Shri Hitesh M.Chokshi, Baroda V. The Dy.CIT.,Range-5, Baroda

ITSSA 154/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9526 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Assessee Lawyers: M J SHAH
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 80C; 131; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI G. D. AGARWAL, VP AND BHAVNESH SAINI , JM) IT (SS) A NO.154/AHD/2007 BLOCK PERIOD: 1995-96 TO 1996-97 HITESH M. CHOKSHI, 4B YAMUNANAGAR SOCIETY, NAGHODIA ROAD, BARODA, 390 019 PA NO.- VS THE D. C. I. T., RANGE-5, BARODA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI MJ SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI C. K. MISHRA, DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: THIS FIRST APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE DCIT, CIRCLE-5, BAR ODA DATED 30-03-2005 U/S158BC READ WITH SECTION 254 OF THE IT ACT FOR TH E ABOVE BLOCK PERIOD. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES OF BOT H THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND C ONSIDERED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, IN THIS CASE A S EARCH OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE IT ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 31-08-1995 AT TH E BUSINESS PREMISES OF CHOKSHI GROUP OF CASES AT DABHOI AND BARODA. INC RIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND. PROCEEDINGS U/S 158BC OF THE IT ACT WERE INITIATED AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED ON 22-08-1996 DETERMINING THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.7,06 ,838/-. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHO VIDE ITS O RDER DATED 19-05-2003 IN ITA NO.4051/AHD/1996 HAVE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE NO . 1 AND 3 PERTAINING TO REBATE U/S 88 AND DEDUCTION U/S 80 C OF THE ACT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE PROVISIONS RELATED TO THESE S ECTIONS FOR THE BLOCK IT(SS)A NO.154/AHD/2007 SHRI HITESH M. CHOKSHI 2 ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT 20 02 WITH EFFECT FROM 01-07-1995. THE AO WAS ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED TO DECI DE THESE ISSUES AFRESH. ANOTHER ISSUE RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.3,7 7,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT EARNED ON SHARES DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION A PAPER ANNE XED AT SR. NO.7 WAS FOUND CONTAINING THE DETAILS OF THE SHARE TRANSACTI ONS RESULTING IN NET PROFIT AT RS.3,77,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT VIS-- VIS, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE SAID PAPER DID N OT BELONG TO HIM BUT BELONGED TO ONE SHRI SANTARAM SONI WHO MIGHT HAVE E ARNED THIS MUCH PROFIT ON THE TRANSACTION OF SHARES OF RELIANCE DON E THROUGH SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR , SHARE BROKER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE S EIZED PAPER WAS LEFT AT HIS OFFICE BY MISTAKE AND NO PROFIT OF SHARE PER TAIN TO HIM. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CLAIM ON THE GROUND THAT SEARCH AND SEIZURE O PERATION WAS ALSO CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR. IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI TUSHA R THAKKAR SHOWS THAT TRANSACTION IS ROUTED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT. SIN CE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRI BUNAL, THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE WAS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RE -DECIDE THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT FILED IN THE NAME O F SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR. IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER-IN-LAW SHRI UMESH PARIKH HAS STARTED BUSINESS OF SUB BROKER OF ONE SHRI BHARGAVA & CO. I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994-95 AND BEFORE THAT HE WAS HAVING ONLY SALARY I NCOME. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CHANCE OF EARNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME. A S REGARDS THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME WAS WRITTE N BY SHRI SANTARAM SONI AND THE PROFIT MENTIONED THEREIN WAS RECEIVABL E BY SHRI SANTARAM SONI FROM SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR, THE SHARE BROKER. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS SUB BROKER OF M/S. BHARGAVA & CO., THEREFORE, HE WO ULD NOT HAVE DEALT WITH OTHER SHARE BROKER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHRI SANTARAM SONI HAD CONFIRMED T HE TRANSACTION MENTIONED IN THE ROUGH S LIP LEFT BY HIM IN THE IT(SS)A NO.154/AHD/2007 SHRI HITESH M. CHOKSHI 3 ASSESSEES OFFICE AND PHOTO COPIES OF BANK STATEMEN T OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR AND COPIES OF THE CHEQUES WERE ALSO FILED. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE . THE AO IN ORDER TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE SHRI SANTARAM SONI FOR EXAMINAT ION. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED SHRI SANTARAM SONI BEFORE THE AO FOR HIS E XAMINATION BUT WHEN HE WAS ASKED TO GIVE STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO, HE REFUSED TO GIVE ANY STATEMENT AND RAN AWAY FROM THE OFFICE OF THE AO. SUMMON U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT WAS ALSO ISSUED FOR EXAMINATION O F SHRI SANTARAM SONI ALIAS SAILESH SONI. COPY OF THE SUMMON WAS ALSO SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO COMPLY PRODUCTION OF SHRI SANTARAM SONI BUT HE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO FOR GIVING ANY STATEMENT. THE AO, THEREFORE, CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE HIS OWN WITNESS FOR EXAMINATION, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY TH E ASSESSEE REMAINED UN-SUBSTANTIATED. THE AO ON EXAMINATION OF THE ENTR IES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR ALSO NOTED THAT THE ENTRIES DID NOT TALLY WITH THE ENTRIES ON THE SEIZED PAPER. THE AO ON EXA MINATION OF THE BEARER CHEQUES ALSO NOTED THAT THE SAME HAVE BEEN I SSUED IN THE NAMES OF S/SHRI K. M. SHAH, SUNIL PANSAL, MAZIDBHAI, BINA SONI, SAILESH B.SONI, YOGESH SONI AND BHARATBHAI THAKKAR ON 7-2-1 995. ALL THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN WITHDRAWN ON 7-2-1995 BY CASH AS THE CHEQUES WERE BEARER CHEQUES. NO CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI TUSH AR THAKAKR WAS EVER FILED IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM. THE AO, THEREFO RE, CONCLUDED THAT SINCE SEIZED PAPER WAS RECOVERED FROM THE POSSESSION OF T HE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A) IS APPLICA BLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IT WOULD PROVE THAT THE SEIZED PAPER BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION OF RS.3,77,000/- WAS ACCORDINGLY MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AS REGARDS CLAIM U/S 88 AND 80 C OF THE IT ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION. THE AO NOTED THA T THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN. THEREFORE, UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS TAKEN AT NIL. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR ANY R ELIEF. IT(SS)A NO.154/AHD/2007 SHRI HITESH M. CHOKSHI 4 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITY BELOW AND REFERRED TO PB- 5 WHICH IS SEIZED PAPER. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB-10 WHICH IS THE STATEM ENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND REFERRED TO QUES TION NO.13 IN RESPECT OF THE SEIZED PAPER AND THE ASSESSEE IN EXPLANATION THERETO SUBMITTED THAT THE PROFITS IN THE SEIZED PAPER BELONG TO SHRI SANTARAM SONI WHO IS CLIENT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR AND BELONGS TO SHRI T USHAR THAKKAR GROUP ACCOUNT. HE HAS REFERRED TO PB -12 AND PB -15 WHICH ARE REPLIES FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE REAFFIRMED THE ABOVE CLAIM THAT THE ENTRIE S CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPER BELONG TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI TUS HAR THAKKAR AND THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE IN THE HAND WRITING OF SHRI S ANTARAM SONI. IT WAS, THEREFORE, CLAIMED THAT THE AO SHOULD VERIFY T HIS ASPECT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SEIZED FROM SHRI TUSHAR THAKAKR A LSO. HE HAS REFERRED TO SIMILAR REPLY IN PB-19. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO PB -24 WHICH CONTAINED THE DETAILS OF THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE BANK AC COUNT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR AND COPIES OF CHEQUES ISSUED BY SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO BANK STATEMENT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAK KAR TO SHOW THAT ON 7-2-1995 HE HAS ISSUED SEVERAL BEARER CHEQUES IN TH E NAMES OF THE PERSONS MENTIONED ABOVE AND AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN WITHD RAWN. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, SUBMIT TED THAT ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS.3,77,000/- IS UNJUSTIFIED. AS REGARDS REBATE AND DEDUCTION CLAIMED U/S 88 AND 80C OF THE ACT, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS BECAUSE THE PR OVISIONS RELATED TO THESE SECTIONS IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAVE BEEN IN SERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT WITH EFFECT FROM 1 ST JULY 1995. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION UNDER THE ABOVE PROVISIONS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS NR PAPER BOARD LTD. 313 ITR 359(GUJ) AND CIT VS SUMAN PAPER AND BOARDS LTD. 314 ITR 119 (GUJ ) IN WHICH IT WAS IT(SS)A NO.154/AHD/2007 SHRI HITESH M. CHOKSHI 5 HELD THAT SINCE THE AMENDED PROVISIONS WERE MADE RE TROSPECTIVELY APPLICABLE, NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION U /S 80 I OR 80IA OF THE IT ACT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR RELIED UPON TH E ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO SUBST ANTIATE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO DESPITE GIVING OPPOR TUNITY BY ITAT. THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT SEIZED PAPER WAS RECOVERE D FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, PRESUMPTION U/S 132 (4A) OF THE IT ACT IS APPLICABLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FIGURES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR DO NOT TALLY WITH THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPER. THE REFORE, COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IN CASE OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR HAS NO RELEVANCY TO THE MATTER IN CONTROVERSY. THE LEARNED DR AS REGARDS CL AIM U/S 88 AND 80C OF THE IT ACT SUBMITTED THAT NO DETAIL WAS FILED BE FORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION TO GRANT ANY RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS REGARDS THE ADDITI ON OF RS.3,77,000/- ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENT IS CONCERNED, IT IS CL AIMED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL IN EARLIER PROCEEDINGS TO SHOW THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS ROUTED THROUGH BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR. WITH THIS DIRE CTION, THE TRIBUNAL RESTORED THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-CO NSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINED THAT THE SEIZED PAPER WAS RECOVERED F ROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. PRESUMPTI ON U/S 132 (4A) OF THE IT ACT WOULD, THEREFORE, BE APPLICABLE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IT SHALL BE PRESUMED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THAT CONTENTS CONTAINED THEREON ARE TRUE AND CORREC T. THE ENTRIES IT(SS)A NO.154/AHD/2007 SHRI HITESH M. CHOKSHI 6 CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPER ARE NOT IN DISPUTE. I T SHALL ALSO BE PRESUMED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS IN THE HAND W RITING OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE SAID PRESUMPTION IS REBUTTABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, ONUS IS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPER WHICH WAS FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSE E EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED PAPER ARE IN THE HAND WRITING OF ONE SHRI SANTARAM SONI ALIAS SHAILESH SONI. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SHRI SANTARAM SONI MIGHT HAVE EARNED PROFIT OUT OF THE S EIZED MATERIAL HAVING TRANSACTION WITH SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR. HOWEVER, NO E VIDENCE WAS FURNISHED IN SUPPORT OF THE ABOVE CLAIM. THE AO WAN TED TO VERIFY FROM SHRI SANTARAM SONI ABOUT THE FACTS EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE. WHEN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SANTARAM SONI WAS TO BE RECORDED BY THE AO, HE RAN AWAY FROM THE OFFICE OF THE AO AND REFUSED TO GIVE ANY STATEMENT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PRODUCE HIS OWN WITNESS BEF ORE THE AO DESPITE SERVICE OF THE SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE IT ACT. THE A BOVE FACTS, THEREFORE, SHOW THAT SHRI SANTARAM SONI DOES NOT SUPPORT THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. WHATEVER STATEMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT BEEN SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE A SSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR T HAT HE HAD UNACCOUNTED DEALINGS WITH SHRI SANTARAM SONI. COPY OF HIS BANK STATEMENT WAS FILED WHEREIN THE AO GAVE SPECIFIC FI NDING THAT THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPER DO NOT TALLY WITH THE ENTRIES OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR. THE FINDINGS OF THE AO ARE ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE FACT THAT THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE BANK ACC OUNT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR PERTAIN TO DATED 7-2-1995, ON THE DATE ON WHICH SEVERAL PERSONS MENTIONED ABOVE WITHDREW CASH AMOUNT THROUG H BEARER CHEQUES. HOWEVER, THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE ON 31-08-19 95. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO KEEP THE S EIZED PAPER EVEN AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ALLEGED TRANSACTION ON 7-2-1995. IF THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN SHRI SANTARAM SONI AND SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR WERE COMPLETED IN IT(SS)A NO.154/AHD/2007 SHRI HITESH M. CHOKSHI 7 FEBRUARY 1995 AND ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE SEI ZED PAPER PERTAINING TO THEM, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE ASSESSEE TO KE EP THE SEIZED PAPER EVEN AFTER COMPLETION OF THE TRANSACTION IN FEBRUAR Y 1995 TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 31-08-1995. THE ABOVE FACT, THEREFORE, WO ULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY KEPT THE SEIZED PAPER WITH HI M WHICH WOULD SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTIONS THEREON BELONGS TO THE ASSESS EE ONLY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR T HAT WHATEVER SUBMISSION THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE BEFORE THE AO WAS NOT SUBSTAN TIATED THROUGH ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE MADE A CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER INSTANCES THAT THE TRANSACT IONS WERE ROUTED THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ABOVE STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL EARLIER IS ALSO FOUND TO BE INCORRECT ON F ACTS. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND REPLIES FILED BE FORE THE AO TO EXPLAIN THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE REQUEST THAT THE ENTRIES MAD E IN THE SEIZED PAPER MAY BE VERIFIED FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI T USHAR THAKKAR WHICH WAS ALSO IMPOUNDED DURING THE SEARCH IN HIS CASE. T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IS INCORRECT IN THE SENSE THAT WHEN THE ENTRIES CONTAINED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR DID NOT TALLY WITH THE SEIZED PAPER, THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE AO TO GET ANY FACT VERIFIED FROM HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BECAUSE THE BANK ENTRIES WOULD BE REFLECTED SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF SHRI TUSHAR THAKKAR. THE RE IS NO QUESTION OF GETTING ANY VERIFICATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSE SSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESS EE IS NOT SUBSTANTIATED THROUGH ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL. THE REFORE, CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE AO IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,77,000/- BASED UPON THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.154/AHD/2007 SHRI HITESH M. CHOKSHI 8 7. AS REGARDS REBATE U/S 88 AND DEDUCTION U/S 80 HH C OF THE IT ACT, THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED AN Y EXPLANATION. AS REGARDS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE IS AMENDMENT IN THE ACT TO CLAIM SUCH A RELIEF IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS NOT A MATTER OF DISPUTE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO PROVE BASIS BECAUSE FOR CLAIMING REBATE U/S 88 AND DEDUCTION U/S 80 C OF TH E ACT, EVEN IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT, ASSESSEE SHALL HAVE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS HOWEVER, NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO TO CLAIM REBATE AND DEDUCTION UNDER THE ABOVE PR OVISIONS. SAME IS THE POSITION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE, THEREFORE, AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE OUT ANY CASE FOR CLAIM OF REB ATE AND DEDUCTION U/S 88 AND 80 C OF THE IT ACT. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFI RM THE ORDER OF THE AO AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSE E ALSO. 8. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 5-03-2010 SD/- SD/- (G. D. AGARWAL) VICE PRESIDENT (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 05-03-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD