J.B. CONSTRUCTION, V. THE DCIT, CEN. CIRCLE-1(4),

ITSSA 169/AHD/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0604 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-05-2003
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T P KRISHNA KUMAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Validity of assessment; Block assessment; Documents seized; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI , A.M.) I. T (SS) . A. NO. 169 & 222 / AHD/ 2003 ( BLOCK PERIOD : 1 - 4 - 1988 TO 08 - 12 - 1998) J.B. CONSTRUCTION A - 1, REVATI TOWER, SATELLITE ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380015 V/S THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDAB AD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) THE DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4), AHMEDABAD V/S J.B. CONSTRUCTION A - 1, REVATI TOWER, SATELLITE ROAD, AHMEDABAD 380015 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT. URVASHI SHODHAN, A.R. RESPONDENT BY : S HRI T.P. KRISHNAKUMAR CIT/D.R ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 08 - 12 - 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04 - 03 - 2015 PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M. 1. THESE TWO APPEALS , ONE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE OTHER FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A ) - I, AHMEDABAD DATED 04.03.2003 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1/04/1988 TO 8/12/1998. 2. THE FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 2 3. ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM STATED TO BE PART OF KANSARA GROUP AND IS STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE CONSTRUC TION WORK . A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON VARIOUS PREMISES BELONGING TO KANSARA GROUP ON 08.12.1998 WHEREIN CERTAIN DOCUMENTS INDICATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME PERTAINING TO THE ASSES SEE WAS SEIZED. NOTICE U/S. 158 BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 18.10.2000 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE RETURN OF UNDISCLOSED I NCOME I N RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.04.1988 TO 08.12.1998 ON 09.05.2001 AND DISCLOSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 41,102/ - . ASSESSMENT WAS THEREA FTER FRAMED U/S. 158BD OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31.10.2002 AND THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 1,12,69,955/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) AND THEREAFTER BEFORE HON BLE TRIBUNAL. HON BLE TR IBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 12.10.2012 PASSED IN IT(SS)A NO. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) AND DIRECTED HIM TO DECIDE THE ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 158BD OF T HE ACT. TRIBUNAL ALSO ALLOWED THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY REVENUE IN APPEAL NO. 222/A/2003. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE HON BLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT. GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 386 & 559/A/2013 ORDER DATED 24 .09.2013 QUASHED THE ORDERS PASSED BY TRIBUNAL AND SET ASIDE BOTH THE APPEALS TO TRIBUNAL AND DIRECTED THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND ON MERITS INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 1 58BD OF THE ACT. THUS THE PRESENT APPEALS ARE NO W BEFORE US IN 2 ND GROUND . THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UNDER: - 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) : I, AHMEDABAD (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,51,519/ - BEING CASH RECEIVED BY M/S. RAJ GRANITES IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE FACTS THAT: IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 3 (I) THE ADDITION OF OF RS. 2,51,519/ - HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE SAME CIT(A) IN THE HANDS OF M/S. RAJ GRANITE, WHO IS THE FINAL RECIPIENT, VIDE APPELLATE ORDER DT. 18 - 9 - 2002 MARKED CIT(A) - I / CC. 1(4)707/2002 - 2003. (II) THE APPELLANT FIRM IS THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY FOR A FIXED REMUNERATION AT 10% OF THE COST OF PROJECT AND IS NEITHER THE OWNER OF THE LAND NOR THE OWNER OF THE SUPER STRUCTURE BUILT THEREON, (III)THE APPELLANT FIRM ACTED AS A CONDUIT IN PASSING ON THE EXTRA CASH RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, WHO ARE THE REAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, TO THE FINAL RECIPIENT M/S. RAJ GRANITES AS STATED BY MR. BHAR AT J. SHAH PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH. (IV)THE ALLEGED AMOUNT PASSED ON TO M/S. RAJ GRANITE AND TAXED IN THEIR HANDS IS NEITHER THE EXPENDITURE NOR THE INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT FIRM. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO WHAT IS STATED IN THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 25,152/ - BEING 10% SUPERVISION CHARGES, OF THE ALLEGED CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 2,51,519/ - , TO WHICH THE APPELLANT FIRM IS ENTITLED TO BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE SOCIETY AND THE APPELLANT FIRM AS DEVELOPER. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITION: (A) AMBICA TIMBER MART 52,716 (B) AMBICA TIMBER DEPOT 24.616 77,332 (C) DECENT SALE S CORPORATION 17,647 TOTAL 94,979 IN TOTAL DISREGARD OF THE FACT THAT : (I) M/S. AMBICA TIMBER MART AND M/S. AMBICA TIMBER DEPOT BOTH THE FI RMS, THE FINAL RECIPIENT OF THE CASH, HAVE BEEN TAXED IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNT AND THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THE FINDING OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAID FIRMS HAVE NOT PREFERRED EVEN THE FIRST APPEAL. (II) THE APPELLANT FIRM IS THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROPERTY FOR A FIXED REMUNERATION AT 10% OF THE COST OF THE PR OJECT AND IS NEITHER THE OWNER OF THE LAND NOR THE SUPERSTRUCTURE BUILT THEREON. (III) THE APPELLANT FIRM ACTED AS A CONDUCT ED IN PASSING ON THE EXTRA CASH RECEIVED FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY, WHO ARE THE REAL OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY, TO THE FINAL RECIPIENT AMBICA TIMBER DEPOT, M/S. AMBICA TIMBER MART AND M/S. DECENT SALES, AS STATED BY MR. BHARAT J. SHAH, PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH. (IV) THE ALLEGED AMOUNT OF RS. 94,979/ - PASSED ON TO M/S. AMBICA TIMBER DEPOT, M/S. AMBICA TIMBER MART AND M/S. DECENT SALES AND ACCEPTED BY THEM AND TAXED IN THEIR HANDS I S NEITHER THE EXPENDITURE OF THE APPELLANT FIRM NOR ITS INVESTMENT AS NO ASSET HAS BEEN CREATED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO WHAT IS STATED IN THE AFORESAID GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 9,498/ - BEING 1.0% SUPERVISION CHARGES, OF THE ALLEGED CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 94,979/ - , TO WHICH THE APPELLANT FIRM IS ENTITLED TO BY VIRTUE OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE S OCIETY AND THE APPELLANT FIRM AS DEVELOPER. 5. THE APPELLANT FIRM REQUESTS THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL TO DELETE THE FOLLOWING ADDITI ONS AGGREGATING TO RS. 3,46,498/ - ERRONEOUSLY CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A): (I) RS. 2,51,519/ - AMOUNT PASSE D ON TO M/S. RAJ GRANITE (II) RS. 94,979/ - AMOUNT PASSED ON TO M/S. AMBICA TIMBER MART; M/S. AMBICA TIMBER DEPOT AND M/S. DECENT SALES RS. 3,46,498/ - AND ALTERNATIVELY, BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE, TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO R S. 34,650/ - BEING 10% OF RS. 3,46,498/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FIRM. 6. THE APPELLANT FIRM CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE, CHANGE ANY OF THE GROUNDS AS AND WHEN OCCASION MAY ARISE. 4. THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO RAIS ED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS VIDE LETTER DATED 12.04.2011 AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS READS AS UNDER: - IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 4 APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO RAISE THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. THIS IS A LEGAL GROUND AND THEREFORE AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER (229 ITR 383), IT CAN BE RAISED BEFORE THE HON'BLE ITAT. 1.THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BD OF THE ACT (ENCLOSED HEREWITH) IS VAGUE AND DEVOID OF REQUISITE SATISFACTION TO BE RECORDED BY AO OF THE SEARCHED PARTY AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BEING BAD IN LAW IN VIEW OF THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS BY COURTS OF LAW DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, CHANGE, DELETE AND EDIT THE ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME O F THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND , THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE READS AS UNDER: - 1. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH LOAN RECEIVED FROM SHRI GOPAL R PATEL BY ALLOTMENT OF FLATS TO HIS F AMILY MEMBERS WHICH TRANSACTION RESULTED IN UNDERSTATEMENT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THE FLATS. 2. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS,38,12,100/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF 'ON MONEY' RECEIPTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS IN RESPECT OF BOOKING OF FLATS. 3. THE CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS.36,95,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE FLATS ALLOTTED TO SHRI JANAK KANSARA AND S HRI BHARAT SHAH AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS. 4. THO CIT (A) HAS CRIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ADDITION OF R.S.3,40,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF VARSHABEN V KANSARA. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. WE FIRST TAKE UP ASSESSEE S APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 169/A HD/2003 . 6. BEFORE US, WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL GROUND WHEREBY ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE U/S 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18.10.20 00 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN FOR TH E BLOCK PERIOD. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. A.R. THAT ASSESSEE H AD APPLIED UNDER RTI ACT AND SOUGH T INFORMATION ABOUT THE COPY OF THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O OF THE SEARCHED PERSON ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED WHICH WAS FORWARDED TO THE A.O OF THE ASSESSEE . SHE SUBMITTED THAT DCIT CIRCLE - 9 VIDE REPL Y DATED 14.03.2012 HAS STATED THAT THE COPY OF THE SATISFACTION RECORDED WAS NOT FORWARDED TO CIRCLE - 9 AND THEREFORE IT WAS UNABLE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED INFORMATION. ON THE BASIS OF THE IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 5 AFORESAID REPL Y SHE SUBMITTED THAT NO SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT WAS RECORDED. SHE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 158BD, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT ARE (I) SATISFACTION MUST BE RECORDED BY THE A.O THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGINGS TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WA S MADE U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND (II) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAD BEEN HANDED OVER TO THE A.O HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSONS. POINTING OUT TO THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER RTI , LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE REPLY CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE A.O OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS NOT RECORDED H IS SATISFACTION WHICH IS MANDATORY AND THE SO CALLED SATISFACTION NOTE APPENDED WITH THE NOTICE IS BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON AND NOT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. SHE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NOTICE U/S. 158BD OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE OTHER PERSON UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES CAN BE EQUATED WITH SATISFACTION SPECIFIED AS PER THE ACT. SHE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MANISH MAHESHWARI VS. ACIT 289 ITR (SC). SHE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISI ON IN THE CASE OF PADMINI M. NAI R VS. UNION OF INDIA (2 013) 33 TAXMAN. COM. 84 (GUJ). F OR TH E PROPOSITION THAT WHERE A NOTING WAS MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ASSESSEE S HUSBAND ON WHOM SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO WIFE U/S. 158BD PRIOR TO SUCH BLOCK ASSESSMENT , SAID NOTING COULD NOT BE TREATED AS RECORDING OF SATISFACTI ON IN CASE OF WIFE. SHE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE IN THE PRESENT CASE THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT PRIOR TO INITIATION OF ASSESSMENT HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED, THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD AND THEREFORE BE ANNULLED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. THE JANAK KANSARA ARRE SAME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 6 THAT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF JANAK KANSARA FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1.04.1998 TO 8.12.1998 U/S. 158BC VIDE ORDER DATED 30.01.2 001 , A.O AT PARA 10 ON PAGE 14 HAS CLEARLY NOTED THAT SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINS TO J.B. CONSTRUCTION, THE SAME SHOULD THEREFORE BE CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF J.B. CONSTRUCTION BUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT SHRI JANAK KANSARA WAS INVOLVED I N THE DEAL AND THE TRANSACTION AND THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPLAINING THESE TRANSACTIONS SATISFACTORILY AND ADDITION OF RS. 15,59,882/ - IS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AS UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS . THE LD. D.R. T HER EAFTER POINTED TO PARA 41 OF THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3958/A/2014 WHEREIN THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE SATISFACTION N O TE COULD BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER A T THE TIME OF INITIATING PROCEEDINGS FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT OF A SEARCHED PERSON U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT OR DURING THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT AFTER COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT PREPARE THE S ATISFACTION NOTE TO THE EFFECT THAT THEIR EXISTS INCOME TAX BELONGING TO ANY PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSONS IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE SEARCH WAS MADE U/S. 132 OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MADE U/S. 132A OF THE ACT. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER POI NTED THAT HON BLE APEX COURT HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS NOT IMPOSED ANY EMBARGO ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS DURING WHICH THE SATISFACTION IS TO BE REACHED AND RECORDED IN RESPECT OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN T HE SEARCHED PERSON. FURTHER HE POINTED AT PARA 44 OF THE AFORESAID ORDER WHERE THE HON BLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT IS SATISFACTION NOTE IS SINE QUA NON AND MUST BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE HE TRA NSMITS THE RECORDS TO THE OTHER ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 7 OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. THE SATISFA CTION NOTE COULD BE PREPARED AT EITHER OF THE FOLLOWING STAGES (A) AT THE TIME OF OR ALONG WITH THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE SEARCHED PER SON U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT (B) ALONG WITH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT AND (C) IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE COMPLETED U/S/ 158BC OF THE ACT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE LD. D.R. RELYING ON THE AFORESAID DECISION OF APEX CO URT SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O HAD COMPLIED WITH THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT HE FURTHER PLACED ON RECORD, THE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. DCIT/CIT - 9/RTI/JBC/12 - 13/14 DATED 10.05.2012 WHEREIN IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE GIVING THE REPLY TO THE A SSESSEE ON THE IN FORMATION SOUGHT UNDER RTI ACT ON 07.02.2012 IT WAS MISUNDERSTOOD THAT ASSESSEE HAD REQUIRED THE SATISFACTION PREPARED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND FORWARDED TO THE A.O. HE HAD NOT PASSED REASON RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE OFFICER. IT IS FURTHER STATED IN TH E LETTER THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O OF CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(4) IS ON RECORDS OF THE DEPARTMENT AND CAN BE GIVEN AT ANY TIME TO THE ASSESSEE IF HE WANTS THE SAME. THE LD. D.R. THUS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE SINCE THE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDE D WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF JANAK KANSARA AND SINCE THE A.O OF THE ASSESSEE AND JANAK KANSARA ARE SAME, THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT OF JANAK KANSARA, THE SAME CAN BE SAID TO BE INCOMPLIANCE OF THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT ADDITIONAL GROUND , THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NON RECORDING OF SATISFACTION WITH RESPECT TO THE UNDISCLOSED I NC OME BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 158BC VIDE ORDER DATED 30 TH JANUARY, 2001 IN THE CASE OF JANAK KANSARA , A.O AT PARA 10 ON PAGE 14 HAS NOTED THAT THE IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 8 TRANSACTIONS PERTAINS TO J.B. CO NSTRUCTION THAT IS THE ASSESSEE, C ASH O F RS. 3,93,689 WAS MADE TO AMBICA TIMBER MART AND AMBIC A TIMBER DEPOT AND RS. 17,647/ - WAS MADE DECENT SALES CORPORATION. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. HAS RELIED ON THE REPLY RECEIVED UNDER RTI ACT ABOUT THE NON AVAIL ABILITY OF SATISFACTION NOTE TO WHICH WE FIND THAT SUBSEQUENTLY DCIT CIRCLE - 9 VIDE LETTER DATED 10. 05.2012 ADDRESS TO CIT HAS STATED T HAT THE QUERY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS MISUNDERSTOOD BY HIM TO BE WITH RESPECT TO THE SATISFACTION NOTE PR EPARED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. IN THE LETTER I T I S FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE A.O ARE ON RECORDS AND CAN BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AT ANY TIME. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACT S AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (SUPRA) , WE ARE O F THE VIEW THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE A.O HAD RECORDED THE SATISFACTION AS REQUIRED UNDER THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED WAS VALID AND THUS THIS GROUND IS DISMISSED. ALL THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER AS THE Y PERTAIN TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH , IT WAS NOTICED THAT CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 2,51,519/ - WA S MADE TO RAJ GRANITE AND MARBLE IND USTRIES FOR PURCHASE OF MARBLE CASH OF RS. 3,93,689 WAS MADE TO AMBICA TIMBER MART AND AMB IC A TIMBER DEPOT AND RS. 17,647 WAS MADE DECENT SALES CORPORATION OVER AND ABOVE THE REGULAR PAYMENT MADE BY CHEQUE. A.O ALSO NOTED THAT THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE THE PAYMENTS PARTLY BY CHEQUE AND PARTLY IN CASH AND THE CASH PAYMENTS WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. A.O ALSO NOTED THAT IN THE CASE OF RAJ GRANITE AND MARB L E INDUSTRIES AGAINST THE ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF CASH IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 9 PAYMENTS RECEIVED BY IT, LD. CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. SIMILAR A DDITION S WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF AMBICA TIMBER MART AND AMBIC A TIMBER DEPOT WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO APPEALS WERE FILED BY THEM AGAINST THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. A.O THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN CASH TRANS ACTION WHICH WE RE NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THEREFORE MADE THE ADDITION OF THE SAME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A ). CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACT ION OF A.O BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED TH E SUBMISSI ONS MADE BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT ENTIRE PAYMENTS WERE TO BE MADE BY THE SOCIETY AND HENCE IT WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE ADDED IN ITS HANDS. BESID ES THIS IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT AS ADDITIONS IN RESPECTIVE CASES HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED , THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF ADDITION IN APPELLANT S HAND. IN FACT THESE ARGUMENTS ARE DEVOID OF MERIT. IT IS APPARENT FROM STATEMENT OF APPELLANT S PARTNERS SHRI BHARA TBHAI J. SHAH THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. HENCE IT WAS APPARENT THAT THIS CASH PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELLANT FIRM AND THE SAME IS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. AS THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT IS UNEXPLAINED , THESE CASH PAYMENTS REPRESENT UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. AS THE APPELLANT IS ONLY A SUPERVISOR, THIS EXPENDITURE IS NOT EXPENDITURE OF I TS OWN AND IS NOT ALLOWABLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. RATHER THE APPELLANT IS FURTHER ENTITLED TO RECEIVE SUPERVISION CHARGES WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF T HIS AMOUNT. HENCE CONFIRMATION OF THIS AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF RECIPIENTS ALSO DOES NOT ABSOLVE THE APPELLANT AS THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN TAXED IN THEIR HANDS AS INCOME, WHILE IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT, IT IS TAXABLE AS EXPENDITURE SOURCE OF WHICH ARE UNEXPLAIN ED. HENCE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AS PER LAW. APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED THAT OUT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. AMBICA TIMBER DEPOT A SUM OF RS. 2,62,025/ - HAS BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE AND IS DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ONLY CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 7 7,732/ - IS UNRECORDED. THE A.O WILL VERIFY THIS ASPECT AND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF UNRECORDED CASH PAYMENT. TO SUM UP ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. RAJ GRANITES AND DECENT SALES CORPORATION ARE CONFIRMED. IN RESPECT OF PAYMEN T MADE TO M/S. AMBICA TIMBER, THE A.O WILL WORK OUT THE ADDITION AS DIRECTED ABOVE. 10. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE A.O AND CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE HAS CONCLUDED THAT THE CASH PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND FURTHER AS THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT WAS UNEXPLAINED, THE CASH IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 10 PAYMENTS REPRESENTS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY LD. A.R. TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO REAS ON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORD ER OF CIT(A). THUS THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. IT (SS) A N O . 222/AHD/2003 REVENUE S APPEAL 1 ST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 2 7,50,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SETTLEMENTS OF UNACCOUNTED CASH LOAN. 14. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS SEIZED, A.O NOTICED THAT 5 FLATS WERE ALLOTTED T O THE FAMILY OF SHRI GOPALBHAI PATEL. HE ALSO NOTICED THAT DURING THE CO URSE OF SIMULTANEOUS SEARCH ON 8.12.1998 AT THE RESIDENT S OF GOPALBHAI PATEL AND DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED IN WHICH HE ADMITTED THAT OF THE 5 FLATS, THE 4 FLATS WERE ALLOTTED TO HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BY JANAK KANSARA AGAINST THE LOA N DUE FROM JANAK KANSARA. A.O THUS ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED , WORKED OUT THE COST OF 5 FLATS AT RS. 5.5 LACS EACH AND MADE ON ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,000/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A). CIT(A) DELETED T HE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI GOPAL PATEL AND HENCE NO ADDITION COULD BE MAKE IN APPELLANTS HANDS. I FIND THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI GOPAL R. PATEL IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THUS SOURCE OF MONEY STANDS PROVED. THUS THERE WOULD BE NO QUESTION OF TAXING THE AMOUNT IN APPELLANT S HAND AND THE ADDITION IS DELETED. IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 11 15. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. BE FORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. ON THE OTHER HA ND LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE CASE OF GOPALBHAI PATEL AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION WAS REQUIRED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ALREADY BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF GOPALB HAI PATEL IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND THUS THE SOURCE OF MONEY STANDS PROVED. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 38,12,100/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ON MONEY RECEIVED ON FLAT BOOKING. 18. ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A.O NOTICED THAT SHRI RAJESH THAKKAR AND HIS FAMILY HAVE BEEN ALLOTTED 5 FLATS IN REVATI SCHEME. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSE WAS ACCEPTING ON MONEY IN THE BOOKING OF VARIOUS FLATS. ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENT SEIZED , IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD COLLECTED ON MONEY FROM VARIOUS PERSONS LISTED IN THE ORDER. A.O ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION IN RESPEC T OF ON MONEY AGGREGATING TO RS. 38,12,100/ - . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 12 THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED OUT THAT THESE PAPERS WERE SEIZED FROM THE PRE MISES OF JANAK K. KANSARA AND HE WAS THE ONLY PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THESE ITEMS. BESIDES THUS IT WAS ARGUED THAT PAYMENT WAS MADE BY THESE PERSONS FOR INVESTMENT IN THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTIES AND AS SUCH EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT MONEY WAS RECEIVED APP ELLANT WOULD BE LIABLE TO TAX ON ONLY PROFIT PART OF IT AND NOT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS. FINALLY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE POINTED JOUT THAT THE SAME AMOUNT WAS ALSO ADDED IN THE HANDS OF JANAK K. KANSARA, AND THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN THAT C ASE AS BEING RECEIVED BY HIM. HENCE THE AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AGAIN IN APPELLANT S HAND. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND I HAVE NOTICED THAT ADDITION OF THESE AMOUNTS WERE ALSO MADE IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF SHRI JANAK K. KANSARA BECAUSE THE RELEVANT PAPERS WERE FOUND FROM HIS PREMISES AND IT WAS HIS PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO EXPLAIN THIS. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THESE ADDITION HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY SHRI KANSARA AS PERTAINING TO HIM AND ADDITION HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL. AS SUCH ADDITIO N WERE AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. THEREFORE, THESE ADDITIONS ARE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 19. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 20. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. A.R. REITERATED SUPPORTE D THAT THE ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION WAS REQUIRED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT THE ADDITION OF TH E SAME AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF JANAK KANSARA AND HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY HIM AND THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN APPEAL AND THEREFORE IF THE ADDITION IS MADE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE , IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITION. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 13 GROUND NO. 3 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 36,95, 000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED INCOME IN RESPECT OF FLATS ALLOTTED. 22. ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED , A.O NOTED THAT 15 FLATS LISTED UNDER PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE ALLOTTED TO NEAR RELATIVES OF SHRI JANAK KANSARA AND SHRI BHARATBHAI SHAH, T HE TWO MAIN PROMOTERS. A.O NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT MARKET RATE HAVE BEEN RECOVERED AND CONSTRUCTION RECEIPT ACCOUNT WAS CREDITED IN THE SAME WAY AS IN OTHER FLATS. HE ACCORDINGLY WORKED OUT THE AVERAGE COST OF CONSTRUCTION A T RS. 2,500 PER SQ. YARD AND ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA , WORKED OUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 36,95,000/ - AND ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) WHO AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ISSUE. IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS ADDITION IS BASELESS. FINALLY, FROM THE REPLY AND CERTIFICATES GIVEN BY THE SOCIETY. IT IS APPARENT THAT ALL THESE PROPERTIES ARE NOT OWNED BY THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF KANSARA GROUP. SECONDLY, APPELLANT IS ONLY SUPERVISING AND DEVELOPING THE SCHEME ON BEHALF OF THE SOCIETY. HENCE NONE OF THE ALLEGED CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES ARE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS IT IS ONLY ENTITLE D TO SUPERVISION CHARGES AT A FIXED RATE. CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES PERTAIN TO THE SOCIETY AND NOT THE APPELLANT. HENCE THE ADDITION IS DELETED. 23. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 24. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER O F A.O. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A ). 25. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE PROPERTIES WERE NOT OWNED BY THE FAMILY MEMBER OF KANSARA GROUP AND IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 14 FURTHER THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENSE PE RTAINS TO THE SOCIETY AND NOT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. GROUND NO. 4 IS WITH RESPECT TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,40,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 26. A.O NOTICED THAT CASH CREDIT IN THE NAME OF SMT. VARSHABEN KANSARA OF RS. 3,40,000/ - W AS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE . I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PR OVE THE GENUINENESS OF DEPOSITS, A.O CONSIDERED THE CASH CREDIT AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: - I FIND THAT VARSHA V. KANSARA IS A PARTNERS OF THE APPELLANT FIRM AND IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX WITH THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS IDENTITY ETC. IS FULLY ESTABLISHED. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THIS ADDITION WAS MADE WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. AS THE ALLEGED CREDITOR IS A PARTNER OF THE SAME FIRM AND IS ASSESSED WITH THE SAME ASSESSING OFFICER HE COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED THE FACTS FROM RELEVANT CASE RECORDS A ND IF ANY ADDITION WAS REQUIRED THE SAME COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF VARSHA KANSARA ONLY. THIS ADDITION IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. 27. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 28. BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O. ON TH E OTHER HAND LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE LD. CIT(A). 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT CIT(A) WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT VARSHABEN KANSARA IS A PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, IS REGULARLY ASSESSED TO TAX AND IT (SS) A NO S. 169 & 222/AHD/2003 . B.P . 1 - 04 - 1988 TO 8 - 12 - 1998 15 THUS ARE IDENTITY IS FULLY ESTABLISHED. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT AD DIT ION WAS MADE WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND THUS THIS GROUND OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 30. THUS THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 31. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 04 - 0 3 - 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3 . THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD