The ACIT, Vapi Circle, Vapi V. M/s. Parmar Construction, Vapi

ITSSA 148/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8150 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard; Question of law; Block assessment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH C BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGARWAL, VICE-PRESIDENT (AZ) AND SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE OF HEARING : 01/08/2011 DRAFTED ON:01/08/ 2011 1. IT(SS)A NO.148/AHD/2007 2. IT(SS)A NO.149/AHD/2007 BLOCK PERIOD : 1996-97 TO 2001-02 UPTO 17.07.02 1. THE ASST.CIT VAPI CIRCLE VAPI 2. DO- VS. 1. PARMAR CONSTRUCTION 11, GURUDEV COMPLEX SILVASSA ROAD, VAPI PAN/GIR NO.AADFP 1940 R 2. PARMA BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS 1, GURUDEV COMPLEX S.DELKAR MARG, SILVASSA PAN/GIR NO.AADFP 1938 K (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.K. GUPTA, CIT-D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI J.P.SHAH O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE ARISING FROM TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-II, AHMEDABAD, IDENTICALLY DATED 16/08/2007. SINCE THE FOREMOST F ACTS OF BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, HENCE, THESE TWO APPEALS ARE CONSOLIDATED AND HEREBY DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. (A) ITA NO.148/AHD/2007 ( M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION) 2. GROUND RAISED AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NOS.148 & 149/AHD/2007 ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION & ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 2 - 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFIT OF RS.5,06,139/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O N THE GROUND THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAPER FOUND FROM THE PREMISE OF THIRD PARTY WITHOUT CONSI DERING THE FACT THAT THE THEN CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION BASED ON THE SAID PAPERS SEIZED. 3. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE DECISION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 2. FACTS IN BRIEF AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 158BC(C) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 DATED 3 0/07/2004 WERE THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH ACTION U/ S.132 OF THE I.T.ACT ON 17/07/2002. THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE HAS A PAST HISTORY DUE TO THE REASON THAT ITAT D BENCH AHMEDABAD VIDE AN ORDER DATED 31/10/2006 IN IT(SS)A NOS.109/AHD/2005 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) AN D 157/AHD/2005 (REVENUES APPEAL) TITLED AS PARMAR CONSTRUCTION VS . ACIT HAS RESTORED THE IMPUGNED ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT( APPEALS) AS PER THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- 20. AFTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMI SSIONS AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED F OR ADOPTION OF A SALE OF RS.580/- PER SQ.FT., IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, IF THE ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DISPOSAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. EVEN OT HERWISE, THE IT(SS)A NOS.148 & 149/AHD/2007 ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION & ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 3 - CIT(A) ALSO HAVING NOT ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES ALLE GED ADMISSION AND HAVING APPLIED A HIGHER RATE WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON, THE ADOPTION OF RTE OF RS.600/- PER SQ.FT. ALSO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED FOR WANT OF DETAILED REASONS. CONSEQUENTLY, IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE, WE RESTORE THE ISSUE RELATING TO ON-MONEY ON SALE OF FLATS BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTIONS THA T THE SAME MAY BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER EXCLUD ING THE AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY OTHER GROUP-CONCERNS FOR DOING EXTRA WORK AFTER VERIFYING AS TO WHETHER THEY HAD SHOWN THE SA ME IN THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS OR NOT AND ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 3. IN CONSEQUENCE THEREUPON, THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) HAS CONDUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD WORKED OUT THE SALE RATE AT RS.651/- PER SQ.FT. AN D ON THAT BASIS GROSS PROFIT WAS CALCULATED AT RS.23.84 LACS AS GAINST TH E GROSS PROFIT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER BOOKS AT RS.12.73 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS, THEREFORE, TAXED RS.11.11 LACS AS UNDISCLOSED PROFI T IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED IN THE FIRST ROUND, A RELIEF OF RS.6,04,911/- WAS GRANTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S) AND, THEREFORE, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5,06,139/- HAD REMAINED IN DISPUTE. 4. FROM THE SIDE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE MR.J.P. SHAH APPEARED AND STATED THAT IN THE PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS BEING C ONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF K.R. PARMAR, THE IMPUGNED ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR VIDE AN ORDER OF ITAT A BENCH AHMEDABAD DATED 17/12/2007 BEARIN G IT(SS)A NO.338/AHD/2004 AND THAT ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS LATER ON AFFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT VIDE AN ORDER DATED 19/01/2009 (IN TAX APPEAL NO.706 OF 2008), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT N O QUESTION OF LAW HAD IT(SS)A NOS.148 & 149/AHD/2007 ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION & ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 4 - ARISEN OUT OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD.AR MR.J.P.SHAH HAS ALSO STATED THAT EVEN THE SLP OF THE REVENUE WAS DI SMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON 01/10/2009. 5. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES, WE HAVE NOTICED THAT IN THE PAST, THIS ISSUE HAD ALREADY BEEN DISCU SSED AT A CONSIDERABLE LENGTH BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS ALSO BY THE RE SPECTED CO-ORDINATE BENCH. WE HAVE ALSO NOTICED THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS CON SIDERED THE RELEVANT FACTUAL ASPECT AND THEREUPON HELD AS UNDER:- 2.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE WITH RE FERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. ON CONSIDE RATION OF THE SAME IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BY TH E A.O. BASED ON THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND FROM SHRI K.R. PARMAR WHEREIN TH E SALE RATES OF VARIOUS FLATS WERE NOTED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT MR. K.R.PARMAR IS NOT A PARTNER OF THE FIRM AND IS NOT IN ANY WAY ATTENDING THE BUSINESS OPERATION OF THE FIRM. THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED LAND FROM HIM. SHRI N.R.PARMAR, PARTNER OF THE FIRM HAD FROM THE V ERY BEGINNING CLAIMED THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND FROM MR.K.R.PAR MAR ARE HIS ESTIMATE. THE CIT(A) HAD GIVEN DIRECTIONS TO ADOPT THE SALE RATE OF RS.600/- PER SQ.FT. AS AGAINST THE RATE OF RS.651/ - PER SQ.FT. ADOPTED BY THE A.O. THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THESE TWO DIFFEREN T RATES I.E. ONE ADOPTED BY CIT(A) AND THE OTHER ADOPTED BY THE A.O. EXCEPT THAT THE RATE OF RS.651/- DETERMINED BY THE A.O. WAS BASED O N THE WORKING IN THE LOOSE PAPER FOUND FROM MR. K.R. PARMAR. AS OBSERVE D EARLIER, MR. K.R. PARMAR IS A THIRD PARTY, NOT RELATED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES QUESTION THAT ARIS ES WHETHER THE LOOSE PAPER WHICH IS FOUND FROM HIM CAN BE THE BASIS FOR WORKING OUT THE SALE OF FLAT BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN FROM PAGE 9 O F HIS STATEMENT DATED 17- 7-2002 FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE HAD STATE D THAT THE PAGES REFERRED TO WAS HIS WORKING OF THE AMOUNT THAT MAY BE RECEIVED ON SALE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND THAT COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS HIS ESTIMATE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT MR. N.R. PARMAR HAD CLEARLY STATE D THAT THEY ARE NOT CHARGING ANY ON-MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENTED VALUE WHICH IS AS PER HIS STATEMENT DATED 9-10-2002. IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES HAVING IT(SS)A NOS.148 & 149/AHD/2007 ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION & ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 5 - REGARD TO VARIOUS DECISIONS WHICH ARE REFERRED TO I N PARA 11 OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT IT IS HE LD BY VARIOUS TRIBUNALS THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE PAPERS SEIZED FROM THE THIRD PARTY WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLAN T IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. IN THIS CASE NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE D OCUMENT OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. SO AS T O SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CHARGED ANY ADDITIONAL SALE PRICE OF FLATS. THUS, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL SITUATION AND VARIOUS ITAT DECISIONS, ADDITION MADE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IS DELETED. THUS THE MAT TER WHICH WAS SET ASIDE BY ITAT AHMEDABAD FOR THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE I S DISPOSED OF. THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE & THUS THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 6. AT THIS STAGE OF SECOND ROUND OF APPEAL WHEN ALREADY A LOT OF WATER HAD PASSED UNDER THE BRIDGE AND REPEATEDLY IT WAS HELD THAT THERE WAS NO DIRECT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE IMPUGN ED ADDITION AND THAT THE EVIDENCES COLLECTED WERE THIRD PARTY PARTY EVID ENCES, WITHOUT IMMEDIATE BEARING WITH THE PROFITS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO OCCASION TO TAX THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT IN THE BLOCK PERIOD AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISTURBED THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE FLATS BY ADOP TING THE RATE AT RS.651/- SQ.FT. AS AGAINST THE VALUE OF THE CLOSING STOCK OF FLATS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.375/- PER SQ.FT. THE VALUE OF THE C LOSING STOCK OF THE FLATS AS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.29,79,375/- AS AGAINST THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASSESSED AT RS.34,91,550/-. APART FROM THE SAID DIFFERENCE FROM THE CLOSING STOCK OF THE FLATS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO DISTURBED THE AMOUNT OF SALE OF FLATS AND RECA STED THE TRADING ACCOUNT. AS PER THE RE-CASTED TRADING ACCOUNT AS A GAINST THE DECLARED GROSS PROFIT OF RS.12,73,016/- IT WAS ASSESSED AT R S.23,84,061/-. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.11,11,045/- WAS, THUS, SUBJECTED T O TAX. THE VEHEMENT IT(SS)A NOS.148 & 149/AHD/2007 ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION & ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 6 - CONTENTION WAS THAT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE OF THE REVE NUE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT BASED UPON SOME SEIZED MATERIAL THROUGH WHICH THE ALLEGED PROFIT COULD HAVE EMERGED, BUT THE ENTIRE EXERCISE WAS ME RELY ON AN ESTIMATION. THE VEHEMENT CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E WAS THAT THIS IS THE CASE WHERE THE INCOME WAS SUBJECT TO TAX AT THE MAX IMUM RATE FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE I.T.ACT AND NOT A CASE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT. IN A REGULAR ASSESSMEN T, GROSS PROFIT CAN BE ESTIMATED BUT NOT UNDER THE SPECIAL PROCEDURE OF AS SESSMENT AS PRESCRIBED UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE I.T.ACT. CONSIDERING AL L THESE ARGUMENTS AS ALSO THE PAST HISTORY OF THE CASE, AS DISCUSSED IN BRIEF HEREINABOVE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FACTUAL FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HENCE AFFIRM THE SAME. IN THE RESUL T, THIS GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. (B) IT(SS)A NO.149/AHD/2007 ( PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELO PERS) 7. GROUND READS AS UNDER: I. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON A CCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED PROFIT OF RS.55,57,202/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O N THE GROUND THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PAPER FOUND FROM THE PREMISE OF THIRD PARTY WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE THEN CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BASED ON THE SAID PAPERS SEIZED. 3. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE DECISION OF TH E LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE AO MAY BE RE STORED. IT(SS)A NOS.148 & 149/AHD/2007 ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION & ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 7 - 8. FACTS OF THE RESPONDENT-FIRM WERE IDENTICAL AS D ISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, AS EMERGED FROM THE CORRESPONDING ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.158BC(C) OF THE I.T.ACT DATED 30/07/2004 . THE MATTER HAD GONE UPTO ITAT AND RESTORED BACK FOR RE-ADJUDICATIO N TO THE STAGE OF FIRST APPEAL. CONSEQUENCE THEREUPON, THE LEARNED CIT(AP PEALS) HAS HELD AS UNDER:- 2.3. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE WITH RE FERENCE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ABOVE SUBMISSIONS. ON CONSIDE RATION OF THE SAME IT IS NOTICED THAT THE ADDITION HAD BEEN MADE BY TH E A.O. BASED ON THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND FROM SHRI K.R. PARMAR WHEREIN TH E SALE RATES OF VARIOUS FLATS WERE NOTED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT MR. K.R.PARMAR IS NOT A PARTNER OF THE FIRM AND IS NOT IN ANY WAY ATTENDING THE BUSINESS OPERATION OF THE FIRM. THE APPELLANT HAD PURCHASED LAND FROM HIM. SHRI N.R.PARMAR, PARTNER OF THE FIRM HAD FROM THE V ERY BEGINNING CLAIMED THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND FROM MR.K.R.PAR MAR ARE HIS ESTIMATE. THE CIT(A) HAD GIVEN DIRECTIONS TO ADOPT THE SALE RATE OF RS.600/- PER SQ.FT. AS AGAINST THE RATE OF RS.651/ - PER SQ.FT. ADOPTED BY THE A.O. THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THESE TWO DIFFEREN T RATES I.E. ONE ADOPTED BY CIT(A) AND THE OTHER ADOPTED BY THE A.O. EXCEPT THAT THE RATE OF RS.651/- DETERMINED BY THE A.O. WAS BASED O N THE WORKING IN THE LOOSE PAPER FOUND FROM MR. K.R. PARMAR. AS OBSERVE D EARLIER, MR. K.R. PARMAR IS A THIRD PARTY, NOT RELATED WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES QUESTION THAT ARIS ES WHETHER THE LOOSE PAPER WHICH IS FOUND FROM HIM CAN BE THE BASIS FOR WORKING OUT THE SALE OF FLAT BY THE APPELLANT. IT IS SEEN FROM PAGE 9 O F HIS STATEMENT DATED 17- 7-2002 FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE HAD STATE D THAT THE PAGES REFERRED TO WAS HIS WORKING OF THE AMOUNT THAT MAY BE RECEIVED ON SALE OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS AND THAT COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS HIS ESTIMATE. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT MR. N.R. PARMAR HAD CLEARLY STATE D THAT THEY ARE NOT CHARGING ANY ON-MONEY OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENTED VALUE WHICH IS AS PER HIS STATEMENT DATED 9-10-2002. IN THE CIR CUMSTANCES HAVING REGARD TO VARIOUS DECISIONS WHICH ARE REFERRED TO I N PARA 11 OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT IT IS HE LD BY VARIOUS TRIBUNALS THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE PAPERS SEIZED FROM THE THIRD PARTY WHO IS NOT RELATED TO THE BUSI NESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLAN T IS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNWARRANTED. IN THIS CASE NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE D OCUMENT OR ANY IT(SS)A NOS.148 & 149/AHD/2007 ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION & ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 8 - OTHER EVIDENCE IS POINTED OUT BY THE A.O. SO AS T O SHOW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD CHARGED ANY ADDITIONAL SALE PRICE OF FLATS. THUS, CONSIDERING THE OVERALL SITUATION AND VARIOUS ITAT DECISIONS, ADDITION MADE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND IS DELETED. THUS THE MAT TER WHICH WAS SET ASIDE BY ITAT AHMEDABAD FOR THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE I S DISPOSED OF. THE GROUND OF APPEAL ON THIS ISSUE IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 9. ON IDENTICAL REASONING AS ASSIGNED HEREINABOVE, SINCE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAD ALSO DELETED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IN IDENTICAL MANNER, THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THOSE FINDINGS ON FACTS AND AFFIRM THE SAME. IN THE RESULT, REVENUE S GROUND IS HEREBY DISMISSED . 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE REVEN UE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER SIGNED, DATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 5 TH AUGUST 2011. SD/- SD/- ( G.D. AGARWAL ) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT ) VICE PRESIDENT (AZ) JUDICIAL ME MBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 5/ 8 /2011 T.C. NAIR, SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE DEPAR TMENT. 3. THE CIT CONCERNED. 4. THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS)-II, AHMEDABAD 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BENCH6. THE GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR), ITAT, AHMEDABAD IT(SS)A NOS.148 & 149/AHD/2007 ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR CONSTRUCTION & ACIT VS. M/S.PARMAR BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2001-02 & UPTO 17.7.02 - 9 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION. 01/08/2011. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 01/08/2011 OTHER MEMBER 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 THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S5/8/2011 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 5/8/2011 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