Ankur Oil Industries, Ahmedabad V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 214/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9682 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2019
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SHARMA DATES OF HEARING
• Assessee Lawyers: J P SHAH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Question of law; Documents seized
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 195; 64; 72; 68; 132

Judgement Text

IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 216/AHD/2016 ANKUR OIL INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 7 , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT AND MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NOS. 214, 215 AND 216/AHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: , 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ANKUR OIL INDUSTRIES, 471/1, CHOKHA BAZAR, KALUPUR, AHMEDABAD 380002 PAN : AABFA 6682 K VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), AHMEDABAD / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J P SHAH, AR & SHRI MANISH SHAH , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI O P SHARMA, CIT-DR ! / DATES OF HEARING : 29.08.2019, 20.12. 2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2019 / O R D E R PER MS. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D IRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 05.04.2016 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, AHMEDABAD, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 ISSUED BY THE LEARNED DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), AHMEDABAD FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11, 2011-12 AND 2012-13 RESPE CTIVELY, ARISING OUT OF A SEARCH ACTION CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) IN THE GROUP CASES OF ANKUR DALAL GROUP ON 28.03.2012. SINCE ALL THE MATTERS PERTAIN TO THE COMMON SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AN D RELATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE, THESE CASES ARE HEARD ANALOGOUSLY AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER. 2. IT(SS)A NO. 214/AHD/2016 HAS BEEN TAKEN AS THE L EAD CASE. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THIS CASE IS THAT SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEAR CH PROCEEDINGS CARRIED OUT IN THE GROUP CASES OF ANKUR DALAL GROUP ON 28.03.2012, A N OTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) ALONG WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 23.10.2013 , FOLLOWED BY FURTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) ALONG WITH A DETAILED QUESTION NAIRE DATED 05.12.2013, WHICH IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 216/AHD/2016 ANKUR OIL INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 7 WERE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE WITH THE DIRECTION TO FURNISH CERTAIN DETAILS/DOCUMENTS AND TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURI NG THE SEARCH. IN RESPONSE TO THESE NOTICES, THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS AS CALLED FOR, INCLUDING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE RELEVANT DETAILS THEREOF. DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS FOUND THAT MANY MEMBERS OF DIFF ERENT FAMILIES ALLEGEDLY EXTENDED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM, ONE OF WHICH I S THAKKAR FAMILY. ALONG WITH OTHERS, ONE SMT. KALPANABEN P THAKKAR ALLEGEDLY EXT ENDED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,00,000/- DURING THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2010-11 AND RS.1,00,000/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. IT WAS FURTHER FOUND THAT THE SAID SMT. KALPANABEN THAKKAR DID NOT FILE SUBSTANTI AL RETURN OF INCOME. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, ONLY AN AMOU NT OF RS.1,71,075/- AND RS.1,81,043/- HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE DISCLOSED BY SM T. THAKKAR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AND 2011-12 RESPECTIVELY. NO DETAILS, HOWEVER, WAS FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 TO 20 09-10 AND 2012-13. IT FURTHER APPEARS FROM THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE CREDITOR DOES NOT HAVE THE SOURCE TO EXTEND SUCH A HUGE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM; NEITHER THE CREDITOR FURTHER HAD REQUIRED BALANCE IN HER BA NK ACCOUNT PRIOR TO EXTENSION OF THE SAID LOAN TO THE FIRM. THE TREND CONTINUES IN THE SAME FASHION EVEN AFTER EXTENSION OF LOAN AND THE BALANCE IN HER BANK ACCOU NT REMAINED IN FEW THOUSANDS. FURTHER, IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN VARIOUS YEARS IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL TO EXTEND SUCH A L OAN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ALLEGED LOAN TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,0 0,000/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT AN ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.64,67,000/- ALTOGETHER W AS MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS IN TURN DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KALPANABEN THAKKAR TO THE TUNE OF RS.8 ,00,000/- AND RS.2,35,000/- IN RESPECT OF ONE SMT. SHIVANGIBEN R. PATEL. HENCE, T HE INSTANT APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE INSTANT APPEAL, THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE DET AILS AS ASKED FOR BY THE IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 216/AHD/2016 ANKUR OIL INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 7 AUTHORITIES BELOW WERE DULY PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSE E, I.E. CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENTS AND THE CONFIRMATION OF S OURCES OF SOURCE; THE RETURN OF INCOME ALONG WITH THE COMPUTATION OF THE DEPOSIT ORS INCLUDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT I.E. OUT OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM VARIOU S PERSONS, WHICH WAS EXACTLY THE SAME IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES WHO HAD EXTEND ED LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE; AND, UPON CONSIDERATION OF THOSE MATERIAL AND EVIDENCES, ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF SMT. KALPA NABEN. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LIA BLE TO DISCLOSE ONLY THE SOURCE AND/OR SOURCES FROM WHERE HE HIMSELF RECEIVED THE C REDIT AND IT IS NOT THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW SOURCE AND/OR SOURCES OF HI S CREDITORS OR TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SOURCE OF SUB-CREDITORS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALL ALONG AND ALL THROUGH PROVIDED THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF TRANSACT IONS WITH SMT. KALPANABEN THAKKAR, THEREBY SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE CREDITWORTHI NESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LENDERS, ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS N OT PERMISSIBLE. HE FURTHER RELIED UPON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF CIT VS. SHIV DHOOTI PEARLS & INVESTMENT LTD, REPORTED I N [2015] 64 TAXMANN.COM 329 (DELHI). THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF PCIT VS. D&H ENTERPRISES, REPORTED IN [20 16] 72 TAXMANN.COM 91 (GUJ.) HAS ALSO BEEN RELIED UPON BY HIM. IN THIS REGARD, HE ARGUED THAT IT IS THE DUTY INCUMBENT UPON THE REVENUE TO VERIFY THE ACCOUNTS O F THE LENDER AND EVEN IN THE EVENT THE LENDER FAILS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW, THE TRANSACTIONS COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE NON-GENUINE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. HEARD THE PARTIES. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RELE VANT MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE JUDGEMENTS RELIED UPON BY T HE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE. BASICALLY THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER EMPHASISED ON THIS PARTICULAR FACT OF THE MATTER THAT THE INIT IAL AMOUNT LYING WITH THE LENDERS ACCOUNT WAS VERY MEAGER AND JUST PRIOR TO THE EXTEN SION OF THE LOAN, MATCHING AMOUNT HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT. THE RETURN SO FILED BY THE LENDER IN VARIOUS YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND NOT SUBSTANT IAL TO EXTEND SUCH LOAN TO THE IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 216/AHD/2016 ANKUR OIL INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 4 OF 7 ASSESSEE. THOUGH A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) WAS SENT TO THE CREDITOR, NO COMPLIANCE HAS BEEN MADE THEREBY RESULTING DOUBTS T OWARDS THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH LOAN EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE. NO SATISFACTOR Y EXPLANATION WAS MADE AND THE SOURCE OF CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS REMAI NED UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE. BUT, IT FURTHER APPEARS FROM THE RECORD THAT A REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS. THE CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNTS FROM SHRI BALKRISHNA JEWELLERS, THE CAS H BOOK OF THE SAID JEWELLERS INCLUDING THE ITR IN RESPECT OF THE DEPOSITS IN CRE DITORS ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVER , IN THE REMAND REPORT, NO EVIDENCE FOR CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.7,00,000/- AND FURT HER RS.45,000/- WAS FOUND BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT APPEARS AT PAGE NO.23 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ORDER. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER REBUTTED THE SAME WITH THE CONFIRMATION AND ROI ON RECORD. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT THE ONUS CASTED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS HAS BEEN SOUGHT TO BE COMPLIED WIT H IN ITS BEST POSSIBLE MANNER. IT MAY BE A FACT THAT SOURCES OF SOURCE COU LD NOT BE FOUND EVEN AT THE APPELLATE STAGE AS IT APPEARS FROM THE REMAND REPOR T, BUT FOR THE SAME THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE MADE LIABLE, NEITHER THE ADDITIO N OF SUCH AMOUNT OF LOAN EXTENDED TO THE ASSESSEE CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE. IT IS A SETTLED PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT, IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF TH E ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY LIABLE TO DISCLOSE THE SOURCE AND/OR SOURCES FROM WHERE HE HAS RECEIVED CREDIT AND IT IS NOT THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW SOURCE(S) OF HIS CREDITOR, NEITHER IT IS THE BURDEN OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINES S OR SOURCE OF SUB-CREDITORS. 5. WE HAVE FURTHER CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE JUDGMEN TS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE; THE JUDGMENT PASS ED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE MATTER OF SHIV DHOOTI PEARLS & IN VESTMENT LTD (SUPRA) WHERE THE IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED. THE RELEVANT P ORTION OF THE SAID JUDGMENT IS AS FOLLOWS:- 14. IN MOD. CREATIONS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) THIS COURT NEGATIVED THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE SUB-CREDITOR. IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 216/AHD/2016 ANKUR OIL INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 5 OF 7 '14. WITH THIS MATERIAL ON RECORD IN OUR VIEW AS FA R AS THE ASSESSEE WAS CONCERNED, IT HAD DISCHARGED INITIAL ONUS PLACED ON IT. IN THE EVENT THE REVENUE STILL HAD A DOUBT WITH REGARD TO THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN ISSUE, OR AS REGARDS THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF TH E CREDITORS, IT WOULD HAVE HAD TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS WHICH HAD SHIFTED ON TO I T. A BALD ASSERTION BY THE A.O. THAT THE CREDITS WERE A CIRCULAR ROUTE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PLOUGH BACK ITS OWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME INTO ITS ACC OUNTS, CAN BE OF NO AVAIL. THE REVENUE WAS REQUIRED TO PROVE THIS ALLEG ATION. AN ALLEGATION BY ITSELF WHICH IS BASED ON ASSUMPTION WILL NOT PASS M USTER IN LAW. THE REVENUE WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BRIDGE THE GAP BETWEEN THE SUSPICIONS AND PROOF IN ORDER TO BRING HOME THIS ALLEGATION. THE I TAT, IN OUR VIEW, WITHOUT ADVERTING TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PRINCIPLE L AID STRESS ON THE FACT THAT DESPITE OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE AND/OR THE CREDITORS HAD NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. BASED ON THIS T HE ITAT CONSTRUED THE INTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS BEING MALAFIDE. IN OU R VIEW THE ITAT OUGHT TO HAVE ANALYZED THE MATERIAL RATHER THAN BE BURDENED BY THE FACT THAT SOME OF THE CREDITORS HAD CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE A PERSONAL APP EARANCE BEFORE THE A.O. IF THE A.O. HAD ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD, WHICH WAS LARGELY BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS AND THEIR INCOME TAX RETURNS, IT COULD GATHER THE NECESSARY INFORMATION FROM THE SOU RCES TO WHICH THE SAID INFORMATION WAS ATTRIBUTABLE TO. NO SUCH EXERCISE H AD BEEN CONDUCTED BY THE A.O. IN ANY EVENT WHAT BOTH THE A.O. AND THE IT AT LOST TRACK OF WAS THAT IT WAS DEALING WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF THE COMP ANY, I.E., THE RECIPIENT OF THE LOAN AND NOT THAT OF ITS DIRECTORS AND SHAREHOL DERS OR THAT OF THE SUB- CREDITORS. IF IT HAD ANY DOUBTS WITH REGARD TO THEI R CREDIT WORTHINESS, THE REVENUE COULD ALWAYS BRING IT TO TAX IN THE HANDS O F THE CREDITORS AND/OR SUB-CREDITORS. [SEE CIT V. DIVINE LEASING & FINANCE LTD. (2008) 299 ITR 268 (DELHI) AND CIT V. LOVELY EXPORTS (P) LTD. (200 8) 216 CTR 195 (SC)].' 15. IN VIEW OF THE LEGAL POSITION EXPLAINED IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE COURT HOLDS THAT AS FAR AS THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THE A SSESSEE HAS INDEED DISCHARGED ITS ONUS OF PROVING THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENES S OF THE LENDER (TIL). THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT IN LAW FOR THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE SUB- CREDITOR, WHICH IS IN THIS C ASE WAS TCL. 16. CONSEQUENTLY, THE QUESTION (I) FRAMED BY THE CO URT IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE, AND QUESTIONS (II) AND (III) IN THE NE GATIVE I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 6. WE HAVE FURTHER CONSIDERED THE JUDGMENT PASSED B Y THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF D&H ENTERP RISES (SUPRA), AS CITED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT HAS BEE N CATEGORICALLY DECIDED THAT IN THE EVENT THE CONCERNED PARTY DOES NOT APPEAR BE FORE THE REVENUE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE SUMMONS BEING SENT UPON IT, THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE NON- IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 216/AHD/2016 ANKUR OIL INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 6 OF 7 GENUINE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN EX TENDED THROUGH CHEQUES IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE RELEVANT OBSE RVATIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THIS REGARD IS REPRODU CED HEREIN BELOW:- 7. THUS, FROM THE FACTS NOTED HEREINABOVE, IT IS E VIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL RELEVANT DETAILS IN ITS POSSESSION, NA MELY, NAMES, PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBERS, INCOME TAX RETURNS, AND BANK STATEMENTS OF ALL THE INVESTORS. THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAD BEEN RECEIVED BY WAY OF ACC OUNT PAYEE CHEQUES. HAVING REGARD TO THE FACT THAT THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBE RS AND THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OF ALL THE INVESTORS HAD BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSE SSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE EASILY VERIFIED THE SAME. HE, HOWEVER, PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FACT THAT THE SUMMONS ISSUED TO THE PARTIES UNDER SECTION 137 OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE SERVED AND HENCE, DID NOT ACCEPT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TR ANSACTIONS. IN THE OPINION OF THIS COURT, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE CONCURRENT FIND INGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL IS, IN ANY MANNER, CONTR ARY TO THE RECORD OR THAT THE SAME SUFFERS FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY SO AS TO GIVE RISE TO ANY QUESTION OF LAW, MUCH LESS A SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW WARRANTING INTERFERENCE. 7. IF BOTH THE RATIOS OF AFORESAID JUDGMENTS ARE AP PLIED IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US, THEN IT IS BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE ADDITIO NS CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS EXTENDED ALL CO-OPERATION TO THE REVENUE BY PROVIDING THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS AS ASKED FOR TIME TO TIME EVEN BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. MERELY BECAUS E THE CREDITOR NAMELY SMT. KALPANABEN THAKKAR DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW INSPITE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) BEING SENT, RAISING DOUBTS ON THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN IS NOT WARRANTED. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, RESPECTFULL Y RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW T HAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, CONFIRMED BY THE FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY, IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE EYE OF LAW. HENCE, WE DELETE TH E ADDITION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL BEARING IT(SS)A NO. 21 4/AHD/2016 FOR AY 2010- 11 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 9. LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FAIRLY AGREE THAT WHATEV ER WE DECIDE IN IT(SS)A NO. 214/AHD/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 W ILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IT(SS)A NOS. 214 TO 216/AHD/2016 ANKUR OIL INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 PAGE 7 OF 7 FOR OTHER APPEALS, I.E. IT(SS)A NOS. 215 & 216/AHD/ 2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 AS WELL, AS THE ISSUE RAISED IN T HESE APPEALS IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF IT(SS)A NO. 214/AHD/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11. VIDE PARAGRAPH NOS. 4 TO 8 ABOVE, WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DELETING THE ADDITION AND THE SAME RESULT MUST FOLLOW HERE A S WELL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEWS SO TAKEN BY US IN IT(SS)A NO. 214/AHD/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 (SUPRA), WE DELETE THE ADD ITIONS SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN TH ESE CASES AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THESE APPEALS, I.E. IT(SS)A NOS. 215 & 216/AHD/2016, ARE ALSO ALLOWED. 10. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 27 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR MS. MADHUMITA ROY (VICE-PRESIDENT) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, THE 27 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 **BT COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: .................... 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING 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 FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : . . 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER : . 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......