TOTAL INCOME, OR AS THE CASE MAY B E, AS INCREASED BY THE AGGREGATE OF THE LOSSES OF SUCH PREVIOUS YEARS. A MERE READING OF THE ABOVE PROVISION CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE SENTENCE 'SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMATION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER' CANNOT BE BISECTED OR TAKEN IN ISOLATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF C OMPUTATION. SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMATION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHOULD AS PER THE SECTION RELATABLE TO SUCH EVIDENC E. THE WORD 'SUCH' IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 6 - USED AS A PREFIX TO THE WORD 'EVIDENCE' ASSUMES MUC H SIGNIFICANCE, IN THIS PROVISION, AS IT INDICATES ONLY THE EVIDENCE F OUND, AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS, AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. ANY OTHER MATERIAL CANNOT FORM BASIS FOR COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. HENCE, WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT THE COMMISSIONER AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAVE THE I SSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS, AND REQUIRES NO INTE RFERENCE. THE APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 6.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AJ IT KUMAR(SUPRA), WHEREIN THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT APPLIED THE R ATIO LAID DOWN IN THE EARLIER JUDGEMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. G.K.SENNIAPPAN(SUPRA). 6.2. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT MUMBAI H BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF HEATS HRINK TECHNOLOGIES LTD. VS. ASST.CIT REPORTED AT (2013) 2 5 ITR (TRIB) 269 (MUMBAI), WHEREIN THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS HELD THA T IT WAS ALSO AN ESTABLISHED LAW THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKING U/ S.133A OF THE ACT AND INFORMATION ALREADY GATHERED BEFORE THE SEARCH CANN OT BE A BASIS FOR COMPLETING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNLESS THERE IS INC RIMINATING MATERIAL. THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSME NT. THE RELIANCE ALSO PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE COORDIAN TE BENCH (ITA IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 7 - BANGALORE A BENCH) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF GAUTH AMCHAND BHANDARI VS. DY.CIT REPORTED AT (2005) 95 TTJ (BANG) 288, WH EREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS UNEQUIVOCALLY DISCL OSED CERTAIN INCOME DURING SURVEY UNDER S.133A AND SO LONG AS IT IS NOT RETRACTED, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE SAME INCOME IS FOUND DURING SEARCH CO NDUCTED U/S.132. WHAT REMAINS AFTER THE DECLARATION DURING SURVEY UN DER S.133A IS APPROPRIATELY TAXING THE SAME ONLY. THIS WAS DONE BY THE AO IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000. SINCE TH ERE IS NO MATERIAL TO HOLD THAT THE AMOUNT DECLARED DURING SURVEY WOULD N OT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME U/S.158BB AND ACCORDINGLY TAXED U/S.158BC OF THE ACT. 6.3. RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH (ITAT ALLAHABAD BENCH) RENDERED IN THE CASE OF ASST.CIT VS. FERTILIZER TRADERS REPORTED AT (2004) 83 TTJ (ALL) 473 :: (2004) 4 SO 607 (ALL) :: IN ITA NO.762/ALL/1 999, DATED 13/02/2004, WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE SCOP E OF SURVEY U/S.133A WAS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND THE INFORMATION GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY CANNOT BE MADE THE BASIS OF ADDITION IN BLOC K ASSESSMENT. IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 8 - 7. RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LD.CIT-DR IN THE CASE OF SRI LAKSHMI FINANCE VS. DCIT REPORTED AT (2011) 13 TAXMANN.COM 134 (MAD.), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT, IN THIS CASE, THE STA TEMENTS RECORDED PRIOR TO SEARCH OPERATION WAS UTILIZED FOR FRAMING THE AS SESSMENT U/S.158BB OF THE ACT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SECTION 158 BB(1) WAS ADDED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-7-2002. IN TERM S OF THE SAID SECTION A PROVISION FOR PLACING RELIANCE ON MATERIALS RELAT ABLE TO SUCH EVIDENCE IS ALSO ADDED. BY THAT AMENDMENT, IT COULD BE SEEN TH AT WHATEVER MATERIALS, WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH INCLUDING THE MATERIAL COLLECTED MUCH PRIOR TO THE SEARCH COULD ALSO BE THE BASIS FO R THE CONCLUSION, WHICH COULD BE ARRIVED AT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT PROVISION HAS ALSO RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FROM 1-7-1995. THE FAC TS IN THE CASE OF SHRI LAKSHMI FINANCE VS. DCIT(SUPRA) ARE DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. G.K.SENNIAPPAN(SUPRA). THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL WITH THE FACTS OF CIT VS. G.K.SENNIAPPAN( SUPRA), IN THIS CASE ALSO THE EVIDENCE COLLECTED DURING SURVEY IS USED I N THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE FIND FORCE IN T HE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSM ENT FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U /S.158BC IS NOT VALID. IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE MADRA S HIGH COURT(SUPRA), THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. THE A SSESSMENT AS MADE IS HEREBY SET ASIDE BEING INVALID. IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 9 - 8. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE FIRST GROUND OF ASSESS EES APPEAL ON VALIDITY PROCEEDINGS U/S.158BC OF THE ACT, WE ARE NOT EXPRESSING OUR VIEW ON OTHER GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES APPEAL. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005, WHEREIN FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEE N RAISED:- 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN RES TRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.30,84,600/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDIS CLOSED PROFIT ON SALE O SHOPS TO RS.7,39,800/-. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN R ESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.53,79,300/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDIS CLOSED PROFIT ON SALE OF FLATS, ETC., O RS.26,43,300/- BY ADMITTI NG FRESH EVIDENCE IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T.RULES. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A. O. 4. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) BEING SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 10. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E IN IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005(SUPRA) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSES SMENT FRAMED IS NOT VALID IN VIEW OF THE JUDGEMENT OF HONBLE MADRAS HI GH COURT(SUPRA), GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL ARE RE JECTED. IT(SS)A NO.110/AHD/2005 (BY ASSESSEE) & IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2005 (BY REVENUE) M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS VS. ACIT BLOCK ASSTT.P.Y.96-97 TO 01-02-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 10 - 11. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED, WHEREAS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 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 11/ 07 /2014 6.., '.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 3 / ,&7 872& 3 / ,&7 872& 3 / ,&7 872& 3 / ,&7 872&/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. (+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-(+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ## & $9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. $9() / THE CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD 5. 7'%: ,& , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :; <. / GUARD FILE. 3$ 3$ 3$ 3$ / BY ORDER, -7& ,& //TRUE COPY// = == =/ // / #) #) #) #) ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 9.7.14 (DICTATION-PAD 14- P AGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 9.7.14 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.11.7.14 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 11.7.14 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