The ACIT, Central Circle-2, Surat V. Smt. Jayanaben R.Tailor, Surat

ITSSA 187/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0259 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Reason to believe

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., ! ! ! ! ' #$, BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT SL. NO(S) IT(SS)A NOS. ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 187/AHD/2010 2003-04 THE ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-2 SURAT (REVENUE) SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR MAIN BAZAR, VYARA PAN : AAWPT 9897 N (ASSESSEE) 2. 240/AHD/2010 2003-04 ASSESSEE DY.CIT CEN.CIR-2, SURAT 3. 241/AHD/2010 2004-05 ASSESSEE -DO- REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHASH BAINS, CIR-DR ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL SHAH, A.R. ' % & $' / / / / DATE OF HEARING 22/08/2014 )*+ & $' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/08/2014 , / O R D E R PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER : OUT OF THESE THREE APPEALS; ONE APPEAL BY THE RE VENUE AND TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO OR DERS OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, AHMEDABA D (CIT(A) IN SHORT) BOTH IDENTICALLY DATED 27/11/2009 PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2003-04 & 2004-05. SINCE COMMON ISSUES AND FACTS ARE IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 2 - INVOLVED, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS )A NO.240/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04. THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND(S) OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, TH E LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.26,47,280/- AS MADE BY THE AO ALLEGING UNACCOUNT ED INVESTMENT IN LAND BY THE APPELLANT, WHICH IS ERRON EOUS AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUST ICE AND EQUITY. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, SUBST ITUTE, MODIFY AND OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSAR Y, ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS TO BE MADE AT THE TIME OF PERS ONAL HEARING. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS CONDUCTED ON 15/11/2006. DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE VARIOUS LOOSE-PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WERE INITIATED AND THE AS SESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT WAS FAMED VIDE ORDER DATED 30 /06/2008, THEREBY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO IN SHORT) MADE ADDITION I N RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND AT BLOCK NO.212, 217 , 218 & 216 OF RS.26,27,280/-, ADDITION IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND AT SURVEY NO.410,414 & 415 OF BLOCK NO.472 OF RS.8 LAC S AND ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES OF RS.1 4,600/-. AGAINST IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 3 - THIS, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CI T(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL. WHILE ALLOWING THE APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED TH E ADDITION OF RS.8 LACS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.26,47,280/-. NOW, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3.1. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ORIGINALLY AN AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS EXECUTED WITH T HE LAND-OWNERS AND AT A LATER STAGE, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT IS DE FECTIVE TITLE, THEREFORE THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS CANCELLED AND A FRESH AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED AT A LOWER PRICE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE L D.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE CANCELLATION OF T HE ENTIRE DEAL, THE CO- OWNERS RE-OFFERED THE APPELLANT, THE ENTIRE LAND I. E. PLOT NO.212 TO 218, 227 & 228 ON AS AND WHERE IS BASIS WITH DEFECTIVE T ITLE AND WITHOUT DEVELOPING AND LEVELING THE SAID LAND, AT A REVISED PRICE ON THE CONDITION THAT ALL FUTURE EXPENSES IN RELATION TO TITLE CLEAR ANCE AND LEVELING / DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE BORNE BY THE APPELLANT . THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT GOT T HE TITLE DEFECT IN THE SAID LAND CLEARED BY ENTERING INTO A REGISTERED MODIFICA TION DEED WITH THE EARLIER OWNERS SO AS TO GET THE CLEAR TITLE IN HER NAME. THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AT RS.30,97,000/- AND MADE D EVELOPMENT EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.16,02,440/-. HENCE, TH E ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE LAND AT THE RATE OF RS.46,99,440/-. HE SUBMIT TED THAT IN SPITE OF THE AFORESAID CLEAR FACTS, THE AO HAS TREATED THE AMOUN T AS PER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL AND THE PURCHASE PRICE AS BEING U NACCOUNTED IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 4 - INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS MADE A TOTAL ADD ITION OF RS.51,84,000/-, I.E. AN ADDITION OF RS.26,47,280/- IN THE A.Y. 2003-04 AND RS.25,36,720/- IN THE AY 2004-05. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE OF LAND AT BLOCK NOS.213, 214, 215, 227 & 228 ARE IN THE NAME OF RAMESH TAILO R AND NOT IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT. THUS, WHEN SHRI RAMESH TAILOR IS CANCELING THE DEAL, DUE TO TITLE BEING DEFECTIVE, THE ORIGINAL PR ICE AS AGREED BY HIM CANNOT BE PRESUMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSE E. THE FACT THAT THE LAND WAS DEFECTIVE IS EVIDENCED FROM THE SEIZED MAT ERIAL ITSELF IN THE FORM OF MODIFICATION AGREEMENT CLEARING THE TITLE D EFECT. THUS, IT CANNOT BE ALLEGED THAT THE REVISED DEAL IS AN AFTER THOUGH OF THE APPELLANT. ORIGINALLY, THE LEVELING AND DEVELOPMENT COST OF TH E LAND WAS TO BE SPENT BY THE SELLERS, HOWEVER, AS PER THE REVISED DEAL, T HE SAME WAS OT BE SPENT BY THE APPELLANT AND THE SAME IS EVEN FULLY REFLECT ED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH HAS NOT AT ALL BEEN CONSID ERED BY THE LEARNED AO. 3.2. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACE D ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE ORIGINAL-DEED WAS CANCEL LED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD SUGGESTING THAT THE SELLERS WERE REQUIRED TO MAKE DEVELOPMENT AND INCURRED EXPENDITURE IN THIS A CCOUNT. FURTHER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING PLACED ON RECORD SU GGESTING THAT IN RESPECT OF THE STATE OF LAND GIVEN IN THE ORIGINAL SALE AGR EEMENT EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 2001. IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 5 - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE OBJECTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PLACE ON RECORD ANY CANCELLATION DEED, TO EXPLAIN THE REA SONS FOR SUCH CANCELLATION, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES PRESUMED THAT TH E SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EARLIER AGREEMENT T O SELL AND DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SALE DEED AND THE AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED ON RECORD A MO DIFICATION DEED, WHEREIN CERTAIN CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPECT O F THE TITLE OF THE LAND. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT DUE TO DEFECTIVE TITLE, EARLIER DEED WAS CANCELLED AND THE LAND WAS PURCHASED ON TH E FRESH TERMS AND CONDITIONS. WE FIND THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAV E NOT EXAMINED THE SELLERS OF THE LAND WHETHER THERE WAS ANY CHANGE IN TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME, IN OUR CON SIDERED VIEW, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM THAT THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENDI TURE WERE REQUIRED TO BE BORNE BY THE OWNERS OF THE LAND SINCE WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUCH TERMS IN THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT TO SELL. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, IT WOULD SUBSERVE THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IF THIS ISSU E IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING IT AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WOULD VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE THAT IN EARLIER AGREEMENT TO SELL THE SELLER OF THE LAND WAS REQUIR ED TO GIVE DEVELOPED LAND TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN MODIFIED TERMS, IT IS U PON THE ASSESSEE WHO WOULD INCUR THE EXPENDITURE. FOR THIS LIMITED PURP OSE, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS ES. IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 6 - 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT( SS)A NO.240/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04 IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. 6. NOW, WE TAKE THE REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 187/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL: I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INV ESTMENT IN LAND AS PER ANNEXURE-A-1 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE A SSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BALANCE PAYMENT S WAS NOT MADE AS THE OTHER TWO PLOTS ARE NOT YET REGISTERED IGNORING THAT SUFFICIENT PERIOD HAD LAPSED SINCE THE EXECUTION OF THE SATAKHAT AND ART PAYMENT MADE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01 AND NO PERSON WOULD WAIT FOR SUCH A LONG PERIOD AFTER INVESTING MONEY FOR EXECUTION OF THE S ATAKHAT MADE SO FAR BACK. III) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BALANCE PAYMENT WAS NOT MADE AS THE OTHER TWO PLOTS ARE NOT YET REGISTERED, IGNORING TH AT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE REASON AS TO WHY SALE COULD NOT BE E FFECTED FOR THE TWO SMALL PLOTS EVEN WHEN THE PLOT NO 414 CONSTITUTING 91.44% OF THE TOTAL AREA OF ALL PLOTS HAD BEEN CONVERTED INTO NA AND SA LE DEED EXECUTED IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING F.Y. OF THE F.Y. IN WHIC H THE SATAKHAT WAS EXECUTED. IV) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THE RATIO LAID DOWN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT 214 ITR 801, WHEREIN THE AP EX COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED THE R EAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE ARE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL AND THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO TH E SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY AND THE MATTE R HAS TO BE CONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 7 - V) IT IS, THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT THE A.O. BE RESTORED TO THE ABOVE EXTENT. 6.1. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ONLY EFFECTIVE GROUND IS A GAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.8 LACS BY THE LD.CIT(A). 7. THE LD.SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND S UBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIO N. 7.1. ON THE CONTRARY, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TOTAL AGREED P RICE OF RS.16 LACS OUR OF WHICH 8 LACS HAS BEEN PAID AN FULLY REFLECTED I N THE BOOKS. IT WAS ONE OF THE TERMS THAT THE BALANCE PAYMENT WOULD BE MADE AFTER THE LAND HAS BEEN CONVERTED INTO THE NON-AGRICULTURAL USE. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE.CIT(A) IN PARA-3.2 OF HIS ORDER HAS GIVEN A FINDING ON FACT AS UNDER:- 3.2. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AD THE SUBMISSION S. I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS VIEW FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A) AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT, OUT OF THE T OTAL AGREED VALUE OF RS.16 LACS, AN AMOUNT OF RS.8 LACS WAS TO BE PAID AS DOWN PAYMENT AND AS REGARDS THE BALANCE AMOUNT THER E IS A CLEAR CONDITION IN THE SAID AGREEMENT THAT ONLY WHE N THE SAID LAND WOULD BE CONVERTED INTO NA (ON AGRICULTURE), T HE REGISTERED AGREEMENT WOULD BE EXECUTED AND THE BALANCE PAYMENT WOULD BE PAID AT THAT TIME WHEN THE POSSESSION WOULD BE TAKE N. TILL DATE OUT OF 3 PLOTS OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.410, 414, 451, (BLOCK NO.472) ONLY ONE PLOT OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.414 HAD BEEN CON VERTED INTO NA, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE REGISTERED DOCUMENT IN RES PECT OF THE SAID PLOT WAS ENTERED INTO FOR RS.4,95,000/-. HOWEV ER, THE NA OF LAND AT SURVEY NO.410 & 451 WAS PENDING. THEREFORE , THE IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 8 - APPELLANTS SUBMISSION SEEMS TO BE ACCEPTABLE THAT AS PER THE TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT ITSELF, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY PAYMENT FOR THE REMAINING TWO PLOTS, WHICH ARE STIL L IN THE POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP OF THE ORIGINAL OWNERS. B) IT IS IN THE AGREEMENT ITSELF THAT BALANCE 50% OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.16,00,000/- IS TO BE PAID ON COMPLETION OF NA TO ALL THE THREE PLOTS. WHEN THE SAME IS NOT DONE, THE APPELLANTS SUBMISSION IS ACCEPTABLE THAT ONLY AMOUNT PAID IS RS.8,0,000/- AN D THE BALANCE AMOUNT IS STILL NOT PAID. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O. WA S NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION HENCE, THE SAME IS DELETED. 8.1. THE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE REVENUE BY PLACING ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD, THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), S AME IS HEREBY UPHELD. THUS, THIS GROUND OF REVENUES APPEAL IS REJECTED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN IT(S S)A NO.187/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04 IS DISMISSED. 10. LASTLY, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT( SS)A NO.241/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS R AISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEA RNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,36 ,720/- AS MADE BY THE AO ALLEGING UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN LAND BY T HE APPELLANT, WHICH IS ERRONEOUS AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED IN THE INTERES T OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY. IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 9 - 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, SUBS TITUTE, MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF NECESSARY, ON T HE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS TO BE MADE AT THE TIME OF PERSONAL HEAR ING. 11. IN THIS APPEAL, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN IT(SS)A NO.240/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04(SUPR A), WHEREIN WE HAVE RESTORED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING IT AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS YEAR ALSO, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIS ION AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF OUR OBSERVATION MADE IN IT(SS)A NO.240/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2004-05 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 12. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEALS IN I T(SS)A NOS.240 AND 241/AHD/2010 FOR AYS 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTI VELY ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, WHEREAS REVENUES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2003-04 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 28/08/2014 /'.., .../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS IT(SS)A NO.187/AHD/2010(BY REVENUE) IT(SS)A NOS.240&241/AHD/2010 (BY ASSESSEE) ACIT/DCIT VS. SMT.JAYNABEN R.TAILOR AYS 2003-04, 2003-04 & 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY - 10 - , & 0$1 21+$ , & 0$1 21+$ , & 0$1 21+$ , & 0$1 21+$/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. 34 / THE APPELLANT 2. 0534 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! $ '6 / CONCERNED CIT 4. '6() / THE CIT(A)-II, AHMEDABAD 5. 1 #7 0$ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 789 :% / GUARD FILE. ,' ,' ,' ,' / BY ORDER, 51$ 0$ //TRUE COPY// ; ;; ;/ // / !< !< !< !< ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 25.8.14(DICTATION-PAD 18- PAG ES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER ..26.8.14 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 BAC K TO THE SR.P.S./P.S.28.8.14 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 28.8.14 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