The DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Ahmedabad V. Shri Smit Sureshkumar Thakkar, Ahmedabad

ITSSA 213/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1809 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G M THAK
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Question of law; Block assessment; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 32; 68; 132

Judgement Text

CO NOS 9 AND 10/AHD/ 2018 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS: 213 AND 214 AHD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AND 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 5 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD A BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: JUSTICE P P BHATT, PRESIDENT AND PRAMOD KUM AR, VICE PRESIDENT] IT(SS)A NOS.: 213 AND 214 AHD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AND 2010-11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), AHMEDABAD ....APP ELLANT VS SMIT SURESHKUMAR THAKKAR ..........RESPOND ENT 13, NIRANT PARK HOUSING SOCIETY, OPP SUN AND STEP C LUB, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 054 [PAN: AERPT2692C] CO NOS. 9 AND 10/AHD/ 2018 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS: 213 AND 214 AHD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AND 2010-11 SMIT SURESHKUMAR THAKKAR ..,....CROSS OBJ ECTOR 13, NIRANT PARK HOUSING SOCIETY, OPP SUN AND STEP C LUB, THALTEJ, AHMEDABAD 380 054 [PAN: AERPT2692C] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), AHMEDABAD ......RES PONDENT APPEARANCES BY APARNA AGARWAL FOR THE APPELLANT ASSESSING OFFICER VARTIK CHOKSI AND G M THAKORE FOR THE RESPONDENT AND THE CROSS OBJECTOR DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : APRIL 02, 2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : JUNE 10, 2019 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VP: 1. THESE TWO APPEALS, AND THE RELATED TWO CROSS OBJ ECTIONS, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10 TH JANUARY 2017 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010- 11. AS THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTIONS WERE HEA RD TOGETHER, AND AS THEY HAVE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED, ALL THE APPEALS AND THE CROSS OBJEC TIONS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. CO NOS 9 AND 10/AHD/ 2018 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS: 213 AND 214 AHD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AND 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 5 2. GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT, IN SUBSTANCE, IS THA T THE CIT(A), ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE, WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETI NG THE ADDITIONS OF RS 1,38,50,865 (AY 2009-10) AND RS 1,23,41,827 (AY 2010-11) AS UNEXPLA INED CREDITS, UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A VERY NARROW COMPAS S OF THE MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ON 19 TH JULY 2013. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTIO N 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF THESE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, MADE ADDITIONS, INTER ALIA, OF RS 1,38,50,865 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 A ND OF RS 1,23,41,827 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN UNEXPLAINED CRED ITS AND INTEREST THEREON. THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS SUFFI CIENT TO NOTE, FOR OUR PURPOSES, THAT ADMITTEDLY THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE DEHORS ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS. IN OTHER WORDS, THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE WITHOUT THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPER ATIONS. WHEN ASSESSEE CARRIED THE GRIEVANCE AGAINST THESE ADDITIONS BEFORE THE CITI(A ), THESE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. THE REASONING WHICH PREVAILED WITH THE CIT(A) WAS AS FO LLOWS. HE NOTED THAT I FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENTS HAD ATTAINED FINALITY AND THUS REMAINED UNABATED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THAT I ALSO FIND THAT THE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 68 MAD E BY THE AO FOR BOTH THE YEARS DONOT INDEED EMANATE FROM ANY SEIZED DOCU MENTS OR EVIDENCES . HE THEN REFERRED TO CERTAIN DECISIONS OF THIS TRIBUNAL AND OBSERVED THAT IN THESE DECISIONS IT HAS BEEN RULED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO DEHORS THE INCRIMINATING SEIZED MATERIAL IN UNABATED AND CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS REFRAMED UNDER S ECTION 153A ARE IN CONTRAVENTION OF LAW LAID DOWN BY BINDING AUTHORITIES (JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS) AND THEREFORE NOT SUSTAINABLE . THE CIT(A) THUS HELD THAT AS SUCH, WHILE REFRAMING UNABATED ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153A, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ENABLING SEIZED DOCUMENTS/ ASSETS, THE AO IS DUTY BOUND NOT TO INTERFERE AND SIMPLY REITERATE THE TOTAL INCOME WHICH HAD ATTAINED FINALITY BEFORE SEARCH . THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION WERE THUS DELETED. AG GRIEVED BY THE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 5. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE REQUIRING OUR ADJUDICATIO N, I.E. WHETHER ADDITIONS CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT WHEN WARRANTED BY THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED EARLIER, IS NO LON GER RES INTEGRA . HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS SAUMYA CONSTRUCTIONS PVT LTD [(2017) 387 IT R 529 (GUJ)] HAS AFFIRMING THE VIEWS OF THIS TRIBUNAL WHICH HAD ANSWERED THE AFORESAID QUESTION IN NEGATIVE AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE , INTER ALIA , OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 15. ON A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TRIGGER POINT FOR EXERCISE OF POWERS THEREUNDER IS A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR A REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT. ONCE A SEARCH OR REQUISITI ON IS MADE, A MANDATE IS CAST UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT TO THE PERSON, REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RE SPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRE CEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE CO NOS 9 AND 10/AHD/ 2018 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS: 213 AND 214 AHD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AND 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 5 AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE SAME. SINCE THE ASSESSME NT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS LINKED WITH SEARCH AND REQUISITION UNDER SECTIONS 1 32 AND 132A OF THE ACT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SECTION IS TO BRING TO TAX THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF OR PURSUANT TO THE SEARC H OR REQUISITION. HOWEVER, INSTEAD OF THE EARLIER REGIME OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHEREBY, IT WAS ONLY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD THAT WAS ASSESSED, SECTION 153A OF THE ACT SEEKS TO ASSESSEE THE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH IS CLEA R FROM THE FIRST PROVISO THERETO WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASS ESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SECOND PROVISO MAKES THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE CLEA R AS THE SAME PROVIDES THAT ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN THE SUB-SECTION PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION O F SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL ABATE. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT IF ANY PROCEE DING OR ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) IS ANNULLED IN APPEAL OR ANY OTHER LEGAL PROVISION, THEN THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT RELA TING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAD ABATED UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO WOULD STAND REV IVED. THE PROVISO THERETO SAYS THAT SUCH REVIVAL SHALL CEASE TO HAVE EFFECT IF SUC H ORDER OF ANNULMENT IS SET ASIDE. THUS, ANY PROCEEDING OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT FALLING WITHIN THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION STANDS ABA TED AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, SUB- SECTION (2) PROVIDES FOR REVIVAL OF ANY ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT WHICH STOOD ABATED, IF ANY PROCEEDING OR ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMEN T OR REASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS ANNULLED IN APPEAL OR AN Y OTHER PROCEEDING. 16. SECTION 153A BEARS THE HEADING 'ASSESSMENT IN C ASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION'. IT IS WELL SETTLED AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN A C ATENA OF DECISIONS THAT THE HEADING OF THE SECTION CAN BE REGARDED AS A KEY TO THE INTE RPRETATION OF THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE SECTION AND IF THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE LANGUAGE OR IF IT IS PLAIN AND CLEAR, THEN THE HEADING USED IN THE SECTION STRENGTHENS TH AT MEANING. FROM THE HEADING OF SECTION 153, THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CL EAR VIZ., TO PROVIDE FOR ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH AND REQUISITION. WHEN THE VERY PURPO SE OF THE PROVISION IS TO MAKE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION, IT GOE S WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO HAVE RELATION TO THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE CONNECTED WITH SOMETHING FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION, VIZ., INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH REVEALS UNDISCLOSED IN COME. THUS, WHILE IN VIEW OF THE MANDATE OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OF THE A CT, IN EVERY CASE WHERE THERE IS A SEARCH OR REQUISITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OBL IGED TO ISSUE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE SIX YEARS PRECEDI NG THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE, ANY ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BA SIS OF MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IN CASE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, AS HELD BY THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDI A) (SUPRA), THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE REITERATED. IN CASE WHERE PENDING ASSESSMENTS HAVE ABATED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN PASS ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EA CH OF THE SIX YEARS DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD INCLUD E INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURNS, IF ANY, FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IN CASE WHERE A P ENDING REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION CO NOS 9 AND 10/AHD/ 2018 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS: 213 AND 214 AHD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AND 2010-11 PAGE 4 OF 5 147 OF THE ACT HAS ABATED, NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT T HE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE ASSESSMENT WOULD INCLUDE ANY ORDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 17. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, A SEARCH CAME TO BE CONDUCTED ON 07.10.2009 AND THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 04.08.2010. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTI CE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.11.2010. IN TERMS OF SECTION 153B, THE ASSESSMENT WAS REQUIRED TO BE COMPLETED WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH CAME TO BE CARRIED OUT, NAMELY, ON OR BEFORE 31ST MARCH, 2012. HERE, INSOFAR AS THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS CONCERNED, THE NOTICE I N RESPECT THEREOF CAME TO BE ISSUED ON 19.12.2011 SEEKING AN EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSES SEE. THE ASSESSEE GAVE ITS RESPONSE BY REPLY DATED 21.12.2011 CALLING UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE COPIES OF STATEMENTS RECORDED ON OATH OF SHRI ROHIT P. MODI AND SMT. PARESHABEN K. MODI DURING THE SEARCH AS WELL AS THE COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS UPON WHICH THE DEPARTMENT PLACED RELIANCE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKIN G THE PROPOSED ADDITION AS WELL AS THE COPY OF THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY SHRI ROHIT P. MODI AND SMT. PARESHABEN K. MODI REGARDING THE ON-MONEY RECEIVED, COPIES OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN CASE OF SAID PERSONS AND ALSO REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO PERMIT HIM TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE SAID PERSONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMM ONS TO THE SAID PERSONS, HOWEVER, THEY WERE OUT OF STATION AND IT WAS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHEN THEY WOULD RETURN. IN THIS BACKDROP, WITHOUT AFFORDING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE SAID PERSONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. 18. IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE APPELLA NT THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AT THE RELEVANT TIME WHEN THE NOTICE CAME T O BE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME. M UCH LATER, AT THE FAG END OF THE PERIOD WITHIN WHICH THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE AC T WAS TO BE MADE, IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN THE LIMIT FOR FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT AS PROVID ED UNDER SECTION 153 WAS ABOUT TO EXPIRE, THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED IN THE PRESENT C ASE SEEKING TO MAKE THE PROPOSED ADDITION OF RS.11,05,51,000/- ON THE BASIS OF THE M ATERIAL WHICH WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BUT ON THE BASIS OF A STATEME NT OF ANOTHER PERSON. IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, IN A CASE LIKE THE PRESENT ONE, WHER E AN ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FRAMED EARLIER AND NO ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT WAS PENDI NG ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION U NDER SECTION 132A, WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SE CTION 153A OF THE ACT, ADDITIONS OR DISALLOWANCES CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IN THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, HOWEVER, IT IS ON THE BASIS OF SOME MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER MUCH SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH, THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CAME TO BE MADE . 19. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN CONTEND ED THAT IF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IN RELATION TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, IT WOULD BE PERMIS SIBLE TO MAKE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF ALL THE SIX ASSESSMENT Y EARS. IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, THE SAID CONTENTION DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE, INAS MUCH AS, THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT CO NOS 9 AND 10/AHD/ 2018 ARISING OUT OF IT(SS)A NOS: 213 AND 214 AHD/ 2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 AND 2010-11 PAGE 5 OF 5 OF EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IS A SEPARATE A ND DISTINCT ASSESSMENT. UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MA DE IN RELATION TO THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION, NAMELY, IN RELATION TO MATERIAL DISCLO SED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IF IN RELATION TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL IS FOUND, NO ADDITION OR DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN RELATION TO THAT ASS ESSMENT YEAR IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND THE EARLIER ASSES SMENT SHALL HAVE TO BE REITERATED. IN THIS REGARD, THIS COURT IS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDI A), JODHPUR (SUPRA). BESIDES, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE STANDS CONCLUDED BY TH E DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF JAYABEN RATILAL SORATHIA (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHILE IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT CONSIDERING SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN AND/OR ASSESS THE RETURN WITH RESPECT TO SIX PRECED ING YEARS; HOWEVER, THERE MUST BE SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSE SSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE TRANSACTIONS IN THE PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR . 20. FOR THE FOREGOING REASONS, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE T O STATE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL SUFFERS FROM ANY LEGAL INFIR MITY SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO A QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS, A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW, W ARRANTING INTERFERENCE. THE APPEAL, THEREFORE, FAILS AND IS, ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ESTEEMED VIEWS OF HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA), WE MUST U PHOLD THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL IS SQUARELY COVERED, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, BY THIS BINDING JUDICIAL PR ECEDENT. THERE IS NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). GRIEVANCES RAISED IN THE APPEALS ARE THEREFORE DISMISSED. AS REGARDS THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE DOES NOT WISH TO PURSUE THE SAME. THE COS ARE THUS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS AS ALSO THE CROSS OBJ ECTIONS ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 10 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019 SD/- SD/- JUSTICE P P BHATT PRAMOD KUMAR (PRESIDENT) (VI CE-PRESIDENT) AHMEDABAD, DATED THE 10 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ETC TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD